This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Guest Post: It's Official: The Economy Is Set To Starve
Submitted by Chris Martenson
It's Official: The Economy Is Set To Starve
Once a year, the International Energy Agency (IEA) releases its World Energy Outlook (WEO), and it's our tradition here at ChrisMartenson.com to review it. A lot of articles have already been written on the WEO 2010 report, and I don't wish to tread an already well-worn path, but the subject is just too important to leave relegate to a single week of attention.
Because some people will only read the first two paragraphs, let me get a couple of conclusions out right up front. You need to pay close attention to Peak Oil, and you need to begin adjusting, because it has already happened. The first conclusion is mine; the second belongs to the IEA.
Okay, it's not quite as simple as that; there are a few complexities involved that require us to dig a bit deeper and to be sure our terms and definitions are clear so that we are talking about the same things.
But if we can simply distinguish between two types of "oil" (you'll see why that term is in quotes in a second), the story becomes much easier to follow.
- "Conventional oil" is the cheap and easy stuff. A well is drilled, pipe is inserted and oil comes up out of the ground that can be shipped directly to a refinery. Whether the oil is "sour" or "sweet" doesn't matter; it's still conventional oil.
- "Unconventional oil" refers to things like tar sands, ultra-deep-water oil, coal-to-liquids, oil shale, and natural gas liquids. In other words, oil that is much more difficult and expensive to produce.
The IEA has been producing annual reviews of the world energy situation for a long time and has not mentioned the term "Peak Oil" (as far as I know) until this year's report. And not only did they mention it, they said that as far as conventional oil goes, it's in the rear view mirror:
Crude oil output reaches an undulating plateau of around 68-69 mb/d by 2020, but never regains its all-time peak of 70 mb/d reached in 2006, while production of natural gas liquids (NGL) and unconventional oil grows quickly.
WEO 2010 - Executive Summary
I might quibble that the all-time peak remains 2005 in the US Energy Information Agency data set, but the main point here is that the IEA has not only used the words "Peak Oil" (finally!) but they've done so in the past tense, at least with regard to conventional oil.
The IEA now sees all forms of oil, conventional and unconventional, hitting a high of 99 million barrels per day (mbd) by 2035 (including 3 mbd of 'refinery gains'). Of course, we may wish to take even this tepid estimate of growth in oil supplies with a grain of salt, because in every annual report, like clockwork, the IEA has been ratcheting down its estimate of how much oil we'll have in the future:
Assuming that this trend will continue, our prediction is that next year the estimate of future oil supplies will be ratcheted down one more notch. Perhaps by another 6 mbd, to match the difference between the 2009 and 2010 reports?
It's when we eyeball the graph that shows us the breakdown in petroleum sources by type that a few important details jump out at us:
First, pay close attention to the legend for the chart. Starting at the bottom, note that crude oil from "currently producing fields" (dark blue) is already in sharp decline and is expected to decline from a high of 70 mbd in 2006 to ~15 mbd in 2035; a loss of 55 mbd over 25 years, or 2.2 mbd per year. The next band up (gray) is crude oil from "fields yet to be developed," which we largely know about but have not yet really started producing significantly.
My only comment here is that these fields cannot overcome the expected rate of loss in the dark blue band below them. All of the conventional oil that we know about is now past peak. In order to keep conventional oil flat, we have to move up to the third band (light blue), which goes by the spine tingling name "fields yet to be found" - which will apparently be delivering a very hefty 22 mbd by 2035. In other words, the IEA is projecting that in 25 years, more oil will be flowing from "fields yet to be found" than from all the fields ever found and put into production by the year 2010.
Colin Campbell, one of the earliest analysts of peak oil who has decades of oil field experience, is on record as saying that the "fields yet to be developed" category, originally introduced to the world as unidentified Unconventional in 1998, is a "coded message for shortage" and was, off the record, confirmed as such by the IEA. That coded message is getting easier and clearer to receive by the day.
But back to the main story line. Even if the final assessment of future oil production isn't notched down even one more tick, we have all the information we need to spot an enormous problem in the global story of growth. Assuming that we stick with the 99 mbd by 2035 estimate going forward, this represents a growth rate in oil of only around one-half of one percent (0.5%) per year between now and then.
This means that over the next 25 years, the global economy will have to make do with less than half the rate of growth in oil that it enjoyed over the prior 25 years. How will the economy grow with less oil available? What will happen to the valuations of financial assets that explicitly assume that prior rates of growth stretch endlessly into the future?
To cut to the chase, the admission by the IEA that we will not be achieving past levels of energy growth should be the most gigantic red flag in history, at least to those who might care that their money or other paper-based forms of wealth be worth something in the future. What if that future growth does not emerge? What happens when the collateral for a loan goes sour? The IEA report indicates an enormous set of risks for an over-leveraged world reliant on constant growth.
The bottom lines are these:
- The IEA now admits that conventional crude oil peaked in 2006. Permanently. Any gains from here are due to contributions from unconventional oil and natural gas-to-liquids.
- Under no scenario envisioned will future growth in fossil fuel supplies be equal prior rates of growth.
- Energy from here on out is going to be (much) more expensive.
I cannot state this strongly enough: The WEO 2010 report is an official admission that Peak Oil is not only real, but it's already here.
Scouring the Globe for Fuel
"Tomorrow’s [economic] expansion was collateral for today’s debt."
~ Colin Campbell
The implications from this report are too important to preserve just
for the enrolled members who support this site's mission, people, and
goals. We're going to open up most of this report to the general public
because we feel it's the right thing to do. For those unfamiliar with
my work, the job I do most frequently is a combination of information
scout (I connect dots) and analyst (I dig deep).
Okay, let's head deeper into the World Energy Outlook (WEO) 2010 report. Here's my quick summary of the report.
By 2035:
- Between 2008 and 2035, total energy demand grows by 36%, or 1.2%
per year; far less than the 2% rate of growth seen over the prior 27
years. (Note: This comes from the "New Policies Scenario," which is
the middle scenario of three in the report. We'll discuss this one
throughout.) - Renewables will be contributing very little to the overall energy landscape, just 14% of the total, and this includes hydro.
- 93% of all the demand increase comes from non OECD countries (mainly China and India).
- Oil remains the dominant fuel (although diminishing in total percentage).
- The global economy will grow by an average of 3.2% per annum.
- It's time to cut demand for oil by raising prices (they recommend ending energy subsidies for fossil fuels as the mechanism).
- Conventional oil has peaked, and this is a permanent condition.
All oil gains from here forwards will come from non-conventional
sources and gas and coal-to-liquids programs.
There are enormous implications to that series of bullet points, if
one stops to think about them in total. One glaring difficulty in all
of this is that the IEA notes that China and India are going to consume
nearly every drop of any potential future increases in oil production.
Yet overall production is only going to grow by a meager 0.5% per year.
So how does the IEA suppose that oil growth can slow down to a paltry
0.5%/year, see China and India increase their consumption massively,
and still have everything balance out? We all know that China and India
(et al.) have been growing their oil consumption by massive percentages
in the recent past, and there's some evidence that we can expect more
of that behavior in the years to come.
In fact, this was what India's Premier told the world on November 1, 2010:
Premier Manmohan Singh told India's energy firms on Monday to scour
the globe for fuel supplies as he warned the country's demand for fossil
fuels was set to soar 40 percent over the next decade.The country of more than 1.1 billion people already imports nearly 80
percent of its crude oil to fuel an economy that is expected to grow
8.5 percent this year and at least nine percent next year.(Source)
So, yes, it's pretty much expected that China and India, et al., will be increasing their consumption by rates much (much)
higher than 0.5%, which means, logically, that some other countries
will have to consume at negative rates in order for the equation to
balance.
And this is exactly what the IEA has modeled and proposed:
I want to draw your attention to the green circles that I placed on
there. Yes, you are reading that right. To balance everything out, the
IEA has modeled the OECD as actually decreasing its consumption of coal and
oil by significant amounts (that's what a negative 'incremental demand'
requires: a decrease in current consumption). The difference is made
up from a mix of renewables, biomass, nuclear, and natural gas.
