This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.

Guest Post: Oil Limits and Climate Change – How They Fit Together

Tyler Durden's picture




 

Submitted by Gail Tverberg via Our Finite World blog,

We hear a lot about climate change, especially now that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has recently published another report. At the same time, oil is reaching limits, and this has an effect as well. How do the two issues fit together?

In simplest terms, what the situation means to me is that the “low scenario,” which the IPCC calls “RCP2.6,” is closest to what we can expect in terms of man-made carbon emissions. Thus, the most reasonable scenario, based on their modeling, would seem to be the purple bar that continues to rise for the next twenty years or so and then is close to horizontal.

Figure 1. Summary Climate Change Exhibit from new  IPCC Report.

Figure 1. Summary global average surface temperature change exhibit from new IPCC Report.

I come to this conclusion by looking at the tables of anthropogenic carbon emission shown in Annex II of the report. According to IPCC data, the four modeled scenarios have emissions indicated in Figure 2.

Figure 2. Total anthropogenic carbon emissions modeled for in the scenarios selected by the IPCC, based on data from Table All 2.a in Annex II.

Figure 2. Total anthropogenic carbon emissions modeled for in the scenarios selected by the IPCC, based on data from Table All 2.a in Annex II.

 

The Likely Effect of Oil Limits

The likely effect of oil limits–one way or the other–is to bring down the economy, and because of this bring an end to pretty much all carbon emissions (not just oil) very quickly. There are several ways this could happen:

  • High oil prices – we saw what these could do in 2008.  They nearly sank the financial system. If they return, central banks have already done most of what they can to “fix” the situation. They are likely to be short of ammunition the next time around.
  • Low oil prices – this is the current problem. Oil companies are cutting back on new expenditures because they cannot make money on a cash flow basis on shale plays and on other new oil drilling. Oil companies can’t just keep adding debt, so they are doing less investment. I talked about this in Beginning of the End? Oil Companies Cut Back on Spending. Less oil means either a rebound in prices or not enough oil produced to go around. Either way, we are likely to see massive recession and falling world GDP.
  • Huge credit problems, such as happened in 2008, only worse. Oil drilling would stop within a few years, because oil prices would drop too low, and stay too low, without lots of credit to prop up prices of commodities of all types.
  • Rapidly rising interest rates, as QE reaches its limits. (QE for the United States was put in place at the time of the 2008 crisis, and has been continued since then.) Rising interest rates lead to higher needed tax rates and high monthly payments for homes and cars. The current QE-induced bubble in stock, land, and home prices is also likely to break, sending prices down again.
  • End of globalization, as countries form new alliances, such as Russia-China-Iran. The US is making false claims that we can get along without some parts of the world, because we have so much natural gas and oil. This is nonsense. Once groups of countries start pulling in opposite directions, the countries that have been using a disproportionate share of oil (particularly Europe, the United States, and Japan) will find themselves in deep trouble.
  • Electric grid failures, because subsidies for renewables leave companies that sell fossil-fuel powered electricity with too little profit. The current payment system for renewables needs to be fixed to be fair to companies that generate electricity using fossil fuels. We cannot operate our economy on renewables alone, in part, because the quantity is far too small. Creation of new renewables and maintenance of such renewables is also fossil fuel dependent.

If any of these scenarios takes place and snowballs to a collapse of today’s economy, I expect that a rapid decline in fossil fuel consumption of all kinds will take place. This decline is likely to be more rapid than modeled in the RCP2.6 Scenario. The RCP2.6 Scenario assumes that anthropogenic carbon emissions will still be at 84% of 2010 levels in 2030. In comparison, my expectation (Figure 3, below) is that fossil fuel use (and thus anthropogenic carbon emissions) will be at a little less than 40% of 2010 levels in 2030.

Figure 3. Estimate of future energy production by author. Historical data based on BP adjusted to IEA groupings.

Figure 3. Estimate of future energy production by author. Historical data based on BP adjusted to IEA groupings.

After 2070, the RCP2.6 Scenario indicates negative carbon emissions, presumably from geo-engineering. In my view of the future, such an approach seems unlikely if oil limits are a major problem, because without fossil fuels, we will not have the ability to use engineering approaches. It is also doubtful that there would be as much need for these engineered carbon-take-downs at the end of the period. Population would likely be much lower by then, so current anthropogenic carbon emissions would be less of a problem.

The Climate Change Scenario Not Modeled

We really don’t know what future climate change will look like because no one has tried to model what a collapse situation would look like. Presumably there will be a lot of tree-cutting and burning of biomass for fuel. This will change land use besides adding emissions from the burned biomass to the atmosphere. At the same time, emissions associated with fossil fuels will likely drop very rapidly.

Clearly the climate has been changing and will continue to change. At least part of our problem is that we have assumed that it is possible to have an unchanging world and have made huge investments assuming that climate would go along with our plans. Unfortunately, the way nature “works” is by repeatedly replacing one system with another system. The new systems that survive tend to be better adapted to recent changes in conditions. If we think of humans, other animals, and plants as “systems,” this is true of them as well. No living being can expect to survive forever.

Unfortunately economies are not permanent either. Just as the Roman Empire failed, our economy cannot last forever. In physics, economies seem to be examples of dissipative structures, just as plants and animals and hurricanes are. Dissipative structures are formed in the presence of flows of energy and matter in open thermodynamic systems–that is, systems that are constantly receiving a new flow of energy, as we on earth do from the sun. Unfortunately, dissipative structures don’t last forever.

Dissipative structures temporarily dissipate energy that is available. At the same time, they affect their surroundings. In the case of an economy, the use of energy permits the extraction of the most accessible, easy-to-extract resources, such as fossil fuels, metals, and fresh water. At the same time, population tends to grow. The combination of growing extraction and rising population leads to economic stresses.

At some point the economy becomes overly stressed because of limits of various types. Some of these limits are pollution-related, such as climate change. Other limits present themselves as higher costs, such as the need for deeper wells or desalination to provide water for a growing population, and the need for greater food productivity per acre because of more mouths to feed. The extraction of oil and other fossil fuels also provides a cost limit, as resource extraction becomes more complex, requiring a larger share of the output of the economy. When limits hit, governments are especially likely to suffer from inadequate funding and excessive debt, because tax revenue suffers if wages and profits drop.

People who haven’t thought much about the situation often believe that we can simply get along without our current economy. If we think about the situation, we would lose a great deal if we lost the connections that our current economy, and the financial system underlying it, offers. We as humans cannot “do it alone”–pull out metals and refine them with our bare hands, dig deeper wells, or keep up fossil fuel extraction. Re-establishing needed connections in a totally new economy would be a massive undertaking. Such connections are normally built up over decades or longer, as new businesses are formed, governments make laws, and consumers adapt to changing situations. Without oil, we cannot easily go back to horse and buggy!

Unfortunately, much of the writing related to dissipative structures and the economy is in French. François Roddier wrote a book called Thermodynamique de l’évolution on topics related to this subject. Matthieu Auzanneau writes about the issue on his blog. Roddier has a presentation available in French. One paper on a related topic in English is Energy Rate Density as a Complexity Metric and Evolutionary Driver by E. Chaisson. Causal Entropic Forces by Wissner-Gross and Freer provides evidence regarding how  societies self-organize in ways that maximize entropy.

The IPCC’s Message Isn’t Really Right 

We are bumping up against limits in many ways not modeled in the IPCC report. The RCP2.6 Scenario comes closest of the scenarios shown in providing an indication of our future situation. Clearly the climate is changing and will continue to change in ways that our planners never considered when they built cities and took out long-term loans. This is a problem not easily solved.

One of the big issues is that energy supplies seem to be leaving us, indirectly through economic changes that we have little control over. The IPCC report is written from the opposite viewpoint:  we humans are in charge and need to decide to leave energy supplies. The view is that the economy, despite our energy problems, will return to robust growth. With this robust growth, our big problem will be climate change because of the huge amount of carbon emissions coming from fossil fuel burning.

Unfortunately, the real situation is that the laws of physics, rather than humans, are in charge. Basically, as economies grow, it takes increasing complexity to fix problems, as Joseph Tainter explained in his book, The Collapse of Complex Societies. Dissipative structures provide this ever-increasing complexity through higher “energy rate density” (explained in the Chaisson article linked above).

Now we are reaching limits in many ways, but we can’t–or dare not–model how all of these limits are hitting. We can, in theory, add more complexity to fix our problems–electric cars, renewable energy, higher city density, better education of women. These things would require more energy rate density. Ultimately, they seem to depend on the availability of more inexpensive energy–something that is increasingly unavailable.

The real issue is the danger that our economy will collapse in the near term. From the earth’s point of view, this is not a problem–it will create new dissipative structures in the future, and the best-adapted of these will survive. Climate will adapt to changing conditions, and different species will be favored as the climate changes. But from the point of view of those of us living on the planet earth, there is a distinct advantage to keeping business as usual going for as long as possible.  A collapsed economy cannot support 7.2 billion people.

We need to understand what are really up against, if we are to think rationally about the future. It would be helpful if more people tried to understand the physics of the situation, even if it is a difficult subject. While we can’t really expect to “fix” the situation, we can perhaps better understand what “solutions” are likely to make the situation worse. Such knowledge will also provide a better context for understanding how climate change fits in with other limits we are reaching. Climate change is certainly not the whole problem, but it may still play a significant role.

 

- advertisements -

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Sat, 04/12/2014 - 20:52 | 4652692 TBT or not TBT
TBT or not TBT's picture

There's a way to short this? Awesome.

Sat, 04/12/2014 - 20:21 | 4652581 magnetosphere
magnetosphere's picture

atmospheric CO2 is currently at record low levels http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Phanerozoic_Carbon_Dioxide.png if it keeps declining C3 carbon fixing plants will eventually die off.  think of the trees man

Sun, 04/13/2014 - 00:32 | 4653201 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Psst...

Repeating a lie don't make it true...

 Could you remind us of what the solar output was back then? 

Sun, 04/13/2014 - 07:45 | 4653520 agent default
agent default's picture

WTF??? Low CO2 concentration means that the plant does not have enough CO2 to work with.  It doesn't matter how much light the plant gets, it has nothing to photosynthesize with. Unless of course you think that you can have plants growing with zero CO2 and really intense sunlight.  You don't even understand that much???? You can't even figure out that simple thing???

"Former Professional Higgs Bozon Hunter"  my ass.  You  lack the reasoning skills of a ten year old.

Sun, 04/13/2014 - 11:52 | 4654047 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

If there was zero C02 the earth would be an iceball except for a small patch near the equator...

Go back to your delusions about plant food...

