![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
solarbirdI've been singing again. Just a little. I have to turn up the accompaniment to very loud so that people can't hear me over it. Then I can do it. I haven't been singing any of the good training music, though - I've been singing anime theme songs. *@_@*;; (![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
kathrynt, please don't kill me. ^_^;;)
(I have corrected the romanji a couple of places on this lyric sheet I pulled off the net, too. I need to learn hiragana properly so that I don't have to deal with ambiguous constructs anymore. :-p)
In HAS EVERYONE GONE COMPLETELY INSANE?! news, I just need to say thank you, MSNBC and Reuters! Please, continue feeding us the spew of Oil Industry Publicity Spokesman's furious masturbation as news! That's linked to by a story noting record (unadjusted) gasoline prices at the pump, of course. (Somewhere around $3/g national average is the record, adjusted for inflation.) It also links to a story from last month talking about how we can expect gasoline prices to fall in July and August, which was inexplicable even at the time, and, as is now clear, isn't coming true.
Here's the thing: just looking at the markets, OPEC appears to be producing pretty much at capacity. They raised quotas and crude stockpiles responded by falling, not rising. Hell, Saudi Arabia has even said it's no longer capable of acting as a swing producer. (And then later contradicted themselves in a way nobody should believe, saying they have infinite oil for the foreseeable future.) More recently - and this is surprising - refineries appear to be processing ahead of production. (That big jump in processed reserves last month was paralleled by a fall in crude stockpiles, indicating that the refining rate was eating into stock.) The latest crude stockpile numbers out last week was not encouraging.
A - perhaps the - key guiding principle of OPEC production has been, "How high can we keep prices without spurring conservation efforts or alternative energy research?" In other words, how to maximise profit in a market while maintaining that market. Oil is now above that price level, and has been staying above that price level, as has been demonstrated by interest in alternatives amoungst people other than environmentalists. Historically, that has not been something Saudi Arabia has been willing to tolerate; quotas or no, they open the spigot enough more to bring prices down. But this time, so far, they haven't.
Results of this can be seen in Canada. The Canadian oil sands - mostly in Alberta - have a lot of oil, but it costs about three times as much energy to extract as more traditional sources and it only makes sense to do so at around US$80/barrel. (One gallon of oil yields 10 in Saudi Araba; one gallon yields three to four, in oil sands.) Crude is currently trading in a range around $60/barrel, but development firms are down here in the American PNW hiring as many people as they can get - skilled craftspersons in particular - to ramp up Alberta production as quickly and as much as possible. It's a big project that I know too little about, but when they're having labour shortages trying to implement their plans, particularly in skilled labour, you know it's large.
What does that all say? It says get ready for and used to a trading range of $80/barrel oil - or higher, if you get inflation or a further fall in the dollar - fairly soon. Major investors are banking on this; you should be too. If you have an SUV, sell the fucking thing. If you have a choice between a larger house further away from Stuff You Need (tm), and a smaller house closer to Stuff You Need (tm), maybe you should buy the smaller, but more convenient, house. Be happy that China has managed to scale back its economic growth a bit - as intended - which will help slack off the growth rate of demand. Hope that, as one analyst put it at a seminar last year, China will get old before it gets too rich. (Growth in China and India both will increase demand for oil, which will raise prices, which will retard economic growth proportionately to your country's oil dependency. China's attempt to buy an oil company isn't speculation; they want to own crude reserves. They're banking on needing them.)
The moral of the story is that we are done with cheap oil. Expensive oil is not the end of the world; unlike my favourite architecture crank has been railing, we won't be grinding out a subsistence farming economy, raiding old strip malls for antique aluminium signs to roof our ramshackle shanties. The economy will adjust, as it has while crude prices have tripled since 1999.
But people whose lifestyles are banking on cheap oil, are depending upon cheap oil, are in for various degrees of trouble. (To some degree, that includes "everyone in America." But even here, there's a range.) If you're one of these people, please: look at what you're doing, and start doing something else.
It's not an accident that I can walk to two separate downtowns in 15 to 20 minutes. (Kenmore, .75 miles; Lake Forest Park, 1 mile.) It's not an accident that I'm an eight minute walk from transit and bike corridors. It's not random that, for most things, I don't need a car.
I have a car. About twice a week, I drive it somewhere. But I don't have to have it. For me, the car is a tool; it's not life support. If you're making living decisions in the next couple of years, it might be worth keeping that kind of goal in mind for yourself, too.
