Toda la actualidad sobre el cénit (o pico o techo) del petróleo y cuestiones relacionadas, en una sola página

CrisisEnergetica.org

Destacado: Cómo un estudiante de 22 años descubrió el fraude de la AIE

La paja, la viga y la berenjena rellena griega

Ahorro y eficiencia con redes inteligentes

Golpe fiscal de Hacienda a la rentabilidad de las renovables

¿Cambio de política energética en el gobierno de Zapatero?

Google News

Irán: Cuotas de producción de la OPEP deben ser mantenidas - El Universal (Venezuela)

Qué.esIrán: Cuotas de producción de la OPEP deben ser mantenidasEl Universal (Venezuela)Irán, segundo productor de petróleo de la Organización de Países Exportadores de Petróleo (OPEP), indicó hoy que el cartel debía abstenerse de aumentar la ...Irán augura que la Opep no variará la cuota de petróleoDiario de LeónEl petróleo espera la reunión de la OPEP por encima de los 80 dólaresecodiarioLos recortes de la OPEP empeoraron la recesiónEl Nacional (Venezuela)Diario NORTE -Prensa Latina -Terra.comlos 143 artículos informativos »

El gas licuado del petróleo por canalización sube manana un 0,37% - elEconomista.es

El gas licuado del petróleo por canalización sube manana un 0,37%elEconomista.esEl precio máximo del término variable de la tarifa para usuarios finales de los gases licuados del petróleo (GLP) por canalización se sitúa desde mañana, ...y más »

Petrolera china CNOOC entra a A.Latina con compra parte Bridas - Reuters América Latina

euronewsPetrolera china CNOOC entra a A.Latina con compra parte BridasReuters América LatinaLas empresas de gas y petróleo de China, a las que el gobierno encargó asegurar el suministro, han anunciado compras internacionales por unos 18.800 ...Por qué parte del petróleo argentino será chinoInfoglaciarGigante chino pone un pie en la producción de petróleo argentinoEl CronistaChina compró la mitad de una petrolera argentinaLa Gaceta TucumánClarín.com -Lanacion.com (Argentina) -Crítica Digitallos 83 artículos informativos »

Hallan una mancha de petróleo junto a una playa en Ibiza - ADN.es

Hallan una mancha de petróleo junto a una playa en IbizaADN.esUna mancha de petróleo ha sido descubierta esta tarde en el mar junto a la playa de la zona de la Residencia Militar del Soto en Ibiza, ...y más »

Trabajadores de Repsol se reúnen en asamblea permanente contra ... - ABC.es

Trabajadores de Repsol se reúnen en asamblea permanente contra ...ABC.es... según han anunciado los representantes de las secciones sindicales de CCOO y UGT de Repsol Petróleo y Repsol Química de Puertollano. ...Paular 1980, Repsol 2010: treinta años, mayor inquietudLa Comarca de Puertollanolos 27 artículos informativos »

Véspera de Nada

Como é o conto en realidade (Chris Martenson)

Chris Martenson é un investigador que tras unha carreira nos negocios farmacéuticos (foi vicepresidente de Pfizer e estivo na listaxe do Fortune 300) creou un seminario en vídeo chamado Crash Course que está a ter unha considerable difusión en Internet, e que foi traducido a outras linguas como o castelán. Nese curso por capítulos Martenson explica a situación económica desde unha perspectiva realista, achegada á realidade física na que se fundamenta a economía. Marteson é un autor respectado no campo do estudo do Teito do Petróleo, sobre todo na relación deste fenómeno coa economía, e fai parte do Post Carbon Institute, o principal think tank a nivel internacional para a preparación social cara un mundo sen petróleo. En Véspera de Nada quixemos traducir co seu permiso un recente artigo no que explica claramente a situación sen saída na que está a economía e a diferenza entre as opcións de política económica que se están a tomar no mundo e as que comprería na súa opinión tomar. A continuación, o seu artigo: Como é o conto en realidade Agora que volvín da miña viaxe polo Reino Unido, onde tiven a oportunidade de presentar a mensaxe central do Crash Course no Parlamento, na London School of Economics e a concelleiros e membros do Parlamento Escocés, veño cunha sensación aínda maior das verdadeiras dimensións da situación sen saída na que estamos e do que se debe facer. Precisamos desesperadamente comezar a contarnos un novo conto, unha historia que polo menos encaixe nos datos coñecidos, e precisamos unha preparación moito máis urxente para un futuro que temos xa enriba de nós. E non é un conto para os EUA nin para o Reino Unido, senón un que se nos aplica a todos por igual, sen importar onde vivirmos. É o conto do mundo. Un conto antes de durmir As vendas de vivenda nova caeron en Xaneiro [nos EUA], afundindo ata os niveis máis baixos en case 50 anos. É algo que non me sorprende. A economía non vai ben, non se está a recpuerar, e escorrega por unha costa abaixo de débeda excesiva e por décadas de demasiada indulxencia e desequilibrios estruturais que nos van levar ben tempo amañar. E iso asumindo que non teñamos polo camiño choques exóxenos producidos pola escaseza do petróleo ou doutros recursos. A pesar de todo o que está saíndo á luz e que revela os profundos defectos estruturais da nosa economía e das súas teorías principais, poucos nos medios e no goberno semellan ser quen de pillar o concepto de que o conto mudou e de que todo esforzo feito para perpetuar “o conto” só prolongará a agonía e empeorará as cousas. Examinemos a evidencia: Os economistas sorprendidos coa caída das vendas de vivenda nova ao nivel máis baixo en case 50 anos Xoves, 25 de Febreiro de 2010 As vendas de casas novas caeron en picado, inesperadamente, en Xaneiro ao seu nivel máis baixo en case cinco décadas, fornecendo unha evidencia máis da fraxilidade do mercado inmobiliario. As compras de casas unifamiliares caeron un 11,2% en Xaneiro con respecto a Decembro a una taxa anual axustada estacionalmente de 309.000, segundo informou o mércores o Departamento de Comercio. As vendas caeron en todas as rexións [dos EUA] agás no Medio Oeste, e o número bruto de novas vivendas no mercado elevouse por primeira vez en case tres anos. “Non hai maneira de adozar estas cifras”, escribiu Mike Larson, analista de Weiss Research, nun comunicado aos seus clientes. “Son horribles”. Estas cifras son as últimas nunha cadea de diversos indicadores acerca da saúde do mercado inmobiliario e anovan as preguntas sobre se o goberno federal debería seguir cos seus plans para rematar de contado as iniciativas que pretenden estimular as vendas. Eses esforzos inclúen un programa da Reserva Federal [Banco Central dos EUA] que axudou a baixar os xuros e unha dedución fiscal para primeiros compradores e outros. É ese último parágrafo o que me amola. O goberno meteu decenas de milleiros de millóns de dólares en rebaixas fiscais e programas de modificación de préstamos nun intento de convencer máis xente para comparen casas (ou polo menos para facer que non as perdan), mentres a Reserva Federal leva gastado máis dun billón de dólares en comprar hipotecas no intento de facer baixar os seus tipos. Por suposto, canto máis baixo o tipo de xuro, máis doado é que alguén poida permitirse pagar unha determinada casa. A regra aproximada é que por cada 1% de variación nos tipos de xuro, prodúcese máis ou menos unha variación do 10% na asequibilidade dunha casa. Así que o programa de merca de hipotecas da “Fed” debería en realidade chamarse “o programa para manter os prezos por riba do que a xente pode realmente permitirse”. Chegados a este punto, pode que nos preguntemos se é axeitado en absoluto que o goberno/banco central sexa responsable de manexar o mercado inmobiliario desta maneira. Eu digo que non. Apareceron outras malas novas no mercado das casas de segunda man, salientando aínda máis ata que punto as deducións fiscais inmobiliarias probablemente non fagan máis que acelerar unhas poucas compras. As vendas de vivendas de segunda man caeron un 7,2% a niveis mínimos dos últimos 7 meses As vendas caen en picado tras a primeira expiración da dedución fiscal WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) – As vendas de casas e pisos nos EUA caeron un 7,2% en Xaneiro a unha taxa anual axustada estacionalmente de 5,05 millóns, o nivel máis baixo en 7 meses, e elevaron as preocupacións acerca da duración da recuperación inmobiliaria, segundo informou o venres a Asociación Nacional de Axentes Inmobiliarios. As vendas de casas de segunda man caeron por dous meses consecutivos despois de ter aumentado de maneira continuada durante o outono apoiadas por un subsidio federal aos compradores da súa primeira vivenda. A caída do 16,2% en Decembro foi a meirande que se ten rexistrado nunca; a caída de Xaneiro, a segunda máis grande desde 1999, cando a asociación comezou rexistrar vendas consolidadas de vivendas unifamiliares e pisos. Non só está claro que o mercado inmobiliario non ten aínda resolto a súa situación, senón tamén que calquera recuperación que houbera era debida principalmente á dedución fiscal. Para ver de que vai o conto oficial, todo o que un(ha) ten que facer é ler calquera noticia acerca do mercado bancario. Nesta, onde se lamentan dunha aguda caída no nivel de préstamos bancarios, podémolo apreciar plenamente. A caída dos préstamos é un asunto preocupante a medida que a economía comeza a se recuperar. As empresas van volvendo á plena capacidade, enchendo os postos de traballo baleiros con novos traballadores ou poñendo en funcionamento máis horas cada día os seus equipos. Pero para que a recuperación continúe, para que os negocios se expandan e o emprego medre, o crédito tamén debe comezar a se expandir. Ben, é ou non é un bo lío sistémico no que nos temos metido? Para a nosa economía funcionar simplemente a nivel básico, o crédito “tamén debe comezar a se expandir”. Temos tragado no noso conto colectivo que o diñeiro ten que prestarse para crearse, e o autor ou auotra dese artigo ten toda a razón. Os créditos teñen que expandirse, pero a idea de que hai outros modelos económicos onde non é ese o caso queda fóra desa afirmación. Non sería moito mellor termos un modelo económico que puidese funcionar ben, independentemente de se está en expansión ou mesmo en contración? Todo isto acaba levándonos á pregunta de se estamos seguindo o conto correcto. Eu diría que a parte da historia que está interpretando o goberno/banco central é algo así: “O mercado inmobiliario é un compoñente importante da economía que nos gustaría ver medrar máis rápido. Xa que logo, calquera cousa que poidamos facer para tentar rescatar o mercado inmobiliario é unha boa cousa. Se non actuamos, a xente perderá as súas casas, a economía minguará, e iso será políticamente impopular. Sen expansión do crédito, a nosa economía non pode funcionar. Mesmo aínda que os tipos baixos de xuro prexudiquen os aforradores e os prudentes, é máis importante que apoiemos artificialmente a expansión do crédito. Xa que logo as nosas accións están xustificadas.” Teño certa simpatía por esta visión e comprendo como pode espallarse con emoción polos corredores do poder. É convincente, e dalles tanto aos políticos como aos burócratas a capacidade de exercer un enorme poder mentres semellan estar facendo algo. Porén, eu teño outro guión para o conto, e evos así: “A extrema escalada nos prezos inmobiliarios era soamente un síntoma da maior, e máis inconsciente burbulla de crédito da Historia, o impacto da cal se extende practicamente a todo tipo de activos. Un efecto da burbulla de crédito foi que vivimos moito máis alá das nosas posibilidades económicas durante case dúas décadas. Tentar soster esa situación insostible con aínda máis préstamos e impresión de billetes non é só probablemente imposible, senón que nos pon no risco da completa destrución do propio diñeiro. E o que é peor: o conto máis amplo (que estamos vivindo moi por riba da capacidade de carga da Terra) está a ser completamente ignorado.” Son dous contos ben diferentes. Onde os gobernos de todo o mundo están tentando facernos retornar ao crecemento económico o máis axiña posible -calquera tipo de crecemento, a eles tanto lles ten- eu estaría buscando dirixir as nosas enerxías dun xeito moito máis enfocado. As cuestións máis profundas da nosa Historia están agora xusto na superficie, e estamos a perder unha oportunidade para as explorarmos. Cuestións como “Canto é suficiente?” e “Cal é o rol da especie humana no planeta, como un máis dos moitos organismos vivos que forman un entorno complexo?” son críticas e requeren unha atención significativa. Onde os economistas tradicionais meten a pata ata o fondo O que ofrece o Crash Course é un marco para entender o mundo máis amplo. Podes adornalo con casos pasados, encaixar nel novos acontecementos, e utilizalo para facer predicións sobre o futuro. Ata o de agora, coido que ofrece tanto unha capacidade mellor de explicación como de predición con respecto á economía tradicional, o que significa que me resulta máis útil. Estou lendo un libro fantástico que enfocou aínda máis agudamente as razóns para isto. Estou profundamente impresionado tanto pola mestría do autor sobre o asunto como por o seu lúcido estilo. Chámase The Origin of Wealth (A orixe da riqueza) e é de Eric D. Beinhocker. O fulcro da primeira parte do libro é que a economía clásica se artellou ao redor dun enfoque matemático que fundamentalmente representa de maneira errada a natureza máis básica dun sistema económico, e daquela veu utilizando o tipo de matemáticas errado, e apoiando todo isto sobre asuncións profunda, probable e obviamente defectuosas acerca do comportamento humano. A revelación máis importante é que a economía tradicional presume e modela a economía como un sistema pechado. Velaquí como o explica Eric: Un sistema pechado é calquera conxunto definido de espazo, materia, enerxía ou información entorno ao cal nos interesa debuxar unha caixa e estudalo. O universo en si mesmo é un sistema, e dentro dese, o maior de todos os sistemas, un(ha) pode definir calquera cantidade de sistemas máis pequenos. Por exemplo, o noso planeta é un sistema, como o é o noso corpo, a nosa casa, ou unha bañeira chea de auga. Un sistema pechado é un sistema que non ten interacción ou comunicación con ningún outro sistema: non hai enerxía, materia ou información que flúa cara dentro ou cara fóra del. O universo en si é un sistema pechado. Non hai nada fóra do universo, non hai outro sistema alén dos seus límites co que poida interactuar. O problema, por suposto, é que a economía non é para nada un sistema pechado. Sen enerxía, todo o diñeiro, desexos, e creatividade humana do mundo non terían o máis mínimo efecto. É bastante obvio que a economía é un sistema aberto. De novo, o que di Eric: O segundo tipo de sistema é o sistema aberto, con enerxía e materia que flúen para dentro e para fóra del. Un sistema así pode usar a enerxía e a materia que circulan através del para loitar temporalmente contra a entropía e crear orde, estrutura e patróns durante un tempo. O noso planeta, por exemplo, é un sistema aberto; está situado no medio dun río de enerxía que flúe desde o sol. Este fluxo de enerxía permite a creación de moléculas grandes e complexas que á súa vez teñen permitido a vida, e a creación da biosfera que ofrece conxuntamente orde e complexidade. A importancia deste modelo non pode ser esaxerada. Facendo a asunción de que a economía é un sistema pechado, os economistas quedaron liberados de ter en conta nunca os límites dos recursos: os outros dous ‘E’s [NdT: Enerxía e Ecosistemas?]. Isto representa un fallo colosal, e moito terá que mudar no campo da economía para que poida resultarnos útil nun futuro de recursos escasos. Unha cita máis: Os sistemas pechados sempre teñen un estado final predecible. Aínda que poidan facer cousas impredicibles polo camiño, sempre, ao final, rematan nun equilibrio de máxima entropía. Os sistemas abertos son moito máis complicados. Ás veces poden estar nun estado estable, como de equilibrio, ou poden amosan patróns de comportamente moi complexos e impredicibles que están lonxe do equilibrio: patróns como o medre exponencial, o colapso radical ou oscilacións. Na medida en que un sistema aberto teña enerxía de balde, pode ser imposible predicir o seu estado final ou tan sequera se van chegar algunha vez a un estado final. Así que non pensemos na nosa economía como unha colección de números e complicados produtos financeiros e confusas estatísticas. No canto, pensemos nela como un sistema que debe a súa complexidade e organización á constante entrada de enerxía útil de alta calidade e doutros recursos. Se sacamos esa enerxía e eses recursos, podemos predicir doadamente que imos perder unha certa complexidade e organización. Exactamente cómo e ónde, é máis difícil de predicir, pero a tendencia xeral do proceso cara unha perda de complexidade é ben doada de predicir. E velaí o punto capital do asunto: ao ignoraren a importancia da enerxía no mantemento da estrutura de complexidade da nosa economía de sistema-aberto, os economistas fixeron moito máis mal ca ben. O risco que encaramos, o que ten atraído a tanta xente ás ideas contidas no Crash Course, é moi simple: unha gran e posiblemente súpeta perda de complexidade, cando (porque non hai dúbida que de pasará) o vasto subsidio de enerxía dos pasados 150 anos comece a desaparecer. Xa que a nosa economía é un sistema complexo (e non un lineal), é virtualmente imposible predicir como se van desenvolver as cousas nun nivel preciso de detalle, pero podemos describir o proceso básico. Pensemos nunha onda impactando na praia: non podemos predicir cada remuíño turbulento ou anaco de escuma proxectado, pero o feito de que se erguerá, formará unha cresta e impactará para despois retirarse é algo que sabemos. De maneira semellante, a nosa economía está apoiada por un fluxo exponencialmente crecente de enerxía e recursos, como unha fermosa onda que se ergue, e podemos predicir claramente que pasará un punto de altura e estrutura máximas e que despois pasará caoticamente a un estado moito máis baixo e menos organizado, a non ser que se lle meta máis e máis enerxía. Oxalá todos poidamos apreciar que este é un punto de inflexión na Historia, posiblemente o máis crucial dos que nunca houbo. Estamos a piques de participar nun experimento enorme, onde colleremos o sistema económico máis grande e complexo xamais inventado e farémolo morrer de fame sen o fluxo de enerxía exponencialmente crecente sobre o que foi enteiramente forxado. É moi difícil esaxerar a trascendencia disto. Vai afectar literalmente a todo o que facemos. E é por iso que non hai ningunha “solución” aí fóra. E é a razón pola que estou continuamente dándolle voltas á pregunta de “Que deberíamos facer?” porque moitas veces é formulada dun xeito que implica que o que se pregunta é outra cousa: “Que podemos facer para manter todo o que vemos agora arredor de nós?” A non ser que atopemos unha nova fonte de enerxía masiva e de gran calidade, non hai practicamente maneira de manter a nosa economía na súa forma actual. E é por iso que eu afirmo que os vindeiros vinte anos serán totalmente diferentes aos pasados vinte. Non teñen necesariamente que ser terribles, pero certamente non van seguir unha traxectoria semellante. É vital que comprendamos que non nos afrontamos a un problema, senón a una situación sen amaño. Os problemas teñen solucións, pero nas situacións sen amaño só tes consecuencias. Podes resolver os primeiros pero as segundas só podes xestionalas. Xa que temos unha xigantesca situación sen saída nas nosas mans, e non podemos predicir como van evoluír ou desenvolverse as cousas cando o noso modelo económico comece a morrer de fame enerxética, a única resposta racional é tentar construír a resiliencia nos nosos sistemas operativos máis básicos e críticos. Neste punto teño que dicir que sinxelamente non creo que haxa tempo para acadarmos novos e meirandes entendementos e esperarmos que penetren nas nosas principais institucións o suficientemente axiña. Penso que precisamos o triaxe [NdT: priorizar na atención médica entre as vítimas dun desastre, a aquelas que teñen máis probabilidades de sobrevivir, tendo en conta uns recusos dispoñibles escasos] e, a falta de mellor información, proporía concentrarmos os nosos esforzos nos nosos sistemas de soporte vital máis básicos, coa auga, alimentación, saneamento e enerxía nos primeiros chanzos da escada, e a sanidade, educación e outros servizos básicos no seguinte. Conclusión Comecei cunhas poucas historias interesantes acerca dos mercados inmobiliario e bancario para ilustrar ate que grao estamos aínda aferrados ao vello conto. Con cada día que pasa, con cada semana e mes que continuamos a malgastar un tempo precioso perpetuando o vello conto, estamos a nos poñer no grave risco dun crash súpeto e espantoso do noso sistema económico. Sen unha economía que funcione, todos os nosos soños, esperanzas e desexos tecnolóxicos non terán lugar. Non imos coller o derradeiro petróleo de 10.000 metros baixo o chan, non teremos baterías cerámicas en cada garaxe, e non transitaremos gradualmente a unha nova economía. Non imos ter nada diso. En troques, o que máis probablemente imos ter será unha economía que irá de maneira continua a peor, e que por veces afundirá supeta e aterradoramente, paralizando as nosas mentes e minando a nosa vontade. Sucederá todo isto, a non ser que desenvolvamos un marco diferente para interpretar a maneira en que o mundo funciona en realidade. Eu coido que non estaría mal simplemente centrármonos nos fluxos de enerxía, e namentres imos construíndo ese novo conto, sermos aforrativos no que usamos e convertérmonos en gardiáns coidadosos do que quede. A enerxía eo todo Esta é a razón pola que, na miña propia vida, me centro primeiro e principalmente en facer que o meu uso e fluxo de enerxía sexan tan redundantes, resilientes e tan baixos como poida. Coido que é tamén o axeitado para o mundo, pero tamén opino que vai resultar ser moi bo criterio económico tamén para min. Debemos converternos na mudanza que desexamos ver. Imaxino que se non podo mudar a miña propia vida, entón non ten sentido escribir ou dar charlas sobre isto como algo que outra xente debería considerar. Cando tiven a oportunidade na charla que dei no parlamento británico, dei unha “solución” (máis ben unha “resposta”, pero á xente gústalle a palabra “solución”): propuxen crearmos unha organización nacional ou mesmo internacional para estudar a enerxía neta e os fluxos de enerxía. Debería estar extremadamente ben financiada para atraer aos mellores e máis brillantes, de maneira que puidésemos responder a preguntas tan sinxelas como: “Deberíamos illar retroactivamente as estruturas existentes, ou deberíamos construír un novo sistema de tranvía lixeiro?” Xa que só coñecemos a parte económica desa cuestión, non podemos responder á pregunta máis importante de todas: “Que é o que ofrece o meirande retorno enerxético para a enerxía investida?”. Volvín da miña viaxe ao Reino Unido cunha perspectiva trascendental e nova da nosa situación sen amaño. Estou se cadra aínda máis firmemente convencido de que a nosa mellor oportunidade para predicir o futuro repousa nunha razoable comprensión de como se organiza a economía e o papel da enerxía en mantela organizada dese xeito. Para ampliar: Peak Oil and Economic Growth (PDF da presentación de Martenson aos parlamentarios británicos) Podcast e MP3 desa presentación. Tanto Escocia como o Reino Unido no seu conxunto levan tempo analizando a situación do Teito do Petróleo a nivel dos seus parlamentos e gobernos. E non son os únicos países en estudar esta gravísima cuestión.

Científicos kuwaitíes sitúan o Teito do petróleo convencional dentro de 4 anos

Segundo informa hoxe a axencia Europa Press, un grupo de científicos de Kuwait veñen de publicar un estudo na revista ACS Energy & Fuels que actualizando o modelo de Hubbert da curva de extracción de petróleo, calculan que o Teito mundial se ha producir en 2014, 10 anos antes do que algunhas fontes predicían, pero tamén varios anos máis tarde do que outras fontes teñen calculado. Uno de los modelos de pronóstico más famoso, llamado el modelo de Hubbert (…) ha ganado en popularidad y ha sido usado para predecir la producción mundial de petróleo. Sin embargo, estudios recientes sugieren que el modelo es insuficiente para dar cuenta de los ciclos de producción petrolera más compleja de algunos países. Los ciclos pueden ser fuertemente influenciados por los cambios de tecnología, la política y otros factores, afirman. El nuevo estudio dirigido por Nashawi Ibrahim describe el desarrollo de una nueva versión del modelo de Hubbert, que da cuenta de estas tendencias de producción individuales para proporcionar una más realista y precisa previsión de producción de petróleo. Usando el nuevo modelo, los científicos evaluaron las tendencias de la producción de petróleo de 47 grandes países productores, que suministran la mayor parte de petróleo crudo del mundo. Se estima que a nivel mundial la producción de crudo convencional alcanzará su pico en 2014, años antes de lo previsto por algunas fuentes. Los científicos también demostraron que las reservas de petróleo del mundo se están agotando a un ritmo del 2,1 por ciento al año. El nuevo modelo podría ayudar a informar las decisiones relacionadas con la energía y el debate de política pública, que sugieren. Lembramos unha vez máis que segundo o Informe Hirsch, precísanse 20 anos de anticipación na adopción de medidas para evitar graves consecuencias do Teito na economía e na sociedade.

Xornadas en Vigo: Decrecemento para o cambio social (6 e 7 de Marzo)

Xornadas sobre decrecemento, organizadas por Arela e coa colaboración de Amarante, Verdegaia e Altermundo. Vigo, 6 e 7 de marzo, na parroquia Cristo da Vitoria (Coia). PROGRAMA SÁBADO 6 DE MARZO: MAÑA: - 11.00 Desmontando o mito do crecemento (por Manoel Santos) - 12.30 Descanso - 13.00 Decrecemento, mil camiños para vivir con menos (por Manoel Santos) TARDE: 16.30 Proxección do documental: Simplicidade voluntaria e decrecemento (reflexións), de Jean-Claude Decourt 18.00 Descanso 18.30 Límites do crecemento e pegada ecolóxica (a cargo de Verdegaia). PROGRAMA DO DOMINGO 7 DE MARZO: 10.30. Obradoiro sobre decrecemento e alternativas á sociedade de consumo (a cargo de AMARANTE). INFORMACIÓN E INSCRICIÓN: arela EN microutopias PUNTO org

Análise de Xoán Doldán sobre as últimas previsión da AIE sobre a demanda de cru

Hai poucos días coñeciamos por medio de Cenit-del-Petroleo.info o que a prensa económica ortodoxa trasmitía ao respecto das últimas previsións feitas públicas pola AIE. Xoán Doldán pescudou un pouco nas fontes orixinais desa nova e esta é a súa análise: A demanda é a cantidade de bens e servizos que poden ser adquiridos nun momento determinado de acordo con un determinado tipo de prezos. A demanda depende entre outras cousas dos ingresos dos consumidores, do seu número, da cantidade demandada e dos prezos. Cando a AIE afirma a través do seu economista xefe (Fatih Birol) que o requirimento de cru dos países industrializados non volverá ao nivel rexistrado en 2006-2007, deberíamos indicar, en principio, varias cousas, algunha delas obvias: fala de requirimento de cru, polo tanto suponse que fala da cantidade (non do seu valor monetario) fala da demanda dos países industrializados, non da demanda mundial. No entanto a demanda mundial de petróleo cru dos países industrializados (OCDE) supón máis do 52% do total mundial segundo a mesma AIE establece dous escenarios diferentes segundo os países. Os industrializados irían descendendo a súa demanda (aínda que con altibaixos) mentres que os non industrializados irían aumentando o seu consumo por declaracións recentes (decembro) o resultado final é un aumento da demanda mundial Pero se consultamos directamente en Reuters, que é a axencia da que sae a información, Fatih Birol di tamén que unha elevación dos prezos por riba dos actuais poría en perigo a recuperación económica. Admite ademais que os investimentos en novos xacementos baixaron un 19% en 2009 respecto a 2008, e iso que os prezos están a aumentar. E se a demanda de China e India segue a medrar o risco de subida dos prezos do petróleo pode ser factíbel. En canto á OCDE, o que se ven dicir é que en 2010 o consumo será semellante ao de 2009 (estancamento). Na información de Reuters tamén se recolle esta información de interese: "Muhammed al-Sabban, head of the Saudi delegation to UN talks on climate change, said the possibility that oil demand might peak this decade was a “serious problem” for Saudi Arabia." Aínda que se relaciona co cambio climático, o feito de que o xefe da delegación de Arabia Saudita na ONU manifeste preocupación porque a demanda alcance un pico nesta década non deixa de ser significativo. Conclusións da lectura e hipóteses que se suxiren: A crise actual supuxo o reaxuste de moitas actividades manufactureiras en occidente, contracción da demanda (en xeral) e dos fluxos de mercadorías entre os países industrializados e o resto do mundo. Neste fenómeno tiveron que ver moito a elevación dos prezos do petróleo e, malia a forte caída posterior, a lenta recuperación a prezos altos que se foi dando nos últimos meses. O encarecemento dos custes enerxéticos afectou moi directamente na estrutura de custos das industrias occidentais e nos custes do transporte, ademais da perda adquisitiva e de confianza nos consumidores. O desprazamento industrial a outros países (os chamados metaforicamente emerxentes, como China ou India) nos últimos anos, con custes de produción máis baixos, permite manter, malia a elevación dos prezos da enerxía o seu papel como fornecedor de bens de consumo aos países industrializados, ao que se suma a elevación da demanda interna, ligada a un aumento da renda dispoñíbel neses países. Froito desta conxuntura, poderíamos estar ante un futuro inmediato onde mentres na OCDE se estanca a demanda interna (tamén da enerxía), no resto do mundo (en particular en países como China, India, Brasil ou México) a demanda siga a medrar (tamén o consumo enerxético). Como consecuencia a demanda mundial pode seguir medrando. Este dobre comportamento da demanda non é favorábel a incrementar os investimentos na industria do petróleo, agás para o consumo local onde este medre. Con baixos investimentos na industria do petróleo e con elevación da demanda mundial o prezo tenderá a subir, máis a menor presión da demanda da OCDE pode aliviar a tensión sobre os prezos e que a suba sexa máis lenta. En calquera caso, esas subidas tirarán aínda máis para baixo a demanda da OCDE e pode que no resto do mundo, desincentivando aínda máis os investimentos. A falta de investimentos acompasará a caída da demanda con unha caída da oferta (ou ao revés), e dependendo como sexa o desaxuste entre ambas a incerteza sobre os prezos será maior. E esta debe ser a preocupación que manifestan os árabes. E en isto moi pouco teñen que ver os coches eléctricos, aspecto que se destaca en Expansión tomando palabras de Fatih Birol. Porén, aínda non coñecemos as contas (nin por aproximación) de en canto sairá cambiar o parque actual e automóbiles por outro eléctrico, canto custará un sistema de distribución de enerxía eléctrica (as electrolineiras) por todo o territorio, canto custará fornecer de (nova) enerxía eléctrica para este novo sector de consumo eléctrico e baixo que fórmula de xeración, e cantos anos son necesarios para facer todo este cambio (un ano, dous, cinco, dez, vinte…,) e mentres con que se moverán os coches. Tendo en conta que só en España había matriculados --segundo o INE- en 2007 case 22 millóns de turismos particulares e supoñendo que se cambiasen 1,6 millóns de automóbiles ao ano --os matriculados en 2007- tardaríamos 13,5 anos, e isto facendo os cálculos sobre un ano que non había crise. Gasolineiras en España hai algo máis de 8000, a que ritmo habería que adaptalas o construír outras novas para que se fosen localizando segundo se cambia o parque móbil?, ademais, non debería ofrecerse primeiro este servizo para incentivar o cambio de automóbiles?