Never has such a thing happened in the entire industrial history of
the OECD. Never. There are no models or examples to follow here. No
guidance is offered to suggest how such a monumental feat will be
accomplished, beyond tossing a few more bucks at renewables, as if money
alone could correct for vast differences in energy quantity and
quality.
To suggest that the next 25 years for the OECD will be characterized
by a significant reduction in the use of the two primary industrial
fuels is an astonishing claim, and so it deserves to be carefully
examined. But, speaking bluntly, this is not going to happen.
Any suggestion that the OECD is going to reduce its use of
coal for electricity and oil for liquid fuels has to be accompanied by
evidence of massive programs of investment towards energy transitioning
that, truth be told, have to have been started a decade or more before
the arrival of Peak Oil. Hinting that it might possibly be a good idea
to move these renewable dreams to the drawing board after the advent of Peak Oil is akin to playing tunes on a sinking ship; at best, you are providing a captivating diversion.
Regardless, no such programs operating at appropriate scale are even remotely in sight.
A point that I try to make clear in my upcoming book
(due out in March 2011 from Wiley) is that such an energy transition
would be evident by such things as the trillions of dollars being
dedicated to it, by eminent domain actions to secure new land for
natural gas pipelines, and by vehicles that could run on electricity or
natural gas being churned out by the millions. While we can debate
whether we might get there someday, there can be no doubt that we are
not there today.
So if one is a card-carrying member of the mainstream media, what
does one do with such a major event as the WEO 2010 report? In the case
of the New York Times, the answer is to run a completely schizophrenic
pair of articles, but bury the supportive one deep in the "blogs"
section while placing the one that completely ignores the WEO 2010
report prominently in the business section.
The first of these two articles, separated by only a day
and centering firmly on the IEA report, is titled "Is ‘Peak Oil’ Behind
Us?" to which the article correctly answers "Yes":
Peak oil is not just here — it’s behind us already
That’s the conclusion of the International Energy Agency, the
Paris-based organization that provides energy analysis to 28
industrialized nations. According to a projection in the agency’s
latest annual report, released last week, production of conventional
crude oil — the black liquid stuff that rigs pump out of the ground —
probably topped out for good in 2006, at about 70 million barrels a day.
Production from currently producing oil fields will drop sharply in
coming decades, the report suggests.
That's pretty accurate. You'd think that such a stunning admission
by the preeminent body responsible for preparing such reports for the
OECD would have sparked a fury of investigation and maybe even
self-investigation by the New York Times, which through the years has
pooh-poohed the entire idea of Peak Oil rather religiously. But that
didn't happen.
The second article is entitled "There Will Be Fuel" and is chock full
of comforting anecdotes and quotes from oil industry executives:
Just as it seemed that the world was running on fumes, giant oil
fields were discovered off the coasts of Brazil and Africa, and
Canadian oil sands projects expanded so fast, they now provide North
America with more oil than Saudi Arabia. In addition, the United States
has increased domestic oil production for the first time in a
generation.“The estimates for how much oil there is in the world continue to
increase,” said William M. Colton, Exxon Mobil’s vice president for
corporate strategic planning. “There’s enough oil to supply the world’s needs as far as anyone can see.”
Somebody get that man a pair of glasses (!)
Seriously, any country or corporation that cannot foresee the end of
cheap and abundant oil is being run by dangerous people. To suggest
that even the most optimistic assessment of oil, which has it peaking in
2030, is too far away to begin planning for today is just silly.
Really, now...responsible planners considering major capital projects
with multi-decade life spans (which can be 30 years or more for many
things) should just ignore energy? That's the message here?
Goodness, gracious.
In fact, there are so many problems with "There Will Be Fuel" that I
hardly know where to turn to next. I suppose we could note that the
article quoted "100 years of natural gas" left in the US without
mentioning the all-important phrase "at current rates of consumption."
To those who are familiar with exponential processes, and who know that
energy consumption has been increasing exponentially for decades, such
an oversight is an enormous red flag. It betrays either ignorance or
deception on somebody's part (perhaps the editor?), and neither are
acceptable at this stage of the energy debate. Once we increase
consumption at reasonable and prior rates, that 100 years can rapidly
shrink to mere decades in a hurry.
What's the difference between "100 years of gas" and "maybe a couple of decades"? Night and day.
Next, we might note that the article goes out of its way to make the
case that "estimates for how much oil there is in the world continue to
increase," while somehow avoiding the essential point that it's not the amounts that matter, but the rates at which the oil can be coaxed to flow out of the ground. Peak Oil is, has been, and always will be about flow rates, not amounts.
For example, if the very center of the earth were entirely filled
with oil, but we could only get to it through a single, very thin tube
(limiting how fast we could pull the oil out), it wouldn't really matter
how much was there - a hundred trillion barrels could be there -
because how much we could do with it would be limited by the rate of
extraction. Exponential economic growth requires increases in fuel
consumption. It always has and it always will, until and unless a brand
new model of economics is developed.
Again, the lack of awareness of this basic concept of the difference between rates and amounts leaves the New York Times piece very much in doubt.
I could go on, but it's not all that helpful to once again catch the
New York Times playing fast and loose with the facts in order to advance
an agenda; for now, let's just observe that Peak Oil refers to a
condition where the rate of extraction cannot be increased. If
it were about amounts, then I suppose we would call it "Peak Reserves,"
but it's not, and for a reason: We care about the flow rates.
It is on this matter of flow rates that the IEA report was especially jarring and succinct: Peak Oil has happened.
At this point, it may be good to remind ourselves that last year an
IEA whistleblower said that the organization had willfully underplayed
looming shortages due to political pressures from the US.
Please read the following very carefully; it represents very
important context for what we are about to discuss next. (I'm quoting
at length because it's all essential):
The world is much closer to running out of oil than official
estimates admit, according to a whistleblower at the
International Energy Agency who claims it has been deliberately
underplaying a looming shortage for fear of triggering panic buying.The senior official claims the US has played an influential role in
encouraging the watchdog to underplay the rate of decline from existing
oil fields while overplaying the chances of finding new reserves.The allegations raise serious questions about the accuracy of the
organisation's latest World Energy Outlook on oil demand and supply to
be published tomorrow – which is used by the British and many other
governments to help guide their wider energy and climate change
policies.Now the "peak oil" theory is gaining support at the heart of the
global energy establishment. "The IEA in 2005 was predicting oil
supplies could rise as high as 120m barrels a day by 2030 although it
was forced to reduce this gradually to 116m and then 105m last year,"
said the IEA source, who was unwilling to be identified for fear of
reprisals inside the industry. "The 120m figure always was nonsense but
even today's number is much higher than can be justified and the IEA
knows this."Many inside the organisation believe that maintaining oil supplies
at even 90m to 95m barrels a day would be impossible but there are fears
that panic could spread on the financial markets if the figures were
brought down further. And the Americans fear the end of oil supremacy
because it would threaten their power over access to oil resources," he
added.A second senior IEA source, who has now left but was also unwilling
to give his name, said a key rule at the organisation was that it was
"imperative not to anger the Americans" but the fact was that there was
not as much oil in the world as had been admitted. "We have [already]
entered the 'peak oil' zone. I think that the situation is really bad,"
he added.(Source)
The idea expressed above is simple enough: The oil data has been
fudged to the upside by the IEA. Pressure has allegedly been applied
upon the IEA to paint a rosier picture than a strict interpretation of
the data would warrant. To speculate, the reason why is that there are a
host of interlocking vested interests in the financial but especially
political spheres that would find the public recognition of Peak Oil to
be disruptive and therefore unwelcome.
This is just another example of Fuzzy Numbers,
but the consequences of fibbing to ourselves about oil are far more
dire than when we lie about employment. If it weren't so serious, it
would be just another somewhat regrettable obfuscation of reality
created to serve narrow and temporal political purposes.
Note: There is a well-recorded history, going back at
least 13 years, of the IEA being fully aware of Peak Oil but bowing to
political pressure to soften the message. Read paragraphs 4 & 5 of this piece by Colin Campbell for some more essential background.