BTW, the C02 levels were a lot lower during the Ice Ages and plants did just fine...

Sun, 04/13/2014 - 21:13 | 4655431 BigJim
BigJim's picture

I don't know if you can observe this phenomenon from your ivory tower, girlfriend, but I've noticed plants seem to do better in warmer weather, myself.

Mon, 04/14/2014 - 00:17 | 4655827 Element
Element's picture

Just look at any snow lined mountain side and at where the tree line is ... it coincides with cold and lower partial pressures of atmospheric gasses, with act to simulate low CO2 (same reason why we suffer hypoxia if not in a pressurized cabin). Plants respire, they respire CO2, and less partial pressure of CO2 means less to breath and also to eat. More ice and lower temp also means less liquid water, so less from plants to drink an transpire.

No flak, the plants do not do OK at low CO2 or at low temps (and there is plenty of experimental data on that), and nor did the soils in the last glaciation (as I pointed out below). You are trying to suggest low CO2 is better for plants when massive archives of empiricism demonstrate the opposite.

Mon, 04/14/2014 - 01:10 | 4655917 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Explain that to the experts....

They are clearly wrong about the effects of GW on plants...

Do you need a list of papers?

Mon, 04/14/2014 - 01:38 | 4655945 Element
Mon, 04/14/2014 - 04:13 | 4656063 MeelionDollerBogus
MeelionDollerBogus's picture

then you're observing nonsense.

In actual reality the warm weather is killing corn fields so bad farmers are just tilling it back into the soil with no harvest, burned brown from heat and dehydration, many years in a row, in AMERICA.

Mon, 04/14/2014 - 06:22 | 4656138 Element
Element's picture

Yeah, and the oceans are like all dead to right, isn't that some of the other utter moronic doomism twaddle you limped around zh jerking-off about around nine months back?

Good call bonehead. lol

Mon, 04/14/2014 - 10:07 | 4656609 BigJim
BigJim's picture

Even the AGW proponents admit that the areas that will warm most (assuming the planet does warm, up, of course) will be those that are coldest now; ie, the amount of plant life in toto will increase.

What you are talking about is drought. And, given the increased precipitation that is likely with more warming, there's no guaranty there'll be less rain if the planet does start warming up again.

Tue, 04/15/2014 - 23:09 | 4663932 MeelionDollerBogus
MeelionDollerBogus's picture

Untrue. The damages will be most to the areas that have been coldest but the total highest temperatures will still be in the temperate and equator zones.

DECREASED precipitation is to be expected: hotter air holds more moisture. You'll see more rain than normal in the areas where air is forced upward & cools but that will merely lead to more flooding where no one's currently ready for it. Many more areas that today get rain will not anymore. Perhaps for centuries.

Sun, 04/13/2014 - 10:14 | 4653815 magnetosphere
magnetosphere's picture

a G-type main sequence star increases in brightness by about ~0.7% / 100 million years.  Silicate weathering, the precipitation onto the seabed of marine organisms with calcium carbonate shells, and other factors, together with  decreasing volcanism due to lower radioactivity ensure that atmospheric CO2 will continue its historic decline.

fyi we are also at record low temperatures in the history of complex life on planet earth. very rarely has it ever been this cold.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Phanerozoic_Climate_Change.png

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:All_palaeotemps.png

any other questions??

Sun, 04/13/2014 - 12:10 | 4654102 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

The upshoot is that the C02 levels and solar output of the deep past result in very similar net forcing to the present

http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/Phanerozoic_Forcing.gif

The effect of higher C02 is logarithmic, not linear...

Here is the original paper that it all the figures in question come from

http://droyer.web.wesleyan.edu/PhanCO2(GCA).pdf

----

I find it amusing that the denialati put so much faith in very difficult measurements while denying the results based on the more straightforward ones....

Sun, 04/13/2014 - 12:56 | 4654201 magnetosphere
magnetosphere's picture

you acknowledge the warming effect of co2 is logarithmic.  this makes catastrophic warming rather difficult, no?  if earth's climate were near unstable equilibria i doubt we would be here.

Sun, 04/13/2014 - 13:16 | 4654248 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Nice non sequitur on your part...

Sun, 04/13/2014 - 13:33 | 4654288 magnetosphere
magnetosphere's picture

and yet the fact remains that we are living in an era of historically cold temperatures.  even if we melted all the glaciers and temperatures rose by a few degrees, we would merely be returning to the state that earth was in for the vast majority of its history.  and warming could be a good thing, the natural habitat of primates is the jungle.  its why we evolved in africa, and its why we didnt live in europe and north america at the last glacial maximum 15 kya.  and melting glaciers were a necessary precondition for the neolithic revolution.

Sun, 04/13/2014 - 14:52 | 4654500 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Get it through your head that it is the rate of change that is the problem...

And no, vis a vis humans, more warming is not good...

And if you think it really is, write a paper explaining why and get it published....

Sun, 04/13/2014 - 17:01 | 4654877 magnetosphere
magnetosphere's picture

you're right, rate of change is important.  milankovitch's theory of changing orbital elements imply major cold spells in our future.  it would be bad if ny and germany got buried under glaciers.

Sun, 04/13/2014 - 23:25 | 4655730 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

And it ain't gonna happen for at least another 500,000 years with all the C02 up there now...

Mon, 04/14/2014 - 07:36 | 4656208 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

To what date does the GISP2 data go?

Go ahead and share it with us...

----

Since our friend is not going to be forthright, I'll tell you, 1855 is the latest possible date....

Yes, 158 years ago... 

And what has happened in Greenland since then

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/2009JCLI2816.1

Since that is behind a paywall some nice people made a figure that is worth 1,000 words,

http://hot-topic.co.nz/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/GRIPtempBoxlarge.png

Now, if you combine that information with the plot you linked you get this

http://hot-topic.co.nz/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/GISP210k480.png

Are you ignorant or just trying to lie to us? Seriously, this is the kind of bullshit that gives used car salesmen a bad name...

----

And you wonder why the global warming denialati have zero credibility....

 

Mon, 04/14/2014 - 11:22 | 4656933 Element
Element's picture

 

 

Dream on, we already know from multiple sources that it was hotter in the medieval warming period in the arctic circle (where GISP2 comes from), than it is now.

Thus we know your 'hockey-stick-ified version of AGW 'reality' attached to GISP2 is an artifact of profoundly dishonest people. People whom we know have serially tampered with and corrupted the temp data records and those were pretty crap and spotty in coverage to begin with, and they're even worse now due to a shameful lack of station coverage with time, due budget cutting and the resulting algo interpolations. So those data have become increasingly less accurate, up to the present day, rather than more accurate, thus the entire hockey stick record is basically questionable, on almost every level of its integrity at this point.

 But we do know this, and it can not be frigged-with so easily by crooks:

Inconvenient study: Arctic was warmer than the present during the Medieval Warm Period
Posted on January 28, 2014 by Anthony Watts
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/01/28/inconvenient-study-arctic-was-warm...
 

There goes your hockey-schtick attachment to GISP2 bud, we know it's bullshit, and thus again we know that AGW does not have an empirical leg to stand on.  ... Doh!

 

Have a nice day bitch.  :D

Mon, 04/14/2014 - 01:10 | 4655919 magnetosphere
magnetosphere's picture

excellent.  now if only we could get at the farmland and oil fields of greenland and antarctica.

Mon, 04/14/2014 - 11:56 | 4657025 magnetosphere
magnetosphere's picture

and your boy's theory on solar forcing misses the point.  it's actually very easy to isolate the warming effect of the sun's brightening.  to first order, T_earth scales as L_sun ^ 1/4.  A 2% increase in L_sun over a few megayears gives delta T ~ 1.5 K.  big whoop

Mon, 04/14/2014 - 12:43 | 4657302 detached.amusement
detached.amusement's picture

now please explain how solar forcing is calculated and tell us why anyone should think our current iteration of TSI is really "the sun's cumulative effect, in toto."

 

and once you're done with that, for dessert, explain how magnetism is contained therein...

 

and once you fail, then one realizes why I say there are fundamental flaws in the GCM equations.

 

that can basically only correctly predict tomorrow, if you feed inputs for today in.

Mon, 04/14/2014 - 12:39 | 4657279 detached.amusement
detached.amusement's picture

"And it ain't gonna happen for at least another 500,000 years with all the C02 up there now..."

 

dude I just keep finding more and more candidates for dumbest fkn comment ever

Sun, 04/13/2014 - 21:32 | 4655430 Element
Element's picture

 

 

"The effect of higher C02 is logarithmic, not linear..."

 

lol ... dude, ... your alleged logarithmic real-world effect (the alleged warming effect) is producing a slow decline in global temp trend in the actual global satelite measured data, for the past 17 years.

 

oops! 

 

Hate it when reality gets in the way of fictional alarmist boogeymen.

 

The Great Credibility Gap yawns ever wider
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/04/10/the-great-credibility-gap-yawns-ev...

Sun, 04/13/2014 - 22:12 | 4655540 Element
Element's picture

Frankly, looking at the above, I've just got to ask you the glaringly obvious question flak;

Is there any point at which you would look at the observational data and re-evaluate the whole viability of your position? 

Is that sort of thing within you?

Or, is the data's incongruity with your theory beside the real point, that the populist belief-structures are both psychologically and habitually the primary motion propelling your undaunted faith in nothing that's real?

It's a rather interesting phenomenon, if we for the sake of argument, did suppose you're not just thoroughly dishonest, but that your conviction in AGW is truly believed.

Because it can only be one or the other.

So, is there any point where you would re-evaluate the actual global temp data against the failed theory and very unfortunate models and just realize that a scientist simply must recant?

 

Or is it accurately to be characterized as a quasi-religious neurosis?

Sun, 04/13/2014 - 23:29 | 4655740 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

When you start being honest and quit peddling out shills like Plimer or relying on WUWT as source, I will start to notice...

When you start to use real data presented and interpreted honestly, then we can talk....

In other words, when you have relevant facts on your side, I will reconsider the science...

But until then, you are failing miserably....

Mon, 04/14/2014 - 00:45 | 4655863 Element
Element's picture

 

 

In other words, when you have relevant facts on your side, I will reconsider the science...

So, in no other case will you reconsider the science ... it's all about me ... and not about you? ... got it.

 

And given you insist on trying to attack and smear Ian Plimer in your usual shoot-the-messenger style, I think it only fair that we let Ian tell it, in his own words, in audio. So without further ado, take it away, Ian.