Debate sobre a postura das persoas de esquerda diante do Teito do Petróleo

Esta semana comezamos outra interesante conversa na lista de correo interna de afiliados a Véspera de Nada que queremos agora trasladar ao blog polo seu interese e para abrirmos o debate ao conxunto dos internautas, como xa fixemos aí atrás co debate sobre Ecoaldeas vs. Comunidades distribuídas. Tomo comezou a raíz dun comentario meu (Casdeiro) tras unha conversa cunha persoa allea á nosa asociación e pertencente aó BNG: Cando lle saco o tema do teito do petróleo e a que nos vai vir, responde sistematicamente que “algo inventarán (ou xa o teñen inventado e está agachado)” pero con ese matiz propio dunha ideoloxía de esquerdas tradicional, de que ese algo que han inventar será “para non perderen beneficios” e seguir mantendo o sistema capitalista. Púñame de exemplo a mala situación na que quedaron moitos países despois da II Guerra Mundial e cómo o sistema se deu levando de novo. Eu tentáballe explicar que o radicalmente diferente, non só con respecto a entón senón con respecto a calquera outro intre da nosa Historia, é que agora imos ter cada vez menos enerxía dispoñible, e ata o de agora fora ao contrario: da biomasa ao carbón, do carbón ao petróleo.. sempre a enerxía dispoñible para o Sistema, o Capitalismo ou como o queiramos chamar, era sempre máis. Esta resposta que impide ver a inevitabilidade dun descenso enerxético traumático, baseada ao meu entender nunha sobrestimación do poder do Inimigo (case poderiamos dicir que constitúe de seu outro mito da nosa sociedade) xa a teño atopado noutros ámbitos anticapitalistas. É moi difícil facerlles ver ás persoas que teñen ese modelo mental do mundo que o Capitalismo, por moi poderoso que sexa, non ten poderes máxicos capaces de saltar as leis físicas. Con eles como con outros parece non quedar máis remedio que esperar ao duro confrontamento coa realidade dos feitos. A iso respondía o compañeiro Xabi: A min non me sorprende a súa postura. Cando falo deste tema con amigos, familiares ou coñecidos hai varias respostas patrón e isa é a primeira. Detecto eso si en xente máis intelixente e reflexiva que tras esta resposta patrón comezan a poñer cara de pánico ata que se tranquilizan e volven á resposta patrón engadindo a coletilla que son cousas de Xabi que é un pouco esaxerado e mesmo paranoico. Lonxe de molestarme, prodúceme moita tenrura… A isto eu engadín a miña constatación de varios autores dos que están a tratar o tema do Teito do Petróleo ou outros asociados aos Límites do Crecemento, así como as perspectivas que encara a nosa sociedade a causa deles, teñen analizado estas respostas desde un punto de vista psicosocial (Peak Oil Stress Syndrome, disonancia cognitiva, analoxías coas fases postraumáticas, etc.). E quedoume pendente a pescuda e recopilación destas análises. Tras isto, Xoán Doldán pasmounos cun sustancioso repaso de urxencia ao tema, que elevou o nivel do debate moitos chanzos: Seguramente todos/as teñamos sufrido este tipo de situacións e esa sensación que describe Xabier. E isto irá en aumento a medida que nos acheguemos ao problema e as evidencias sexan maiores. O noso ton soará cada vez máis catastrofista ou alarmista e da outra banda as respostas serán a de atrincheiramento. Así que non me resisto a facer un comentario. Como me é propio vou alongarme (síntoo) pero viñéronme á mente cousas que tiña lido e que me parecía podían vir ao conto. Eu non sei se o mecanismo de (auto)defensa de que contesta dese modo responde tanto a mecanismos psicolóxicos como psicosociolóxicos. Como de ningunha das cousas son experto a miña e unha reflexión necesariamente non meditada dabondo. Mais como o meu ámbito é o das ciencias sociais e a miña disciplina é de corte estruturalista acabo por pensar no todo e os seus elementos e o modo en que se relacionan. Así que o contexto social considero que é determinante pero a relación dos individuos entre si, a posición que ocupan no corpo social, o seu papel como consumidores, ou produtores etc, a ideoloxía dominante, os mecanismos de percepción, información ou manipulación, a conciencia social, as institucións etc, provocan actitudes individuais determinadas, á vez que estas condicionan comportamentos sociais. Por tanto, movémonos nunha maraña de relacións na que somos actores e espectadores, suxeitos pasivos e activos a un tempo. Tentarei explicarme (e seguramente non o conseguirei): “Cando lle saco o tema do teito do petróleo e a que nos vai vir, responde sistematicamente que “algo inventarán (ou xa o teñen inventado e está agachado)” pero con ese matiz propio dunha ideoloxía de esquerdas tradicional, de que ese algo que han inventar será “para non perderen beneficios” e seguir mantendo o sistema capitalista.” Isto creo que está moi ben retratado nun libro de hai uns anos (publicado en español en 1990) Entropía. Hacia el mundo invernadero de Jeremy Rifkin, cando describía a visión tecnolóxica que predomina no mundo (pp.103-104): "Si eliminamos toda la mística que envuelve a la tecnología, lo que nos queda, lisa y llanamente, es un transformador (…) de la energía acumulada en la naturaleza. (…) Resulta irónico que, a medida que la tecnología ha ido haciéndose más compleja y extendido su dominio sobre el mundo, hayamos llegado a verla como algo independiente de la naturaleza, como si generase su propia energía de la nada (…). Lo cierto es que la tecnología nunca crea energía; sólo consume energía disponible. Cuanto mayor y más compleja sea la tecnología, más energía consume. Por impresionante que a veces pueda parecer nuestra tecnología, también ella opera bajo el dictado supremo de la primera y la segunda ley [de la termodinámica], como todo lo que existe.(…) Aunque todo esto resulta bastante evidente, aún seguimos viviendo bajo la ilusión de que la tecnología nos está liberando de nuestra dependencia del medio ambiente cuando nada podría hallarse más lejos de la verdad (…). La tecnología nos hace más dependientes de la naturaleza, aunque físicamente nos aleje cada vez más de ella. (…) También alimentamos la creencia de que la tecnología está creando un mayor orden en el mundo cuando, una vez más, esto es sólo una parte de la historia (…). Cuando más deprisa perfeccionamos nuestra tecnología, más aceleramos el proceso de transformación, más deprisa se disipa la energía y más aumentan la contaminación y los desechos. En resumen, estamos viviendo en una especie de mundo de pesadilla al estilo de Orwell. Nos hemos convencido a nosotros mismos de que la forma en que hacemos las cosas está creando un mundo completamente distinto al que en realidad creamos (…), hemos llegado a creer que el desorden es orden, que los desechos son valor y que el trabajo no es trabajo. A medida que nuestro mundo se desliza más velozmente hacia el caos, nos mostramos cada vez menos dispuestos a identificar el origen del problema. Lo que hacemos, en cambio, es envolvernos más estrechamente en nuestro atuendo tecnologíco y defenderlo contra toda crítica, incapaces de reconocer lo que está haciéndole al medio ambiente en que vivimos y más incapaces todavía de reconocer lo que nos está haciendo a nosostros mismos. Seguimos aferrándonos a la ilusión de que estamos bien abrigados y protegidos, aun cuando cada vez nos hallamos más desnudos y amenazados por los fragmentos desordenados de un mundo de nuestra propia creación" Tamén insiste noutra parte do libro (pp.277 e ss) sobre as actitudes fronte a unha crise entrópica e, en particular, considera tres clases de resposta por parte de aqueles que non logran decidirse a deixar atrás a prevalecente visión do mundo, e que serían: os optimistas, os pragmáticos e os hedonistas. Nos tres a negación das implicacións da lei da entropía suporán aprender unha lección esmagadora e definitiva, como a de aquel home que se negaba a crer na lei da gravidade, "este home sube al último piso de un gran rascacielos y salta al vacío. A la gravedad, por supuesto, no le importa en lo más mínimo que el hombre crea en ella o no, y procede a dar una lección al escéptico atrayéndolo inexorablemente hacia el suelo. Pero el hombre, dispuesto a aferrarse a cualquier paja con tal de defender su supervivencia física e intelectual, pasa a toda velocidad ante la ventana del cuadragésimo piso gritando. "Hasta aquí, todo va bien"". Das tres posíbeis respostas citadas anteriormente resumirei só a dos optimistas, xa que é a que ven máis ao conto. Eles basean as súas esperanzas "en la suposición, de que en alguna parte, destrás de la siguiente colina o en el laboratorio de al lado, se encontrará una solución tecnológica que nos permite seguir como hasta ahora (…). Los optimistas tecnológicos rechazan la idea de regresar a un flujo de baja entropía que esté más en consonancia con los procesos y ritmos naturales de los ecosistemas del planeta" Un aspecto que creo é interesante neste tipo de respostas é a interiorización do discurso dominante, de aqueles que exercen o poder (neste caso, mesmo por persoas de ideoloxía de esquerdas). Maurice Godelier (nun libro tamén publicado en español en 1990), Lo ideal y lo material. Segundo este autor, os sistemas de representacións son indispensábeis na produción e uso dos medios materiais, acompañándose de actos simbólicos. Esta parte simbólica constituiría unha realidade social tan real como as accións materiais sobre a natureza (aínda que a súa finalidade, razón de ser e organización interna teñen orixe na interpretación da orde social e cósmica). Tamén afirma Godelier que hai dous elementos indisolubelmente combinados en todo poder dominante e que o reforzan: a violencia e o consentimento. Acha que a forza maior dos dous elementos está no consentimento dos dominados. Na imposición do poder a unha parte da sociedade e o seu mantemento contan máis a adhesión, e a convición do pensamento que leva consigo a adhesión da vontade e a cooperación dos dominados, que a represión, a violencia física ou psicolóxica ou a aceptación (sen que estas deixen de ser importantes, xa que unhas non exclúen as outras). Para que os dominados consintan espontaneamente a súa dominación é necesario que a entendan como un servizo emprestado polos dominantes, polo que o poder lexitímase ante os dominados.. Debe haber, pois, unhas representacións compartidas que unan o consentimento co recoñecemento dos beneficios, da lexitimidade e da necesidade dese poder. Desta forma para que as relacións de dominación e de explotación se formen e se reproduzan de xeito duradeiro, deben presentarse como intercambio e un intercambio de servizos. No caso que nos ocupa os que consideran que os poderosos resolverán a cuestión porque lles convén, admiten que hai un intercambio e que na procura de beneficios dos donos do capital monopolista xurde un beneficio social e que, nese reparto, nós obteremos unha parte. No fondo é consentimento do dominado que antes de enfrontarse a un cambio do que non coñece as consecuencias prefire crer que a situación actual lle é beneficiosa porque hai alguén (os dominantes) que velan, mesmo polo seu propio egoísmo, polo ben de todos ("para non perderen beneficios e seguir mantendo o sistema capitalista"). Négase a propia realidade circundante, a de millóns de persoas excluídas de tal beneficio social, os/as condenados/as da terra pola acción deses mesmos monopolios. Négase a propia lóxica de funcionamento do sistema capitalista e a prevaleza das visión a curto prazo das empresas, onde o beneficio de hoxe se anticipa a calquera consecuencia a longo prazo (suponse imprevisíbel e polo tanto, crese que mudábel), de maneira que se nega a existencia de límites ecolóxicos e físicos. Asúmese o sistema capitalismo como sistema finalista, o fin da historia que remata no capitalismo como meta predeterminada ao longo da historia, e, deste modo, non substituíbel por outro. Non se decatan de que, en certa medida, as civilizacións teñen entrado en colapso por un determinado uso de materiais e enerxía, que a crise enerxética arrastrada durante o século XVIII desemboca noutro sistema enerxético (baseado no carbón e non en recursos renovábeis locais, en particular a leña) e posibilita o capitalismo industrial, como o petróleo posibilitará o capitalismo monopolista. Ou négase que o cambio enerxético supón un cambio nas pautas de producir, consumir, organizarse socialmente…Ou que as crises dos sistemas enerxéticos son cada vez máis frecuentes. E isto pode corroborarse con datos. “Púñame de exemplo a mala situación na que quedaron moitos países despois da II Guerra Mundial e cómo o sistema se deu levando de novo.” Por outra parte a IIª Guerra Mundial foi, como hoxe resulta máis que evidente, un conflito entre potencias capitalistas, no que se definiu unha nova correlación de forzas. Os EE.UU, non saíron precisamente malparados, nin a súa economía destruída e, daquela, era o gran produtor de petróleo. Tamén serviu para definir un novo mapa xeostratéxico co Oriente Medio como eixo importante (algo que xa viña facéndose tras a Iª Guerra Mundial e o fin do Imperio Otomano e o posicionamento de Gran Bretaña --daquela principal potencia- e Francia nese escenario). E agora non se trata diso, aínda que, como xa está a acontecer, hai importantes posicionamentos xeostratéxicos en todo o mundo para controlar todo tipo de recursos: biolóxicos, minerais, auga, petróleo… Quizais o capitalismo aínda perdure algún tempo pero exacerbando o control a todos os niveis e onde primará aínda máis unha perspectiva curtopracista. Como xa aconteceu noutros momentos da historia (o fin do Imperio Romano), aínda ao borde do colapso moita xente non era (ou non quería ser) consciente do que estaba a suceder e posiblemente só se decatou (ou admitiuno) cando xa este desaparecera. Outro autor C.Lévy-Leboyer (nun libro publicado en español en 1985) Psicología y medio ambiente, fai referencia á percepción de risco ambiental. Fala da tendencia a que de forma espontánea os afectados dunha catástrofe se instalen no mesmo lugar (como sucederá en Haití e xa sucedeu noutros lugares). Segundo algúns estudos aos que menciona, isto débese a tres razóns: as vantaxes obxectivas desas rexións, a pasividade natural dos individuos que non superan as dificultades materiais da instalación noutra zona e a subestimación dos riscos. Neste último caso non se cre que se volva a dar a catástrofe (aínda que admitan que xa aconteceu más veces no pasado), ou ben reducen a importancia do risco sinalando a rareza e confiando en forzas protectoras cuxo modo de acción é impreciso (os capitalistas?). En definitiva, interpretan a realidade e fórxanse un sentimento de seguridade que non descansa nunha análise obxectiva da realidade. E engado. Dado que o uso de enerxía na actualidade pode ser (e é) considerado como unha adición, poderíamos dicir que tamén hai mecanismos psicolóxicos de negación semellantes aos dunha persoa con problemas de adicción. Despois dunha crise o adicto (consumidor enerxético) insiste en volver à adicción (usar enerxía), debido á negación do seu problema (ou autoengano) que pretende separar ao adicto (consumidor de enerxía) das consecuencias na súa vida. Esta negación pode supor ademais a minimización do problema, restándolle importancia aos eventos relacionados coas consecuencias da adición (o teito do petróleo). Tamén racionalizando o problema, asignando unha razón lóxica a algo que non a ten ou que é irrazonábel (xa se descubrirá algo para salvar o sistema capitalista, ou supor o descubrimento dunha fonte enerxética que non respecta a termodinámica). Aí queda iso, para a reflexión e o debate, e para a acción necesaria, coido eu, conxunta coas forzas políticas con vocación de trasformación social. Iremos arriquecendo o debate cos vosos comentarios e outras achegas dos nosos afiliados.

Peaknik (Twitter)

Peaknik: the days of unlimited borrowing by governments–against future growth based on cheap energy–is coming to an end. http://bit.ly/c6l0ie

Peaknik: the days of unlimited borrowing by governments–against future growth based on cheap energy–is coming to an end. http://bit.ly/c6l0ie

Peaknik: Solastalgia = comfort + pain "experienced pain when our home is under ecological assault". http://nyti.ms/dg0kMz also see Gregory Bateson

Peaknik: Solastalgia = comfort + pain "experienced pain when our home is under ecological assault". http://nyti.ms/dg0kMz also see Gregory Bateson

Peaknik: Perpetual economic growth only an extrapolation from history, not a law of nature. Study on IPCC scenarios & Peak OIl http://bit.ly/buaoH9

Peaknik: Perpetual economic growth only an extrapolation from history, not a law of nature. Study on IPCC scenarios & Peak OIl http://bit.ly/buaoH9

Ni nuclear ni otras

Irse de peaknik con una caravana

Para aquellos que se han extrañado un poco de que desapareciera casi de repente después de la actividad bloguera (y en Internet y fuera de él en general) de los últimos años, una simple explicación: necesito trabajar de vez en cuando como todo hijo de vecino.¿Y de qué puede trabajar un peakoilista? Pues restaurando caravanas viejecitas.¿Que qué tiene que ver con el tema de las energías y su escasez, y su relación con el crecimiento demográfico exponencial? Pues... por ejemplo que una caravana es para irse de peaknik*.También puede ser una caravana un sitio donde vivir fuera de la gran ciudad cuando tienes pocos recursos (bien sea por mala suerte, bien porque te apetezca tener poca cosa incluido pocos quebraderos de cabeza).También puede ser una manera barata de escapar los fines de semana al campo sin tener que pagar hoteles y restaurantes todo el tiempo, pues llevas contigo cocina, nevera y lavabo. De ninguna manera recomiendo, sin embargo, viajar distancias largas innecesariamente y por capricho, seguro que en tu región hay lugares preciosos donde pernoctar de vez en cuando; de lo contrario perdemos por un lado lo que ganamos por el otro.Y por último, puede ser una buena base de experimentación con los sistemas de recaptación de energía (las supuestamente renovables, alternativas y bla, bla...). La vida en una caravana es normalmente una vida de sencillo: los grifos emanan pocos litros por minuto (más bien por hora en una caravana), las luces interiores son pequeñitas y tenues, no hay espacio para muchos aparatos consumidores de energía, la nevera está reducida a la mínima expresión, también el extractor de humo dado el tamaño de la misma cocina... Así hay pie para consumir poco gas y electricidad.Ahora falta ver si se puede llegar, de manera razonablemente sencilla, a ser totalmente autónomo (en la recaptación de la energía, obviamente difícil será en la fabricación de los sistemas) con ese bajo nivel de consumo. Porque lo de decimosegundos con ascensor y aire acondicionado absolutamente autónomos ya hemos visto en estos últimos años que va a ser que no, por lo menos por ahora.Trataré de ir probando, con el tiempo, de diseñar sistemas de alimentación energéticos para una caravana, de manera que se pudiera vivir en ella permanentemente sin necesitar, para cocinar, iluminarse, calentarse e higiene, de electricidad de la red ni gas. Al final va a ser que no se puede tampoco sin tener que acudir a un sinfín de sistemas complejos, y va a ser que sí si nos conformamos con otro estilo de vida, pero eso lo iremos viendo sobre la marcha...Mientras tanto, no he olvidado plenamente la actividad informativa, alguna charla acaba cayendo de vez en cuando, volveré a pasarme en cualquier momento por Radio-Alaquàs, en Menorca estamos esperando para una semana de éstas el reconocimiento del cénit de los fósiles por parte de las autoridades... Y de vez en cuando apareceré por aquí.Saludos a todos.*Para quien no lo haya captado, es un chiste --o no--, construido con el anglicismo peaknik, que es aquella persona muy interesada por el cénit (peak en inglés) del petróleo, y por su similitud con la palabra pícnic, que es una comida en el campo.

2 tuyas y 1 mía, 3 para cada uno

Que la mayoría de periodistas no pueden informarnos de cuánto consumimos o dejamos de consumir, porque no comprenden de qué se trata si se incluye la palabra vatio, y así tampoco pueden hacerlo comprender, ya lo hemos visto muchas veces. En una noticia reciente, donde se saca a relucir el supuesto ahorro de la convocatoria de apagón del pasado sábado (el enésimo apagón voluntario, éste de una hora, ya no de cinco minutos, será para que nos vayamos acostumbrando...) se vuelve a confundir el término, pues dice«en Mallorca y Menorca la bajada fue de 6,96 megavatios de los casi 700 totales consumidos en esa franja horaria»y en una franja de tiempo no pueden consumirse megavatios, sino megavatioshora. En todo caso, y siempre que sí fueran megavatios, debería decir «de los casi 700 demandados en el momento álgido de esa franja horaria».Pero lo que podíamos sospechar y hoy confirmar, además, es que algunos tampoco conocen los fundamentos más elementales de las matemáticas. En la misma noticia dice que el apagón de una hora«ha permitido un ahorro del 1,03% de energía en el sistema Mallorca-Menorca, y de un 2,35% en el Ibiza-Formentera»De esos datos podríamos sacar la media, por ejemplo teniendo en cuenta la población de la islas gimnesias por un lado (864.000 personas según la Wikipedia) y la de las pitiusas por otro (119.000). La cifra resultante sería algo entre el 1,03% de unas y el 2,35% de las otras, evidentemente. Tanto da para el caso (bueno, en realidad es 1,19%), el tema es que el periodista no sabe hacer tal faena, ya no porque no supiera buscar los datos de población y hacer las correspondientes operaciones [(864.000 x 1,03 + 119.000 x 2,35) / (864.000 + 119.000)], sino porque al parecer cree en realidad que la media se hace ¡sumando las dos cifras, directamente!, y así ha titulado la noticia: El 'apagón' permite un ahorro del 3,38% del consumo eléctrico en Baleares.Ojú.

5 minutos de silencio eléctrico

Publicado en Última Hora Menorca el 13-2-09Resulta que está circulando por Internet otra convocatoria, otra más, para un apagón eléctrico voluntario. Reproduzco, faltas de ortografía incluidas, el correo masivo que amablemente me ha hecho llegar el usuario Ciunas para avisarme del ya cansino evento:APAGÓN GENERAL DIA 15 DE FEBREROEl domingo, DIA 15 DE FEBRERO, DIA DEL CONSUMIDOR, apagón general de electricidad en los hogares españoles a las 22 horas en señal de protesta por la subida abusiva que ENDESA ha llevado a cabo en sus tarifas eléctricas.La única forma que tenemos de luchar los consumidores contra estas practicas abusivas, es con medidas como esta por eso os convocamos a seguir esta iniciativa que comenzara a las 22 horas y durara 5 minutos.!!!! OS ROGAMOS QUE LO HAGÁIS PASAR AL MAYOR NUMERO DE CORREOS ELECTRÓNICOS!!!!!......Es curioso que se apunte a Endesa como culpable. ¿Las demás distribuidoras no han variado las tarifas? El que ha escrito ese correo parece que no sabe que no son las distribuidoras las que marcan el precio, sino que la tarifa eléctrica la dicta el Gobierno.Ya comenté los apagoncillos otras veces, por ejemplo en Ya está bien de cambio climático, en Los sacos de lastre de la red eléctrica, en Porque tú lo vales, o en 5 min. de coche = 1.680 apagones, pero incidiré en algunas cosillas que me resultan especialmente curiosas de ésta. Por ejemplo, otros apagones fueron para mostrar preocupación por el cambio climático, ahora ya son razones más mundanas como el precio a pagar por olvidarlo.También que, incluso en el caso de Baleares donde solamente hay un proveedor de electricidad a través de la red general, no podemos quejarnos de que sea exactamente un monopolio eléctrico. Es verdad que es necesario que tengas un sistema eléctrico montado en tu casa, y certificado por un profesional, para que te den una cédula de habitabilidad, pero nadie te obliga a contratar la electricidad a la compañía una vez residas en un edificio.Podrías, por ejemplo, poner un generador a gasóleo en una habitación (bien aisladito para que no moleste a los vecinos y con una buena evacuación de humos, por supuesto), y pasar olímpicamente de la compañía eléctrica. Claro, no es tan cómodo, ni barato. Y probablemente aún contamine más. Y tienes que comprar el combustible a otra macrocorporación, con lo que estás casi en las mismas.Podrías también, por ejemplo, poner un gimnasio de barrio en la planta baja de tu casa, con varias bicicletas estáticas, y aprovechar para que los clientes generen con ellas electricidad y así no comprarla a tu compañía eléctrica. Tampoco es tan cómodo, ni tan fiable como contratarla al servicio habitual.Podrías, por ejemplo, comprar 30 baterías de camión, y hablar con camioneros para que las recarguen mientras trabajan: te las traigan al 100% de su capacidad y se las devuelvas con la suficiente carga como para arrancar simplemente el camión un par de veces, y así se carguen de nuevo mientras conducen habitualmente. Un coñazo, y seguramente una solución cara.Puedes poner un molino en el jardín, (previo comprarte un chalé, claro), o muchas placas fotovoltaicas, pero ya sabemos lo ineficientes que son y lo caros que resultan.Contratar la electricidad es más cómodo, fiable, barato, y en algunos casos limpio, que obtener electricidad por muchos otros medios. Pero esos otros medios, haberlos haylos, así que no podemos decir que la compañía eléctrica practique un monopolio.Por otro lado no solemos quejarnos de la mayoría de los monopolios que nos acosan, porque no hay motivo para ello. Por ejemplo, ¿cuántas empresas nos nutren de aeropuertos en Menorca? Una, Acciona. ¿Sería siquiera deseable que otras tres empresas mantuvieran otros tres aeropuertos operativos más, sólo por el hecho de que haya una sana competencia? Evidentemente no, no sería rentable al final ninguno de ellos y nos quedaríamos sin aeropuertos y tendríamos que coger el barco para salir, de Acciona también, dicho sea de paso.Pero principalmente, respecto a la convocatoria. Imaginemos que queremos sabotear el negocio de McDonalds, en protesta por sus abusivas subidas de precio, no comprándoles hamburguesas ¡un cierto día durante cinco minutos! Absurdo.Es como un minuto de silencio por el hambre de África, justo antes de pitar el inicio del partido que jugarán 22 galácticos del futbol que juntos mueven, tan bien como el balón, sumas de dinero que significarían el PIB de algún que otro de esos países famélicos. Absurdo.Ya me imagino a más de uno en su casa: con la bombilla de bajo consumo de la sala de estar apagada, mientras en esos cinco minutos siguen los radiadores de aceite en marcha, el termo recuperándose de la ducha diaria (y conozco al menos un caso de tres duchas diarias), la nevera enfriándose tras haber abierto la puerta del descongelador para sacar lo que en esos cinco minutos, y otros quince, se estará calentando en el microondas, con la lavadora-secadora a unos miles de revoluciones por minuto y el PC «delinquiendo» a través de la mula; pero con la bombilla apagada.Es el consumo diario lo que cuenta, no el puntual de cinco minutos.

Jornadas energéticas en Baleares

La Direcció General d'Energia del Govern de les Illes Balears organiza unas interesantes jornadas sobre temas energéticos para los días 4 y 5 de marzo de 2009 con el título La crisi energètica, anàlisi del fenòmen i debat sobre alternatives de futur, en las que participarán, entre otros, Pedro Prieto y Daniel Gómez de AEREN, a celebrar en Palma de Mallorca. El programa y más detalles en la web de la CAIB.

Supermillonarios todos

Publicado en Última Hora Menorca el 20-2-09Me ha llegado una presentación de diapositivas por Internet de las que no dejan indiferente. Con unos sencillos cálculos muestra cómo el rescate bancario español le está costando al contribuyente 614 millones de euros por cabeza. Como lo leen, 614 millones por barba. Y el de EEUU peor: repartido entre los 6.700 millones de habitantes del planeta, 114 millones de dólares por persona. Mucho dinero. Lástima que el que ha hecho el pabuerpóin no está muy ducho en matemáticas y que, según las propias cifras de la presentación resulta que sobran por todas partes los millones: son 614 euros por español y 104 dólares por habitante del planeta.Que no digo que sea poco dinero, 104 dólares darían para doblar el jornal de tres meses de esa gran parte de la población mundial que viven con menos de un dólar al día.Lo que me asombra no es que alguna gente no sepa contar cuando las cifras llevan más de tres o cuatro ceros; o que a veces ni siquiera distinga un millón, de mil millones, de un billón (me asombra tan poco esto último que, en el cajón de cosas por publicar, tenía un post dedicado casi íntegramente a esto, que publico acto seguido).Pero ¿qué creen acaso que podríamos comprar todos con tantos billetes o apuntes en cuentas? Sorprende, ahí sí, que haya gente tan estúpida como para creer que eso nos llevaría a la felicidad eterna. Sorprende que haya gente tan estúpida que crea que entonces ya todos podríamos tener un castillo, tres aviones reactores, doce yates, veintitrés Ferraris, ochenta y cinco pantallas de plasma de sesenta pulgadas, mil cuatrocientos veintisiete Ipods y trecientos cuarenta y nueve millones, setecientos dos mil, catorce viajes a las Bahamas. Lo puse en palabras y no en cifras por si me lee alguno de ellos.Que no se les vaya a convertir el deseo en realidad... y aquí ocurra como en Zimbabwe y les dé por arrancar la máquina que pinta ceros sobre los billetes: luego seremos todos ¡supermillonarios! Yupi.

(Varias fuentes)

Culture Change - The Century of Famine

Culture Change - Is "More Jobs" Sustainable or Necessary in the Post-Peak Oil World?

La producción de petróleo tocará techo en 2014. europapress.es

Diez años antes de lo previsto, según científicos

The next crisis: prepare for peak oil - WSJ.com

Society ignores the oil crunch at its peril | Jeremy Leggett | Environment | guardian.co.uk

Warnings of a crash in oil production are no longer limited to a prescient few individuals - major British companies and oil CEOs are now sounding the alert

ASPO International

Petrobras envisions peak in 2010

Mr. Gabrielli, the CEO of Petrobras, gave a presentation in December 2009 in which he shows world oil capacity, including biofuels, peaking in 2010 due to oil capacity additions from new projects being unable to offset world oil decline rates. Gabrielli states in his presentation that the world needs oil volumes the equivalent of one Saudi Arabia every two years to offset future world oil decline rates. This is a stronger statement than the one he gave in January 2009 in an interview with Business Week when he said the following: "According to the company's projections, production from existing fields will fall from a little over 80 million barrels a day to maybe half of that even if new techniques are used to slow their rate of decline. So just keeping global production flat is going to require lots of new fields and requires the world to replace one Saudi Arabia per three years." Gabrielli is clearly concerned about declining future world oil production. read more

Branson warns that oil crunch is coming within five years

Sir Richard Branson and fellow leading businessmen will warn ministers this week that the world is running out of oil and faces an oil crunch within five years. The founder of the Virgin group, whose rail, airline and travel companies are sensitive to energy prices, will say that the ­coming crisis could be even more serious than the credit crunch. "Our message to government and businesses is clear: act," he says in a foreword to a new report on the crisis. "Don't let the oil crunch catch us out in the way that the credit crunch did." Read more: The Guardian Additional reading: The Oil Crunch Report by UK Industry Taskforce on Peak Oil and Energy Security

Peak oil in Davos: Oh yes it is, oh no it isn't.

