The Energy Thread

Ah, thank you for digging that up.

Hedonics does seem to be the buzz topic among environmental economists lately, and yeah, it does seem obvious. Even the economist teaching the class was like "so this demonstrates that people do NOT like to live by superfund sites!", before slapping his forehead in mock shock.

Agreed on the energy thread, because we've probably derailed this one for long enough.

― ya'll are the ones who don't know things (Z S), Thursday, 4 June 2009 14:09 (2 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

Economics as the science of stating the bleeding obvious strikes again. I think Hedonics, among other methods has more to play around the margins. At the AAAS StGlobal conference in Feb there was a philosopher from UCSD who was looking at some of these issues, critiquing CBA especially from the point of view of valuing intangibles and "the commons". I think I upset him when I suggested using a discrete choice method for providing, if not absolute valuations, then relative valuations within a community.

Economics as the science of stating the bleeding obvious strikes again.

lolz so true

I think discrete choice is as promising a method as any, at least in the short term, but I'm not sure how useful it would be for the most controversial aspects of applying CBA to environmental problems in the long term - estimating the value of a statistical life and an appropriate discount rate.

And I mean "i'm not sure" quite literally, because I'm certainly no expert on discrete choice method.

i have only performed one discrete choice survey (and filled out a few) for a class, but anecdotally I think that respondents get bored quickly as the survey progresses. I'm sure there must be a way of weighting the early answers but I haven't seen it.

Z S are you going to stay connected with Academia inside the EPA?

There are a few professors I plan on staying in touch with. One of them, the aforementioned resource economics teacher, works with EPA on occasion. I think they give him grants. The situation with my other favorite professors is difficult. There are four of them I really like, and all of them are in their mid-80s, and kind of (finally) easing into full retirement.

One of them, my thesis adviser, mentioned that he would try to help me get my thesis published, so that might be another way to stay connected.

Are you working at DOE?

There appears to be a good revolving door between EPA, DoE and academia, with good reason, and plenty of insiders seem to publish and attend conferences. You should try an wring a couple of conference papers out of the grad school experience if you haven't already, it may help with progression through the DoE/EPA. This seems to be the message from the career talk at the STGlobal conference I mentioned earlier. Not a bad conference to target with a paper incidentally.

xpost

I am at CMU, in the department of Engineering an Public Policy(in the masters program but applying for Phd), we do a bunch of stuff with the DoE and EPA. We have a DC office and a series of live via teleconference seminars with government folks which has given me a little insight into what goes on. I applied for an internship there, an although they were happy to accept non-citizens, their system demanded an social security number, which I couldn't get until I had a confirmed job offer.

That is good advice on the conference papers, especially because sooner or later I'll probably be going back to school for a PhD. I'm a little frustrated now because I'll be working for two years in the Toxics Release Inventory division in EPA, which is interesting and all (I did a good amount of work and research on coal plants while I was at school), but not exactly the topic I want to tackle in the long term. Plus, I think a good amount of my job will involve the communication of environmental info to the public via the EPA's website. Again, interesting work, but I'd much rather be doing energy related stuff.

When you do it sounds like the EPP Phd would be right up your street.

Definitely look at that ST Global conference it is aimed at grad students and postdocs and the standard was good in general and it was pretty relaxed. I will be targeting something for next year. Its in DC as well so nothing to loose really.

I guess I'm the lone private sector energy guy here then... Ed you were doing superfund cleanups or something before, right (or am I thinking of someone else?)

That isn't me. Technically I am private sector right now as I am interning in a start-up.

xpost

I will, I have the page bookmarked now actually.

Interesting short article on the availability of rare earth materials:

Renewing Our Dependence

Shakey, I wonder if it's me you were thinking of - I was working on the Hanford cleanup for 3 years, then did 1+ year converting landfill gas to LNG to run the OCTA buses, and am now working for giant global company doing all sorts of smartgrid transmission and distribution R&D stuff. So yeah, private sector energy is my current venue. Also still supporting the LNG plant folks, and they are working on an interesting idea for a lower-energy compressor that uses flux fields from permanent magnets for parts of the compression stages.

Ah! An energy thread! (rubs hands gleefully... poises hands over keyboard... brow contracts) Uh, what was the question?

No question, really. Just rollin'.

I am thinking about starting a thread exclusively dedicated to so-depressing-it's-almost-funny statements found in comment sections on climate change and energy blogs and articles.

e.g.

John Says:
June 5th, 2009 at 1:14 pm

It seems the so called deniers and so called warmist don’t know what they are talking about.

It is obvious that the earth cools and warms…..it has been HOT in the past and COLD in the past……thus will happen in the future….COLD and HOT!

or HOT then COLD! IT IS THAT DAM EASY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Someday I could compile 300-500 of these comments in a row into a cheap self-published zine and sell it on the street packaged with a cheap can of beer for $2.99.

I get depressed by not just the lack of understanding but the total lack of curiosity about some of the most basic (and accessible) things. And non-existent critical thinking skills. I'd buy that zine (well, depending on what brand of beer maybe).

I'm actually working on this zine now. I have a crazy excel spreadsheet with dozens of comments, divided up by date, website, topic (Conspiracy, Predictions, Greenies, Treason, LOL, Need More Warming, Socialism, etc) and username, and so on.

I generally get most irritated by the eating lentils in the dark brigade. Although wilful stupidity on both sides is not helpful.

Linda B.:

"The people in charge in DC don't care about actual scientific facts. They just want to control us and raise taxes for their pet projects. GE wants to sell us windmills and Algore wants to profit from selling tracking software. He even lied to Congress under oath about that. No one is told that greenhouse gas is an unproven theory, and some think that cars spew co2. What are they teaching in schools these days."

That is some next level idiocy right there.

OK so apparently I should have been in Long Beach today. I have finally discovered why I can't speak with any of the equipment manufacturers aI want as they are all at some car battery/supercap/large LiIon conference out there. We'd dismissed it as not worth going based on the presentations and never look at the exhibitors. (Damn your country for being so big and pittsburgh only having 1 direct a day to LA)

man what ARE they teaching in schools these days

I'm still moving forward with that zine idea: I have an Excel spreadsheet with 45 (and counting) hilarious, sad, stupefying, ridiculous comments on climate change that I could find, along with the poster, the date of the comment, the website, and the general topic (including conspiracy, global warming will be good for the world, left vs. right, it's snowing somewhere, ???, and LOL).

Someday I could compile 300-500 of these comments in a row into a cheap self-published zine and sell it on the street packaged with a cheap can of beer for $2.99.

― ya'll are the ones who don't know things (Z S), Sunday, June 7, 2009 10:57 AM (3 days ago) Bookmark

send me one, plz

like for real i would happily distribute these all over the place

I'm thinking of cramming a bunch of pseudonyms for enviros and climate change on the cover, too: Green Weenies, Global Warmingism, Gang Green Agenda, Warmists, Al Bore, Owlgore, Algore, Envirofascists, etc

Owlgore

wait isn't this a noise band

ha, thanks for the early support! I've never distributed a zine before, although I have made one just for me and my friends (the "1610 Anthony Beat", which provided the daily news for where I was living, complete with exhaustive coverage of what I thought the cats were thinking about). I'm going to try to make this one decent, lightly footnote the comments so that I can provide some actual information on the last page, and throw in some appropriate artwork.

I like this pair:

I think that this type of indoctrination is pathetic. I have given my kids the information they need to shoot down most of the drivel that they are exposed to. One good letter to the teacher a couple of years ago and Bill Nye (Global Warming Moron Guy) was banished from the school. The kids have current events homework once a week and they always take debunking material in for that. We figure that way we are counter-acting the programing for the other kids as well. The down side is that some of the kids (including mine) have started to poke fun at teachers who insist on spouting the "end of the world" stuff. They get in trouble at school for it, but I buy em an ice cream on the way home from school.

and

"Growing up, my parents did a great job of letting me be a kid. I didn't know what was happening in Vietnam, the recession in the 70s, Watergate or the gas rationing. We were kids and our biggest decision was where to play today.

Today, adults think children need to know this crap. They change the school curriculum to address social problems in America, instead of teaching math, English, reading, history, etc. I would imagine these areas had to be cut, in terms of time spent on learning this, to include such wasteful topics as global warming, sex education, etc.

"warmist"?

I'm thinking of cramming a bunch of pseudonyms for enviros and climate change on the cover, too: Green Weenies, Global Warmingism, Gang Green Agenda, Warmists, Al Bore, Owlgore, Algore, Envirofascists, etc

― ya'll are the ones who don't know things (Z S), Wednesday, 10 June 2009 10:22 (11 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

I spend a lot of time calling some very good friends who don't believe in technological solutions to climate change or that an attempt to maintain living standards in the west whilst mitigating climate change 'lentil eaters' after an outburst accusing them of wanting us all to eat lentils in the dark, but this is friendly jibe. (If i am feeling uncharitable I will tell my activist friends to go back to school and get an engineering degree if they want to change the world, I imagine wanting to change the world with an English Literature BA must be pretty frustrating, sometimes I a nasty cynical person.).

You have to admit it IS kind of disconcerting that Bill Nye was apparently lurking around at the school like some creep all the time.

My only worry is with copyright issues. Is there a copyright on comments published on a blog? I mean, I know that skirting around copyright has been central to zine culture from the very beginning, but I'd rather not have to deal with cease and desist letters either.

On the other hand, I do not expect (or even want) to make ANY money with this, only to recoup part of the printing/shipping costs.

OMG you guys we might be running out of wind!

I am a sort of energy guy as well - I work for a renewable energy company in a trading / marketing capacity, managing scheduling and contracts in the deregulated North-Eastern power markets. I have a business administration background and I'm working on an economics degree so I am extremely unlikely to solve any of the world's problems.

Don't knock yourself, you are the guys who are going to make my stuff a success.

yeah I don't have an engineering degree either - I kinda fell into this work after endless temp gigs at the local utility (PG&E)

(altho that was a long time ago - I've been working for my current company for almost 10 years now)

I imagine wanting to change the world with an English Literature BA must be pretty frustrating

dude for real

I'm not ragging on those without technical qualifications and realise the importance of advocacy, we wouldn't be this far along the road without it, I just favour a more directly practical approach.

Yeah, good point: literature has never changed people's lives.

^^^^butthurt

:D

;)

(i totally get yr point, by the way Ed, I just had to stick up for my peoples.)

Like I say the importance of everything from Thoreau through Rachel Carson right up to the day after tomorrow but I was thinking of a particular unemployed semi-professional activist I know.

Trust me when I say I don't think he is going to bust out the next Silent Spring.

LOL. I know who you are ragging on but until you learn to spell, engineer boy, don't even go there! World will be unsaved due to some typo-related glitch in yr masterplan.

discovering that mil was means 1/1000th of an inch in american and not a handy abbreviation for millimetres yesterday was a more likely cause of failure. (I am working with someone who was involved with the "whoops those were metric dimensions mars mission", we are hopefully quite alive to this). ;-P

Besides they are getting me a harvard MBA to take care of things like spelling for me.

Harvard MBA probably cannot spell either, claims to have minion for such things as well. I am beginning to think bad spelling in whatever language will be the downfall of everyone as it highlights lack of observational skills (you're surrounded by correct examples to look at and still FAIL).

Your clue about 'mil' is that it ain't 'mm'. DUHHHHHH.

This was a verbal, rather than written things. NB I don't write professionally in ILX style.

I am working with someone who was involved with the "whoops those were metric dimensions mars mission"

lolz I remember that - that was some funny (and very expensive) shit

OK then you have an out, but whenever I've seen yr pro writing you have to be led gently through 'corrections' before you can get that sucker out there. BTW the best and worst thing that could have ever happened to crown me Spelling Bitch was acing MENSA spelling test given by bored English teacher when I was 15/16ish, which is prob not unique on ILX.

Be sure and drop N a line, letting her know how you're getting on. She'll be tickled about factory news.

Anyway, groping back towards topic:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2009/jun/10/oil-price-increase

"Nobody has solved the issue of the '2012 supply gap' which may emerge later than thought but which will be deeper. It means prices may even jump over the $250 hurdle we have forecast a year ago," said Miller.

2012 comes from the IEA report from a few years back, but I'd say the "supply gap" will most likely occur when the economy "recovers" from the recession. Global oil production peaked in the 1st quarter of 2008 (declining slightly in the 2nd and 3rd quarters of 2008, before the recession), indicating that there was already the beginning of a supply crunch in 2008, because prices during 2nd and 3rd quarters were at record highs yet production declined.

WRT peak resources this work is really interesting:

http://rutledge.caltech.edu/

Joe Romm has a good post discussing Waxman-Markey, and in particular, the idea that if it fails to gain passage the EPA would easily take up the slack. The key part is here:

Many people, including some commenters here, are under the misimpression that absent passage of this bill, the EPA can and will use the endangerment finding to achieve comparable regulation of CO2 under the Clean Air Act. That view has several flaws.

First, whatever Obama might do with the EPA — and it would take many, many years to put in place a program that could substantially reduce existing emissions (see below) — could be undone by a subsequent administration, which is not true of climate legislation. Politically, it would be quite easy for a future President to simply stop the EPA process in its tracks or allow the myriad lawsuits against it that will inevitably occur to delay the process to death. What political cost could their be if the forces of denial and delay had already triumphed and stopped the US political system from embracing comparable legislative action? Undoing a law that was passed by Congress, however, and then used as the basis for international negotiations, would be hard even for a President Palin to do.

Second, whatever Obama might do with the EPA, the rest of the world would know that the United States political system is incapable of agreeing to binding targets, so that would certainly be all-but fatal to the international negotiation process or a bilateral deal with China.

Third, if Congress rejects this bill, then, domestically, legislative action on greenhouse gas emissions will be dead for a long time. How long did it take before we got a chance to take up serious health care legislation after it died? How long since we reconsidered an energy tax after the BTU tax died? How long since we have passed major legislation to strengthen the Clean Air Act or Clean Water Act to deal with obvious dangers to public health? Still waiting!

Fourth, the EPA authority is most easily translated into regulating emissions from new sources. Obama has already announced the strongest regulations ever for tailpipe greenhouse gas emissions. That mostly leaves new coal, which was already starting to collapse, thanks in part to the renewables and efficiency in the stimulus package

Waxman-Markey set to pass the House

Is there a handy guide to what is actually in Waxman-Markey, I am assuming it is substantially different from what was originally presented and pretty watered down.

seems like its changing daily

http://i39.tinypic.com/245khao.jpg

What's sad about the GOP talking point about Waxman-Markey being too complicated and long to understand is that its complexity is at least partly a consequence of near-total incompetence and inaction on climate and energy over the past (GOP dominated) decade.

this also seems to be getting rushed because the Dems fear 1994 all over again and want to cram as much in before the summer in Obama's first year in office. I'm sure something will come out of this but I am sure it will be a mess riddled with loopholes, exemptions and boondoggles.

that GOP thing is hilarious (I like how energy companies, utilities, and oil companies aren't even on there lolz)

but also what Ed said.

nonetheless I'm absolutely convinced its better than the alternative, which is nothing

What's also frustrating is that several of the points highlighted at the top of that chart can be so easily refuted.

FAMILIES > Higher Prices > Power Bills & Heating and Cooling Bills
- An analysis of Waxman-Markey recently released by the EPA found that by 2020 electricity bills would be LOWER (7%, to be exact), even if electricity prices were higher. Why? The energy efficiency provisions in the bill would help to lower household demand enough to more than offset the rise in rates, resulting in a lower overall monthly bill for the average American.

FARMERS > Higher Prices > Food Prices
- Unless GMO crops miraculously save the day (and I don't think they will), we've got an impending global food crisis, which is bound to drive up food prices even without climate legislation. The combination of rapidly growing populations, rising affluence, a lack of additional suitable cropland, water scarcity and erosion have already made the prospects of feeding 3 billion more people by 2050 bleak. Climate change, while possibly marginally increasing crop yields for the part of the world that shifts into more favorable temperature range, will almost certainly be a huge net loss for farmers because of increased drought, severe weather events, disruption of summer mountain meltwater than many farmers depend on, desertification, and on and on and on. Attempting to halt climate legislation to "help" the farmers if fucking absurd.

DRIVERS > Higher Prices > Gasoline Prices

Again, the writing on the wall about gasoline prices has been evident for many years. We are likely at peak oil already, with only a global economic crisis to temporarily dampen gas prices. Options: Vastly revamp public transportation systems so that owning a car isn't mandatory in most of the United States at it is now, improve fuel economies of vehicles to match those of Europe and Japan, invest heavily in electric powered vehicles and electric battery storage capabilities. Or...be like the GOP and pretend that the Earth's resources aren't finite.

WORKERS > Lost Jobs
- uuuuugh. Can anyone point me to a credible source that DOESN'T think that clean energy jobs will one of the most important industries of this century? If this was 1902, the GOP would be attacking the idea that automobiles would ever gain traction and pushing for more investment in stagecoaches instead.