 

Ian Plimer - Heaven and Earth: Global Warming, the Missing Science:

October 24, 2009
http://www.netcastdaily.com/broadcast/fsn2009-1024-2.mp3

 

btw I am very happy to post that up at any time you want to try blackening the name of Ian Plimer again.   ;-D

I have zero intention of not referencing WUWT, but you knew that, which is why you said it, so that you could then continue the 'faith', and create a little adhoc excuse for completely ignoring the actual data.

nice

So you leave me no choice but take that to mean you are indeed simply a neurotic.

Mon, 04/14/2014 - 09:48 | 4656552 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Is that the book where he contradicts himself to no end?

Here are a few examples of his logic and honesty:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/plimervsplimer.php

Mon, 04/14/2014 - 12:46 | 4657313 detached.amusement
detached.amusement's picture

So basically, no amount of evidence is going to convince someone so hopelessly indoctrinated...we already know that about you, flake.

Mon, 04/14/2014 - 04:10 | 4656060 MeelionDollerBogus
MeelionDollerBogus's picture

Ya, since that's twice you didn't answer the question with actual measurements or evidence of any sort, are you going for round 3 of non-answering?

Mon, 04/14/2014 - 06:18 | 4656134 Element
Element's picture

I have grave doubts you would be capable of processing any answer provided, I am yet to see you make a single rational sequence of statements on almost any topic, and especially not this one.

Tue, 04/15/2014 - 23:11 | 4663939 MeelionDollerBogus
MeelionDollerBogus's picture

And fail #3: you didn't answer because you have no answer. You're cornered like a sniveling lying child caught with his hand in the cookie jar.

"I didn't take it, the munchkins did! I saw them, mommy!"

OK, show me a munchkin.

"I don't have to answer that, the truth is self-evident!"

Sat, 04/12/2014 - 20:48 | 4652675 agent default
agent default's picture

Climate change does happen. It has happened before and it keeps happening.   But this bullshit theory that a few extra ppms of CO2 will  change the climate so dramatically has to be buried for good and those who propose it, exposed for the quack crackpots they really are.

Sat, 04/12/2014 - 21:06 | 4652738 Poor Grogman
Poor Grogman's picture

Exactly, it is an elitist "meme" being pedalled to us, in a pathetic attempt to socially engineer a low carbon economy.

Typical central planning mentality, use the " carrot" of guilt based memes plus the "stick" of government regulation / taxes, to try and mimic what the market would accomplish anyhow.

As the balance of energy supplies change, a free market will naturally adapt to allocate the remaining supplies efficiently. Unfortunately for the parasite class, this could be a problem as they themselves are the "useless eaters".

Hence the pathetic attempt at top down control of the energy transition.

The only consolation is that it will be such fun to watch them fail!

Sun, 04/13/2014 - 00:34 | 4653205 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Science doesn't give a fuck about your cherished ideological hang ups...

Sun, 04/13/2014 - 21:20 | 4655452 BigJim
BigJim's picture

Good scientific theories are disprovable.

The climate models told us warming would continue - significantly! - as CO2 rose. But there has been no significant rise in temperatures for 17 years... disproving that climate scientists knew what the fuck they were talking about.

It always amuses me how scientists like you know very little about actual science itself. It doesn't matter if there was 100% 'consensus' that temperatures would rise, the fact remains they didn't.

You failed boson hunting, you failed on Wall Street, so I guess it's only right you'd join a branch of science that has also completely failed. Keep it up girlfriend! Consistency is a great virtue.

Mon, 04/14/2014 - 04:09 | 4656058 MeelionDollerBogus
MeelionDollerBogus's picture

Except, liar Jim, there has been significant warming every year since 1997 and you saying there is none only makes you look like the liar you are.

NASA Analysis: 2011 Was Ninth Warmest Year in History : global warming is real and proven, note to skeptics

NASA - 2009: Second Warmest Year on Record; End of Warmest Decade

2009 Ends Warmest Decade on Record : Image of the Day

Mon, 04/14/2014 - 12:47 | 4657319 detached.amusement
detached.amusement's picture

you forgot your 'sarc tag

 

now be honest and show us where those "baseline comparisons" came from, and we'll all have a good laugh about a poor attempt to fool people out of their money using bad statistics.

Sun, 04/13/2014 - 01:22 | 4653257 Adahy
Adahy's picture

Energy is a cycle.  It is not created or destroyed, it only changes forms.  So, if you use more energy than you produce....

Simple really.

Sun, 04/13/2014 - 03:08 | 4653349 Seer
Seer's picture

Energy is a cycle?  If it cannot be created or destroyed then how can it be a cycle?

The only way that "cycle" can be applied here would be with regards to energy's concentration.  And "production" is about extracting the energy from its surroundings (through all sorts of processes, starting, of course, with site extraction, which is followed by "refining" processes for shaping the energy package for final consumption).

"Mining" is, perhaps, the best term to use.  "if you use more energy than you mine...." (the mine is going to dry up- the extracted energy is going to be severly liberated, returned to a more entropically mixed environment [read "vastly dilluted"])

Sun, 04/13/2014 - 05:06 | 4653420 Seer
Seer's picture

Tipping points aren't real?

I call bullshit on any logic that would state that a small amount has no affect.  If I extract a bunch of blood from you and you're managing to stay alive then what harm could it be to extract just a little more?

Poor logic needs to be ditched, once and for all.

Sun, 04/13/2014 - 11:05 | 4653940 agent default
agent default's picture

 Determine and quantify the tipping point, and it's consequences and when they will become apparent.  Science is not about hand waving "tipping points" arguments  and vague references to logic.  This is just the same bullshit argument every other zero point energy/free energy/water powered engine crackpot out there peddles.

Incidentally since you make a few references to "logic", whose logic are you referring to? 

Sun, 04/13/2014 - 12:11 | 4654106 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Speaking of crackpots, you seem to believe more than a few of them it would seem....

Sat, 04/12/2014 - 21:08 | 4652710 Radical Marijuana
Radical Marijuana's picture

"Now we are reaching limits in many ways, but we can’t - or dare not - model how all of these limits are hitting."

I like to read Gail Tverberg articles, however, this one, like the last one republished on Zero Hedge, seems to attract the crazies to post comments, and so, I thought it appropriate to add my two bits worth.

The biggest problems with attempts to model things which involve human beings are the ways that some of the general principles of energy systems manifest through human beings, which are as follows:

Energy systems are controlled by their most labile components. In human terms, that means that civilizations are controlled by the people who are the best at being dishonest, and backing that up with violence. Too much of that kind of "success" drives those ruling classes to become too criminally insane, while those that they rule over become complicit in the established systems, by becoming too ignorant and afraid to effectively resist, as that vicious spiral spins on through. Another way to express the difficulty with human energy systems is that general energy systems flow along their path of least resistance, which takes the least action, and therefore, human systems flow along their path of least morality.

Those are the basic reasons how and why we end up with governments being the biggest form of organized crime, controlled by the best organized gang of criminals, where currently those biggest gangsters are the banksters, who have been able to leverage up their control of the money system to control pretty well all other social institutions, like the public schools and the mass media. The upshot is that human society is controlled by Huge Lies, backed by Lots of Violence, which operate through infinite tunnels, where the lies become different at every level. That is the deeper reason why "we can’t - or dare not - model how all of these limits are hitting."

Indeed, depending upon the degree to which different people travel through the levels of lies that control civilization, they tend to stop at some level, and then pronounce that as "The Truth," and base their comments upon that particular level of their own craziness. Hence, my view is that as we approach Peak Everything Else, we are also approaching Peak Social Insanities, while I find that the posted comments made on an article like this one above tend to illustrate that point, especially when it comes to theories about human beings causing global warming, and/or human beings running out of enough natural resources to be able to continue to strip-mine, in order to keep the currently established social pyramid systems growing.

After several decades of attempting to understand both of those issues, I believe I have as good as humanly possible overview. However, the crucial problem that I return to is that, whatever the degree of reality one thinks exists for the causes of climate change, or the limits to natural resources, one thing that is certain is that human civilization has developed to operate through the maximum possible deceits and frauds about itself. That is WHY "we can’t - or dare not - model how all of these limits are hitting."

Whenever one seriously tries to do that, in as thoroughly as scientific way as possible, one runs into the paradoxical problems that human beings actually operate their death controls through the maximum possible deceits, and operate their debt controls through the maximum possible frauds. That makes coming to terms with more objective scientific facts about issues like climate change, or the limits of natural resources, extremely problematic, and how to properly respond to those political problems much more problematic.

That is why I tend to think that our real problems are trillions of times worse than thought by those people who only attempt to superficially study the issues of climate change, and natural resource limits, as something which human beings should rationally assess and rationally respond to. Rather, since human civilization is actually dominated by entrenched systems of legalized lies, backed by legalized violence, both assessing the value of official statements, or official solutions, are almost infinitely more challenging than can be comprehended. That is also the background reason why people who post comments on this kind of article above tend to express their own kinds of preferred crazinesses, and also while I was provoked to express my kind of meta-craziness here.

Sun, 04/13/2014 - 01:38 | 4653274 VyseLegendaire
VyseLegendaire's picture

"meta-craziness here"

Agreed

Sun, 04/13/2014 - 08:47 | 4653579 Element
Element's picture

It would be a nice if she just had a clue about the basics and was not trying to create a dismal half-baked synthesis with an IPCC propaganda fantasy. That might help her case a fair bit otherwise, but I seriously doubt her judgement and analytical cohesion after looking at the Figure 3. and the dodgy flim-flam excuses for it.

 

psst ... you're one of those crazies RM.  ;-D

 

Mon, 04/14/2014 - 04:06 | 4656052 MeelionDollerBogus
MeelionDollerBogus's picture

The only propaganda-fantasy is that global warming is a hoax. It's real, it's measured, we can measure it every day and we do.

Mon, 04/14/2014 - 06:15 | 4656132 Element
Element's picture

 

 

I see they give out weekend passes from the drooling looney bin still.

Tue, 04/15/2014 - 23:37 | 4663996 MeelionDollerBogus
MeelionDollerBogus's picture

That's because the pass has your name on it and you're talking to yourself in the corner with a crazy look on your face.

Sat, 04/12/2014 - 21:06 | 4652737 Peter Pan
Peter Pan's picture

It is unfortunate that the debate centers around climate warming when there would be far more consensus around the issues of resource depletion and pollution.

Sat, 04/12/2014 - 21:25 | 4652782 itchy166
itchy166's picture

Lithium extraction being a key point.  Far more polluting than fossil fuels...  Of course we aren't supposed to worry about pollutants, just carbon...

Sun, 04/13/2014 - 05:03 | 4653418 Seer
Seer's picture

Not sure how you're measuring things...  Not saying this to refute, as I have absolutely no idea.  I think that somewhere in the equation the lithium extraction costs (again, I have NO idea about any of it) get (to some degree) offset by the reduced energy losses from electrical motors (over ICE motors).