Kjell Aleklett, President of ASPO International The title above was borrowed from the Financial Times. Last week the World Economic Forum in Davos celebrated its 40th anniversary and one of the sessions addressed the world's energy security. The chairperson for the session was Daniel Yergin, the founder of CERA (Cambridge Energy Research Associates). Before his departure to Davos the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) wrote: "All the world loves a bringer of good news, so energy guru Daniel Yergin should by all rights be guaranteed a warm welcome at Davos this week". The news that he bore with him was that "the awful day of 'peak oil', when the world will have depleted its finite hydrocarbon resources to the point where it can never again increase production, is still a long way off". read more

The OPEC bulletin and focus on Angola

A magazine that regularly falls into ASPO's letterbox is "OPEC Bulletin". According to their advertising a yearly subscription costs $70, but the fact that it comes to ASPO without a subscription shows that OPEC has prioritized ASPO in its address list. The latest issue, number 9 for 2009, has focused on Angola. But before I address Angola I want to mention a few of the other articles. Like it or not, oil exports from OPEC will be completely decisive for the future of the OECD nations. When reading the OPEC Bulletin ones sees a different angle of approach than one is used to. The latest issue discusses the OPEC meeting that, (when the issue was published), was yet to be held on 22 December in Luanda. The date of the meeting was chosen so that they could discuss the anticipated decisions on climate change from the conference in Copenhagen. They were also waiting for the weather prognoses for the northern hemisphere since a cold winter would contribute to a higher oil price. Of course, OPEC hopes for cold weather since it means more money in the till. One article is about OPEC's new head office in Vienna that is described as "state-of-the-art". read more

US passes Russia as top gas producer

The US overtook Russia as the world's largest natural-gas producer last year as operators tapped unconventional resources while demand in Russia plunged amid the country's worst economic decline on record. "Minimal hurricane disruptions and significant growth in production from onshore shale basins have contributed to the increase in domestic supply," the Department of Energy's Energy Information Agency said on its Web site last month. Russia's annual gas output fell 12% to 582 billion cubic metres compared to last year. Demand for gas in Russia, the world's largest user of the fuel after the US, contracted last year along with the economy. Prime Minister Vladimir Putin said 30 December that annual gross domestic product declined 8.5%, the most since the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991. Industrial output fell about 11.5%, the Russian Economy Ministry said last month. Read more: Upstream Online

Oil Depletion Protocol

ASPO's Stuart McCarthy on the ODP in QLD

Stuart McCarthy of ASPO Brisbane discusses the recent response to a petition for the state of Queensland to adopt the Oil Depletion Protocol and other Australian peak oil news. Read more.

The Oil Depletion Protocol in Earth Island Journal

Richard Heinberg discusses the Oil Depletion Protocol in the Winter 2007 edition of Earth Island Journal. Click here to read more.

Bush urged to break US oil dependence

By Carola Hoyos in London, Edward Luce in Washington and Krishna Guha in Beijing Published: December 13 2006 22:07 | Last updated: December 13 2006 22:07 The Bush administration should act decisively to break America's dependence on oil, said a group of leading US business executives and senior military officers in a report presented on Wednesday to the White House and Congress. The bipartisan group, which includes the chief executives of Fedex, UPS, Dow Chemicals and some of America's best known retired generals, urged Washington to recognise that "pure market economics will never solve the problem" of US oil dependency. The report poured cold water on the Bush administration's goal of reducing America's dependence on foreign oil, rather than on oil in general. It urged Mr Bush and the new Democrat-controlled Congress to set up a plan to halve the American economy's oil-intensity by 2030. George W. Bush has repeatedly identified "energy independence" and immigration reform as two of the issues most likely to attract bipartisan support following the Republican loss of control of Capitol Hill in mid-term elections last month. "Events affecting supply or demand anywhere will affect consumers everywhere," said the report, brought out by the Energy Security Leadership Council, a think tank. "Exposure to price shocks is a function of how much oil a nation consumes and is not significantly affected by the ratio of "domestic oil" to so-called "foreign oil". The report also warned Mr Bush, who is expected to announce new energy independence measures in his annual State of the Union address to Congress next month, that America's oil dependence makes it acutely vulnerable to terrorist attacks. America's transport system is 97 per cent dependent on oil. More than 90 per cent of world oil supply is controlled by foreign governments. "America must address this critical weakness." Said P.X. Kelley, a retired Marine Corps general. "An oil supply interruption cannot be reasonably dismissed as improbable." However, there is deep-seated scepticism about the willingness of the Bush administration, which has yet to endorse the theory of global warming, to take the tough steps most energy experts say are necessary to reduce America's dependence on oil. Last January Mr Bush declared that America was "addicted to oil". But Mr Bush's announcement was not followed by any significant change in energy strategy. "There is very little reason to believe that the White House will take the tough measures necessary to make this happen," said a Washington-based energy lobbyist. "There is no appetite, say, to impose a carbon tax or for putting a floor under the price of oil that would incentivise investors to put their money into alternative energy." However, the US administration wants to step up co-operation with China on energy efficiency and the use of alternative fuels. Energy and the environment will be among the topics addressed in Friday's final session of the US-China strategic economic dialogue involving top officials meeting in Beijing. The dialogue is the brainchild of Hank Paulson, US Treasury Secretary, who has a strong track record as an environmentalist and is treated with suspicion by some US conservatives as a result. Lack of binding targets for China and other big emerging market countries such as India to limit their greenhouse gas emissions was one of America's principal reasons for refusing to ratify the Kyoto accord. Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2006 See article here.

EU report calls for energy efficiency to be a priority

The Industry and Energy Committee says there should be binding targets for reducing carbon dioxide emissions and on increasing the use of renewable energy sources. These views are set out in a wide ranging report on the Commission's energy strategy proposals, adopted unopposed on Thursday. In its report, drawn up by Eluned Morgan (PES, UK), the committee welcomes the Commission's green paper on a European strategy for sustainable, competitive and secure energy, but stresses that changing conditions in the broader global energy market need to be taken into account. MEPs in the committee want a systematic approach considering production, distribution and consumption in order to develop a policy which secures affordable energy. A binding CO2 target for 2020 and changes in Emissions Trading Scheme  To tackle climate change, MEPs say EU leaders should agree within the next year on a binding CO2 target for 2020 and an indicative one for 2050. They say the existing Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) needs to be changed, to include a move towards auctioning or benchmarking based on output - and also to bring in further emitting sectors including all types of freight transport.  Energy Efficiency to be a priority across the board The report asks the Council and Commission to make the EU the most energy efficient economy in the world by 2020 and to set energy efficiency measures as cross-cutting priority for all EU policy areas. It supports an EU target for energy efficiency improvements of at least 20 per cent by 2020.  MEPs call for an EU strategy on transport energy use, aiming at the phasing out of fossil fuel, a reduction in oil dependency and the gradual introduction of  clean energy. Targets for renewables supported - nuclear power is up to Member States In order to help diversify energy sources, the committee says the EU needs a stable long-term policy framework, with  binding sectoral targets for renewables to reach 25 per cent in primary energy by 2020 - and a route map to reach 50 per cent by 2040.  The committee recognises the role that nuclear energy plays in some Member States as part of the energy mix and as a way of avoiding CO2 emissions, but says decisions on the future of nuclear power must be taken by the Member States individually. Consumers at the centre of energy policies MEPs in the committee stress that consumers must be placed at the centre of all future energy policies and that energy poverty should feature more clearly in the Commission's proposals. Consumers should have easy access to price and choice information, to an easy method of switching energy provider and a right to be heard by the regulators in each Member State. EU should speak with one voice with third countries The committee says a common stance vis-à-vis third countries is needed to increase the EU's ability to negotiate with energy producing and consuming countries. The Commissioner responsible for energy should, say MEPs, work to a well defined mandate with a long-term energy planning vision. MEPs urge the Commission and the Member States to take very seriously the real danger of a deficit in gas supplies from Russia after 2010.  They insist on the ratification of the Transit Protocol and the Energy Charter Treaty, which are instrumental in ensuring much needed foreign investment in Russia's energy infrastructure and to assure sufficient gas supply to the EU. 23/11/2006Committee on Industry, Research and EnergyChair : Giles Chichester (EPP-ED, UK) Procedure: Own Initiative ReportPlenary vote: December, Strasbourg Original story here.   

Queensland, Australia petition to adopt the ODP

If you are a resident of Queensland, Australia, click here to read about and sign the petition to Parliament!

The Oil Drum

Drumbeat: March 15, 2010

Oil Production Gets Tougher Abu Dhabi, the emirate that holds almost all of the United Arab Emirates' oil reserves, has ambitious plans to boost oil-production capacity to 3.5 million barrels a day by 2017 from about 2.8 million barrels now. But meeting and maintaining the output target won't be an easy task. The crude reservoirs that are easiest to access have already dwindled. Extracting the remaining reserves is becoming more complicated and expensive. Joining the Nuclear Club It may seem odd for a country sitting on one of the world's largest oil and gas reserves, but the United Arab Emirates has an energy problem--one that it hopes to solve by building nuclear power plants. Most of the power stations in the U.A.E. run on natural gas at present. But the country is running short of this commodity. Much of the gas that the country produces has already been sold through long-term export contracts or is being used to help extract oil or produce petrochemicals. The U.A.E. is already importing gas from neighboring Qatar, the only country in the region that doesn't face a gas shortage. On top of this, every barrel of oil or cubic meter of natural gas that the country burns to meet its own energy needs is a barrel or cubic meter that it can't sell. With oil prices hovering around $70 to $80 a barrel, that adds up to quite an opportunity cost. Far better to export the country's hydrocarbon wealth and use some of the proceeds to invest in new energy sources to meet growing domestic demand. Oil Refinery Slumps Together With Worldwide Oil Demand "Global financial and economic crisis are eroding oil and gas demand. The financial crisis in the U.S. has had a domino effect worldwide which in turn may stem the flow of capital expenditure by exploration and production (E&P) companies," adds Collier. Oil trading price predictions for 2010 to 2012 Oil prices are back on their way up and currently, oil trading prices on global markets have hit highs last week for 2010 for both NYMEX Light crude oil and ICE Brent crude oil futures. So, the golden question is, what's in store for the rest of the year and what's the price oil going to be in the future years, 2011 and 2012? Of course that question is impossible to answer with any accuracy because of poor oil reserve data, the obscure intentions of oil producers and elasticity effects that lead to oil demand destruction or substitution. However, it is possible to do simple minded extrapolations of recent price behaviour to see what might happen if various trends continue. OPEC has little wiggle room at upcoming meeting VIENNA -- With U.S. demand for oil lackluster, even traditional OPEC price hawks like Iran and Venezuela are happy with present prices near $80 a barrel as they head into Tuesday's meeting of the 12-nation organization. These two countries traditionally are the greatest advocates of tight OPEC supply. But ahead of their meeting there is informal unanimity among OPEC oil ministers that - with the world's economic recovery feeble at best and crude prices at preferred levels - it's best not to rock the boat. Cnooc Turns to Ventures in Global Oil Push After Unocal Defeat (Bloomberg) -- Cnooc Ltd.'s failure to buy Unocal Corp. for $18.5 billion in 2005 taught Chairman Fu Chengyu a lesson: use overseas ventures rather than takeovers to gain the global oil resources China needs. The natural gas story If there's a headline from the recent CERAWeek conference here that deserves to be flashed in neon to President Barack Obama and the rest of the nation, it is this one: "Domestic natural gas is clean, cheap and plentiful -- look here for answers, Mr. President, as you seek energy security." Indeed. Natural gas appears to be all those things -- and maybe much more. A report by IHS Cambridge Energy Research Associates, released here last week, confirms that North American gas potential has tripled in just the past three years. Technology and abundant gas extending the fossil fuel era It was a star studded attraction, with the movers and shakers of the energy world almost on their annual pilgrimage - the CERAWeek - at the Hilton Americas-Houston downtown. And with Houston the "ecosystem for the world's energy," there could be no better place for the august gathering. With roughly 2,200 in attendance, the IHS Cambridge Energy Research Associate's annual energy forum, held under the title, "Energy: Building a New Future," reflected the renewed optimism in the global scenario. Yet it also suggested the uncertainty that exists. While the worst of the recession may be over, and this indeed is open to debate, yet one certainty exists - what's ahead for the industry is unlikely to look anything like the past. Natural gas exceeds 24% of world total energy mix and going higher Big oil appears to be making natural gas the core of its business. The abundance of it combined with low extraction cost seems bound to change the energy landscape forever. ExxonMobil, Royal Dutch Shell and ConocoPhillips are making the transition from crude oil to natural gas. Currently in focus is the shale gas business which is profitable if run on an assembly line basis. U.S independent energy companies were the first to exploit the shale gas potential. Now the majors are coming fast. As Its Arms Makers Falter, Russia Buys Abroad Russian-made cars may be rickety, and its passenger airplanes such fuel-guzzlers that even the country's flag carrier, Aeroflot, has switched to a mostly Western fleet. But Russians could always point with pride to the fearsome reputation of their weapons -- the Kalashnikov and the MIG and Sukhoi fighter jets. Indeed, until recently, Russia's military exports were second in volume only to the United States. But in today's Russia, the $40 billion military equipment industry is withering alongside civilian manufacturing. Spate of Myanmar privatisations raises questions BANGKOK -- Myanmar's junta has embarked on a flurry of privatisations of state firms, raising questions about whether it is reforming the economy or trying to take profits before 2010 elections. The military government, which faces strict Western sanctions because of its human rights record, is trying to sell off petrol stations, ports and state-owned buildings including cinemas and warehouses. Saving U.S. Water and Sewer Systems Would Be Costly As city employees searched for underground valves, a growing crowd started asking angry questions. Pipes were breaking across town, and fire hydrants weren't working, they complained. Why couldn't the city deliver water, one man yelled at Mr. Hawkins. Such questions are becoming common across the nation as water and sewer systems break down. Today, a significant water line bursts on average every two minutes somewhere in the country, according to a New York Times analysis of Environmental Protection Agency data. Conn. would waive student loans in 'green' jobs HARTFORD, Conn. -- Paul Goulet hopes Connecticut will help him get from under nearly $8,000 he's borrowed for college after losing his job in a paper manufacturing plant. Goulet, 55, is a student in environmental studies at Goodwin College in East Hartford, aiming to find work in wastewater treatment. State legislation that would waive thousands of dollars in loans would benefit him and other students who earn degrees or certificates in green technology and other jobs. Bees in the City? New York May Let the Hives Come Out of Hiding New York City is among the few jurisdictions in the country that deem beekeeping illegal, lumping the honeybee together with hyenas, tarantulas, cobras, dingoes and other animals considered too dangerous or venomous for city life. But the honeybee's bad rap -- and the days of urban beekeepers being outlaws -- may soon be over. On Tuesday, the Department of Health and Mental Hygiene's board will take up the issue of amending the health code to allow residents to keep hives of Apis mellifera, the common, nonaggressive honeybee. Health department officials said the change was being considered after research showed that the reports of bee stings in the city were minimal and that honeybees did not pose a public health threat. The officials were also prodded by beekeepers who, in a petition and at a public hearing last month, argued that their hives promoted sustainable agriculture in the city. Leaders answer our readers' questions Q: Given that the effects of peak oil are most likely to begin being felt during this term of Parliament, how will you lead the response to the challenge in Tasmania? Cuba's green revolution -- achieving sustainability Applying the yardsticks of conventional economics to assess Cuban society (for example focusing on disposable income, gross domestic product or levels of consumption) commentators often conclude that the revolution has failed to pull the Cuban people out of poverty. But such criticism omits the facts that: the Cuban state guarantees every citizen a basic food supply; most incomes are not taxed; most people own their own homes or pay very little rent; utility bills, transport and medicine costs are symbolic; and the opera, cinema and ballet are cheap for all. MENA Has The Potential To Become One Of The World's Largest Producers Of Renewable Energy The Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region has the potential to become one of the world's largest producers of renewable energy. Renewable energy industry developments combined with the region's potential in wind and solar power could create significant advantage for countries that move to capitalize on them, according to a new study by Booz & Company. Charging Ahead: Electric Vehicle Rollout On Track In NW The West Coast is about to take part in the biggest rollout of electric cars and charging stations in the world. The first mass-market electric cars go on sale in greater Seattle and Oregon's Willamette Valley at the end of this year. Pollsters are finding high interest in the Northwest in electric cars. If you're one of those curious drivers, now is your time. Tom Banse has the latest on what prospective plug in car buyers need to know. Firefly Energy gives up battery business PEORIA -- Firefly Energy Inc. filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy Friday, and both the city of Peoria and Peoria County will likely pursue legal action to regain the $6 million the governments loaned the start-up in 2007. ...The high-tech start-up company was founded in 2003 by Williams and Mil Ovan, who was senior vice president. The company developed and manufactured a lighter, powerful lead-acid battery, replacing lead plates with graphite foam. Kurt Cobb: Ocean acidification: Why the climate change deniers don't want to talk about it Most people know that the release of carbon dioxide into the air from human sources has contributed to rising global temperatures and massive increases in the rate of melting of the ice at the poles and on Greenland. One of the major consequences they may not know about is the acidification of the oceans. Mexico, The Caribbean, and Central America - The Impact of Climate Change to 2030: Geopolitical Implications [PDF] The panelists concluded that through 2030 climatic changes in the region may aggravate civil unrest and internal conflicts leading to increased migration, and that strong, centralized states, and states with robust civil societies, will likely fare better than others. Although the region does not contribute to significant global greenhouse gases, it is highly vulnerable to the effects generated by increasing climate variability. Rising temperatures, rising sea levels, increased rainfall in some places, drought in others, and a greater frequency of extreme weather events such as hurricanes, floods, and heat waves are expected from climate change.

Tech Talk: Producing oil shale by burning it in place

This is part of the continuing series that I have been writing about oil shale. And, while I just digressed in talking about using nuclear devices to break the rock and heat it, the key problems that those posts highlighted remain. The first was that the oil is not really oil and won’t flow to the well, and the second is that there are no easy paths for the oil to flow though, even if it could. And this creates a problem when it comes to getting the kerogen (or oil for simplicity) separated from the rock around it. As I said in the first post on this topic, the oil can be separated in a retort, after being mined. The retorting can be self-energized and, by heating the oil it can be transformed into a form of bitumen that can then be further refined into a commercial grade. And if you think it is easy, there is this quote I found at Econbrowser, that might give you some perspective. He quotes Bubba, of Belly of the Beast: If you heat this shale to 700 degrees F you will turn this organic carbon (kerogen) into the nastiest, stinkiest, gooiest, pile of oil-like crap that you can imagine. Then if you send it through the gnarliest oil refinery on the planet you can make this s*** into transportation fuel. In the mean time you have created all kinds of nasty byproducts, have polluted the air and groundwater of wherever you have extracted it. Mining shale and then processing out the oil is, therefore, fairly expensive, both in terms of energy, and hard dollars. At the same time, once the oil is extracted, the spent shale has to be disposed of. That costs more money. Considering all these potential expenses and potential problems, it is therefore not surprising, from the beginning, that the idea of trying to create the initial retort in the rock, and making that transition to oil in-place looked as though it might be a winner. There has been considerable technical success in recent times in getting natural gas from the tight shale around the country, but natural gas is, comparatively, easy to extract if some additional cracks are artificially driven through the rock to create the needed permeability. Unfortunately that only potentially treats one of the problems with the oil shale. The other is that the oil will not move, even if the cracks are there, unless it is heated to the point that it will either vaporize, or transform into a flowable hydrocarbon. And this takes a lot of heat. Thus the attraction of having a nuclear device to create a cavity, radically fracture the rock around the cavity, and generate enough heat to start an underground fire, that could be sustained, and controlled, by adding additional air, and from which the oil could be released. OK, so accepting that we can't use nukes, can we do this another way? Because of space and time I’m going to talk of the more conventional retorting today, based on the idea of doing most of the processing of the oil in place. Why do we need to do that? Well, it gets very expensive to mine and move that rock from the deeper deposits, and though it has been and is being done for metal ores, their costs are still much higher than that of oil. If we can process the rock in place, so that the oil is heated sufficiently, then we save the transportation costs. So what will we need? For the more conventional approach we still need some sort of cavity in which to start the fire, and to allow it to spread. Then there has to be air fed to the fire to keep it going (and this will require that boreholes be drilled down into the area to sustain the air flow). And then there has to be some way of getting the mobilized oil out of the ground, so that it all doesn't end up being burned down there. It is an idea that has been suggested for a number of different energy sources. And it is why I included a post on in-situ combustion processes at the beginning of this series. The first dealt with burning coal in place, and then I wrote about the THAI process that is being investigated in Canada for producing the heavy oil in the sands above Fort McMurray. It might be helpful to insert a slight digression here. In a normal oil refinery, the heavy oils, or residuum, that come out of the bottom of the initial fractionating column have almost no light hydrocarbons left in them, and so are sent to a Coker, where at a temperature of around 1200 degrees, the final hydrocarbons are driven off, and cracked into lighter fractions, leaving the carbon residue known as coke (or petroleum coke to distinguish it from that made from coal). From my youth I can tell you that coke is a much harder fuel to start burning than conventional coal, since it no longer has any volatiles left in it. Thus, for example, even after the intensity of the fires in the Kuwaiti oil field, coke was deposited around the burning wells and required barrels of C-4 to break it up, so that the fire fighters could reach the top of the well, put out the fire, and replace the fixtures. The reason that I mention this is that Petrobank are burning this coke to provide the heat for the reactions. And from the modifications from the first test to the second have found that the process needs a lot of air to be supplied to the burning zone to sustain the fire - over the full face of the burn. I'll come back to that in a bit. The situation with the oil shale is a little more complex than for oil sand, since the structure of the rock is tighter than the sands in Alberta, and the oil has to be heated to a significantly higher temperature before it will transition and move. The first underground experiments were carried out by Sinclair, in 1953 and 1954. (So we are back to paper references -see Ref 1 at the end). In those days, drilling technology wasn't as advanced and so, for the first experiments, they drilled a hole near the outcrop of the shale, and then created a crack from the well to the outcrop by pressurizing air in the well until the rock fractures (a simple variant on hydrofracing a well). By adding sand, the crack can be propped open so that air can get into it. It took a couple of tries to get it working, but they were able to start fires in the oil shale at the well, and then by continuously pumping down air, carry the fire along the crack. The heat of the fire changed the kerogen to oil, in the same way as with the retort, and oil was seen coming out of the crack at the outcrop. The rock around the well was, however, fairly fractured from being near the outcrop, so that air passage to encourage the flame to progress, was possible. It is worth quoting some of the conclusions to that work: Under field conditions - particularly if the operation requires high pressures - volumetric conformance and thermal efficiency can differ significantly from model predictions. The burning zone probably will expand to more closely follow the retorting isotherm and shorten heat transfer distances. In addition, convection may become significant. To illustrate, shale retorted under simulated overburden pressures in the laboratory does not spall or crack as it does at low pressure. Instead, a consolidated rock having high porosity and low permeability remains after pyrolysis of the kerogen. Bulk volume is greater than in the un-retorted state. It is possible that some of the injected air will move through this permeable matrix of spent shale to more fully utilize the fuel content of the spent shale and accelerate heat transfer to raw shale over the rates computed from the mathematical model. Coring of the oil shale as a precursor to the aborted nuclear shot at Rio Blanco (Ref. 2) showed that at depth the shale appeared to have considerable jointing, which would be a real help in any in-situ retorting method, as Socony anticipated (Ref. 3). When looked at under a microscope, the retorted shale also had a number of voids, left by the volatized kerogen, that provided some permeability to the shale (Ref. 4). It is the presence or absence of cracks, voids and other passages that the controls the success of conventional in-situ retorting of oil shale. Cyclic hydro-fracing or air fracing of the shale can induce a series of fractures around a well bore at depth, but these are going to be relatively narrow. There is not the mobility within the structure that one gets from the oil sands. Further the environment has to be heated to a much higher temperature to induce transition first to the bitumen and then to the crude. In the tight rock that exists under pressure at depth, the only path that air has to the fire is from boreholes drilled to that depth. (In contrast with close-to-surface conditions where ground fracturing will open cracks to the surface.) With the cracks being relatively narrow the air that must be supplied to the fire must be at a relatively high pressure, and in considerable volumes. Without an underground cavity, into which some of the rock can displace, or a means for removing some of the rock to allow multiple fractures of the shale, and fracture opening to allow air access, starting and sustaining a large underground fire will be a significant undertaking. Unfortunately also "Lean shale tends to be brittle, fracturing under stress, while rich shale tends to be tough and resilient, resisting fracture by bending, and tending to yield plastically under stress." (Ref. 5) This is going to make it harder to grow the cracks where we need them to be. The other problem with in-situ retorting is controlling the flame front to go where you want it. It is hard to control where the fractures go underground, and the path that the air takes, to make sure that all the shale is retorted, so much more air has to be pumped underground than might be needed otherwise. And this is where it gets frustrating because, though it may only take 260 Btu to raise a lb of shale to 900 degF, (Ref. 6) and that can come from the carbon content of the shale (the coke above), getting enough air there and having somewhere for the released oil and gas to go can take a lot more energy. For example if two wells are drilled, say 500 ft apart, and a crack run between them, then the air to the burning front, and the flow from it, is gong to be limited by the width of the crack. These processes are relatively slow. A model of the process (Ref. 7) has shown that it can take 10 years for the front to move from one well to the next. During that time air has to be continuous injected, and the volume of air required, for a barrel of oil recovered can be calculated. Depending on the temperature at which the air was injected (since it shouldn't cool the fire) it can take between 24,000 scf (standard cubic feet) and 86,000 scf/bbl. To get that air into the fire effectively it would have to be pumped into the well at 2,500 psi. (A conventional air compressor runs at around 120 psi). To generate a flow of 50,000 barrels a day was found to require an air compressor system run at 272,000 horsepower. To cut a longer story short, this turns out not be economic, at 1968 costs. Hmm! Well, I am not quite finished, but perhaps this explains in part why Shell are using heaters, rather than fire. I will have a short discussion of that, next time. References Ref. 1 Grant B.F. "Retorting Oil Shale Underground - Problems and Possibilities", 1st Oil Shale Symposium, CSM, 1964.
 Ref. 2 Stanfield K.E. "Progress Report on Bureau of Mines - Atomic Energy Commission Corehole, Rio Blanco Country, Colorado", 3rd Oil Shale Symposium, CSM, 1966. 
 Ref. 3 Sandberg C.R., "Method for recovery of hydrocarbons by in situ heating of oil shale", US Patent 3,205,942, 1965.
 Ref. 4 Hill G.R. and Dougan P. "The characteristics of a low temperature in-situ shale oil", 4th Oil Shale Symposium, CSM, 1967.
 Ref. 5 Budd C.H. McLamore T.T., and Gray K.E. "Microscopic examination of mechanically deformed oil shale," 42nd Petr. Engrs Fall Mtg, SPE 1826, 1967.
 Ref. 6 Carpenter H.C. and Sohns H.W. "Application of above ground retorting cariable to in situ oil shale processing", 5th Oil Shale Symposium , CSM 1968.
 Ref. 7 Barnes A.L. and Ellington R.T. "A Look at in situ oil shale retorting methods based on limited heat transfer contact surfaces", 5th Oil Shale Symposium, CSM, 1968.

What should we do with funds set aside for retirement?

A lot of us have funds that we have set aside for retirement, perhaps with some matching from employers. Some of these are pre-tax funds that are hard to get to--our employer gives us some investment choices and that is about it. Other funds are ones we have set aside ourselves. The question arises, what should we be doing with these funds? Within the options available, how should we be investing it? Or should we be taking money out? Some of us have self-directed Individual Retirement Account (IRA)s, or have saved money outside of IRAs. This gives a little more flexibility. I am not an expert on this, and would not give advice if I could. I am sure the rules vary from country to country, so anything that is true in the USA might be different elsewhere. One question that might come up is what are the rules for taking money out of an IRA. This is a short summary I found in that regard. You can take money out of an IRA whenever you want, but be warned: if you're under age 59 ½, it could cost you. That's because the government wants to discourage you from raiding your IRA until you're retired. (It's a retirement account, after all.) If you are under 59 ½: If you withdraw any money from a traditional IRA, you'll be slapped with a 10% penalty on the amount you withdraw. That's in addition to the regular income tax you'll owe on your withdrawal. Bad idea. Roth IRAs offer a bit more flexibility. Generally, you may withdraw your contributions to a Roth penalty-free at any time for any reason, as long as you don't withdraw any earnings on your investments (as opposed to the amount you put in) or dollars converted from a traditional IRA before age 59 ½. In that case, you'll get hit with that same 10% penalty. Not sure which money is considered a contribution and which is considered earnings? The IRS views withdrawals from a Roth IRA in the following order: your contributions, money converted from traditional IRAs and then earnings. So if you take out more than you've contributed in total, then you're starting to dip into conversion dollars or earnings, and will be penalized and taxed accordingly. If you're 59 ½ or older: You can usually make penalty-free withdrawals (known as "qualified distributions") from any IRA. But you'll still owe the income tax if it's a traditional IRA. To make qualified distributions from a Roth IRA, you must be at least 59½ and it must be at least five years since you first began contributing. And if you converted a regular IRA to a Roth IRA, you can't take out the money penalty-free until at least five years after the conversion. There are several exceptions to these rules. You can withdraw funds for certain specified purposes without penalty (college expenses, first time home purchase, disability, certain medical expense). According to the same site: You can also withdraw money from a traditional IRA and avoid paying the 10% penalty if you roll the money over into another qualified retirement account (such as a Roth IRA) within 60 days. But then you wouldn't actually be able to spend it. Are you really that desperate for cash? Well, if so, it is possible to take money out of your traditional IRA in what's called "substantially equal periodic payments." Here's how it works: The IRS will determine what amount you can receive each year based on your life expectancy. That's the amount you must withdraw each year. So what are your thoughts on retirement funds?