Token Tuesday: 0.2
Miles Wednesday: 12 (Biked to McLendon's, in Woodinville)
Miles out of Hobbiton: 274.95
Miles to Rivendell: 182.35
kathrynt, please don't kill me. ^_^;;)(I have corrected the romanji a couple of places on this lyric sheet I pulled off the net, too. I need to learn hiragana properly so that I don't have to deal with ambiguous constructs anymore. :-p)
In HAS EVERYONE GONE COMPLETELY INSANE?! news, I just need to say thank you, MSNBC and Reuters! Please, continue feeding us the spew of Oil Industry Publicity Spokesman's furious masturbation as news! That's linked to by a story noting record (unadjusted) gasoline prices at the pump, of course. (Somewhere around $3/g national average is the record, adjusted for inflation.) It also links to a story from last month talking about how we can expect gasoline prices to fall in July and August, which was inexplicable even at the time, and, as is now clear, isn't coming true.
Here's the thing: just looking at the markets, OPEC appears to be producing pretty much at capacity. They raised quotas and crude stockpiles responded by falling, not rising. Hell, Saudi Arabia has even said it's no longer capable of acting as a swing producer. (And then later contradicted themselves in a way nobody should believe, saying they have infinite oil for the foreseeable future.) More recently - and this is surprising - refineries appear to be processing ahead of production. (That big jump in processed reserves last month was paralleled by a fall in crude stockpiles, indicating that the refining rate was eating into stock.) The latest crude stockpile numbers out last week was not encouraging.
A - perhaps the - key guiding principle of OPEC production has been, "How high can we keep prices without spurring conservation efforts or alternative energy research?" In other words, how to maximise profit in a market while maintaining that market. Oil is now above that price level, and has been staying above that price level, as has been demonstrated by interest in alternatives amoungst people other than environmentalists. Historically, that has not been something Saudi Arabia has been willing to tolerate; quotas or no, they open the spigot enough more to bring prices down. But this time, so far, they haven't.
Results of this can be seen in Canada. The Canadian oil sands - mostly in Alberta - have a lot of oil, but it costs about three times as much energy to extract as more traditional sources and it only makes sense to do so at around US$80/barrel. (One gallon of oil yields 10 in Saudi Araba; one gallon yields three to four, in oil sands.) Crude is currently trading in a range around $60/barrel, but development firms are down here in the American PNW hiring as many people as they can get - skilled craftspersons in particular - to ramp up Alberta production as quickly and as much as possible. It's a big project that I know too little about, but when they're having labour shortages trying to implement their plans, particularly in skilled labour, you know it's large.
What does that all say? It says get ready for and used to a trading range of $80/barrel oil - or higher, if you get inflation or a further fall in the dollar - fairly soon. Major investors are banking on this; you should be too. If you have an SUV, sell the fucking thing. If you have a choice between a larger house further away from Stuff You Need (tm), and a smaller house closer to Stuff You Need (tm), maybe you should buy the smaller, but more convenient, house. Be happy that China has managed to scale back its economic growth a bit - as intended - which will help slack off the growth rate of demand. Hope that, as one analyst put it at a seminar last year, China will get old before it gets too rich. (Growth in China and India both will increase demand for oil, which will raise prices, which will retard economic growth proportionately to your country's oil dependency. China's attempt to buy an oil company isn't speculation; they want to own crude reserves. They're banking on needing them.)
The moral of the story is that we are done with cheap oil. Expensive oil is not the end of the world; unlike my favourite architecture crank has been railing, we won't be grinding out a subsistence farming economy, raiding old strip malls for antique aluminium signs to roof our ramshackle shanties. The economy will adjust, as it has while crude prices have tripled since 1999.
But people whose lifestyles are banking on cheap oil, are depending upon cheap oil, are in for various degrees of trouble. (To some degree, that includes "everyone in America." But even here, there's a range.) If you're one of these people, please: look at what you're doing, and start doing something else.
It's not an accident that I can walk to two separate downtowns in 15 to 20 minutes. (Kenmore, .75 miles; Lake Forest Park, 1 mile.) It's not an accident that I'm an eight minute walk from transit and bike corridors. It's not random that, for most things, I don't need a car.
I have a car. About twice a week, I drive it somewhere. But I don't have to have it. For me, the car is a tool; it's not life support. If you're making living decisions in the next couple of years, it might be worth keeping that kind of goal in mind for yourself, too.