"Of course we aren't supposed to worry about pollutants, just carbon..."  And then on the other side it's an issue/argument of not supposed to take into consideration the efficiencies of the electrical motor... NOTE: the proper way to approach this is to challenge/advocate for full energy cost analysis ALL THE WAY ROUND (I'm sure that there are likely understated energy costs with the existing systems): fair all the way around.

Sun, 04/13/2014 - 03:18 | 4653354 Seer
Seer's picture

BINGO!

But... and I may be misinterpreting Gail's intent for publishing this article, I read it as though she's saying that both sides of the "climate" debate are effectively impacted by the effects of diminishing energy, that the real/possible/fiction/whatever adjective people want to use issue of climate change is going to be made more or less moot by the upcoming economic collapse:

"The real issue is the danger that our economy will collapse in the near term."

Given that Gail's interests have tended to focus on declining resources, specifically oil, she's been warning that economic collapse is pretty much in our future.  And while she may be leaning a bit more on the side supporting concerns over climate change climate she's saying that (read the above quote) climate change won't likely be the concern as stated by all the top folks (sorry, don't know how to word this right).

So, I read this as Gail trying to get the attention of the folks who believe in "climate change."  She's NOT trying to sway people on climate change, it's not the point.

Sun, 04/13/2014 - 04:10 | 4653383 elegance
elegance's picture

Wow, there IS someone commenting on the article who actually comprehended it... 

Sun, 04/13/2014 - 04:54 | 4653413 Seer
Seer's picture

I was really disappointed to see that folks just weren't getting it.  As noted, I'm able to catch more things because I'm not spending a ton of energy trying to filter out things (not handcuffed by ideological hangups): people will flock to a given article with their minds already made up.

But, you have to admit, it's kind of hilarious to see people slam something that actually can be used in defense of their positions.  Sometimes you really just have to stand back and go: WTF?

Mon, 04/14/2014 - 01:33 | 4655941 Element
Element's picture

 

 

So, I read this as Gail trying to get the attention of the folks who believe in "climate change."  She's NOT trying to sway people on climate change, it's not the point.

You're full of shit Seer, what she did was destroy her own credibility via self-demonstrated a stunning incompetence in her chosen topic and its flimsy synthesis. It's all her own doing and it is on the record and it is a stinker. If her motives were to sycophantically pander to the 'believers' in AGW, then this simply makes it even more reprehensible rubbish and her cred further impaired.

You might like some of her other ideas, fine, but the article is dreadfully inept garbage.

Mon, 04/14/2014 - 12:50 | 4657331 detached.amusement
detached.amusement's picture

really, you've got to be drinking the kool aid NOT to have gotten "economic collapse will save us from CO2 destruction" out of it.

 

mother's nature's laughter at the now zombie-status theory is what will save us from AGW.

Mon, 04/14/2014 - 23:28 | 4659430 Element
Element's picture

Yeah, that's the upside idea they want to sell to us, that collapse is the better option if we won't stop RIGHT NOW, and collapse anyway.

So better to impair the economy now and manage the same decline.

But of course, it would not remain a peaceful world, and I think this is the new strategy, do so much damage on the sly that it comes unhinged anyway, and not due to resource constraints or encountering 'limits'.

i.e. if they can't get it politically via formal methods, they will now seek to do it informally, via sneaky sabotage methods.

If they will lie, corrupt, impair and propagandize science and policy so much via formal methods, imagine what they'll do via informal methods. These are basically a form of quite insane human-hater pro-eco-climate jihadis so expect no restraint in their action to attempt to collapse trade, economy, society to take down human civilization, in general. That is what the aim is

It's the uni-bomber mindset that's proliferated. It may seem small now but if formal avenues fail to obtain their radical aims, they will start sown the informal avenues, and that can eventually become insurgency for the more radical fools. We have seen this before with other radical agendas, but this one is genuinely disposed toward outright condemning and hating and attacking humanity, itself.

Now it may go nowhere, I am not saying it will, and if it is challenged openly now it may wither, but I do not underestimate its anti-human extremism and motivation to create harm for everyone. But we're dealing with physics, chemistry and biology radicals and shouldn't underestimate the mischief they can get up to. For sure some of the AGW agenda wackos are thinking along those lines now. that if they can;t get their way they will turn to violence instead, rather than have nasty humans bring about their bizarre doomer-ism fantasies.

Sun, 04/13/2014 - 10:05 | 4653789 The Joker
The Joker's picture

When Maurice Strong and the Club of Rome and the UN first conceptualized Global Warming, it was centered around resource depletion and pollution.  They had to get all nations on board in order to make a difference though.  They knew, for example, that countries like Finland or Canada wouldn't pay taxes to end deforestation in the Amazon or water pollution in Africa.  Most pollution and resource issues are local, which would be difficult to garner global support.  So they spawned global warming, an issue that is global and could get global support, in the form of taxes and world governance in order to address all the issues of resource depletion and pollution.

You are right, it is one the all-time backfires.  They would have been better off sticking to the real issues.  I think there eventually would have been enough nations/people on board to tackle the issues because they are based on fact, not hyperbole.

Mon, 04/14/2014 - 04:02 | 4656047 MeelionDollerBogus
MeelionDollerBogus's picture

It's the same issue, they can't be treated apart.

Resource depletion is the source of the pollution which is causing climate warming.

Sat, 04/12/2014 - 21:32 | 4652814 surf0766
surf0766's picture

Does ZH ever post the climatedeport articles?

 

Sat, 04/12/2014 - 23:57 | 4653142 SubjectivObject
SubjectivObject's picture

ZH does not appear to comport deportment.

Sun, 04/13/2014 - 00:36 | 4653208 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

They tend to draw the line at obvious bullshit from unqualified bloggers...

I mean, like, would you go to your car mechanic for treatment of chest pains?

Sun, 04/13/2014 - 21:23 | 4655465 BigJim
BigJim's picture

I probably would if I were the sort of person who went to climate scientists 17 years ago to tell me what temperatures would be doing.

Mon, 04/14/2014 - 04:01 | 4656046 MeelionDollerBogus
MeelionDollerBogus's picture

Then you're an idiot. They've been right for 30 years right up to this day.

Mon, 04/14/2014 - 06:13 | 4656128 Element
Element's picture

Tyler, Sacrilege, we need the captcha back on the log-on please. The vegetables are growing wild.

 

The latest global temp data for past 17 years:
https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2014/04/clip_image0021.png

Sun, 04/13/2014 - 06:05 | 4653461 Element
Element's picture

No, there are apparently individuals in the zh TPTB who take a one-eyed and fairly mind-made-up stance to the whole topic. It's gotten almost as silly as the mainstream media. zh just gets by via mixing it up with the doom narratives and this thread's article post is the usual fare of laughable utter nonsense posted by another unbalanced doom addict with not even a remedial grasp of the topic. Shameful really.

But that's what zh gets off (namely boneheaded doom drivel), and the Tyler's know where their click-bread is buttered so the more these completely daft AGW articles predominate at zh. If you want a fuller understanding of the topic then zh is not where you go.

And heaven forbid that zh should enlighten its community with something informative from a more open and informed perspective, like this report for instance, released just last week, which they could have highlighted:

Global warming, not so bad at all really:  Says NIPCC Report and Thousands of References. - April 3rd, 2014
http://joannenova.com.au/2014/04/global-warming-not-so-bad-at-all-really...

or this one even, from the day before it;

Debunking every IPCC climate prophesy of war, pestilence, famine, drought, impacts in one line - April 2nd, 2014
http://joannenova.com.au/2014/04/debunking-every-ipcc-climate-prophesy-o...

And of course the comments in such posts are usually the best part, as the readers actually have a clue about the topic and an education, and even the ability to think clearly. But in-house skepticism or circumspection and detailed understanding is not on the menu at zh on this topic. But it is one which the zh TPTB apparently thinks is worth posting copious articles on, over time though, which all tell you almost nothing that's not shallow-end tosh and misguided nonsense. But I don't think they even know enough about the topic to realise that.

Fine, zh is not that sort of blog, but it is disappointing, as they would be better off posting nothing about it, and just leave it to blogs that know their stuff. There's plenty of them now, just take a look at the "WUWT Reads" blog list, and their awesome in-house reference pages. Quite staggering depth and quality of coverage that is never seen at zh on the topic.

Sun, 04/13/2014 - 09:55 | 4653765 The Joker
The Joker's picture

+1 for referencing the NIPCC.  I"ve read the physics report and the biological impacts report.  Very comprehensive compilations of evidence.  I passed them around work.

Sun, 04/13/2014 - 10:16 | 4653819 Element
Element's picture

Yes, the work and detail speaks of a passion by so many professional peoples to set the record straight and recover science from the tragic mistake of the AGW and IPCC toilet bowl.

Sun, 04/13/2014 - 12:14 | 4654110 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

The NIPCC material would get rejected by any peer reviewed process as deliberately misleading at best and all but fraudulent...

Your confirmation bias is showing...

Sun, 04/13/2014 - 12:46 | 4654177 The Joker
The Joker's picture

Not only are the NIPCC reports peer-reviewed but all of the thousands of literature references included in them are peer-reviewed from journals such as Science, Nature, Ecology, and on and on.

You should try becoming familiar with the material before you attempt to criticize it.

Sun, 04/13/2014 - 13:12 | 4654235 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Bwah, hah hah hah...

The NIPCC that is put out by the Heartland institute that gets a good chunk of its funding from Fossil fuel cos.?

Are you that easily fooled or are you deliberately being stupid?

As for its credibility see for example:

http://phys.org/news/2013-09-adversaries-zombies-nipcc-climate-pseudosci...

http://www.skepticalscience.com/denialgate-highlights-heartlands-selecti...

And here is a fine example what a paid shill really is:

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

http://www.desmogblog.com/s-fred-singer

Mon, 04/14/2014 - 03:15 | 4655930 Element
Element's picture

 

 

Ah, so if flak smears and shoots-the-messenger, in his proto-typical way, using a some websites and cheap innuendos and defamatory bullshit, this of course renders thousands of peer-reviewed published scientific papers and a vast research effort spanning years of work, irrelevant. ... got it ... but no, it doesn't.

Mon, 04/14/2014 - 04:00 | 4656044 MeelionDollerBogus
MeelionDollerBogus's picture

What, you don't trust the industry?

I'm gonna cure my cancer right now by lighting up another Camels.

Ye of so little faith...