Also, this from the ACEEE:

June 24, 2009

Washington, D.C.—The federal energy efficiency provisions included in H.R. 2454, the American Clean Energy and Security Act (aka Waxman-Markey), could save approximately $1,050 per household by 2020 and $4,400 per household by 2030, according to an updated analysis by the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE). Changes to ACEEE’s analysis come from an updated assessment of savings from a number of provisions, as well as changes to the bill made in a Rule’s Committee version of the bill released yesterday.

If this was 1902, the GOP would be attacking the idea that automobiles would ever gain traction and pushing for more investment in stagecoaches instead.

this newfangled contraption is going to completely decimate the horseshoe industry!

Watching this House debate on C-SPAN is absolutely tearing my stomach up. Take me to the hospital, fuck.

Livebloggin' the appearance of Boehner's awesome chart at the ACES debate

http://i43.tinypic.com/nx0qxt.jpg

he is a complete douchebag.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0609/24232.html

so irritated at the Republicans' refusing to satisfy my twisted, radical environmentalist desires

Can anyone explain what exactly they are voting on?

I don't think most of the people voting could even explain it

I mean, I can guess it is a bad thing judging by how the votes are breaking down, however the text on the CSPAN screen is barely a coherent sentence.

ON PASSAGE means the final vote, right?

hurrah?

I was out for the last few hours, just got back. Passed 219-212? What are these "Special Order Speeches" going on at C-SPAN right now then? Souder (R-Indiana) is going on about how democrats must have been smoking "marijuana cigarettes" when they came up with ACES.

Man, some serious sour grapes and imbecility there.

Energy thread peeps,

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2708219489770693816

Mr. Shirky seems to believe that there is a yet-unmodeled economic force, what he calls a "social lubricant" in this keynote, which is required by the human phenotype at large whenever a massive transformation takes place (apparently by way of general-purpose-technologies) in how the most developed economies accomplish work.

What, if anything, do you think might be the "social lubricant" for sustainable (ok semi-sustainable) energy? It seems clear to me that there is no fucking way on the whole of goddamned earth that we will make any kind of switch to non-carboniferous power in the near term, but if we do, how is the pop going to deal? What is the interstitial soiled-pants solution for all the human beings who are going to be taken by surprise?

I'm thinking it's nintendo games. I'm not even sure if I'm joking, which is a pretty good indication that I'm so right it hurts.

I think you are not far off the mark, El T. We'd adapt voluntarily for something that pleases or amuses or delights us. Except of course then the religious zealots will start yammering about how whatever-it-is is perniciously destroying family values/etc, so we'll have to put up with that too.

That was a cool video, and I kind of want to read Shirky's book now.

I think before you can begin to answer what sort of social lubricant will accompany sustainable energy systems, you have to guess at how much lube will be needed in the first place (lol). The shock created from the transition to clean energy depends on the nature of the new system, along with the way we view our present system, right? Currently, at least in the West, we plug appliances into outlets, water magically comes out of the faucet, gasoline flows out of pumps, etc. If you choose to you can think about the crazy process it takes to get these materials into your hands, but you certainly don't have to. Energy and water is easily and readily available, and incredibly cheap at that. And so we take it for granted.

The ease of access to energy in the future depends on whose vision you believe the most. First, take the optimistic outlook. If wind, CSP and solar PV, geothermal, etc are ramped up quickly enough, there's a possibility that not that much would change from the perspective of the consumer. You'd still have outlets, with the only difference being the supply of electricity in the first place, far out of sight, along with improved transmission lines. With energy efficiency, if utility profits were decoupled electricity consumption so that they had an incentive to save energy, utilities could actually come to houses and put up much of the front end investment for homeowners, like new windows, insulation, and so on. So on that end, things could end up looking the same as well. From the perspective of the consumer, they would just have a more efficient house and an extra section on the utility bill that states how much money was saved from efficiency, how much of that savings goes to the utility, and how much of it goes in their pocket.

I'm not sure if that kind of smooth transition is possible in the near term, and even if it was, it would only apply to the industrialized West. If we had meaningfully committed to clean energy and efficiency a decade ago or earlier, it certainly would have been easier. But I'm trying to force myself not to be such a cynical pessimistic bastard all of the time, so I'm acknowledging that there is a possibility of a transition more smooth than bumpy.

I think it's much more likely that there is going to be a serious wake up call very soon. I hate to pinpoint 2012 for my doomsday prediction, but it would not surprise me. That was the year that the IEA, traditionally very conservative and optimistic (and RONG) with their oil predictions, highlighted as the likely year of the energy crunch. If and when the global economy recovers and begins to move back into the heavy positive growth of the mid-00's, we'll be butting our heads against the resource constraints that we were dealing with before the recession. The oil crises in the 70s were caused by embargos, wars and revolutions. Wars still pose a threat to our oil supplies, obviously, but the main driver of price increases are supply and demand. Demand was dampened by the global economic fiasco, but supply hasn't increased, and it won't significantly increase.

Somehow I got off on a tangent there. I think we face similar problems with electricity. Regardless of the idiotic GOP arguments I witnessed last night during the "debate", I think eventually the U.S. will wake up and realize that we probably shouldn't be powering half of our country with coal. A price on carbon will maybe help push that realization a few years ahead, along with the conspicuous absence of the North Pole (or maybe not). The question is if clean energies can be ramped up quickly enough to match the decrease that is needed from coal. If we would have started years ago, maybe, but I wouldn't bet on it now. Rather than voluntarily changing our energy consumption habits, we're about to be forced by constraints. Oops!

What is the social lubricant? Well, I've put myself back into pessimistic mode now so I'm just going to roll with it. The lubricants that Shirky talked about in his lecture (gin during the industrial revolution, tv during the 20th century) were responses to seemingly positive changes (reliable food supply, better health, more free time, etc). For much of the population, the lubricant for widespread negative change is fingerpointing, denial, and violence. I don't doubt that there will be tons and tons of people working as hard as they can to peacefully complete the transition to clean energy, but I also don't doubt that the people who did everything they could to delay a response to climate change will continue to fuck up the world. When there are millions of environmental refugees floating across boundaries, I don't see James Inhofe, Joe Barton and Dick Cheney opening up their arms. I see them in a grab for the remaining energy supplies (ie, power).

Uuuugh, I disgust myself sometimes. What the hell, I'll just agree and say nintendo games. We're all going to play nintendo games.

tl;dr

I also don't doubt that the people who did everything they could to delay a response to climate change will continue to fuck up the world

Well, it's ego, isn't it. Admitting they were wrong = self-worth gone.

David Kurtz wrote a little bit about that TPM last night:

Is it going to be like the opposition to civil rights was, where the same people who opposed it to begin with were the first to declare, without any irony, that racism is abated and then raise the cry of reverse racism? Are we facing, as we did with civil rights, a decades long running battle of constant resistance where the enemies of progress work to undermine every step forward -- even as they enjoy the benefits of the very thing they are fighting?

We hear a lot from global warming deniers about the "high cost" of carbon emission regulation. Of course, in absolute terms they are right. It will be expensive. But what price are the deniers willing to pay personally for the high cost of being on the wrong side of science and history? Many of today's deniers will be long dead by the time the worst effects of inaction are realized. Those who do live long enough will more than likely be insulated from the most extreme effects by their relative wealth and prosperity, compared to Bangladeshis, for instance. And in any event, there is no justice -- no democratic justice -- in punishing fools for being fools.

Reminds me of the response of Limbaugh et al. on Bush criticism. I caught part of his show on a drive to Missouri last week, and he was going on and on about how annoying it was to hear people continue to complain about Bush, even after his presidency has ended. That Democrats should "quit whining and move on". I'm not sure how you move from unreserved support for 8 years of morally indefensible Bush policies to "quit whining and move on" without some stage of coming to terms with the reality of what happened, but I guess that's how some people deal with it.

Nintendo game isn't that wide of the mark, I don't think. Look at the hohm announcement earlier in the week. A little bit of price visibility, a little social shame and some blinnking lights and we're half way there. Actually consumer exposure to the true cost of electricity is key, the rest is sugar coating. When people find out that it is costing them dollars an hour to run their AC on a sunny august afternoon, that's the real game changer.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W-_U1Z0vezw

A memo from the American Petroleum Institute API has leaked which "reveals a plan to create astroturf rallies at which industry employees posing as 'citizens' will urge Congress to oppose climate change legislation."

One of the most frightening aspects of the ongoing health care "debate" debacle has been the growing certainty that this is the kind of shit that's going to drag down the climate bill in a few months. And worse, the knowledge that an industry-funded lobby is already making plans to sabotage the legislative process likely won't make much of a difference in public perception. I won't go as far as saying this is a "new era" of widespread disregard for facts, but I do think that there is a stronger tendency these days to just pick your team and oppose the other, no matter what.

This is going to be an ugly, ugly year.

a good encapsulation of what California is up to

I read that whole thing and sent it to my dad. Very interesting.

Also, am I just paying more attention, or is the NYT energy-crazy lately?

any thoughts on this proposal?

I was excitedly* reading through those, some good projects, not too many not so good, no outright wacky ones such as those funded by ARPA-E last week.

*Excited because I though this was the pot of money we were in for but that is probably not due for a couple of weeks yet.

The company I'm contracting to is involved in 9 of those smart grid projects.

The new big thing I keep hearing about for carbon sequestration: biochar. Which, of course, is ancient tech, just made more efficient and spun up with current buzzwords. But still interesting and with demonstrable potential for good things (in particular soil remediation).

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2009/12/04/global-warming-emails-followup/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+BadAstronomyBlog+%28Bad+Astronomy%29

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ne-X_vFWMlw

“Ben Wessel: [of the Sustain US youth delegation] First of all my name is Ben [sticks his hand out to shake].

Monckton: No, no. I’m not going to shake the hand of Hitler Youth. I’m sorry.

Wessel: Sir, as a Jew I’m not really sure how I should take that.

Monckton: I’ll tell you how you should take it. You should take it.

Wessel: My grandparents escaped the Nazis growing up in Germany.

Monckton: Because of the biofuel scam, world food prices have doubled. That it because of the global warming scare, which you won’t look at the science of. As a result of that, millions are dying in third world countries because food prices have doubled because of the biofuel scam, because of the global warming scare.

And you people don’t care. And until you start caring I will call you Hitler Youth if you ever again interrupt any meeting at which I am present, where we are trying to have a private conversation.”

fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuck want to STRANGLE HIM

I am becoming increasingly angry with Michael Mann and the CRU folks and all those who have inflicted bad science on us because despite the overwhelming evidence their ineptitude has handed a great stick to fucknuts like the noble lord there.

hello energy professionals and experts

i am seeking your opinions regarding the obama administrations recent announcement regarding offshore drilling

thank you in advance

I'll add more when I get home and off my iPhone, but this was a huge mistake both on environmental and political grounds. It wasn't a surprise that Obama was going to do it - he repeatedly described his intentions during the campaign. But why NOW?What was gained in return for this huge concession/slap in the face to environmentalists?? This could have been a huge bargaining chip in the inevitable watering down of the climate/energy bill that's forthcoming.

I mean, shit, Boehner has ALREADY released a statement attacking Obama's move because he says it doesn't go far enough!

This was a decision that isn't likely to win any republican votes (just like the concessions to hcr), will add only marginal resources to the US energy portfolio, and alienates much of Obama's progressive base that hoped that he realized that it isnt wise to compromise on the environment.

…imo

Sorry it's just me responding so far but Grist sums it up here.

no zach you were the person i was thinking of when i asked, thanks

I’m holding out hope that things appear worse than they are. Because the key isn’t how much offshore drilling is allowed. The crucial issue is whether oil and gas companies decide it’s worth their money to go out, find, and retreive the stuff. And things could be brighter on that front, because, as Joe Romm explains, the payoff in these reserves may not be worth the trouble. (Nobody knows precisely how much oil and gas are in these places.) GOP politicians like John McCain and Sarah Palin have used offshore drilling as a rallying cry, but energy companies need to keep clear heads, crunch the numbers, and decide if a given project pays.

how likely is it that oil companies will decide its cost-effective to go drilling off of the carolinas?

The situation strikes me as another example of American leadership providing misleading statements about oil that serve to further promote energy security populism which in turn creates some flawed assumptions regarding how we frame our relationship with oil.

Fundamentally you can't assume that you can achieve energy security by increasing domestic production in order to offset / reduce foreign imports - oil is almost a perfect model of basic global supply / demand pool from which all participants purchase the same product. Using the term "foreign" oil versus "domestic" oil implies that you're creating a two price supply and demand structure which isn't really possible - on an textbook economics level it's going to seek equilibrium.
So really the policy is not buying any sort of domestic energy security, it's just increasing the global supply by a marginal amount.

With regards to gas it's different because there are pretty significant logistical challenges and the markets are regional, not global - I assume most of this potential future gas will get piped to the Henry Hub region in the southern states and contribute to the perceived oversupply; but that's hard to say given that we don't know yet how much actual production will come out the exploration / development / exploitation process. In other words, more numbers required. It does seem to be a high political cost for little gain at this time?

I'd say not the vast majority won't be profitable until oil is back up at 2007/08 prices ($120+), although i'd be curious to get Ed's take on it. As Romm points out in the link in the quote you just posted, oil companies already have access to billions of barrels of offshore that they aren't developing, presumably because drilling deep into ocean floors and building pipeline infrastructure dozens of miles out into the ocean is incredibly expensive.

Regardless, due to the time lag (around a decade) between oil exploration and actually obtaining the resources, let alone the fact that a lot of this oil wouldn't even go to the US (oil companies are, of course, multinationals), most of the stuff I've read suggests that the best case scenario is that this will lower the price of gas maybe several cents about a decade from now.

Even with this giveaway, when the price of oil is sky high in a few years I'm assuming that conservatives will pull a Boehner and blame it all on Obama for not opening up the most environmentally sensitive locations of all.

when can we have a gas tax

Dammit, iPhone just lost a huge post I was working on. Trust me, it was awesome.

politically this was stupid - squanders political capital w/his base and sure to gain no votes on the Republican side. economically, the amt of oil involved is probably tiny so yeah it's open for debate as to how much drilling oil companies will actually find cost-effective, but this isn't going to contribute to America's energy independence one iota. ecologically, offshore oil drilling is fraught with potential disasters, so probably not a good idea.

on the plus side, glad it's not any of my beaches cuz California would NOT stand for this shit.

many more reactions here

Prediction: This will pick up exactly zero Republican votes for climate legislation, and it may end up costing votes on the left. Remember, it was only about a week ago that 10 Democratic Senators warned Senator Kerry that they’ll oppose climate legislation that greatly expands offshore drilling. Obama’s announcement today virtually ensures that the emerging Kerry-Graham-Lieberman bill will include provisions those Senators will have a hard time swallowing.

When it comes to energy, conservatives are crazy about two things: nuclear power and offshore drilling. Now Obama has agreed to both. But does he seriously think this will "help win political support for comprehensive energy and climate legislation"? Wouldn't he be better off holding this stuff in reserve and negotiating it away in return for actual support, not just hoped-for support? What am I missing here?

Exactly. srsly, WTF

you would think the failure of this kind of strategy would have been one of the major lessons from the HCR legislation

xp: Is there anybody not crazy about nuclear energy? That's not partisan is it?

California has effectively banned nuclear energy in the state for like the last 30 years

(well, we have two existing nuke plants - but no one wants to build any new ones was my point)

also have you seen what the insane start-up/insurance costs are for nuke plants, nobody has the money to cover that kind of capital outlay - which is why the industry is clamoring for subsidies and relaxed restrictions, etc.

Yep, nuclear's economic viability is heavily dependent on subsidies.

Don't worry guys, this awesome offshore drilling plan will save us 3 cents a gallon on gasoline by 2030!

Yaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay!

Hm. I'd better look into this issue. I've just been running around thinking that everybody was cpool with nukes. Thanks for a jumping-off point.

the irony here is obvious - right-wing pro-nuke guys demanding a gov't handout. Free market would've killed off nuclear power in this country a generation ago.

haven't even touched on the waste problem, which is gigantic and my one real gripe with the pro-nuke crowd. get back to me when you have a viable solution for getting the waste off of the earth and into the sun or something. cuz there's no way to store it down here.

Since the licensing was withdrawn from Yucca Mountain, there's no plan for nuclear waste disposal either. (xpost)

I was never sold on the Yucca Mtn plan to begin with - stuff would've easily contaminated the water table for future generations

Okay. This is the first I've heard about delicensing Yucca Mountain. What are we going to do with our giant hole in the ground???

bury Harry Reid in it

Drill it for oil

We should also make sure to blow the top of it for coal while we're at it. I <3 this dang country, go USA

Since all the work at Hanford was done specifically to meet the requirements at Yucca Mountain, it looks like everything done for containment over the past 10 years (including the vitrification plant which is hugely over-run on budget) will have to be completely reworked. In the meantime, there's like 7 million gallons of nuclear and chemical crap in leaking rusty 60 year old underground tanks buried at the edge of the Columbia river. And the plan is to just leave it there until things get settled.

and then the CHUDs come after us

Stuff like this (http://www.powermag.com) "NJ uses millions of climate fund $$ for budget deficit" is really starting to get to me. I hated the creation of a new commodity initially, and now the money isn't being used for its stated purpose. All these giant backward steps in energy and environmental policy. Just sucks.