Drumbeat: March 14, 2010

Gasoline refining lacks its spark, for now NEW YORK (MarketWatch) -- While the cost of crude has risen in the past year much faster than the price of gasoline at the pump, Big Oil absorbed a huge body blow to the bottom line. After racking up sharp losses on their refining businesses in the last quarter of 2009, energy companies are facing a longer-term struggle even as the summer driving season approaches and the economy shows signs of life. "There's been a fundamental shift in the U.S. demand and the price of gasoline," said Lynn Westfall, chief economist for Tesoro Corp., an independent refiner that posted a loss of $179 million in its latest quarterly report. "Growth in China and India are driving crude prices higher. But demand in the U.S. is weak and so you can't pass the higher costs along." The Falklands: For Argentina, Oil Reopens Old Wounds Argentines could be said to share three passions: soccer, the tango and their longstanding claim over Las Malvinas, which the British who control the island archipelago 300 miles off Argentina's coast call the Falklands. Even though Britain decisively beat back an Argentine invasion of the Falklands in 1982, the cry of "Las Malvinas son Argentinas!" (The Malvinas are Argentine!) still resonates in national politics. "It doesn't matter if you're from the left or the right, when you become President in Argentina, sooner or later you start beating your chest about the Malvinas," says writer Sylvia Walger, who is set to publish a book on current President Cristina Fernandez. That time has now come for Fernandez, who has begun vigorously asserting Argentina's rights to the Falklands after a British oil rig recently arrived to explore what may be vast crude reserves beneath the sea bed around the islands. Last month, Fernandez vowed to argue "one thousand and one times for [Argentina's] international rights" to the islands and the oil, and ordered all ships stopping at Argentine ports obtain a special government permit if they want to continue on to the Falklands. This month, during a visit by U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, she requested Washington's mediation in the dispute -- and while Clinton declined to mediate, she appeared to endorse the principle that the dispute ought to be up for negotiation. "We would like to see Argentina and Great Britain sitting down to discuss this issue," she said. Iran says no need to change OPEC output ceiling TEHRAN (Reuters) - Iran said on Sunday there was no need to change OPEC's output ceiling at the oil producing cartel's meeting on March 17 in Vienna, the Iranian oil ministry's website SHANA reported. "There is no need to change the output ceiling in the next OPEC meeting ... OPEC will insist on the members' quota compliance in the next meeting," Iran's representative to OPEC, Mohammad Ali Khatibi, was quoted as saying by SHANA. Qatar minister sees no OPEC output change KHOBAR, Saudi Arabia: OPEC is not expected to make any fundamental change in output at its next meeting, Qatar's oil minister was quoted yesterday as saying by Al-Hayat newspaper. Separately, the Saudi newspaper al-Riyadh quoted an unnamed senior OPEC official as saying the producers group is expected to maintain its production ceiling unchanged at the meeting. Relax, there's plenty of oil and gas We are not staring soaring oil prices in the face. After crossing the then-record $120/bbl mark in May 2008, oil moved on to just shy of $150. By end 2008 the pricking of the financial bubble saw the price fall to $30/bbl and it has taken months to creep back to $80 or so. But, one argument goes, the millions of new cars expected on Chinese and Indian roads over the next decades will mean soaring demand and prices for oil. Perhaps. Daniel Yergin, founder of CERA (Cambridge Energy Research Associates), is not convinced. Demand in rich countries fell in 2008 as oil prices soared and affected economic activity. In the US, daily oil consumption fell by two million barrels last year, though motoring only accounted for 15% of the fall and slower economic activity and flying for the rest. Meanwhile, the world looks increasingly awash with crude. Spillage from the Oil Curse "Not a single one of the 23 countries that derive most of their export earnings from oil and gas is a democracy today," Diamond noted in an essay earlier this year. Especially in Arab countries, the fabulous riches that come from under the ground tend to create overbearing governments with apathetic citizens. "In these systems, the state is large, centralised, and repressive," 
Diamond wrote. Societies are usually "intensely policed" because "there is plenty of money to lavish on a huge and active state-security apparatus," and bureaucracies are "profoundly corrupt." They tend to see the money that pours into state coffers as everybody's and nobody's, and therefore more or less free for the taking. The public pays no taxes in the richer states, and in the view of the entrenched potentates no taxation means no need for representation. Delta Says Strategic Review Is in 'Advanced Stages' (Bloomberg) -- Delta Petroleum Corp., the money- losing U.S. energy producer whose largest shareholder is Kirk Kerkorian, said its review of strategic alternatives including a possible sale is in "advanced stages." Cnooc to Announce Information on Overseas Cooperation 'Soon' (Bloomberg) -- Cnooc Ltd., China's biggest offshore oil explorer, may announce information about the progress of overseas cooperation "very soon," said Chairman Fu Chengyu. "We have stressed our intention to intensify cooperation with foreign countries and companies since the crisis, and good progress has been made," Fu said in an interview today in Beijing, where he's attending parliamentary meetings. Cnooc to Buy Half of Argentina's Bridas for $3.1 Bln (Bloomberg) -- Cnooc Ltd., China's biggest offshore oil explorer, said it will buy half of Bridas Corporation from Carlos Bulgheroni for $3.1 billion, giving it a stake in Argentina's largest oil exporter. Nigeria's state-owned oil corporation to go private Nigeria's state-owned National Petroleum Corporation (NNPC) has initiated talks with investment banks including Standard Chartered, JP Morgan, and Deutsche Bank to explore financing options as it changes into a fully privatised commercial company. China Delivers Venezuela Jets For Anti - Drugs Fight CARACAS (Reuters) - Venezuela on Saturday tested six training and light attack jets bought from China for defense and anti-drugs flights in a deal that dodges an embargo banning sales of U.S. weapons parts to oil exporter Venezuela. President Hugo Chavez ordered a total of 18 K-8 jets built by China after a plan to buy similar jets from Brazil's Embraer fell through, apparently because they include U.S. electrical systems. Global hunt for phosphates is on Are we facing a food disaster with catastrophic shortages of fertilisers? Will the world feed the three billion or so more people likely to be added, by 2050, to the six billion already on the planet? Plunging price heats up ethanol CHICAGO -- Ethanol, the commodity that cost Bill Gates more than $44 million the last time prices collapsed, is poised to rally as much as 20 percent as the fastest drop since 2008 spurs demand. Falling corn prices and record ethanol supplies have driven the price down more than 17 percent in three months to $1.585 a gallon Friday, its worst run since 2008's fourth quarter. It will average $1.96 a gallon at the peak of the U.S. summer driving season as refiners from Valero Energy to Sunoco mix more into gasoline made from increasingly pricey oil, according to the median of 10 analyst estimates compiled by Bloomberg. Taxpayer-subsidized manure digesters stimulate factory farm pollution At the U.N. Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen last December, U.S. Department of Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack unveiled plans to promote manure digesters as a way to reduce U.S. greenhouse gas emissions by 25 percent. The trick is that you have to be a factory farm to qualify. Renewable energy also needs to be sustainable energy William "Bill" Ayres, business manager for the biomass division at R3 Sciences, has an idea that could dramatically increase the sustainability of the biodiesel industry. Ayres has been involved with biodiesel since 1990 and helped form the National Biodiesel Board. "I did some research several years back and took some soybean oil and soy biodiesel, ran them through a catalytic reformer and converted them to hydrogen," Ayres said. "I did it just to show that it could be done." Tokyo Electric Power planning trial of smart meters TOKYO -- Tokyo Electric Power Co said Thursday it will launch trials of smart meters for more efficient power consumption by October in a bid to start their full-fledged introduction in two or three years. Operations normal at Japan nuke plants after quake TOKYO (Reuters) - Operations at Tokyo Electric Power Co's Fukushima Daiichi and Daini nuclear power plants are as usual after a strong quake hit northern Japan on Sunday, a spokesman at the company said. Health Costs of California Air Pollution Filthy air in California cost federal, state and private health insurers $193 million in hospital costs, according to a RAND Corporation study released last week. The report is the first to show how California's failure to meet federal clean air quality standards is increasing hospital expenses and its impact on insurers, said John Romley, the study's lead author and a RAND economist. China, Not UN, Controls Supply for CO2 Offsets, Stanford Says (Bloomberg) -- China's power to set prices for electricity from windfarms is dictating the supply of tradable emission credits in the UN carbon market, the world's second biggest, according to a report from Stanford University. State suing for responsible scientific conclusions The Environmental Protection Agency recently concluded that man-made greenhouse gas emissions -- including carbon dioxide -- are harmful pollutants and must be regulated. The lawsuit I filed challenging that finding does not address the disputed science surrounding global warming. Instead, it focuses on the indisputable fact that the EPA relied on information that has been discredited, manipulated, lost or destroyed, and sometimes evaded peer review. The lawsuit does not attempt to show that the globe is not warming. It does, however, show that the process used by the EPA in deciding to regulate greenhouse gases is riddled with errors that render its conclusion untrustworthy. Climate snapshot reveals things are heating up THE nation's two leading scientific agencies will release a report today showing Australia has warmed up significantly over the past 50 years. It is a response to recent attacks on the science underpinning climate change. The ''State of the Climate'' snapshot, drawn together by the CSIRO and the Bureau of Meteorology, shows the mean temperature has increased 0.7 degrees since 1960. The snapshot also finds average daily maximum temperatures have increased every decade for the past 50 years. The report states temperature observations, among other indicators, ''clearly demonstrate climate change is real''.

Our Energy Supply: Some Basics

If a person were to listen to Energy Secretary Steven Chu or National Geographic's Aftermath: World Without Oil, one might think that our energy problems are fairly minor and distant. We can easily add sufficiently renewable energy to substitute for fossil fuels in a fairly short time frame. All we need to do is put our minds (and pocketbooks) to it. But if one looks at the situation more closely, one discovers that the situation is quite different. Our energy problems are close at hand, and solutions using what are optimistically called "renewables" are distant and may very well sink the country further into recession. Figure 1- US energy consumption by source, based Energy Information Administration (EIA) Monthly Energy Review Table 1.3. *Year 2009 estimated based on data through November. US energy consumption is already down quite a bit--some might say due to recession, but it seems even more likely that the result is the other way around--high energy prices squeezed the financial system. This in turn caused credit availability to drop and demand for oil, gas, and coal to drop. We have put a huge amount of effort and subsidies into wind and solar, but they hardly show up on the chart. Ethanol isn't shown separately in the chart this data was taken from--instead it is combined with wood and with other biofuels in a category called "biomass" in the EIA data. The biomass line has thickened a bit, but it is still pretty insignificant. The following are a few observations about our current situation: 1. Even though wind, solar photovoltaic (PV), geothermal, and ethanol are called "renewables", they cannot be produced without fossil fuels, and need fossil fuels for maintenance. In many ways, these energy sources should be called "fossil fuel extenders" rather than renewables, because they are very dependent on our current system. For example, growing corn for ethanol depends on tractors run by diesel for growing the corn, and natural gas or coal to power the ethanol plant. Corn is fertilized using fertilizers which are often imported, and sprayed with oil-based insecticides. Wind turbines require regular maintenance, and need to be part of an operating electrical system with fossil fuel back-ups. Solar PV will continue to make electricity once they have been made, but will not produce round-the-clock electricity unless they are part of an electrical system (which requires fossil fuels) or have battery backups which are replaced every few years (also requiring fossil fuels). 2. World oil production appears to have peaked. If it has not reached its maximum level, its maximum level is likely only a few years away. Figure 2. World oil production ("Crude and Condensate) from EIA Table 4.1d from International Petroleum Monthly. World oil production was increasing quite rapidly through 2004 (except for slowing down during recessions). In 2005, the rate of increase dropped, and production has been on a bumpy plateau since--although 2009 appears to be possibly headed downward--or at most on a continuing plateau for a while, before heading downward. There is no longer oil to be found which can be produced inexpensively--most of it was found long ago, and has already been pumped. Newer sources of oil tend to be more expensive. If economies could really afford $200 or $300 or $400 barrel oil, and had unlimited capital, perhaps production could increase some more. But at some point, we run short of capital for more and more expensive new production, and the high price of oil tips the economy into recession and dampens demand. Many analyses are reaching the same conclusion about world oil production. Just this week, a new study from Kuwait predicted oil production may reach a peak and decline in 2014. The International Energy Agency has also been talking about the possibility of a peak before 2020. 3. Whether the peak in production is from Peak Supply or Peak Demand, the result for the consumer is equally bad--recession, reduced job availability, and increasing loan defaults. It does not really matter whether one puts the label "supply constraint" or "demand constraint" on the resulting drop in production--the effect is the same. Prices are still high relative to historical prices, even through the world is struggling to emerge from recession, as shown in Figure 3 below. Figure 3. Spot oil prices for benchmark West Texas Intermediate. Graph by EIA. Oil is essential for food production and transportation. Consumers tend to cut back on discretionary purchases (causing recession) or to default on their loans, if their budgets are squeezed by high prices oil prices. James Hamilton was one economist showing a link between high oil prices and recession. 4. Scaling up renewables to replace fossil fuels in current quantities does not look like it has much of a chance of succeeding, even in the long term. One issue is the point made previously--it takes fossil fuels to produce renewables like wind and solar PV. Also, Figure 1 shows our success in scaling up so far has been quite limited. Scaling up ethanol further would require taking a huge share of our corn crop. Cellulosic ethanol isn't working out to date, and may never work out. Wood and other biomass is limited in supply, limiting production if it could be perfected. There may be some particular applications of renewables which may turn out to work out well--for example, natural gas from waste, or biofuel from waste grease. But these tend to be limited in quantity. Even if we were to, say, discover a way of producing biofuel from algae economically, it would years to work out the details of scaling production up, and a huge amount of investment (and fossil fuels to make tanks and other apparatus) to actually produce the biofuel in quantity. One would probably be looking at more than 30 years before the process could be scaled up sufficiently to start replacing a significant share of our oil production. 5. Natural gas will not solve all of our problems. There has been considerable publicity about the US having "100 years of natural gas" available at current usage levels. There are several issues, however: a. Natural gas will not run in our current vehicles. Fixing vehicles to run on natural gas, and adding infrastructure to deliver the gas, is likely to be expensive and take quite a few years. b. If we were to use natural gas for transportation, supply would run out very quickly--perhaps 20 years or use, or even less. Look at natural gas use, compared to oil use on Figure 1. c. It is not clear that the "100 years of natural gas" is available at prices consumers can afford. If the price is high, we may very well have the same "peak demand" issue we have for oil--people will not be able to afford huge electric bills and huge home heating bills--say double today's level. d. Scaling up natural gas faces huge challenges. Our infrastructure is only built for the current usage of natural gas. Adding more pipes, storage, and end usage is very expensive and time consuming. If the timing of the new infrastructure is slower than the increase in gas production, gas prices are likely to plunge or stay too low for profitability. e. There are concerns regarding "fracking" near major water supplies, such as that of New York City. Expansion of natural gas may not occur to the extent that many are hoping will take place in the 100 year supply numbers. 6. If increased drilling is done in the US and offshore, is likely to have modest beneficial impact on oil supply, but it is highly unlikely that it will solve our problems. Gary Luquette, President of Chevron North America Exploration and Production recently wrote: The good news: the OCS [Outer Continental Shelf] has significant potential. Over time, it could add 1 million more barrels of oil and natural gas equivalent a day--potentially representing a fifth of the current total U.S. oil production. Advances in technology could increase that amount dramatically. One million barrels of oil and natural gas equivalent is great--certainly more than what we are getting from biofuels or from wind or solar. If one adds additional onshore production, it could be more than this, perhaps another 1 or even 2 million barrels of oil and natural gas equivalent a day. But remember, this isn't even all oil--part of this is natural gas, the problems of which were described in Item 5, above. Compared to the world's oil supply, an additional one million barrels of oil a day about 1% of world oil production. Compared to US oil usage, an additional one million barrels of oil a day is about 5%. So the additional oil supply would be helpful, (as would the additional jobs, and reduction in needed imports), but it wouldn't solve all of our problems. Also, if the price of the new oil supplies turns out to be too expensive (because, for example, the cost of drilling in deep water is too expensive), we may find that the new supplies are really more expensive than the economy can afford. Oil prices may remain below the cost of production, bringing a fairly quick end to new production--oil companies will soon quit production, if deep sea (or other new production) is clearly a money loser. 7. Renewables tend to be high priced. If our big problem with oil is high price, renewables will not solve our problems. Subsidies only hide high price--the cost to the economy is high, with or without a subsidy. If we can find cheap renewables, it would be in our interested to expand them as much as possible. But expanding expensive renewables should be done with great caution, in my opinion. We have no guarantee regarding how long the renewables will last--wind is likely only to last as long as fossil fuels supplies are available. Just because an analysis is done assuming that wind (or another energy source) will have a 40 year lifetime doesn't mean it will actually last that long.

Energy Bulletin (peak)

Which Train Is Leaving The Station?

My busy eating, drinking & breathing schedule prevented me from going down to Houston for CERAWeek this year. It's funny how that works--something seems to come up every year. So I'll have to use news reports to get a feel for how this year's exciting oil & gas Schmooze-Fest went. Tuesday, March 9th was Oil Day. read more

Interview with David Shields--update on Mexico and oil

David Shields is a journalist and independent oil industry analyst based in Mexico City. Steve Andrews caught up with him yesterday and posed a few questions. read more

Peak oil review - Mar 15

A weekly roundup of peak oil news, including: -Prices and production -From the IEA -China -CERA week -Quote of the week -Briefs read more

Peak oil & supplies - March 14

- Kuwaiti scientists predict peak oil production for 2014 - Forecasting world crude oil production using multicyclic Hubbert model (paper) - Study sees efficiency as key to meeting energy needs (CERA)- Traders bet on higher gasoline prices read more

China to develop new energy source - combustible ice

More than 100 countries around the world have found deposits of "combustible ice." "Combustible ice" reserves on the Qinghai-Tibet Plateau are estimated to equal at least 35 billion tonnes of oil, which could supply energy to China for 90 years. [Provincial Governor] Luo Huining said tapping this new energy resource should be given high priority in China's energy strategy. read more

Global Public Media

Reality Report: Interview with Noah Raford

Peak Moment: A Geodesic Greenhouse -- Year-Round Gardening at 6000 Feet

Crop to Cuisine: Local Food Resources

C-Realm Podcast - Flashing Lights on the Console

Peak Moment: Permaculture for Humanity

Google News

El petróleo durará hasta 2014: Expertos - Vanguardia (México)

El petróleo durará hasta 2014: ExpertosVanguardia (México)... ha provocado un creciente interés en la predicción del peak oil -el punto en que la producción de petróleo alcanza un máximo y luego disminuye-. ...y más »

La producción de petróleo tocará techo en 2014 - Europa Press

Europa PressLa producción de petróleo tocará techo en 2014Europa Press... ha provocado un creciente interés en la predicción de "peak oil" -el punto en que la producción de petróleo alcanza un máximo y luego disminuye-. ...y más »

¿5 años para la próxima crisis del petróleo? - ECOticias.com

¿5 años para la próxima crisis del petróleo?ECOticias.comLa UK Industry Taskforce on Peak Oil & Energy Security, fundada por Branson y otros empresarios con intereses energéticos (entre ellos varios presidentes de ...

El petróleo que nos consume - Prensa Latina

El petróleo que nos consumePrensa LatinaEl concepto del "peak oil" es derivado de la conocida curva de Hubbert, en referencia al estadounidense Marion King Hubbert, quien en 1956 creó y usó por ...

Upcoming Forum In Sydney: 'Peak Oil - Is this the end of ... - The Oil Drum

Upcoming Forum In Sydney: 'Peak Oil - Is this the end of ...The Oil DrumThe Hon Ms Lee Rhiannon is a prominent member of the New South Wales Greens and is well known for her work in relation to the Peak Oil Response Bill 2008. ...

Oilism

China stops Oil Price rally

A couple weeks in a row the price of a barrel crude oil rose but last Thursday China made an end to the oil price party. For now at least, due an economic recovery in the offing, analysts expect that the  demand for oil will further increase in the coming months rather than decrease.The Chinese central [...]

IEA oil figures questioned

Oil price: Prevent panic buyingThis suggested by a whistleblower of the International Energy Agency (IEA) in an interview in British newspaper The Guardian. The IEA calculates the threat of deficits to low, in order to avoid panic buying of specific levels of the price for a barrel of crude oil. U.S. According to a senior member of [...]

Scientists: Peakoil before 2020

The debate about, ultimately inevitable depletion of global oil reserves, has become pervasive in recent years. It is polarized, complicated and suffers from a multitude of different interpretations of the available data.The UK Energy Research Center, a joint institute of British universities have attempted to provide greater clarity.The questions of the scientists is: What is there [...]

Crude Oil: Focus on OPEC

OPEC has more reason than ever to cut the oil productions. Will the oil cartel be able the push back oil prices again? “A price of 75 dollars a barrel is fair for oil producers and consumers. This is said by Saudi Arabia last year, according to Bloomberg. With this in mind is a further reduction of [...]

Perfect Time to trade Longterm Oil Positions

Crude Oil exchange is described as a free market economy because investors are not really sure whether their invested money will get any revenue or not, because of it's volatile nature. We do not have to mention that the price of barrel of crude was just less than 7 months ago above 130 USD! Some [...]

PeakOil.com

OPEC Expands Oil Rig Drilling the Most Since 2007

(Bloomberg) -- OPEC is increasing oil drilling at the fastest rate in 2 1/2 years, even as production exceeds its quotas by the equivalent of a supertanker of crude a day and delegates prepare to pledge no increase in output. The 12-nation group boosted its number of oil and gas rigs by 8.4 percent in January and February, the biggest two-month gain since June 2007, data from Baker Hughes Inc. show. OPEC members excluding Iraq pumped 26.8 million barrels a day last month, 1.9 million more than targeted, data compiled by Bloomberg show. Shipments will rise again this month, according to tanker-tracker Oil Movements.

Bees in the City? New York May Let the Hives Come Out of Hiding

New York City is among the few jurisdictions in the country that deem beekeeping illegal, lumping the honeybee together with hyenas, tarantulas, cobras, dingoes and other animals considered too dangerous or venomous for city life. But the honeybee’s bad rap — and the days of urban beekeepers being outlaws — may soon be over. On Tuesday, the Department of Health and Mental Hygiene’s board will take up the issue of amending the health code to allow residents to keep hives of Apis mellifera, the common, nonaggressive honeybee. Health department officials said the change was being considered after research showed that the reports of bee stings in the city were minimal and that honeybees did not pose a public health threat.

Australia: Climate snapshot reveals things are heating up

THE nation's two leading scientific agencies will release a report today showing Australia has warmed up significantly over the past 50 years. It is a response to recent attacks on the science underpinning climate change. The ''State of the Climate'' snapshot, drawn together by the CSIRO and the Bureau of Meteorology, shows the mean temperature has increased 0.7 degrees since 1960.

Joining the Nuclear Club

Despite an embarrassment of hydrocarbon riches, the U.A.E. is having trouble meeting domestic energy demands It may seem odd for a country sitting on one of the world's largest oil and gas reserves, but the United Arab Emirates has an energy problem—one that it hopes to solve by building nuclear power plants. Most of the power stations in the U.A.E. run on natural gas at present. But the country is running short of this commodity. Much of the gas that the country produces has already been sold through long-term export contracts or is being used to help extract oil or produce petrochemicals. The U.A.E. is already importing gas from neighboring Qatar, the only country in the region that doesn't face a gas shortage.

Cuba’s green revolution — achieving sustainability

Cuba's successful models of sustainable development — in areas of food, housing and health — are now being widely replicated throughout Latin America. Cuba marked the 50th anniversary of its revolution in 2009. The Cuban people have withstood five decades of hostility from the United States and its international allies.

Aleklett Energy Mix

Hur klarar vi en värld med 9 miljarder människor? (2)

(English below) Det var i augusti 2009 som Jan-Olof, Rune, Åke och jag träffades första gången för att diskutera ett seminarium om befolkningstillväxten och under hösten växte programmet fram. Det blev ett samarbete mellan Riskkollegiet, SLU och Uppsala universitet. (Se tidigare blogg) Vi använde våra kontakter och till sist blev det ett seminarium i Kungliga vetenskapsakademins lokaler med ärkebiskop Anders Wejryd som inledningstalare. Med spänning såg vi fram mot föredraget med titeln "Livet som ges och görs". Alla var överens om att det var ett väldigt bra föredrag och jag hoppas att ni har möjlighet att lyssna på det. Då vi presenterade seminariet för SVT Forum blev man mycket intresserade och beslutade att filma allt och den 15 mars kl 09:30 börjar sändningen i Kunskapskanalen och den pågår fram till kl 14:00. Fredagen den 19 mars sänder man på nytt seminariet med början kl 11:00. Ni som inte har möjlighet att se seminariet i TV kan istället välja att gå in på SVT Forum och se det när som helst. Här nedan har ni hela programmet: Seminarium den 10 mars 2010, KVA Hur klarar vi en värld med 9 miljarder människor? Moderator: Anders Wijkman, Tällberg Foundation 10:00 Välkomstord Gunnar Öquist, Kungliga Vetenskapsakademien Jan Olof Snihs, Riskkollegiet 10:15 Livet som ges och görs Ärkebiskop Anders Wejryd 10:45 Den globala välfärdsekvationen Professor Kjell Aleklett, Uppsala universitet 11:15 Vårt dagliga bröd – hur klarar vi det? Rektor Lisa Sennerby Forsse, Sveriges lantbruksuniversitet 11:45 Kampen om markresurserna hårdnar Professor Sten Nilsson, IIASA 12.15 Lunch 13:15 Trender inom den ökande världsbefolkningen Professor Hans Rosling, Karolinska Institutet 13:45 I Mellanöstern och Nordafrika har befolkningsökningen gått fort – vad finns att lära? Docent Leif Stenberg, Lunds universitet 14:15 Risken för internationella konflikter i kampen om naturresurserna Doktorand Ralph Sundberg, Uppsala universitet 14:45 Kaffe 15:15 Paneldiskussion 16:15 Sammanfattning av dagen: Bo Ekman, Tällberg Foundation 16:30 Avslutning Åke Munkhammar, Riskkollegiet (English) It was in August 2009 that Jan-Olof, Rune, Åke and I met for the first time to discuss a symposium on population growth. During autumn the symposium program was developed. It became a collaboration between the Swedish College for Risk Sciences, the Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences and Uppsala University. (See the previous blog.) We used our contacts and the event ended up as a symposium in the quarters of the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences with Archbishop Anders Wejryd as opening speaker. With excitement we looked forward to his presentation titled, "Life that is given and made". Everyone agreed that it was a very good presentation and I hope that you have the opportunity to listen to it. When we described the symposium for TV Sweden's Forum program producers they were very interested to film it all. It will be broadcast on 15 March starting at 9.30 am on the Knowledge Channel and continuing until 2.00 pm (in Swedish). The program will be rebroadcast on Friday 19 March beginning at 11.00 am. Those that do not have the opportunity to watch the symposium on TV can, instead, visit TV Sweden Forum on the internet and watch it whenever you wish. Here below is the entire program. Symposium on 10 March 2010, Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences -- How will the world cope with 9 billion people? Moderator: Anders Wijkman, Tällberg Foundation 10:00 am Welcoming, Gunnar Öquist, Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, Jan Olof Snihs, Swedish College for Risk Sciences 10:15 am. Life that is given and made, Archbishop Anders Wejryd 10:45 am. The global well being equation, Professor Kjell Aleklett, Uppsala universitet 11:15 am. Our daily bread -- how will be get it? Rector Lisa Sennerby Forsse, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences. 11:45 am. The competition for land resources intensifies, Professor Sten Nilsson, IIASA 12.15 am Lunch 13:15 am Trends within the growing world population, Professor Hans Rosling, Karolinska Institute 1:45 pm Rapid population growth in the Middle East and Africa -- what can we learn? Docent Leif Stenberg, Lund university 2:15 pm The risk of international conflict in the competition for natural resources, Doktorand Ralph Sundberg, Uppsala University 2:45 pm Coffee 3:15 pm Panel discussion 4:15 pm Summary of the day: Bo Ekman, Tällberg Foundation 4:30 pm Closing remarks Åke Munkhammar, Swedish College for Risk Sciences