Token Tuesday: 0.2
Miles Wednesday: 12 (Biked to McLendon's, in Woodinville)
Miles out of Hobbiton: 274.95
Miles to Rivendell: 182.35
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2005-07-14 06:22 pm (UTC)I know it's not going to get better, and I'm relieved on the bus route.
no subject
Date: 2005-07-14 06:28 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-07-14 06:43 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-07-14 06:53 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-07-14 07:01 pm (UTC)We've tried to adapt in several ways. in the 70s, we had a massive program for the use of alcohol instead of gas, but in the end it proved unfeasible. Currently we're investing in better public transportation and smaller, more efficient cars (thankfully, the SUV-mania never really caught on here).
I've been reading a lot about the canadian tar sands and nuclear isotopes that you extract from water very cheap, as well as the new chinese pebble-bed reactors. Granted, most of it came from libertarians who think any kind of conservation is a fallacy, but what research I did found so much disparate information held as fact that I really don't know where I stand.
no subject
Date: 2005-07-14 08:40 pm (UTC)I don't. That would actually be quite cheap - it's about 25c/gallon higher than that right now. American gasoline is still, in fact, quite moderately priced. Many people disagree with me, however, and do think it's quite high. I think it's as cheap as you'll see it any time again soon.
I think it would be reasonable to see $3.20/g within two years, assuming nothing horrible goes wrong. That's based upon the idea that the global market reaches $80/barrel, and ignores significant inflation or a significant dollar drop.
here in Brazil we're dealing with 2.10 for a LITER (about a quart) of the stuff.
Yes. In countries operating at that level, a lot of that tends to be taxes; the world oil market is pretty level. That's a reasonable price in Europe, as well. As a result, your countries are typically in a better position to deal with higher-priced oil than is the United States.
I've been reading a lot about the canadian tar sands and nuclear isotopes that you extract from water very cheap, as well as the new chinese pebble-bed reactors.
There's also a new approach to geothermal power that's quite promising - essentially, it's still geothermal, but it's in seawater. Instead of creating (and exploiting) a large heat delta on land, you put a very large, well-insulated tube down several miles into the lower sea water, and pull up 0C/1C water to warm areas, and then use that as you would use a geothermal difference. It's really quite intriguing as a possible source of electricity.
no subject
Date: 2005-07-14 09:55 pm (UTC)Funny though, the prices over here seem to be going up up up as the oil price does.
I can't recall the last time the government reduced taxes on gasoline over here.
I'm thankfull for the fact that I drive a company car.
And that it runs on LPG, which is about a quarter of the price (not that I'm paying for the fuel though, but in general.)
no subject
Date: 2005-07-14 10:03 pm (UTC)I mean structurally. I wouldn't expect those taxes to be going down any time soon.
no subject
Date: 2005-07-14 07:04 pm (UTC)The question and problem is, how to get the message out to the masses who have mostly plugged their ears with their fingers and scream "LA-LA-LA! I CAN'T HEAR YOU!" every time you try to get it across to them. (I refer to these people quite charitably as "idiots".)
I remember posting in a conversation how important it was to try to carpool, ride a bus, take a bike, do anything, even a couple days a week to reduce consumption.
I got ATTACKED and accused of not understanding how essential having a car is for "basic living." I was further told that even if I *didn't* own a car that I still contributed to the oil industry because all my make-up is oil-based (uhm, sorry sweetie, I don't wear make-up), and my bike tires are made out of rubber, which comes from oil (yeah, okay, but these are the same bike tires I've had on the same bike for 10 years, still going strong, so right, you got me there I contribute SOOOOO damn much to the oil-based economy!)
It would make me laugh if it weren't so sick.
This isn't about morals; this isn't about conservation
Date: 2005-07-14 08:23 pm (UTC)The market itself will ensure that oil gets conserved, via pricing. It's ruthless that way. I think we may also get some solutions to greenhouse gas problems this way as well, tho' I'm not sure. It would be one of those silver linings, if it does.
Americans have been convinced (and have convinced themselves) that the automobile == freedom, and transit == poverty, or slavery to the state (depending upon who you talk to) to a far bigger degree than I'd like to admit. In many areas of the country, it is assumed that if someone is on a bus, or if someone is walking, and they're over the age of 16, they are homeless. Road design in most areas is actively hostile to pedestrians, bikers, and the like; there is a huge de facto government subsidy supporting automobiles and working against other methods of moving around. Cars are provided for at every step of every decision; other methods are definitively not.