I can't post the full url for that article btw, probably because it has hyphens in it and ILXcode chokes. It's in the news section, from March 24 or so.

http://www.350.org/dont-drill

Take 30 seconds to sign it for pete's sake

done

for all the good it'll do btw. this party knows it has its constituents by the hair - what're you gonna do, not vote for them? you'll vote for them. I'll vote for them. it doesn't matter what they do. they get the vote anyway. they do not care about how anybody thinks about this stuff imo.

Yep, I know it's pointless. Last night my gf was laboring over a revision in one of the paragraphs in that 350 petition, I suppose in the hopes that Obama or one of our senators would actually read the thing. We'd be lucky if they even notice that tens of thousands of people in their base are vehemently opposed.

In my weaker moments I sometimes wonder what it would be like to be part of a party with leadership that pander to the base as much as the GOP does.

i am pining right along with you guys but pandering to the base has gotten the GOP into the smallest minority any party has had in decades

One of the great conservative leaders on energy issues, according to Newt, Sarah Palin:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XSxz4mTzSI0

PALIN: We should create a competitive climate for investment in renewables and alternatives … none of this snake oil science stuff that is based on this global warming, Gore-gate stuff that came down where there was revelation that these scientists, some of these scientists were playing some political games. I sued the Feds over this, I sued the Feds over this as Governor for some bogus listing on the ESA, just about got run out of town, of course, by the environmentalists. But now we feel a little bit vindicated because we’re realizing through Gore-gate that there was some snake oil science involved in the data collection there.… We invented the Internet, unless that was just another Gore-gate thing too.

"that alternative, when it's discovered, it will be here, and it will be Americans who find it, America will invent this next source."

If only there were viable alternatives that were available NOW! Oh well, I guess we'll just have to continue to burn coal until we find it, whoopdeedoodah yay!

http://i39.tinypic.com/212tgrn.jpg
http://i44.tinypic.com/2rc26ut.jpg

Solar? CSP what the doodle?

http://i41.tinypic.com/o0nej5.jpg
http://i40.tinypic.com/qqagxk.jpg

Air that moves? What the heck I don't get it

http://i44.tinypic.com/2hnyh4n.jpg
http://i40.tinypic.com/5oz32v.jpg

Geothermal? I tell you this, America - no energy can come from deep in the earth, because that's where the devil lives

http://i39.tinypic.com/muehzl.jpg
http://i40.tinypic.com/adhhdu.gif

Energy efficiency? The "smart grid"? If it was so smart why would I be telling you to continue to concentrate on drilling oil and to forget about finally moving a coherent energy policy reform until Americans "invent" some new alternative? Well?

http://i41.tinypic.com/al3q8l.pnghttp://i41.tinypic.com/al3q8l.png
http://i41.tinypic.com/al3q8l.pnghttp://i41.tinypic.com/al3q8l.png
http://i41.tinypic.com/al3q8l.pnghttp://i41.tinypic.com/al3q8l.png
http://i41.tinypic.com/al3q8l.pnghttp://i41.tinypic.com/al3q8l.png
http://i41.tinypic.com/al3q8l.pnghttp://i41.tinypic.com/al3q8l.png

yeah but yr biologically wrong

Graham Says Energy Bill Is ‘Impossible’ for Now

Senator Lindsey Graham, one of the chief sponsors of a nascent plan to address energy and climate change in the Senate, said Friday that the proposal had no chance of passage in the near term and called for a “pause” in consideration of the issue.

Mr. Graham, Republican of South Carolina, said that the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico had heightened concern about expanded offshore drilling, which he considers a central component of any energy legislation. Mr. Graham also said that Democratic insistence on taking up immigration policy before energy had chilled his enthusiasm for any global warming measure.

How unfortunate that the ONLY Republican senator willing to work across the aisle on energy/climate is also an illogical madman. "Let us wait until everyone starts to forget about the horrific consequences of offshore drilling, so that we can ensure that offshore drilling will be included in the legislation, yaywoo!"

yeah this is pretty disgusting

exhibit A in how not to learn lesson from biggest oil spill disaster in history

*off the US coast

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_oil_spills

ah of course the Gulf War dwarfs all

As far as the political implications of the BP disaster, only in today's U.S. political climate would an environmental disaster of this magnitude have ambiguous consequences for energy/climate legislation. In the wake of numerous environmental disasters of the 1960s and early 70s, we had the first Earth Day, the establishment of EPA, the Clean Air and Water acts, etc. Exxon Valdez in 1989 killed the political momentum for drilling in ANWR.

And today? It's not like we were lacking for reasons to pass the climate bill, or FINALLY pass some good energy legislation. - We're still overwhelmingly dependent on 19th Century energy sources, and we've been warned repeatedly for 20+ years that our backwards "energy policy" is dangerous. So you'd think this would be the straw that breaks the camel's back. But no, instead we get more waffling, and zero leadership. We get politicans in both parties defending Big Oil.

goddammit

In the wake of the Gulf oil spill, the benefits of clean sources of energy are clearer than ever. What's so infuriating about the Washington response so far is that there's no indication the disaster has prompted Obama or anyone else to reconsider his position. In the past, major disasters shifted the terms of debate. This time, nobody is budging. But the support for offshore drilling that the White House was willing to trade for reductions in carbon emissions -- the crucial achievement in any climate bill -- is no longer feasible. As Florida Senator Bill Nelson put it, any bill that includes drilling is "dead on arrival.''

Perversely, the Gulf disaster has had the short-term effect of weakening the already tepid support for a Senate climate bill. That may change as Louisiana's coastline is subsumed by oil. Washington eventually responds to public outrage. (Just ask Goldman Sachs.) But for now, energy can join the long list of issues on which Washington leadership has vanished.

Kerry and Droopy moving introduce bill anyway

Senate once again fucking up things the House got (more or less) right a year ago

And like health care, their proposed legislation is already compromised, watered down and aimed at attracting GOP support that will never be there anyway.

Well, I take that back, I suppose it will probably have at least some GOP support. At least, it looked that way a month ago. I'm just in a tizzy due to the insanity of being forced to compromise on an issue that is so important.

Fuck Lindsey Graham. I don't know what else to say. Jesus fucking Christ, that guy, and to think that he stood out as the one republican who was potentially not batshit insane.

Wow, weird, virtually zero mention in the press about how NASA's data shows that this is by far the hottest spring on record, man, so surprising, jeez

fukkin scientists

Obama's Climate Complacency: Blame Rahm?

Great article (actually an excerpt from Eric Pooley's new book, which I plan on reading soon) with lots of insidery details about ignored memos, and it sounds like Axelrod has had a large (non)role too.

When corporate and environmental leaders from the US Climate Action Partnership (USCAP) went to the Roosevelt Room in the West Wing for a late spring 2009 meeting with Emanuel, they could see that he didn't much care about climate change. What he cared about was winning—acquiring and maintaining presidential power over an eight-year arc. Climate and energy were agenda items to him, pieces on a legislative chessboard; he was only willing to play them in ways that enhanced Obama's larger objectives. He saw no point in squandering capital on a lost cause. The White House could claim victory if Congress passed a beefy energy bill without a cap—never mind that doing so could torpedo Copenhagen and delay serious green house gas reductions, perhaps for many years. At the USCAP meeting, Emanuel made his views clear: "We want to do this climate bill, but success breeds success," he said. "We need to put points on the board. We only want to do things that are going to be successful. If the climate bill bogs down, we move on. We've got health care"

Ezra Klein OTM in his criticism of Obama's speech:

To expand a bit on a point I made on Rachel Maddow’s show, I’m just not sure how you do a response to climate change if you can’t really say the words “climate change.”...

...Rachel said that no one wants to hear about climate change. The operative emotion here has to be inspiration, not fear. And she’s right about that. The polling certainly backs her up. But that strikes me as depressing evidence of how unlikely we are to succeed. I simply don’t believe you could’ve passed health care if you couldn’t have talked about covering the uninsured, and I don’t think stimulus would’ve worked without the spur of the unemployed. It’s not that people wanted to hear about either subject all day, but they got both problems on a visceral enough level that the action being taken at least made a sort of sense.

Whale poo helps offset carbon footprint

Each whale releases about 50 tonnes of iron a year, their natural fertilization stimulating the process of photosynthesis.

was a little o_O, but then read that an average sperm whale weighs 62 tons

Judging by some things swirling around work, electric utilities are starting to get that they can make lots of money by changing the grid in ways that don't impact the consumer but do have a big impact on the Carbon intensity of the power coming out of the socket. I'm pretty bullish that even with no, or weak sauce climate legislation some pretty big actors have sat up and seen dollar signs. I can see crappy legislation benefitting the first movers as well because supply of the sorts of technologies required to do this is going to be tight for at least the next 5 years.

If only Tesla's free wireless power plant technology had come to pass...

The claim that there's "no consensus" on climate change has always been ridiculous, but tough to debunk in a soundbyte (which, unfortunately, is the modus operandi for most skeptics). A new study from the National Academy of Sciences, the first of its kind, offers a fantastic, concise conclusion:

Here, we use an extensive dataset of 1,372 climate researchers and their publication and citation data to show that 1) 97-98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; and 2) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers.

MIT's just released report on natural gas:

http://web.mit.edu/mitei/research/studies/naturalgas.html

CAMBRIDGE, Mass., June 25, 2010 -- Natural gas will play a leading role in reducing greenhouse-gas emissions over the next several decades, largely by replacing older, inefficient coal plants with highly efficient combined-cycle gas generation. That’s the conclusion reached by a comprehensive study of the future of natural gas conducted by an MIT study group comprised of 30 MIT faculty members, researchers, and graduate students. The findings, summarized in an 83-page report, were presented to lawmakers and senior administration officials this week in Washington.

electric utilities are starting to get that they can make lots of money by changing the grid in ways that don't impact the consumer but do have a big impact on the Carbon intensity of the power coming out of the socket

David Roberts from Grist says Senate Dems may actually grow a pair and do something! God, I haven't had any hope on this for a long time, I hope this is even a tiny bit accurate:

On Thursday, the Senate Democratic caucus held a meeting and everyone emerged giddy as schoolchildren. Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) called it "one of the most motivating, energized, and even inspirational caucuses that I've been a part of." Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) called it "absolutely thrilling." Said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), "It was really very, very powerful. It was inspirational, quite frankly."

This is, to say the very (very) least, uncharacteristic. Are these Senate Democrats we're talking about? What happened at this meeting?...

...the climate bill has been proceeding along the same well-worn rut, with Kerry and Lieberman ladling on offshore drilling, natural gas, nuclear, and coal subsidies to lure corporate and, it was hoped, Republican support. Yet the only Republican support that ever materialized, Lindsey Graham (S.C.), flaked out at the first sign of danger. Now even the few remaining "moderates" on the Republican side are digging in their heels, right on cue.

There are no more compromises to make and no one left to compromise with. The traditional approach can only lead to failure now.

The other approach is what pushed financial reform over the top: Take a strong bill to the floor without 60 votes, beat the sh*t out of Republicans for obstructionism, use public opinion in your favor, compromise where you're forced, and pry off enough votes to get it done. It's the go-big-or-go-home strategy. Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) argued, and it looks like the caucus generally agreed, it's time to go that route on climate.

And from ClimateWire (via NYT):

According to a staff-written summary of yesterday's closed-door caucus meeting obtained by E&E, senators discussed a legislative strategy "more akin to the financial regulatory legislation than of health care, with Democrats bringing to the floor an impenetrable package that Republicans could not roadblock."

Democratic senators declined to discuss the exact details of their strategy after emerging from the hourlong talks. But its basic thrust appears to be a plan to anchor the climate and energy effort to widely popular legislation that would overhaul offshore drilling regulations in the wake of the Gulf spill, and then dare Republicans to vote against it.

LONDON — Alcohol-induced behavior has produced many unintended consequences, but pushing up the global price of oil and losing $10 million must rank among the most novel.

Britain’s financial regulator disclosed on Tuesday that Steven Noel Perkins, a former oil futures broker, single-handedly engineered a jump in the price of oil a year ago and cost his firm millions of dollars with a string of unauthorized trades after a weekend of heavy drinking.

Mr. Perkins had just returned from a liquor-soaked golf weekend with colleagues in June of last year when he sat down in front of his laptop at his home east of London and started to place bets on Brent crude futures, according to a report by the Financial Services Authority. He continued to drink and place bets through the night, and by the morning of June 30, Mr. Perkins had placed more than $520 million worth of trades, at one point pushing the price of oil to $73.05, an eight-month high. The trades by Mr. Perkins were the main reason the price gained about $1.65 a barrel in just over two hours in the middle of the night, according to the report.

“Mr. Perkins’s explanation for his trading on 29 and 30 June is that he was drunk,” the F.S.A. said. “He claims to have limited recollection of events on Monday and claims to have been in an alcohol-induced blackout at the time he traded.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/7970619/Obama-could-kill-fossil-fuels-overnight-with-a-nuclear-dash-for-thorium.html

thorium: energy pros, tell me about it

bump

if.....he might

I know a little from investigating investment opportunities.

Thorium is used primarily in ceramics, if you have a kerosene lantern the mantle is thorium cloth. The common isotope Th232 is way more abundant than U235 (of which there may be only about 70 years supply from known deposits. India, a country that possesses practically no uranium, has extensive beaches of somewhat radioactive monazite black sand - the nation could fuel itself for a century by refining thorium out of bulldozer loads.

http://www.hindu.com/seta/2009/01/01/images/2009010150131601.jpg

Its no surprise that India is leading the push for thorium reactors. Western nuclear engineers have avoided using nearly pure thorium reactors for a few reasons, the most important being that spent fuel includes U233 which is super convenient for building bombs with, and Th238 which is difficult to work with (compared to say U235 and Pu239, blocks of which can be handled with thin gloves). India is going ahead with some Pu-Th fast breeders that look a lot like conventional breeders (pressurized reactor core with fuel rods, lots of piping to fuel exchangers etc).

I came across thorium while reading the active lobby for thorium molten salt reactors (an intrinsically meltdown proof design that performs in which the reaction occurs in a closed loop of moving liquid)to be considered among GenIV or V reactor designs. I don't think liquid sodium has many US fans since the fire at the Japanese fast breeder.

Thorium could also be used in the traveling wave breeder reactor design Bill Gates is funding, but presently those will be using depleted uranium accumulated (in huge quantities) from conventional U fuel reprocessing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qwRYtiSbbVg

Pardon the numerous grammatical errors.

the giant problem that no one likes to talk about:

http://i54.tinypic.com/29bymnm.jpg

graph should probably be labeled better, e.g., "Declining Oil Discoveries vs. Increasing Oil Consumption"

I read the entire contents of dieoff.org ten years ago (it hasn't been updated), and many/most of JH's sources. Financially I'm 10x better off as a result. Emotionally, well I can sleep after a bottle.

ha! yeah, I sympathize with your last point. it's difficult to come to grips with it. But at least in much of the rest of the world, peak oil studies get a least a little bit of publicity. Der Spiegel highlighted the German military study and the Guardian has been consistently pretty good,relatively speaking.

But the WashPo and the NYT? I can't tell if it's an editorial decision to not mention peak oil if they're really that clueless. Either way, the resulting ignorance is catastrophic.

BTW, if you like to keep up to date daily on resource depletion issues, oildrum.com is the best moderated non-investment oriented forum.

Just for you, Z S, www.peakoilblues.com. I could real off another several dozen sites of interest. Kunstler's Clusterfuck Nation has at least been well written for the better part of the past decade.

appreciate it, but I've already got them all bookmarked (except for peakoilblues, which I'll check out now!). Energybulletin.net is my first stop, though.

(granted, since they publish just about anything that is even tangentially related to the issues of resource constraints, there's a lot of bad stuff on there, but plenty of good as well)

And for the grand picture (including discussions of the incompatibility of credit-based money with finite natural resources) I'd recommend everyone set down (with their favorite drink) to Chris Martenson's Crash Course. Nothing this decade has come as a suprise to a dieoff.org reader, it's just been a matter of timing and leverage.

I've only seen Ch. 18, which was excellent:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PfAQktktGgQ

And of course, all of this was anticipated in 1972 by the Club of Rome. Avert your eyes.

http://rutledge.caltech.edu/ODcomments/LTGScenario1.jpg

Sanpaku that can't be right because all models have been discredited because weatherman sometimes get the weekend forecast all wrong. Also, token comment about Malthus and how he was completely wrong (even though it appears that he's still on track to be correct).

typos galore but I'm hitting the bottle so I can sleep tbh

interesting paper comparing projections of Limits to Growth to what actually happened, 1970-2000:

The analysis shows that 30 years of historical data compares favorably with key features of a business-as-usual scenario called the "standard run" scenario, which results in collapse of the global system midway through the 21st century. The data does not compare well with other scenarios involving comprehensive use of technology or stabilizing behaviour and policies.

http://gigaom.com/cleantech/solyndra-spells-disaster-for-doe-loan-guarantee-program/

Not good news at all, I had high hopes for Solyndra, I hope this isn't going to sour the climate for Loan Guarantees.