Conclusion
Here's where we are:
- The IEA has known about looming Peak Oil issues for more than a
decade and is only now explicitly recognizing the idea in their public
documents. - People inside and outside of the IEA say that the organization
has downplayed both the timing and potential severity of Peak Oil. - Peak Conventional Oil has already happened.
- Any possible growth in future oil that the IEA can envision --
and we might suspect that even this is fudged to the upside and will
retreat in subsequent reports -- is going to be almost entirely eaten up
by China and India.
What this means is very, very simple. There will be an energy crisis
in the near future that will make anything we've experienced so far
seem like a pleasant memory.
The very best personal investments you can make at this stage will
involve increasing your energy resilience. Make your house require less
heating and cooling, use the sun wherever and whenever possible, and
increase your personal storage of the fuels you use (if and when
possible).
The potential knock-on effects of less energy to the complex system
known as our economy are unpredictable in their exact details and
timing, but are thoroughly knowable via their broad, topographical
outlines. The economy will become simpler and less ordered.
»
- 31821 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
"Even if all oil was going to disappear within ten years, it wouldn't be that big of a deal. It would stunt growth, sure, but lots of factors contribute growth or lack thereof."
Look around at the natural world and tell us, in your words, how growth occurs. Hint: it's ALL about energy.
But... you're right, if all oil were to disappear it wouldn't be the end of the world. Look at Cuba, they were nearly completely cut off following the collapse of the Soviet Union. They ended up managing (avg weight loss was something like 15 lbs!). But.. it really depends on geographic location: North Korea being at the opposite end of the spectrum- it's outlook is quite dire, political structure having little to do with it. For the US, with its diabetes-ladden, aging, SUV-driving, gadget-oriented society, well, it's closer to North Korea than Cuba...
I was going to say that after all the facts presented clearly here, there will be people who argue that "it just ain't so"...
But the first post?!? Jeez.
We don't need no stinkin' oil, we got 200 years of cheap natgas
2000 years of coal and 20,000 years of slave labor BOO Yah !!!
I suppose we have almost unlimited energy resources, when the human fucking population tends to zero...
You're fucking retarded. Put on the pointy hat and stand in the corner.
Well, that was encouraging......Glad my "Cruising" days are over.
The best plan that Chris Martenson could make to face a future of peak oil would be to invest in alternative energy. How much has Chris invested in this area of his own money?
I believe his energy "investments" are the kind that one bolts to the roof and packs into the ceilings and walls ;-)
He's got some PV for juice and a solar hot-water thang going, too.
Alternative energyis a waste of time for the most part this late in the game. The eroei is extremely low, and many are worse than natural systems, like growing food and eating it. Plants evolved over millions of years to be extremely efficient solar collectors. Eating those plants has a much smaller loss in energy than converting it to some type of liquid fuel and burning it in a highly inefficient engine.
In one interview Martenson mentioned planting a grove of fruit trees. Now that's a smart investment. Proven technology that's resilient, and available to everyone at a cheap price. The solar panel industry, for example, is based on a massive supply chain that is going to crash and burn at some point. Wind and hydro are better since they've been around quite a bit longer. Anything more technofangled than those is most likely a colossal waste of resources.
They don't want to hear that. They want a "Solution" that is "Gas Tank Ready"
And no they didn't read the Hirsch report back in 2005 saying we need a 20 year start BEFORE peak to even have a chance.
As much as everyone will laugh, Carter's sweater speech was the time and we blew it.
We had "Morning in America" and it was off to the races... and HERE WE ARE.
we still had a shot for a crash course in the 1990s, under Clitton, when we had a strong dollar we could have printed to buy voltaics, push technology, microturbines, quasiturbines, direct injection, photocombustion, gasoline fuel cells, basically anything to quantum leap thermal efficiencies for a given power output as well as generate surplus electricity.
We didn't. We got fucking fat hillbilly bumblefucks and pavement apes driving SUVs and we got massive exurban McMansions and granite countertops. This squandering of the opportunity in a moment of truth is one of the great tragedies of all time and why Clitton is perhaps the worst President ever.
Trav, you are clearly the recognized expert on Peak Oil and energy demands in this board. I will address you as such. I was an ardent Peak Oil denier (what with all the oil in ANWAR and shale and deep water). Reading your clearly frustrated and pasionate comments I have a new outlook on the problem.
Now, to my question. Short of naturally occurring die-off caused by the drastic reduction of oil based industries including commercial food production. Or absolute tyrannical communism and population control in centralized population centers (think one child policy in China), what is the solution? Screaming at the top of your lungs that the house is on fire is the first step. Calling 911 and grabbing a fire extinguisher is the second.
Seriously? You mean I actually convinced someone? Wow...
What is the "solution"? Fusion power. That's it. Hail mary, deus ex machina.
Efficiency is subject to asymptotic limits.
We could take a huge leap by converting transportation from ICEs to gasoline fuel cells. The latter are substantially more efficient in terms of thermal efficiency than combustion engines. Problem is we don't have them and we don't really focus our solutions on what will give the best results. We dilly around with stupid shit like hydrogen.
Increased efficiency frees up production. The problem in such a case is Jevon's Paradox. There is no movement anywhere to conserve or forego the consumption of anything.
If we don't use it, those billion dots or chinks looking to have "the good life" like on Real Housewives will.
We will have to have absolute tyrannical control for "society" to move to conserve. We as a species are like deer on islands.
I mean, look at Bell Curve. Anyone who has a high IQ has to look at at normal distribution with a mean around 100 in the US and be scared to fucking death just by the 68/95/99 rule.
How could you possibly hope to get 50% of whites, 75% of hispanics, and 85% of blacks to go along with something? And that's just the US. If you look out over the world, average IQ is sub 100 for some entire continents. You're not going to be able to lead these horses to water.
Think Brave New World...best outcome is benevolent dictatorship. Next in line is just a creeping malaise, what I have called for and expect, i.e., sustained global recession. It will stretch out over decades. I do not expect sudden collapse.
It will look sudden in a historical or archeological sense, but to us it will seem to take generations, as all major epochal shifts do. So essentially, don't worry about it. Just don't expect, absent fusion which may or may not come soon, for things to just go back to megagrowth.
We've been 10 years away from fusion for the past 40; maybe this time we'll get there. The problem with asking for a "solution" is that physical problems like this are not amenable to strenuous wishing. Wishing harder or getting more animated won't make the universe grant your wishes.
There is some bridge technology hope in PBMR, voltaics, and wind. If you look at NASA's PVs, they are awsumz. But they cost $1M/sq' and shit. It's unclear whether via research this could be pushed down, but eventually surely it will be.
The problem really is there is no movement as a species to conserve. We seem to expect perpetual energy supply growth and demand it from "they"
Thank you for your intelligent comments. Might a possible stop gap (40 years) solution be a bridge technology such as nuclear for static energy consumption combined with CNG/LP for transportation while solar/wind/fusion become viable?
I see a more localized solution. Local small communities using locally available resources (solar/wind in the south west, wind in coastal, coal in eastern US) for micro generation independent facilities. This would require further de-regulation. As an example, in the US CNG/LP are illegal for conversion in passenger cars (Federal regulations). I would happily convert to CNG/LP (easily available in TX) if it was legal. Although most of these are not the next evolution they could serve as a stop gap measure. I am not talking exponential growth rates here. I'm talking stagflation survival.
Concentration and specialization of production (specially food) is dependent on abundant cheap energy. The lack of cheap energy would, in a true free market, fill the gap by causing locally developed production following price discovery and consumer demand. Think local farmer's markets and local micro energy producers. Sadly there is no free market anymore
Trav,
I generally agree with pretty much everything you say here. The interplay between conservation and Jevon is, I think (or maybe hope), underappreciated. The big variables are efficiency, availability of fossil, and availability of next-gen energy sources. Jevon says that we'll increase consumption as we increase efficiency, but that's only really true if efficiency begets lower cost. The flip side is that, as cost goes up, there will be a drive to increase efficiency.
So: availability of fossil goes down, cost goes up, usage is decreased, and there's an organic push ('movement as a species?') for greater efficiency to help make sure the decrease in net energy usage is less than the decrease in gross energy usage. Fine. Duh.
