Reader Posts
« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
Do we have the energy to talk issues at TPM?
Please ignore previous post as TPM software saw fit to take the post from my machine before it was fully baked!
TPM seems to be slowly sucking towards MSM-mania -- stories are stories
to fill a news day. By way of proof, check out GMan08's excellent summary
here on how "much" has gone on in the last 6 weeks. (It hasn't been
as much as you think... but that doesn't mean lots of electronic pixels
have been burnt on discussing it.)
I propose yet again we think about the real issue of the next four years. According to this article (or if the link doesn't work, go here: http://tinyurl.com/4qsv9u ):
Most people believe oil is running out and governments need to find another fuel, but Americans are alone in thinking their leaders are out of touch with reality on this issue, an international poll said on Sunday.
and
In the United States, the world's biggest oil consumer and among the biggest emitters of climate-warming pollution from fossil fuel use, 76 percent of respondents said oil is running out, but most believed the U.S. government mistakenly assumes there would be enough to keep oil a main source of fuel.
Why is Hillary talking about being able to do anything about $4/gal
gas? Her campaign makes you think that it is the big, bad oil
companies causing the price hikes. The fact is that most of our oil comes from the nationalize oil companies of OPEC and a few other nations (Canada and Mexico).
Worrying about the oil companies' profits here is like worrying about the fit-and-finish of your new sun roof when your car is going over a cliff.
I'd like to send a message to the candidates that we need for them to really get serious about the energy issue -- and it's not about the environment, and it's not about green jobs.
It's about having enough energy and petroleum products to grow our food.
It's about having enough energy to heat our homes.
It's about having enough energy to manufacture goods.
I have yet to see any of the candidates address this issue for what it is: a stand-alone crisis that can't be couched in pleasant terms.
The good news is that even the rich are stuck on this planet. And they may find that the world will suddenly become harsh for them as well.
If for some strange reason you recommended the previous half-post, please recommend this as well. My apologies about the double booking.
Advertisement
Comments (28)
Comment transplanted from previous thread:
It seems that, while consensus has perhaps begun to come around on peak oil, a lot of people still think either it hasn't really been shown to be the case or that it is far off enough that market forces and technological innovation will just sort of work this all out.
I happen to think that it would be advantageous for us to use the ability of the government to influence the market in order to force movement on this issue. Perhaps some people already believe that this is happening with respect for recent initiatives, like those those surrounding corn-based ethanol, but I don't think that we have yet put it place the proper measures.
What would you like to see from our candidates in terms of an energy platform?
April 21, 2008 12:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
I want to nationalize the American petroleum industry so we can redistribute the obscene profits they are going to make during the last years of petroleum.
April 21, 2008 12:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
Billy! Please note I kept this column short... just for you ;-)
As I said, our oil companies aren't really the issue. I believe they only provide about 5% of the world's oil.
At present, all indications are that Saudi Arabia is past peak because the price of oil is no longer under anyone's control (just as in 1973, the US couldn't provide the swing -- which is why OPEC was able to effectively hit us with an embargo). So the price you see is the speculators.
Couple that with our national debt... and you will see that it will take many more dollars to buy oil.
This is the true reason why the price is increasing rapidly:
a) speculators now control the price (e.g. the "free market")
b) dollars buy less than they used to on a national market
It's critical for us to stop blaming the oil companies and that will not fix the fundamental issues. Believe me, their profits are going away soon.
April 21, 2008 12:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
Billy! Please note I kept this column short... just for you ;-)
As I said, our oil companies aren't really the issue. I believe they only provide about 5% of the world's oil.
At present, all indications are that Saudi Arabia is past peak because the price of oil is no longer under anyone's control (just as in 1973, the US couldn't provide the swing -- which is why OPEC was able to effectively hit us with an embargo). So the price you see is the speculators.
Couple that with our national debt... and you will see that it will take many more dollars to buy oil.
This is the true reason why the price is increasing rapidly:
a) speculators now control the price (e.g. the "free market")
b) dollars buy less than they used to on a national market
It's critical for us to stop blaming the oil companies and that will not fix the fundamental issues. Believe me, their profits are going away soon.
April 21, 2008 12:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
To DF, in response to his comment on the un-baked version of this blog:
We need to get radical about dealing with the issue.
Some ideas include:
a) Promise to do *nothing* about the price of gas... and get people prepared that it will probably be at $5-6 / gal within 12-18 months time.
People won't give up their SUV's, trucks, and larger cars willingly... but they will pretty quickly figure out what they can and cannot afford.
b) Go back to the 55 mph national speed limit.
These first two steps are trivial to implement, but will get people used to the ideas that the oil is running out. That will allow people to figure out that hard times are coming which will hopefully lessen the shock and keep some semblance of government control.