Z S or Ed do you guys have any recommendations for books on the early years of climate change science/research? ive been reading a little bit abt arctic & near arctic ecology & it touches on climate change obvs & was wondering if ppl doing field research in the far north were among the 1st to really visibly notice these things.

also Z S if youre still w/ the EPA much love hope it doesnt get to hard out there

a nice free resource is The Discovery of Global Warming

and within that, a nice summary is here:
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/summary.htm

thnx!

also have u read elizabeth kolbert's climate change book? 'field notes from a catastrophe'?

I have! it's excellent, and a quick read, too.

it's not all bad news in the CA solar industry

not really "energy" related, but i just reread neal stephenson's "zodiac" and it makes me want to ~take direct action~

also apparently we don't have a generic "environmentalism" thread, but i guess it'd just be a pretty miserable and bitter place

http://i51.tinypic.com/2q0kcgh.gif

this single image should be enough to prove to all future generations that Joe Bastardi, Accuweather’s chief long-range forecaster, is the dumbest man in North America. What kind of fool looks at that data and concludes that sea ice is on a rebound? What kind of fool puts him on television?

(btw, looking at sea ice trends by volume, a more useful metric, is incredibly depressing)

haha oh wow

wait, hold the phone, i just saw ANOTHER trend in that graph, hold on just a sec while I get my monitor writing pen thingy...

http://i51.tinypic.com/2mxh9wj.jpg

ladies and gentlemen...SCIENCE

not really "energy" related, but i just reread neal stephenson's "zodiac" and it makes me want to ~take direct action~

haven't read it, but I'm gonna throw it on my xmas wishlist

wait a second...look at that revised screencapture...a HOCKEY STICK shape for sea ice?

TAKE THAT GLOBAL WARMISTS

(sorry i'm depressed, politically alienated and drinking)

Don't worry, we're just at the indicated stage:

http://img813.imageshack.us/img813/2519/mcdiagram.gif

zodiac is a great book, but it kinda put me off lobsters for life, I can never make myself to eat tomalley ever again

On one hand, awesome. Benjamin Santer WAILS on Patrick Michaels here.

On the other, I'm almost certain that when Patrick Michaels gets on a roll at a cocktail party and spews off a bunch of his bullshit, almost everyone believes him, forgets all the misleading details he may bother to include, and only remembers "climate change...uncertainty...needs more research..." So mission accomplished for him, pretty much, regardless of how embarrassingly he gets humiliated in this clip, because the only people who will watch that clip are people that don't need to be convinced.

sigh

oops, forgot to include "the clip" (testimony starts about a minute in):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-a4R1bKGsN8

I think the fact that telling a lie can be done briefly while proving something is a lie takes much longer pretty much explains everything that is terrible in the world

The Obama administration is retreating on long-delayed environmental regulations — new rules governing smog and toxic emissions from industrial boilers — as it adjusts to a changed political dynamic in Washington with a more muscular Republican opposition.

Now, the agency says, it needs until July 2011 to further analyze scientific and health studies of the smog rules and until April 2012 on the boiler regulation. Mr. Obama, having just cut a painful deal with Republicans intended to stimulate the economy, can ill afford to be seen as simultaneously throttling the fragile recovery by imposing a sheaf of expensive new environmental regulations that critics say will cost jobs.

hmm...well yea, it is a tough political situation, so I guess that-

On Tuesday, EPA asked for a one-year delay on its new rules for soot and toxics pollution from industrial boilers and solid-waste incinerators. On Wednesday, it announced that it would be delaying its new smog rules (for the third time) until July, despite a court order to produce them by Dec. 31.

This is mystifying. By any rational cost-benefit analysis, these rules would be some of the most cost-effective in federal government history. Brad Plumer has an excellent state-of-play piece. As he notes, "EPA experts found that cutting toxic pollution could prevent 5,000 deaths and 36,000 asthma attacks each year. All told...the rule would have cost an estimated $2.9 billion each year while delivering between $17 billion and $41 billion in annual health benefits—not a bad deal.

Sorry to be the stereotypical leftleaning envirofascist here, but we're delaying a rulemaking on something that could save FIVE THOUSAND lives a year, because of political pressure. FUCK THAT. I'm so sick of this shit.

sorry, second quote is from David Roberts, here

Sorry to be the stereotypical leftleaning envirofascist here, but we're delaying a rulemaking on something that could save FIVE THOUSAND lives a year, because of political pressure. FUCK THAT. I'm so sick of this shit.

ive been doing a fair bit of background reading on pollution levels & various environmental changes over the past half century and the galling selfishness and sheer bad faith of the opposition here is just... honestly it just depresses and enrages me to where i cant do much with it.

Fox boss ordered staff to cast doubt on climate science

In the midst of global climate change talks last December, a top Fox News official sent an email questioning the "veracity of climate change data" and ordering the network's journalists to "refrain from asserting that the planet has warmed (or cooled) in any given period without IMMEDIATELY pointing out that such theories are based upon data that critics have called into question."

The directive, sent by Fox News Washington managing editor Bill Sammon, was issued less than 15 minutes after Fox correspondent Wendell Goler accurately reported on-air that the United Nations' World Meteorological Organization announced that 2000-2009 was "on track to be the warmest (decade) on record."

From: Sammon, Bill
To: 169 -SPECIAL REPORT; 036 -FOX.WHU; 054 -FNSunday; 030 -Root (FoxNews.Com); 050 -Senior Producers; 051 -Producers; 069 -Politics; 005 -Washington
Cc: Clemente, Michael; Stack, John; Wallace, Jay; Smith, Sean
Sent: Tue Dec 08 12:49:51 2009
Subject: Given the controversy over the veracity of climate change data...

...we should refrain from asserting that the planet has warmed (or cooled) in any given period without IMMEDIATELY pointing out that such theories are based upon data that critics have called into question. It is not our place as journalists to assert such notions as facts, especially as this debate intensifies.

sigh

Joe Romm OTM, I guess: "Well, okay, this would be a bombshell email coming from any other news organization in the world. So maybe the only bombshell is that Sammon was foolish enough to put this egregious Fox News policy into an email."

Out of the many depressing things in the world, one of the worst is that Fox News has been debunked/called out/embarrassed so so so so so many times, and yet so many people still watch and believe everything it spews out. I mean, I'm glad Media Matters is there documenting all of this and trying to correct things, but it just doesn't work. Yes, only several million people watch Fox, a small proportion of the United States population, but surely most of that relatively small audience of Fox True Believers goes forth into the world to spread the nonsense to people who don't follow the news at all and take them at their word. Straight from Industry/Frank Luntz to Fox/GOP to TOTAL FUCKING MORONS to people who don't follow the news. I love the idea of democracy but any hopes of an enlightened populace within the next 100 years is being torn to shreds

it'll happen. whether it will take utter cataclysm is another issue. thinking of irreversible global warming is a great way to terrify myself, but that's not the problem yet - the problem is a question of basic universal human empathy and the fact that tropical, undeveloped countries are getting this in the neck far worse than temperate, developed ones

I also strongly believe that in a few years' time, humanity will have the opportunity to choose the way of greed or the way of universality, and the fate of the planet rests on that decision - not just in a climatic sense but in a holistic sense

some pretty millennial thinking there bro

there's a revolution on and you're invited

revolution + on + on

hope that's true over there. In the U.S. the revolution generally looks a lot like this:

http://i56.tinypic.com/ng8pp5.jpg

http://i53.tinypic.com/viej9k.jpg

"The Facebook group 'STOP GLOBAL WARMING NOW' has over 150,000 likes? Great Scott. I need a minute to think. THINK. Let's see. OK. Cancel my 2:00, get me Wen Jiabao on the phone ASAP - TODAY WE STOP GLOBAL WARMING"

http://i53.tinypic.com/viej9k.jpg

"listen to me god DAMMIT! to HELL with industry! this facebook group has over 150,000 goddamn LIKES. That is a MANDATE."

sorry, i'm just joshing around. I like the idea of the president barking orders like Patton.

lol :-/

^

kinda lol, mostly despair

^my epitaph^

Anyway, my main (sorta) point is that it's going to take people on the streets to do anything, imo. There was a decent Harper's essay a few weeks ago that argued that as lol rong as the tea party was/is about everything, they're out there on the streets, making themselves known, creating a persistent presence, so props to them for that. There was no comparable presence on the left, not with that persistence.

And (this would be more debatable obviously, but imo) that necessity to have a physical presence on the streets runs counter to the digitilization of "today's youth" (god i'm starting to feel like an oldtimer). There are examples of social networking/etc being used to successfully advance political protest, but I don't see it happening in the United States (please prove me wrong someone?). In the last year of lol grad school I helped a professor work on a book that was focused on taking advantage of the social networking, and particularly the ease with which young people utilize it, for progressive issues. And the more I researched the issue, the more my gut was telling me NO NO NO NO NO. it's not going to work. not in time.

Anyway, I want to be wrong on all of this more than anything else in the world.

no i think you're right

sorry

no, you're right. enormous fucking truth bomb. at least europe is learning how to get out there, every week. soon it'll be every day. americans need to mobilise too, or else I fear for you (and by extension everyone else)

have this image of an obese, bespectacled old man sitting on the world until it chokes. what needs to happen is that everyone decides not to work for that man

a real american does not wear spectacles

that 'suck it up' dude is who I was thinking of when I imagined it

http://www.charlesmunger.com/images/pic.jpg

http://www.theoildrum.com/node/7465

uhh guys

Yep. No one ever could have known - except matt Simmons + others, several years ago, who tried to warn everyone...

Will the NYT even mention it, except maybe in an awful bloggins by andy revkin, or a story focused on recent oil prices that mentions the leak as something doomsayers are worried about? Probably not!

reading that news made me have my first cold sweat over peak oil. like before it was like you said, yeah, doomsday speculation. but to see uh, people close with the issue at hand claim this - pretty chilling.

I guess it's compounded by the fact that I have to fly back to the US this summer, and tickets are roughly 50-80% more expensive than the same time last year, no doubt due to the rising cost of jet fuel... and you think of how dependent our society is on fuel, and you just wonder for how much longer can we keep this up.

I'm on a train typing with my clumsy fingers so I'll make this short, but I think there is a strong likelihood that when the global economy "recovers", oil prices will once again shoot through the roof (they're already way above what was thought of as a crisis level by GWBush after Katrina, which prompted him to release much of the US strategic reserve in order to stabilize prices - at the time I think they were in the $70s range, now they're in the $90s).

The only reason they dropped from the levels they were at in 2007-2008 (100-140s) is the Great Recession. Supply didn't increase, demand dropped. As demand starts to increase, we're quickly running against hat supply limit again, driving up oil prices and food prices synonymously, since US presidential hopefuls and the corn industry thought it was a great idea to tie the food and oil markets together through corn ethanol. Whoops!

The bleak (but not bleakest) scenario is a series of price spikes coming in tandem with new recessions, each time the new spike oil price and demand getting a little lower, each recession cutting even deeper.

:/

heh, I have a friend of a friend who allegedly is a doomsday nutjob now after watching a documentary on peak oil while high. I feel like if I had that news while high today it would have sent me over the edge.

that bleak scenario doesn't seem that bad - the US dies a slow death. my mind fast forwarded to the mad max + clockwork orange scenario where droogs be in my house, raping my dog.

I dunno it's pretty easy to see that if uh people can't afford food anymore in the states + easy access to guns = some heavy shit

regarding the wikileak about saudi production,this article rightfully points out that it wasn't news to the peak oil crowd,who have been trying to get anyone to pay attention to the issue for years now.

here's the important part:

Were the Wikileaks revelations a game changer in the world of oil? Hardly. All the basic, but horribly muddled, information in the cables was already public. And, the flat trend of oil production for the last several years has been plain for all to see. Still, governments and societies largely prattle on as if nothing is wrong. Well, perhaps one thing did change. U.S. government officials are now known to have spoken the words "peak oil," albeit in secret cables. At last the feckless corporate media has reason to ask them why. But will they?

it's amazing that we still live in a world where the statement 'there is a finite supply of certain natural resources' is treated like a politicized argument instead of, ya know, an incredibly basic fact

Fracking
Fracking
Fracking
Fracking
Fracking

we are fucking ourselves

Among The Times’s findings:

¶More than 1.3 billion gallons of wastewater was produced by Pennsylvania wells over the past three years, far more than has been previously disclosed. Most of this water — enough to cover Manhattan in three inches — was sent to treatment plants not equipped to remove many of the toxic materials in drilling waste.

¶At least 12 sewage treatment plants in three states accepted gas industry wastewater and discharged waste that was only partly treated into rivers, lakes and streams.

¶Of more than 179 wells producing wastewater with high levels of radiation, at least 116 reported levels of radium or other radioactive materials 100 times as high as the levels set by federal drinking-water standards. At least 15 wells produced wastewater carrying more than 1,000 times the amount of radioactive elements considered acceptable.

Results came from field surveys conducted by state and federal regulators, year-end reports filed by drilling companies and state-ordered tests of some public treatment plants. Most of the tests measured drilling wastewater for radium or for “gross alpha” radiation, which typically comes from radium, uranium and other elements.

Industry officials say they are not concerned.

Was sad to see "Gasland" lose the best documentary award last night as frack drilling is a pretty fucking U & K issue right now.

read these two fucking paragraphs

A confidential industry study from 1990, conducted for the American Petroleum Institute, concluded that “using conservative assumptions,” radium in drilling wastewater dumped off the Louisiana coast posed “potentially significant risks” of cancer for people who eat fish from those waters regularly.

The industry study focused on drilling industry wastewater being dumped into the Gulf of Mexico, where it would be far more diluted than in rivers. It also used estimates of radium levels far below those found in Pennsylvania’s drilling waste, according to the study’s lead author, Anne F. Meinhold, an environmental risk expert now at NASA.

Regulators have theorized that passing drilling waste through the plants is safe because most toxic material will settle during the treatment process into a sludge that can be trucked to a landfill, and whatever toxic material remains in the wastewater will be diluted when mixed into rivers.

last 3 paragraphs of the article are so infuriating...i just want to die

feels like fucking sodom where you can't even find 10 good people in the entire city. what is wrong with everyone. (been drinking, warning)

basically, the energy industry is looking for more ways to ruin western pennsylvania

>:[

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z0fAsFQsFAs

basically, the energy industry is looking for more ways to ruin western pennsylvania most of the country

I'm kind of involved (very remotely, in a supporting, non-productiony capacity) in CSG in aus and I've recently had to contact potential local suppliers to us in these remote areas, they're all v v keen for the business, even tho yes there has def been carcinogenic gases found around the place amongst other issues. It's going to be an interesting few months ahead..will post itt with any updates/backlash encountered.

please do thx
also holy shit re that nyt article

Fracking-assisted earthquakes in Arkansas

GUY, Ark. — Everybody around here is getting used to the earthquakes, and that does not sit well with Dirk DeTurck.

Dirk DeTurck pointed to drilling equipment from his home. “I think people are getting comfortable” with earthquakes, he said.

He sent out 600 fliers and made, well, had to be around 100 phone calls, trying to attract people to his meeting on earthquake preparedness. And yet on a recent Tuesday night, he stood in the local school cafeteria and looked out at only a dozen or so people, including two women from the local extension homemakers club who had scheduled their own meeting on the topic a couple of weeks later.

“I think people are getting comfortable,” said Mr. DeTurck, a former Navy mechanic. “I mean, they have in California. They’ve become real comfortable with the shaking.”

Whether they have become comfortable is debatable, but the people of Guy, a town of 563 about an hour north of Little Rock, have had to learn to live with earthquakes.

Since the early fall, there have been thousands, none of them very large — a fraction have been felt, and the only documented damage is a cracked window in the snack bar at Woolly Hollow State Park. But in their sheer numbers, they have been relentless, creating a phenomenon that has come to be called the Guy earthquake swarm.

This was followed by the Guy media swarm, with reporters pouring in through the surrounding orchards and cow pastures to ask residents what the quakes feel like.

Mr. DeTurck and many others described a boom followed by a quick, alarming shift, a sensation one man compared to watching the camera dive off a cliff in an Imax movie. Some say they have felt dozens, others only four or five, and still others say they have only heard them.

They do, however, have similar suspicions about the cause.

ZS, and anyone else interested. I just got a mail advertising a large number of fully funded Phd studendships in "Energy Demand" based at the UCL and Loughborough. Let me know if you'd like me to forward.

Thanks for thinking of me, Ed! :)

I'm stuck in the United States (and more specifically, Maryland) for the next few years because my fiancee goes to grad school here, but I've recently been thinking about switching back into the university-world to grab a Ph.D. I'll keep the program you mentioned in mind.

