17 replies to this topic

[Dingo]

I had a sort of simplified idea of what peak oil was but now I am discovering a lot of moving parts and history that influence the subject. For now I am just going to supply a link that covers a lot of territory and in my leisure contemplate the matter.

http://ourfiniteworl...l-limits-story/

[eds]

Here's some more positive reading material.

Source: Renewables cause Fossil and Nuclear plant closings

[NODAME]

I found two related article

Jeff Rubin's blog
http://www.jeffrubin...ice-not-supply/

彭明輝's blog
http://mhperng.blogs...4/peak-oil.html

[Dingo]

eds, on 15 August 2013 - 10:41 PM, said:

Here's some more positive reading material.

Source: Renewables cause Fossil and Nuclear plant closings

From the link

Quote

Navigant Research recently estimated that the combined impact of
. . . market forces and
. . . tighter emission control
. . . would force coal-fired plant closures in
. . . (53GW) 137 North America and
. . . (49GW) 144 in Europe by 2020.

Question, how many of these plants are being replaced by oil and natural gas?

Putting it in perspective, there are over 2300 coal fired plants world wide.

[eds]

Dingo, on 16 August 2013 - 12:26 AM, said:

From the link
Question, how many of these plants are being replaced by oil and natural gas?

From the SAME link
Answer: Renewables, had reduced fossil fuels to the role of
. . . “marginal power plants” which caused a
. . . drastic fall in revenue(Follow the Money)

The Australian Energy market Operator said:
. . . the growing use of rooftop solar,
. . . more efficient appliances, and
. . . some reduced industrial demand meant that
. . . there was no need for any new BASELOAD,
. . . or even peaking plant capacity,
. . . for at least another decade.

Dingo, on 16 August 2013 - 12:26 AM, said:

Putting it in perspective, there are over 2300 coal fired plants world wide.

You and I are making the Fossil fueled Grid profitable(Follow the Money)
. . . Well you and I could get Solar cheaper than fossil fuel and start unplugging from the Grid,
. . . If we all do that, they would become unprofitable and close down(Follow the Money)

[Shortpoet-GTD]

Some older articles/links-peak oil.

http://www.masterres...new-york-times/

http://www.democrati...ess=104x3368051

(Friedmans op-ed piece from 2008)-
http://www.nytimes.c...edman.html?_r=0

[still learning]

Dingo, on 15 August 2013 - 04:57 PM, said:

.....peak oil .......contemplate the matter.....

    Quite a bit to think about on that site.  I'm not sure I agree with every word, but a lot to think about.   A older page on that site that I recommend looking at, includes this bit "The Federal Government might just disappear, and the individual states would be left on their own,"  at   http://ourfiniteworl...udget-problems/:  While I have read some of "Gail the Actuary's " stuff at The Oil Drum, don't think I've been to her website before.  Thanks for the link.   Not actually relevant, but of interest to me is a bit in the 1962 Hubbert report linked to in the "Stumbling Blocks....." article  "Since CO2 absorbs long-wavelength radiation, it is possible that this is already producing secular climate change in the direction of higher average temperatures."

[Phil]

Interesting links, all.  Peak oil is a condition of price not availability, once price get's too high we will substitute or go into recession and demand will fall.  Like most all recessions, 2008 was preceded by an oil spike.  Our recovery has been hobbled by continuing high oil prices.  The world is addicted to coal because cheap energy fuels growth and developing nations require growth for political stability.

Bush was right, we should have been drilling like mad to keep prices down and the economy humming.  With the current economy only the relatively few well off can afford BEV's and solar panels while the lower half of the population subsidizes them.  We need about 25 more years of cheap oil before there is a substantial penetration of BEV's and FCV's.  All we are doing now is torturing the poor and lower middle class with high unemployment and high energy costs.

Cheap energy fuels growth, including growth in renewables.  Is someone on food stamps and unemployment more or less likely to by LED bulbs, BEV"s, solar panels, etc. than someone with a decent job?

I know that's not a popular viewpoint but at least it's a logical one!

[Dingo]

Phil, on 19 August 2013 - 09:55 AM, said:

We need about 25 more years of cheap oil

You've got a hunger for collective suicide.

[Phil]

No, just channeling my inner Bill Clinton, "It's the economy stupid!"    Seriously, with ever stricter MPG standards our oil usage wouldn't increase that much and we could use the profits to pay down the debt.  OPEC will cut back their production to keep prices high so the net result on the world wouldn't be that much more consumption overall.  

Cheap energy would allow our economy to recover to the point where people could afford to think about solar, BEV's, etc. and actually afford them.  In "The end of growth", the author said the economy would collapse in years, not decades.  That is too soon to convert to renewables.  Taking advantage of our current oil boom I think would put us in the decades category, giving time for renewables to gain the cost advantage.

Considering the world is hell bent on coal and we will continue to reduce our CO2, I think it would be a net positive for the environment.  If as the author claimed the economy does collapse in years, you can kiss alternatives goodbye, there'll be no money to buy them.   