However, again, the market will decide. I do not care about those sorts of people; I work not to get worked up about it. Neither you nor I will do anyone any good by nagging. Being aware of what's going on and preparing accordingly is the best thing to do, individually; within your community, attempting to make sure that development is pedestrian-supportive (and hopefully biking supportive) is important, and can at least occasionally be managed. Around here, in many portions of the region, it's quite possible. Kenmore's plans work entirely towards making downtown and access to downtown more attractive by foot and bike, rather than less; intelligent integration of higher-density residential and commercial is a priourity.
Zoning code, like other law, is written by people who show up.
Another good idea would be to improve our national fright rail system, particularly at the shorter-distance level. Freight by rail uses 1/10th the amount of diesel than freight by truck. That would be an eminently practical efficiency few people would fight - tho' few people care about it, either.
As for the "bicycle == car" thing, that's called the moral equivalency game, and I simply refuse to play it. No, two gallons of use over 10 years is not the same and not even validly comparable to a 12 mph vehicle being driven 70 miles per day.
Re: This isn't about morals; this isn't about conservation
Date: 2005-07-14 08:52 pm (UTC)And maybe in Seattle and surrounding environs we live in a community where there are enough like-minded people to have a fair chance of success at that. But I think this situation is rare. I mean, we lose often enough on progressive initiatives as it is, due to the Eymanites and their ilk. Being in a minority can suck really badly, especially when we are losing even the courts. So, unless the minds of some of the masses are changed, what chance stand we?
Or have I misunderstood your intent about where to direct our energies?
Re: This isn't about morals; this isn't about conservation
Date: 2005-07-14 09:04 pm (UTC)But: yes. Do not look for national solutions yet. Look for local. And by local, I mean city. If you want to play in national areas, try to direct your energies towards things that won't trigger the CAR CAR CAR CAR CAR CAR UBER ALLES response - like the freight rail improvements I previously suggested. Railroads have always had heavy government involvement, so it's less strange to people.
Locally, you can do some good. Federally - probably not. OTOH, if you're already doing things locally and you have time left over, it certainly doesn't hurt. Since you live in the 7th/43rd district, you have sympathetic legislators, which is a plus.
You could also try to help save Amtrak, if you feel that's appropriate, by working the national-security line - it's the "alternative system in the event of another 9-11" approach.
But don't waste your time trying to lecture anybody - at all, really. Nobody likes that. And if you try to talk to someone and they respond as you described, don't bother with them. If they're willing to pay $3.20/g gas at 8mpg 100 miles a day, let 'em.
I think the best approach, if you really, really do want to try to work with those people, is not to talk to them about how they do things; it's to talk up how much you like the way you do things. Talk up the health benefits of your low-car lifestyle, as it were. That won't do anything in the short term, but it might help in the long.
Re: This isn't about morals; this isn't about conservation
Date: 2005-07-14 09:28 pm (UTC)And thanks for clarifying wrt local effort.
I do a fair amount. I could probably do more.
But then, I do still like getting 6 hours of sleep also. :-)
Re: This isn't about morals; this isn't about conservation
Date: 2005-07-14 11:03 pm (UTC)I love railroads, I hate Amtrak. Amtrak's problems are many, and I think probably because of the fact that there is so much government beauracracy involved. I wish there were a way for more private companies to do it. I'd rather take a train most times than a plane. Or drive. But trains often cost more than flying, so bleh.
I wonder if someone could make something like the Pullman company work in this day and age? -That- would be something! (disclaimer, my grandfather was a Pullman Conductor, so yeah, I -like- trains...)
Re: This isn't about morals; this isn't about conservation
Date: 2005-07-15 04:49 am (UTC)Air travel has a Federal agency which had, for decades, as its point of existence, the specific object of promoting air travel. That seems to have worked out. Perhaps passenger rail could get something similar. It could be a more cost effective way of approaching the problem.
Re: This isn't about morals; this isn't about conservation
Date: 2005-07-15 05:43 am (UTC)Not sure though.
Re: This isn't about morals; this isn't about conservation
Date: 2005-07-15 11:35 pm (UTC)http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/choices/train.cfm
The main problem with Amtrak, from the very beginning, is that it was required to be self-sufficient. That's economically impossible, just as it is in the case of airlines, which regularly benefit from government subsidies and bailouts. Unfortunately, the market doesn't support long-distance travel well without government intervention. It's woefully shortsighted and hypocritical to hold Amtrak to a higher standard than United Airlines.
There's also the matter of passenger service taking a back street to freight service, which is an additional can of worms. Freight has Amtrak pay for its rails, and then has the right to pre-empt Amtrak service at will. It's perverse.