Mon, 04/14/2014 - 12:53 | 4657340 detached.amusement
detached.amusement's picture

but you implicitly trust the government's tossing billions of dollars at this in an attempt to secure a new source of tax revenue?

 

go ahead, FOLLOW THE MONEY....just as long as you are honest and include the vast amounts of government money tossed at it, and you'll see the outcome not even close.

Sat, 04/12/2014 - 21:35 | 4652821 Haloween1
Haloween1's picture

I have a new Iphone to play with.  No worries here.

 

Sun, 04/13/2014 - 00:20 | 4653157 Kirk2NCC1701
Kirk2NCC1701's picture

At the risk of pissing off the "Mother-truckers"...

"Better buy a Prius!". 50 mpg.

And get ahead of the curve in all sorts of old-fashioned and innovative ways. Or pay the Piper.

p.s. For those who missed both the Intro and Advanced Sales & Marketing classes, Big Oil will charge you more and more for gas(oline).

pps. The Germans are shrewder than most realize: the real reason that diesel is popular with their auto industry, is that it is not only a good low tech solution for cars and trucks, but that they were the ones who invented the chemical process of converting coal into diesel decades ago. Aside from having biodiesel fields, they actually still have coal in the ground, even though their Green party won't let them burn much coal. For now.

Sun, 04/13/2014 - 03:39 | 4653363 Seer
Seer's picture

I believe in diversity.

I have diesel and gasoline vehicles/equipment (2-stroke for chainsaws).  And I hope to add an electric chore vehicle soon: lots of times one needs to jiust get in and go- no waiting for an engine to warm (now choke phase); plus, don't want a lot of extra noise from just an on-property get-around vehicle.

Years ago I'd talked some folks out of buying a Prius and toward a Volkswagon diesel.  And while diesel has gone up in price (waay too much!) I still think that this was the correct call.  Oh, and MANY years ago I'd stated that 4-cyl turbos would be more ubiquitous (and in hatchback form)- another correct call.

I've got a truck stop about 15 minutes away.  LOTS of diesel runs through there (no stale fuel).  I figure that that will continue to be the case for quite a long time, longer than one might expect for gasoline: and, trains and trucks have to roll...

Now then, if I can only find my Mercedes diesel that I'm looking for... (older one- W124 platform w/OM602 engine [main reason- I'm an IDI guy- slow and steady wins the race]).

Sun, 04/13/2014 - 04:50 | 4653410 Seer
Seer's picture

The diesel engine was initially run on peanut oil ("veggie oil").  Although it was known to be able to run on "coal dust," the introduction of coal into the world of diesel fuels came later (FIscher-Tropsch), and mostly as a result of WWII.  Interesting in that this never accounted to that much volume as a percentage of total liquid fuels: similarily, ethanol only ever accounted for at most 9% or so of Brazil's self-sufficiency in liquid fuels.

I like diesels.  And though I once said I'd NEVER want one in a car, I'm contemplating this very thing.  I believe that they're far more adaptable for the future than are gasoline engines: one caveat is that this would apply to older diesels, as the newer ones rely on a lot more complex manufacturing process (replacement parts are a LOT more expensive).  GM is slated to be introducing a small diesel engine for lighter-duty trucks, and I figure this will help push into the car market as well sometime in the future (if design and manufacturing are able to continue along w/o significant disruptions).  And funny how This is a "back to the future" kind of thing as both GM and Ford had small trucks with diesels in them way back in the 80s: I believe they were Japanese, but anyway...  Lots of folks been doing this for a number of years: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YxDhlAci7y0 http://www.4btswaps.com/forum/forum.php

Sun, 04/13/2014 - 08:10 | 4653500 Element
Element's picture

Agree there, Prius is a brilliant car Kirk, I'm jazzed to see the F1 cars also have gone full hybrid-electric this year as well, its a huge advance to see that occurring and a massive decrease in engine cubic-capacity as well, but they still have the same race performances. If you watched the last Bahrain GP last week you saw one hell of an exciting race, probably the best I can remember. What better way to bring the hybrid-electrics to the general public's mainstream notice?

Sun, 04/13/2014 - 10:20 | 4653804 headhunt
headhunt's picture

How do you suppose all those Prius vehicles are charged every day?

The real cost of oil is buried in your government taxes and ridiculous regulations and fuel formulas in the refinement process.

The US is attempting to strangle the use of diesel because it does not fit with their meme of 'clean' electric, never mind carbon or nuclear has to run that 'clean' electric vehicle.

As always look at government bureaucrats for the root of most problems.

Something most people overlook in the case of automobiles in particular, is the fact that carbon based fuels are stored energy sources and used at the point of energy production. Electricity is generated 24/7 no matter that much of it is not used. Electricity production wastes billions of KW on a continuous basis, it is not stored in the electric lines, very little is stored on a daily basis and is still feeding the electric socket you plug your Prius into long after you unplug it.

 

Sun, 04/13/2014 - 10:43 | 4653886 Element
Element's picture

Charged? They are not electric cars.

Although you can buy a separate inverter option on some models to recharge the latest models from the mains, but I doubt many people do that as a charge gives you only about 10 to 12 miles of low power driving (slow acceleration) and then you need the conventional engine any way after that, so most won't use them like that.

They're hybrid-electric drive trains where a low cubic capacity conventional engine recharges a dedicated battery, and both the battery and the conventional engine drive the car, via two electric motor-generators on the front wheels. There is no conventional gearbox or clutch as such, and no diff. That makes for a very light car. The end result is about 30% to 35% cheaper fuel cost per mile compared to a conventional drive train.

The main concern for adding efficiency now is to increase economies of scale via increasing sales to further reduce the battery replacement cost, which has fallen steeply in the older models. As more hybrids are taken up the cost gets cheaper, and thus the vehicles are getting both cheaper and more efficient, in total cost per mile terms over the life of the care.

So there is no need for further power stations with hybrids. There is also a need for ~30% less fuel tankers and refining capacity if all cars were hybrids of similar efficiency.

People simply don't know what they are or how they work and seem to think they're electric vehicles or that they will be slow. On conventional engine plus battery they're quick, very zippy with lots of torque and get up and go, so they use traction control because without it they just spin the wheels out of corners.

Sun, 04/13/2014 - 11:13 | 4653960 headhunt
headhunt's picture

That is good news, glad to see the inefficiency of earlier models has been remedied. The mobile as needed energy plant of the gas engine makes much more sense. The electric motor have a tremendous amount of torque as you note, the storage is the limiting issue now.

If we only could get that Thorium reactor going.

 

Sun, 04/13/2014 - 13:24 | 4654266 Leraconteur
Leraconteur's picture

Electric cars waste energy.

There is a reason why automotive engineers in Germany, in 1885, decided to go with ICE engines with fuel stored within 2 metres of combustion - the laws of thermodynamics.

If you burn a fuel, generate steam, turn a turbine, transmit the electricity, charge your auto battery, you waste it - no such thing as a free lunch. Transmission line losses, the Chemical to Electrical conversion is the least efficient of all processes and battery efficiency and coulomb charge capacit are huge limiting factors. Hydrogen has to be made by electrolysis, and then shipped, and then burnt - waste again.

Your 1969 Impala is more efficient than a Tesla which consumes twice the BTU's per mile driven. Batteries waste energy.

Gasoline and Diesel are difficult to improve upon.

You want me to repost a Ragone Chart?

Wed, 04/16/2014 - 01:07 | 4656039 MeelionDollerBogus
MeelionDollerBogus's picture

A prius recovers energy from its braking system. A normal ICE car just burns off the mechanical energy as waste heat and lost braking material. It's not all electric but the parts which are allow it to better use energy that otherwise is thrown away & it happens to be very quiet.

2 -1's: murrikinz is DUMB. Have no idea how a Prius actually works, wouldn't even look it up. The same dumb Murrikinz who think that when temeratures go up on the thermometer they have to call it 'cooling' because 'warming' is a hoax.

Mon, 04/14/2014 - 03:54 | 4656038 MeelionDollerBogus
MeelionDollerBogus's picture

can I get a boat-version of the prius?

Mon, 04/14/2014 - 07:35 | 4656205 venturen
venturen's picture

yes it is called a sail boat

Wed, 04/16/2014 - 01:06 | 4664103 MeelionDollerBogus
MeelionDollerBogus's picture

Cool, I got all this ballast now, some that used to be batteries, and some that has .9999 fine stamped on it.

Sun, 04/13/2014 - 00:17 | 4653175 drinkin koolaid
drinkin koolaid's picture

What the frick?

Sun, 04/13/2014 - 00:28 | 4653193 MEAN BUSINESS
MEAN BUSINESS's picture

Tverberg seems to have the same six month problem Yellen has. "another report" linked in the first sentence of this article links to the IPCC AR5 WG1 report released SIX months ago and coinkidinkily arrives on her website and ZH hours before AR5 WG3 releases their report in Berlin. Really? 

The kicker is that WG3 is reporting on...mitigation. About the only thing the report won't tell you, because it can't, is that we won't mitigate our energy systems before the energy system of life mitigates us.

Thanks Gail for sparing Tyler and the ZH commentarians from having to go to Berlin Sunday 13APR2014. 

All roads lead to Paris 2015.

Sun, 04/13/2014 - 02:58 | 4653341 Seer
Seer's picture

"we won't mitigate our energy systems before the energy system of life mitigates us."

Yes, she's pretty much saying that drops in oil consumption will take out the economy, which is certain to nix any/most speculated/argued points of human impacts on climate change.  It's a win-win for both "proponents" and "non-proponents" of "climate change!"  That is, the SAME outcome will take place: and, as I figure, and as Gail is figuring, there will be no need to put in place carbon controls (because the economy will be so trashed that it won't be possible).

Sun, 04/13/2014 - 00:37 | 4653210 NDXTrader
NDXTrader's picture

Global warming alarmism is so out of place on ZH. Of all the crack pot, oligarchical, one world government clap trap this "climate change" farce is right at the top. It's a real head scratcher that it is seemingly supported on this otherwise anti-oligarch website

Sun, 04/13/2014 - 01:10 | 4653238 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Yeah, it is such a conspiracy and hoax...

\facepalm

The Tylers have a little more respect for science that more than a few here...

Sun, 04/13/2014 - 02:07 | 4653303 Element
Element's picture

And you, good god, the gall of you to even talk about respect for science.

Sun, 04/13/2014 - 12:15 | 4654114 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Coming from someone with their own pet theory of cosmology, this is pretty funny...

Mon, 04/14/2014 - 03:20 | 4656015 Element
Element's picture

lolz ... er ... this pet theory of cosmology you speak of, got any idea what it might be?

And when you know, could you please tell me, as I'd love to know too.