Increased cost of fossil should make development of next-gen sources economically viable. Nice idea, but here's the rub: next-gen sources require next-gen infrastructure, at the very least, even if generation is local. Fusion? Mucho dinero in development cost even before then. Which brings us to that pesky global recession you mention. Increased energy cost means decreased economic growth, and less money generally available to invest in huge infrastructure upgrades like this.
Getting out of this trap is going to require an entity with several of the following features:
1. The vision and political will to carry out long-term infrastructure projects.
2. The capital to invest in them.
3. The geographic density to maximize their efficiency.
4. The scientific and engineering expertise to do the job.
The US is right out: (1) is out of the question and (2) isn't looking good in the next 30 years. Maybe an oil company could do this in some high-density regions.
Who else? China? Germany? Singapore? The Saudis will be sitting on a mountain of gold by then; maybe they can buy enough talent to do the job. But they've got a demographic problem. Others?
We expect perpetual energy supply growth because that's all we've ever known. The next generation might not see it that way.
Isn't it amazing how much Kim Jung Il resembles Bono?
Kim Jung Il IS Bono
Come to think of it, you never see those two guys together. Just a coincidence? Hmm... makes you wonder.
+++ entire train of thought.
lol
aside from "traditional" horse power what else is there? I'm looking at some alternatives..there's a guy I know that has a horse ranch and races down in the charles town area. but, I mean, can I use the right amount of 'shine to get something going..just trying to diversify options...plus, riding horse...oh vey, my nuts!!
peak oil! peak food! ... sound the alarms! say the bankers
I bet you don't have a clue as to where your food comes from.
Fuck idiots and the banksters. I've got a farm!
An Aside If You don't Mind too much.....
One of the many reasons why things are so screwed up. I give you
Rep. Hank Johnson of the House Armed Services Committee
"Guam Might Tip Over"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0eTkv_DoR00
http://hankjohnson.house.gov/contact/
Peak oil is about new 'Green' job creation.
Ask Audi how that soft money campaign worked out for them.
Audi Superbowl ad Green Police
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zVhT7P0lDfI
M5
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8bbazEH8VUI
Fuck off clown cars and your desire to create fear. A car will be the last in line. Your farmers making food will be the first affected.
That Audi Superbowl ad was one of the worst I've ever seen.
I actually wrote an email to Audi USA and suggested they should add a scene where the Green Police waterboards some guy, screaming at him: "Where did you dump that soda can??"
Fucking Eco-fascists.
Yep that Audi commercial pretty much sums it up....Absolutely damn right...LOL Thank you for the links Atomizer, perfectly beautiful!!!!!
And in the distance, they heard a faint whimper. Asked what it was, the wise man said: "that's the sound of Abundance's end"
Yes, this is the crux of it. Think of how fragile our "economy" of production and consumption is right now, then take increase the costs and reduce the availability of the cheap oily juice that fuels it all. Our "abundance" may have to move from the material to the soul and heart, where being a human in itself is an abundant experience--regardless of the quanitities of "product" that we surround ourselves with. Probably a very tough transition though for most of humanity.
Organize locally for a more eco-sustainable and abundant human experience (well said SS)
I tried TM, but my growling stomach was too distracting.
When oil is being 'dug out' of the Alberta Tar Sands and altering the natural landscape and creating a clearcut that will approximate the size of Florida then I have to admit I think you are onto something about the price of energy being subsidized at the expense of the environment - forget the GOM disaster - motto of the oil companies.
I know, we need to hire a super sleuth to find Tesla's free energy project blueprints... :)
Indeed, Tesla.
“Over unity” power.
Stop killing the inventors of it & the world would turn around in a jiffy.
I do believe in questioning everything including what we were told in school... I don't know if I subscribe to the belief that oil comes from dinosaurs....
I'm so glad I didn't go to that school. Did they show you a picture book with talking Dino pop-ups?
Where did this dinosaur meme come from??
Well thats a good thing because oil does not come from decyed dinosaurs (at least very little).
Oil, coal, nat gas come from buried, decayed and cooked plant matter/phytoplankton .
Yes, there is very good evidence that some hydrocarbon chains can originate from abiotic sources but these resources are far to dispersed to recoverable. The hydrocarbons we burn are derived from mostly from plants with a few decayed dinosaurs thrown in for good measure.
And in reply to the comments above.
There is no such thing as "free Energy". We live in a universe governed by the laws of thermodynamics.
Even our universe will eventually go cold, gravity will win, mass will collapse upon itself with such force that a new "big bang" is initiated, the mass is converted into energy and the cycle repeats. But of course, the big bang part is and probably always will be debatable haha.
But nothing escapes entropy. We will soon learn this the hard way, just as our species likes it.
Abioticism seems to be founded on nothing but a raw attitude that celebrates rejection of fancy-assed theories for anything and everything that results in less license to rape and pillage.
It's true though. Crude oil is not derived from decayed organisms but rather from hydrocarbons from the earths mantle. That is why it is most often found in zones of tectonic activity, where the earths crust is weakest.
Whether that means we have reached 'peak oil' is a different matter. It does however mean that crude oil is being constantly produced.
Tell me where the zone of tectonic activity is in Texas or the Gulf of Mexico? How about Oklahoma?
If you are claiming the Gulf of Mexico is not a tectonically active zone you are clueless & quite frankly you can fuck off.
You have no right to call anyone clueless, simpleton.
No, the Gulf of Mexico sits astride a major shear zone, think Haiti. Methane seeps from the floor of the Gulf, & not just from holes drilled in it, it is tectonically active.
Before either of you bother to respond derogatively to my posts try looking into the facts first.
Physician, heal thyself.
Patently false, I am afraid, as oil digesting microbes have been found more than a kilometer under the bottom of the Atlantic, and area where new crust is being created from the mantle. This does not mean that some or all of the oil we use comes from abiotic sources, but it does mean that hydrocarbons are produced via geological processes AND that there are bacteria there to convert said oil into long chain hydrocarbons. It is certianly possible that this process is so slow that it couldn't supply grandpa's F-150 with oil each year, much less the world, but the fact is that it DOES occur. The only question now is what is the rate, and where does it accumulate?
Very good! Nice to see a spark of sense from you. THE issue is production!
I'm sure that when the next ice age passes, after the next big reset, we'll be off and running once again. None of us, however, is going to be around. And, all of our records will have long since vanished under the crushing weight of the big-recycle.
It is fatalism like that that enrages me enough that I stay up until 1:00AM when I have to go in to work the next morning.
"It is fatalism like that that enrages me enough that I stay up until 1:00AM when I have to go in to work the next morning."
I hear ya...generally I stop posting around 10:00pm...beddy bye 11:30ish.
Last I checked there were like 156 oil fired power plants around the world (surprisingly quite a few in Germany) which should be taken offline...converted to other technology...nuke, coal etc.
The wonderful attribute about oil & gas is it's portability as an energy source.
However inefficient the internal combustion engine is, the inefficiency of open wire high voltage transmission line loss, around 6-7%, must be factored into this.
I suppose my point here is...oil distillates should be used for transportation & products not burned up in power plants.
And to all the idiots who think I said ANWR is the answer...it is not what I said at all (it is one example of billions)...in my view there could be hundreds if not thousands of ANWR's out there.
The hubris of mankind has never ceased to amaze me...just as soon as the ink is dry on one scientific report stating "we know X"...along comes another in which the scientists exclaim "this changes everything we thought we knew"...LOL.
Ego, conceit, megalomania...I have no idea...but it is very observable in most things...including the discussion of "peak oil" ;-)
nmewn: Alarm bells go off for me when the concept of "scientific consensus" is introduced.
Here's a first idea, from AlGore who now recants his misplaced emphasis on corn ethanol. e.g.:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40317079/ns/us_news-environment/ or
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/11/22/report-al-gore-reverses-view-... or
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/23/al-gore-corn-ethanol-subsidies_...
(covering all spin perspectives ;-)
- Ned
[ed.-didn't see you had it below]
"Alarm bells go off for me when the concept of "scientific consensus" is introduced."
Absolutely Ned.
If wind, solar, geothermal, wave etc. were economically viable without tax subsidy I'd be all over it.