Re: This isn't about morals; this isn't about conservation
Date: 2005-07-16 02:48 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-07-14 07:36 pm (UTC)I believe in carpooling and combining shopping/errand efforts. I hate SUVs as much as you do, and it's not just about the low gas mileage and gas consumption. They're also the most unsafe things on the road.
One of my essays for getting into Wake Forest University was how we should get rid of SUVs.
no subject
Date: 2005-07-14 08:27 pm (UTC)(Tho' I do think it's insane that they are still classified as trucks, rather than passenger automobiles.)
As for your safety-of-biking comment, well - see my reply here for my thoughts on that. I stand by my comments on being able to walk to things, because if it comes to the point where things like that become important (which it won't, that quickly; this is a matter of expense more than anything else in the shorter term; this is finances, not the apocalypse), then you'll want both options.
no subject
Date: 2005-07-14 10:55 pm (UTC)Otherwise of course, I ride my motorcycle everywhere :-) 45mpg and I'm faster than pretty much everyone else on the road when I want to be! And I can park in really small spaces, and I get to use the commuter lane.
no subject
Date: 2005-07-15 04:50 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-07-15 05:46 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-07-15 06:13 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-07-14 09:23 pm (UTC)And how *lucky* we are to be within walking distance of stuff. Um, yeah, that was random, too.
*sigh*
Cathy
no subject
Date: 2005-07-14 09:50 pm (UTC)The sky is falling?
Date: 2005-07-14 10:10 pm (UTC)Mind you, it's not a bad thing if this leads to a worldwide reduction in car use -- the environment ought to be happy about that. And walking is good for you, right?
Uhm. I'll just run and hide now :)
(Ohyes, an old and only partially relevant link, but I was amused by the title... http://www.commondreams.org/views/030300-102.htm)
Re: The sky is falling?
Date: 2005-07-14 10:51 pm (UTC)I said nothing of the sort. I even went out of my way to say I wasn't suggesting an extreme shift. I don't think that saying the commonly-reported idea that higher oil prices is a temporary bubble moment in the market isn't true, and that oil prices are likely to stay higher as a result of fundamental questions of supply and demand, is saying that the sky is coming down.
That's still only about a third of what I'm paying for gas (if I have my conversions right)
As per another discussion on this same post, that's probably about right, due to high gasoline taxes. That's why many other countries are, structurally speaking, in much better shape to meet these challenges than the United States is at this time.
How standard is the 50-mile-each-way daily commute in Norway?
How standard is it to have no services in walking distance in Norway, beyond maybe a convenience store?
How standard is it to have no credible transit service in walking distance of your house in Norway?
How standard is it to have no passenger rail available within hundreds of miles of your city?
The last three are standard features of American post-war housing, and, for that matter, of many American cities. The first is probably not the average, but is entirely common. I've worked with people who commuted 90 miles or more each way, every day.
Avoiding housing that would leave us in a case similar to that was the single biggest reason it took us a year to find a new place to live. (I also suspect that lifestyle is a big reason why so many Americans are in such poor physical condition; if you drive to the bathroom, you're not exactly getting any exercise.)
And sure, gas is still cheap by European standards. But Americans use so much just getting around that the total expenditure is important, and small shifts in price per gallon are magnified in ways they aren't for you.
As I understand it, the average American car is driven 18,000 miles a year. The average family has, iirc, two cars. That's 36,000 miles per year per family. (Statistics I just found via google say that it's 17,000 miles per person, not just drivers. But I'll stick with my figure, which is smaller.) The fleet MPG of American vehicles has been dropping steadily for some time, thanks to the popularity of trucks and SUVs - I don't know what it is offhand, but let's call it 18mpg because I'm sure that's close, plus it's easy math. That's 2,000 gallons per year per family. At current costs, that's closing in on $4,800/year just for motoring. The most reasonably-likely case I see in the short term (two+ year, for me) timeframe is that gas increases in price by 1/3rd. That's around $6,400/year, assuming no inflation, assuming things go well politically, assuming the Albertan oil sands produce as hoped, and assuming only moderate demand growth in China and India. (If they don't, well, the analysts I read suggest that any significant disruption in the current oil supply chain would result in $100-$120/barrel oil, with an accordingly higher price hike - instead of 1/3ed above now, we'd be looking at, say $8800/year, or $330/month extra. But I'm assuming things go largely well.)