Next steps include:
c) Revamp nuclear power plants while we still have the "cheap" energy to build them. This will require tremendous will about what to do with the nuclear waste. The Dems are to blame here as much as the GOP -- Harry Reid put the kibosh on Yucca Mtn. That needs to start again, whether the people from Las Vegas like it or not. (We probably don't have time to find another "Yucca Mountain" site and significant work went into the current one.)
d) Begin programs in hydro-electric power generation: even smaller plants. This will also involve re-dredging many dams that are silting up.
e) Immediately have the USDA implement a crash program in re-educating farmers on "new" growing techniques without massive amounts of fertilizer (and water).
f) Massive depression-era style projects to revitalize the major cities on waterways (Detroit, Cleveland, etc.) that have been neglected previously. We will probably need more barges in the future to transport goods.
g) Massive depression-era style projects to revamp our rail system (both heavy and light rail).
At this point to argue about research, etc. is fine, but we need to go with so-called "old technology" which is known to work and can be set up in such a way as we don't need to run things on high-tech parts -- which may well not be available in the future. Remember, once upon a time you could fix your own car in your garage. Back when you could see all the parts.
I think this program, as rational as I believe it is, is highly radical. I'm guessing the general population will have to be in a panic before it accepts much of it. Hopefully, they won't be too panicked to have mob mentality rule.
April 21, 2008 12:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
April 21, 2008 12:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
RE: Nuclear waste, are you familiar at all with the pebble-bed reactor design? I think I may have mentioned this before, but I'm don't recall for certain. It has several interesting benefits, one of which that the fuel is in the form of graphite spheres a little larger than a billiard ball. This makes the waste disposal storage process very predictable and more manageable than with light-water reactors. Also, they plants are more efficient and the fuel can be changed out as needed. Individual pebbles can be inspected and cycled back into the system or removed as needed. There is one prototype online already in China and another in the works in South Africa.
I bring this up because it seems that the key issue in getting the public to accept nuclear power is going to be banishing the demon that far-left environmentalists have created in conflating nuclear energy with nuclear weaponry. This goes right to heart of why people like Reid feel the need to put the brakes on projects like Yucca.
April 21, 2008 1:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
Don't kid yourself: Yucca Mtn was started before Las Vegas became a major political voice -- and it took so long to complete that Vegas was able to get Reid to hold it.
The concerns aren't environmental (or even terrorism): the residents of Las Vegas didn't like the idea of all the country's nuclear waste passing so close on their freeways.
In fact, from an environmental standpoint, Yucca is hard to beat. It took years to find a suitable area with an excellent geological base.
One of the biggest problems of Yucca is political: the large construction companies involved (you know who they are -- same ones involved in Iraq) have a nice cozy relationship with the Congress and the DOE.
New nuclear reactor designs are okay... but we currently still have to deal with the "temporary" storage issues of the last 40-50 years as part of this solution.
April 21, 2008 1:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sure, there are a lot reasons surrounding Yucca, most of them political, but I don't think it's incorrect to say that nuclear power has been demonized as being far more dangerous than it actually is. Whenever I'm talking to someone who wants to address global warming, I always ask them how they feel about nuclear energy. Most of them look at my like I'm mad. They want to talk about renewable and what have you, but these things simply don't provide enough energy to get coal out of the picture, which I guess isn't quite as pressing an issue from an energy standpoint, but peak coal will be here soon enough as well.
Also, Democrats have criticized Obama this season for being open to nuclear energy (even though Clinton acknowledges that it has to be part of our infrastructure). How do we convince these people that energy scarcity (and further resource scarcity) are far greater threats than the perceived threat of nuclear waste?
April 21, 2008 1:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
A couple of good blackouts this summer may do the trick.
And you have to couple that with real leadership to give people unpleasant truths. In addition to everything else, after watching her meltdowns during the campaign, I don't believe Hillary has the charisma for pulling off that tricky business of leadership. At that point you will need inspirational words which she deemed as "whoop-de-doo". You will also need a sense of trustworthiness -- and Hillary's TQ has got to be somewhere near GWB's by now to all but their most ardent supporters.
April 21, 2008 1:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
Its not really all that radical. I think its all very doable. The problem is how do the politicians go from promising tax cuts and universal health care to asking for austerity. There needs to be some crisis event to focus the publics attention before a plan of this nature can be offered with any hopes of successful implementation.
The most difficult part is growing food without fertilizers. Not that it can't be done, it can be done easily. Just not on the large farms of 1000 or more acres we have today. Two thirds of American farm land is made up of farms of greater than 1000 acres.
http://www.ers.usda.gov/AmberWaves/November07/PDF/Datafeature.pdf
Organic farming simply needs smaller plots of diversified crops with frequent rotation and a much more hands on approach.
There's really no lack of quality fertilizers. 300 million people generate a massive amount of fertilizer if we didn't dump so many chemicals in to the waste stream. Unfortunately there's not much that can be done about the need for water. And our aquifers are being depleted faster than they regenerate. But there are ways to conserve and reuse. That will come about whether there is an energy crisis or not.
Small hydro-electric generation is a good idea. Back in the 70's when I was reading more on this subject I came across several writers that mentioned that simply putting generators on all existing dams of 25 foot of head or more could generate more than half as much electricity as was currently generated. I don't know what an updated projection would be but I'm guessing it would still be substantial.