Forum Cities 2010, Fuenlabrada

(Swedish below) In early November 2009 I received an invitation from "Forum Cities 2010", Fuenlabrada, Spanien, and they inquired if I could give a presentation titled "Peak Oil" -- Renewable energies: reality or utopia? The forum would begin on the evening of 11 March but our symposium on population growth had already been booked for 10 March (see the coming blog) so I had my doubts. A pleasant phone call from Clara Sastre, the coordinator of the Forum made up my mind to agree to attend. An early flight on the morning of 11 March could take me to Madrid in time to be present at the opening. Now as I write to summarise the trip I am very glad that I agreed to attend. It was a very positive event. The invitation letter contained the following information: "Every year since 2006, the aim of the Forum of Cities is to promote a detailed and rigorous analysis in light of the deep changes that are taking place in the world, and from the responses we receive, to promote the city's best, in this case, sustainable energy uses in our cities." Before Franco decided to build a new satellite city to Madrid, Fuenlabrada was a town of 7000 inhabitants. Now it has 200,000. Those that built the city organized themselves into strong unions and when the Dictator Franco was deposed and democratic elections were held the socialists (equivalent to the social democrats in Sweden) took power. They are still so strong that their political position has never been threatened. At the beginning Fuenlabrada was a city where most of the inhabitants wanted to leave but by consciously investing in social reforms, schools, tertiary education and culture they have created a new identity for the city. It seems as though they have succeeded since today 90% of those that live in Fuenlabrada want to remain and one also sees that young people who have grown up there want to stay. For the past five years they have organized "Forum Cities" as a way to create an identity for the city. In total there were 21 presentations in the various panels and approximately 75% of the 1400 who listened were university students. It is a fantastic idea to invite in students to a forum on the future. There were 9 foreign presenters invited. The only one that I had met earlier was peace researcher Michael Klare from Hampshire College in the USA. He was invited to ASPO's conference in Paris in 2003. Most of the presentations were in Spanish with simultaneous translation provided. Unfortunately the pace of the Spanish was very rapid and one noticed that it was difficult for the interpreters to keep up but they did a fantastic job. After the opening and greeting from the Mayor Manuel Robles Delgado the first discussion panel could begin. The theme was "Economic Crises and Energy Models". The first presentation was made by Helen Caldicott from Australia. She is a medical doctor and has been very active in the anti-nuclear movement. She has also been active in "International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War" that received the Nobel Peace Prize in 1985. Helen Caldicott started by warning about the consequences of the coming increase in the world's population. After having been involved in organising an entire symposium on population growth I can only agree. (My next blog will be about the symposium.) Then she made a frontal attack on nuclear energy as part of the energy system. She condemned the new investment that is now coming and advanced that emissions from current nuclear power generation in normal operation increased the risk of cancer but that this was being ignored. One was given the idea that all of France would be affected by cancer since they have a great deal of nuclear power generation there. She cited studies that had been done in Germany to support her assertions. The audience was quite quiet and I cannot give an opinion on this since I have not seen the evidence. (I have just got this link) The attack then continued against the nations with nuclear weapons and I think that most people could support the demand that nuclear weapons should not exist. The physical basis for the atom bomb is that matter can be converted to energy, i.e. according to Einstein's famous formula. The discovery of nuclear fission was also important in its development. One got the impression that she thought that the physicists that discovered laws of nature also bear responsibility for how these laws are then used. I do not share that view. Those that control the means for development of atomic weapons must bear the responsibility. Even though we have had reductions in nuclear weapons the USA still has 77,000 bombs while the Russian arsenal is only 60,000. Far too many of these stand ready to be launched at a second's notice. What troubled her most were the 14 submarines that the USA has roaming the world's oceans. She did not mention how many atomic submarines the Russians had in use. The number of nuclear warheads that each submarine can launch is huge. To demonstrate their number she unfolded out a long banner covered in warheads. The greatest security risk according to Helen Caldicott is that every submarine captain can launch these warheads without an order from the White House. If this is true then the thought is terrifying. Alfonso Guerra, an earlier vice-president in Spain's parliament, discussed today's economic crisis and what we can expect in the future. There is no doubt that the analysis was made from a socialist perspective. It was obvious that the difference between socialists and conservatives is much greater in Spain than in Sweden. According to Alfonso Guerra, today much of the world is controlled by various capitalist systems. There is the Anglo-American system, the Chinese system and I believe that the third was the Latin American system. When he discussed the future, Peak Oil was decisive and the analyses that a certain person named Aleklett had done were mentioned repeatedly. It is obvious that he understands the importance of oil for the future of our economy. All the foreign speakers were accommodated at the same hotel and ate breakfast, lunch and dinner together. The social proximity produced interesting discussions. Since "peace" is one of the components in my global Well Being Equation the discussions with Michael Klare were especially interesting. He related, among other things, that he had written an article on the oil consumption of the American armed forces (link to the article "The Pentagon as Global Gas-Guzzler""). The consumption is estimated to be 340,000 barrels per day. Compared with the oil consumption of the world's nations the Pentagon would be ranked in 32nd place which is higher than Sweden's consumption. In his presentation for the panel "Climate Change and sustainable development" Michael noted that cooperation between China and the USA would be decisive for the future. Together the USA and China consume 60% of the world's coal. Collaborative research on capture of carbon dioxide is decisive for future emissions. Experience has taught us that the USA always wants to be the "Biggest in the World" but for me it is difficult to understand why they would feel second best if the people of China buy more cars than in the USA. China is also on its way to becoming the world's largest consumer of energy and, according to Michael Klare this will impact greatly on the USA. If one considers China's strong economy and the fact that they are buying up all the oil production rights available then that day may come much sooner than most expect. It is time for the USA to realize that 23% of the world's population is more than 5% of the world's population. For the rest of the world Michael Klare believes that we should collaborate with India, Brazil and other emerging markets while the USA concentrates on China. China and the USA have coal but lack sufficient oil. The idea that the rest of the world will remain as onlookers supplying the USA and China with oil seems very American. I believe that reality will prove completely different. In my presentation I discussed "Renewable Energies: Reality or Utopia?" from a Peak Oil perspective. The common thread in the presentation was, once again, the global Well Being Equation. According to the organizers the various presentations will be accessible on the internet and if that happens I will let you know. Just the fact that there were so many students that listened made me address my presentation especially to them. They listened to the translation from English to Spanish and it felt a little unusual to hear that there was a delay of a few seconds from when I said something to when the reaction come. There is more to tell but there is also a limit to what you can bear to read! (Swedish) Det var i början av november 2009 som fick jag en inbjudan från "Forum Cities 2010", Fuenlabrada, Spanien, och man undrade om jag kunde hålla ett föredra med rubriken "Peak Oil" – Renewable energies: reality or utopia? Forumet skulle börja den 11 mars på kvällen och den 10 mars fanns redan vårt befolkningsseminarium inbokat (se kommande blogg) så jag var lite tveksam. Ett trevligt telefonsamtal från Clara Sastre, som är koordinator for tillställningen, blev avgörande och jag tackade ja. Ett tidigt flyg på morgonen den 11 mars kunde ta mig till Madrid i tid för att vara med på invigningen. Nu då jag skall summera resan är jag mycket glad för att jag tackade ja. Det har varit en mycket positiv tillställning. I inbjudningsbrevet fanns följande information: “Every year since 2006, the aim of the Forum of Cities is to promote a detailed and rigorous analysis in light of the deep changes that are taking place in the world, and from the responses we receive, to promote the city’s best, in this case, sustainable energy uses in our cities. “ Innan Franko bestämde sig för att bygga en ny förstad till Madrid var Fuenlabrada en by med 7000 invånare, nu är man 200000. De som byggde staden organiserade sig i starka fackföreningar och då diktatorn Franko störtades och det blev demokratiska val fick socialisterna (motsvarande socialdemokraterna i Sverige) den politiska makten och man är fortfarande så starka så att deras ställning aldrig varit hotade. Från början var Fuenlabrada en stad där flertalet av dess invånare ville lämna staden, men genom medveten satsning på sociala reformer, skolor, universitet och kultur har man skapat en ny identitet för staden. Det verkar som om man har lyckats för idag vill 90 procent av de som bor i Fuenlabrada bo kvar och man ser också att ungdomar som är uppväxta där väljer att stanna kvar. Sedan 5 år tillbaka ordnar man "Forum Cities" som ett led i att skapa en identitet för staden. Totalt var det 21 föredag i de olika panelerna och ungefär 75 procent av de totalt 1400 som lyssnade var universitetsstuderande. En fantastisk tanke att bjuda in studenter till ett framtidsforum. Totalt var vi nio utländska föredragshållare som var inbjudna. Den ende som jag träffat tidigare var fredsforskaren Michael Klare från Hampshire College i USA. Han var inbjuden till ASPO:s konferens i Paris år 2003. De flesta inläggen var på spanska och man hade simultantolkning. Tyvärr var det spanska tempot mycket högt och man märkte att det var svårt för tolkarna att hinna med, men de gjorde ett fantastiskt arbete. Efter invigning och välkomst ord från borgmästare Manuel Robles Delgado kunde den första diskussionspanelen börja, temat var "Ekonomiska kriser och energimodeller". Första anförandet gjorde Helen Caldicott från Australien. Hon är läkare och varit mycket aktiv i antikärnkraftrörelsen. Hon har också varit aktiv i "International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War", som fick Nobels fredspris 1985. Helen Caldicott inledde med att varna för konsekvenserna av den kommande befolkningsökningen. Efter att varit med om att ordna ett helt seminarium om befolkningsökningen är det bara att hålla med (nästa blogg handlar som detta seminarium). Sedan gjorde hon ett frontalangrepp mot kärnkraften i energisystemet. Hon fördömde den nysatsning som nu är på väg och menade att utsläpp från dagens kärnkraft i normaldrift orsakade kancerrisker som försummas. Man fick uppfattningen att hela Frankrike skulle drabbas av kancer eftersom man har så mycket kärnkraft där. Hon nämnde studier som man gjort i Tyskland som stöd för sina påståenden. Det var ganska tyst i publiken och det går inte att ta ställning nu då jag inte har något underlag. Sedan fortsatte angreppet mot kärnvapenmakterna och nu tror jag att de flesta kunde ställa upp på kravet att det inte skall finnas några atomvapen. Den fysikaliska grunden för atombomben är att massa kan förvandlas till energi, dvs Einsteins berömda formel. Till detta får man också lägga upptäckten av fission. Man fick känslan av att hon menade att de fysiker som upptäckter nya naturlagarna också har ansvar för hur dessa nya naturlagar används. Jag delar inte den uppfattningen, de som beslutar om medel till utveckling av atombomber måste har ansvaret. Trots att vi haft en nedrustning har USA fortfarande 77000 bomber medan Ryska arsenalen bara är 60000. Alldeles för många av dessa står varje sekund redo att bli avfyrade. Vad som oroade henne mest var de 14 atomubåtar som USA har cirkulerande runt om i världshaven. Hon nämnde inte hur många ryska atomubåtar som var i drift. Antalet stridsspetsar som varje ubåt kan avfyra är enormt många och för att demonstrera mängden vecklade hon ut en lång banderoll full av stridsspetsar. Största säkerhetsrisken enligt Helen Caldicott är att varje ubåtskapten kan avlossa dessa stridsspetsar utan en order från Vita Huset. Om detta är riktigt är tanken skrämmande. Alfonso Guerra, tidigare vicepresident i Spaniens parlament, diskuterade dagens ekonomiska kris och vad vi kan vänta oss i framtiden. Det är ingen tvekan om att analysen gjordes utifrån en socialistisk horisont. Det är uppenbart att skillnaden mellan socialister och borgerliga är mycket större i Spanien än i Sverige. Enligt Alfonso Guerra styrs värden idag av olika kapitallistiska system. Vi har vår Anglo- Amerikanska, den kinesiska och jag tror att det tredje var det latinamerikanska. Då han diskuterade framtiden blev Peak Oil avgörande och de analyser som en viss Aleklett gjort nämndes upprepade gånger. Det är uppenbart att han förstår oljans betydelse för vår framtida ekonomi. Vi utländska föreläsare bodde på samma hotell, åt frukost, lunch och middag tillsammans, och den sociala gemensamheten förvandlades till intressanta diskussionstunder. Eftersom "fred" är en av komponenterna i min globala välfärdsekvation var diskussionerna med Michael Klare särskiljt intressanta. Han berättade bland annat att han skrivit en artikel om den amerikanska armens oljekonsumtion (länk till artikeln "The Pentagon as Global Gas-Guzzler") och det är enligt uppskattningar 340000 fat om dagen. I en jämförelse med olika länders konsumtion skulle Pentagon hamna på 32 plats, vilket är mer än vad Sverige konsumerar. I sitt anförande under panelen "Climate Change and sustainable development" markerade Michael att samarbete mellan Kina och USA var avgörande för framtiden. Tillsammans konsumerar Kina och USA 60% av världens kol gemensam forskning om infångning av koldioxid är avgörande för framtid utsläpp. Vi har lärt oss att man i USA alltid vill vara "Biggest in the World", men för mig är det svårt att förstå att man skall känna sig som förlorare då man köper fler bilar i Kina än i USA. Kina är också på väg att bli världens största energikonsument och enligt Michael kommer det att påverka USA enormt mycket. Om man beaktar Kinas starka ekonomi, och det faktum att man köper upp alla oljerättigheter som finns tillgängliga, så kan den dagen komma mycket tidigare än vad man tror. Det är dags för USA att inse att 23% av världens befolkning är fler än 5% av världens befolkning. Vad det gäller övriga världen menade Michael Klare att vi skulle samarbeta med Indien, Brasilien och andra marknader på uppgång, Kina skulle USA lägga beslag på. Kina och USA har kol, men saknar tillräckligt med olja. Tanken att övriga världen som åskådare skall förse USA och Kina med olja verkar mycket amerikanskt. Jag tror att verkligheten kommer att bli helt annorlunda. I mitt föredrag diskuterade jag från ett Peak Oil perspektiv "Renewable energies: Reality or Utopia?". Den röda tråden i föredraget blev på nytt den globala välfärdsekvationen. Enligt arrangörerna kommer de olika föredragen att bli tillgängliga på nätet och om så sker skall jag meddela det. Just det faktum att det var så många studenter som lyssnade gjorde att jag vände mig speciellt till dem. De lyssnade på översättningen från engelska till spanska och det kändes lite underligt att höra att det fanns en fördröjning på några sekunder från det jag sagt något tills reaktionen kom. Det finns mer att berätta, men det finns också en gräns för vad ni står ut med att läsa.

“The Failure in Copenhagen”

(Translation of the blog in Swedish) On 15 November 2009 in the "Focus" column [of the newspaper Svenska Dagbladet] I advanced the opinion that the climate negotiations in Copenhagen would fail (Read my blog). The reason was that they would not consider all the elements in "the global welfare equation". They had forgotten about food and the economy. In their program "Documents from abroad", SVT, the public Swedish TV channel, now portrayed what happened behind the scenes before the climate negotiations and has tried to find a reason for their collapse. The documentary followed two of the leading figures in the hidden power-struggle. The person responsible for drafting a treaty proposal was Michael Zammit Cutajar, but the spider at the centre of the web was Laurence Tubinan from France, founder of the French Institute for Sustainable Development and International Relations. The journey begins in Bonn in June 2009 where delegates from 192 nations gather under the leadership of the UN to negotiate on drafting of a treaty. The preconditions are that, by 2050, industrial nations will have reduced their emissions by 80%, developing nations will have reduced emissions by at least 40% and the poorest nations will have experienced economic growth that is CO2-free. Global emissions must be reduced without hindering economic growth and any deleteriously affected nations must receive assistance. Therefore, the negotiators also need to answer the question "Who will pay, how much and in what way". Now, six months before the Copenhagen conference, the game can begin. Of the world's nations, on the EU has committed itself to reducing its emissions by 20% by 2020. An agreement based on the ambitious target that gives a reduction by 80% by 2050 is still distant. It is clear that all the delegates believe the IPCC that asserts that a continuation of the current rate of emissions growth until 2100 is possible [if nothing is done to reduce emissions]. Peak Oil, Peak Gas and Peak Coal are not on the agenda. Neither are any doubts about the possibility of a temperature increase of 6 C. Any reduction of future CO2 emissions can only result from politically binding decisions. Japan volubly announces that they are prepared to reduce their emissions by 8% by 2020 but nations with greater emissions -- the USA, China and India -- are silent. Laurence Tubinan moves behind the scenes. She tries to determine whether China and the USA have their own agenda. The big question is who will be the winners and who will be losers. If China and the USA agree on their own treaty then the EU may be one of the losers. The power struggle between the USA and China becomes evident. They leave Bonn without coming any closer to a text that everyone can agree on. During the summer there are numerous developments and it seems as though the biggest players are willing to agree that it is important to have a "+2 C by 2050" limit as a target. How they will get there is still an open question. Japan suddenly announces that they are willing to reduce their emissions by 25% by 2020. China says that they will reduce their emissions intensity [e.g. emissions per unit GDP] but a strong increase in GDP will still mean increased emissions. Bangkok is the next stop before Copenhagen. The treaty text and the economic framework are to be discussed. It becomes apparent that the world's poorer nations must be part of the agreement but the distance between the positions of the parties is huge. The future of the rainforests is a decisive factor. Out of the blue the EU advances the view that they want a completely new protocol to replace the Kyoto Protocol but that is something the USA does not want to hear -- rather they put forward a new position of their own. They want voluntary measures with no sanctions and a voluntary climate fund is to give developing nations the capital they need. The EU wants a completely different solution but it seems as though the USA has seized the initiative. Negotiations continue until the last moment and it is obvious that the delgates will not agree on a joint text. And so we arrive at Copenhagen. The IPCC says that the meeting in Copenhagen is a big step forward. They hope that it will demonstrate the world's united willingness to tackle a shared problem. They believe that the meeting will be a watershed for humanity. 15,000 delegates gather in the Bella Center and during two weeks they will arrive at an historic solution to the climate crisis. In addition, there are 20,000 observers and 3,000 journalists present (Blog on my visit in Copenhagen). The UN can declare that 119 heads of state have reported that they will attend and Copenhagen becomes a city under siege. For Michael Zammit Cutajar and Laurence Tubinan their moment of truth is approaching. Will two year's work result in success or was it all for nothing? Suddenly Denmark submits a text that the delegates begin to discuss but it is soon rejected by the developing nations. The day before the ministers are due to arrive there is no text to negotiate on but then Michael Zammit Cutajar takes up his pen and works on a new proposal. Negotiations on the text continue throughout the night and at 8.30 in the morning the new text is distributed. They close the doors behind the negotiators and the TV cameras are kept outside. After two hours China announces that it can accept the text. The developing nations say the same. The ministers can now attend. Outside the Bella Center the temperature rises and 100,000 demonstrate. In the end, the delegates of the environmental organizations are forced to leave the Bella Center. Now the text can be presented to the ministers but before Michael Zammit Cutajar is able to do this the Danish chair announces that, once again, they are presenting their own text that subsequently is met by opposition from among the delegates. The delegates consider it undemocratic not to continue with the text they have worked on for two years. They want to approve the text that Michael Zammit Cutajar has developed as the foundation for the negotiations. Then the chair stops the meeting. Many regard these events as a cave-in to pressure from the USA and the Copenhagen meeting is close to ending in a fiasco. Under pressure, Denmark is forced to back down and the negotiated text is finally tabled. Michael is thanked for his work and they have finally arrived at the final negotiations. The world's environment ministers enter the scene but there is no agreement by the time the heads of state arrive. They now have less than 24 hours to arrive at an agreement. Brazil's president Lula da Silva says that he believes in God, he believes in a miracle and that he wants to participate in this miracle. Finally, President Obama takes the podium and states that "Unchecked, climate change will pose unacceptable risks to our security, our economies, and our planet…. The question is whether we will move forward together, or split apart…. But here is the bottom line: we can embrace this accord, take a substantial step forward, and continue to refine it and build upon its foundation. … Or we can again choose delay, falling back into the same divisions that have stood in the way of action for years. And we will be back having the same stale arguments month after month, year after year – all while the danger of climate change grows until it is irreversible. There is no time to waste. America has made our choice. We have charted our course, we have made our commitments, and we will do what we say. Now, I believe that it’s time for the nations and people of the world to come together behind a common purpose." It was clear that the USA had made a decision and that the rest of the world was expected to follow its lead. In an unprecedented move 28 of the world's leaders sit down and negotiate with a blank piece of paper before them. Two years of negotiations on a text are tossed out. Now they discuss only a few points. As time draws on all emissions targets as well as other requirements become watered down. All that remains is that each nation will report on its own measures for reducing emissions. The EU had hoped for a completely different treaty and can now regard itself as a loser. The USA has taken over. The text has shrunk to three pages and can be summarized in these points: • Temperatures are not to rise more than 2 C but no countermeasures are described. • All numerical environmental targets disappear -- all that remains are voluntary measures. • Developing nations agree to oversight of their actions but without any form of sanctions. • A finance package of US$30 billion over three years is included in the agreement. • A preliminary goal of US$100 billion of finance by 2020 is agreed, but the distribution remains to be determined. • The rainforests will be discussed next year. After 12 hours of debate they produce the "Copenhagen Agreement" on a protocol but do not approve it. One can state that Michael Zammit Cutajar worked for two years to produce a text but that, ultimately, he failed. Now there remains only one hope for the future climate and that hope is "Peak Oil", "Peak Gas" and "Peak Coal". The circus directed by the UN during the previous two years has presumably been an unnecessary performance. In the summer of 2007 the Transport Forum (a subordinate organization of the OECD) gave me the task of preparing a report on future CO2 emissions from the perspective of resource limitations. I can only regret that they did not take my report to the OECD more seriously (read the report).

Misslyckandet i Köpenhamn

(English will come) Den 15 november 2009 framförde jag på Brännpunkt åsikten att man skulle misslyckas vid klimatförhandlingarna i Köpenhamn och anledningen var att man inte diskuterade helheten i "den globala välfärdsekvationen". Man glömde bort mat och ekonomi. SVT har nu i programmet "Dokument utifrån" skildrat vad som pågick bakom kulisserna inför klimatförhandlingarna och man försöker hitta en orsak till haveriet. Vi får följa två av huvudpersonerna i spelet bakom kulisserna. Den som varit ansvarig för att ta fram ett förslag till avtalstext var Michael Zammit Cutajar, men spindeln i nätet var Laurence Tubinan från Frankrike, grundare av det franska institutet för hållbar utveckling och internationella relationer. I dokumentärfilmen “Klimatförhandlingen” får vi följa aktörerna bakom kulisserna. Resan börjar i Bonn juni 2009 där 192 länder samlas under FN:s ledning för att förhandla fram en avtalstext. Förutsättningarna är att industriländerna fram till 2050 skall ha minskat sina utsläpp med 80%, utvecklingsländerna skall med minst 40% och i de fattigaste länderna skall ha en tillväxt som skall vara koldioxidfri. De globala utsläppen måste minska utan att den ekonomiska tillväxten bromsas och de länder som drabbas måste få hjälp. Sedan skall man också lösa frågan: "Vem skall betala och hur mycket och på vilket sätt?" Nu sex månader innan Köpenhamnmötet kan spelet börja. Av världens länder är det bara EU som förbundit sig att minska sina utsläpp med 20% fram till 2020 och en överenskommelse enligt de ambitiösa målen som anger en minskning med 80 fram till 2050 är långt borta. Det framgår att alla delegater tror på IPCC, som säger att man fram till 2100 kan fortsätta att öka utsläppen i samma takt som man gör i dag. Peak Oil, Peak Gas och Peak Coal finns inte på agendan. Liksom att ifrågasätta en temperaturökning med 6 grader. En minskning av framtida koldioxidutsläpp kan bara åstadkommas genom politiskt bindande beslut. Japan tar till orda och meddelar att man är redo att minska sina utsläpp med 8% fram till 2020, men länder med stora utsläpp, USA, Kina och Indien, är tysta. I kulissen rör sig Laurence Tubinan och hon försöker få reda på om Kina och USA har en egen agenda. Den stora frågan är vem som skall bli vinnare och vem som kall bli förlorare. Om Kina och USA sluter ett eget avtal kan EU vara en av förlorarna och maktkampen mellan Kina och USA blir påtaglig. Man lämnar Bonn utan att ha kommit ett steg närmare en text som alla kan enas om. Under sommaren kommer flera utspel och det verkar som om de stora aktörerna är villiga att enas om att tvågradermålet år 2050 är viktigt att uppnå. Hur man skall nå dit är fortfarande en öppen fråga. Japan meddelar helt plötsligt att man är villiga att minska sina utsläpp med 25% fram till 2020. Kina säger att man skall minska sina utsläpp per bruttonationalfaktor, men med en kraftig ökning av BNP betyder det ändå ökade utsläpp. Bankock är sista anhalten inför Köpenhamn. Avtalstexten och de ekonomiska ramarna diskuteras. Det framkommer tydligt att världens fattiga länder måste vara med på uppgörelsen men avstånden är gigantiska. Regnskogens framtid är en avgörande faktor. Helt plötsligt framför EU åsikten att man vill ha ett helt nytt protokoll som skall ersätta Kyotoprotokollet, med de tongångarna vill USA in höra på, men framför nu en egen linje. Man vill ha frivilliga åtaganden och inga sanktioner, en frivillig grön klimatfond skall ge utvecklingsländerna det kapital som man behöver. EU vill ha en helt annan lösning, men det verkar som USA har tagit över initiativet. Förhandlingarna pågår in i det sista och det är uppenbart att man inte kommer att nå fram till någon gemensam text. Så är vi framme i Köpenhamn. IPCC säger att mötet i Köpenhamn är ett stort steg framåt. Man hoppas det skall representera världens samstämmiga vilja att ta sig an ett gemensamt problem. Man tror att mötet skall bli en vattendelare för mänskligheten. 15000 delegater samlas i Bella centrum och under två veckor skall man komma fram till en historisk lösning på klimatkrisen. Dessutom finns det 20000 observatörer och 3000 journalister på plats. FN kan konstatera att 119 statschefer har anmält att man skall komma och Köpenhamn blir en belägrad stad. För Michael Zammit Cutajar och Laurence Tubinan närmar sig sanningens ögonblick. Skall två års arbete leda till en framgång eller var allt förgäves? Helt plötsligt lägger Danmark fram en text som man börjar diskutera, men den förkastas snabbt av utvecklingsländerna. Dagen innan ministrarna skall anlända finns det ingen text att förhandla om men då fattar Michael Zammit Cutajar på nytt pennan och utformar ett nytt förslag. Hela natten pågår det förhandlingar om texten och kl 8:30 på morgonen delas den nya texten ut. Man stänger dörrarna till förhandlingarna och TV- kamerorna får stanna utanför. Efter två timmar meddelar Kina att man kan acceptera texten och det samma säger utvecklingsländerna, ministrarna kan komma. Utanför Bella centrum stiger temperaturen och 100000 demonstrerar och till slut beslutas att miljöorganisationernas delegater måste lämna Bella centrum. Nu kan texten presenteras för ministrarna men innan Michael Zammit Cutajar får en möjlighet till detta har den danske ordföranden tagit till orda och på nytt framföret en egen text som möter stort motstånd bland delegaterna. Man anser att det är odemokratiskt att inte föra fram den text som man arbetat med under två år. Man vill godkänna den text som Michael Zammit Cutajar utarbetat som förhandlingsunderlag. Då bordlägger ordföranden mötet. Många anser att vad som sker är att vika sig för USA och ett fiasko i Köpenhamn är nära. Efter påtryckningar får Danmark ge sig och den förhandlade texten kommer äntligen fram på förhandlingsbordet. Michael tackas för sitt arbete och man är äntligen framme vid finalen i förhandlingarna. Världens miljöministrar kommer in på podiet men det finns ingen överenskommelse då världens statsministrar anländer. På mindre än 24 timmar måste man nu enas. Brasiliens president Lula da Silva säger att han tror på Gud, han tror på ett mirakel och att han vill delta i detta mirakel. Till sist stiger president Obama upp i talarstolen: Om inget görs åt klimatförändringarna blir det ett oacceptabelt hot mot vår säkerhet, vårt ekonomiska system och vår planet. Frågan är nu om vi ska gå vidare eller splittras. — Vi är redo att gå vidare idag. Det är bättre för oss att agera än att diskutera. Det framgick tydligt att USA hade fattat ett beslut och att övriga världen nu kunde ställa in sig i ledet. Det unika händer att 28 av världens ledare sätter sig ner och förhandlar med ett blankt papper framför sig. Två års förhandling om en text är bortkastat. Man diskuterar nu några få punkter. Ju längre tiden lider utvattnas texten alla utsläppsnål stryks liksom övriga krav. Kvar blir att varje land skall redovisa sina egna åtgärder för att minska utsläppen. EU hade hoppats på ett helt annat avtal och kan nu känna sig som förlorare, USA har tagit över. Texten har krympt till tre sidor. • Temperaturen får inte stiga mer än två grader men inga åtgärder preciseras. • Alla miljömål i siffror försvinner, kvar finns bara frivilliga åtaganden. • Utvecklingsländerna går med på kontroll av sina åtgärder, men då utan några som helst sanktioner. • En finansiering med 30 miljarder dollar under tre år finns med i beslutet. • Preliminärt skall 100 miljarder per år anslås från 2020, men fördelningen återstår att bestämma. • Regnskogarna skall diskuteras nästa år. Efter 12 timmars debatt tar man Köpenhamnsöverenskommelsen till protokollet dock utan att godkänna den. Man kan konstatera att Michael Zammit Cutajar arbetat under två år för att ta fram en text men att han misslyckades. Nu återstår det bara ett hopp för framtidens klimat och det hoppet är är "Peak Oil", "Peak Gas" och "Peak Coal". Den cirkus som pågått i FN:s regi de senaste två åren har förmodligen varit en onödig föreställning. Sommaren 2007 fick jag i uppdrag av Transport Forum, en underorganisation till OECD, att skriva en rapport om framtidens koldioxidutsläpp utifrån resursbegränsningar. Jag kan bara beklaga att man inte tog min rapport till OECD på större allvar.

Validity of the fossil fuel production outlooks in the IPCC Emission Scenarios

Validity of the fossil fuel production outlooks in the IPCC Emission Scenarios, Mikael Höök, Anders Sivertsson, and Kjell Aleklett The World of Science, TV Sweden's science program, today presented as its first news item that our research article, "Validity of the fossil fuel production outlooks in the IPCC Emission Scenarios" has now been published in the journal Natural Resources Research. Let's read the abstract before we discuss this further: Abstract:
Anthropogenic global warming caused by CO2 emissions is strongly and fundamentally linked to future energy production. The Special Report on Emission Scenarios (SRES) from 2000 contains 40 scenarios for future fossil fuel production and is used by the IPCC to assess future climate change. Previous scenarios were withdrawn after exaggerating one or several trends. This study investigates underlying assumptions on resource availability and future production expectations to determine whether exaggerations can be found in the present set of emission scenarios as well. It is found that the SRES unnecessarily takes an overoptimistic stance and that future production expectations are leaning towards spectacular increases from present output levels. In summary, we can only encourage the IPCC to involve more resource experts and natural science in future emission scenarios. The current set, SRES, is biased toward exaggerated resource availability and unrealistic expectations on future production outputs from fossil fuels. The entire article an be found at our website (http://www.tsl.uu.se/uhdsg/Publications/IPCC_article.pdf). With a starting point of the future production scenarios that we presented in a report to the OECD in 2007, The World of Science made a calculation of temperature change and it was approximately +3 Celsius, i.e. somewhere over the +2 Celcius that is the climate target. We concluded our article with this comment: We argue that numerous SRES scenarios need to be revised, generally downward, regarding production expectations from fossil fuels. Several scenarios agree poorly with reality over the recent years and some can even be ruled out. SRES is underpinned by a paradigm of perpetual growth and technological optimism as well as old and outdated estimates regarding the availability of fossil energy. Just as its withdrawn preceding report from 1992 (Gray, 1998), the future energy production projections for fossil in SRES (2000) are exaggerated and so are the resulting emissions. What kind of repercussions this has on the future climate is an open question which needs to be assessed from several different angles. (Swedish) Vetenskapens Värld, Sveriges Televisions vetenskapsmagasin, presenterade idag som första nyhet att vår forskningsartikel "Validity of the fossil fuel production outlooks in the IPCC Emission Scenarios" nu publicerats i tidskriften Natural Resources Research. Låt oss läsa igenom abstract innan vi diskuterar vidare: Abstract Anthropogenic global warming caused by CO2 emissions is strongly and fundamentally linked to future energy production. The Special Report on Emission Scenarios (SRES) from 2000 contains 40 scenarios for future fossil fuel production and is used by the IPCC to assess future climate change. Previous scenarios were withdrawn after exaggerating one or several trends. This study investigates underlying assumptions on resource availability and future production expectations to determine whether exaggerations can be found in the present set of emission scenarios as well. It is found that the SRES unnecessarily takes an overoptimistic stance and that future production expectations are leaning towards spectacular increases from present output levels. In summary, we can only encourage the IPCC to involve more resource experts and natural science in future emission scenarios. The current set, SRES, is biased toward exaggerated resource availability and unrealistic expectations on future production outputs from fossil fuels. Hela artikeln finns på vår hemsida (http://www.tsl.uu.se/uhdsg/Publications/IPCC_article.pdf). Med utgångspunkt från de framtida produktionsscenarier som vi presenterade i en rapport till OECD 2007 har Vetenskapens Värld låtit göra en temperaturförändringsberäkning och det blev ungefär+3 oC, det vill säga något över de +2 oC som är klimatmålet. Vi avslutar artikeln med denna kommentar: We argue that numerous SRES scenarios need to be revised, generally downward, regarding production expectations from fossil fuels. Several scenarios agree poorly with reality over the recent years and some can even be ruled out. SRES is underpinned by a paradigm of perpetual growth and technological optimism as well as old and outdated estimated regarding the availability of fossil energy. Just as its withdrawn preceding report from 1992 (Gray, 1998), the future energy production projections for fossil in SRES (2000) are exaggerated and so are the resulting emissions. What kind of repercussions this has on the future climate is an open question which needs to be assessed from several different angles.

OilWatch

Statement of Climate Justice Now! on the outcomes of COP15

for sign-on by 5 January 2010 Organisations and individuals are invited to endorse the statement visit www.climate-justice-now.org (http://www.climate-justice-now.org) Call for “system change not climate change” unites global movement Corrupt Copenhagen ‘accord’ exposes gulf between peoples demands and elite interests The highly anticipated UN Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen ended with a fraudulent agreement, engineered by the United States and dropped into the conference at the last moment. The "agreement" was not adopted. Instead, it was "noted" in an absurd parliamentary invention designed to accommodate the United States and permit Ban Ki-moon to utter the ridiculous pronouncement "We have a deal."

La historia de la falsas soluciones climáticas

La Historia del Mercado del Carbono http://storyofcapandtrade.org (http://storyofcapandtrade.org/) es una mirada rápida, bien fundamenta, ademas de entretenida, a la principal solución climática que está siendo discutida en Copenhage y en el Capitol Hill. La conductora Annie Leonard presenta a la gente que está en el centro de este esquema –comerciantes de energía y financieros de Wall Street-. Ahí se examinan “los demonios en los detalles” de la actual propuesta de comercio de carbono: permisos gratuitos para grandes contaminadores, falsas compensaciones y distracciones de lo que realmente es requerido para enfrentar la crisis climática. Si tu has escuchado sobre el comercio de carbono pero no estás seguro de cómo funciona (o a quién beneficia), este documental-filme es para tí. Este documental esta hecho al estilo de La historia de las cosas.

Southeast Asian Leaders - Go for Solution Not Delusion!

A Joint Statement, Copenhagen, Denmark, December 14, 2009Copenhagen - 14 December 2009: We, members of Oilwatch Southeast Asiai and Indonesian Civil Society Forum for Climate Justice (CSF) declare our common position and demands on the current climate negotiation in COP 15 UNFCCC Copenhagen. We have witnessed the lack of leadership among industrial countries to significantly cut carbon emission let alone show their responsibility to support developing countries to tackle the impacts of climate change.