Like I said: if people are happy paying that, fine. But most people are not thinking about this in any way I would consider realistic. Many of the people I know are exceptions to that, which is why I talked about talking to the converted, but, I was annoyed by some things I heard on the radio today... but some of that is for Part II, which I'll post later.
Re: The sky is falling?
Date: 2005-07-14 11:07 pm (UTC)I do think we (US, Europe, Japan) may need to take a hit in 'living standards' in terms of materials consumption etc though. Basically, 'things' (that are produced or transported using oil, which as well as luxuries includes basically all our food) ought to get more expensive compared to 'people' and compared to 'intellectual property' (i.e. good news! you might not be able to afford that new fridge-freezer, but you will still be able to pay-download anime and MP3s. :))
Re: The sky is falling?
Date: 2005-07-15 08:34 am (UTC)Sounds from the above as if increased gas prices could mostly be compensated for by getting more fuel-efficient cars and having fewer cars per family -- how many families really need one car per adult? Though I realize that my perception of 'need' differs from US standards...
Re: The sky is falling?
Date: 2005-07-15 04:03 pm (UTC)If everything is at driving distance and there's no transit option and you're all far away, then even if you drop the car, you're probably not saving any milage difference. So structurally, we have a problem. That's the kind of thing I'm talking about here. A lot of people have made a lot of decisions that rely for their functionality on indefinitely-continued cheap oil, or some equivalent. These people should consider making different arrangements.
Re: The sky is falling?
Date: 2005-07-14 11:01 pm (UTC)BTW, Dara, I think the phenomenon you've described is what's known as 'peak oil'? There are a number of essays on the subject. Basically, oil won't run out, it's just that demand will exceed supply as the remaining reserves become more and more expensive to extract. Consequently there is a point at which oil gets expensive and never gets cheaper again. Whether we've reached it yet is open to question.
I find the 'hydrogen economy' somewhat amusing. Hydrogen might be a good way to transport energy but, of course, extracting hydrogen from water requires energy from some other source in the first place. At the moment, there's nowhere much to get that energy but burning fossil fuels, unless renewables and/or nuclear increase significantly, which is kind of where we started from...
It's kind of depressing that no serious action is really being taken on renewables. For example, large renewables projects are difficult to site in crowded countries (we don't want to cover *all* the most beautiful places in wind farms, and offshore wind is very expensive). We're getting a number of such projects and it will help somewhat, but it's not going to solve the whole problem. But building regulations here still don't require new houses or even new industrial developments to be fitted with solar panels. Panels are expensive but when you're paying £250k for a typical family house anyway, another £20k for solar isn't ridiculous, and the potential on industrial developments is pretty good because they tend to have huge areas of flat roofing. This kind of initiative doesn't cover all a house's/factory's energy needs, especially in a country like the UK where we don't usually have all that much actual sun, but it does reduces them significantly. It's also possible to fit small wind generators which, again, can provide a boost that reduces a house's energy needs. I'd get one but I live in a downstairs flat and you really need to be higher up for wind. :)
Peak oil
Date: 2005-07-15 01:59 am (UTC)1. Economic peak oil. This is the point at which production is still increasing year-to-year, but there's no slack in supply. This is when the oil producers can no longer fix the price of oil to a target because the potential demand is growing faster than the supply. This results in rising prices and the first serious consideration of alternatives. We're either here now or a year or two out at most.
2. Production peak oil. This is when production plateaus and then declines year-to-year. Economically, this produces a more severe result of the first stage, as every year less oil can be used than the year before. This is when there will likely be a vicious struggle to secure remaining supply lines, and it's probably 5-20 years out. Some super-optimistic sources give us as much as 45 years, but oil industry sources seem to be targeting 20 years at the most. Once we hit this point, it's a relentless march to an oil-free economy, whether we like it or not. We know this production peak is coming, because we hit a national production peak in the US in 1970 and production has declined just as the peak oil theory predicts. Other production areas have followed the same curve. The worldwide curve shows a likelihood of decline starting about 2010, but the exact year is unpredictable until after it happens, and there's likely to be a plateau for some time before a decline.
3. Thermodynamic peak oil. This is the point at which the remaining oil deposits require more energy to extract than they produce. At this point, no amount of price rises can support oil production. This means that oil production stops, though economically production is likely to remain in the asymptotic range because by that point we will have converted to other forms of energy. This small remaining amount of production will probably go to plastics, which currently use 1-2% of worldwide oil consumption and so will probably be sustainable for a long time even as we give up oil for use as a source of energy.
Re: The sky is falling?
Date: 2005-07-15 04:54 am (UTC)I avoid that particular label because it's becoming trivialised already, with the usual automatic assumptions of pre-assumed ideas. But essentially, it does appear that we may be in what
no subject
Date: 2005-07-14 10:50 pm (UTC)Also I wonder about the large oil reserves on the eastern and western seaboards that have been banned from use (as well as a large percentage of the oil in the Gulf of Mexico). Tapping any of these would be a big economic shot in the arm for the US, and would drop oil prices at home drastically. Considering how much safer oil wells are now than they were when these reserves were discovered in the 70's, I'm kind of surprised no one has gone after them yet. Yeah doing it in an ecologically safe manner isn't cheap. But even at 40 a barrel it would be worth it. And more so at 60.
no subject
Date: 2005-07-15 02:10 am (UTC)As far as more oil refining, present refineries are already refining oil as fast as it's being pumped, as Dara points out. Adding more capacity there won't help.
Tar sands are not sources of oil. They are sources of hydrocarbons that through a different chemical process can be made into oil. That process is more energy-intensive, at least three times more, and it's highly unlikely this will change by even the 15% you hope for. The amount of hydrocarbons that can be economically extracted this way are likely to be only a small portion of current demand. Likely they'll just prolong the production plateau by a few years, rather than increase the economic supply. It's a short-term shot in the arm for Canada, but not a solution to rising demand and falling supply.
no subject
Date: 2005-07-15 02:26 am (UTC)As for the Alaskan oil, I don't know what it would do for the world, but I know it would last for the US a lot more than 6 months. Nobody sinks a well for 6 months of oil, no profit in it.
no subject
Date: 2005-07-15 03:13 am (UTC)As for offshore reserves, according to an industry source (http://www.noia.org/info/petroleum.asp), offshore oil including the Atlantic coast represents an estimated 30% of undiscovered oil reserves in the US, most of which are in areas already under exploration such as Alaska, California, and the Gulf of Mexico. Considering that current production of oil in the US is about 8 million barrels per day and declining and that we consume over 20 million barrels and rising, the small portion of unexploited reserves is not going to make a significant difference.
no subject
Date: 2005-07-15 05:40 am (UTC)(source: http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/analysis_publications/arctic_national_wildlife_refuge/html/analysisdiscussion.html#resource assessment)
Production in 2003 was 5,737,000 barrels per day
(source: http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/txt/ptb0501.html )
Consumption in 2003: 20,000,000 barrels per 10 months (or 24,000,000 per year, almost 66,800 barrels per day)
(source: http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/usa.html#oil )
so at the low end the ANWR reserves could cover US consumption for 177.5 years. Of course that's assuming we can get it out as fast as we want, but it's also looking at the low estimate. Now even if they're only able to pump out 50 percent of that low estimate, that's still over 80 years worth of oil. So that kind of shoots your 6 month figure in the foot.
The offshore proven Federal reserves for California are 518,000,000 barrels, State offshore are 181,000,000 So that's only 29 years worth of proven supplies. Gulf of Mexico supplies, when you add in Lousianna offshore and others there are about 3,000,000,000 barrels of oil. About 125 years worth at the current rate of consumption. These numbers are 9 years old, but I don't think that matters terribly much.
(Source for reserves: http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/natural_gas/data_publications/crude_oil_natural_gas_reserves/historical/1996/html/cr96.html Chapter 3)
So in short, we're not running out of oil here in the USA anytime soon. ANWR oil won't be running out in 6 months.
no subject
Date: 2005-07-15 05:55 am (UTC)Um, that's really off any other numbers I've ever seen... <checks>
Ah. You misread your source. That's per day, and is an average derived over a 10-month period. Multiply by 365 to get per year, yields 7.3 Bbl/year, not 24Mbl/year.
So the mean estimate capacity of ANWR is approximately one year, 18 days of US oil usage. The low estimate is around six months, but I don't mind assuming the mean.
3Bbl as per your reserves puts us at a domestic non-Alaskan offshore supply of just under five months, again at current consumption rates.
no subject
Date: 2005-07-15 06:00 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-07-15 06:22 am (UTC)I tend to think that the best oil-related use in ANWR - ignoring the environmental side of things completely for a minute - is as an untapped military/strategic reserve. I imagine you can see the value in that.
no subject
Date: 2005-07-15 07:46 am (UTC)Worldwide annual consumption is 25 *billion* barrels. With the ANWR numbers you provide and using the mean estimate, that's *four months* of production, not the generous six that I estimated (it's roughly six months if you use the top-end estimate of 11 billion barrels).
