The Energy Thread

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!