Final Energy Crisis

The Spanish Anarchist Collectives; Look what we can do!

Most people would probably doubt that we could organize satisfactory communities without vast state bureaucracies and corporations. The achievements of the Spanish Anarchist workers collectives in the 1930s show what miracles ordinary people can do. We are entering severe scarcity where centralised and globalised systems will fail to provide for us and we will have to develop highly localized economies. read more

The Transition Towns Movement; its huge significance and a friendly criticism

It is not oil that sets your greatest insecurity; it is the global economy. lt doesn't need your town. It will relocate your jobs where profits are greatest. It can flip into recession overnight and dump you and billions of others into unemployment and poverty. It will only deliver to you whatever benefits trickle down from the ventures which maximise corporate profits. It loots the Third World to stock your supermarket shelves. It has condemned much of your town to idleness, in the form of unemployment and wasted time and resources that could be being devoted to meeting urgent needs there. ln the coming time of scarcity it will not look after you. The supreme need is for us to build a radically new economy within our town, and then for us to run it to meet our needs. Republished on carolynbaker.net. read more

Well done GW: It's a dirty job but someone has to do it

Political analyst, Dr Ted Trainer, takes political spectators of the world to task for their harsh judgement of President Bush's achievements. He calls Bush's detractors, "Not just uncharitable but lacking in insight about the way the world works and what has to be done to maintain our way of life." He says, "President Bush has done a great job here in very difficult circumstances, and he does not get due credit", and explains just why... read more

The Final Garnaut Report; A Radical Critique of its Energy Assumptions

The Garnaut Report has failed to discuss the energy assumptions underlying its conclusions. Tim Flannery argues that the core assumption that alternative energy technologies can be scaled up by the huge magnitudes required to replace fossil fuels is invalid. This failure should invalidate the Garnaut Report. read more

Plazoo

China crude oil imports exceed 50% of total consumption, hits energy security alert level

peakoil.com -> chinadaily.com.cn : China's oil imports will continue to see solid growth this year, with more than half of the country's total oil consumption coming from abroad, industry insiders said. It is inevitable for the country - the world's second largest oil consumer - to see a ...

Vastentijd: afkicken van je olieverslaving

De vastentijd is vorige week van start gegaan; een mooie aanleiding om eens te vasten op je energieverbruik. Tegenwoordig is vasten allang niet meer beperkt tot het matigen van je eten. Ook consuminderen en 40 dagen zonder smsjes vallen onder het begrip vasten, dus waarom dan niet ook het afkicken van ...

Russia overtakes Saudi Arabia, tops global oil production

peakoil.com -> officialwire.com : Russia is pumping more oil than ever before, counteracting OPEC production cut efforts to influence the crude price. Russia in September produced 10 million barrels of oil per day (mbpd), a new record for the country that recently surpassed Saudi Arabia ...

New efficient nanotech materials may boost enhanced geothermal power systems

peakoil.com -> seattlepi.com : New nanotech materials could provide the efficiency boost needed to make geothermal power a more practical energy source if research at Pacific Northwest National Laboratory proves out. Geothermal energy fell out of favor in the early 1980's when few places ...

Michael Ruppert Peak Oil Interview

peakoil.com -> newtopiamagazine.net Interview snippet : Michael Ruppert : ... you have the wrong perspective on China altogether. Globalization is dead, d-e-a-d. It is based upon shipping raw materials and finished goods all over the planet. Hence we have 10,000 mile Caesar salads; tin and ...

Peak Moment TV

The most important convenience in your kitchen?

What’s the most important convenience in your kitchen -- Microwave? Refrigerator? Blender? Cookstove? Coffeemaker? Someone asked that question awhile back in a blog and then pointed out: Running water. Bet you didn’t think of that one. I sure didn’t. We take running water in our homes utterly for granted. Until it’s not working. And then we see how much we use water conveniently running out of the tap. Recently our kitchen faucet developed a persistent leak, so on our day for in-town errands, we turned off the water supply, removed the faucet innards, and went for replacement parts. But first, I filled up two big pots with water, as backup at least for teeth-brushing and for drinking water when we got home late that night. Glad I did. Using the water in pots, we made it through breakfast the next day before Robyn swapped parts. Sure enough, they didn’t fit, so we’ll be back for round two (this is collapse practice, remember?). She reinstalled the originals (which stopped the leak, interestingly) and turned the water back on. Now, that wasn’t terribly painful because we didn’t use water for showers or  toilet flushing (for that, we use buckets of rainwater collected off the eaves in winter, or shower water held in the bathtub in summer). Nor did we try to make soup or wash the dishes. And it wasn’t terribly painful because it wasn’t off for a long time, and we’re water frugal. We figure we use about 10 gallons a day between us, as opposed to 192 gallons per person for the average California household (note: no garden watering here.) As backup, I have about 10 gallons of distilled water for filling the solar system’s batteries. They could be used for drinking water in an emergency. Not nearly enough for a week’s use, though. Think about what it would be like to be out of water for a week. A break in the main, storm damage, a longer power outage. What would it take for you to be prepared for a week without water?

Greeting Lowered Expectations with Gratitude

As life becomes harder and more threatening, it also becomes richer, because the fewer expectations we have, the more good things of life become unexpected gifts that we accept with gratitude. Etty Hillesum, An Interrupted Life This is one of the daily  offerings I subscribe to from gratefulness.org, an email service introduced to me by Reta Lawler. Last fall I took Reta’s two-weekend workshop on “Coming Full Circle,” exploring the spiritual transformations possible within the dying process. A deeply moving experience for me, and shared with a richly heartful circle of people: facing our own death, befriending the dying process, permitting ourselves to feel the grief and loss already touched in our lives, writing a letter to ourselves from a loved one who has already passed on. I’ve long been interested in death and dying (actually, the question of “what happens after we die” at age twelve ignited my lifetime spiritual quest). It is a time to personally become more accepting of loss. It certainly will be a major theme gong forward. Robyn’s heart challenges this past year brought into view the possibility of her passage, and then of course my own. We find more people in our own generation becoming, like ourselves, more limited physically. People in both our parents’ generation and our own are passing on. And the personal losses are amplified by larger losses. The limits to growth are looming, as expressed in the financial collapse, the loss of 90% of our forests and large ocean fish, much of our topsoil, the stability of climate, so many wild beings and their habitats. So I balance my awareness of loss with moments of gratitude: watching the seasons a bit more each day, hearing hundreds of sandhill cranes honking in their V’s returning northward, getting visited by two wild turkey toms, the visit of close friends to celebrate my birthday. And these daily quotations invite me to pause, to reflect as well on my biggest gratitude: to be alive in this wondrous everchanging world, and to know it. (Artwork: “Earth Hands” painted by Janaia ca 1983)

Storing Bulk Food -- for Neighborhood Sharing

As a matter of community food security, what if on every street, in every neighborhood, people had a cache of dried foods stored? Not just for their family, but to share with their neighbors if the trucks stopped rolling. Such sharing brings more security and community than defending with guns. That’s the vision of our longtime friend Loraine Webb, right here in our hometown of Nevada City in the Sierra foothills. With her Neighborhood Readiness Project, she’s making it happen with two major steps. She has arranged with locally-owned markets to provide discount prices for quantity bulk foods. And she helped assemble the equipment to pack foods in nitrogen for greater longevity. We taped a show with Loraine and equipment assembler/fabricator Jim Wray. Loraine covered her vision, and the practicalities of buying, packing, storing with more information on the website NeighborRP.org. People are encouraged to buy whatever they want to have on hand, like grains, nuts, legumes, seeds. Jim demonstrated each step of bagging food in plastic bags in which nitrogen replaces oxygen. It includes a holder for the plastic roll; a heat sealer; a small vacuum; a nitrogen tank. His simple setup is replicable by any community. We taped the show at the recently-opened APPLE Center for Sustainable Living in historic downtown Nevada City. It’s an educational and resource hub, a project of Alliance for a Post-Petroleum Local Economy, APPLE of Nevada County, which was founded in 2005 as a response to concerns about the impacts of Peak Oil. The APPLE Center for Sustainable Living is looking into making this equipment available to the public on an on-going basis to meet the continued long-term food storage needs of our community. Naturally, after taping the show, we bagged up 50 pounds of winter wheat and 25 pounds each of red lentils and red quinoa. Our neighbors will know they can come here to party if the food trucks stop rolling! Now we need to spread the word to every neighborhood across the county and the country.

Turning Wood to Gas to Electricity

While in Berkeley recently, we scoped out a future Peak Moment show with the innovative folks at All Power Labs. They produce (and, with their online forum of local tinkerers, are continuing to improve) a low-cost, open source design, “wood gasifiers experimentation kit” that uses biomass like wood chips to produce a gas which runs a generator to produce electricity. We got a quick tour from designer Jim Mason. Brilliant design and simple manufacturing, with the right spirit: share and empower others. It enables distributed power generation, like at our place to charge the batteries in our solar power system in winter, or on farms in northern India. Their units are manufactured from simple stock products, can be shipped worldwide by UPS. Using design templates, they can be manufactured in rural and third-world countries. At this point it’s not quite an off-the-shelf appliance one installs like a washing machine, but a tinkerer will have no problems. A perfect example of of intermediate technology by and for the people (a la E.F. Shumacher, author of Small is Beautiful, which influenced my thinking about sustainability when I read it in the early 1970s). Thanks to viewer Grant Miller, developer of the Village on Sewanee Creek for this lead.

Chris Martenson, creator of the “Crash Course” on the 3 Big E’s

I’ve wanted to tape a conversation with Chris Martenson since I viewed his Crash Course last spring. Chris opens the Crash Course by saying the next twenty years will be totally unlike the last twenty: we’ll face “the greatest economic and physical challenge ever seen by our country, if not humanity.” In this three hour internet video (and DVD) presentation, he demystifies and weaves together the relationships between money, resources, energy and the environment -- starting with the mind-boggling power of exponential growth (be it debt or human population). Chris has a gift for making complex stuff understandable and pointing to its impacts on all of us. We met Chris in Berkeley a day before his talk at the Commonwealth Club of San Francisco (here’s the transcript). Ours was an engaging, fast-paced conversation. Chris started with the three-word analysis for our economic problems: Too Much Debt. And away we went from there -- the implications if we continue the way we’re going, and ways to prepare ourselves. Chris walks his talk. He left his career in the corporate world, sold his home, moved his family to a more sustainable community, and dedicated himself to awakening people about the effects of the crash course we’re all in. Chris is both a realist and yet optimistic about our future, saying he believes we have the time, resources and know-how needed to meet the challenges ahead. He believes that “if we manage the transition elegantly we can actually improve things.” I think that’s a pretty big “if” given the lack of political will, the corporate mainstream media’s blackout on these topics, and the comfort of denial by many who are aware of the problems. But I agree that on the other side of transition, life could be better: more connected to one another and the earth, less pollution, more free time, meaningful work. Many of the folks we meet through Peak Moment TV are already well on their way to that future. Off-camera Chris told us of the small group of men in his community who are preparing and supporting one another to prepare for the times ahead. I hope we can tape their story when we travel East. Chris is a quietly warm, personable man. He wants a bright future for his children and the planet. I’m impressed by his heartful commitment to finding the best ways to communicate our situation in ways that engage people to act purposefully rather than take refuge in denial. I’m really happy we’re bringing him to Peak Moment viewers.

Twitter

OPEC meeting tomorrow...they really like $80 oil http://bit.ly/bdZsQD #opec #peakoil

OPEC meeting tomorrow...they really like $80 oil http://bit.ly/bdZsQD #opec #peakoil

Oil Production to Peak in 2014, Scientists Predict. http://bit.ly/9oZUqr #peakoil

Oil Production to Peak in 2014, Scientists Predict. http://bit.ly/9oZUqr #peakoil

Australia in last quarter of its oil age http://tinyurl.com/ycjdxkz #peakoil http://tinyurl.com/yez2kl6 8:13pm

Australia in last quarter of its oil age http://tinyurl.com/ycjdxkz #peakoil http://tinyurl.com/yez2kl6 8:13pm

PowerSwitch

How long before the lights go out?

Bad news for energy consumers continues to come thick and fast. Bills have more than doubled in the past six years, and could rise a further 25 per cent in the next decade according to a wide-ranging report published yesterday by OfgemRead more (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/7153724/How-long-before-the-lights-go-out.html)

Branson warns that oil crunch is coming within five years

Sir Richard Branson and fellow leading businessmen will warn ministers this week that the world is running out of oil and faces an oil crunch within five years.The founder of the Virgin group, whose rail, airline and travel companies are sensitive to energy prices, will say that the ­coming crisis could be even more serious than the credit crunch.Read more (http://www.powerswitch.org.uk/portal/mambots/editors/tinymce/Branson warns that oil crunch is coming within five years)

Dark world of declining oil supplies expected

A recently conducted survey of members of the global ‘Peak Oil Community’ has revealed wide-ranging negative expectations for the world in the twenty first century but also optimism on an individual basis. ‘The Global Peak Oil Survey 2009’, carried out by the UK focused peak oil group Powerswitch, consisted of 150 questions on the most controversial areas of discussion around peak oil.

The Global Peak Oil Survey 2009 - Results

From May to September 2009, PowerSwitch conducted the 'Global Peak Oil Survey 2009'. The initial results are now available to view.Click here to read the Global Peak Oil Survey 2009 results here (http://www.powerswitch.org.uk/portal/images/stories/global_peak_oil_survey/global_peak_oil_survey_2009_results.pdf)

Review: 'Local Food' by Pinkerton & Hopinks

There are some people that aren’t that fussed about food. To them it is merely functional, a fuel that keeps them going that appears in a package or on their plate, and very little time or thought is given to it. I cannot begin to understand that mindset. Food is so much more than merely an energy source – it is often a highly sensuous experience, full of variety and the focal point for wonderful social bonding in many forms. Yes, I love food, always thinking about my next meal and who I will enjoy it with.

Peakoil News

We have already entered peak oil,' IEA source reportedly claims

http://rawstory.com/2009/11/we-entered-peak-oil-iea-source-reportedly-claims/By Stephen C. Webster Two International Energy Agency whistleblowers have come forward with startling claims about the world's supply of crude oil, according to a report published Tuesday."We have [already] entered the 'peak oil' zone," an unnamed former IEA official told British newspaper The Guardian. "I think that the situation is really bad."A second whistleblower reportedly claimed that the IEA's current figures are inflated due to pressure from the United States and a pervasive fear that the announcement of falling oil output in the future could cause markets to respond with panic.The claims come on the same day the IEA plans to publish its annual "World Energy Outlook" report for 2009. "Many inside the organisation believe that maintaining oil supplies at even 90m to 95m barrels a day would be impossible but there are fears that panic could spread on the financial markets if the figures were brought down further," one of the IEA sources reportedly told the paper. "And the Americans fear the end of oil supremacy because it would threaten their power over access to oil resources."The agency reported in its 2008 World Energy Outlook that a field-by-field analysis of production trends revealed "that decline rates are likely to rise significantly in the long term, from an average of 6.7% today to 8.6% in 2030."The whistleblowers see things differently."The IEA in 2005 was predicting oil supplies could rise as high as 120m barrels a day by 2030 although it was forced to reduce this gradually to 116m and then 105m last year," one of the sources claimed. "The 120m figure always was nonsense but even today's number is much higher than can be justified and the IEA knows this."In a 2008 interview with Fatih Birol, chief economist at the IEA, Guardian environment writer George Monbiot reported that the IEA had expected peak oil output to be reached in a decade or two. "In terms of non-Opec [countries outside the big oil producers' cartel]," Birol reportedly said, "we are expecting that in three, four years' time the production of conventional oil will come to a plateau, and start to decline. In terms of the global picture, assuming that Opec will invest in a timely manner, global conventional oil can still continue, but we still expect that it will come around 2020 to a plateau as well, which is, of course, not good news from a global-oil-supply point of view."The 2008 World Energy Outlook suggested peak oil would be reached in 2030.The prediction that peak oil production was approaching in 2020 was enough to "scare the pants off" Monbiot, considering the predicted implications of a global energy crunch in just over a decade. However, if the allegations by The Guardian's whistleblowers are indeed true and peak oil has been reached, dark days loom for the global economy. According to The Wall Street Journal, the agency is not expected to announce the arrival at such a dramatic conclusion. Instead, the 2009 report due out Tuesday will predict slower growth in demand for oil, the Journal reported.Reuters added: "While the Paris-based IEA has repeatedly warned that a lack of investment could lead to a strain on supply, it maintains that there is enough oil in the ground."

The End Of Fossil Fuel

forbes.com By Chris Nelder, 07.24.09, 03:00 PM EDT Prepare for a radically different lifestyle as global crude oil production peaks and begins to decline. You will never see cheap gasoline again. You will probably never see cheap energy again. Oil, natural gas and coal are set to peak and go into decline within the next decade, and no technology can change that. Peaking is a simple concept. We generally exploit natural resources in a bell-shaped curve, with the rate of extraction increasing over time until we reach a peak and then gradually slowing down until we stop using them. Peak oil is not about "running out of oil"; it's about reaching the peak rate of oil production. It's not the size of the tank that matters, but the size of the tap. Read more about how soaring energy prices will transform our lives in our special report on $20 a Gallon. The peak is usually reached when resources become too difficult to extract, or too expensive, or they are replaced by something cheaper, better or more plentiful. Unfortunately, we have no substitutes for oil that are cheaper or better. According to the best available data, we are now at the peak rate of oil production. After over a century of continual growth, global conventional crude oil production topped out in 2005 at just over 74 million barrels per day (mbpd) and has remained at that level ever since. Read All Comments rtsUtil.addRtsBox('rateStoryP2',{source_type:"story",source_id:"2009/07/24/peak-oil-production-business-energy-nelder.html"}); The additional "oil" that brings the oft-cited world total to 84 mbpd today (down from 87 mbpd last year; according to U.S. government data) isn't conventional crude, but, rather, unconventional hydrocarbons, including natural gas liquids, "extra heavy" oil, synthetic oil made from Canadian tar sands, refinery gains, liquids produced from the conversion of coal and natural gas, and biofuels. Oil production is expected to go into terminal decline around 2012. The principal reason is that the largest and most productive fields are becoming depleted while new discoveries have been progressively smaller and of lesser quality. Discovery of new oil peaked over 40 years ago and has been declining ever since despite furious drilling and unprecedentedly high prices. When it begins to decline, rate of crude production is projected to fall at 5%, or over four mbpd, per year--roughly equivalent to losing the entire production of Latin America or Europe every year. The decline rate will likely accelerate to over 10% per year by 2030. The Paris-based International Energy Agency estimates that the world would need to add the equivalent of six new Saudi Arabias by 2030 in order to meet declining production and growing demand. Obviously, there aren't another six Saudi Arabias waiting to be discovered, and unconventional liquid fuels simply cannot fill such a yawning gap. Natural gas is likewise expected to peak some time around 2010-2020, and coal around 2020-2030. Oil, natural gas and coal together provide 86% of the world's primary energy. By the end of this century, nearly all of the economically recoverable fossil fuels will be gone. From now until then, what remains will be rationed by price. There will be shortages. Renewable energy--solar, wind, geothermal--currently makes up less than 2% of the world's primary energy supply, and although growing very rapidly, it is not on course to fill the fossil fuel gap, either. As fossil fuels peak and then decline, the world's economies will be forced for the first time to live within a shrinking, not expanding, energy budget. They will adapt to this new reality by repeating the cycle we saw over the last 18 months: commodity price spikes, leading to economic destruction, leading to supply destruction, leading back to price spikes. Only in recessionary periods, like now, will there be excess supply. How this will affect the global economy, and our lifestyles, cannot be overstated. Former chief economist for Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce World Markets, Jeff Rubin, and oil investment banker Matthew Simmons have concluded that it means no less than the end of globalization. Americans, who constitute 4% of the world population but consume 25% of its energy, will have radically different lifestyles. Production of everything will have to be re-localized. Instead of our food traveling an average 1,500 miles before it reaches us, it will have to come from nearby and use organic methods instead of requiring 10 calories of fossil fuel inputs for every calorie of food we eat. Rather than shipping ore to China and shipping it back to the U.S. as steel, we'll need to revive our domestic steel industry. "Bedroom communities" will die and ideally be reborn as fully functional independent communities. It means the end of long commutes. The coming energy shortage is the most serious crisis the world has ever faced, but it could have a very positive outcome. In theory, the Earth's wind, solar, geothermal and marine resources could each provide more than the total energy the world consumes every day, if we had the ability to harvest them. As fossil fuel prices rise, the price of renewably generated electricity will continue to fall. If we are wise and lucky, we will rapidly improve the efficiency of our built environment, deploy renewable capacity and convert to an all-electric infrastructure that runs on it. Fortunately, political momentum is now leaning strongly in this direction. If we move fast to re-localize production and proceed with the renewable revolution, we could end the 21st century with a largely carbon-free economy, putting an end to climate change and averting resource wars. We would have healthier food and a safer, more resilient and equitable world. Chris Nelder is the author of Profit from the Peak--The End of Oil and the Greatest Investment Event of the Century and the coauthor of Investing in Renewable Energy. He blogs on GetRealList.

'$20 Per Gallon' by Christopher Steiner

Los Angeles TimesChristopher Steiner looks ahead and projects, $2 at a time, how rising gasoline prices will transform civilization.By Matthew DeBordAmazon.com - $20 Per Gallon: How the Inevitable Rise in the Price of Gasoline Will Change Our Lives for the BetterDuring the summer of 2008, Americans found out just how much was too much to pay for gas. On July 11, a barrel of oil hit $147.27, which translated into $4.11 for a gallon of regular gas at the pump -- the highest price ever reached in the U.S. And that was just the average. In some places, the price got close to $5 a gallon. It was the Summer of Pain.Many people who'd never heard of "peak oil," or who'd been trading in one SUV for another, or who'd scoffed at the idea that Americans would ever drive less, suddenly learned that when the price of a finite commodity spikes, even cherished habits change. And it's not just about driving: Our entire American way of life, in fact much of the global economy, has been built over decades on cheap oil: Seafood and plastic toys from China can flow freely around the world. The price of bread and milk stays low. Airlines can engage in price wars.But when the price of oil rises dramatically, inflation can kick in, scarcity can become the order of the day, freeways empty, General Motors and Chrysler slide into bankruptcy, and the American way of life grinds to a halt. Of course, after the price of oil crested in 2008, it quickly collapsed, leading some observers to speculate that the Summer of Pain was a blip on the radar.But for the first six months of this year, the price was steadily rising. Though it has stabilized and even fallen in recent weeks, it may begin a slow, undulant march until gas literally costs too much for anyone.This is the altered state of petroleum consciousness that Christopher Steiner, a trained engineer and writer for Forbes, envisions. And it's happening quickly, he points out. "As the middle class continues to explode in China, India, and scores of other spots circling the earth, hundreds of millions of additional cars will hit the roads," he writes. Many of those cars will be like the $2,200 Tata Nano, a "people's car" created for Indian consumers who've been riding bicycles and motor scooters for generations. "People want what Americans have had for decades: easy cars and an easy life. These people will get what they want, but in the process they will catalyze a global economic reformation on a scale never seen. . . . " Even the tattered remnants of the Detroit Big Three want a piece of this market: As General Motors left bankruptcy at home, it was selling more cars than ever in China.Steiner has adopted a nicely readable structure for the book. Starting at $4 a gallon, each chapter tracks what will happen when gas hits a particular price, escalating by $2 until he gets to $20. He visits an airplane graveyard in order to explain how $8-a-gallon gas will crush the airline industry. At $14, he checks out an abandoned Wal-Mart "ghost box" and imagines a grim end to the car-dominated exurb. "Stores will return to the downtowns of yore as small towns' populations . . . return to the small-town infrastructures that their grandparents and great-grandparents built."By $18 a gallon, high-speed railroads serve our travel needs, and by $20 a gallon, we just can't do oil anymore. And like a lot of people who've studied our post-oil energy options, he comes down on the side of nuclear. Eventually, he's replaced transatlantic flights with leisurely ocean passages akin to the grand liners of yesteryear. Except these new Queen Marys will run on nuclear reactors. Personal cars will be a thing of the past. Citizens of the future will wonder why we ever thought we needed them.By now, you may have noticed a great bifurcation here, typical of newbies to the study of spiking oil prices. We Americans will find our existence irrevocably altered to the point where we are forced to inhabit a downmarket green fantasy, harvesting power from wind and ocean currents, breaking our addiction to automobiles and generally living with less. Meanwhile, the developing world will have become the new first world, with a middle class with disposable income that Americans lack filling China, India and other rapidly growing countries with roads, cars and petroleum products. At least until all the oil runs out and they, too, must convert to lives of noble deprivation.Some of Steiner's speculations will happen. In particular, rising global energy demand could have a disastrous impact on food cultivation, which at the industrial scale needed to feed a populous planet requires fertilizers synthesized from natural gas. Nuclear power will be an obvious alternative-energy choice when gas settles into double-digit per gallon prices.Personal mobility could be another story, however, and here Steiner gets into tricky territory when he latches onto start-up electric car companies and gee-whiz mobility providers. In fact, good old internal-combustion engines running on gas may be with us for much longer than he thinks. Even $10 per gallon gas would be acceptable if efficient gas and hybrid engines can achieve significantly higher mileage, which is technologically feasible. Widespread electrification of transportation will come, but we could have to wait until the middle of the century, or even longer. The romance of the personal automobile won't fade so fast in the U.S., especially if it increases its hold elsewhere.There's also a glaring omission in "$20 Per Gallon" that should be addressed. Much of the ground that Steiner covers, with a certain boyish, gearhead utopianism, was traversed in much more apocalyptic fashion by James Howard Kunstler in his 2005 book, "The Long Emergency." Kunstler's arguments, which are actually more ecological than economic, are well known and widely debated. So it seems remarkable that Steiner, who comes to many of the same conclusions, fails to acknowledge a book that's been around for four years and actually anticipated the 2008 gas mini-crisis. "$20 Per Gallon" also reads at times as if it were hurriedly written. Still, Steiner has served up a terrific speculative primer on a future of much pricier energy and all that it may entail.DeBord writes the Shifting Gears blog for Slate's the Big Money and has written widely on the automobile industry and the future of mobility.

'Peak oil' debate is no longer on hold

BusinessDayPut a group of oil experts under one roof for a while and their discussion is likely to drift to the subject of peak oil — a point in time when maximum oil production is reached, after which it goes into permanent decline.The advent of peak oil has long been brushed aside by some because it seems like a far-fetched, if not a ridiculous, idea concocted by alarmists. This is despite deafening cries that it is a real and serious threat.Even among those who agree that it will happen, views differ sharply on the date . Some, like author David Strahan, say it could be as soon as 2017.Recent data show that the debate can no longer be dismissed as a figment of the imagination among peak oil “enthusiasts”.According to the Washington, US-based Worldwatch Institute, oil production is in decline in 33 of the 48 largest oil-producing countries. The research organisation says most of these countries are past their oil production peaks. Iran peaked in 1974, Nigeria in 1979, Venezuela in 1970 and Mexico in 2004.Saudi Arabia, the world’s largest oil exporter, is expected to reach its peak in 2014, while in Iraq this is estimated in 2018.Last year’s study by professional services group Ernst & Young showed that in the period between 2003-07, oil production in the US remained flat at about 1,2-million barrels a day.Oil companies had difficulty in finding investment and production opportunities, say Ernst & Young.But not everyone is convinced about peak oil. BP chief economist Christof Rühl says the argument for peak oil is baseless. “Peak oil has been predicted for 150 years. It has never happened, and will stay this way,” Rühl has reportedly said. He says oil is about price and not about availability.Economist Tony Twine of consultants Econometrix echoes the view that price is everything.“All energy — gas, oil and coal — is exploitable at a given price. If the price falls below a particular price it becomes worthless to produce. That is why I say many of the peak oil arguments are not well based.“They all assume an oil price at 30, 60 or 200 a barrel,” he says. What is known as “oil availability” differs at different oil prices, Twine says.“The projections that are being made about peak oil are sensible in particular contexts. But whether they are universally true is another matter,” he says.Even in 30-50 years’ time, if oil demand is greater than supply, oil prices will rise “and currently unexploitable deposits will become viable to exploit”, Twine says. O il wells now considered marginal will become profitable .Twine says there is a tendency to look at oil in terms of its energy content. “But there is a range of products that come out of a barrel of oil — from fertiliser to solvents that end up in paints, washing powder and synthetic fibres. Almost anything that you can see and feel has a little bit of oil in it.“As oil becomes scarce and more expensive, its use as a source of energy will diminish. But its use as a feedstock for the chemicals industry will take longer to disappear,” Twine says.Richard Worthington, climate change programme manager for the World Wildlife Fund in SA, says the advent of peak oil should influence how hydrocarbons are used. “It highlights the need for greater efficiency,” he says. C limate change considerations have supers eded peak oil discussions.Worthington says fears of peak oil should not be the main driver of the move away from fossil- based energy sources. At some stage fossils will be depleted, he says. “Now there is talk of peak oil, then it will be peak energy and then peak coal,” he says.Indeed, depletion of gas and coal reserves is a double whammy. National oil and gas company PetroSA’s Mossel Bay gas-to- liquids refinery is set to run out of natural gas by 2011.The offshore fields south of Mossel Bay will not be able to keep up the supply of 36000 barrels a day the refinery needs.The dwindling gas reserves are to be expected, says Twine.“Gas and oil fields in SA and Mozambique have always been known to be constrained in terms of reserves. They have always been marginal in terms of big investment spending,” Twine says.H owever, he believes that the Mozambique gas fields will have a longer life span and are likely to fuel petrochemicals group Sasol for a longer time. Sasol’s synfuels plant in Secunda gets natural gas from Mozambique through an 865km-long pipeline.njobenis@bdfm.co.za

Could $20-Per-Gallon Gasoline Make Us Happier?