We are facing a debt bomb.  All presidents have contributed, Obama just accelerated what was inevitable.  As the MSN piece pointed out it's only a matter of time before the interest on our debt will eat our entire budget.  I'll reiterate, even if we cut $600 billion from this years budget and voted not to raise the debt ceiling the debt would still grow due to compound interest.  

It would be nice if I could see an easy way out but I can't think of one and from what I've read nobody else has either.  At some point wishful thinking, rose colored glasses, etc. must give way to simple arithmetic.  As the book pointed out, the less debt we have the less pain we will endure.  The only way to reduce our debt without Greek like, and worse, cuts is to reverse our trade balance.  The only way to do that is to move from an oil importer to an oil exporter.

Again, this is not what I would want to happen, if you connect the dots though, this is the only way I know of minimizing what will happen.

If you can think of a better scenario, taking both environment and economics into account, I'd be interested in hearing it.  I'd be interested to know what I've missed!

[eds]

If the U.S. stopped spending over a Billion dollars a day on oil,
. . . switched to Renewable energy to power homes and vehicles,
. . . would that help?  

Source:  Sun

[Shortpoet-GTD]

Phil, on 19 August 2013 - 09:55 AM, said:

Bush was right, we should have been drilling like mad to keep prices down and the economy humming.  
We need about 25 more years of cheap oil.

You are so wrong, I can't even begin to argue the point. bush was never right about anything and the last
thing we need is oil.

[Phil]

<sub>I get it, Bush - evil incarnate, Obama - walks on water!   Is that really logical?  

Follow my logic.  Solar panels and BEV's require money.  How many on this forum own either, let alone both?  Since they do require cash, will you sell more in the economic slump we have now or more in a booming economy?  A booming economy requires cheap energy, (or exploiting expensive energy).  If oil is cheap we get an economy where more can buy those green goodies, if oil is expensive and we are exploiting it, the economy still booms, (North Dakota, etc. being a direct example).

I could be wrong but the more I've read the more I'm convinced we'll have an economic meltdown before a climate one.  I would postulate the economic one will precipitate an environmental one as no one could afford anything, let alone anything green.

If immediately going green would lead to a robust economy China, India, etc. would be doing that instead of building coal plants by the dozen.

How much more solar, BEV's, etc. would be sold if the entire country was sub 4% unemployment?  No matter how much one might try, you cannot disconnect economics from the environment, economics will win every time.  One thing new I learned from reading "The end of growth" was all those environmental agreements being signed have one opt out clause, "as long as it doesn't inhibit growth".  The book may be lying but it would be pretty blatant if it was.

Again, this is not what I would like to happen, based on my reading and economic knowledge it's my opinion of what will happen, why things are the way they are.

eds,

Yes it would be great if we spent those billions on solar instead of oil.  Unfortunately solar panels have no relation to transportation unless you buy a Leaf, Tesla, etc.  I would ask again, how many on this forum have either, let alone both?  If anyone is waiting around for government to give them either, dream on!    So if people here, who really care, can't afford them, why would one think the average American could?  The government already give incentives for both, the rest is up to us.

My goal isn't to pee people off, my goal is to challenge people to broaden their horizons.  Environmentalism is not the only important issue this or any other country has.  Look at any country, including ours, the economy trumps everything else.  All the EPA would have to do is issue a ruling suspending fracking until it was proven safe, they haven't.  Obama shut down the gulf for months, they are now drilling again.  Hillary could have kept her mouth shut over arctic oil, she didn't.

One can ignore reality and be continually frustrated, or one can accept it and become adept at navigating it.

As a libertarian I am a fiscal conservative, that means I represent at least half the population.  If anything I give you a window on the other side of the fence.   I hope I've given logical arguments, if you can find fault with them point them out.  As my immediate about face on FCV's hopefully proved, I am more than willing to change my views based on compelling evidence.

I'd urge you all to read "Eaarth" and "The end of growth" and view "There's no tomorrow".  I'd be interested to hear your take.  I'd also urge all to take a long hard look at the actions of various governments around the world and compare them to my logic, my beliefs are based in part on their actions vs. their words.

Of course I could be wrong!</sub>

[eds]

Phil, on 21 August 2013 - 09:07 AM, said:

_{Follow my logic.  Solar panels and BEV's require money.  How many on this forum own either, let alone both?  Of course I could be wrong!}

Your NOT wrong, just follow the Money.
. . . You just left out something "TIME & inertia"
We have a centralized energy system that runs on fossil fuel and
. . . has been running for a hundred years.

We have reached the place, where most people agree that it is time or a change, and
. . . we have tried to change to less expensive ways of changing the grid.
. . . We tried Smart Meters, coal exhaust filters, nuclear, gas, Drilling, pipelines, etc


Just like a runaway train or very large Oil tanker(both have inertia)
. . . it's going to take time slowing down or changing direction on the grid,
. . . pulling the plug, is going to take . . . Time.