Mon, 04/14/2014 - 03:53 | 4656037 MeelionDollerBogus
MeelionDollerBogus's picture

Considering Flakmeister is mistaken less than 1% of the time and you're wrong most of the time, ya.

Mon, 04/14/2014 - 06:08 | 4656126 Element
Element's picture

How's that black-lung schtick going moron? Do I have to dig that comment up to show everyone how epically tragically full of shit you are?

Or maybe just look up and down this page instead, that's pretty compelling too. lol

Mon, 04/14/2014 - 12:59 | 4657351 detached.amusement
detached.amusement's picture

The Roman Inquisition also claimed to have reqpect for science, so you can take his words with....a molecule of co2, lol...

Sun, 04/13/2014 - 02:51 | 4653334 Seer
Seer's picture

WTF are you people reading?

As soon as you read the words "climate change" your fucking brains shutdown!  Never fucking mind that if you all would calm the fuck down and READ the fucking article you'd find that it could be used to SUPPORT your "there is no global warming" positions.  I've hinted at why this is so (below), and, rather than asking me to repeat mysefl I would suggest that people drop their emotional knee-jerking behavior and read the fucking article LOOKING for the SUPPORT that is THERE FOR YOU!

Sun, 04/13/2014 - 10:30 | 4653856 headhunt
headhunt's picture

I think you misinterpret most responses.

People are essentially agreeing with the hypocrisy of the global warming crowd as expressed in the article.

Sun, 04/13/2014 - 02:04 | 4653299 Element
Element's picture

 

 

http://gailtheactuary.files.wordpress.com/2014/01/tverberg-estimate-of-f...

Figure 3. Estimate of future energy production by author. Historical data based on BP adjusted to IEA groupings.

 

Seriously Tylers, this article is abject BS from beginning to end, that graph in figure 3 is the most absurd garbage I've seen in a long time. This Gail Tverberg seems to be a hopelessly gullible idiot with not a bloody clue what she's talking about. On the short list for the most incompetent dishonest crap ever to be posted at zh.

Sun, 04/13/2014 - 02:05 | 4653302 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Why don't you write up a 20 year projection on the same topic so we can all laugh at your obvious shortcomings and lack of understanding...

Sun, 04/13/2014 - 02:31 | 4653321 Seer
Seer's picture

So, it's going to be all unicorns?

Economies of scale in reverse.  Apparently people still cannot comprehend the impacts of this, "seriously,"

Sun, 04/13/2014 - 02:54 | 4653339 Suisse
Suisse's picture

She used to help run theoildrum.com

Sun, 04/13/2014 - 04:31 | 4653388 Element
Element's picture

Well apparently she knows next to nothing about coal reserves, proven and unproven, and production volumes, current and projected, and ignores the roll of synthetics as well. It's absurd nonsense that she's putting about there, and her mish-mash with AGW shows how wildly deluded she is on the very basics of the topic.

Sun, 04/13/2014 - 10:54 | 4653914 magnetosphere
magnetosphere's picture

figure 3 could be in the rght ballpark if a massive asteroid hit the earth or if the yellowstone caldera unexpectedly blows up

Sun, 04/13/2014 - 02:09 | 4653306 Gusher
Gusher's picture

Chicage just had it's coldest winter in history.  And i thought peak oil happened in 1950. Or was it 1973?  Oil drum blog guaranteed us that oil peaked in 2006. 

Sun, 04/13/2014 - 02:46 | 4653333 Seer
Seer's picture

And "I thought" you were smart...

Clearly one's thought processes are subject to error.  And for me, other than the accuracy of your mental accumen, of which I can only estimate based on this one sample of yours (don't recall ever seening you around before, and, well, being around for only 33 weeks I guess that might be why I don't recall any history of you here at ZH), I look for data over a wide array of sources.

The 1950 thing was about when the modeling for US oil production in total was developed, with the forecast of peak US oil production occuring in 1970: the fact: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:US_Oil_Production_and_Imports_192...

The Oil Drum, I'm guessing, was talking about world oil production.  While the production curve bumped up a bit after 2006, it has not tended to fit the normal rises as seen through longer-term production increases.  I'm sure that the binging in shale oil and such, something that no oil person from back in earlier times would have felt sane about advocating, has been the difference (and such numbers, while not necessary for this rebuttal, would show that the non-conventional plays are merely trying to tred water in the face of declines in the conventional plays).  Here you go: http://www.skepticblog.org/wp-content/uploads/world-oil-production-actua...

15 years ago the US Army was expressing its concerns: http://www.alu.army.mil/alog/issues/JulAug99/MS406.htm

So, with actual data available it's pretty clear that you're clueless about the oil situation.  The climate refutatoin?  Well, given your track record on the oil thing I'm not going to toss my money down on your square...

Sun, 04/13/2014 - 12:45 | 4654174 Gusher
Gusher's picture

Seer, there has been NO CLIMATE change. Weather stations from rural areas prove that.  Alarmists like to hang their hat on arctic ice.  Well, look at both poles and ice cover is above average, not below.  http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/   As for oil, we find it almost everywhere we look for it.  World rerserves grow faster than world consumption. If you look at the price of oil today in copper, gold or farm land, there has been no change in the oil price in the past 35 years. 

Mon, 04/14/2014 - 03:33 | 4656017 Element
Element's picture

Seer's ability to listen to the facts is not his strong suit, so don't be too hard on him, he prefers to talk about the end of the world a lot and how there isn't enough real estate, and we will surely all run out of toilet paper at some point.  It's just math man, try storing large leaves. Other than that he's not too interesting in mundane relevant factiods like those. Careful mentioning expanding ice though, that really sets him off lately, reckons the glaciers are coming soon to eat the soil and we're all doomed ... same old - just FYI.

Mon, 04/14/2014 - 03:50 | 4656034 MeelionDollerBogus
MeelionDollerBogus's picture

That's absurd. We're looking at permanent drought, new desertification in the process, where it's never been before, just like how the middle east once had a vibrant growing area that's now desert & will be forevermore. We're seeing new flooding patterns that look to stay for centuries because of how moisture transport works with new wind patterns. That's real climate change we all see and if you don't see it that is an act of wilful ignorance.

Mon, 04/14/2014 - 13:01 | 4657361 detached.amusement
detached.amusement's picture

...another candidate for completely idiotic comments...

 

and get an original username while you're at it

Mon, 04/14/2014 - 03:48 | 4656033 MeelionDollerBogus
MeelionDollerBogus's picture

But that's just one city and every winter is also summer: on the other side of the Earth.

Sun, 04/13/2014 - 02:27 | 4653320 Seer
Seer's picture

Gail is arguing that the climate change ("global warming") numbers (whether you believe them or not is NOT the point [again, read the fucking article]) won't hold up because the impacts of peak [cheap] oil is going to take the legs out of the economy, which then removes most of the debated impacts of fossil fuel burning on said "global warming."

If you read the article you'll find that she's giving actual support for the "the numbers are all crap" positions most of you take.

Sun, 04/13/2014 - 04:47 | 4653409 laboratorymike
laboratorymike's picture

If you can get access through a university library, check out this paper:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421508002383

Pretty much, when the oil runs short we don't need to worry about global warming. Usually this kind of research doesn't get very far in the literature; as a scientist working in the renewables area, I can tell you that if your findings go against funding agency opinions, you are toast.

BTW, I haven't found the paper yet but the journal Nature (one of the two most authoritative research journals in all science) published a paper a while back that ranked all of the environmental concerns, and it turned out global warming didn't stick out as a very serious issue. Nitorgen pollution from corn belt states and the corresponding dead zones in the Gulf ranked worst... but why isn't Greenpeace out protesting Monsanto? I'm changing jobs because the hypocrisy in the research/academic world is simply unbelievable, I've only shown the tip of the iceberg in my comments on this thread.

Sun, 04/13/2014 - 05:23 | 4653434 Seer
Seer's picture

I don't pay much attention to what groups do because I belong to no group.  And for every "pro" group there's an" against" group- they tend to cancel given enough time.

Eventually Mother Nature solves our quarrels.  I doubt that anyone is going to find sufficient enough time to engage in all these energy-consuming frothy debates once Mother Nature starts really stepping in...

So, for the record:

1) Humans DO have an impact on their environment (if this was false then the corollary would also be false, in which case I'd think that we couldn't be alive- at a minimum think "Observer Effect");

2) Extraction of resoruces at rates exceeding replentishment rates WILL result in exhaustion (to the point where the resouce can no longer be counted on for continual use);

3) There WILL be another glacial period (in which case everything that humans have done will pretty much be erased like a big etch-a-scetch; the earth has to re-till, and it will).

It is point 3 that presents the HOW climate change will materialize.  Your note about nitrogen pollution kind of fits in here, as it's the consequence of manipulations of soils.  Soil loss is the real trigger.  Earth's forces rebalance by initiating glacial activity to re-grind minerals for the refomation of soils.  It's a LONG process, one that we won't be around to see complete...  If this mechanism is correct, and I believe that it logically holds water, then there is absolutely a way in which we can alter the arrival of the next glacial period: the "details," however, are problematic, how much can we stall this by? how much energy would rebuilding soils take?  Because, rightly or wrongly, no consensous will ever come to pass (demoracy doesn't work) we are destined to coast toward the next glacial period...

Sun, 04/13/2014 - 07:50 | 4653517 Element
Element's picture

 

 

Soil loss is the real trigger.

Correct, but there will be others, but soil is the biggie.

I can tell you the mechanism of its formation is correct, but only for glacial derived soils (look up Loess soils) and those are particularly abundant in North America especially the US, hence the huge wheat harvest, etc.

In places like Indonesia, Japan and Mexico it's principally volcanic ash derived and forms very quickly, especially in tropics (see rain forrests on flanks of the active volcanoes) and at any time.

In a place like Australia it's very slow, usually via insitu leach weathering to produce a regolith in a mountainous area, that is then transported by rivers, so the soil is thin and sucks here, hence fewer people can be supported. Plus every glaciation we don't get glaciers, we just get massive sand storms with destroy what little soil there is. Like I said, the soil sucks.

For china Himalayan regolith and glacial derived Loess.

So it varies greatly, in rate of formation, and its rate of destruction and removal (via natural causes).

As for rebuilding soil, Australia has staggeringly large volumes of phosphate fertilizer deposits in the Georgina basin that covers an enormous area to considerable depth. But the phosphate and the barrier reef do not mix. But we can export huge volumes of that to countries that don't have coral reefs if they want a cheap high-grade fertilizer to use to create soil.