It's intriguing to me that I keep seeing one or two (though usually one) small, stand-alone wind-power generators in random places, like you do with cellphone towers. In strip-malls, near buildings, that kind of thing. Does anyone know the production abilities of just one little windmill? Is it like having a small patch of solar panels or something? I mean, these are big windmills, but not quite to my eye like those towering ones you see off the highway.

my company's did some small wind projects awhile ago (altho nothing on the single-turbine scale). how much power they generate varies pretty widely depending on - duh - the wind, but max capacity is probably around 50 kW or so for smaller domestic applications.

done

guys: thorium nuke power

tell me about it. wiki makes it sound like a magic bullet, so there's gotta be a catch somewhere, right?

never heard of it

http://news.change.org/stories/thorium-nuclear-energys-clean-little-secret

Let's review some of the key benefits of thorium. It's abundant (because we've never used any of it); it doesn't require the costly and time-intensive refining process important for uranium, and the waste it produces becomes inert in one hundred years as opposed to hundreds of thousands of years. It's nearly impossible for terrorists to manipulate for weapons production. There's more: the annual fuel cost for a one gigawatt thorium reactor is approximately six hundred times lower than that of a uranium reactor, which requires 250 times more of the raw element.

Thorium as a nuclear fuel
Thorium, as well as uranium and plutonium, can be used as fuel in a nuclear reactor. A thorium fuel cycle offers several potential advantages over a uranium fuel cycle including much greater abundance on Earth, superior physical and nuclear properties of the fuel, enhanced proliferation resistance, and reduced nuclear waste production. Nobel laureate Carlo Rubbia at CERN (European Organization for Nuclear Research), has worked on developing the use of thorium as a cheap, clean and safe alternative to uranium in reactors. Rubbia states that a tonne of thorium can produce as much energy as 200 tonnes of uranium, or 3,500,000 tonnes of coal.[14] One of the early pioneers of the technology was U.S. physicist Alvin Weinberg at Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Tennessee, who helped develop a working nuclear plant using liquid fuel in the 1960s.

Some countries are now investing in research to build thorium-based nuclear reactors. In May 2010, researchers from Ben-Gurion University in Israel and Brookhaven National Laboratory in New York, received a three-year Energy Independence Partnership Grant to collaborate on the development of a self-sustainable fuel cycle for light water reactors.[15] According to the Israeli nuclear engineer, Eugene Shwageraus, their goal is a self-sustaining reactor, "meaning one that will produce and consume about the same amounts of fuel," which is not possible with uranium. He states, "the better choice is thorium, whose nuclear properties offer considerable flexibility in the reactor core design." Some experts believe that the energy stored in the earth's thorium reserves is greater than what is available from all other fossil and nuclear fuels combined.[15]

[edit]Key benefits
According to Australian science writer Tim Dean, "thorium promises what uranium never delivered: abundant, safe and clean energy - and a way to burn up old radioactive waste."[16] With a thorium nuclear reactor, Dean stresses a number of added benefits: there is no possibility of a meltdown, it generates power inexpensively, it does not produce weapons-grade by-products, and will burn up existing high-level waste as well as nuclear weapon stockpiles.[16] Ambrose Evans-Pritchard, of the British Telegraph daily, suggests that "Obama could kill fossil fuels overnight with a nuclear dash for thorium," and could put "an end to our dependence on fossil fuels within three to five years."[14]

The Thorium Energy Alliance (TEA), an educational advocacy organization, emphasizes that "there is enough thorium in the United States alone to power the country at its current energy level for over 1,000 years." [17] Reducing coal as an energy source, according to science expert Lester R. Brown of The Earth Policy Institute in Washington DC, would significantly reduce medical costs from breathing coal pollutants. Brown estimates that coal-related deaths and diseases are currently costing the U.S. up to $160 billion annually."[18]

what's the catch

that's what i want to know!

sounds like it wasn't pursued back in the day because it ~didn't~ have a weaponizable byproduct, whereas nowadays that's actually a good thing

I am certainly no expert but this popped up a few weeks ago and I did some reading. First off it needs some uranium mixed in with the thorium to get fission to ago and whilst most of the fission products are low half life materials (90%+) you still get some nasty long half life in there. Secondly, on the proliferation angle, although it would be hard for material to be used in a fission or fusion bomb there's still something you can use for a dirty bomb. Thirdly, I can't see anything in the technology that makes it inherently safe from meltdown or release of radioactive material in a reactor containment failure.

I discussed this above in August.

My impression is that thorium cycle nuclear wasn't used originally because its not as amenable to miniaturizing for naval use as the uranium cycle. Since Adm. Rickenbacker's nuclear submarine program was the seed of the civilian nuclear power industry and uranium was abundant, thorium wasn't pursued. A pure thorium reactor does produce U-233 in spent fuel, which can be used in nuclear weapons. Since U-233 can be separated from the thorium by simple chemistry, rather than the capital intensive huge centrifuge arrays required for enriching U-235 content of natural uranium, the thorium fuel cycle became suspect from the proliferation angle.

There are fuel cycle designs used to work around this (see Radkowski Thorium Reactor, but given the cost of a plant using established technology, I don't think we'll see any private investment in experimenting outside of India.

aha, that's where I must have read about it.

aha

http://www.wellhome.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/Final-Thorium.png

^Much better than my comments. Too huge for my monitor.

just cutting and pasting bits from this article to underline how surreal it is to get to the bottom of anything right now

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42097170/ns/politics-more_politics/

WASHINGTON — Regulators should press ahead with approving construction licenses for new nuclear power plants despite Japan's nuclear crisis, President Barack Obama's top energy official said Tuesday.

Energy Secretary Steven Chu told a House panel that "the American people should have full confidence that the United States has rigorous safety regulations in place to ensure that our nuclear power is generated safely and responsibly." But he said that the administration "is committed to learning from Japan's experience."

Chu told reporters on Capitol Hill that he thought construction license applications pending at the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission could proceed.

Story: Fire flares at Japan nuke unit with spent fuel, reactor

The NRC may decide in the fourth quarter of this year whether to issue such licenses to Southern Co and SCANA Corp to build two reactors each.

Chu said the agency had a lengthy and thorough process to review applications for new reactors.

"I think we're in good hands," he said.

The Obama administration has maintained its support for expanding use of nuclear energy despite renewed fears about its safety after the events in Japan.

Video: Could a nuclear meltdown happen in U.S.?

Obama has given his backing to building more nuclear power plants to help meet energy needs, fight climate change, and reduce dependence on fossil fuels.

His budget requests up to $36 billion for loan guarantees to help build new nuclear reactors. Nuclear energy currently provides about 20 percent of the country's electricity and proponents highlight that nuclear energy production results in virtually zero emissions of climate-warming greenhouse gases.

Chu's comments to reporters illustrated the depth of the administration's commitment to moving forward with nuclear energy expansion.

That commitment contrasts with some other countries, which have backed away from nuclear in the wake of the Japanese crisis.

Germany said it would shut down for at least three months all seven of its nuclear power stations that began operating before 1980 and Switzerland put on hold some approvals for nuclear power plants.

Video: 140,000 urged to stay indoors amid radiation leaks (on this page)

Safety concerns
Some lawmakers have questioned whether the United States should put a pause on nuclear, too. Senator Joe Lieberman, an independent, said Sunday Washington should "put the brakes" on new nuclear power plants until there is a full understanding of what happened in Japan.

Asked about the prospects for such a brake, Chu said only that lessons could be learned from the Japan tragedy.

"We have to take a hard look: Were there any lessons learned from this tragedy that can further improve the safety ... of our existing reactors?" he told a congressional committee. "It's probably premature to say anything except we will learn from this."

freakin energy thread over here

http://www.eia.gov/cfapps/state/state_energy_profiles.cfm?sid=CA

Natural gas-fired power plants typically account for about one-half of State electricity generation. California is one of the largest hydroelectric power producers in the United States, and with adequate rainfall, hydroelectric power typically accounts for close to one-fifth of State electricity generation. California’s two nuclear power plants account for about 17 percent of total generation. Due to strict emission laws, only a few small coal-fired power plants operate in California.

California leads the Nation in electricity generation from nonhydroelectric renewable energy sources. California generates electricity using wind, geothermal, solar, fuel wood, and municipal solid waste/landfill gas resources.

...

Due to high electricity demand, California imports more electricity than any other State. States in the Pacific Northwest deliver power to California markets primarily from hydroelectric sources, while States in the Desert Southwest deliver power primarily from coal-fired sources. A recent California law forbids utilities from entering into long-term contracts with conventional coal-fired power producers

can't figure out how to paste the consumption chart from that link in here unfortunately

Someone had a hissy fit on the earthquake/ tsunami/ nuclear thread about me posting the below comment so i'll post it here where it'll make no sense just to keep toys in prams.

It's all very well saying "Ooh, lets address our use of nuclear power" when there's already 250 million tonnes of waste that they don't know how to get rid of properly as it takes around 100k years to burn out, without counting what'll be used from now until they come up with a replacement.

― not_goodwin, Thursday, 17 March 2011 21:37 (1 minute ago) Bookmark

I'm not saying California isn't doing a pretty good job with respect to carbon emissions / gigawatt hour. Natural gas is way better than coal in this regard. I'm just pointing out that this is the landscape I'm looking at:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d3/Greenhouse_emissions_by_electricity_source.PNG

and I totally agree that coal is a huge problem, I just don't like nukes and coal being presented as an either/or scenario.

would've expected Sweden/Finland to be doing a little better there with the renewables tbh :(

I haven't confirmed whether that's lifecycle or operating emissions. Wind tends to have rather high upfront carbon emissions due to all the concrete in the footings, and somewhat disappointing system emissions in practice due to the current need to have 1 MW of combined cycle gas generation on standby for every MW of wind capacity. Gas plants are far less efficient when their output is cycling up and down to compensate for wind intermittancy.

The system that holds the most promise at the moment is utility scale concentrating solar thermal with onsite storage (as molten sulfur, for example). I'd like to pave the whole of Nevada with these:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8jN490nJu10

They won't be built in California.

interesting - hadn't heard of that particular project before

although obviously various solar-thermal designs/projects have been bouncing around for a few years now

well that one technically is in California.

but obviously Vegas drove the project.

Most of the work in solar thermal has been in Spain, with only a couple little pilot plants in the Mojave. Ivanpah and a sister project at Coyote Springs are the first things I've seen in the U.S. that really takes a bite at efficiencies of scale.

xp: Fallout New Vegas has distorted my geography a bit. And, of course there's a lawsuit by conservationists against Ivanpah.

yeah the Mojave pilot plants are the ones I heard about

Fuck desert tortoises. If they're not smart enough to realize the bipeds are providing them with midday shade every dozen feet, they deserve extinction.

hmm y'know one of my bandmates is a biologist who does environmental impact studies, I wonder what he makes of these lawsuits

lol
xp

I dunno if I'm even kidding there. Guys, there are higher priorities at play here.

I confess I am similarly prejudicial towards my own species

but then EIRs are tricky beasts, there can be unforeseen consequences to all sorts of human activity

I'm sure that BrightSource could higher one eager and fully qualified herpetologist to hand feed and stroke lovingly every desert tortoise found on site in perpetuity for the costs this lawsuit creates (both legal, and in financing).

higher = hire, obv.

I don't even really understand how the plants would harm the tortoises.

eh y'know I suspect it's the usual - disturb migratory patterns (do tortoises migrate?), destroy mating sites, etc

They're endangered, right? How many can there be? They should round em up and send them to me. I'll take care of the tortoises and they can go ahead with the plants. Sorted.

the tortoise whisperer

the tortoises per her

I've (regrettably) seen videos of captive tortoises mating with rocks and shoes of every style. I doubt they expect much in the way of amenities for their mating sites.

Also, I think you should reconsider your state reptile, California. Its must be awkward having the other states' reptiles snickering behind your back.

If I may jump way back in the thread, I'd like to point out that LFTR molten-salt thorium reactors are completely awesome and everyone who cares about green energy should be pushing for them big-time. The science behind it is very solid and it's basically politics holding it back at this point.

My boss, who is an uber-nerd, has been spending his spare time trying to tell the canadian gov't about this stuff for at least a year. He was specifically told by some mid-level political functionary that any talk of new nuclear power was a political dead-end. Even more so now, I imagine...

The caution I have with the molten salt thorium breeder is with the molten salt. You may recall high-school chemistry hijinks with pure sodium and public toilets. I do, anyway. The same explosive reactions have occurred with sodium coolant at the Japanese Monju Nuclear Power Plant.

Ignore the above. Obv liquid floride is potentially very different from generic molten salt, which in nuclear circles usually means sodium...I'll research further.

so California's hydro power - does that come from dams or from waves?

It's gotta be dams. Tidal energy is still very much in the embryonic state.

yeah tidal power um they haven't quite worked that out yet

dams have pretty big environmental consequences iirc

not nuclear disaster huge obv but sayin

yeah tidal power um they haven't quite worked that out yet

"The first large-scale tidal power plant (the Rance Tidal Power Station) started operation in 1966."

??

let me just say there were some serious environmental and technical concerns recently when the City of SF entertained some proposals about putting giant turbines under the bay bridge

dams have pretty big environmental consequences iirc

yeah they do, but it's a lesser of three evils thing - compared to stuff that emits GHGs and nuclear waste/safety issues, dams are definitely preferable

they also destroy ecosystems

yeah well I'm not really sympathetic to people who complain about Hetch Hetchy either. small price to pay etc

I mean humanity destroys ecosystems. we build cities, etc. it's kinda what we do. you can attempt to manage it as best as possible, but let's not pretend like there's some entirely benign way to run human civilization.

Giant mirrors in the desert. It's proven and it works. Why isn't this being done NOW in the Chihuahua desert, the Sahara, Mexico, Gobi, etc? I don't remember the stat but it's something ridiculous like an area the size of Rhode Island filled with these things could store up enough electricity to power the entire world. I suspect the answer has to do with batteries and distribution but fuckin come on.

um that very prospect is discussed few posts up

lawsuits!

environmental impact studies!

tortoises!

Big oil!

Big coal, I meant

uuuuuuuuugh

Interior Secretary Ken Salazar announced yesterday an enormous expansion in coal mining that threatens to increase U.S. climate pollution by an amount equivalent to more than half of what the United States currently emits in a year.

In other words, despite his administration's rhetorical embrace of clean energy, Obama is effectively using modest wind and solar investments as cover for a broader embrace of dirty fuels. It's the same strategy BP, Chevron, and other major polluters use: tout modest environmental investments in multi-million dollar PR campaigns, while putting the real money into fossil fuel development.

jesus fuck

I'm sure the atmosphere will understand that it was a political move.

And once again, for this unprompted giveaway, Obama gets........????

"Maybe THIS time the republicans will love me!"

I tried to give him the benefit of the doubt te first few times, but this is just psychotic

Fucking COME ON

I don't see how he gains from this at all, other than perhaps stabilizing energy prices?

probably has inside info about peak oil

Incremental coal will be exported to China via a new port being developed at Cowlitz County, Washington. The chief competition from cheap natural gas has made export markets more attractive for coal.

This of course means that even if the U.S. went on a carbon diet its global effect would be neutralized if someone else just emitted our carbon.

Obama was made aware of PO during his presidential campaign, McCain was aware during the late 90s, advisors to George W. were aware (though maybe not W himself). Every national politician remembers what happened to Carter and simply hopes it happens after their term. I expect unprecedented numbers not seeking reelection in 2014.

thinking about this makes me want to go on a Leaving Las Vegas downward spiral.

He's either ignorant or he cares more about getting reelected than the misery of 100s of millions of people. Either one makes voting for Obama in 2012 painful. So sad that th alternative (republican) will be so much worse, somehow. Good luck planet.

MIT unveils sweet new artificial leaf tech.

Obama sets insufficient goals, defines clean coal, nuclear, natural gas as "clean energy", and promotes an increase in domestic fossil fuel production

Booooooooooooo!

fact sheet here, which leads with a nice discussion about expanding oil and gas production.

I don't think this is all bad but it's a far cry from all good lol

would love to see some actual "clean coal" lol. bugs the shit out of me how people talk about it like it's a real, operative thing (and often giving short shrift to actual working renewable technologies in the process) rather than a pipe dream

a la "solar will never generate enough power to meet demannd - BUT HAVE YOU HEARD ABOUT HOW AWESOME THIS HYPOTHETICAL THING CALLED CLEAN COAL IS?????"

No excitement over the artificial leaf?

is that the same thing that was written up in Discover? I was into it, but it hardly seemed ready-to-market or anything

I don't think this is all bad but it's a far cry from all good lol

The problem is that unless we rapidly shift to "all good", (and manage to convince future presidents to stay with the all good plan) we are fucked.

As usual, David Roberts is right:

The paucity of imagination shown by Obama's list is just dismally
depressing. It's telling that he says nothing of electric cars, rail
infrastructure, public transit, smart growth, congestion pricing, a gas
tax, bicycles, or simple conservation. He is choosing fare straight from
the barren cupboard of Beltway conventional wisdom, contenting himself
with the tepid "center" of a conversation dominated by the interests of
plutocrats.

Stupid iPhone formatting, sorry

would love to see some actual "clean coal" lol. bugs the shit out of me how people talk about it like it's a real, operative thing (and often giving short shrift to actual working renewable technologies in the process) rather than a pipe dream

I don't know too much about clean coal or carbon capture and sequestration, but I do know that, though they are a long way off, they're being considered very seriously by utilities and coal companies.