NPRListen – mp3When it's time to fill up the gas tank, many fear the price of gas will return to the $4-a-gallon days of last summer. But according to author Chris Steiner, our lives would be a lot happier and healthier if gas prices rose into the double digits. Steiner explains himself, and the title of his book: $20 Per Gallon: How the Inevitable Rise in the Price of Gasoline Will Change Our Lives for the Better.Amazon.com ReviewImagine an everyday world in which the price of gasoline (and oil) continues to go up, and up, and up. Think about the immediate impact that would have on our lives. Of course, everybody already knows how about gasoline has affected our driving habits. People can't wait to junk their gas-guzzling SUVs for a new Prius. But there are more, not-so-obvious changes on the horizon that Chris Steiner tracks brilliantly in this provocative work. Consider the following societal changes: people who own homes in far-off suburbs will soon realize that there's no longer any market for their houses (reason: nobody wants to live too far away because it's too expensive to commute to work). Telecommuting will begin to expand rapidly. Trains will become the mode of national transportation (as it used to be) as the price of flying becomes prohibitive. Families will begin to migrate southward as the price of heating northern homes in the winter is too pricey. Cheap everyday items that are comprised of plastic will go away because of the rising price to produce them (plastic is derived from oil). And this is just the beginning of a huge and overwhelming domino effect that our way of life will undergo in the years to come. Steiner, an engineer by training before turning to journalism, sees how this simple but constant rise in oil and gas prices will totally re-structure our lifestyle. But what may be surprising to readers is that all of these changes may not be negative--but actually will usher in some new and very promising aspects of our society. Steiner will probe how the liberation of technology and innovation, triggered by climbing gas prices, will change our lives. The book may start as an alarmist's exercise.... but don't be misled. The future will be exhilarating.Amazon.com ReviewQ&A with Christoper Steiner, the author of $20 per Gallon: How the Inevitable Rise in the Price of Gasoline Will Change Our Lives for the BetterSteiner, an engineer-turn-journalist, explains how the simple but constant rise in oil and gas prices will change our lifestyle, but not necessarily for the worse. Read this Q&A to find out more about this revolutionary theory. Gas prices are going up again this summer, but are you really suggesting prices might rise to $20 a gallon? That figure lies far ahead in the future; it's hardly an imminent thing. But most people don't require much convincing to know that $2 gas isn't sustainable for the long term. Oil is a finite resource that the whole world demands--a world that grows more gasoline consumers every day. It's important to understand that this book isn't about oil statistics, it's about our lives and the ways in which we live will change.What do you hope readers will gain from reading your book? Readers should gain an appreciation for the kind of change that lies behind the growing price of gas. Weaning ourselves from gasoline isn't a scary thing, it's an exciting thing. We're talking about cleaner environments, more walkable lives, better public transportation and more vibrant cities.What are some of the surprising ways you think rising gas prices will change our everyday lives? I don't think people realize how close our airline industry is to an all-out collapse. The book details a massive airline extinction at $8 per gallon, and in fact, serious change could take place even before then. It's certainly not something that should be celebrated, but the collapse of that industry will open the door to new ones, such as widespread high-speed trains in America, a phenomenon that won't take serious root until plane tickets become luxuries rather than conveniences. Beyond the airlines, I think people might be surprised to think that their future may not include Wal-Mart, and that their food world may condense, ruling out things such as sushi, but introducing things such as local organic fruit, vegetables and meat. Is this pure speculation and fantasy or what kind of research did you do? I consulted experts in a bevy of industries throughout the whole book, so this is not a random exercise, far from it. That said, it can be hard to forecast exactly at what gas price each change will happen. There are many unforeseen factors that can accelerate or forestall a certain change, such as government involvement in building high-speed train networks. If the government funds trains aggressively, change will be effected quicker, obviously. But I do feel that all of the changes represented in the book will happen eventually, whether they take place at gas prices of $10 per gallon or $12 per gallon.So how scared should we be of the changes to come? There is little to be scared of. The rising price of gas will unlock countless doors to innovation, opportunity and change.Why does your book's subtitle say rising gas prices will change our lives "for the better"? How so? We've grown used to engorging ourselves on the back of cheap oil and it has lead to all manners of problems. As the price of gas goes up, we'll live closer to work, school, eat healthier foods and even be skinnier and safer. The book profiles research that connects cheap oil to America's obesity rate and to the daunting numbers of people that die on our roadways. As the price of gas goes up to, say, $6, we'll save more than $30 billion on obesity-related diseases, 10,000 fewer people will die in car crashes and thousands of people will be spared heart attack deaths related to air pollution. Those kinds of effects will only be magnified as the price of gas rises further. And that's just a sampling of the benefits.In what ways will rising gas prices improve our economy and job market? America has lost much of its manufacturing mojo during the last 20 years. A green revolution, fueled by a search for alternative energies and technologies, could change that. Not only will there be need to produce things such as solar panels, electric cars, and new city infrastructure, but the power of globalization will be blunted by higher gasoline prices. The advantages of, say, making a computer in China decrease as the cost of fuel increases and the cost of transporting things all over the earth rises-that will lead to manufacturing jobs returning here, to home soil.In what ways will the rising cost of gasoline boost innovation? The innovation game is one that many people anticipate as oil's grip on the world ebbs. New technologies will be needed in all arenas that oil touches, including cars, trains, our homes, the plastic we use and the roads we drive on-and those are just a few examples. The opportunities for inventors in a world with less oil will be prolific.What kind of places did you visit for your research and why was it necessary to visit them? Good books need good stories, and it's hard to tell a good story from just talking to people over the phone, so I got out there and did things. I worked on an electric UPS truck in Manhattan for a day; I spent some time on a fishing boat hauling in Asian carp; I descended into one of New York's new train tunnels currently under construction; I rode our nation's fastest train to meet the Amtrak CEO in Washington. I'm not anointing my book or my stories as good--that's up to the reader--but creating an enriching storyline within a nonfiction book was my goal, so I'm hopeful I did that.So now that we know this, what should we do in the here and now? Preparing for the future isn't about buying the latest gadgets or the car with the best mileage. Those things help, of course, but they're mere pings in a coming cacophony. People who will do the least amount of adjusting in the future are those who already live more sustainable lives. Where you live largely determines how you live. Buying solar panels for a house at the far edge of the suburbs, for instance, won't alter how the future affects you. Moving to a walkable neighborhood where groceries, your kids' schools, your office or a train are all within several blocks-that's a change you'll profit from and a place where the future will be kinder.

Early Warning

Iraqi Oil Production Increased in February

Production in February was up by around 100kbd (a little more according to the IEA, a little less according to OPEC).  That erases the very slight decline over the last six months, though it's too soon to say if it's the beginning of a new trend, or just a little bit of (pre-election?) noise.

Latest Global Oil Production Statistics

The IEA has put out the latest Oil Market Report this morning, and OPEC had put out their Monthly Oil Market Report a couple of days back. Both show pretty healthy jumps in total production in February. The overall pace of recovery is 2.9mbd/yr, with a 90% confidence interval of [1.5, 4.4] mbd/yr.*The apparent softening mentioned last month does indeed now look just like noise.Here's the larger graph showing the history since 2002 (as well as real oil prices on the right hand side).*Footnote for statistics nerds: the confidence interval is based on treating the three slopes from the different agencies as iid random picks from a normal distribution of possible agency estimates, and then using a t-distribution with two degrees of freedom.  Admittedly, these assumptions are speculative, but what else are you going to do?

Limits on the Thermodynamic Potential of Archdruids

I often read John Michael Greer, the Archdruid. He's a smart and thoughtful guy who worries about some of the same things I worry about, though he tends to have decided they are all hopeless, whereas I tend to see society as having a lot more options than he perceives.  He has read very widely and often comes up with interesting historical analogies that hadn't occurred to me, so he's well worth the spot in my reader.Where he tends to go horribly wrong, and why I think his overall take on the subject is too negative, is when he tries to talk about physics. In a recent series of three posts:Energy Follows It's BlissAn Exergy CrisisBarbarism and Good BrandyHe has been trying to argue that there are fundamental physical barriers to society surviving the transition away from fossil fuels, and getting horribly snarled up.Now, I am not a working physicist, but I may well be the nearest thing that will admit to reading the Archdruid - I trained in Physics, have a PhD in the subject, and then went into Computer Science.  But the points at issue are pretty elementary here, so let me try to straighten the Archdruid out, and at least place something in the record for anyone that might be confused by his arguments.In short, there are no fundamental physical barriers to a non-fossil-fuel based economy - the main problems are social, economic, and practical, not issues of physical law.Here's the nub of his argument:The second issue, though, is the one I want to stress here. It's seen a lot less discussion, but it's even more important than the issue of net energy, and it unfolds from the most ironclad of all the laws of physics, the second law of thermodynamics. The point that needs to be understood is that how much energy you happen to have on hand, even after subtracting the energy cost, doesn't actually matter a bit when it comes to doing work. The amount of work you get out of a given energy source depends, not on the amount of energy, but on the difference in energy concentration between the energy source and the environment.Please read that again: The amount of work you get out of a given energy source depends, not on the amount of energy it contains, but on the difference in energy concentration between the energy source and the environment.Got that? Now let's take a closer look at it.Left to itself, energy always moves from more concentrated states to less concentrated states; this is why the coffee in your morning cuppa gets cold if you leave it on the table too long. The heat that was in the coffee still exists, because energy is neither created nor destroyed; it's simply become useless to you, because most of it's dispersed into the environment, raising the air temperature in your dining room by a fraction of a degree. There's still heat in the coffee as well, since it stops losing heat when it reaches room temperature and doesn't continue down to absolute zero, but room temperature coffee is not going to do the work of warming your insides on a cold winter morning.And he then goes on to argue that since sunshine is dilute, not concentrated, it doesn't have very much usable energy in, and therefore cannot power civilization (eg via PVs or concentrated solar power).The trouble here is that a) normal daily use of the term energy is different than it's technical use in physics, and b) the Archdruid is conflating two different issues - the potential for work due to the temperature difference of two things, and the spatial concentration of that potential.Let's do a very brief review of the two main principles of thermodynamics that were worked out in the nineteenth century (basically coming about during the time when society was developing better and better steam engines, and engineers and scientists were working through the underlying physical principles that governed their operations).The first is called "The First Law of Thermodynamics", or "Conservation of Energy".Energy can neither be created nor destroyed. It can only change forms.In any process in an isolated system, the total energy remains the same.For a thermodynamic cycle the net heat supplied to the system equals the net work done by the system.This basically says that there is some quantity in physical systems and it's conserved. Obviously, this would be less meaningful except for the fact that people had already worked out that various things were forms of energy - for example, a hot body (like the Archdruid's coffee) contains a certain amount of energy on account of it's temperature. If he throws the cup across the room, it will have some kinetic energy - one half of it's mass times the square of it's velocity, and so forth.The big discovery, which was originally made empirically, was that the total amount of all these different forms of energy, in a closed or isolated system, is constant. The nineteenth century physicists didn't realize, and it's still not widely known outside of physics circles today, but there is actually a really deep theoretical reason for this. Noether's theorem, named after twentieth century mathematician Emmy Noether, says that any (differentiable) symmetry in a physical system must give rise to a conserved quantity. And the conserved quantity due to the time-translation invariance of physics is what gives rise to the conserved quantity of energy.  In other words, the fact that the laws of physics appear to work the same regardless of time - if you do your experiments carefully, you'll get the same answer regardless of which day, week, or year, you do them in, is what gives rise to the conservation of energy.However, again, I warn that "energy" as used by physicists and other physical scientists - the conserved quantity arising out of physical law - and "energy" as used by non-specialists in daily life (and by economists in their literature) are subtly different - though they are measured in the same units.  Let's proceed to explore that.The second law of thermodynamics can be defined in various ways:There are many ways of stating the second law of thermodynamics, but all are equivalent in the sense that each form of the second law logically implies every other form. Thus, the theorems of thermodynamics can be proved using any form of the second law and third law.The formulation of the second law that refers to entropy directly is as follows:In a system, a process that occurs will tend to increase the total entropy of the universe.Thus, while a system can go through some physical process that decreases its own entropy, the entropy of the universe (which includes the system and its surroundings) must increase overall. (An exception to this rule is a reversible or "isentropic" process, such as frictionless adiabatic compression.) Processes that decrease the total entropy of the universe are impossible. If a system is at equilibrium, by definition no spontaneous processes occur, and therefore the system is at maximum entropy.A second formulation, due to Rudolf Clausius, is the simplest formulation of the second law, the heat formulation or Clausius statement:Heat generally cannot flow spontaneously from a material at lower temperature to a material at higher temperature.Informally, "Heat doesn't flow from cold to hot (without work input)", which is true obviously from ordinary experience. For example in a refrigerator, heat flows from cold to hot, but only when aided by an external agent (i.e. the compressor). Note that from the mathematical definition of entropy, a process in which heat flows from cold to hot has decreasing entropy. This can happen in a non-isolated system if entropy is created elsewhere, such that the total entropy is constant or increasing, as required by the second law. For example, the electrical energy going into a refrigerator is converted to heat and goes out the back, representing a net increase in entropy.The exception to this is for statistically unlikely events where hot particles will "steal" the energy of cold particles enough that the cold side gets colder and the hot side gets hotter, for an instant. Such events have been observed at a small enough scale where the likelihood of such a thing happening is significant.[2] The mathematics involved in such an event are described by fluctuation theorem.A third formulation of the second law, by Lord Kelvin, is the heat engine formulation, or Kelvin statement:It is impossible to convert heat completely into work in a cyclic process.That is, it is impossible to extract energy by heat from a high-temperature energy source and then convert all of the energy into work. At least some of the energy must be passed on to heat a low-temperature energy sink. Thus, a heat engine with 100% efficiency is thermodynamically impossible.A fourth version of the second law was deduced by the Greek mathematician Constantin Carathéodory. The Carathéodory statement:In the neighbourhood of any equilibrium state of a thermodynamic system, there are equilibrium states that are adiabatically inaccessible.A final version of the second law was put to rhyme by Flanders and Swann[3], based on the Clausius statement:Heat won't pass from a cooler to a hotterYou can try it if you like but you far better notter'cos the cold in the cooler will get hotter as a ruler'cos the hotter body's heat will pass to the cooler!Cute.Entropy was initially defined by physicists without knowing the fundamental basis for it, but later work discovered that entropy is basically the degree of disorder of the microscopic description of the system. It turns out that the universe apparently began in a fairly unlikely state (high order, low entropy), and now always evolves in the direction of more likely conditions (lower order, more entropy).Now, the second law gives us some idea that not all energy (in the physicist sense) is equally useful. Since heat (a form of energy) won't flow, for example between two bodies at the same temperature, a room-temperature cup of coffee cannot be used to generate energy. In contrast, a body at a high temperature (relative to the environment) can be put to use. (By "put to use" here, we mean "made to do work"). So when the gasoline inside your car engine burns, it's at a much higher temperature than the environment, which is why a car engine can do lots of useful work. In particular, and what I think the Archdruid is trying to grope towards, the second law of thermodynamics can be used to prove a fundamental theorem on the thermodynamic limits of the efficiency of any process for turning heat into work:The second law of thermodynamics puts a fundamental limit on the thermal efficiency of all heat engines. Surprisingly, even an ideal, frictionless engine can't convert anywhere near 100% of its input heat into work. The limiting factors are the temperature at which the heat enters the engine, , and the temperature of the environment into which the engine exhausts its waste heat, , measured in an absolute scale, such as the Kelvin or Rankine scale. From Carnot's theorem, for any engine working between these two temperatures:[4]This limiting value is called the Carnot cycle efficiency because it is the efficiency of an unattainable, ideal, reversible engine cycle called the Carnot cycle. No device converting heat into mechanical energy, regardless of its construction, can exceed this efficiency.Examples of  are the temperature of hot steam entering the turbine of a steam power plant, or the temperature at which the fuel burns in an internal combustion engine.  is usually the ambient temperature where the engine is located, or the temperature of a lake or river that waste heat is discharged into. For example, if an automobile engine burns gasoline at a temperature of  and the ambient temperature is , then its maximum possible efficiency is: This is the fundamental problem with the luke warm coffee - it's temperature is very similar to the environment, so it doesn't have much potential to do work.  Not only is there not that much energy in the heat difference to begin with, but even what there is is doing to have a very small efficiency in the usage - say the room is at 70F = 294K and the coffee is at 80F = 304K, then the thermodynamic efficiency of a heat engine using the coffee is at most 1 - 294/304 = 3.3%.And it's this amount of useful work that you can get out of something (the exergy in a fairly modern christening) that we really care about.  My observation is that ordinary daily use of the term "energy" means something like "The amount of useful work we could get out of this if we could do it at 100% efficiency".  That's roughly what we mean by the energy content of gasoline, for example.  So the luke warm coffee has much less useful energy than it appears, because the thermodynamic efficiency of using it is inevitably going to be so low.  In the modern coinage of "exergy = useful work obtainable from the system", the exergy content is much less than the energy content.However, it's not the fundamental problem with sunlight.  By trying to use "concentration" to cover both thermodynamic potential to do work, and concentration in space, the Archdruid is getting confused. Sunlight is (pretty close to) black-body radiation at an effective temperature of the surface of the sun - around 5500K.  So the thermodynamic constraints on using sunlight to do work in an environment at the temperature of the surface of the earth are not an issue 1 - 294/5500 = 94%.  Practical efficiencies are far lower (for example PV panels generally achieve 10-20% efficiency, which is still an order of magnitude better than plants).It is true that sunlight is dilute, but that's a different issue, and a practical engineering and economic one.  Basically, it comes down to the net energy of whatever collecting environment you have - it better take less energy to build and deploy it than you get out of it.  But look, really, the high positive net energy of solar panels was settled long ago.  Do a quick literature search on, say, net energy photovoltaic, and you'll come up with boatloads of relevant papers. For example, here's a 2004 paper by Richardson and Watt in Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews:EYR values for three different PV products (a single multicrystalline silicon module, 2 kW rooftop grid-connected system, and a solar home system) are determined to be 4.8--13.9, many times the energy inputs required to fabricate the system.Or, here's a table from Application of Life-Cycle Energy Analysis to PhotoVoltaic Module Design, a 1997 paper by Keoleian and Lewis, using very conservative PV solar efficiencies by modern standards:The last column indicates that, at least in sunny places, you get many times the energy out that you put in, and even in Detroit, you get several times more.

Saudi Arabian Rig Counts

The other day, when I pointed to JoulesBurn's nice piece on the Haradh well count, a couple of people suggested that this meant Saudi Arabia might be struggling to maintain production generally at the current level.  That didn't seem likely to me, and this morning I went back and checked the Baker Hughes rig counts for Saudi Arabia, which currently run through February.  Indeed, it seems that Saudi Aramco is still in a post-great-recession slack-off.  I think if they were struggling to maintain production, we would see this graph going up, not down.(There is still a debate about the meaning of the run-up in 2005-2006, with some of us thinking it was likely triggered by the need to replace declining production in exhausted sectors of established fields, and others thinking it was primarily about capacity expansion.  Clearly, one can hold an opinion anywhere on that spectrum, and the facts are not presently incontrovertible enough to allow one camp to convince the other).

How to Demonstrate the Value of Climate

All you get this morning are some inconclusive musings.My gut feel is that people care quite a bit about local climate, and in particular that at least some people have at times relocated based on climate.  Whether it's people living in New York leaving for Florida or California, or the British retiring to Spain and France, it's clear that people move for this reason.It's likely that this has an effect on house prices, and my guess is that the size of the effect is not trivial and could potentially be used to measure how much people care about an equable climate.  However, it's obviously not straightforward at all to disentangle the effect from all the other effects on house prices - strength of the local economy, qualities of the housing stock, zoning restrictions preventing easy expansion of the housing market, etc, etc.A quick search on scholar.google.com turned up a few interesting references - there's obviously the beginning of a literature on this.  For example, Hedonic Pricing of Climate Change Impacts to Households in Great Britain by Katrin Redahnz says in the abstract:This study investigates the amenity value of climate to British households. By using the hedonic price approach, the marginal willingness to pay for small changes in climate variables, specified as averages and ranges, is derived. The estimates suggest that British people would typically prefer a greater distribution of precipitation across the seasons (i.e. holding annual precipitation constant, drier summers and wetter winters are preferred). Higher temperature ranges are likely to reduce welfare. Moderate global warming with warmer winters and drier summers might thus benefit British households. In particular we find that those places with little or average range in rainfall like Nottingham and those with a huge range of annual temperature like the Boroughs of London might profit. Places already characterized by a broad range of annual precipitation like Aberdare in Mid Glamorgan on the other hand would most likely lose from climate change.Cragg and Kahn, New estimates of climate demand: evidence from location choice says We develop and apply to Census data a new method for estimating climate demand. The method is useful for ranking quality of life based upon a willingness to pay criterion. Our two major findings are that the willingness to pay quality of life index is correlated with the hedonic approach's ranking but that the migration approach generates much larger estimates of willingness to pay for a more moderate climate. This finding is relevant for evaluating the economic impact of global warming.and, most interestingly, Rehdanz and Maddison have a paper Climate and HappinessClimate is an important input to many human activities. Climate affects heating and cooling requirements, determines clothing and nutritional needs and limits recreational activities. As such it is to be expected that individuals will have a preference for particular types of climate.These preferences have indeed been observed using a variety of approaches including regional analyses of wage rates and land prices, the propensity to migrate, and analyses based on household consumption patterns.Mindful of existing research this paper analyses a panel of 67 countries attempting to explain differences in self-reported levels of happiness by reference to amongst other things temperature and precipitation. Various indices are used for each of these variables including means, extremes and number of months with a particular climate like the number of hot and cold months.Using a panel-corrected least squares approach the paper demonstrates that, even when controlling for a range of other factors, climate variables have a particularly powerful effect on self reported levels of happiness. Furthermore there is a correspondence between the findings that emerge from this analysis and earlier studies with respect to what constitutes a preferred climate.The relationship between climate and self reported happiness is of particular interest because of the much discussed threat of anthropogenically induced climate change. Differential patterns of warming along with a changed distribution of rainfall promises to alter dramatically the distribution of happiness between nations with some countries moving towards a preferred climate and others moving further away. We find that higher mean temperatures in the coldest month increase happiness, whereas higher mean temperatures in the hottest month decrease happiness. Precipitation does not significantly affect happiness. In particular high latitude countries included in our dataset might benefit from temperature changes. Countries already characterized by very high summer temperatures would most likely suffer losses from climate change.I don't have an opinion on the quality of these analyses at the moment - in the past I have not always found regression analyses by economists persuasive - but it seems like an interesting and important line of thought.

Associated Content

Why We Know Peak Oil Exists

This article tells about Peak Oil and how we know it exists.Contributor: B.WarePublished: Jan 30, 2009

About Peak Oil

A peak oil refers to the top of the curve that characterizes the production from a well or an oil field. Thus, the global peak oil (abbreviated as Peak Oil) is when global production begins to decline because of the exhaustion of exploitable oil reserves.Contributor: B.WarePublished: Jan 30, 2009

Peak Oil Today: International Energy Agency Chief Economist -- "This is a Dangerous Situation"

In a report issued by the Wall Street Journal, the International Energy Agency's (IEA) Chief Economist, Fatih Birol, outlined reasons for the agency's significant downward revision in its world oil supply estimates.Contributor: Robert FanneyPublished: May 22, 2008

World Sleep Walks into Peak Oil Crisis

With oil prices touching $120 per barrel, reality is finally starting to set in -- the world is heading into the teeth of a vicious Peak Oil crisis.Contributor: Robert FanneyPublished: May 05, 2008

An Introduction to Peak Oil

A description of the coming peak oil crisis and how we might best deal with the problems it will cause.Contributor: Rory StaffordPublished: May 02, 2008

Peak Energy

EROI Institute

Transition Culture

The Economic Potential of Local Building Materials

A while ago now I was in London for the launch of the Prince’s Foundation for the Built Environment’s ‘Building a New Green Economy’ conference, where I was a speaker alongside Tim Jackson, David Orr and Stewart Brand.  You can read about the event here, and films of our talks will be posted soon.  I [...]

Heinberg on Life Beyond Growth… excellent stuff

A fabulous piece by Richard Heinberg.  Great to read him being optimistic, well. in a Heinbergy kind of way.   I also read this piece as an early, brief version of the history of the peak oil/relocalisation/Transition movement that someone will inevitably write one day….   One correction though, ‘Transition Handbook’ wasn’t my PhD, unfortunely I am [...]

A Seedy Saturday in Totnes: a short film…..

Here is another great short film by the nu-project folks, this time documenting the recent Seedy Saturday event that took place in Totnes, a fantastic event.  Enjoy!

Why GM Has No Place in a World in Transition

I was disappointed to read Mark Lynas's piece in New Statesman, "Why We Greens Keep Getting It Wrong".  The piece builds on Lynas's previous much publicised conversion to nuclear power, arguing that if we are to apply the scientific rigour that underpins climate science to all other areas of life, in the same way [...]

Chris Martenson Speaks at the House of Commons

While Chris Martenson was in the UK recently, Peter Lipman and myself did an interview with him, which was fascinating and wonderful, but the memory chip it was on just got corrupted before I could download it and it is lost.  Gah.  As a meagre way of overcoming the profound sense of trauma I am [...]

Postcarbon Cities

Getting Out From Behind the Wheel

The New York Times' "Green Inc." blog explores reactions to a previous article on the Vauban car-free development in Freiburg, Germany. Post Carbon Cities author Daniel Lerch is quoted in this article.

Small, Green and Good: The role of neglected cities in a sustainable future

Smaller cities have a distinctive and vital role to play in the work of the new century: they will be critical in the move to local agriculture and the development of renewable energy industries. Their underused or vacant industrial space and surrounding tracts of farmland make them ideal sites for sustainable land-use policies, or "smart growth." (This article quotes Post Carbon Cities author Daniel Lerch.)

Post Carbon Cities ending daily news posts

As of 10 January 2009 we are no longer collecting news articles on the Post Carbon Cities website. When we started this service two years ago, news and information on city responses to energy and climate uncertainty was hard to come by. Climate change and fossil fuel depletion have since become widely recognized concerns among local decision-makers and planners, so the time has come to shift our efforts elsewhere. Post Carbon Institute continues to do research on how local governments can best respond to and prepare for energy and climate uncertainty. Our database of local government actions will remain on the site and continue to be updated, as will our accompanying resource database of relevant resolutions and reports. If you'd like to keep following the news we find interesting, you can visit or subscribe to our feed on the bookmark-sharing site del.icio.us. Our News Archives will remain online for a few more months. Daniel Lerch, author of Post Carbon Cities: Planning for Energy and Climate Uncertainty, will continue blogging and posting articles on the Post Carbon Institute website. We hope our work at Post Carbon Institute continues to be useful to you. Please send your questions, concerns and suggestions to us using the contact form.

Sydney directs its development upward

Sydney's plans for future development are in the direction of dense, transit-accessible neighborhoods instead of traditional sprawling suburbs. This development pattern is expected to save the city hundreds of millions of dollars in infrastructure, transport, health and greenhouse gases.

Transit: Long-scorned, key to metros' future?

The MTA's new report, "Sustainability and the MTA," outlines a transit program for the New York metro region that could well be applied to other metro regions.