Plus volcanic ash is also extremely abundant and easily quarried and transported. It would be very easy to create soil, and nurseries and farms do it here often, via simply mixing up such raw components, and we do have a lot of each component to make that soil. So it can be done and routinely is. So soil is probably going to be manageable and replaceable at that scale, but as for large-scale, I don't know. But we have worked out how to repair and enrich what's there already though, and increase it. Balancing rate of loss to rate of creation is the key and you can speed it up considerably with water and warmth.

Sun, 04/13/2014 - 09:55 | 4653764 Seer
Seer's picture

Thank you for acknowledging the importance of soils.

"Plus volcanic ash is also extremely abundant and easily quarried and transported."

Magic!  Just back up the mule and... </sarc>

"But we have worked out how to repair and enrich what's there already though, and increase it"

???

Is it happening?

I know that when you remove some thing from the land/farm that it's no longer there.  Most operations require inputs, very few are able to regenerate w/o inputs (while continuing to export).  As a follower of grass farming I'd like to think that this represents a possible exception; but, it's too early to say with certainty...

Sun, 04/13/2014 - 11:50 | 4654002 Element
Element's picture

When Europeans arrived in Australia they decide in their ignorance to clear the choked water ways of logs and rocks, and allow the water to run free, which it did, and it of course ran off and the rivers dried and the water tables fell and salt became a serious problem, the prior vegetation died in droughts.The soil was likewise severely but gradually degraded and crops failed and the arable land shrank and biomass left the soil profile.

Then a smary old guy decided to put the logs and rocks back into the river, like it used to be, and did so against the very best of scientific advice, and against laws I believe, and his neighbors were very annoyed for his degrading the water courses and affecting others down stream. But when he did, the river retained its water, the water table came backup, the salt went down, the plants flourished, the grass load increased, the animals returned, the soil recovered and the biomass rapidly restored itself.

Eureka he thought, I'll tell everyone! And of course he was condemned and people thought he was mad. And then he did before and after experiments over several seasons  and took photos and video and compared it to parched degraded areas nearby with the cleared an now dry rivers. But his remained wet and the water table remained much higher and the entire biota thrived.

So he then experimented with different arrangements in different setting to try to retain as much natural water as possible over the largest area of land, and got abundance and vastly improved soil health (some people were worried about possible flooding issues though).

But he had the evidence and eventually the scientists looked at his evidence and it was put on TV and since farmers and graziers every where have learned the lessons and the rivers and the water tables have returned and then some, and the soil condition greatly improved and the arable land expanded and far more productive for longer.

The damage went on for generations, and it was only really at the end of the last big national drought, that people finally started to make sure the rivers retained their water in them, and as much of it as possible.

You'd think that would all be obvious, in retrospect, but it wasn't at all. The national soil was getting sicker and sicker each drought, and all it took was high water retention to turn it all around, to a massive return to health, and the whole environment flourished as well. Many animals that were going extinct or falling in range have returned.

So now land holders use surveying and machinery to make sure that there are numerous water holes everywhere to keep the water table high for as long as possible, and to keep the pastures on the land longer, to protect it from wind and retain a carbon-rich biomass.  So the soil has recovered and due to the large improvement in water hole numbers, the soil has probably never been so good over such a large area at any prior time in many areas.  And the combination of water, heat and ground cover, for a few years, produced rich productive soil profiles again.

So we've learned this horrible lesson and turned the whole thing around and most of it has occurred over just the past decade. So a massive environmental repair job has been occurring in all ths degraded lands, with terrific results. And now people are now on it and doing the best they can to make it as healthy as it can be.

So now we know how to make the soil much healthier than it has been for most of the past century, or even better, and keep it that way for longer, to reduce the effects of drought on soil moisture levels and vegitation and all animals.

Example program:

http://www.soilsforlife.org.au/_literature_106402/5_Three_Rivers_Station

Comprehensive soil care and recovery is a big deal these days:

http://www.depi.vic.gov.au/agriculture-and-food/farm-management/soil-and...

 

Wed, 04/16/2014 - 00:43 | 4664082 The_Prisoner
The_Prisoner's picture

Good post, Element.

Australians have contributed greatly to self-sustaining food production and management of the rural environment. All without government funding. Proof that hardship drives innovation, as long as the government stay out of the way.

 

Dave Holmgren and Bill Mollison  Permaculture

PA Yeomans – Keyline System

 

These guys deserve the Nobel Peace Prize…but then they would join the likes of Henry Kissinger and Obama, so better not.

 

Mon, 04/14/2014 - 13:03 | 4657366 detached.amusement
detached.amusement's picture

"I can tell you that if your findings go against funding agency opinions, you are toast."

dingdingding!!!!

 

bring on the pal review

Sun, 04/13/2014 - 16:01 | 4654692 Gusher
Gusher's picture

Peak oil is definitely crap.   Wrong for 100 years and counting. Makes Joe Lavorgna look like a genius.

Sun, 04/13/2014 - 16:03 | 4654700 Gusher
Gusher's picture

Peak oil is definitely crap.   Wrong for 100 years and counting. Makes Joe Lavorgna look like a genius.

Mon, 04/14/2014 - 03:32 | 4656021 MeelionDollerBogus
MeelionDollerBogus's picture

You're an idiot. If what you said is true then oil would be $30/barrel and oil wells would not be exhausting. But oil is $100/barrel +/- 10 for the last while and oil wells are being exhausted & shuttered.

Mon, 04/14/2014 - 13:06 | 4657374 detached.amusement
detached.amusement's picture

and you probably believe the idiotic statement of "what do you do when a barrel of oil costs more than a barrel of oil to extract" and completely forgetting the "market" that will simply push up that relative price of harder to extract oil.  the lack of logic, it stuns.

Mon, 04/14/2014 - 23:47 | 4659545 Element
Element's picture

Your talking basic economic notions to an economics and finance blog, where most of these more extreme doomer dingbats have no understanding of basic economic forces of adjustment. Not one of them has a clue and I expect not one of them has ever run a business and experienced how the economy really responds to shocks and progressive changes in abundance and supply short falls.

At least people like Marc Faber, whom I respect, knows how the system's dynamics actually work, and can explain it in cohesive and compelling and quasi-predictive detail. Some of Faber's papers from before subprime were extremely good. But these doomerism fools infesting zero hedge of late have almost no clue how the economic system operates, in practice, so can't grasp why their prognostications are complete rubbish.

Just look at the Figure 3 graph within this article, that's the incognizance and dumbness you're dealing with, reality-check that because its author sure didn't, and frankly I think she did no analysis whatsoever, she just wanted cheap and nasty doomer bait.

Contemptible rubbish.

 

Thu, 04/17/2014 - 23:39 | 4672055 MeelionDollerBogus
MeelionDollerBogus's picture

"Your talking basic economic notions to an economics and finance blog"

NO, he and you both are talking blatant anti-entropy defying the laws of physics and calling it "good economics". Both of you were dropped on the head as children.

Thu, 04/17/2014 - 23:38 | 4672049 MeelionDollerBogus
MeelionDollerBogus's picture

Except you're an idiot. If a barrel oil costs more than the energy of a barrel to oil to extract there is in fact no possible price measured by any units, not fiat, not gold, not ergs or joules, that can re-balance this. Extraction stops at the equalibrium of 1:1 because that's physics.

How stupid are you? You can't magic-your-way into extraction because you'll deplete more energy, no matter the price or units of money, than what you return. You can only improve your machinery to reduce waste/errors in the joues cost of extraction or STOP EXTRACTING.

Markets are not magic: they can not defy physics.

So basically you were hit in the head very hard with sledgehammers. Repeatedly.

Sun, 04/13/2014 - 02:38 | 4653324 laboratorymike
laboratorymike's picture

Electric grid failures, because subsidies for renewables leave companies that sell fossil-fuel powered electricity with too little profit. The current payment system for renewables needs to be fixed to be fair to companies that generate electricity using fossil fuels. We cannot operate our economy on renewables alone, in part, because the quantity is far too small. Creation of new renewables and maintenance of such renewables is also fossil fuel dependent.

I once saw an excellent presentation from some electric companies on the renewables topic, and in particular the problem of wind and solar shifting wildly from 100% to 0 with little ability to control capacity. If renewable production makes up more than 20% of the grid, by their estimate, the grid would become too difficult to control. So barring some awesome new technology, renewables would not work even if we built 100x of what we have now.

That said, why does my ultra-liberal city still have a ban on people installing their own offgrid solar power on their own homes?

Sun, 04/13/2014 - 04:00 | 4653374 Seer
Seer's picture

Um... non-renewables HAVE been highly subsidized; further, most of the infrastruture is tailored toward non-renewables.  This is a fact-based statement, I am not injecting any personal biases or group-think here.

"That said, why does my ultra-liberal city still have a ban on people installing their own offgrid solar power on their own homes?"

Get the fuck out of there!  Or, do you just like whining?  OR, are you looking to change an entire city (and if so you're either ill-equipped for success or you're not trying hard enough)?

I moved away from a city because it had been a plan to do so for a LONG time.  However, had I just sat on my ass in a city and complained...  I spent a fair enough of my energy in battling city forces- looking back it was nothing more than a waste of time.  So, as being someone who is farily versed in city AND country life I can tell you that I've got a pretty good understanding of the dynamics in both.

I'd be surprised if there's an actual zoning law that says that you cannot be off-grid.  And if one is generating THAT much power then, to me, it would seem silly to NOT take advantage of energy buy-backs (though you're selling at a discount- but then again your purpose isn't to supply energy to the commuity but to your own domicile).

If you think that the people there around you are that stupid then would you really want them storing a shitload of energy next door to you?  If they fuck up then the close proximity is likely to "get your attention."  I don't have to worry about such things now, as my closest neighbors are several hundred feet away (and, well, they're way too poor to even contemplate outfitting for off-grid [a generator might be the closest we'd likely see]).

"So barring some awesome new technology, renewables would not work even if we built 100x of what we have now."

They won't work because of CONSUMPTION.  And, one cannot ignore the consumption side when switching over to talking about non-renewables, right?  When those non-renewables become scarcer you can bet that they too "would not work."

I'm a pragmatist.  I'm not pre-conditioned/programmed along group-think.  I KNOW that there can NEVER be enough energy to provide for an infinite demand, be it renewables or non-renewables.

BTW - Not all electrical producers are FOR-profit.  Gasp!  That's like socialism! which is like, well, farm co-ops! (point here is that people have bound themselves together at community levels using not-for-profit structures for quite some time [and, well, that's also what churches are])  "Liberal?"  I'll let you torture yourself on such trivial matters...

Sun, 04/13/2014 - 04:35 | 4653396 laboratorymike
laboratorymike's picture

Get the fuck out of there!  Or, do you just like whining?  OR, are you looking to change an entire city (and if so you're either ill-equipped for success or you're not trying hard enough)?