Obama's speech was pretty disappointing, but there were some highlights. For instance, he plainly said that oil was going to run out. Sure, he didn't say we were hitting peak production, but as far as a political speech goes, he stepped out front on some things. He did speak at length about electric cars and high-speed rail, as well. And I do appreciate him stressing the insignificance of off-shore drilling, as it relates to oil prices. I guess this is classic triangulation, trying to appease republicans. I don't know that it will work, but I think he's got a better plan than previous Presidents.

Regardless, all the progressive work is happening at the state and city level. I work in this field and have been impressed by the forward movement in cities around the country.

just throwing this out there to see what you all think. it really seems like the political strategy of the environmental movement for the last few decades - relying on the big name groups to make progress (sierra club, EDF, NRDC, etc) - has totally failed. i pretty much agree with 350.org's perspective:

Not for forty years has there been such a stretch of bad news for environmentalists in Washington.

Last month in the House, the newly empowered GOP majority voted down a resolution stating simply that global warming was real: they’ve apparently decided to go with their own versions of physics and chemistry.

This week in the Senate, the biggest environmental groups were reduced to a noble, bare-knuckles fight merely to keep the body from gutting the Clean Air Act, the proudest achievement of the green movement. The outcome is still unclear; even several prominent Democrats are trying to keep the EPA from regulating greenhouse gases.

And at the White House? The president who boasted that his election marked the moment when ‘the oceans begin to recede’ instead introduced an energy plan heavy on precisely the carbon fuels driving global warming. He focused on ‘energy independence,’ a theme underscored by his decision to open 750 million tons of Wyoming coal to new mining leases. That’s the equivalent of running 3,000 new power plants for a year.

i'm curious about what everyone here thinks about the likelihood of big green groups succeeding vs grassroots action. does one outweigh the other? are they both necessary? is one useless? are we all doooooooooooooomed

I think EDF, NRDC, and the big environmental groups have done solid work, but I don't how much of a real impact they make. I feel the same way about many of the grassroots efforts. They do a great job at rallying support from liberals and young people, but they aren't trusted in the business community and they don't actually do a good job at lobbying the government. I have serious issues with Shellenberger, Nordhaus and the Breakthrough Institute, but I agree with much of their Death of Environmentalism (and it's recent update). I don't think enviros should entirely abandon messaging about climate change, but they need to get smarter about where the opportunities are. People gravitate to the idea of energy independence and businesses are very inclined to embrace energy efficiency (if taught how to do it effectively). EDF has been trying to build up a stronger business-focused arm, and they've done a good job, but they'll never have the trust or large corporations.

Don't get me wrong. I believe that policy is necessary to really make this stuff happen. But it's not happening any time soon. Until all this tea party hysteria dies down, enviros should take a different angle. And grassroots organizations need to learn the industries they're trying to shift. Whenever I go to a "greendrinks" or some event like that, I'm amazed at how little the grassroots crowd knows. I don't pretend to be a genius, but it doesn't surprise me now that we are as far away from a real energy policy as ever. But I also think the Obama administration carries a bit of the blame as well.

enviros should take a different angle. along these lines, David Roberts had a recent piece that generated a fair amount of attention:

...So here's my proposal:

First, green groups abandon the pretense that they are nonpartisan education groups. It's a legacy model that makes no sense in current circumstances. The Republican Party has officially and irredeemably aligned itself against public health and a clean energy economy. That's not greens' fault -- it's part of a process of the parties ideologically clarifying that's been going on for decades -- but it is what it is. No sense pretending otherwise. That means shifting lots and lots of resources out of 501(c)3's and into 501(c)4's and PACs.

Then, green groups all contribute to a common electoral fund. Build up, say, $300 million or so. Be public and explicit about what the money is for: not ads, not canvassing, not clever websites, nothing except primarying the next Dem who f*cks with them on a big priority issue like EPA climate regs. It's just a big, loaded primary gun.

And then ... use it. Take somebody out. My personal suggestion would be the loathsome Joe Manchin. Or if that's too big a target to begin with, start smaller, with a few state attorneys general, mayors, even school board members. Collect some wins and work up the food chain.

To respond to a few predictable objections: Yes, there are some cases, perhaps even many, in which a primary challenge would weaken the Dem and allow a Republican challenger to win. So be it. Remember, the Tea Party sacrificed several winnable seats in the midterms (see: Christine O'Donnell). In return, they got an astounding degree of fealty from Republican lawmakers, who now live in terror of them. They have become the tail wagging the dog. It doesn't take many high-profile hit jobs for that lesson to sink in.

key to any discussion of global energy supply/demand in this century:

UN Population forecast bumped up to 10.1 billion by 2010, 9.3 billion by 2050

10.1B by 2100.

So we increase by 3 billion in 40 yrs, but only 1 billion in the next 50? That sounds like the carrying capacity of planet earth makes itself known in latter half of the century.

Actually, the giant caveat with the UN estimate is that it assumes that massive food shortages, climate change, etc, won't have an effect on population. Instead, the gradual leveling off comes from declining fertility rates as a result of improving economies.

And whoops, just saw my typo, should be 10.1 billion by 2100, not 2010

what the people writing those articles don't always let on is that the population itself is just a number, and is not positive or negative per se. as this thread has consistently shown, it is consumption, not population, that is the problem. a discourse of 'look at african/asian population growth rates! how will we all cope!' fundamentally misses the point: that overpopulation is brought about when a population's consumption far exceeds its available resources. there are enough resources that can provide for consumption in the developing world many times over without compromising the global ecosystem - the problem is with the parts of the world that are consuming significantly more than what's required, while dictating the economic terms by which developing countries are(n't) able to provide for their populations

panic about growth rates in the third world strikes me as being driven by a particularly nasty strain of selfish hypocrisy, with a side-order of quasi-racist oxygen-fear

I just learned about this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mountaintop_removal_mining

and it's like, damn...

panic about growth rates in the third world strikes me as being driven by a particularly nasty strain of selfish hypocrisy, with a side-order of quasi-racist oxygen-fear

^^^OTFM> arguments about the "threat" of overpopulation drive me up the wall. the real issue is resource management, not the number of people.

also - people have been trying to stop mountaintop removal mining for years

it's hardly a new thing. back in the late 19th century in CA, mining companies would literally just blast entire mountains away with water cannons and then sift through the rubble for the shit they wanted, letting everything else just wash away. quality resource mgmt there guys...

...and then there was the 19th century proposal to burn down lots and lots of forest in patterns to bring more rain to the Midwest. Sheesh.

I'm hiring again. I need a process engineer, manufacturing engineer and an Electrical engineer (we're also looking for an accountant, and manufacturing techs). Contact me through the email link and I'll send details.

can i just

http://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/2011/06/09/behind-big-fight-at-opec/

Oil prices may rocket around for a while, due to tensions in the Mideast. That's what happened in the Arab oil embargo of 1973 and 1974, slapped on this country after the U.S.'s support of Israel in the seven-day war. Oil prices soared higher after the Iranian revolution in 1979, and a year later after war broke out between Iraq and Iran the next year.

Saudi Arabia, the central bank of oil, may win the fight here, which means lower gas prices. Saudi Arabia has the spare capacity to pump, an estimated 4.5 million extra barrels a day.

No one really knows what Saudi Arabia's estimated spare capacity is. Fox says 4.5 million, the NYT article the other says "2.5 million to 3 million". Others would argue for a lower figure, particularly the late Matt Simmons, who suggested that Saudi reserves were overestimated and that production would peak soon. Simmons also joined a chorus of other people who are critical of the cloak of secrecy surrounding reserve figures in OPEC countries, and their unreliability. This is a fossil fuel that's pretty much the cornerstone of modern life, and OPEC countries are clearly making shit up when it comes to reported reserves.

There's a good discussion of this here: http://www.theoildrum.com/node/7149

According to the BP statistical review of world energy 2010, the big six Middle East OPEC oil producers (Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Unite Arab Emirates (UAE) and Qatar) had 743 billion barrels (Gbs) of proved oil reserves (1P) between them, representing 56% of reported proved global oil reserves. Knowledge of this bounty provides OECD governments with much comfort. The trouble is there is no chance these figures are correct.

http://www.theoildrum.com/files/MEOPEC_booked_1P.png

would be very curious to see what sanpaku/others have to say about that

lol at that graph

reserves just keep getting bigger and bigger! peak oil is a myth!

actually, i posted it w/ nearly complete disregard for her analysis. it's the most poorly written thing ive ever seen posted on major website, it's hilarious.

reax in office:
"i almost feel sorry for her having that under her byline."
"dude, she was an editor at forbes and works at foxnews business. i wouldn't feel bad if she keeled over stomping grapes."

The golden age of OPEC was really born back in 1999 when oil price plunged to an adjusted for inflation near all time low. The cheating cartel realized that if they did not ban tighter and actually cut production they would all drown in a sea of oil.

must be a straight transcription of video, right?

The recent figures for OPEC oil reserves may be close to correct, but the important thing to note is that reserves is an economic category, not a geological one. Increase the price to $300/bbl, and some marginal resources will be shifted over to the reserve category.

The OPEC reserve amendments didn't occur due to to any field discoveries, which have been anemic since the 1960s, but due to the late 80's "quota war", in which each OPEC member attempted to maximise reserves to increase their OPEC permitted production quota.

I strongly suspect the discussions this year may be the last at which OPEC could have any influence, as Chris Skrebowski's Megaprojects database indicates there will be marked dropoffs in new production in 2012, and again in 2014. These, as always, are struggling to counteract a 4.7% depletion rate in existing oil field developments, and ramping demand from the developing world.

http://www.crudeoilpeak.com/wp-content/gallery/cache/440__640x480_megaprojects_skrebowski_aspo_usa_2007_2015.jpg

I would be on the waiting list for a mid-2012 plug-in Prius if there was one (the Volt only makes 40 mpg). At present, my adaptations are limited to CFLs/conservation, learning composting/gardening, and searching for a first home in a walkable neighborhood.

I was interested in converting my Prius to all-electric and then I found out the electric battery takes up the ENTIRE TRUNK. uh, no.

With regard to Saudi spare capacity, a bullish (on price) commenter had this to say today (edited):

When the Kingdom announced a target of 12.5 MILLION barrels of capacity, they actually committed funds to develop that capacity and we’ve seen them now commissioning those: 250,000 additional barrels in Shaybah; 1.2 MILLION barrels in Khurais; 500,000 in Khursaniyah; 900,000 coming on stream in a couple of years in Manifa. So these are real projects and real capacities.

It must be at least 6 years, perhaps 7 since the Saudis said that their decline rate was 600,000 barrels a day each year.

So in the last 6 years they have lost about 3.6 million a day due to declines.

During that time according to this they have brought on line around 2 million of new projects, and perhaps with reworks and infill drilling they may be treading water.

I suspect much of their 2010 spare capacity of around 2-2.5 mbbl/d is already committed to ameliorating Libya shortfalls. They're mostly trying to jawbone futures traders out of long positions (much like the purely verbal "strong dollar" policy of the U.S. Treasury).

Also, U.S. media follows Cushing WTI (which is supressed by Canadian inflows and no additional outflows). The Pros follow Brent (which most oil, including that produced offshore Louisiana, is priced off).

http://freeserv.dukascopy.com:8080/ChartServer/chart?stock_id=504&interval=86400&points_number=100&view_type=line&width=460&height=320&show_labels=true&osc_type=-1&rfi=false&osc_height=100&p1=2&p2=3&p3=7&c=5172220
http://freeserv.dukascopy.com:8080/ChartServer/chart?stock_id=505&interval=86400&points_number=100&view_type=line&width=460&height=320&show_labels=true&osc_type=-1&rfi=false&osc_height=100&p1=2&p2=3&p3=7&c=5172139

These were supposed to post above.
http://i52.tinypic.com/iqfmmu.png
http://i51.tinypic.com/2j4efxz.png

The Saudi announcement had the desired effect of suppressing WTI, which matters to commodity speculators and a few refineries in the U.S. midcontinent/midwest. The rest of the worlds (including other U.S.) petroleum supply is traded at fixed discounts/premiums to Brent, which just didn't give a fuck.

xp shakey:
It seems unlikely that battery volume/weight will ever be comparable to that of combustible liquids of equal energy content. The redox reaction of chemical batteries obliges them to contain their own oxidizer, whereas atmospheric oxygen provides ~3/4 of the reactants in internal combustion engines.

Electric cars can otherwise be more efficient, but the volume/weight for the "fuel tank" will likely always seem huge. The Chevy Cruize Eco wrings 40 miles out of 6 lbs of fuel. The Chevy Volt (on the same chassis) requires about 385 lbs of battery pack for the same distance.

Since we were recently talking about this, here's another article about Saudi Arabia's ability to ramp up production: http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/06/13/us-energy-summit-goldman-idUSTRE75C44V20110613

Saudi Arabia's cushion of spare oil capacity would shrink to almost nothing if the kingdom quickly ramps up to 10 million barrels per day (bpd), Goldman Sachs' global head of commodities research said on Monday.

Last week the kingdom said it would unilaterally produce as much oil as the market needed after the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries failed to reach agreement as a whole on output policy.

Saudi newspaper al-Hayat reported Saudi Arabia would boost output to 10 million bpd in July, which Jeff Currie of Goldman Sachs said would leave only 500,000 bpd spare.

"If you get up to (10 mln bpd) you start to really create a very tight market relative to spare capacity," he told the Reuters Global Energy and Climate Summit.

Wow, didn't realize DVRs sucked up so much energy!

http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/dvrenergy.jpg

In 2010, set-top boxes in the United States consumed approximately 27 billion kilowatt-hours of electricity, which is equivalent to the annual output of nine average (500 MW) coal-fired power plants. The electricity required to operate all U.S. boxes is equal to the annual household electricity consumption of the entire state of Maryland, results in 16 million metric tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, and costs households more than $3 billion each year.

NRDC report

Hard drives are hot, and in DVRs they are almost always running.

http://www.desmogblog.com/talisman-energy-targets-children-friendly-fracosaurus-gas-coloring-book

haha this is so funny I want to kill myself

FWIW, here's what petroleum engineer acquaintance had to say about fraccing:

Poor cement jobs are basically the cause of all subsurface contamination and even the BP blow out. Don't worry about your state's fraccing laws as much as its cement laws. The main things you want are requirements to run "cement bond logs" and to "cement to surface". There ain't no way in fuck that fractures are traveling upwards thousands of feet through rock. Two nuclear bombs being set off at the same time managed 500 feet. All tools used to measure fracture growth run on tens of thousands of frac jobs have never seen vertical growth past a couple hundred feet and those are considered failures.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQqDS9wGsxQ

just posted this on the economic shitbin thread, but thought i'd put it here too

It won't kill you, ergo...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k8X8_wUoiq0

The next entry in NYT's excellent series of articles about fracking, Drilling Down ,is out, and it addresses something that Sanpaku's petroleum engineer acquaintance said ("There ain't no way in fuck that fractures are traveling upwards thousands of feet through rock") a few posts above:

For decades, oil and gas industry executives as well as regulators have maintained that a drilling technique known as hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, that is used for most natural gas wells has never contaminated underground drinking water.

The claim is based in part on a simple fact: fracking, in which water and toxic chemicals are injected at high pressure into the ground to break up rocks and release the gas trapped there, occurs thousands of feet below drinking-water aquifers. Because of that distance, the drilling chemicals pose no risk, industry officials have argued.

“There have been over a million wells hydraulically fractured in the history of the industry, and there is not one, not one, reported case of a freshwater aquifer having ever been contaminated from hydraulic fracturing. Not one,” Rex W. Tillerson, the chief executive of ExxonMobil, said last year at a Congressional hearing on drilling.

It is a refrain that not only drilling proponents, but also state and federal lawmakers, even past and present Environmental Protection Agency directors, have repeated often.

But there is in fact a documented case, and the E.P.A. report that discussed it suggests there may be more. Researchers, however, were unable to investigate many suspected cases because their details were sealed from the public when energy companies settled lawsuits with landowners.

Current and former E.P.A. officials say this practice continues to prevent them from fully assessing the risks of certain types of gas drilling.

colonel tigh could not be reached for comment

The point wrt to hydraulic fracturing I related above is that its not the propagation of frac liquids through fractures per se that poses the threat to shallow aquifers, but inadequate cement jobs (ala Deepwater Horizon) that permit the frac liquid to run up the annular space around the wellbore. Require cement logs (perhaps with independent or government assessment) of all wells prior to hydraulic fracturing, and then presumably the likelihood of ingress would be minimized.

tbf sanpaku that sounds like exactly the kind of received wisdom that gets passed around until it's proven not true anymore, like arson investigators in texas. I'm not saying that it is, but adamant repudiation from experts is no guarantee of anything.

even if it does turn out that fracking is an issue that can be largely addressed by improved processes and safeguards, that just highlights the dire need for it to be strongly and consistently regulated, aka, the opposite of now

so the us energy department is 'cautiously recommending' fracking

http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/the-monitors-view/2011/0811/Yes-let-s-frack-with-caution

yet a recent, peer reviewed study from duke university has found evidence of methane contamination of wells in areas with fracking

http://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/2011/0509/Fracking-for-natural-gas-is-polluting-ground-water-study-concludes

good job guys

(last thread spam, promise)

Some of you may have heard about the Tar Sands protests at the White House, running every day from Aug 20th - Sept. 3rd. 322 arrests have been made so far.