But it ain't.
Oil is the engine of growth...politicians have done a remarkable job of allowing oil exploration exactly where it's not economically viable to extract...they are assholes...a few in particular;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OrA9zj94NuU&feature=related
For myself I've looked into solar because of where I live...in the sticks...LOL...not because of it's comparable to commercial power...but because of the occasional hurricane that comes ripping through here. One of the Four in 04 that came through here cut the juice for close to a week...I can tell you...your hot water will last for quick showers about six times.
The generator works good but needs fuel (it's a portable)...the well is 220 so I would unplug the house (backfeeding 110 with the main breaker off) and fill the tank...then plug the house back in...worked Ok...after the fact I realized the water heater was 220, I could have just hooked to it for the house...doing that next time.
Got a window shaker too...I store it in the attic until needed...it get's hotter than hell after one of those comes through.
Man I veered way the hell off topic there didn't I.
By the way...lurked on the North/South Korea thread...good shit there buddy roh ;-)
Nice to see that we at ZH can help you with your sleep pattern!
I don't know if I subscribe to the belief that oil comes from dinosaurs....
It didn't. That was the comic book version.
Mostly single cell sediment. In Land Sea type of thing and about a million years of them settling on the bottom. Cover, Add LOTS of time and pressure...
Not dinosaurs...
E=mc2 the universe is energy, and will reveal it's secrets, to the worthy.
Where 'worthy' is defined as "one in possession of a centrifuge".
E=mc2 the universe is energy.
Here it is:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jy4yRrOw2Ww
At some point the lies pile up so high they begin to compost creating their own energy source...LOL.
"Now he tells us. Al Gore says his support for corn-based ethanol subsidies while serving as vice president was a mistake that had more to do with his desire to cultivate farm votes in the 2000 presidential election than with what was good for the environment."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/23/al-gore-corn-ethanol-subsidies_n_787776.html
If we don't go get it...we will never have it.
ANWR bitchez.
ANWR is a drop in the bucket, bitchez
Little better than a band-aid on a severed limb.
So I guess your saying that dinosaurs lived in the underwater trench that just spewed oil all over the gulf coast?
It was warmer back then ya know ;-)
Forgot...billions bitchez ;-)
http://www.anwr.org/case.htm
Gasp! 16 (B)illion barrels (on the high end) at ANWR?!?!?!
What are we worried about? We only use 85 (M)illion barrels per day!
... oh, wait...
ANWR is *at most* a 1mbpd resource.
that's 1/85th of current consumption.
But what's the flow rate, asswipe? If we could get it all out in 6 months, wouldn't that change everything?
Fuck you, BTW.
I JUST CITED THE FUCKING FLOW RATE TO YOU, YOU FUCKING IDIOT. 1mbpd.
8 gallons of fresh water to produce one gallon of ethanol. (input at the ethanol plant) The problem with this is that many of the water tables are already depleted to grow the crop itself (before the ethanol plant) Not mention hydrate and bathe that honest farmer who will probably only vote once.
ANWAR is not the answer, but we do need a constitutional amendment to ban politicians who have not passed college level calculus. Or have them teach their new math to us via sitcoms like futurama. (who loves al gore for some reason)
"We can burn clean coal with scrubbers to desalinate sea water to feed the ethanol refineries!"
- thats at least 7 votes right?
IS ANWAR's estimated reserves part of the recent 90% downgrade of Alaska's oils reserves?
What needs to be done is to break out the research on the other powersources that have been locked up in govt. databases and research centers because of the damage it could do to the Oil/gas economy (cold fusion, fusion, better solar panel technology, zero-point energy etc. etc.).
At some point maybe the crony capitalist "greenies" could break free of their irrational fear of "nuklear" thus decreasing the strain on supply and their long positions in oil?
Fat chance...even though even France has...oh well...LOL.
Perhaps you could tell your dipshit theory to the insurance companies that don't want to cover the construction of nuke plants without government subsidy.
Maybe you think driving nuclear waste around the country like France is a good idea in the age of terror?
Maybe you can tell us why almost every nuke plant project goes 75% over budget?
Or where we're going to find enough U232 to make nuclear viable for the Tw we need?
isn't it right about here that someone usually mentions thorium? :^)
</snarky>
i look at the average house/city/etc and the themes like the electric car push and just can't imagine not having long-term nukes somewhere in that equation. small mind, i guess.
I don't doubt we will have nukes in the mix, but I was addressing the "it's the greens" fault on two fronts...first, that they aren't the real hold-up (only fools imagine greens have any clout) and second, that they're right to be concerned.
I'm painfully ignorant on the bennies of Thorium, but I think there are probably good reasons that plants have been built with heavier radioisotopes to date.
yo snowball777,
fwiw, i wasn't targetting you specifically with the snarky thorium comment. it keeps coming up in these nuke themes, and while possibly viable (i'm not up on it either) i snicker at the persistence of the thorium flag carriers, who usually miss the core point of the conversation with their urge to somehow inject thorium into the fray.
and this thread qualifies as friggin fray! lol.
that said, it would be great if it turns out to be meaningful!
cheers
And the waste wouldn't be a problem if we were allowed to build the plant designs that reuse the fuel instead of the 1950s era model we're stuck with that chucks it in a barrel after the first run. Christ if I can see TMI from my house and not be afraid, what is the excuse for all of you anti-nuclear weasels to be so terrified of it? I think tmosley hit the nail right on the head when he suggested the presence of Malthusian crackpots. Nothing will ever be enough for any of the hate-Americans-first splinter groups.
(cold fusion, fusion, better solar panel technology, zero-point energy etc. etc.).
I want my 100 mpg carburator. AND my Flying Car.
Fusion the power source of the future(and aways will be).
Were you a science major Buck?
How up close and personal are you with the 1st,2nd, and 3rd laws of thermodynamics?
Maybe you should get reacquainted with them.
Like the law of gravity, They really really don't give a shit whether you believe in them or not.
I know, You go UP when you fall right?
Believe it or not, when you take out the spike from the 2007 commodity bubble and the crash from the 2008 credit crisis, gasoline prices in Los Angeles have been flat for nearly 5 years.
In fact, we have been under $3.00/gal. for over 2 years already
What have wages done?
How bout home values?
How bout employment?
What about the municipal debt?
Taxes?
Tuition?
We flat or what? Things are way worse than they were back then but at least we pay the same for gas.
So what you are saying Robo, is that if the global economy continues to deflate, then oil prices will remain low and thus, the economy will grow?
That pretty little chart does not include one important little ingredient, GLOBAL DEMAND. Because what happens to prices when demand falls numb nuts.
Enough with the neo-classical bullshit Robo (the momo) trader.
Prices do not reflect future scarcity. In an efficient market (producer/consumer price equilibrium) prices reflect present supply/demand.
And when people such as yourself do attempt to manipulate prices to reflect perceived future scarcity, you fuck with demand. Some refer to this is bubble economics, you practice this everday. I can not wait for the day when the speculators (you) get trampled running for the exits.
Moron...
Here goes the usual helium head "Peak Oil" supply and demand rant again.
Trying to put the masses into another trendy frenzy.
Just like a soon to be hyperinflating currency. Shortly before it can be fairly stable, and then boom it's dead.
This is a pretty limited chart, for some of the reasons mentioned above. Karl Denninger posted the key chart a couple of weeks ago, regarding total energy consumption in the U.S.. It was down very significantly; 35% if memory serves.
It's a funny thing, too. A similar thing happened to the old Soviet Union before it collapsed.
The USSR Oil Peaked in 1989...someone have a history book to tell me what happened almost immediately afterwards?
Not sure why you were junked. I didn't junk you, although I do believe that this is one-dimensional.
I've been arguing for years that price is not all that important of a gauge. If people bet that price is going up you'll find that the big players will cut jobs (as has been done); if you bet that it'll be low, the big players will crank up inflation.
Prices are staying stable as demand destruction takes place. The balance comes from job losses. As more households shed jobs there becomes less demand (less commuters).
So price has stayed stable, and usage has dropped.
Hmm. Seems to make sense to me.
Know why?