I'm moving the family later this year, FWIW. I was joking about the "why is my ultra-liberal city not backing off-grid," we all know why. It's hilarious to watch the professors at the local university talk out of both sides of their mouth on the issue.

A while back I tried forming a renewable energy company with a friend, and the biggest, never-discussed roadblock is the monopoly utilities have on infrastructure. If you make excess power with your offgrid system, you may only sell to the utility, and only at the price they set, which is 1/10th what they charge you. Selling it to your neighbor is banned, even if you provide the wire.

Sun, 04/13/2014 - 07:52 | 4653466 Seer
Seer's picture

"It's hilarious to watch the professors at the local university talk out of both sides of their mouth on the issue."

Broad brush.  Not all professors are fucked up.  Really, a lot of the "renewable" stuff that you're mucking around with was likely co-researched by "professors."  My wife was recently saved from the ravages of cancer thanks to some folks that happened to have been "professors."  Again, broad brush...

"A while back I tried forming a renewable energy company with a friend, and the biggest, never-discussed roadblock is the monopoly utilities have on infrastructure. If you make excess power with your offgrid system, you may only sell to the utility, and only at the price they set, which is 1/10th what they charge you. Selling it to your neighbor is banned, even if you provide the wire."

You had a BAD business model!  You're externalizing costs!  Please re-read my comments about living in close quarters to a bunch of energy if you don't think that this is the case: where are you offering up to cover increased risk?  The existing systems, and whether I agree with them or not is NOT the point, have, for the most part, obtained a level of acceptance of the known risks.

I doubt that you are banned from selling electricity to your neighbor.  I suspect it's the "linkage" (wire) that is the issue, as it's the thing that would likely cause confusion as to responsibility for risk: and if I were in my own neighboorhood electrical pool and an adjacent pool of folks who were really crappy at managing/maintaining their systems was to melt down and affect my neighborhood pool?

I'm not sure you understand the full picture here.  I don't think that you are aware of the significance that insurance companies play in our lives.

If you want to "sell" electricity to your neighbors then perhaps you can have a battery recharing service; this way you're NOT connected- I see NO way that the officials can block you on something like this.  I am mentioning this to suggest that it's not about selling electricity so much as how you are doing it (and that if you don't exhibit the knowledge of handling risk then they would seem in their right minds to disallow what you're looking to do- "via wire').  Oh!  And be sure to report the income for taxing purposes (all other businesses have to).

If you don't like the battery idea of delivery then yes, you SHOULD have a tough time of it in injecting yourself into the existing infrastructure.  As much as I like the idea of renewables and generating back on to the grid, I think it not a good idea for a bunch of sales-hungry folks to jack into the grid (see "Enron").  You've surely got a fair understanding of what lots of amps means...

Part of it is likely to also be that there's really no neat package/protocol established for handling "independent" suppliers.  Criticali nfrastructure ought be treated like critical infrastructure.  The railroads don't just let anyone plop onto their tracks (Amtrak is mandated to be allowed, and they are forced to take the backseat on the tracks- get shitty scheduling etc.).  And if one blows out a track then there are trucks to pick up the slack.  If you blow out the grid then you're affecting a WHOLE lot more (which of course is a great sales point for having you own locally-produced energy [as long as you don't burn you or your neighbor's house down*]).

* Brings up a story...  A guy I worked with a long time ago had this neighbor who was doing a remodel job on his house.  Apparently the wring job was really ghastly, so much so that the guy was a bit nervous, especially having a newborn.  Yeah, I suppose that one could just move; but... geez, when things are close, like in cities, then it's really hard not to sense the value in having some rules/laws/codes in place to keep the suicidal tendencies of others somewhat in check.  And someone who had been renting my house before I bought it appeared to do all he could to burn the place down: wiring up a shed on a 40amp breaker with 30amp-rated serivce wire [he had a fucking grow-op going!]).

In conclusion, things are more complicated than most understand (which would mean ignorance, something that can be helped), or, on the less-honest side, are wanting to admit (usually in attempts to externalize costs/risks).  I'm am NOT defending or prmoting any sides, I only defend logic and facts that are supported by logic.

NOTE: I'd enjoy discussing renewables with you.  Renewables tend to fit in with my notion of decentralization.

Mon, 04/14/2014 - 02:43 | 4655998 MeelionDollerBogus
MeelionDollerBogus's picture

Someone was working on a kinetic rotating battery. Meaning near-frictionless bearings suspend a spinning carbon-fiber wheel at high speed so you can add speed (power) any time & remove power (speed, momentum) from the wheel and on its own should hold power stable for 7 years. Not that you'd do that because if it's for a grid-transmission system you're really looking to just steady out the sporadic input of wind, solar or whatever else you'd like.

I think the solution to fuel shortage is obvious: co-generation of heat from nuclear plants to thermal depolymerization to make oil, petrol products. You can't beat entropy but if we're going to lose heat regardless we may as well re-capture some & put it to good use - making liquid fuel.

Sun, 04/13/2014 - 04:26 | 4653389 elegance
elegance's picture

Lol.  Only seer truly comprehended the article. If the assorted posters here are supposed to represent some kind of alternative to bankster world government than we are truly fucked. Cause one side is evil and the other retarded... 

Sun, 04/13/2014 - 05:03 | 4653419 dogfish
dogfish's picture

Dont forget the part about the better education of woman.

No agenda here.

Sun, 04/13/2014 - 05:40 | 4653455 nje
nje's picture

oil limits shouldn't matter one bit. if all those oil CEOs didn't have their heads up their own asses they would have realized long ago that oil is unsustainable. (incase your only as smart as an oil CEO, heres the big secret why: there is a limited amount of oil on this planet! surprise!) whether the oil limits are self imposed by humans, or imposed by planetary history, no matter what, if oil CEOs keep on the same track they have been for the last 100 years, then yeah, theres going to be a huge problem when the taps run dry/limit/become scarce/investment-less/etc/etc/etc.

 

if an oil CEO can pull their head out of their asses for a moment to take a look at what is truly happening around them, realize they are not as invincible as they think, they would drop every spare dollar they have into nuclear/solar R&D or energy generation diversification. Hitachi/GE already increased nuclear generation profit margins about tenfold since the last nuclear reactor was built by developing a reactor that is able not only reuse the spent fuel rods of other generation 4 and earlier generators, but also reconcentrate the fuel rods at same time making them able to be resent back to current generation 4 reactors. having a combination of both types (normal generator + recycler) would be godly profits. and with solar + battery technology, so disrupting to the previous forms of energy generation hawaii has temporarily introduced a measure to prevent civilians from connecting to the grid if they have their own solar and battery arrays because solar panel effeciency and battery storage capacity have evolved to the point that its a no brainer decision for any homeowner to install panels on their roofs- this is bleeding the fossil fuel generators dry of profit.

 

if the oil companies weren't so arrogant, they would realize progress could be their friend and not necessarily their enemy - and it would solve every one of those doomsday scenarios tyler listed. why these idiot oil CEOs are so stuck on a oil-only attitude is beyond me.

Sun, 04/13/2014 - 05:50 | 4653460 dogfish
dogfish's picture

The oil CEO's know all this,they also know there is no substitute for oil

Sun, 04/13/2014 - 06:16 | 4653475 Seer
Seer's picture

I up-voted you.  However...

Your statement is incomplete.  Rather, it doesn't sufficiently qualify the issue.

Fact: There IS a substitute for oil.

Fact: Oil substitutes that we know of are not capable of replacing the current consumption rates of conventional oil, let alone provide for the mandated "growth" in consumption (as per our economic models insist upon).

There are CEOs, and ex CEOs, on the record as having acknowledge these things.  Sadly, the ability for reallly logic-less information to be pushed around has resulted in amassing a lot of people who believe that there's a conspiracy to keep us (well, them) from getting our infinte oil.  Yeah, imagine the crack dealer telling the addict that he no longer has crack (and no one else does either), what would the reaction of the crack addict be?

We cannot handle the truth...

Sun, 04/13/2014 - 06:24 | 4653477 Seer
Seer's picture

One other thing to keep in mind is that TPTB have to have their energy sources.  If it's not conventional then it WILL be something in the non-conventional area.  The US military has done a lot of reporting on concerns over the availablility of energy for their use (as well as the ramifications of non-military entities becoming destablized as the result of a loss of conventional supplies).  So...

It's kind of hard to come out and say that renewables (or non-conventionals) won't replace conventional oil while at the same time working on alternatives (which you know that TPTB/militaries are demanding).  Yes, they'll be seen as hypocrites... lynched from one side not getting theirs, or nail-gunned by the other side if not delivering theirs...  so, you work and collect a paycheck, knowing that you're going to die anyway.

Sun, 04/13/2014 - 06:54 | 4653494 viator
viator's picture

Useful substitutes for oil:

Methane hydrates

Natural Gas

Coal

Nuclear power

hydrogen

 

 

Sun, 04/13/2014 - 07:36 | 4653514 Seer
Seer's picture

"Useful substitutes for oil"

That's NOT the question/issue (refer to my post above).

Natural gas- finite

Coal - finite

Nuclear power - is a derivative/product/process based on a finite resource

Hydrogen - um, hydrogen is an element, one that has to be unlocked using energy, in which case it's kind of not the same as the others

Missing alternative:

Soylent Green (yeah, tongue-in-cheek)

Back on a serious note... the consumption lifespan/interval for those various finite resources are WHOLLY dependent on consumption rates.  NONE of them can accomodate continual growth in consumption w/o that growth eating into the lifesapn of that resource.  One must state the time interval as well as the consumption rates in order to present any meaningful forecast.  For sure, the rates of depletion of all these other resources would tend to increase in the face of falling convnetional oil supplies, and as a result the initial projections of sufficiency would HAVE to be adjusted downward (either the consumption level or the projected time/interval would be reduced).

Sun, 04/13/2014 - 08:07 | 4653541 Leraconteur
Leraconteur's picture

Climate change - is due to that massive ball of fusing elements in the sky. Surely you don't think that driving a car is having an impact upong the climates of Uranus, Mars and the moons of Juipiter and Saturn?

Oil - As prices rise, more oil will become economical to extract and Thorium reactors will provide all the power needed to desalinate water, generate electricity, and synthesis petro-fuels.

There is in excess of 10,000 years of Thorium just laying about in piles on the surface of Earth.

Is that a long enough timefrane to be 'sustainable' or do you wish to plan out 500,000,000 years ahead?

**In 500 million years Sol will have increased its solar output such that life as we have on this planet now, won't be possible.

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!