The media coverage is starting to pick up steam:

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2011/08/tar-sands-xl-keystone-pipeline-protest.html
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/08/why-far-off-canadian-tar-sands-have-become-a-make-or-break-issue-for-obama-with-enviros.php?ref=fpb
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0811/61837.html#ixzz1W4D5RzZZ

If any of you are willing to join me on Sept. 3rd, here's a pretty detailed account of what you're in for:

http://www.tarsandsaction.org/adam-maynard-we-shall-overcome-tar-sands/
http://www.tarsandsaction.org/update-from-legal-support-team/

"Processing once we arrived at the jailhouse was relatively painless. One by one they snapped off our plastic cuffs and led us to a long table staffed with officers who had us fill out paperwork for our release. Because of the low severity of our crime – we were charged with failure to obey a lawful order (aka get off the sidewalk) – and the benevolence of the Park Police, we were granted a “post and forfeit” release. Under these terms we could pay a $100 fine instead of staying overnight in jail and arranging a date in court. Thankfully we were instructed to have cash on us beforehand, and we were all out of police custody by 2:00 or so. Not so bad considering arrests had started around 11:30. I also want to make a point of saying that the DC Park Police were courteous and professional throughout the process, and I hope they spend my $100 wisely."

After being relative assholes on the first day (the Park Police decided to try to deter future protesters by holding them for 2 days overnight in jail), all of the protesters are now getting charged with "Failure to Obey" (a traffic charge less than a misdemeanor) and a "post and forfeit" release, which entails a $100 fine and an immediate release.

Sept. 3rd is the last day of the protests, and will probably have the most people and the most coverage. If any of you want to kick it in the paddywagon with me for an hour or so on the 3rd I'd welcome your company. Or, of course, if you can make it on any other day, even just to register your support (no arrest/fine), please do.

so anyway...

nice piece by kevin drum here. nothing new, really, but it's a nice brief summary that will reach a much greater audience than oildrum.com stuff ever does.

Basically, we're stuck with two stubborn observations. First, world demand for oil is very near its production ceiling, which means that even small increases in demand (or small disruptions in supply) now result in large oil price spikes. And increases in demand are inevitable every time the economy starts growing even modestly. Second, even small increases in the price of oil cause large GDP losses. Price spikes of 20 to 30 percent are likely to be common in the future as we periodically bump up against production ceilings, and if Hamilton's model is correct, this will produce subsequent declines in GDP of 3 to 5 percentage points. That's huge. The effect on world GDP may be less pronounced, but it will still be significant.

If this model is accurate—and if the ceiling on global oil production really is around 90 mbd and can be expanded only slowly—it means that every time the global economy starts to reach even moderate growth rates, demand for oil will quickly bump up against supply constraints, prices will spike, and we'll be thrown back into recession. Rinse and repeat.

Ruffalo's Tar Sands protest video was posted on the Mark Ruffalo thread :)

i think i've said this before but larry elliot predicted a few months ago that near-term the price of oil would be around $80/barrel (because of the "coming recession" as he put it then) and long-term, $300/barrel

mazeltov

Ruffalo's nice and all, but the real reason that I'm doing it is the potential presence of Danny Glover

I wouldn't worry. The Enbridge Northern Gateway pipeline from Alberta to Kitimat, B.C.will ensure that the ultimate onus for oil sands related climate change will fall upon the Chinese rather than the great South. The US will (desperate to keep its 70 year malinvestment in suburbs viable) end up sourcing from liquids sources with still higher carbon costs like Fischer-Tropsch gas-to-liquids and coal-to-liquids. Progressives will continue their opposition to actual low carbon energy like offshore-wind and 4th gen nuclear, at least those who aren't starving.

i'll just go back to sitting on my hands then, thanks!

progressives oppose off-shore wind? huh

still don't know why we haven't filled the chihuahua desert with mirrors and gotten on with our lives

Desert tortoises might be impacted. As for offshre wind, self-idntified environmentalists want it off somebody else's shore.

Barring environmentalists purchasing Suncor, Syncrude, etc. the Athabasca oil sands will be produced, and its eminently plausible that producers will eventually place some Candu reactor to produce steam should carbon taxes become high enough. I'm just much less concerned about this than the concurrent attempts to build NW export terminals for powder river coal, which gets a small fraction of the press and which could be an order of magnitude more important as emissions go.

^mea. Ulpa on typos. Posting from ipad in sickbed.

Yep, agreed that RFK Jr.'s opposition to offshore wind is/was impossibly frustrating. And yeah, agree that the PRB coal terminals to China are just as likely to push us over the tipping point than the exploitation of tar sands, if not more so. but the presence of other energy/climate debacles doesn't mean that protests against Keystone XL are pointless or misguided. you have to go to where the energy is (no pun intended), and if a bunch of prominent environmental leaders, activists, organizations and danny glover are rallying around the largest display of green civil disobedience in 20 years and putting pressure on the Obama administration to exhibit a hint of global leadership on this cause, that's worth supporting.

I was under the impression that opposition to offshore wind power was largely the result of astroturfing by oil companies.

would like to setup a script so that whenever anyone on the internet posts something similar to "if only obama would support domestic drilling, THEN we'd have lower gas prices!!!", this image is automatically posted in response:

http://a5.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc7/298734_10150284423800959_638030958_7862025_1975161_n.jpg

He or whomever succeeds him needs to say "enough is known about the geology of the US to say with some confidence, that all the "easy" oil, save a few spots around Alaska, is gone. All that's left is low flow rate shale beds, small satellite deposits, and very deep water, none of which are economic at <$3/gal gas. The throughput possible if all of these were put into production isn't enough to budge global supply by more than a few percent a year, a supply that will be rapidly absorbed by developing market demand in a couple of years even at current prices. The east coast and west coast north of Los Angeles haven't been drilled not because they've been off limits, but because oil companies found them to be non-prospective (source rocks hadn't been buried deep enough for maturation) before the Federal Government put them off limits. All of the oil with positive energy return on energy invested will be produced someday, including ANWR, but its best for our grandchildren to keep some in reserve till later this century when it will be deperately needed as a chemical feedstock, rather than to be merely blow it out the exhaust of present day commuter's SUVs."

tl, dr

lol sanpaku, presidential speechwriting is not your thing.

also dude, a few environmental purists who care (too much) about the desert tortoise /= "progressives"

none of which are economic at <$3/gal gas

This is the key point that needs to be made. The fact that far from reducing gas prices, building the infrastructure for unconventional oil actually locks us into a dependency on a source of fuel that MUST be expensive.

I made a very similar point in a facebook note I posted a few hours ago (the ultimate tl;dr) explaining my arrest this coming Saturday at the Tar Sands action.

For all the effort that Obama apparently makes toward being perceived as the Adult in the Room, he needs to speak honestly about our energy options.

posting this on a friday night probably guarantees zero response, but this seems big

A study from the National Center for Atmospheric Research finds that models the impact of replacing the use of coal with natural gas and takes into account the leakage of methane during production finds that the conception of natural gas as a "bridge fuel" to mitigate climate change is wrong.

http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/coal-v-methane.jpg

We consider a scenario where a fraction of coal usage is replaced by natural gas (i.e., methane, CH4) over a given time period, and where a percentage of the gas production is assumed to leak into the atmosphere. The additional CH4 from leakage adds to the radiative forcing of the climate system, offsetting the reduction in CO2 forcing that accompanies the transition from coal to gas. We also consider the effects of methane leakage from coal mining; changes in radiative forcing due to changes in the emissions of sulfur dioxide and carbonaceous aerosols; and differences in the efficiency of electricity production between coal- and gas-fired power generation. On balance, these factors more than offset the reduction in warming due to reduced CO2 emissions.

any reactions? if this is true, this is very, very very important.

important caption to the chart that I neglected to include:

Note this is a figure of temperature change relative to baseline warming of roughly 3°C (5.4°F) in 2100.

bumping this because it was the middle of night last night and i'm curious to hear feedback.

If I'm reading it correctly, current methane leakage from natural gas production is quoted as 2.4% in the article, which makes the 2.5 orange line applicable. So substitution of gas for coal would lead to worse than baseline outcomes till 2055, but better outcomes thereafter for the next 145 years of the model. Forr the unitiated, uncombusted methane/natural gas is about 20x more potent a greenhouse gas, but has a much shorter atmospheric residence time, a few decades rather than the centuries for carbon dioxide.

So, if the quality of environment for every future generation is equally weighted, AND the choice is just btween natural gas and coal, then natural gas seems to come out ahead. If only the lifetimes of the currently living is considered, than coal has a slight advantage in climate (though not particulate and heavy metals) emissions.

The real problem with natural gas is that after the shale land rush, drillers were forced by lease stipulations to drill leases in order to retain them. This has forced natural gas below economic break-even for shale resources (around $6/mcf), and also below the $8/mcf at which some renewables (wind, geothermal, but probably not ev or thermal solar) become competitive. Ideally, government would tax / credit, or set quotas (as the Texas Railroad commission did to support crude oil prices when Texas was the world's marginal producer pre-1970), so that renewables could exist without fickle subsidies.

2.4% methane leakage seemed to be the rock bottom conservative estimate, with a strong possibility of much higher figures (2 to 3 times higher).

So, if the quality of environment for every future generation is equally weighted, AND the choice is just btween natural gas and coal, then natural gas seems to come out ahead. If only the lifetimes of the currently living is considered, than coal has a slight advantage in climate (though not particulate and heavy metals) emissions.

heh, if the well-being of future generations was equally weighted with the well-being of today's population (effectively, a 0% discount rate), today's policies would be quite different! of course, we heavily weight toward ourselves, which is natural i suppose. i don't think the researchers intent was to make people see coal as the "winner" between natural gas and coal, but rather that they're both losers. coal consumption is the greatest driver of the mess we're in, and natural gas, far from being a "bridge fuel" to some sort of sustainable future, is actually worse over the next 100 years. that's a significant finding, if it's true. to me, the conclusion isn't "we have to choose between coal or natural gas, so let's go with coal i guess" but "coal and natural gas are BOTH terrible, so we need to ramp up clean energy, conservation and energy efficiency as quickly as humanly possible".

meanwhile, Exxon is heavily investing in drilling sites that are opening up because of global warming.

Despite the varying accounts of the overall potential value of the agreement, a fact sheet released by the companies indicated an initial commitment to invest $3.2 billion in exploration in the Kara Sea, the body of water between the northern coast of European Russia and the Novaya Zemlya island chain.

Once seen as a useless, ice-clogged backwater, the Kara Sea now has the attention of oil companies. That is partly because the sea ice is apparently receding — possibly a result of global warming — which would ease exploration and drilling.

...the United States Geological Survey estimates that the Arctic holds one-fifth of the world’s undiscovered, recoverable oil and natural gas.

"possibly a result of global warming"? fucking new york times. anyway, $3.2 billion is just the investment they've already committed to. Exxon itself expects to spend at least "tens of billions", and the initial Russian reports quoted Putin as stating figures up to the insane FIVE HUNDRED BILLION DOLLARS.

in some slightly more upbeat news:

http://www.itworld.com/data-centerservers/202221/softbank-founder-backs-japans-shift-renewable-energy

Masayoshi Son, founder and CEO of Softbank, spoke at the launch of his Japan Renewable Energy Foundation. He said Japan could shift to renewable energy sources for 60 percent of its electricity requirements over the next two decades, calling for a 2 trillion yen (US$26 billion) "super grid" across the country, and underwater off the coast, that would zip electricity around cheaply and efficiently to meet demand.

no idea how realizable this plan is but it's good to see that it's at least on the table, with a wealthy backer

http://climaterealityproject.org/

xpost to dayo,

very realisable. Japan is current world leader in grid scale energy storage.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/19/world/asia/chinese-protesters-accuse-solar-panel-plant-of-pollution.html

darker side of solar panel production

I heard a 'stat' a long time ago that claimed it takes much more energy to produce a solar panel than the solar panel will make in its lifetime. how true is that?

also depressed that once again, china is the dumping ground of the_west

I heard a 'stat' a long time ago that claimed it takes much more energy to produce a solar panel than the solar panel will make in its lifetime. how true is that?

not true for either of the two primary solar power systems, Photovoltaic (PV) or Concentrating Solar Power (CSP)

for solar PV, the Dept. of Energy says:

Energy payback estimates for rooftop PV systems are 4, 3, 2, and 1 years: 4 years for systems using current multicrystalline-silicon PV modules, 3 years for current thin-film modules, 2 years for anticipated multicrystalline modules, and 1 year for anticipated thin-film modules (see Figure 1).

In other words, DOE is estimating that it currently takes between 1 to 4 years to recover the energy that went into making the PV systems. DOE is also assuming that the life expectancies of the PV systems are 30 years. If that's the case, a PV system with an energy payback estimate of 2 years would end up generating 15 times as much energy over 30 years as compared to the initial amount invested.

for CSP, estimates vary (as usual), but trade associations have put the energy payback at about 5 months. of course, the Solar Energy Industries Association is likely to be on the optimistic side of things, but generally CSP is seen as a very efficient energy source.

The important thing to keep in mind is that solar technology is developing so rapidly that the energy payback for PV and CSP has substantially improved (for example, in 2000 the estimated energy payback period for Solar PV was about 10 years; now DOE conservatively pegs it at 1 to 4 years) and will continue to improve in the future as more R&D piles on and economies of scale take hold. This is in stark contrast to fossil fuels, which operate very much on a "low-hanging fruit" model - the highest quality (most energy-packed) and easiest to extract (lowest energy investment) fossil fuels were exploited a long, long time ago. nowadays, we're drilling in the fucking arctic and blowing up mountaintops just to get to the stuff. A good example of this is U.S. oil. In the early days (think There Will Be Blood), the Energy Returned Over Energy Invested (EROEI) was around 100:1 - that is, you'd get 100 times as much energy from the easy to extract oil gushers than it would take to extract. Nowadays, that number is anywhere between 5:1 - 15:1, depending on where it's extracted. And that ratio will continue to decline.

aw man thanks for that - will whip those facts out at appropriate times. holy shit @ declining EROEI. gonna take that to the suburbs thread

it's not the prettiest graphic, but:

http://i53.tinypic.com/s15m52.png
Figure 5.5. “Balloon graph” representing quality (y graph) and quantity (x graph) of the United States economy for various fuels at various times. Arrows connect fuels from various times (i.e. domestic oil in 1930, 1970, 2005), and the size of the “balloon” represents part of the uncertainty associated with EROI estimates.
(Source: US EIA, Cutler Cleveland and C. Hall’s own EROI work in preparation)

dude that graph makes me so sad

ha, which part(s) of it?

the lack of effort ... looks like they just made some random-sized circles w/ text in them, c+p'd them into the graph and them resized them all willy-nilly

spend more than ten minutes on the graph OR get an intern who can figure out omnigraffle or whatever

lol

i thought you were going to be all bummed about the difficulty of kicking the coal habit within 20-30 years (which, we pretty much have to do to avoid the worst impacts of climate change) given the relatively high EROEI of coal and the huge chunk of our energy portfolio that it serves.

but yeah, it's very possible that chart was made in MS Paint. the shapes and sizes of the circles have meaning, though - they represent uncertainty on both axes, in terms of the EROEI on the Y axis and the quantity of energy provided on the X axis.

it's not the size/shape of the "circles" that bums me out ... it's the fact that they should have put the text on afterward, not before! also poor choice of font and font size.

obviously what you are talking about is a *gigantic* bummer but i was acquainted with the magnitude of that bummer before i saw that chart

i have a question about that EROI - which externalities does it include?

probably the right ones, those dudes seem like they have pretty good credentials

i have a question about that EROI - which externalities does it include?

the methodology and the availability of good data differs for each energy source, but in general, EROEI can be defined as "the energy that one obtains from an activity compared to the energy it took to generate that energy. The procedures are generally straightforward; simply divide the Energy Gained (Out) by the Energy Used (In), resulting in a unitless ratio."

for externalities, they try to simplify things a bit by calculating EROEI at the extraction stage (for fossil fuels). For example, in one of Cutler Cleveland's studies (a leading EROEI dude, and cited underneath the terrible MS Paint graph), he says:

The EROI for petroleum and coal is calculated at the extraction stage of the resource transformation
process. Only industrial energies are evaluated: the fossil fuel and electricity used directly and indirectly
to extract petroleum. The costs include only those energies used to locate and extract petroleum and
prepare it for shipment from the lease. Transportation and refining costs are excluded from this analysis.

ok so that's a best case scenario

heh, pretty much. one of the terrible aspects of being an energy realist is that even when people are already rolling their eyes at how pessimistic you are, you have that voice in the back of your head that says "and that's the OPTIMISTIC VIEW, actually!"

yeah it's one of those subjects where if you just give people the basic numbers and facts they'll think you're a conspiracy theorist

the other subject being the suburbs

imagine if they included health/environment externalities everything in that graph would be scaled down on the y-axis but how much?

well, i'm with you that the impacts to human health and the environment are the most important externalities of fossil fuels, but it wouldn't affect the Y-axis, which measures the energy return / energy invested. a ton of coal produces about 21 gigajoules of energy, regardless of whether or not it contributes to droughts, hurricanes, rising seas, asthma, etc.

that is gross energy return ... like what if we counted the energy expenditure related to irrigation after a drought?

i realize that is farfetched right now but i have a friend working on a phd measuring the "el nino effect" on flood insurance costs in california

oh, i don't think it's a mistake at all to think about the energy it will require in the future to address climate change! it's definitely a huge factor - The Stern Report is all about the immense costs of climate change (5-20% of global GDP if we do jackshit, which is a likely scenario). The report argues that if we started NOW, stabilizing at 550 ppm would "only" cost about 1% of global GDP. and 1% global GDP entails the investment of a huuuuuuuuge amount of energy. so you're right, there's definitely an amount of energy that will be required in the future to mitigate the consequences of burning fossil fuels, and that's not included in a standard EROEI formula.