Because US consumption fell TEN PERCENT as a result of the economic 2008 collapse.
We're driving less miles. Doing less things. That's the sound of GDP dropping. The 2007 spike was caused by the peak in 2005/06
DINGDINGDING!
And the world didn't end. People didn't starve in the streets. Cats and dogs didn't start living together. Consumption simply fell. The spike in prices caused a surge of investment in alternative energy, which has netted us the world's first $1/watt production cost solar cell.
The world turns, and the world failed to end in 1939 (http://www.scribd.com/doc/16415562/1909-July-19-Titusville-Herald-Titusv...).
see, you are so dumb as to be confused.
I have at no point called for the end of the world...others may have, I am not one of them.
I have merely called for sustained global recession as a result of peak oil.
Quantify "sustained", and we can agree in principle.
There are other sources of energy, you know. And we don't know what all of them are, or will be.
sustained as in continued. It sustains. The dude abides and shit.
As long as net energy input declines, recession must continue. I mean real GDP not this phony transactional shit, btw.
I see, so you then believe that there will never be another source of energy that will ever be discovered in the forthcoming eons of human existence. Is that the case?
This is fatalism, and it is why I argue with you. You hate humanity. That is only one step away from taking action to enforce your hate upon humanity, as is often done by government.
All arguments must be reduced to first principles. You constantly fail to do that, and instead you froth at the mouth and try to confuse the issue. You pick some outlying comment and ridicule it as if it were the central thesis of the other person's entire argument. This is not how human beings should communicate with each other.
Obviously the world didn't end. That people aren't dying in the street, well, apparently you don't get out that often.
What has died is GROWTH. And we know that that's what makes the world's current system work. That it hasn't collapsed to this point doesn't mean that it won't (it will).
Piss-ant alternative energies... mostly snake oil!
Reverse economies of scale, bitches!
Now chart that in terms of gold or silver.
Deflation in real terms, bitches.
Hmm. Ever try to find out what the world's oil reserves are? Gold supply? Bullshit and propaganda is all you will find.
Supply is more of a game than Price.
ICF fusion on the grid in 25 years.
I really hope you're right about that Tokamak goodness, Fang.
I got my flag and yellow ribbon already mounted on my Escalade in anticipation for the Silk Road victory over the chinks that will surely come! USA, USA, USA!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KmsOIjzQ1V8
Call me when there is some risk of peak fire wood.
some think that's what ended the bronze age.
Get a good solar cooker and some sheep for wool. Cashmere, bitchezzzzz!!!!!!
http://www.google.com/search?q=solar+cooker&rlz=1I7GGLL_en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&sourceid=ie7#q=solar+cooker&num=10&hl=en&safe=off&rlz=1I7GGLL_en&prmd=ivs&source=univ&tbs=shop:1&tbo=u&ei=kYjsTOe_C8P88Abo4IimAg&sa=X&oi=product_result_group&ct=title&resnum=3&ved=0CEgQrQQwAg&biw=1345&bih=631&fp=ed68904dd3283f54
There is substantial evidence that this is precisely what happened.
The end of the bronze age was a worldwide economic collapse and dark ages that lasted centuries.
Any economic system requires a growth in energy inputs for it to grow. When those energy inputs no longer grow, collapse ensues.
YES, these collapses play out over decades and even centuries, but they occur nonetheless.
I'm sure it had nothing to do with the rise of complex bureaucratic warmongering governments--you know, like the fall of Rome.
The bronze age ended because the copper mining areas were distant from the tin mining areas, and once governments started trying to regulate trade, impose taxes and regulations, and set up welfare states, things when straight to shit in a hurry.
With that, you could still argue that it was a lack of firewood that precipitated the collapse. The counter to this argument is this: Bronze requires a temperature of 950 degrees C to smelt. Iron requires 1538 degrees C. If they ran out of firewood in the Bronze Age, which lasted for 2100 years, why didn't they run out in the Iron Age, which lasted Until the Romans had conquered the Western world and the Barbarians came out of the FORESTS with their iron weapons and smote them?
Honestly, are you stupid enough to think that the "bronze age" economic system revolved SOLELY around the production of bronze and NOTHING ELSE?
AGAIN, for the ELEVENTY BILLIONTH TIME, moron, Peak is NOT WHEN THINGS RUN OUT
Uhh, yeah, that was the defining characteristic of that time, just as the use of iron defined the age that came afterwards. The point is, they didn't fucking run out of energy (peak trees). Nice try at a red herring, though. Now, try reading the EIA data I posted above and see that you are totally wrong about oil production in the Middle East.
JFC, again, for the 11111111th million billionth time, PEAK IS NOT WHEN THINGS RUN OUT
That was not the central thesis of my comment.
Fine, hows this: energy input from trees didn't peak. It plateaued. The same thing will happen with the sum total of human energy inputs. The loss of energy positive oil is not the end of the world.
Ummmm, could it be that they started local transformation of matter, that through their technological levels available at that time, they depleted the close mines, had to move to extract from far and far distant mines, stretching supply lines?
As there was no IP in those days, that prisoners of war of a certain quality were offered the option of life against their knowledge, meaning diffusion of knowledge and how to do, could it be that people living near mines acquire the knowledge of and were not subjected to stretched supply lines, reducing the cost of security etc... allowing them to come out their spider hole with weapons of a certain standard?
Because your story looks like one of a region that depleted its core resources and has to rely more and more on its exterior to support itself, urging the needs of securing the supply lines, and various means to cope with the additional costs...
Copper wasn't really difficult to source for any of those civilizations, it was all over the place. It was the tin that was hard to get a hold of. The knowledge was everywhere. All of the civilizations in that area of the world had access to the know-how to make bronze. The tin mines that were used then did not run out. Many of them are still productive today.
The point of contention here is energy and its supply, not metal, which is an easily recyclable resource in times of scarcity.
Mining technology has improved so some mines have been opened again. It does not mean they did not go depleted on the days' technology.
Besides, depletion was not necessary, even though it happened. The fact they tried to expand their supply lines with the known package is an evidence they hit a peak in their energy availability.
Their difference: they were not evolving in a global environment so they could ground their hope in real effects (expansion)
I carefully read through the article, and what I DID NOT see was:
1. Estimate of price difference per-barrel for "conventional" vs. "unconventional" oil
2. Discussion, not of "peak oil" but "peak refinery capacity" which IMHO seems much more important - it is not going to get produced or pulled out of the ground if refinery capacity is not present
3. Discussion of under-utilized fields such as the slowly recovering Iraq oil fields and the possible effects of updated Iran oil fields (they are using 1979, outdated technology to recover oil)
I therefore conclude this article has limited utility.
1. EROEI. Unconventional Oil Much more expensive on that scale.
2. By 2015 - 2020 net world exports will be down about 10million bpd. Refinery capacity was the problem 2005-2007 timeframe, not so much anymore.
3. Iraq fields? what if they double from 2million+/- bpd to 4-5ish. Ain't gonna make a dent on a world that uses 84 million bpd.
TheOilDrum has a good post today.
The Best of The Oil Drum 2005-2010http://www.theoildrum.com/node/7091#more
I suggest you start there and come back in 2-3 months after reading 30-50 of the articles
Start with this one.
The Disconnect Between Oil Reserves and Production
Respectfully
Did it ever occur to you that the reason there is not additional refinery capacity being built is that the oil majors, behind closed doors, KNOW that there will NOT be additional oil that's needing refinement?
There's no point in additional refining capacity at this stage of the oil production curve
by that logic, they've known, for a long time.
M.L. King Hubbert told them back in the 50s! And, anyone with half a brain can realize that the earth is finite, that it cannot hold infinite amounts of oil.
Time to use our secret weapons. The silver bullets. The magic wands. The rabbit out of the hat.
Thorium reactors -- nontoxic nuclear type reactors, using cheap available Thorium. Been done already.
