^ I don't expect the price fall to be permanent.  Production declines continue in several key oil producing regions including, but not limited to:  US, Mexico, Venezuela, North Sea, Indonesia, China, etc.  Kuwait's Burghan field (the world's second largest) continues it's production decline.  In order for prices to stay down permanently, demand will have to fall below the plateau we're currently on, then drop faster than the global decline rate, once it sets in. 

It is important to remember that an world-wide depression would drive down demand quite dramatically irrespective of what's coming out of the ground.

A short term price volatility has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not peak oil is real.

 

Yet, if it went up $60 in the next three weeks, don't tell me you (or someone else) wouldn't use that as evidence peak oil is real as has been stated or implied this entire thread.

 

Or are you just poking the bees nest to see what comes out?  ;-)

 

Just that.  We all know if gas were $2.50 again, everyone goes back to their old driving/spending habits. 

 

I have my suspicion of Peak Oil in the form of a question:  Have we reached it?  What is the exact definition of Peak Oil?

 

Does it mean we have extracted half of all petroleum available.  Have we done that or have we just extracted half of all of the $2.00/gal at the pump petroleum?  In reading I find both sides of this issue make strong arguments and cite good evidence. 

 

I, for one, think that economic factors (too many to mention) have more effect on the "price at the pump" equation than geologic.  Notice I said "more" which means I acknowledge that capacity is stretched thin and resources are being depleted.

 

Despite my perceived lack of education about this issue and what I'm sure is a minority/underinformed opinion, I do endorse conservation.  But for me it is more of a "cover our bets" type approach.  "What if Peak Oil is upon us?"  Same with Global Warming...they are both things I think we can't possibly know are happening until it is too late (think: frog in the pot) because the sampling is too small.  So we have to assume, which leaves many open to coercion and manipulation.

 

Sorry for the meandering thoughts, but what would you expect from a suburbanite...remember I must preserve my lifestyle at all cost!  :rollseyes

Yet, if it went up $60 in the next three weeks, don't tell me you (or someone else) wouldn't use that as evidence peak oil is real as has been stated or implied this entire thread.

 

Gildone is smarter than that. I've known him for 10 years. He would do as I would -- look at global oil production data on a historical trend line. And if you look at the trend line for conventional oils (not including biofuels), it peaked in 2005. Biofuels have kept us only at a plateau since then, which has caused food prices to spike. We can't live on biofuels.

 

We all know if gas were $2.50 again, everyone goes back to their old driving/spending habits.

 

True. And then demand pressures would resume and fuel prices would increase again.

 

I have my suspicion of Peak Oil in the form of a question: Have we reached it? What is the exact definition of Peak Oil?

 

Peak oil is the point at which oil production for a geographic area (be it a reservior, national or the globe) has reached its maximum output and is never exceeded again. The U.S., once the world's most voluminous producer of oil (yet we still have the suburban, car-crazy lifestyle as if that were still the case), reached its peak of oil production in 1970 at 10 million barrels of oil per day. Today it's down to 6 million per day.

 

In 2005, the world's conventional oil production peaked at about 85 million barrels per day. Will it ever exceed that amount again? No one knows until the production data is tracked over time. If it keeps falling and we see more giant oil fields fading (ie: Mexico's Cantarell, Kuwait's Burgan, UK/Norway's North Sea) and nothing as large comes online to replace them, then we'll know that 2005 was the world's oil production peak.

 

  Feel free to google "Peak Oil" or "Hubbert's peak" for as much information as you want.

 

  The "Peak" in "Peak Oil" refers to the rate of extraction of petroleum, in volume. For example, the global use of oil today is about 80 million barrels per day, of which the United States uses 20 million barrels. (All of the figures in this post are round numbers.)

 

  Petroleum comprises about 40% of our total industrial energy use, with the other 60% being mostly coal, nuclear, and hydropower. However, due to the fact that petroleum is a liquid, petroleum provides 90% of our transportation energy, mostly in the form of gasoline and diesel fuel which can be burned in internal combustion engines.

 

    We started with a finite amount of oil in the ground. No one knows how much, but for sake of argument our best estimate is 3.0 trillion barrels of petroleum. We think we have consumed 1.5 trillion barrels already, which happens to be the halfway point.

 

    The heart of the peak oil phenomenon is this: so far, we have been consuming oil at an increasing rate. In fact, in 1990 the United States was consuming oil at a rate of 15 million barrels per day. Now, we are consuming at a rate of 20 million barrels per day.

 

    A common mistake is to make a straight-line projection into the future. I saw a television commercial that says that by 2030, we will need 30% more oil. It is hard to imagine any other way.

 

    The fact is that there is simply a finite amount of oil in the ground. We think that we have reached the maximum extraction rate, said rate being 80 million barrels per day, and this rate will never increase. In fact, it is about to decrease, such that by 2030 we will be extracting, say, 50 million barrels per day.

 

    Of that 3 trillion barrels, 2.4 trillion barrels, or 80%, will have been extracted between the years of 1970 and 2040.

 

    The idea of "Peak Oil" is also known as "Hubberts Peak," after M. King Hubbert, an American geologist who investigated this phenomenon in the 1940's. He correctly predicted that oil production in the United States would peak around 1970. He also predicted that global production would peak around 2000. He was a little off; more recent predictions put the peak date anywhere from 2005 to 2012, with the most popular peak date at 2008. We will likely not know for sure until ten years after the actual peak date.

 

      The price of gasoline at the pump is of course related to oil supply, but there are so many other factors such as taxes, distribution, weather and seasonal factors, value of the currency, and political actions that the price of gasoline could warrant its own discussion. Those who have been following the oil industry are not surprised that the price of oil has risen, but some of them are, in fact, surprised that it rose so fast. Peak oil is a long term trend. The best explanation of the price increase is that it simply surprised everone in the industry, who in turn overreacted. The problem is in expectations. How many people bought an SUV in 1999, assuming that the price of gasoline would be about $1.50 per gallon for the next 12 years? How many industry decisions were based on a assumption of $30 a barrel oil?

 

    Finally, no one can tell the future, and no one knows how this will turn out. What sets the Peak Oil people apart is that they are using a different model to project the future, a future that is so different than today that it is difficult to imagine.

 

   

 

   

 

   

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

Americans drive less in June

CNN, August 13, 2008

 

WASHINGTON (AP) -- As summer vacation season kicked in, Americans got out of their cars, driving 12.2 billion fewer miles in June than the same month a year earlier.

 

Americans drove 53.2 billion fewer miles this year from November through June than last year.

 

The 4.7 percent decline, which came while gas prices were peaking, was the biggest monthly driving drop in a downward trend that began in November, the Federal Highway Administration said Wednesday.

^Here is the press release from the FHWA regarding the previous article.

 

 

FHWA 17-08 

Wednesday, August 13, 2008 

Contact: Doug Hecox

Tel.: (202) 366-0660

 

American Driving Reaches Eighth Month of Steady Decline

Trend Signals Urgent Need for New Highway Financing, Officials Say

 

WASHINGTON – New data released today by the U.S. Department of Transportation show that, since last November, Americans have driven 53.2 billion miles less than they did over the same period a year earlier – topping the 1970s’ total decline of 49.3 billion miles.

 

“We can’t afford to continue pinning our transportation network’s future to the gas tax,” said U.S. Transportation Secretary Mary E. Peters. “Advances in higher fuel-efficiency vehicles and alternative fuels are making the gas tax an even less sustainable support for funding roads, bridges and transit systems.”

 

Americans drove 4.7 percent less, or 12.2 billion miles fewer, in June 2008 than June 2007. The decline is most evident in rural travel, which has fallen by 4 percent – compared to the 1.2 percent decline in urban miles traveled – since the trend began last November.

 

Last month, Secretary Peters unveiled the USDOT’s transportation reform plan which offers lawmakers several options to consider when Congress takes up highway and transit legislation next year. “It really makes little sense to try to upgrade our infrastructure using a revenue source as ineffective, unsustainable and unpopular as the fuel tax,” she added.

 

“Secretary Peters’ plan to overhaul our nation’s transportation investment strategy begins the much-needed transition away from status quo solutions that produce status quo results. Her plan strengthens the abilities of state and local officials to integrate effective transit and highway solutions to meet Americans’ ever-changing travel demands,” said Acting Federal Highway Administrator Jim Ray.

 

As Americans drive fewer miles, less revenue is generated for the Highway Trust Fund from gasoline and diesel sales – 18.4 cents per gallon and 24.4 cents per gallon, respectively. During the first quarter of 2008, motorists consumed nearly 400 million fewer gallons of gasoline, or about 1.3 percent less than during the same period in 2007, and 7 percent less – or 318 million gallons – of diesel.

 

The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) collects vehicle-miles-traveled data for all motor vehicles through more than 4,000 automatic traffic recorders operated round-the-clock by state highway agencies.  To review the FHWA’s “Traffic Volume Trends” reports, including that of June 2008, visit http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ohim/tvtw/tvtpage.htm.

 

#  #  #

 

 

 

The key question will how much was demand destroyed versus delayed. The folks who ditched the SUV for the more efficient car is demand destroyed. The folks who skipped a trip or two to the outlet mall while probably go again if gas returns to whatever was the previous equilibrium for unfettered driving. I'm guessing we're still more at demand delayed but with each passing month it will become more destroyed.

My hopes are that the coming onset of heating oil, an added expense you really can't avoid, will offset any return to the aforementioned "equilibrium for unfettered driving".

 

I like the end of the article ("it's not all bad"). Uh, actually most of it is good. Too bad so many people see this transition as a threat to the American way of life, when in reality it's the American way of life since WWII that's been a threat to a more inclusive, sustainable economy.

There are so many variables, but wouldn't a run-up in winter heating costs mitigate against re-urbanization especially in cold weather places. People aren't going to move into old houses if their heating bills are sky-high. That inefficiency of older homes in the North was always a minor push factor to the suburbs (esp. in the 70s and early 80s).

I would think so.  There needs to be a major push to upgrade the efficiency of our older housing stock.

There are so many variables, but wouldn't a run-up in winter heating costs mitigate against re-urbanization especially in cold weather places. People aren't going to move into old houses if their heating bills are sky-high. That inefficiency of older homes in the North was always a minor push factor to the suburbs (esp. in the 70s and early 80s).

 

It could also go the other way in that apartment/condo buildings have lower heating/cooling costs typically because of the density.  I do agree with you though in that the poorly insulated older homes in the city pushed SOME people out to the burbs.

I spend about $100 per month in electrical and natural gas usage (combined) each winter. The reasons?

 

> I live in a multi-story condo building made of reinforced concrete and brick;

> My unit is surrounded on four of six sides by other condo units;

> The two sides of my unit having outside walls face the east and south so I get lots of sun (when the sun in out);

> My windows need to be replaced but I can't afford the cost ($5,000+) so I put up floor-to-ceiling curtains

> I have two electric cove heaters and one panel heater in my unit which have virtually erased my natural gas bills and offset the electrical usage costs of my furnace's fan/blower not running very much.

 

My building was built in 1967, almost 10 years before there was any interest in having energy efficient structural features.

Whoa.

 

I paid $48 last month in electrical and natural gas. I live on the top floor; half of my ceiling is a skylight (which kind of sucks in the hot humid summer); I have a concrete wall on the south and west, a bank of six floor to ceiling original windows on the north and a drywall on the east; and a standard water tank. My place was constructed in the early 20th century.

 

Of course, I set my thermo to 90F when I am not at work, and 85F when I am at home. I'm comfortable in mesh shorts and no top, but when company is over, I set it down to ~75F.

I would think so.  There needs to be a major push to upgrade the efficiency of our older housing stock.

 

Absolutely.  Efficiency is cheaper than fuel.  Too bad no one in Washington gets this. 

 

 

I would think so.  There needs to be a major push to upgrade the efficiency of our older housing stock.

 

Absolutely.  Efficiency is cheaper than fuel.  Too bad no one in Washington gets this. 

 

 

Why must we rely on Washington to make our personal homes more energy efficient???  This should be something every American should be doing on their own!  I would hope that people are smart enough to make their own decision based on their own unique circumstances.

 

In the case of the apartment maybe the government could step in by updating building codes that apply to older buildings... however if the landlords are forced to make the change then the poor people living there may not be able to afford it post upgrade.  I guess we'll just have to offer grants and subsidies to landlords to update their insulation!  And the political gravy train keeps on rolling...  :|

Double whoa!  I paid $31.09 in combined electric and gas last month.  I felt my gas was a little too high for summer but I think they raised the rates on their transportation charges or something.  I'm going to work on reducing that by working on building or buying a solar oven/grill because my back deck has a great western view.  I have all energy star appliances but have only moved over 2-3 bulbs to compact flourescent.  Otherwise 30+ incandescent bulbs I seldom use.  Also have a 42" plasma and a couple of computers I never turn off, although they sleep a lot.  Only used a couple overhead fans this summer. 

 

I'm in a townhouse development and its fun going to the side of my house to compare me and my neighbor's electric meters.  One nice June Saturday I look at it and his is spinning like a roulette wheel and mine is just tiredly creeping along.  I come around front and see he's pulling into his driveway.  He wasn't even home but his house was going full tilt.

Before I installed the cove and panel heaters, I used to spend nearly $200 per month combined in natural gas/electricity during the winters. I keep my thermostat at about 75 degrees year-round.

I would think so.  There needs to be a major push to upgrade the efficiency of our older housing stock.

 

Absolutely.  Efficiency is cheaper than fuel.  Too bad no one in Washington gets this. 

 

 

Why must we rely on Washington to make our personal homes more energy efficient???  This should be something every American should be doing on their own!  I would hope that people are smart enough to make their own decision based on their own unique circumstances.

 

AMEN!  We need to stop blaming the government for refusing to force us to make smart decisions.

 

Energy efficiency only gets more profitable when bills go up.  I spend $70/month on electric and gas combined (3 story condo, shared 16" thick brick walls, built in the 1870's).  If that were to double or triple, I'd be motiviated to do something about it.  Right now, I'm doing just fine, and I wouldn't appreciate my tax bill going to help an energy glutton change their habits.  The gluttons should be motivated by the economics.

... I wouldn't appreciate my tax bill going to help an energy glutton change their habits. The gluttons should be motivated by the economics.

I am not sure what you are getting at.

 

Efficiency programs are financed by charges on the utility bill, not taxes.  Utilities like SMUD have used efficiency programs to keep electricity rates lower than Ohio's by obviating the need for new capacity.

^I think he is talking about the POSSIBILITY of government funded programs aimed at reducing the energy usage of poor households.

 

The efficiency programs set up by the electric companies are as much for their own good as the consumers.  As you said it reduces the need for capacity upgrades which keeps rates lower.  A good idea, but only a temporary solution in most cases.  As plug in hybrids come on board and more attention is given to efficient mass transit (electric in a lot of cases) there will be a need to upgrade most of the United States electricity infrastrucutre.  Don't you think?

^ Thanks Hootenanny.  Yes, I'm talking about gov't mandated energy efficiency programs.  It was in response to Boreal's statement which blamed Washington for not forcing citizens to conserve energy (or perhaps forcing utilities to force citizens to conserve energy).

 

Brewmaster said:

AMEN!  We need to stop blaming the government for refusing to force us to make smart decisions.

 

Hootenany said:

Why must we rely on Washington to make our personal homes more energy efficient???

 

You guys don't get it, or at least you jumped the gun on my statement.  I'm not talking about the government directly forcing people to upgrade their homes. 

 

Like it or not, believe it or not, almost everything the government does influences the market, whether it's taxes, subsidies, regulation, etc.  These things end up being defacto policy that sways the market in one direction or another. 

 

So, what I'm talking about is policy more than anything.  The way things are now, energy is artificially cheap (yes, it actually is) because of tax breaks and subsidies that are given to the energy sector, whether it's tax breaks and other incentives for oil drilling, loan guarantees and direct kilowatt subsidies for  nuclear power, permitting mountain top removal so coal companies don't have to pay the full environmental cost of extracting coal, etc. 

 

So, we're already subsidizing bad energy policy with our tax dollars, but that doesn't seem to bother anyone.  But mention efficiency programs, and oh my god that's social engineering!  Sorry, but you can't have it both ways. 

 

I'm looking at the big picture here.  It's more expensive to subsidize energy production, which is what government (fed and state) subsidies, tax breaks, and regulation ultimately encourages than it is to encourage energy efficiency so that those new power plants don't have to be built in the first place.  Efficiency gives better results for less money.  The Rocky Mountain Institute has been making this argument for 30 years.

 

But, direct incentives aren't completely necessary either.  Maybe in a few areas, but I don't know what those areas would be.  Primarily the government should is phase out subsidies and tax breaks to the energy industry and trade out income taxes on at least, say, the first $75,000 of income (I don't know what the key amount should be but I would think somewhere around there or a little higher) for revenue-neutral taxes on energy.  Since we already have a system in place to report income, we keep that system and can then offer assistance to people at the bottom of the economic ladder who would be disproportionately affected by this new tax system.

 

The market is already shifting somewhat in the direction of greater efficiency, but bad policy on the part of government (which includes a lot of counter-productive aspects) is preventing the shift from reaching its full potential, and has been for a long time. 

 

We don't really have an energy policy in this country, but an ad hoc, random system of tax breaks, subsidies, and regulation that effectively screw up the market.  That's what has to change. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

But, direct incentives aren't completely necessary either.  Maybe in a few areas, but I don't know what those areas would be.  Primarily the government should is phase out subsidies and tax breaks to the energy industry and trade out income taxes on at least, say, the first $75,000 of income (I don't know what the key amount should be but I would think somewhere around there or a little higher) for revenue-neutral taxes on energy.  Since we already have a system in place to report income, we keep that system and can then offer assistance to people at the bottom of the economic ladder who would be disproportionately affected by this new tax system.

 

I don't understand much of what you just said so I'm going to have to take that as disrespect... JK JK! 

 

What's the bottom line with this system you propose?  I agree that our energy policy needs to be standardized and updated. 

 

Do we agree that incentives should be given to electric companies that build alternative energy plants??? Solar PV, solar thermal and especially nuclear and wind are critical to our energy future/independence I believe.  But without incentives and subsidies I'm not sure nuclear plants are viable.  How would your plan deal with this?

Sorry that paragraph wasn't written very clearly.  It was getting late (at least for me...)

 

Bottom line:  remove all subsidies (direct and indirect) to the energy industry.  Cut taxes on income and tax energy instead. 

 

If ALL energy subsidies are phased out then yes, nuclear would not be viable, but, so what?  Even with all the loan guarantees and subsidies being offered by the federal gov't now for new plants, they are attracting zero dollars in private capital.  The only people who buy nuclear power are central planners, according to RMI (http://www.rmi.org/sitepages/pid467.php -- Forget Nuclear). 

 

In addition, without subsidies, renewables would compete just fine with fossil fuels and a huge shift toward efficiency would occur. 

 

What I "propose" is nothing new.  RMI has been talking about this stuff for decades.  Germany and a few other European countries are in the process of reducing income taxes and phasing in energy taxes instead.  Germany does offer incentives for solar, but they are now questioning whether or not they are even needed. 

 

We still waste a huge amount of energy in this country because of inefficient homes and buildings, inefficient transportation (i.e. to much reliance on air and roads and bad land use), not doing simple things like combined heat and power, etc.  But, there's still a sense in Congress that we have to increase supply.  That's what I mean when I say Washington doesn't get it. 

 

Of course, a lot of education needs to be done.  Even now, a lot of efficiency investments make perfect economic sense, but too many people don't get it.  For example, switching from single pane to double pane windows has a cost payback in energy savings of 7 years or less.  That's a better than 10% annual return on investment.  Of course, some people just can't afford the up front investment, perhaps that's where assistance programs in some form should come in. 

 

I still hear comments from people (or see them online) that they don't buy compact fluorescent bulbs because they cost too much.  What they are unable to grasp is that by the time that lamp burns out, they will be at least $25 ahead than by buying the much cheaper up front cost incandescent. 

 

Heck, someone I work with has a 30+ year old refrigerator.  I tried to explain that if they bought a new one, they'd probably make the money back on a new one 5 years in energy savings (a few years longer if they wanted a side-by side with ice/water dispenser, etc).  All they said was, "well, this one isn't dead yet."  This is an educated person with an engineering degree, two incomes in their house and no kids (and they don't live in an expensive McMansion or have much, if any, debt).

 

 

I'm going to need to do the same thing with my HVAC unit which dates from when my condo building was built (1967). I'd get a home equity loan, but my credit card debt is so outrageously high that no bank will touch me right now (especially in these times of tightened lending). So instead I spent a little bit of money on buying curtains and I installed them among my other improvements during my Great Condo Revitalization Spree of 2008.

A decent article by a college student....

_____________

 

http://www.physorg.com/news137950060.html

 

August 14, 2008

Probing Question: Is peak oil a myth?

 

Peak oil, economists say, is the point at which oil production maxes out: The easily available reserves are gone, and the cost of extracting and refining the remaining stuff exceeds the price it fetches on the open market. After the peak, the theory goes, production starts to fall.

 

Experts worry that if such a decline in production happens too rapidly, it could outpace the development of viable energy alternatives, resulting in a drastic spike in prices. Others believe that peak oil is a myth, that we could never drain the world's oil supply to the point of such a crisis.

http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Investing/SuperModels/CouldOilPlungeTo65ABarrel.aspx

 

$65 OIL IS COMING (MAYBE)

 

A top analyst expects crude prices to start plummeting. If you don't believe it, you're not the only one, and a few stocks look good if you're in the skeptics' camp.

 

By Jon Markman

 

If you're frustrated over the high cost of gasoline at the pump, don't trade in your Hummer for a Vespa just yet: A leading energy analyst is telling clients these days to prepare for crude oil to retreat back below $65 per barrel over the next three years.

...

I saw that article, considered posting it here, but read it first and then decided against it. 'Nuff said.

If oil ever got down to $65 a barrel, i bet ill still be paying $7+ for a small pizza that was just $4.50 less than 4 years ago.

Sorry that paragraph wasn't written very clearly. It was getting late (at least for me...)

 

Bottom line: remove all subsidies (direct and indirect) to the energy industry. Cut taxes on income and tax energy instead.

 

If ALL energy subsidies are phased out then yes, nuclear would not be viable, but, so what? Even with all the loan guarantees and subsidies being offered by the federal gov't now for new plants, they are attracting zero dollars in private capital. The only people who buy nuclear power are central planners, according to RMI (http://www.rmi.org/sitepages/pid467.php -- Forget Nuclear).

 

In addition, without subsidies, renewables would compete just fine with fossil fuels and a huge shift toward efficiency would occur.

 

What I "propose" is nothing new. RMI has been talking about this stuff for decades. Germany and a few other European countries are in the process of reducing income taxes and phasing in energy taxes instead. Germany does offer incentives for solar, but they are now questioning whether or not they are even needed.

 

We still waste a huge amount of energy in this country because of inefficient homes and buildings, inefficient transportation (i.e. to much reliance on air and roads and bad land use), not doing simple things like combined heat and power, etc. But, there's still a sense in Congress that we have to increase supply. That's what I mean when I say Washington doesn't get it.

 

Of course, a lot of education needs to be done. Even now, a lot of efficiency investments make perfect economic sense, but too many people don't get it. For example, switching from single pane to double pane windows has a cost payback in energy savings of 7 years or less. That's a better than 10% annual return on investment. Of course, some people just can't afford the up front investment, perhaps that's where assistance programs in some form should come in.

 

I still hear comments from people (or see them online) that they don't buy compact fluorescent bulbs because they cost too much. What they are unable to grasp is that by the time that lamp burns out, they will be at least $25 ahead than by buying the much cheaper up front cost incandescent.

 

Heck, someone I work with has a 30+ year old refrigerator. I tried to explain that if they bought a new one, they'd probably make the money back on a new one 5 years in energy savings (a few years longer if she wanted a side-by side with ice/water dispenser, etc). All they said was, "well, this one isn't dead yet." This is an educated person with an engineering degree, two incomes in their house and no kids (and they don't live in an expensive McMansion or have much, if any, debt).

 

 

 

We agree on many of your points, especially the point about CF bulbs and the refrigerator.  Thank you for your clarification.  You seem to have good knowledge regarding our energy policy... I appreciate your plan, but how are we going to distribute the money for new window panes and the like?  Low or no interest loans for people below a certain income line?  Or are we just giving the stuff away?

http://www.salon.com/env/feature/2008/08/18/oil_myths/

 

Did you hear that Alaska has more oil than the Middle East?

Busting the myths about cheap and unlimited oil being broadcast by Rush Limbaugh, Jerome Corsi and other dinosaurs.

 

By Peter Dizikes

 

Aug. 18, 2008 | Petroleum may be in short supply these days, but the United States does have a related surplus: myths of oil abundance.

 

.......

We agree on many of your points, especially the point about CF bulbs and the refrigerator.  Thank you for your clarification.  You seem to have good knowledge regarding our energy policy... I appreciate your plan, but how are we going to distribute the money for new window panes and the like?  Low or no interest loans for people below a certain income line?  Or are we just giving the stuff away?

 

That's a good question.  Unfortunately, I don't have a good answer. Perhaps someone else has some ideas to contribute.  What I can say is that if you subscribe to RMI's thesis that "efficiency is cheaper than fuel", which I do because I haven't seen anyone refute their arguments and numbers with respect to this idea, it would be cheaper overall than the mess that's in place now.  It's not unlike he idea that promoting water conservation is cheaper than spending public money on water diversion projects. 

http://blog.beliefnet.com/crunchycon/2008/08/peak-oil-mayberry-not-mad-max.html

 

Peak oil: Mayberry, not Mad Max

Monday August 18, 2008

posted by Rod Dreher @ 3:10pm Permalink  Email This  Add to »

 

Categories: Decline and fall, Peak oil

 

Everybody go over to The American Conservative's site (http://www.amconmag.com/) and read their new issue, all of which is available for free in PDF form. I want to draw attention to two articles of special note, neither of which is linkable, but both of which can be read on the PDF version of the magazine.

 

The first is an optimistic, hopeful take on peak oil and the Long Emergency. The author is Brian Kaller and his view is that peak oil need not be an apocalypse, but could easily turn out to be a return to an older, and in some ways better, way of life. Here's Kaller criticizing people who portray peak-oilers as wild-eyed lunatics:

The barrel went up $6 today.

Why oil won't fall below $100

With a surge in the price of global commodities, it's costing more to produce a barrel of oil than ever before.

By Steve Hargreaves, CNNMoney.com staff writer

Last Updated: August 21, 2008: 3:43 PM EDT

 

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Last week, falling oil prices looked unstoppable. The last few days have seen a halt in that slide. Still with prices well below the record set in July and a shaky world economy threatening demand, the question remains: How low can oil go?

 

Many analysts say oil is unlikely to go much lower than $100 a barrel, and it has to do with the rising cost of production.

 

The the overall cost to produce oil has gone up, especially oil fromtough to reachplaces like Canada's tar sands and the deep water Gulf of Mexico.

 

Find this article at:

http://money.cnn.com/2008/08/21/news/economy/oil_price_floor/index.htm?cnn=yes 

 

http://money.cnn.com/2008/08/22/markets/oil/index.htm?

 

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Oil prices plummeted Friday, erasing the previous session's spike, as the dollar strengthened and investors worried that a decline in demand will spread outside the United States.

 

U.S. crude for October delivery dropped $6.59 to settle at $114.59 a barrel on the New York Mercantile Exchange.

 

The drop in oil was the largest single-day slide in dollar terms since Jan. 17, 1991, when oil fell by $10.56. On that day, President George H.W. Bush withdrew oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve ahead of the first Gulf War.

 

Calm before the storm, calm before the storm.

http://www.countercurrents.org/goodchild230808.htm

 

Peak Oil And Future History

 

By Peter Goodchild

 

23 August, 2008

Countercurrents.org

 

Yes, there are other factors beside oil to consider in the Great Crash. We live in a morass of bad politics, bad economics, and bad education (and bad news media that spoon-feed us with half-truths), and we elect thieves and liars to guide us. But the loss of oil, which is almost the only support of our unique industrial society, will be the factor that brings all the rest down.

 

Transitional Silliness

 

The transition to global collapse should not been seen in terms of middle-class Country Elegance. There are no "transition towns" that acquire food, clothing, or shelter without large quantities of fossil fuels somewhere in the background.

http://seekingalpha.com/article/92208-geologist-in-terms-of-supply-and-demand-the-oil-peak-is-past

 

Geologist: In Terms of Supply and Demand, the Oil Peak Is Past

posted on: August 22, 2008

By Eli Neusner

 

Jeffrey Brown is an independent petroleum geologist and analyst, who also manages an exploration program in West Texas. He has a major interest in the subject of "Peak Oil" and has used mathematical models to project a very grim future for the world's oil supply. We caught up with Jeffrey at his office outside Dallas.

 

Eli Neusner, reporter, HardAssetsInvestor.com (HAI): You've published some controversial research in the past. What is the gist of your analysis?

 

Jeffrey Brown, petroleum geologist (Brown): The basic thrust of my research is that the world has already arrived at Peak Oil - which is a condition in which the worldwide supply of oil cannot keep up with demand. We have used proven mathematical models to show that the top five net oil-exporting countries - which are Saudi Arabia, Russia, Norway, Iran and the United Arab Emirates, and which account for one-half of current world net oil exports - are showing an ongoing decline in net oil exports, continuing a trend that began in 2006. To give you an idea of where we're headed, Mexico - another former top producer - will see its oil exports hit zero in 2010.

The hard question will be global warming versus peak oil . . . I'm pretty confident that people will choose to deal with the lack of oil before they deal with a hot earth. This is why continued investment in coal, natural gas, and general efficiency will get more support than global warming oriented anti-carbon dioxide plans.

Even if we can come up with an affordable, plug-in electric car with good range, that doesn't mean we can replace a significant portion of our gas-powered vehicle fleet in a short period of time. And see the above article about the price of steel for erecting transmission towers, etc....

 

http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/08/26/business/grid.php

 

U.S. wind power strangled by antiquated power grid

By Matthew L. Wald Published: August 27, 2008

 

WASHINGTON: When the builders of the Maple Ridge Wind Farm spent $320 million to erect nearly 200 windmills in upstate New York, the idea was to get paid for producing electricity. But at times, regional electric lines have been so congested that Maple Ridge has been forced to shut down even with a brisk wind blowing.

...

Great article.  Our company finances some "wind farms" out west and have been aware of this problem for years.  As usual, state's (maybe rightfully so) only care about themselves, and the federal government does nothing, Republicans and Liberals.

The hard question will be global warming versus peak oil . . . I'm pretty confident that people will choose to deal with the lack of oil before they deal with a hot earth. This is why continued investment in coal, natural gas, and general efficiency will get more support than global warming oriented anti-carbon dioxide plans.

 

If this is true (which I believe it is) then we will never deal with global warming... thank God.  As our easily accessible energy sources begin the dwindle (oil, coal, natural gas) then usage will naturally shrink and CO2 output will also dwindle.  Problem solved... right?

 

This World is way to complicated for me to believe that I can actually change the shifting of the global climate.  We just need to leave it alone.  For example, we have removed nearly all of the particulate matter from our emissions since the 1970s.  This decrease in particulate matter in the air actually contributed to global warming by allowing more sunlight to reach the surface of the earth.  The point is that actions with good intentions can have unintended consequences.  I say leave it alone... we have bigger fish to fry with the Trillions of dollars it would take to combat "global warming".

The hard question will be global warming versus peak oil . . . I'm pretty confident that people will choose to deal with the lack of oil before they deal with a hot earth. This is why continued investment in coal, natural gas, and general efficiency will get more support than global warming oriented anti-carbon dioxide plans.

 

Peak oil is a physical reality that needs to be dealt with and will be a problem for worldwide economics in the short and long term. Climate change was here before humans arrived and will be here after we leave. So i'd say peak oil will drive the world to alternatives.

^Well said AmrapinVA.  Now let's hope our folks in Washington understand this and don't spend trillions of dollars attempting to fix something that was never a problem in the first place.

Please continue at the global warming thread....

 

http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php/topic,2170.0.html

Please continue at the global warming thread....

 

http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php/topic,2170.0.html

 

KJP, I wan't trying to start a thread on warming on here. Mucho Apologizo.

Should we change peak oil to "climax" oil??

 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26660825/

 

Associated Press

 

Oil sex scandal may affect drilling debate

Democrats say Bush administration failure; GOP leader calls outrage ‘hoax’

 

WASHINGTON - A scandal involving sex, drugs and — uh, offshore oil drilling.

 

It's a strange mix, and it couldn't have come at a worse time for those in Congress pressing to expand oil and gas development off America's beaches while trying to stave off an election-year rush by Democrats to impose new taxes and royalties on the oil industry.

 

An Interior Department investigation describing a "culture of substance abuse and promiscuity" by workers at the agency that issues offshore drilling leases and collects royalties hit lawmakers Wednesday just as they prepared for votes next week on expanding offshore drilling.

 

Man, my office is boring.