But it's difficult to measure or estimate because when considering adaptation to climate change in the future you have to introduce a load of variables and assumptions - how far into the future do you estimate, how high does the GHG ppm get, what's the level of devastation and what's our technological capacity to adapt, and so on. rather than doing that, EROEI just attempts to measure what's happening now. and even with that limitation, estimates can vary widely.

yeah my friend's study is just restricted to looking at flood insurance costs for people who live in california and whose properties abut watersheds, and all he is doing is measuring the extent to which the oscillation in cost between el nino, la nina and regular years is getting bigger (and whether it is at all) due to worse and worse swings in the cycle

another part of his study is whether people are making rational decisions based on knowledge of el nino / la nina / global warming and the unsurprising part is that they're not, they'd rather buy insurance based on ease (buy a policy and forget about it) rather than buy a policy that would allow them to change their coverage depending on weather that year.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/20/world/americas/recent-discoveries-put-americas-back-in-oil-companies-sights.html?_r=1

lol?

The challenges of tapping Brazil’s new offshore fields, located beneath 6,000 feet of water and salt beds formed by the evaporation of ancient oceans, are even greater.

sounds great. a mile under the ocean? no problem!

(sorry - this is kind of a tangent on Daniel Yergin, CERA and IHS)

first expert cited in the NYT article:

“This is an historic shift that’s occurring, recalling the time before World War II when the U.S. and its neighbors in the hemisphere were the world’s main source of oil,” said Daniel Yergin, an American oil historian. “To some degree, we’re going to see a new rebalancing, with the Western Hemisphere moving back to self-sufficiency.”

YERGIN! Yergin's was a famous asshole in Peak Oil circles during the 2000s because on the rare occasion that a media outlet managed to publish something suggesting that perhaps there might be problems with oil supplies in the future and that oil prices might go up, he would always play the attack dog and publish an op-ed a few days later saying everything will be just fine. He's the head of Cambridge Energy Research Associates (CERA), a group of consultants who make their money by telling other people with money and power what they want to hear - production will pick up soon, prices will stabilize soon, pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.

check out CERA's excellent track record over the last decade:

http://home.entouch.net/dmd/cera.h2.jpg

CERA likes to ignore all "below-ground" issues and instead focus on political factors as the primary cause of stalled rise in oil production. the "political factors" - conflicts, oil wars, libya, etc - do play a real role, of course, but it's ludicrous to ignore the underlying (no pun intended) drivers:

http://i54.tinypic.com/aonnrd.jpg

on the production side, most of the output is concentrated in a small number of field, many of which are post-peak and declining:

-*In 2007, just over half the world’s crude oil production came from 110 oil fields, with approximately one quarter from just 13 fields. There are 70,000 smaller oil fields which account for just under half of the world’s conventional crude oil production.

• By 2007, out of the world’s 20 largest producing oil fields, 17 were over 40 years old. The volume of

oil production from 16 of this group of 20 largest fields was below their historical maximum.

• The rate of decline in oilfields can be rapid. By 2007 the average post-peak production rate of decline was 6.7% per year.

`Peak Oil' Backers Don't Have Data to Support Claims, IHS Says

By Edward Klump
Feb. 13 (Bloomberg) -- IHS Inc., owner of Cambridge Energy Research Associates, said those who espouse the theory that the world's oil production has already peaked lack evidence to support their claims. "The only thing that's relevant is our data," Jerre Stead, chief executive officer at Englewood, Colorado-based IHS, said today in an interview in Houston. Believers in the so-called Peal Oil theory "don't have our data".

Stead made his comments at an industry conference hosted by Cambridge Energy Research Associates, which is headed by Daniel Yergin, the energy researcher whose Pulitzer Prize-winning book was touted as a bible of the petroleum industry. Yergin has said supposed oil shortages historically have eased as breakthroughs unlock new sources of crude.

if their data is so relevant, how come CERA has repeatedly failed to make a oil forecast that passes the laugh test?

anyway, all of that is a tangent i guess, but everytime the newspaper of record leads a story with a comment from daniel fucking yergin it makes me want to tear my hair out. i'm sure there will be more significant "discoveries" of oil ("discoveries" in scare quotes because frequently it's oil in insane locations that they knew was there but wasn't profitable to extract until they were confident that prices would remain above $80/barrel for the foreseeable future), but the real question is whether the new production can make up for the losses in production in the aforementioned giant oil fields. that is doubtful. it's like we're frantically dumping little measuring cups of water into a draining bathtub in a sisyphean effort to keep it full. and the bathtub is full of BLOOD.

okay that last sentence was a joek

haha

I immediately thought it was suspect when the times gave his title as "oil historian"

well, tbf, he did write the Pulitzer Prize winning book The Prize, which is an exhaustive account of the history of oil production and its intersection with politics. it's really good, actually! *impending wild speculation alert* unfortunately it seems like during all of the interviews with people in the oil industry to write the book he ended up drinking a ton of their kool-aid and turned into a total stooge

drank a ton of their crude-aid

that sweet, sweet crude-aid

To be fair, it's rare that anyone's price speculation is correct about anything.

i will proudly point to my own history of price speculation, as exemplified by a comment i made in early 2003 at a bar, when, just before passing out, i drunkenly slurred to my friend "price of oil...it's only going to go up...peak oil dude, it's going up...*BLURRRGHGG!!*"

in other news, the U.S. Energy Information Administration's new International Energy Outlook (IEO) is out, and yet again, it forecasts massive increases in oil consumption over the next 25 years:

http://i51.tinypic.com/19l45z.jpg

big surprise. and how will we produce enough oil to meet the increased demand? by reversing the trends of the last 40 years, that's how! take the U.S. as an example. The IEO forecasts that we'll increase our production from 9.1 million barrels/day in 2009 to 12.8 million b/d in 2035, an increase of 3.7 million b/d. 1.6 million b/d of that increase would come from conventional sources of oil, and the other 2.1 from unconventional (oil shale, etc).

focusing in on the 1.6 million b/d increase of conventional fuels. U.S. conventional oil production peaked in 1970/71. looking at the trend since then, would anyone in their right mind project an increase of oil production 25 years into the future?

http://i54.tinypic.com/xgft08.jpg

more re yergin

http://www.econbrowser.com/archives/2011/09/more_thoughts_o_4.html

Even in the absence of these facts, there's a real problem with Yergin's line of argument for the question at hand, and it troubles me because I have seen the same argument raised almost every time someone takes the skeptic's position on the question of peak oil. Suppose I was trying to convince you that you are a mortal being, and your counterargument was, "but that's what you said in 2005, and I didn't die then! You said it again in 2007 and 2009, and each time you were wrong. Why should I believe you this time?"

Perhaps acknowledging one's own mortality is a similar proposition to embracing the possibility that global oil production need not continue to rise forever.

and for those that thirst for even more yergin rebuttals:

The Oil Drum - Peak Oil - Now or Later? A Response to Daniel Yergin

feel like TOD could permanently hire someone whose only task would be to rebut Yergin

yergin get beat

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/27/business/energy-environment/in-north-dakota-wasted-natural-gas-flickers-against-the-sky.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all

thank u fracking

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/07/business/us-says-some-chinese-subsidies-violate-trade-rules.html

God forbid a country spend money on supporting renewable energy.

this whole article is just ugh

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204226204576602524023932438.html

I can't even get through a WSJ article anymore, even when I navigate their expecting to be outraged. it's fucked up.

meanwhile, there's been some crazy news leaking out regarding the Keystone XL pipeline in recent weeks, in particular the way that Dept of State has been handling the hearings and environmental impact statement (EIS).

- it turns out that the company that conducted the EIS for the Dept of State, Cardno Entrix, works very closely with TransCanada, the fuckers that want to build the pipeline. In fact, TransCanada is one of Cardno Entrix's biggest clients. CONFLICT OF INTEREST
- in fact, it turns out that Dept of State let TransCanada manage the entire bidding process for the EIS, and TransCanada recommended Cardno Entrix for the contract! ENORMOUS CONFLICT OF INTEREST

McKibben:

In other words: The pipeline company recommended the firm they wanted to review them, a firm that listed the pipeline company as one of their major clients. Perhaps—just perhaps—that explains why the review found that Keystone XL would have “limited adverse environmental impacts,” a finding somewhat at odds with the conclusion of 20 of the nation’s top scientists who wrote the president this summer to say it would be an environmental disaster.

And perhaps it’s why the report notes only briefly in an addendum the disastrous spill of tar sands oil in the Kalamazoo River last year—35 miles of the river remains closed, and so far the taxpayers have shelled out $500 million to help clean up. Is there any way (besides reading the newspapers and talking to local officials) that Cardno Entrix could possibly have known about the Kalamazoo spill? Well yes. Cardno Entrix—get ready for it—was in fact hired by that pipeline company to assess the damage of that spill.

- Finally, Cardno Entrix administered the Dept of State hearings through the Midwest (every state that the pipeline passes through has an official hearing on the issue).

- Added to that is the long-known news that the primary lobbyist for TransCanada, Paul Elliot, was also a primary advisor for Hilary Clinton during her 2008 run for president. Now he's lobbying for her to grant the Keystone XL permit. What does the U.S. govt have to say about this?

this:

Kerri-Ann Jones, assistant secretary at the Bureau of Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs, said following public hearings regarding the pipeline in Washington that the State Department was committed to an impartial and transparent review of the pipeline.

"Past relationships are not of importance," she said in response to queries about Elliot.

FUCK

Sorry, "McKibben" above should read "Bill McKibben and Naomi Klein", since I guess they co-wrote the article. Another quote:

This is quite possibly the biggest potential scandal of the Obama years. But there’s a danger that it will go ignored for three reasons

First, it’s so incredibly blatant that it’s hard to believe—neither of us are naifs, but we are still astonished that they’d show their industry bias this clearly. There were plenty of other signs, of course—emails released last week, for instance, showed Department officials cheerleading for the pipeline. But the Entrix connection is truly mind-boggling. It’s the kind of thing Dick Cheney might have done, on a particularly sloppy day.

not to mention that an oil leakage from a similar pipeline, that happened a year ago, is still being cleaned up and costing much more than they thought it would

http://www.freep.com/article/20111008/NEWS05/110080367/EPA-orders-Enbridge-do-more-oil-spill-cleanup-Kalamazoo-River

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-10-18/animal-fat-replaces-crude-oil-in-f16s-as-biofuels-head-to-war-commodities.html

The U.S. Air Force is set to certify all of its 40-plus aircraft models to burn fuels derived from waste oils and plants by 2013, three years ahead of target, Air Force Deputy Assistant Secretary Kevin Geiss said. The Army wants 25 percent of its energy from renewable sources by 2025. The Navy and Marines aim to shift half their energy use from oil, gas and coal by 2020.
“Reliance on fossil fuels is simply too much of a vulnerability for a military organization to have,” U.S. Navy Secretary Raymond Mabus said in an interview. “We’ve been certifying aircraft on biofuels. We’re doing solar and wind, geothermal, hydrothermal, wave, things like that on our bases.”

What a bunch of hippies!

But yeah, I do think the military's embrace of clean energy is a powerful argument to make with a subset of people who don't gone a shit about the environment or the wellbeing of humanity but might care about the natl security significance

um now what

http://www.smu.edu/News/2011/geothermal-24oct2011.aspx

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/08/science/earth/inquiry-into-keystone-xl-pipeline-permit-process.html?ref=us

Obama's gonna wait to make this decision until it is most politically expedient

TV news screen in office elevator mentioned oil pipeline protest yesterday morn, I smiled a secret "ilxor in the news" smile.

the actual planned protest (circling the white house, we had about 13K people, awesome) went very well, but i was a little bummed that none of the coverage seemed to mention the spontaneous takeover of the streets that happened directly afterward with hundreds of people carrying a giant mock pipeline around various streets in downtown DC, walking up to the American Petroleum Institute and creating a ruckus. that was pretty much the most amazing and joyous part of the entire day, and it was so great to see various bystanders cheering us on, like the fire department, bus drivers, and so on.

http://i41.tinypic.com/73f3wl.jpg

World headed for irreversible climate change in five years, IEA warns

http://www.threadbombing.com/data/media/31/OMFG.jpg

Keystone XL Tar Sands Pipeline delayed!

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/11/10/us-usa-pipeline-idUSTRE7A64O920111110

would have preferred a denial of the permit rather than a delay, but still, this is fucking awesome

that's good... I guess? like I noted above about O making this decision when it's politically expedient, after he wins election he won't have anything to lose (politically anyway) by approving the pipeline. environmentalists will have zero leverage against him.

so I dunno.

yeah, definitely. with all of the momentum built up now in opposition, the landscape in early 2013 is bound to be more favorable for him, if he wants to please Big Oil. which, let's face it, he will.

but i think it's about the most favorable thing that was likely to happen right now. as much as i believe that he should reject it right now, it was exceedingly unlikely that he ever would.

A pair trade for the cynical:

short: TransCanada (Keystone XL pipeline to U.S.)
long: Enbridge (Northern Gateway pipeline to China)

good, long article by naomi klein at the nation.

This is where the intersection between hard-right ideology and climate denial gets truly dangerous. It’s not simply that these “cool dudes” deny climate science because it threatens to upend their dominance-based worldview. It is that their dominance-based worldview provides them with the intellectual tools to write off huge swaths of humanity in the developing world. Recognizing the threat posed by this empathy-exterminating mindset is a matter of great urgency, because climate change will test our moral character like little before. The US Chamber of Commerce, in its bid to prevent the Environmental Protection Agency from regulating carbon emissions, argued in a petition that in the event of global warming, “populations can acclimatize to warmer climates via a range of behavioral, physiological, and technological adaptations.” These adaptations are what I worry about most.

How will we adapt to the people made homeless and jobless by increasingly intense and frequent natural disasters? How will we treat the climate refugees who arrive on our shores in leaky boats? Will we open our borders, recognizing that we created the crisis from which they are fleeing? Or will we build ever more high-tech fortresses and adopt ever more draconian antiimmigration laws? How will we deal with resource scarcity?

We know the answers already. The corporate quest for scarce resources will become more rapacious, more violent. Arable land in Africa will continue to be grabbed to provide food and fuel to wealthier nations. Drought and famine will continue to be used as a pretext to push genetically modified seeds, driving farmers further into debt. We will attempt to transcend peak oil and gas by using increasingly risky technologies to extract the last drops, turning ever larger swaths of our globe into sacrifice zones. We will fortress our borders and intervene in foreign conflicts over resources, or start those conflicts ourselves. “Free-market climate solutions,” as they are called, will be a magnet for speculation, fraud and crony capitalism, as we are already seeing with carbon trading and the use of forests as carbon offsets. And as climate change begins to affect not just the poor but the wealthy as well, we will increasingly look for techno-fixes to turn down the temperature, with massive and unknowable risks.

As the world warms, the reigning ideology that tells us it’s everyone for themselves, that victims deserve their fate, that we can master nature, will take us to a very cold place indeed. And it will only get colder, as theories of racial superiority, barely under the surface in parts of the denial movement, make a raging comeback. These theories are not optional: they are necessary to justify the hardening of hearts to the largely blameless victims of climate change in the global South, and in predominately African-American cities like New Orleans.

Heard about an optimistic film Carbon Nation via Jim Puplava's Financial Sense Newshour yesterday. Thought Z S and others here might be interested:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eLs73KJI36w

thanks for sharing that, Sanpaku. i think it's sad that so many people don't understand the scientific method, but there are so many reasons to decarbonize the economy even if we lived in a world where climate change wasn't happening. those can be powerful arguments against people who invest 100% of their research time into reading denier garbage but 0% thinking about thinking about the benefits of moving on to the 21st century. i just hope those people can be directed to films like this.