Abiotic (abiogenic) oil. Yes, that's right -- no dinosaurs were harmed in the making of this oil. Abiotic oil comes from the theory that oil comes from the hydrocarbons formed in the Earth's core -- as shown by the presence of the element helium (basically, helium goes up, not down). The theory has been around for 100 years in Russia. It is accessed through ultra deep land wells over natural faults in the Earth's crust. An American who read Russian, Thomas Gold (and others), tested this theory 20 years ago in a spot in Sweden and hit oil at 20,0000+ feet. Curiously, Saudi Arabian oil is also over such faults in the Earth's crust, and as the oil seeps closer to the surface it is readily accessible and discoverable (lucky for them). The Russians are the ultra-deep well pioneers and are now the number 2 (or 3?) producer of oil using this "Ukranian-Russian" abiotic theory. Their deepest well is a record 40,000 feet deep. Virtually all the research has been in the Russian language and been ignored by the West.
Besides presence of helium, further evidence:
Saturn's moon Titan has methane, proof ancient life not needed for hydrocarbons
"Dry wells" often fill back up again
New Thermophilic bacterial species found in the ultra-deep oil
It's being done by the Russkies!
Drill baby drill! At least try it before we volunteer to curl up in the fetal position to die. We could use the exports.
I think the oil well that just got plugged in the Gulf was almost that deep.
If you drill down far enough you will get some magma... Maybe you can use that to heat up water for a steam engine?
They've already tried that. When you drill to deep the high temperatures & pressures mean the rock is plastic & the drill hole closes as soon as you pull the drill out.
Here is your chance to provide the first links to peer-reviewed articles ever posted on the Internet proving abiotic oil !!!! Right here on Zero Hedge!!!! Act now!!! What an Opportunity!!!!!! Nobel Prizes sure to follow......and hot chicks, too!!!!!
Post here:
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Plenty of room:
Ctrl-A, Ctrl-C, Ctrl-V. It isn't that hard. We are waiting!!!!!!!!!!
Google translator awaits to assist you with your foreign (Russian) posts!!!!!!!
Anyone?
Buehler?
Ferris Buehler?
http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0015399
There are oil digesting bacteria more than a kilometer under the crust of the Atlantic, and area which has never experienced subduction. They appear to live off of short chain hydrocarbons which are created via serpentinization reactions in the crust. Even if there are no high molecular weight hydrocarbons created by an abiotic process, these bacteria will by definition convert them into lipids to form their cellular membranes. When they die *GASP*, they turn to oil quickly at the high temperature and pressure. The only question is: what is the rate of production? Does it make one barrel per day, 1 million bbl/day, 500 million bbl/day, or more?
Once you have that answer, you only need to look for where said oil would accumulate.
Re: gwar5
Hum...you've been 'junked' ha ha ha...shooting the messenger so to speak...
0) Conventional nuclear, pelletized to prevent weaponizing the spent fuel..and using Helium Coolant for higher thermal efficiency (over the 40% with water...the rest going up the stack)
1) "Thorium reactors -- nontoxic nuclear type reactors, using cheap available Thorium. Been done already....does create U233 in the reactions, not really a problem..
2) Plutonium, about 2% or so in the 'depleted fuel rods Generally renamed 'nuclear waste products'
3) Helium4....ON THE MOON, very very high energy density....this will soon become decisive regards a permanent manned station on the moon....along with the NOW KNOWN plentiful water supply
4) Abiotic (abiogenic) oil" Yup... indeed the deeper you go, due the temperature increase, the more the CH4 hydrocarbon found/IS Planetary Methane, from the deep earth...
5) Permafrost Methane LOTS of it all along the Artic Ocean landfalls in USA, Canada, Russia...
6) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methane_clathrate
http://marine.usgs.gov/fact-sheets/gas-hydrates/title.html
Methane Ice...LOTS of it on the seafloor below 1500 feet or so..
7) Cost Effective Solar - currently being the Barstow California steam heating/generating plant
8) Geothermal as in California, Calpine generates about 1 gigawatt...Iceland LOTS AND LOTS
9) Cost Effective SolarElectric ... its coming, no need for subsidies either..
So, for the Moment, the Great Maltusian Economic Collapse seems pushed ahead for at least 100 years....energy scarcity hardly the problem...
Oil? Oh yah...Peak Oil...but of course it exists, and it is ridiculous to push the finding of oil to the technical current limits => 12,500 feet water depth along with 20,000 feet additional hardrock drilling...WE CAN SYNTHESIZE ETHANE/PENTANE/GASOLINE from Methane = NaturalGas CH4.. so what the big deal about 'Peak Oil'?
it might appear as argument, but it's not:
all of the (viable) items on your list cost a lot. they may someday find economy of scale similar to oil, but probably not for a while.
this simply has to change the economic situation moving forward. and i think we all *do* agree that energy is a pretty big part of the equation.
i don't think the world will end as the oil we know is consumed. we *do* have alternate energy sources. and none are remotely close to the price of oil. today.
due to its mature distribution, logistic prevalence, and economy of scale, oil is going to be a hard one to replace.
CF bulbs were $10 each 5 years back. 50c today (w/ rebate, etc.) economy of scale in alternate energies will both matter and arrive.
i wonder if the algae-based fuels have much energy density/potential. corn-based ethanol certainly doesn't rate well in that category.
There is now a process to create perfect single layers of graphene on a large scale. They can also be doped at perfectly regular intervals with nitrogen (already), and can likely be doped with anything else that is desired. This process is extremely cheap and easy, requiring only a temperature of 800C, with the number of layers of graphene being controlled by air flow rather than manipulation of feedstock (which can be any carbonacious compound, including simple table sugar).
There is a high likelihood that this will make medium-efficiency solar panels only marginally more expensive than notebook paper.
mixed emotion on that..., having bought some of the traditional sort of panels... :^)
but, clearly something like that would change the entire picture. 'til it does, the PTB 'green' optimism is going to fairly expensive for someone (read: taxpayers).
i recall a Pop-Sci article describing what sounds like a similar laminate that could wrap around forms, like car hoods and doors. i eagerly await their imminent arrival, but will suffer the usual panels until then.
fwiw, amazing how much tension goes on in here, even when the participants fundamentally agree on the broad picture. hold your ground, but save your breath too. tnx for your general contribution.
Nat Gas is the buy but not in Marcellus Shale.
Think the tar sands will save you?
Think EROEI
I see a lot of replies that downplay the significance of peak oil. This is mostly from those who have not done their homework on the subject. When an 16 oz cup of gasoline can propel a large van with 8 adults 100 mpg for 4 miles, you have to realize the density of energy in oil. This density is what created the economic global engine. And without it, you get an abundance of problems.
The degree of impact from peak oil is of a magnitude that is not comprehensible, so people deny it could be real. But it is. Our very way of life is threatened. In fact, I give us 2-3 years before the changes begin. Bye-bye our world of ease. Easy street is about to end
In the end nobody cares what propelled his large van. So peak oil is irrelevant, as long as it's not peak energy altogether!
And I don't believe any rational person can state there will ever be peak available energy on earth, as long as the sun still irradiates.
What we do might have is peak cheap energy.
But especially in the US where little effort was ever made to reduce energy consumption (compared to central Europe), the expense to halve energy consumption is still relatively low.
So we have to do something, yes, but no need for despair and doomsday scenarios.
Noticeable is always the fact that almost no one of the Peak Oilers demands higher gasoline prices (by tax if needed), which would lower consumption automatically. (Note: I am not demanding that, but I am not a Peak Oil priest or believer.)
Oh for the fucking love of GOD...peak solar will occur when the sun reaches its maximum solar intensity for all time.
For all intents and purposes we are already AT peak solar. The sun is not getting brighter. It is not showering us with GROWING amounts of solar radiation
You confuse the issue AGAIN. True peak solar would be a plateau of energy production, where a Dyson Sphere has been constructed and captures all solar radiation. Peak solar on Earth would be when the entire surface is paved over with solar cells, something that is wildly unlikely.
Worry not. Backup plans are made. Don't think that the roll-out of the new technology won't happen when all the available oil is used up that can be used to milk economies world wide. Oil companies are not completely stupid (just greedy). Ever hear of those miraculous inventions that were patented and then bought up just to disappear? Too much smoke there for me to believe there is not a fire. All will be ok as soon as the financial structure is in place to again shear the sheep.
YES!!!!11
Exxon BOUGHT UP all the skittle shitting unicorns, you stupid fuck, and they are HIDING them in their secret facility, IN CONCERT with the bankers and DoD/CIA at Area fucking 51.
GFD, wtf are you people like ALLERGIC to science or something?
Never in my mind did it occur to me that the type of people who used to cheat off of me in high school would EVER assume their own opinions were worth a shit, much less voice them....yet here you are.
And a happy Thanksgiving to you as well. I hope you have nice quiet time with your family and give thanks for all the nice junk we have -- while we still have it.
My comment was not really directed at the oil question. I was just pointing out that there will probably be alternatives already set in motion, but not made available until all the looting is done. That's all. No reason to get all worked up.
I'll ride the oil gravy train just like everyone else and pay the higher prices as the oil cabal evolves. I've read your "peak" theories for many months. Things just don't happen over night. Poof! No oil. Doesn't work that way and there are minds (driven by dollars) working on it as we sleep in our snug little beds.
LOL...a person who STILL cannot understand that peak oil does not mean "ran out" and yet STILL also feels like stating an opinion on something about which he understands so little...
my electric bill was $7 bux today. PV system. not missing the missing oil right now.
even if my itsy bitsy mind doesn't get it, my wallet does.
and my wife digs that (and my itsy-bitsy), so all around, i'm good.
Man, I really tried to get solar installed at my house (the recently deregulated electric company is killing me with their rate hikes no matter how much I cut my kwh usage), but I just couldn't find anyone to do the work. I had two semi-local outfits over for estimates, both selling the same hardware (made in the US - that's what got me to call the number in the TV ad).
The first guy made a really good pitch but I was already halfway there. His handheld device said I was sort of borderline for the state subsidy (~75%) but trimming a couple trees would help. All I needed was the promised calculations chart and his official price, both to show the bank in case they needed documentation. I mean, I knew solar wasn't a slam dunk, but I was ready to be part of the solution. Plus, they were going to do the paperwork so I only had to borrow the out-of-pocket part, and even that I had enough saved to almost pay outright. Well getting ahold of this guy afterward was like pulling teeth and he dragged his feet long enough that the state subsidy got cut. And when I just stopped trying, they didn't even chase me.
So I went back to the manufacturer (which I got from the first idiot's literature) and asked for them to contact another authorized installer. They send a different asshole out who doesn't even bring his surveying device but tells me I have to cut down all of the trees on my property. I was already souring on solar and I knew the out-of-pocket price was tilting higher, but I thought maybe I could still do it (though I had no intention of cutting down the trees).
This asshole comes back four days later with an estimate of almost three times what the first guy was charging. Keep in mind, this is the same equipment we're talking about here. And even worse, I have to borrow the whole amount and wait for the state subsidy to pay me back. Where the hell did this idiot think I was going to be able to borrow $60K, to improve a house barely "worth" triple, in this economy?
So I gave up and bought a pellet stove instead. It was made in Virginia and the pellets claim to be an American product too. I feel bad that I'm basically going to burn wood in 2010 instead of jumping on the technology bandwagon, but I guess that's the way things are in this country anymore.
RKDS, not-to-fret (although that sounds like a major bummer when you were so close!)
it's going to get less expensive over time (in average-labor-hours per KW - not price - ala inflation, etc.)
two places you can invest that will probably do you better than PV - LED lights and solar water. as inflation hits electricity, it pencils out to take the hit up front for the energy savings later. it just sux paying $40 for a 60watt bulb. it'll save you hundreds, tho'.
remember, most folks have to earn $1.50 to pay a $1.00 bill (after taxes), so each dollar you don't have to pay to start with...
and LED lights are getting cheaper/better quickly (color, dimming, drop-in compatibility, etc.). CFs are pretty good too, and live up to their specs so far. haven't had them for long enough to test the advertised lifetime.
but right now, the quandry is probable inflation vs waiting for economy of scale, eh?
good luck, and enjoy the fireplace. it'll do the job just fine for now! and it'll always work, even if the world friggin collapses... :^)
trav7777
You must be prepared for the reality that there is a 50% chance that oil could go much lower if we go into a deeper recession.
If that turns out to be the case, then "Peak Oil" will go down in history as one of the greatest investment frauds to hit the tape since the Y2K scare.
But if oil breaks out of this consolidation and starts running, then there will be evidence of Peak Oil.
I'll let the market decide.
... there is a 50% chance that oil could go much lower...
Keep talking about price RT. Even though it has NOTHING to do with the geology of the matter.
Freaking amazing
Price is what someone will pay for something.
IT has absofuckinglutely NOTHING to do with how much you are PHYSICALLY able to pump out of the ground per day.
If a deeper recession reduces consumption enough to lower the price, it will do little but delay the eventual and inevitable pain. There's a slim chance it could provide the window we need to bring alternatives online and save ourselves, but that would also require people like the idiots spouting abiotic oil as their saviour to pull themselves out of denial long enough to <gasp> conserve.
The invisible hand wants to touch your junk.
at what point did you see me in any way discuss the investment angle on Peak Oil?
Peak oil already happened. 2005's C&C peak stands, and the 08 all liquids peak still holds.
Whether or not you can "make money" off of this and how is a separate issue.
Oil may go lower, sure...the price of oil is dictated by marginal slack capacity. During 2007, consumption exceeded production because production plateaud but consumption continued to grow. Simple as that.
I have no clue why you could possibly believe that the futures price of paper oil would be "evidence" of peak. There are real production figures out there which provide the evidence. The dollar price of a barrel on NYMEX does not determine whether production has peaked or not.
The market is irrelevant. Oil will peak (C&C already did) when the earth produces oil at the highest rate it can.
You do realize that saying the market is irrelevant is the same as saying humanity is irrelevant, right?
This is why no-one likes you. You hate humanity. You seek death. You are a death worshipper, just like Mako.
It's PEAK PRODUCTION! How on fucking earth can people NOT understand this concept? One can make all the excuses/arguments one wants to, but the BOTTOM LINE is that the world's current growth paradigm has peaked in growth.
As someone who was involved in Y2k I can tell you it wasn't some sort of hoax. It was a huge undertaking to keep systems from failing. Had he energy not been expended things sure as heck would have been ugly. But that was child's play compared to what we're talking about here.
But, as far as "investment" angles, I don't give a crap. People will make money off of selling their dead mother. In the end it'll be about survival.
Trav, They weren't science majors, Nor critical thinkers. They think if you pay enough money, we can have the 1st,2nd, and 3rd laws of thermodynamics ALONG with that pesky law of gravity repealed.
"THEY" will think of something to get us out of this, "They" always have.
I'll assume you were addressing my comment as an aside. Looks like you missed my point: Never underestimate the treachery and the malice of those who control the spigots.
Conspiracies and paranoia can only go so far. We're talking about universal laws here, treachery and malice are, overall, meaningless in the face of.
They...belong in an asylum.
As the holder of a real engineering degree, I am one of the "theys" that cretinous idjits...ok, I am being harsh. People with those 105IQs are not really cretins, but you get my point...they expect people like me to "just come up" with something to save them.
And they actually so arrogantly regard their "conceptual solution" as the critical part of the process. I had a business partner like this when I was coding for a startup I was a partner in. He seemed to think that if he could come up with an IDEA, that the whole goddamned thing of IMPLEMENTATION was just QED.
I just laugh at people like this. At some point you have to make peace with the Downing/Dunning-Kruger thing and which side of it you're on. The real twist is the modern phenomenon of this where these people are actually brazenly unafraid of stating their idiotic opinions and are incredibly resistant to being educated. They are like the MRSA of opinions
"The MRSA of opinions"
Stealin' it. :)
Ok, I give, after all you do have a degree that requires higher math. Kinda like the economists who have advanced humanity so much lately.
If there were any secreted technology being held back for financial reasons you, of all people, would certainly know about it.
You win. We are all going to die in an oil-less economy and there are no alternatives!
Yikes.
Now, how do I make money off that deal.
Everybody happy?
+++ lol
(folks 'r gettin testy in here... :^)
Hey, Trav, seriously... you need to move out of your parents' basement and stop whacking it so much. Just sayin'...
jealous?