Your reserves numbers are years out of date and I can't find them from the list at the URL you provide. However, 4 billion barrels (actually a bit less) is only two months of annual worldwide consumption in 2004. The second link down on the page for the URL you provide shows total proven US reserves of 22 billion barrels as of 1996, less than a year's supply at current worldwide consumption rates (and a few years of US consumption). Even if you assume that there's a bunch of unrecognized reserves off the Eastern seaboard, that doesn't increase the amount much.
Now, in reality we have more than a few years of oil in the US, because proven reserves are sometimes understated by the industry, new discoveries are being made that adjust the totals somewhat, and we don't use all the oil we produce each year (some is put in emergency reserve, some is sold). Worldwide reserves are much larger, from 800 billion to a trillion barrels. That's 30-40 years at current rates of consumption before all current proven reserves are gone (and consumption in 20 years at current growth rates is expected to double). Actual total oil may be slightly more than that, but remember that oil becomes uneconomical long before it's all used. We're on the downside of the discovery curve already, and have been for 25 years. Really, 40-50 years is an optimistic end date for economic oil production. We'll feel the effects long before then, in the 5-20 year timeline I mentioned earlier.
no subject
Date: 2005-07-14 11:50 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-07-15 01:28 am (UTC)We're not going to run out of oil soon, but we're already at the point where potential demand consistently outstrips supply, leading to steadily rising prices. Saudi Arabia would produce more oil if it could, which means that the supply side has very little slack in it. It's all about reducing demand through higher prices--or slower economic growth, or conservation, or alternative forms of energy--which tend to follow higher prices. Because of the number of factors that go into demand, oil prices won't always rise, but it's going to be a two dollars ahead one dollar back situation for the foreseeable future. The largest single use of oil is in transportation, so that's where the biggest effect is going to be felt.
Knowing this, it's pointless to complain about higher gas prices, though of course people will. What worries me is that it leads people to support counterproductive solutions, like voting to repeal the gas tax. While I don't agree with all the ways that money is being spent (too much to roads, too little to mass transit), the best policy is to tax gasoline to finance a transition to a way of life that's not so dependent upon oil. Even without the threat of peak oil in the coming years or decades, it's stupid to demand better roads but refuse to pay for them. That's the one way in which I will get cranky about policy and try to change things there.
But mostly, I'm going through the process of realizing that by the time I retire, maybe before, there's a strong chance oil production will be phasing out, and that means a huge (though not apocalyptic) change in how everyone lives, including me and my friends and family. So I'm focusing on changing how I live, so I'm better prepared for this transition. That's one major reason I'm commuting to work by bicycle at least once a week. I don't do it because it will extend the life of our oil supply; experience says that conservation by some people is quickly absorbed by more consumption by other people. I do it because I'll have to change how I do things eventually, and it's better to get a start on it now.
Europeans who point to how much they spend on gas compared to Americans don't seem to understand exactly how much our country depends upon oil. On average, the US uses twice as much oil per person as the highest-consuming countries in the European Union. Our suburban sprawl is much worse than it is anywhere in Europe. We have very little rail system to speak of. People are in deep denial and think technology will solve everything without affecting how they live. The fact is, technology *will* respond to this problem, but not without major changes in how we live. Europe, thanks to their smaller proportion of car-oriented development, has a major advantage. But even there some people who rely upon cars will have to change how they live.
Many of the alternatives are overrated. Economical tar sands will only ever replace a small portion of our oil. Beyond a certain point, it takes more energy to convert it to oil than is produced. Shale is probably not economical at all. Coal has its own limited supply and is horribly polluting, and will make climate change worse. Nuclear relies upon similarly limited supplies of uranium or plutonium; I've heard that more plentiful radioactive elements such as thorium may be viable at some point. But there are downsides there from nuclear proliferation to waste storage to security concerns to the fact that nuclear plants are expensive and would take longer to replace our energy needs than we have before we reach the oil peak.
I suspect the solution will be conservation on a massive scale when the economics demand it, nuclear and coal in the medium term, and conversion to sustainable renewables in the long term.
OK, that's long enough.
no subject
Date: 2005-07-15 01:48 am (UTC)in my neck of the woods (moncton, NB) it is 99.9c/litre, or in practical terms (based on july 14th closing prices on the USD/CAD 1CAD = 0.827520USD):
0.827520 * 0.999 * 3.78 = 3.1248975744 or 3.12USD per US gallon, based on my per-litre pricing
UGH!