Bottom line though is that unless we're talking about emptying the cities and moving the people out in to communities centered around farms, research and development of a new source of energy is the only long term solution. New York, Chicago, Philly, etc. is just not sustainable without a abundant cheap form of energy.
In many ways suburbs are more sustainable. There is a tremendous amount of quality farm/garden land in each home owners yard. If they aren't over run by starving city dwellers as society collapses. I sure hope governments start making some wise decisions. If not it could get very scary.
April 21, 2008 5:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
As much as I approve of your suggestions, (a) is politically damaging. I'm not saying it shouldn't be done anyway, I'm just saying that whoever sees it through can expect to have an incredibly difficult time getting re-elected. Of course, what's more important the future of our country/world, or getting re-elected? That's right, getting re-elected.
As for (b), I'd suggest amending it: 55 mph speed limit for those whose vehicles are rated at below 40 mpg, and 70 mph speed limits for the rest of us! Not only does it mean that I don't have to sacrifice anything (always a plus), but it also would be a strong incentive for those who drive Hummers to reconsider their vehicle choices. (Don't confuse the little bit of snark I have in there for not being serious about the plan and its possibility to provide smart incentives.)
April 21, 2008 8:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
Clearthinker, I'd be interested in getting your opinion on this, as well as others. Here is my take: peak oil will not end, as cryptogon calls it, "the horror show." People will die. There will be famine and displacement. Environmental catastrophes. But "the horror show" will simply keep playing. If you don't have it in you to read the entire article I've linked to, here is the point, which is a quote from a Fortune story:
http://cryptogon.com/?p=1553
April 21, 2008 12:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
Several points: We are presently flirting with $120/barrel oil... Why wait this long to put it on the market? If Shell had this answer, it would be the most *powerful company on the planet*.
Canada has been working on shales for a long time now, and the estimated price keeps going up.
And don't forget, fusion reactors were supposed to occur any day now... for the last 50 years.
Remember that peak oil isn't about having no oil left. It's about having very expensive energy sources left. Already you can see how oil prices are affecting food: the price of wheat is currently growing at an alarming rate.
The populace is a bit like plate tectonics... we will grind more and more until we release all that built in tension energy in one fell swoop -- called an earthquake.
I highly recommend people look at:
THE LONG EMERGENCY by James Kunstler
and
OVERSHOOT by Catton (this was written in the 1980's and shows clearly how technology has allowed us to put more people per square mile... but if you remove the technology we are going to have to "remove" people -- famine, disease, war, mobs, you name it -- until we get back to equilibrium)
April 21, 2008 1:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
Another interpretation of why Shell is buying their shares back: Because they have oil rights and they know that they are about to become more profitable than ever before.
April 21, 2008 1:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, you are probably right. I think I let my inner conspiracy theorist get the better of me sometimes!
April 21, 2008 2:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
April 21, 2008 2:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
For storage, ease of transportation, and energy per unit volume and weight, nothing beats concentrated, liquid sunshine.
There is a reason why coal and then oil has powered the industrial revolution -- it was the best fuel available. Nothing can compare with it. And oil is even better than coal for cleanliness of burn.
Now *that* is what people have to come to terms with. That there will be no alternative fuel as decent as oil.
Also, by the time you get to famine and mass migrations of population, you won't be able to implement my ideas listed above. Large-scale projects require centralized control and communication -- both of which are offshoots from cheap, available energy.
That is why Kunstler sees the collapse of centralized everything, but especially government. One clear clue about this: compare the size of states formed in the 18th, 19th, and 20th centuries. That was because it was easier to organize large areas after the huge tech boom in the 1860's: the railroad and the telegraph.
April 21, 2008 2:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is not making me more hopeful! The ideas you suggested then, are not radical enough!
April 21, 2008 3:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
Clearthinker, I love you, and I think you're a genius, but unfortunately, the answer to your question is "No."
Do me a favor and post this again (a) after Tuesday, and (b) when Little Allsburg starts to sleep through the night.
April 21, 2008 1:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Which question was that?
April 21, 2008 1:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
I believe he's referring to your post title.
April 21, 2008 1:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
Damn! You are correct! I need to drink less of this Kool-Aid....
April 21, 2008 1:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
That sounds like cannibalism to me! Can Kool-Aid Man drink of himself?
April 21, 2008 2:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
My head just exploded.
April 21, 2008 2:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ha!!!!!!!
April 21, 2008 2:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
The really weird part is that nothing but Kool-Aid came out.
April 21, 2008 3:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
I can walk. I'm more concerned about the high prices of foodstuff and the dwindling supply of some items in various countries, including this one. Around the country, foodbanks are running low, not just because there are more broke people, but because of the lack of supply. The newspapers are full of stories about dwindling food supplies, but no one else seems to care.
I may lose my house, I can't afford to fill up my car, my family doesn't have health insurance, but I'm really more concerned about eating. About making sure there is enough to eat.
April 21, 2008 3:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment