http://crosleyautoclub.com/IcyBall/IcyBall_Ad-Color-mid.GIF

I've seen a Crosley Icyball in a local museum, although they have just the cooling unit and not the refrigerator cabinet it goes with. You could buy the kerosene heater shown in the illustration, or you could heat it on a regular kitchen stove. It was a gas-absorption unit with something in the ball that retained heat to keep it going for a while. Once a day on the stove kept it cold for 24 hours. Crosley made conventional refrigerators, too, and radios and small 2-cylinder cars that might be considered the forerunners of today's tiny urban autos.

 

As late as the 1940s many midwestern farmers lived off the grid either because commercial utilities hadn't reached their area, or because they couldn't afford to connect. Some of the gadgets available to those who could afford them were precursors of what a lot of people now think of as new technology. Winpower Incorporated, now a manufacturer of gas-, diesel-, and gasoline-powered generators, started with 12-volt windmill generators that could be mounted atop a windmill tower or on a short tower atop a roof. It charged batteries that could provide nighttime lighting in a farmhouse or outbuildings.

 

I'm getting far afield from the topic; I'll stop now.

 

    Air conditioners can also be operated with stirling engines. I think some camping refrigerators work this way.

 

  In any case, petroleum now provides 40% of our total industrial energy, and 90% of our transportation energy. While it is possible to switch from oil to coal or wood as a heat source, it isn't as easy to switch from gasoline to coal as a transportation fuel.

 

    Remember, petroleum is going to peak soon if it hasn't already, and then decline; coal consumption is expected to quadruple before it peaks in about 100 years.

Guys like James Howard Kunstler who talk about peak oil and the end of our highly rationalized, high-tech, efficient, post-modern lifestyles - were also avid believers in Y2K disaster scenarios 10 years ago.

Unless there's considerable investment in new nuclear generating facilities, the cost of electricity will rise along with the cost of fossil fuels. Nuclear plants are ghastly expensive to build, and they won't get any cheaper as the prices of materials and energy climb.

 

New Nuclear Reactors, Same Old Story:

http://www.rmi.org/sitepages/pid601.php

 

coal consumption is expected to quadruple before it peaks in about 100 years.

 

Actually, it's looking like coal production will peak by ~2040, according to Richard Heinberg and others.  The data that has been tossed about in the media for years now about having a few hundred years of coal left is based on old data that is inaccurate and is based on "current rates of use" but no one ever says what the base year is.  A 2% annual increase in demand means demand doubles in 35 years. 

 

Guys like James Howard Kunstler who talk about peak oil and the end of our highly rationalized, high-tech, efficient, post-modern lifestyles - were also avid believers in Y2K disaster scenarios 10 years ago.

 

I never bought into the Y2K hype and yes, Kunstler was wrong.  However, you don't even have to consider Kunstler's view at all to gain an understanding of peak oil.  Kunstler is basing his views on the work of others, of which, there are many highly qualified people who have been studying this and trying to get the word out.  As to how smooth or rough the transition will be, I don't claim to know.  I doubt it will be smooth, but I don't believe in the apocalyptic scenarios either. 

 

He hasn't tried to hide from his Y2K predictions.  Besides, which one of us can say we have never been wrong?  I don't know about anybody else, but I can't.  Personally, I think Kunstler's biggest problem is that he comes off as too cocky and arrogant. 

 

 

Here's an interesting quote from a speech given by Van Jones a year or two ago. I've posted it somewhere in this thread before, I think:

 

http://www.hopedance.org/cms/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=337&Itemid=98

 

People say that I am hard core about some of this stuff but I know because I have been to Davos, and I’ve sat with Bill Clinton and I’ve sat with Bill Gates and I’ve sat with Tony Blair and I’ve sat with Nancy Pelosi. I’ve sat with all these people who we think are in charge, and they don’t know what to do. Take that in: they don’t know what to do! You think you’re scared? You think you’re terrified? They have the Pentagon’s intelligence, they have every major corporation’s input; Shell Oil that has done this survey and study around the peak oil problem. You think we’ve got to get on the Internet and say, “Peak oil!” because the system doesn’t know about it? They know, and they don’t know what to do. And they are terrified that if they do anything they’ll lose their positions. So they keep juggling chickens and chainsaws and hope it works out just like most of us everyday at work.

 

I like his views on urban design and architecture though. He can be really funny.

"As to how smooth or rough the transition will be, I don't claim to know."

 

    Automobile ownership doubled from about 1950 to 1960 and no one seemed to notice. Will they notice if it decreases by half from say, 2020 to 2030?

I think that depends on how we define ownership. If it is the number of cars per capita then probably not, because it wouldn't be that hard a transition back toward 1 or 2 car families, but if you are talking about the number of folks having a car at all then yes it will be painful, though we could see more light not-quite cars being used in certain places, the question is whether the safety folks will stop scaring folks long enough to make the choice reasonable (see the whole Smart crash with a Mercedes dust up of a month ago or so).

Guys like James Howard Kunstler who talk about peak oil and the end of our highly rationalized, high-tech, efficient, post-modern lifestyles - were also avid believers in Y2K disaster scenarios 10 years ago.

 

Why wasn't Y2K a disaster?  Because people listened to the warnings, and they acted.  The upgrading of old computer systems in preparation for Y2K is widely credited as one of the drivers of the boom in the tech industry during the late 90's.  We pumped countless dollars and man hours into preparing for that challenge, which is why it didn't become a disaster.

People ARE aware that we're running out of oil. The problem is that oil is so damn cheap despite all this talk about how we've already gotten the easy sh!t. The attitude is that we can wait. It's hard to care when it's only 2.00 a gallon for gas. You can drive from Hilliard to New Albany and back to Hilliard for about 3 dollars! They're on completely opposite sides of town.

 

I wish Americans weren't so obsessed with low taxes. All we need to do is tax gasoline more, with the funds going towards R&D. It could also be used to make prices less volatile by subsidizing it during hikes.

People ARE aware that we're running out of oil. The problem is that oil is so damn cheap despite all this talk about how we've already gotten the easy sh!t. The attitude is that we can wait. It's hard to care when it's only 2.00 a gallon for gas. You can drive from Hilliard to New Albany and back to Hilliard for about 3 dollars! They're on completely opposite sides of town.

 

I wish Americans weren't so obsessed with low taxes. All we need to do is tax gasoline more, with the funds going towards R&D. It could also be used to make prices less volatile by subsidizing it during hikes.

 

I completely agree.  Gas should be set at $4.00 a gallon now and adjusted with inflation.  This will kepp it fairly steady and I think provide enough of a cushion to be ready for spikes.  But then again I don;t deal in commodities or futures so I have no idea, like most people, where the price will go.  I do agree that it is too cheap for our own good.

Air conditioners can also be operated with stirling engines. I think some camping refrigerators work this way.

 

I hadn't picked up on that, and I googled it to find out; it's fascinating. From what I read it's mostly being used for industrial refrigeration to store frozen foods and other materials at temperatures below what can be achieved with conventional compressor-driven HCFC systems, with substantially less energy use. I read about portable units that run off 12V DC, used for transporting materials that have to be maintained at very cold temperatures.

 

It's not much of a stretch to see that this will become mainstream in residential and commercial refrigerators and air conditioners. It's expensive now, but as market builds and draws in more competition, volume production methods will bring the price down to consumer levels.

"As to how smooth or rough the transition will be, I don't claim to know."

 

    Automobile ownership doubled from about 1950 to 1960 and no one seemed to notice. Will they notice if it decreases by half from say, 2020 to 2030?

 

 

It's more complicated than this.  What appears to be approaching is supply shortages.  With our just-in-time delivery for everything from manufacturing to retail to grocery stores, that's a potentially serious problem.  Matthew Simmons says, that with even short term supply disruptions, grocery stores would start seeing empty shelves due to their 3-day just-in-time inventory system. 

 

Then there is the fact that there are several calories of fossil fuels consumed for every calorie of food produced. 

 

Also, what will the effect of supply shortages be on all of the petrochemicals we depend upon for darn near everything?

 

This is why I don't claim to know how smooth or rough the transition will be.  There are too many variables. 

 

[...]

Then there is the fact that there are several calories of fossil fuels consumed for every calorie of food produced. 

[...]

 

About thirty years ago I was acquainted with a process engineer at GE who worked out of corporate headquarters as a consultant. His passion/hobby was statistics, and when he was away from home on a job, he'd while away his down time at the local public library gathering information on some subject that caught his attention. His latest project had been efficiency in American agriculture.

 

He said that most figures extolling the efficiency of US farming were really talking about productivity; the number of man-hours of farm labor required to feed some number of people.  His analysis compared energy inputs with energy outputs, and he included both direct (fuels, chemicals, fertilizers, etc.) and indirect (machines, tools, structures, and vehicles) energy inputs.

 

He concluded that in the earlly 20th century, when most farm work was done by animal or human muscle power and many farm tools were either handmade by the farmer or local artisans or were simple horse-drawn machines that were used for many years or decades, and when crops were fertilized mostly with animal manure, weeds were controlled with simple cultivation or hoeing, and pest control depended largely upon crop rotation, every calorie of energy input to farming, on average, yielded about three calories of energy in food.

 

At the time that he did his analysis, the increased reliance on complex machines that have a comparatively short life cycle and use great amounts of highly-refined fossil fuels, plus very great amounts of herbicides, pesticides, and fertilizers derived from petroleum and natural gas, meant that each calorie of food-energy output required about thirty calories of energy input, mostly either directly or indirectly from fossil fuels.

 

His conclusion was that in terms of energy yield versus energy consumption, American agriculture at the turn of the twentieth century was about ninety times more efficient than it was at the time of his study. The intervening thirty years since I talked with him have seen even more consolidation and industrialization in farming.

Coal Supply May Be Vastly Overestimated

Michael Reilly, Discovery News

 

May 11, 2009 -- Forget peak oil -- a series of new estimates of the world's coal supply suggests reserves may be vastly overestimated, and if the planet isn't running on a majority of alternative energies within the next few decades, we could be facing an unprecedented global energy crisis...

 

http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2009/05/11/peak-coal-energy.html

http://greeninc.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/05/18/new-rules-may-lastingly-trim-gasoline-use/

 

May 18, 2009, 2:37 pm

New Rules May Lastingly Trim Gasoline Use

By Jad Mouawad

 

The Obama administration plans to issue new national requirements for the emissions and mileage of cars and light trucks, according to my colleague John Broder.

 

The decision, along with the current climate and energy bill under discussion this week in the House, is another very big step in the administration’s commitments to reduce carbon emissions. By addressing fuel standards and tying them to emission limits, the new plan directly tackles the transportation sector, which accounts for about a third of total emissions in the United States.

 

As I wrote a few weeks ago, the administration’s energy policies are slowly redefining a key component of the nation’s energy system since the shocks of the 1970s: the inexorable rise in gasoline consumption.

 

Reversing that trend, as Europe and Japan have done, is critical to mitigating carbon emissions, and keeping oil consumption in check. Tighter fuel standards can help do that, along with stringent mandates increasing the use of biofuels. (Another big lesson from Europe – high gasoline taxes — is being ignored.)

The oil and gas industry is slowly turning to the view that gasoline demand in the United States may have peaked. Exxon Mobil’s latest energy outlook states that domestic gasoline demand will be lower by 2030 than it is today, a tacit admission that the future of transportation fuels is profoundly changing.

http://www.journalstar.com/articles/2009/05/25/news/business/doc4a1702e76583a109887696.txt

 

Are Wall Street speculators driving up gasoline prices? (Again?)

 

By Kevin G. Hall/McClatchy Newspapers

Saturday, May 23, 2009 - 10:56:57 pm CDT

 

WASHINGTON — Oil and gasoline prices were rising fast as Memorial Day weekend approached, but not because supplies are tight or demand is high.

 

U.S. crude oil inventories are at their highest levels in almost two decades, and demand has fallen to a 10-year low, but crude oil prices had climbed more than 70 percent since mid-January to a six-month high of $62.04 on Wednesday.

 

 

............

Greed is bringing this country down, maybe the world too.

High oil prices are the best thing that could happen to the U.S. in the long term in terms of encouraging less dependency on fossil fuels, overseas fuel supplies and reducing emissions. The short-term pain is proving to be difficult but we'll make it.....

 

http://www.calgaryherald.com/business/Energy+supply+crunch+brewing/1638467/story.html

 

Energy supply crunch brewing

By Deborah Yedlin, Calgary HeraldMay 28, 2009

 

Forget low oil prices. The worry of the moment is a spike in oil prices and how long it will take before a supply crunch sends prices soaring.

 

And if one subscribes to the views of former CIBC World Markets economist Jeff Rubin and University of California, San Diego economics professor James Hamilton, a spike in prices could send the world tumbling back into recessionary territory, just as it is about to climb out of it.

 

........

Some (actually probably a lot) of the rise in oil prices will relate more closely to a crashing dollar than to any geologic cause. If it spikes again we could see this economy seize up again and that would be bad, very bad.

I agree that's a big factor. But I don't think anyone knows what portion of the cost of oil is due to the falling dollar, or demand, supply, long-term geologic prospects, the net amount of oil available for export, etc. etc.

Crude passed $65 today, meaning a 100% increase since December's low of $32.40.  Still well off of $147 last July.

Since there is a still a lot of oil sitting in tankers from the collapse and everyone is starting to line up their bets for hyper-inflation, the drive up seems to be monetarily-based. I'm not making an argument about peak oil or not. Though, I do think that the Peak Oil is best argued entirely separated from the day to day moves in the price of oil futures (though I'm not that familiar with much longer term bets on oil which would seem less susceptible to funny money that is flowing around these days).

Mexico used to by our #2 foreign supplier of oil (behind Candada).  They are now #3, behind Canada and Saudi Arabia.  Saudi Arabia used to be somewhere below Venezuela, which is #4 (or at least was last time I checked). 

 

Production in Mexico's Cantarell field has been falling by double digits annually for the past few years.  64 other oil producing nations are past their peaks. 

 

http://www.upstreamonline.com/live/article179174.ece

 

Mexico oil exports plummet

 

By Upstream staff

 

Mexican oil exports plunged 18.2% in April to levels unseen since 1990 outside hurricane seasons, in more grim news for a key economic motor relied on for a major chunk of government revenues.

 

Crude export volumes tumbled to 1.177 million barrels per day as yields at Mexico's aging Cantarell field continued to plummet, state oil monopoly Pemex said today...

 

 

Mexico and Great Britain are both in rough shape because their fields are drying up. It seems to be something of an open question of whether Big Oil could do better than PEMEX. It is certainly the case that Chavez has killed the golden calf in Venezuela. More oil for the rest of us when his regime falls some day in the future.

Since there is a still a lot of oil sitting in tankers from the collapse

 

Yes, one day's worth.

http://www.reuters.com/article/companyNews/idUKN2943436220090529

 

NYMEX-Crude ends up on economic optimism, dollar

Fri May 29, 2009 3:59pm EDT

 

* U.S., India, Japan economic data supportive

* Dollar tumbles to 5-month lows, risk appetite up

* Pre-expiry trade pushes up heating oil, RBOB

 

NEW YORK, May 29 (Reuters) - U.S. crude oil futures ended higher for the sixth straight session on Friday, lifted by economic data from the U.S., Japan and India that reinforced perception the global recession was abating, and as the dollar weakened to a five-month low.

 

The gains added to the bullish momentum after this week's oil inventory reports showed a sharp drop in crude supplies and as OPEC kept its output steady, expecting a pickup in demand.

 

......

It seems to be something of an open question of whether Big Oil could do better than PEMEX. It is certainly the case that Chavez has killed the golden calf in Venezuela. More oil for the rest of us when his regime falls some day in the future.

 

Nope, not in either case.  Both countries are past their natural, geologic production peaks.  When that happens, there is no turning it around.  Venezuela was past peak before Chavez takeover of the country's oil industry.  But, the the US government and main stream media won't say much about peak oil.  It's more convenient to blame Chavez. 

Baloney. Chavez has completely decimated his oil industry. It is an expensive place to get oil and he decided to use as a political weapon. I agree that Mexico and GBR are past peak, but that doesn't mean that better oil-men couldn't squeeze more of the black gold out of rich earth than a gov't bureaucracy.

Baloney. Chavez has completely decimated his oil industry. It is an expensive place to get oil and he decided to use as a political weapon. I agree that Mexico and GBR are past peak, but that doesn't mean that better oil-men couldn't squeeze more of the black gold out of rich earth than a gov't bureaucracy.

 

Wouldn't they essentially just squeeze the same amount out, only faster? or do the modern techniques actually increase the total recovery from fields?

 

    Modern techniques do, in fact, recover a greater proportion of the petroleum. Two different drillers could recover different amounts from the same well. Some abandoned wells have become producers again.

 

    These techniques have been accounted for in peak oil, however.

 

   

Baloney. Chavez has completely decimated his oil industry. It is an expensive place to get oil and he decided to use as a political weapon. I agree that Mexico and GBR are past peak, but that doesn't mean that better oil-men couldn't squeeze more of the black gold out of rich earth than a gov't bureaucracy.

 

My point is that once you pass peak, even better drilling isn't going to stop the decline.  Venezuela's peak happened before Chavez took over.  Then there is the problem of Venezuela's net exports, which are declining as internal demand increases.  This results in what has been called "practical peak oil" which is what ultimately matters to importing nations like the US.  I'm no fan of Chavez (just go to humanrightswatch.org and read about him), but the reality here has more to do with Venezuela's natural peak and net exports than anything else.  They hit their peak 12 years ago.  Better drilling may stretch out the decline for a short time, but it won't reverse it or stop it. 

 

eigth and state wrote:

Modern techniques do, in fact, recover a greater proportion of the petroleum. Two different drillers could recover different amounts from the same well. Some abandoned wells have become producers again.

 

These techniques have been accounted for in peak oil, however.

 

True, but with an an additional point of clarification, however:  the more oil you try to pull out on the up side of the peak, the steeper the downside will be.  Matt Simmons explained this in his book:  Twilight in the Desert

 

 

http://www.calgaryherald.com/business/fp/Rubin+reveals+world+bound+crude/1654255/story.html

 

Rubin reveals a world bound to crude

 

By Deborah Yedlin, Calgary Herald

June 2, 2009

 

It's almost heresy for someone, especially an economist, to suggest it was not the subprime mortgage crisis at the root of the global economic meltdown, but oil prices at almost $150 US per barrel.

 

And yet, that's exactly what former CIBC World Markets chief economist Jeff Rubin has done. Of course, he is also the guy who was one of the first to predict--about this time last year--that oil would hit $225 US a barrel by 2012.

 

 

..........

Oil is approaching $70 for the front-month contract, but for the December 2017 contract, it's being bought for $90. That's actually pretty conservative as it was selling in the 80s a few months ago when the front-month contract was selling way down in the 30s. That tells me that the 30s was an irrational low just as $147 last summer was probably an irrational high.

All oil fututres are trending up, but there are no outragous swings.  Just a long protracted rise.  Wait isnt that what housing prices were supposed to do?

Hmmm, I thought $147 and $33 (in less than six months) were pretty outrageous swings.

I meant for the current futures trading.  Yes the previous swings were and are still going to be pretty wild.  I am just suprised with how mild they are projecting the increase in price to be.

Especially since Goldman Sachs is projecting $100+ oil by next year. But there are obviously speculators who think it's going to be much less than that, since next year's oil contracts are selling in the 80s.

There are some folks who think the market is completely useless right now (nearly all markets but especially stocks and various futures especially oil), basically because so many players have left the market in the last year that a very few number of folks are driving trades divorced from all reality - mostly hedge funds, gov't, and swf's.

Actually, I never understood why oil (and its byproducts) is traded on the futures market. Unlike pork bellies, wheat or corn, oil is a finite resource and when consumed there will be fewer units of that commodity. So over the long term the price is only going to go up unless oil is somehow replaced, rendered obsolete or otherwise made less valuable. While commodites like gold, silver and palladium are finite resources too, they aren't destroyed as a result of their use.

I think it is supposed to allow big users of oil to hedge their bets as economies around the world grow and shrink and use varying amounts of oil. Why it determines the price at my local BP makes even less sense.

http://news.ino.com/headlines/?newsid=689874826874790

 

Thursday Jun 4

 

Pickens left indelible mark on Obama

 

By JEFF LATZKE

Associated Press Writer

 

(AP:OKLAHOMA CITY) With a black Sharpie marker, T. Boone Pickens mapped out for Barack Obama the way to U.S. energy independence _ right there on a white tablecloth.

 

It was a demonstration he wouldn't soon forget. After Pickens' wife encountered Obama at a function this week in Las Vegas, she relayed word that the president was still astounded by her husband's indelible markings.

 

......

Pickens understands peak oil, but doesn't appear to understand peak gas.  He also doesn't appear to understand that the way out of this mess will have to involve less driving of automobiles and trucks.  It's a tough pill for Americans to swallow. 

^I think Pickens is on the right path.  He does understand peak oil and peak gas, but he also understands that we cannot simply shift to an all electric transportation system before oil is prohibitively expensive.  Natural gas appears to be a great alternative that will bridge the gap and move us toward a more electric transportation system.  I think the first step is converting most of our public transportation vehicles to natural gas.  This will keep the infrastructure costs down since these systems are centralized and you would only need to build a few filling stations.  Converting taxis (especially in NYC) would be a great first step as well. 

Just to clarify:  I didn't say he didn't understand peak oil.  As far as peak gas, we're drilling like crazy just to keep production level.  I'm not sure he gets that fully, but maybe he does and maybe he has a point about a temporary fix, but still, my main point is that America's future will be one of less driving.  That's what I don't think Pickens really gets. 

  Again, it's short term vs. long term.

 

  Right now, in 2009, it appears that oil may have peaked, but we still don't know for sure. If it does rise, it will not likely rise by much.

 

  At the same time, in 2009, natural gas production is rising, and coal production is rising. Peak energy is still some time off.

 

  So, if we can switch some of our current consumption from oil to natural gas and coal, then we can continue to consume more energy for a few years. How many? I don't know.

 

    We can also seek efficiency gains. Switching to lighter cars can save enormous amounts of oil compared to what we consume now. So, miles driven can still go up.

 

    Eventually, peak natural gas and peak coal will catch up, and then we are in big trouble. But since this point is so far away, it is hard to imagine what might happen.

I don't consider 10-15 years for peak gas and ~2035-2040 for peak coal to be that far off.  Furthermore, coal and gas are both extremely dependent upon oil guzzling machinery to extract them.  So, peak oil impacts these sources of energy too.

 

I don't see any way around less driving in America's future, very possibly beginning within a decade or less and declining from there.  Maybe I'm wrong, but I've been following the issue closely for at least 5 years.  I don't see the country moving very quickly given our short time frame.  I guess I'm becoming more and more convinced by the arguments of people like Matt Simmons, Richard Heinberg, Kjell Aleklett, and others. 

I find the eschatology that runs through the Peak Oil discussions to be fascinating.

I don't necessarily view a dramatic decline in driving, the end of surburbia as we've come to know it, or major changes to global economic trade that foster relocalization to be bad. Quite the opposite. I think many benefits can come from peak oil. So where you see this as "end of the world"-type talk, I see it as a "new beginning"-type opportunities.

Oh, and regarding oil's impact on oil speculation.... There was a fascinating chart on Bloomberg News television today (June 5). When oil futures contracts are purchased, new federal rules require the exchanges to ask purchasers to say whether they are speculating or hedging. Based on that input, the chart showed a huge spike in oil contract speculating during this past winter (when oil dropped into the $30s) and dropped about one-fourth from its wintertime highs in the last couple of months as oil prices began rising rapidly again. That's just the opposite of what skeptics might have expected!

 

Problem is, I've searched Bloomberg's site and elsewhere and cannot find the chart anywhere. Does anyone know where to find it??