Meanwhile, the Cost of renewables, especially Solar, has dropped about 70% for panels,
. . . their efficiency in capturing energy is greatly improved, thru low light capture, tracking, etc.
People have just NOT been made aware of the changes, a quality system makes on their ROI,
. . . their still thinking of a few short years ago, when Solar was considered expensive toy for the rich.
But as you said "a booming economy, requires cheap energy," and that's Solar.

The sticking point is storage, "because the Sun don't always shine," and
. . . that's where transportation comes in with mobile energy storage.
Japan is already moving to Solar energy at an unbelievable pace and
. . . making car's that plug into their houses.
Germany auto industry BMW and VW are moving in that direction also.

Everyone here has too much TIME & MONEY invested in too many electrical devices,
. . . to just Un-plug from the grid, we all need to understand the ROI of SOLAR first,
. . . have access to room to install it, with a simple plug 'n play no brainer system,
. . . that has an affordable up front cost with batteries and see instant energy savings.

NOT surprisingly, most people don't believe such a system exists,
. . . or if it does, would work where they live.


. . . "You can always count on Americans to do the right thing
. . . . . . after they've tried everything else." - Winston Churchill

[Shortpoet-GTD]

No, Obama does NOT walk on water because he's still embracing natural gas. And though I applaud him on
many of the issues, fracking is NOT one of them.
I've become a democrat second-first place goes to my concerns for the environment.

http://www.altenergy..._360#entry27054

[Phil]

Fortunately inertia is favoring renewables in the US lately, unfortunately inertia is favoring coal in the developing world.  We have no control over that.  The bulk of what's being added to our grid has been solar and wind for some time now, but the economy needs to keep running as well.  That's why even Obama is accepting oil as a reality.  Environmentally the Keystone question should be a slam dunk, yet he still has yet to make a decision.  My guess is if the economy improves he'll nix it, if it falters he'll approve it.  

So here's the thing, are you upset at him on the environment because he refuses to ignore reality?  Are you upset at Bush on the environment because he embraced reality?    Does that accomplish anything?

During the boom years Bush put 10KW solar on the white house, nobody batted an eye.  He removed the $2K limit on the 30% tax credit, nobody batted an eye, he spent billions jumpstarting the hydrogen revolution, nobody batted an eye.  Germany, Australia, etc. passed huge feed in tariffs, nobody batted an eye.  The EU passed cap and trade, nobody batted an eye, etc.  Brazil protected huge portions of it's rain forest, nobody batted an eye.

Now fast forward post crash.  Germany, Australia, etc. have drastically cut their incentives, the EU has effectively gutted their cap and trade system rendering it useless, they refused to enact a carbon cap.  Brazil made it way easier to clear cut their rain forests.  That is reality.  Boom economies support green, bust economies do not.  That is reality.  Half the population here is rendered, stupid, evil, and/or greedy yet "consensus" is floated as a possible solution.  Snowballs chance in hell is reality!

My point is, is it more productive to continue to ignore reality and just be upset at people, including Obama, that don't?    Or is it more productive to embrace reality and improve the economy so we can afford more green incentives, etc.?   I think if you let your inner "Kirk" go and embraced your inner "Spock" the answer will become obvious.

One of the reasons I'm happy with what we are currently doing is despite our downturn no incentives have been cut and the wind incentive has been renewed.  Is the EU the hare to our tortoise?  They ran like hell until forced to stop from exhaustion while we keep plodding along.

In the end we all want the same thing, moving to a cleaner greener earth with a big part of that CO2 reduction.  I don't think we can get there with our current economy and at least in my opinion the world supports my view.  The problem is 40% of our CO2 comes from transportation while 40% comes from housing.  Industry is only 20%.  That's why government can promise all it wants, it cannot solve it.  That's why demanding/pretending government do something is useless, they can't.  Solar panels and Leafs are the only real solution and people living hand to mouth won't buy either.  With half the population too poor to owe taxes, the 30% credit is useless.

I don't want to beat a dead horse, I'd only suggest you consider why Obama is doing what he is doing, why the rest of the world is doing what they are doing.

I do think hydrogen could be a real game changer.  If research bears fruit and fuel cells can be mass produced cheaply and hydrogen can be generated efficiently, it could challenge oil big time.  As mentioned, storage is the one big bugaboo with renewables.  While batteries will work when BEV's are grid integrated, people still have to buy them.  FCV's have the potential to be much more a mass market product and hydrogen would be a much more readily available back up compared to batteries.  In the end though, it all boils down to the economy.  With record numbers on food stamps, record numbers in poverty and a labor participation rate set back three dozen years, how many will have the cash to buy either?

[Shortpoet-GTD]

Easy answer-anti bush-pro oil.
Anti Obama-pro natural gas.

[Phil]

Love it!    Bottom line, no president, or anyone else for that matter, can ignore economic reality.  Given our success in rolling back our CO2 output, there are a lot like me who think we've stumbled onto an optimal plan of continuing to write ourselves out of the climate equation while not bankrupting ourselves faster than we already are.

Too much less money and we stop rolling back CO2, too much more money and we collapse the economy and stop rolling back CO2.