Community Solution

False Hope or Hardship? Comments on Pope and McKibben Essays

February 4, 2009 By Pat Murphy Executive Director, Community Solutions Carl Pope, head of the Sierra Club, in a January 22, 2009 article entitled "Moving the U.S. off Carbon with Less Pain, More Gain" takes issue with Bill McKibben's November 5, 2008 article entitled "President Obama's Big Climate Challenge." (Both published in Yale Environment 360, a publication of the Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies). McKibben identifies the scale and risk of the challenge noting it will be unpopular and could damage Obama's political future. Pope begins his critique by acknowledging that he shares McKibben's conviction that we need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 80 to 90% by mid-century. But Pope argues that the right investment in technology is all that is needed to manage this reduction. The essence of his position is that a well-designed package of market reforms — which does not require austerity — will lead to a prosperous, low-carbon future. He writes, "The assumption that the costs of climate recovery will be prohibitively high simply does not stand up to scrutiny." I believe that it is Pope's positions that do not pass scrutiny and that it matters a great deal whether Pope is correct. Pope himself says there's a fundamental difference between a mind-set that concludes sacrifice is needed and a mind-set that sees only an economically attractive transition. He labels this as the difference between "sacrifice" and "reform." Of course, "sacrifice" sounds disconcerting, even scary, while "reform" sounds comforting and moderate. Pope has thus slanted his argument against what he calls sacrifice. By implication, Pope's position is that no significant lifestyle changes will be required from us. Pope's main arguments begin with a reference to a McKinsey & Company report, which says reducing U.S. emissions by 2030 could be achieved with a negative cost, since the need for reductions represents investment opportunities that would increase the productivity of the overall U.S. economy. Pope discusses the case of California, pointing out that in a 35-year period the state's residents maintained constant per capita energy consumption while the rest of the nation increased 50%. Unfortunately for Pope's thesis, this period of California's history is not one of reduction in energy use. Remember that Pope conceded we need a national reduction of around 90% in greenhouse gas emissions. To achieve that reduction, Californians per capita will still need to make reductions on the order of 50 to 60% by 2050 (while the rest of us may need to reach a full 90%). Is Pope suggesting that Californians can make 50 to 60% cuts in their energy use without sacrifice? Pope next presents a picture of today's creaky and anachronistic energy system. He says, "Right now, we generate electricity in power plants designed -- and in some cases built -- in the Taft era (hydro), the Coolidge era (coal), or the Kennedy era (nuclear). We ship electricity in transmission grids equipped with electromechanical switches whose fundamental design goes back 80 years. We burn gasoline in internal combustion engines that haven't changed much since Henry Ford, and those engines are in SUVs built on 40-year old assembly lines. And 50 percent of the fuel we use to heat and cool our buildings radiates directly into the sky because many of those buildings have never been modernized for energy performance." Pope's portrait is, at best, highly misleading. He does not propose replacing the Taft-era dams with new ones. (And why would he? I suspect their generators have been replaced or rewired many times.) Aging coal plants are not necessarily inefficient. It's true that coal plants were once less than 20% efficient and now are near 35% (including the latest ones) but there is little room left for improvement in the technology of turning water into steam. Electromechanical switches are not high energy consumers and replacing them with electronic ones will save little fuel. Contrary to Pope's assertion, the internal combustion engine has in fact improved by about 1.5% per year ever since Henry Ford's time. (The best-explored alternative, the fuel cell engine, has never made it out of prototype phase.) In short, Pope's evidence does not support his implied conclusion that there are significant reductions in fossil fuel use to be gained by modernizing the nation's electricity generation and auto assembly processes. Pope moves on to endorse a complaint we often hear from business interests, namely that rapid improvement will come to energy markets if we only eliminate barriers to innovation. But what barriers does he have in mind? It isn't barriers to innovation that explain the snail-like process toward carbon capture, or the recent cancellation of Future Gen in particular -- it's the sheer technical challenge of storing billions of tons of CO2 underground for thousands of years. IGCC power plants on a world-wide basis have not proven themselves reliable and efficient. Improvements in wind and solar technology have come from massive amounts of government subsidies, including major contributions from the government's own research labs like NREL. Both wind and solar are now growing at 50% per year (still with subsidies) and there has been massive public and private investments in both technologies -- but prices remain high, and the sum total of their contribution to the nation's electricity supply remains under 2%. Pope seems to imagine that shifts in U.S. government policy can mandate rapid technical breakthroughs. But the evidence shows that governments in other nations have subsidized and invested for years without earth-shattering results. Wind power still requires a big propeller and a generator. Fortunately, Pope does accept that a rapid national transition to a low-carbon economy will not be without some pain and expense. He acknowledges that some parties will not be as better off as others. He admits that there will be a significant price tag to accelerate the transition. But he aims to convince us that this price tag will come from making those who emit carbon pay for their pollution and the costs of climate disruption. Somehow, in his view, taxing the emitters will both accelerate the transition from fossil fuels and make the overall global economy fairer. But he ignores the basic fact that the emitters of carbon are us! It's not the Ford or General Motors plants that are the problem, it's the trucks and SUVs that we Americans have chosen to drive and the big houses we have chosen to inhabit. Does Pope believe that we will call a significant new tax on personal carbon emissions a "reform" rather than a "sacrifice"? Pope says he agrees with McKibben when the latter says, "Doing what actually needs to be done . . . would involve -- directly or indirectly -- raising the cost of continuing to live as we do right now." But then he focuses on the wastefulness of people who drive Hummers, or air condition rooms that have fires blazing in the fireplace. (This is a miniscule part of the population) He acknowledges how much "energy waste happens because ordinary people live in leaky buildings with outdated appliances" but doesn't recognize the sacrifice implied when he also concedes that such people "cannot easily or affordably upgrade." He expresses sympathy for small business people buying a Ford Econoline with an old design that gets 15 mpg, but then wonders why they don't drive modern hybrid panel trucks that get 30 mpg. (He criticizes Detroit for not offering such a vehicle; but I doubt any global manufacturer offers one.) Pope seems to conclude it is Detroit's fault for not offering better vehicles, while completely ignoring the choice of tens of millions of Americans to drive SUVs when more efficient cars are available. This familiar environmentalist refrain -- blame the producer but not the consumer -- serves to obscure the financial hit (another sacrifice, perhaps?) that millions of owners of low-mileage vehicles are now bound to take. Pope claims to share McKibben's despair over U.S. materialism but insists that austerity for the American people will not be required. He hypothesizes two schools of thought on this issue. One school suggests modest carbon reduction goals to mitigate economic pain or the give-away of carbon permits to businesses. The other school compensates those who use carbon sinks. He notes in this case that Peabody Coal does not own the Amazon, nor Exxon-Mobil the Maldive Islands, but the corporations use the Amazon and Indian Ocean to absorb their emissions at huge cost to others. Who are these "others"? I assume Pope means me and all the other citizens -- citizens, that is, who use electricity from Peabody Coal and drive vehicles fueled with Exxon oil. Once more, in Pope's version of the story, the responsibilities of citizens are not called into question -- oil companies are the sole evil-doers. Pope goes on to compare his views on revenues from carbon permits with those of McKibben, and finds the latter's lacking. Pope wants to use the revenue from carbon permits to aggressively pursue better technologies. He argues for investing in energy efficiency rather than new power plants. He believes that serious energy market reform and regulation of the producer can rapidly reduce the demand for fossil fuels of the consumer by putting a price on carbon emissions. Pope then calculates that a carbon price of around $30 per ton can be funded by a gasoline tax of approximately 30 cents per gallon. Revenues would go to the U.S. Treasury, and Congress would allocate them first to low-income consumers to mitigate the increased costs of gasoline and electricity, and second to investments in climate change solutions with a focus on energy efficiency and renewable energy. Finally, he wants building codes to reflect the American Institute of Architects' goals of achieving carbon-neutral buildings by 2030 (new construction only), ignoring the 100s of millions of existing inefficient buildings. Pope proposes incentives including upping the price of carbon generated to send a more powerful signal to investors to back low-carbon alternatives if progress is slow. Other incentives would return some carbon taxes to the citizens to allow them to buy more efficient products. About $60 billion to $180 billion a year would go to the government to meet the various costs of transitioning to a low-carbon economy. Pope acknowledges that he does not know how fast we can improve the energy productivity and lower the carbon/energy ratio of our economy. One might suspect that he also doesn't know how much it would cost. He argues for redirecting benefits from the polluting and uncompetitive technologies of the past to cleaner, higher performance, new energy options. Finally he says the level of sacrifice we face will fall in direct proportion to how effectively we use carbon revenues to motivate and deliver the new energy options. However, he provides no analysis or estimates of time and costs to achieve reductions -- seemingly just hoping the technology is there somewhere. What Pope does not see is that by taking the positions discussed above, he has not refuted McKibben's call for sacrifice. Americans are perfectly free to purchase new energy-saving products and technologies right now, but would have to sacrifice some other purchase to do so. There are triple-paned argon-filled windows on the market, for example, which would reduce home heating costs. But they are expensive enough that many would call buying them a "sacrifice." Gas-saving cars using advanced technology have been available now for a decade. But hybrid sales are still less than 2% of the market. High-mileage Honda Fits and Toyota Yarises are available for those who can't afford a hybrid -- granted these models require sacrifices of size and comfort compared to SUVs. Americans can buy a host of energy efficient products today — assuming they are willing to give up comfort, convenience, and cash. Their cars might be a bit more crowded and might not be as safe. Americans can buy more energy-efficient houses -- if they are willing to put more of the construction cost into a better building envelope, and sacrifice larger rooms. Utility bills can be lowered by settling for smaller appliances or turning off the extras in the garage. Compact fluorescent bulbs can be installed immediately, though few Americans have actually done even this. Americans have consistently rejected energy-saving technologies for the sake of style, one-upmanship, comfort and convenience. In my view, Bill McKibben said something important and accurate when he pointed out that if Americans are to achieve the ecologically necessary reductions in carbon dioxide emissions, they will need to sacrifice many things -- and not just those which are considered to be luxuries. Carl Pope, by contrast, suggests that we will not need to give up anything. Technology and innovation, spurred by simple changes in government policy, will provide us a 60 mpg 4,000 pound SUV and a 3,000 square foot McMansion that will use less energy than an electric bike and a modest apartment. Mr. Pope's paper came out at roughly the same time as the January/February issue of Sierra magazine. The cover of that magazine included a figure painting a cartoon house green. (Yes, the term "green-wash" came to mind.) On page 12 of the magazine, the columnist "Mr. Green" responded to a woman in Dayton, Ohio inquiring about the cost-effectiveness of solar panels on her home. Mr. Green responds that installing a solar energy system to generate power for the average household costs roughly $80,000 after rebates and tax credits. Will this woman be able to add panels without sacrifice? I think not -- Americans have no such deep pockets to make these changes. A second article in the magazine entitled "Emerald Cities" suggests in an upbeat manner that major changes are happening in urban areas and refers to LEED building standards, product of the U.S. Green Building Council which has certified only two thousand of the nation's 5 million commercial buildings. And LEED buildings at best reduce energy use by only 25%. He does not seem to know that the so-called "green" LEED standards and Energy Star appliance ratings have saved only a few percent of the energy consumed in buildings — after pushing their brands for over a decade. And what about the 100,000,000 existing homes? How much will they cost to retrofit and can Americans do this while maintaining their current life style? I think not. Bill McKibben's essay, by contrast with Pope's critique, is grounded in a realistic sense of the difficulties we face. It will be long and hard to gain significant efficiency for a new infrastructure when so called "green" buildings and cars offer on average no more than a 15% improvement in efficiency. Making the existing infrastructure energy efficient involves change of an almost unimaginable scale. This will not be achieved without massive sacrifice from Americans, voluntary or involuntary. The idea that investment in technology is all that is needed is naïve and dangerous. The crisis is huge and Winston Churchill's comments come to mind as he readied England for a long war: "I have nothing to offer but blood, toil, tears, and sweat. We have before us an ordeal of the most grievous kind." There was a war on then -- and there is no less a war on now as we battle the U.S. materialism over which Pope says he shares McKibben's despair. Pole calls for a new environmentalism. And McKibben and millions of others, including myself, share this sentiment. But a new environmentalism based on the market economy and the now discredited thesis that greed is good is essentially no environmentalism at all. Environmentalists who claim there will be no need for sacrifice, and reject Churchill's call, are part of the problem, not the solution.

The Risks of Plan B

By Rob Content Program Manager, Community Solutions The details are still under intense discussion in Democratic Party power centers like Chicago and New York. But there is good reason to expect that within the coming weeks and months the Obama administration will announce a broad set of policy initiatives, likely including a heavy dose of executive orders. These policies will be designed first and foremost to address the deepening economic collapse by reassuring bankers, autoworkers, and road crews across the United States that they will still have work-sites to go to. Many of the jobs the government will try to save will involve energy and transportation, such as the construction and maintenance of today's low-mileage car models, and the repair of roads and bridges on which fleets of commercial trucks deliver consumer goods to retail shelves. Efforts such as these can be seen as attempts to extend business as usual, or "Plan A." Plan A, to which the Bush-Cheney administration closely hewed, consists of encouraging the fossil fuel industry to extend its traditional dominance of the nation's energy supply operations. This includes mining and drilling, refining and transporting, and, more generally, defining and shaping public understanding of where electricity, transport and heating fuels, and fertilizers and pesticides/herbicides all come from. Plan A may have suffered a bit of a dirty face the last eight years at the hands of the Iraq War, expanded public concern over global warming, and spikes in prices at the pump and in utility bills. Nevertheless, it remains hugely profitable, deeply entrenched in the nation's infrastructure, and responsible for supplying the lion's share of the energy on which the consumer/commuter's daily lifestyle utterly depends. But the Obama administration's policies on energy and the environment are also likely to include some key elements that differ significantly from those of the departing Bush administration. As such, they will deserve to be recognized as the opening stage of a distinct "Plan B." Current indications are that we will see pages borrowed from Jimmy Carter's conservation playbook -- surely a good thing, and one to be welcomed by most in the peak oil and climate change community. Also likely to win general endorsement would be an effort to publicize and extend the "greener cities" approach spearheaded by Richard M. Daley in Chicago. And many among us will likewise be pleased to see a more prominent place at the table for the wind and solar industries. Unlike Plan A, Plan B will emphasize waste reduction, the development of alternative energy sources (especially renewable ones), and investment in higher efficiency technological innovations. We should not underestimate the space still available for Plan B to be fully explored, and then deeply embraced, by American consumers. Acceptance of the hybrid car has been steady but also slow; nearly a decade passed before the first million vehicles were on the roads. By and large, Americans still "want" gas-guzzlers -- even if many breadwinners can no longer find the credit to purchase them or always afford to fill their gas tanks. Our home insulation efforts lag behind our generally low awareness of their affordable benefits. Only a tiny fraction of Americans purchase carbon-offsets for their airplane trips or electricity consumption. The experience of long-distance travel by air or car, for business or for pleasure, remains a fixture of "the good life," one to which many are eager to return just as soon as the government delivers its solutions to our current problems. For these reasons (and many more), a shift in our national discussion of energy issues in which Plan B finds its voice alongside Plan A should probably be acknowledged as a profound -- even perhaps a revolutionary -- change. And there's the rub. For many in the Peak Oil community -- and certainly for us at Community Solutions -- the success of Plan B is a long shot. Any administration, however well-advised and civic-minded, that commits itself and our remaining resources to Plan B is gambling. The success of Plan B depends upon a series of technological breakthroughs which in turn will depend upon the availability of massive financial resources to sustain technological research over at least several decades; even more massive resources would then be required to implement the results. Committing so much to such an uncertain approach indicates to us a limited understanding of how dire our energy predicament has already become. Those of us who see the brightest prospects for a secure and sustainable culture in widespread voluntary curtailment of energy consumption -- what we call "Plan C" -- therefore harbor a set of serious reservations about Plan B. We begin with mixed feelings at best about fresh infusions of research funds for carbon capture and sequestration, so-called "advanced" bio-fuels, and carbon nuclear fusion. We are concerned that political speeches and policy goals contain so few acknowledgements that these unproven technologies may in fact turn out to be unprovable. In addition, we will find it hard to swallow endorsements by the new Administration of such pale green approaches as LEED standard building construction, intensive new public subway or trolley developments, and "green" consumerism. (Our Executive Director Pat Murphy has also now developed a highly critical evaluation of the pluggable hybrid car -- which, as he argues, should more credibly be called "the coal car" since its batteries would be recharged with electricity generated mostly by coal-burning power plants.) At Community Solutions, we therefore advocate instead a set of much deeper green approaches. (We have discussed labeling them "red" to signal our sense of urgency.) We support Passive House building construction standards -- particularly as they may be used to retrofit existing homes, a Smart Jitney approach to mass ride-sharing using the existing vehicle fleet, and a significant curtailment of the consumer economy in favor of a simpler, healthier, non-affluent style of life. What the elements of Plan C have in common -- and so what distinguishes them from the bulk of Plan B approaches -- is that they require no technological breakthroughs, can be implemented starting immediately, and would be far less time and resource-intensive to complete. No doubt others involved in Peak Oil discussions would change a point here or there in their own assessment of Plan C's advantages over Plan B. Strenuous disagreement over certain points would expected and respected as well. But my aim here is to draw attention to a larger dynamic -- and the potential consequences of failing to understand that dynamic in advance. The dynamic is this: An energy transition from Bush's Plan A to Obama's Plan B is likely to be felt as a major and decisive shift in U.S. national consciousness, as well as in policy detail. This shift of plans may be as wrenching and controversial a change in national character as has been achieved since the gradual awakenings of the civil rights era. It should be no surprise that a shift of this magnitude would contain some risk of failure, and the possibility that Plan B might fail therefore merits open and serious discussion. We should be talking about whether Plan B is really a risk worth taking -- and  even if so, whether some investment should simultaneously be made in the low-risk, high-reward Plan C. As a contribution to this discussion, we suggest a challenge to policy planners in the new administration: Invite the public to articulate its greatest concerns about how and why Plan B might fail. We believe there will be many concerns along these lines. Our own top three are the following: • The scale of financial investment in the electrical grid, as well as the power plant infrastructure, that would be required to meet national energy needs through wind and solar generation (and the fossil fuel supply required to back them up during periods of intermittency). • The time-scale to replace 100%, or even 50%, of the electricity supplied by today's conventional coal-burning plants with electricity generated from alternative energy sources, either nuclear or renewable. • The additional demand on the national electricity supply if 20 million Americans, or even 10 million, purchase cars that are recharged by plugging in to the grid (and so at best achieve carbon dioxide emission reductions no better than those of today's non-pluggable hybrids). As the Inauguration of Barack Obama approaches, we find ourselves waiting, like many of our fellow citizens, to see what a charismatic, talented, and credentialed new generation of leaders will offer us. And we find ourselves concerned that they will come up short. Any version of Plan B based upon the core elements outlined above will be in our estimation too little, too late. The new President's program on energy and the environment will also be, on deeper analysis, his approach to the declining availability of fossil fuels and to global climate change. As such, it will represent our nation's best chance to address these fundamental challenges at their roots. Should this opportunity be missed, we will all experience the consequences of further delay in making the deep changes that are required -- the kind of realistic, practical changes that characterize Plan C.

Promoting the Passive House -- A Report on the 3rd Annual North American Passive House Conference

December 10, 2008 By Pat Murphy Executive Director, Community Solutions The passive house could play a major role in cutting energy consumption and offers the best way to radically alter our building practices. I have been involved with the organization promoting the concept in America -- the Passive House Institute US -- for two years. I attended its 2nd annual conference in Urbana, Illinois last year, and this spring I agreed to take part in the founding meeting of the Passive House Alliance, a group of about 20 people building and teaching about passive houses. I was also pleased to be asked to make a presentation at the 3rd annual conference held last month in Duluth, Minnesota. I have also begun to implement passive house principles in my own buildings and around my hometown. Last year I retrofitted a 1,000 square foot house in Yellow Springs using passive house techniques -- it now has a tenant with extremely low heating bills. I also had the pleasure of introducing architect Katrin Klingenberg, the organizer of the annual U.S. Passive House Conferences and co-director of the Passive House Institute US, to an organization in Yellow Springs who is now using her as a consultant for a multi-family building to be constructed next year. While 2008 saw the third conference in the U.S., this year marked the 12th European Passive House conference, held each year in Germany. Over a 1,000 people attended the 12th European conference in Germany, compared to about 150 who attended the US conference in Duluth. It is only recently that this important movement has been brought to the U.S., largely through the efforts of Katrin and her partner, Mike Kernagis. Together, Katrin and Mike co-direct the Passive House Institute US, as well as ECO-Lab , a non-profit organization that designs energy-efficient buildings for low to middle-income families. I have visited three of these homes and they are delightful, affordable, and environmentally healthy. To be called a "passive house," a building must meet the passive house performance standards which are set by the Passive House Institute in Germany. The basic standard is that a building must consume no more than 15 kilowatt-hours per square meter in heating energy per year (equivalent to 4746 BTU per square foot per year). This is achieved by constructing a building envelope, (floors, walls, ceilings, and a roof) that is extremely well insulated and air tight. This means R40 in the walls and R60 in the roof and floor. The building must not leak more air than 0.6 times the house volume per hour at 50 pascals of pressure. The result is a building that uses 90% less heating and air conditioning energy than a typical building according to the Passive House Institute US's website, "A Passive House is a very well-insulated, virtually air-tight building that is primarily heated by passive solar gain and by internal gains from people, electrical equipment, etc. Energy losses are minimized. Any remaining heat demand is provided by an extremely small source. Avoidance of heat gain through shading and window orientation also helps to limit any cooling load, which is similarly minimized. An energy recovery ventilator provides a constant, balanced fresh air supply. The result is an impressive system that not only saves up to 90% of space heating costs, but also provides a uniquely terrific indoor air quality." Last month's conference opened with a presentation by architect Katrin Klingenberg. Born in East Germany, she came to the U.S. several years ago and settled in Urbana, Illinois. Unknown to her at the time, the University of Illinois had been one of the leading institutions focusing on low-energy-consumption building in the 1970s and 1980s, during the first U.S. energy crisis. This happy coincidence placed Katrin's new low energy building movement in a historically hospitable location and the juxtaposition has benefited both the Passive House Institute US and the University. In her talk Katrin gave a history of the passive house, including its remarkable performance characteristics. Katrin noted that saving energy may no longer be a matter of choice; it may be necessary for survival and world peace. She notes that if we start building only passive new houses today, and we retrofit all homes fully to the passive house standard, then we will be able, with renewable energy sources, to stabilize our climate by 2030. A big cost advantage of the passive house comes from eliminating the furnace and using the energy recovery ventilation system as a back-up furnace and air exchanger. We not only can get to near zero energy use this way, but to near zero emissions. In addition, Katrin said that we can't think only about the energy used to operate a house; we must also consider the energy embedded in it, and about the emissions its operation causes. The experiences of passive house builders in Germany show that all this can be done, Katrin said. She noted that the passive house is not a purely European conception -- in fact, it walked in its baby shoes here in the U.S. with the work of people like William Shurcliff, author of many books in the 70s and 80s on super-insulated houses and solar energy. Katrin envisioned a time when the way we run our building construction industry is going to be completely changed. Finally, she emphasized that the benefits of passive house building go beyond low-energy use and carbon dioxide emissions. It's also about comfort, well-being, and air quality. Katrin likens living in a passive house to living outside. I followed Katrin with a presentation on Plan C, which is both the focus of our organization Community Solutions and the title of my recent book, Plan C: Community Survival Strategies for Peak Oil and Climate Change. I noted how I had been affected by a presentation at the Affordable Comfort, Inc. Home Performance Conference in April 2007 where Dr. Brendt Steinmueller from Germany gave a plenary speech introducing the German Passive House to the U.S. I also had the opportunity to attend a special meeting set up by Linda Wigington of Affordable Comfort, Inc. titled "Moving Existing Homes Toward Carbon Neutrality," which kicked off an ongoing retrofitting white paper. I showed pictures of our own deep retrofit using the passive house approach and equipment and advocated retrofitting the full stock of 100,000,000 existing American residences to the passive house standard. The next speaker was Dr. Stephan Tanner who entitled his talk "The Green Bridge." Stephan says that we can either continue increasing our overall energy demand but replace 85 percent of the fossil fuel supply with other energy sources (the active keep burning approach), or we can improve efficiency by 85 percent and thereby reduce our need for fuels (the passive save fuels approach). We need a green bridge, he said, to carry us from the active to the passive approach. Stephan then noted that the technology for reducing energy use by 85 percent is already available at no additional cost, and asked why we aren't choosing this. His own answer is that we view the world incorrectly. In particular, we see only the world's industrial age, and must shift our view if we are to solve the problem of energy efficiency. The mindset we already have won't get us where we need to go, according to Stephan. Holistic optimization is the key, he asserted, if we are to shed the blinding assumptions of the industrial age and lead a new renaissance. The passive house is a manifestation of a different approach because through it we can see the world differently, and therefore make different choices. Stephan also noted that because of today's collapsing real estate market, many people may be stuck with their existing homes and so see the wisdom of making energy improvements. He observed that many of us have yet to overcome the "buy cheap, sell high" mentality when it comes to buildings. Stephen brought widespread laughter from the audience when he ended his talk by saying, "If clients are serious about greatly reducing their energy consumption, I'm happy to work with them. If they want a plaque, I send them to LEED." In the afternoon session Mike McCulley, now an associate professor at the University of Illinois School of Architecture, offered a historical perspective. He showed a variety of older houses, including his own, which he had designed and built to use little energy. He described details of his experience building super-insulated houses during the nation's 1970s energy crisis, including his contribution to the design of an important early experiment in low energy building, the so-called "Illinois low-cal house." Mike discussed the evolution of the passive solar house concept during that period, including the discovery that devoting 10 percent of a wall to triple-glazed windows resulted in optimal energy efficiency. Automated thermal shutters added even higher savings. Mike noted that such learning ran counter to the conventional thought that on the south side of a house using passive solar design, the more glass the better. Mike described almost being lynched at passive solar conferences in the 1970s for refuting this belief. In America, we tend to think that if a little is good, then a lot is better, when actually moderation is best in many cases. A "more is better" approach to passive solar design often results in overheating and the fading of interior furniture, rather than increased energy savings. Mike was careful to point out some of the limits of the super-insulated houses in that earlier period. The need for reliable ventilation strategies was evident in the 1970s, but equipment able to meet the need was not available. Early heat exchangers required a great deal of energy to operate and ductwork located in unheated spaces wasted energy. Mike summed up his historical perspective by saying that work on super-insulated houses in the 70s had made great strides, which have been built upon and refined in more recent work on the passive house. He noted that different cultures at different times have taken the lead in developing knowledge and improving technology. For example top work was done in Sweden for a time, and today the leadership role is being taken in Germany. Since the passive house is now generating interest worldwide, it is possible that other nations will now contribute major jumps in innovation. American efforts of the 1970s were not in vain and we should be grateful for the work that was done by early pioneers such as Mike. The next speaker, Manfred Brausem, is a German architect and developer who has been building to the passive house (known as Passivhaus in Germany) standards for well over a decade. He built the first passive house development in 1998. He is currently at work on projects worldwide including a passive house pilot project in Chile. Manfred's presentation, titled "What's in the Box?" was more like Santa Claus delivering presents than a technical presentation. The audience of builders and architects felt like kids in a candy shop. Manfred literally reached into a large aluminum box he'd brought along, and pulled out examples of the best and newest technologies that are being used in passive house building. His box contained items both familiar and strange. In many cases he presented us with things we had never seen before. Especially impressive were the fascinating devices and materials now available to construct the intricate passive house ventilation systems that replace conventional heating and air conditioning systems, such as the bulky ductwork that often runs through unconditioned attics or crawl spaces, wasting much energy in the process. Manfred's talk was enough to make any student of the passive house approach begin planning to attend future conferences in Germany. That country is several years ahead of the U.S. and moving forward at an astounding rate -- in large part because the German government's commitment to the Kyoto protocol has created a business environment in which firms are rewarded for helping citizens cut their per capita energy use. Mike LeBeau and Rachel Wagner talked about their experiences and processes in building high performance homes. Mike's firm, Conservation Technologies, has been specializing in high performance and low energy building solutions for cold and very cold climates. He first heard of passive houses many years ago, and attended one of the early conferences in Europe. Rachel Wagner is the co-owner of Wagner Zaun Architects in Duluth, a firm that specializes in sustainable design. Since 1996 she has specialized in designing energy efficient residences for cold climates. Rachel and Mike's joint presentation about how they design and implement projects was highly impressive, offering us excellent preparation for field trips two days later to visit both a house they completed last year and their project currently under construction. Seeing the theory embodied in practice was very educational. The mechanical systems designed by Mike were eye-opening, and Rachel's architectural design was beautiful as well as functional from an energy standpoint. Linda Wigington opened the second day of the conference with a talk on "Deep Reductions in Existing Homes -- Beyond Business as Usual." Linda is a founder of Affordable Comfort, Inc., an organization promoting building performance, and helps put on its annual conference. She has been a consultant for residential energy programs throughout the country. In 2002 she received the American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy's (ACEEE) "Champion of Energy Efficiency" award. Linda's presentation focused on retrofitting existing homes. I had seen a version of this talk at the July conference of ACEEE where Linda challenged the attendees to go further than the conventional goal of reducing home energy use by 10 to 30 percent. There was a mixed response at her ACEEE presentation, but this was not the case in Duluth. At the Passive House conference she was speaking to the converted –to attendees all committed to very deep energy savings. Linda described her Thousand Home Challenge, an effort to achieve deep retrofits for 1,000 homes around the nation as quickly as possible. Linda's marriage of the relatively new passive house movement with the more established weatherization movement makes her a very key player in the energy reduction effort. Linda has spoken at several Community Solutions conferences and has achieved an impressive low energy life style. Marc Rosenbaum is a Licensed Professional Engineer in mechanical engineering with bachelor and graduate degrees from MIT, and special expertise in heating, ventilating, and air conditioning (HVAC) He is the principle of Energysmiths, an organization founded in 1979, to show that sustainable communities can only be based on renewable resources. Marc has focused on integrating renewable energy systems, day-lighting, high performance envelope design, health-sustaining mechanical systems, food production and storage, ecological waste systems, efficient electrical and water systems, and benign, resource-efficient materials selection into his projects. He described an impressive recent super-insulation project on an existing house. He shared his view that, "It's not what's sustainable that matters, but what's survivable." He hopes that he is wrong about the seriousness of the problems facing us and that a Plan B approach based on renewable energy will work, but he highly doubts it. Marc envisions people living in smaller spaces, and farming in the suburbs. Marc showed a delightful series of cartoons describing the future of our current housing stock: some will be bulldozed, some will be shared, some will be used only in the summer, and in others people will combine households. And a certain number, he trusts, will have deep energy retrofits that provide comfort while using as little energy as possible. Father-and-son team Ty and Ben Newell's presentation was entitled "Design and Operation of a Conditioning Energy Recovery Ventilator (CERV) for Passive Houses." Ben is the President of Newell Instruments and Ty is a retired faculty member in mechanical engineering at the University of Illinois. They are currently attempting to design an integrated unit that will provide whole-house heating, cooling and humidity control for passive houses. Their prototype system is about the size of a window air conditioner. The engineering details of the project were described. They emphasized that integrating the different air treatment machines (heat, cooling, moisture control) allows small units to perform all three functions because a passive house itself is so efficient that conventional units are oversized, expensive and wasteful. This kind of breakthrough is critical. I could not help but think of the legions of engineers working at GE and other giant corporations laboring away to wring out another few percent of energy savings from devices built for big energy wasteful homes. Mark Hoberecht and Ed Shank presented "Challenges and Benefits of Using Straw Bale Construction to Meet Passive House Standards. " Mark has degrees in Engineering, Science and Sustainable Systems and has made a career in natural building techniques. Ed is a mechanical engineer with extensive experience in designing mechanical systems for LEED buildings. They provided an analysis of straw bale buildings and how they compare to other passive structures. There are several straw bale buildings in my town and I am familiar with the details of their construction. This presentation carried what I know a step further, demonstrating new and innovative ways to use straw rather than simply stacking the bales with a post and beam structure. It is interesting to me to see how straw bale technology, at least in my area, has shown developments parallel to those of the passive house approach to super-insulation. Ludwig Rongen was the second speaker who had travelled from Germany. His talk was on "Quality in Passive House Planning and Construction -- Assuring Home Owner Comfort." He emphasized that the passive house is not a high-tech house but rather a low-tech house. He noted that construction managers must pay special attention to the workmanship of a continuous airtight cover and make sure there are no thermal bridges. Less is more when it comes to penetrations in the passive house. He noted the importance of qualified components, like double-sided scotch tape. Ludwig described the Caritas House Network, which is the first passive house senior housing project in Europe and slated for completion in April 2009. Ludwig says that the increased cost to build a passive house in Germany is about five to seven more percent for a single family house that is 100 square meters (about 1076 square feet) but that there is no additional cost for a larger home or a multi-family building. He asserted that the passive house is now really the cheapest type of house to build when life-cycle considerations are included as well as building costs. As Europeans tend to understand better than Americans, life cycle costs include the lifetime cost of energy to heat and cool the house. From a financial perspective, Ludwig concluded, it makes no sense not to build a passive house. Chris Benedict and Henry Gifford have been busy retrofitting large multi-family buildings in New York City. They are focused on how to build a passive house type of building without increasing the cost, a key factor for persuading consumers, bankers, and others to consider the approach. Chris noted that in the public and political realm, people are now thinking about renewable energy sources. She wondered what the best word would be to describe people building low energy buildings -- "Reducibles"? "Reductibles?" She described being upset with seeing buildings called "green" just because their designs included a lot of glass. Chris and Henry said that they are competing with more than 40 non-profits who are doing energy efficiency audits in New York City (or at least say they are), but who don't really measure anything. I was amazed to learn from them about the challenges of dealing with energy use and ways to reduce it in large apartment buildings and delighted to hear about their innovative solutions. Henry, on his web site Henrygifford.com, has an article arguing that many LEED-certified buildings are actually using more energy than conventional buildings. I am sympathetic with his critique. There is a great deal of pure hype about green building these days, and the small improvements being touted by some of the leading organizations are not really making a dent in our energy/CO2 problem. A great deal of technical information and a variety of theoretical perspectives on energy efficient building were presented at the 3rd annual Passive House -- US Conference. Some were complex, focusing on mechanical systems and new products (such as those presented by Manfred and by Marc). It was heartening to get a deeper sense of the integrity and promise of this organization and the insights that inspired it. In general I continue to be solidly impressed with the passive house models and encouraged by getting to know more of the practiced builders and architects who appreciate its merits. It seemed that in the U.S. hardly anyone has quite achieved the full standard yet, but the approach has been successfully adopted by many builders and designers who understand that practice makes perfect. At the end of the conference I talked with Linda Wigington about the relationship of the passive house model to her Thousand Home Challenge. She is less concerned with meeting the exact passive house specifications than with encouraging creativity and inspiring more experiments. The biggest problem with the passive house criteria today, she said, is that it doesn't account for different locations or house sizes. (Larger houses should really use less energy per square foot, not the same or more.) Fortunately, Ludwig reports that the Passive House Institute in Germany had received a grant to develop specifications for five climate zones, which will probably cover the various zones found here in the U.S. New specifications may also include the Passive House standards recommendations to build smaller homes. This was an exciting conference both because of the talented and experienced presenters and because of the committed and growing audience. Everyone here was focused on implementing solutions -- not just on measuring the problem. It was a far cry from conferences where presenters do nothing more than talk about billion dollar government and corporate investments in fanciful solutions. The passive house movement is composed of people who are doers, and they should be commended for their work.

Plan C Bailout Strategy -- Dealing with Cars

December 2, 2008 by Pat Murphy Executive Director, Community Solutions As we move toward government socialism for major corporations and industries, new opportunities arise, as these corporations seem to be at a loss for any innovative ideas. This is not surprising since they have screwed up so badly in recent years and the same people are still in charge. For some time, corporations have held immense power to set the priorities for nations with politicians supporting their efforts since corporations provide campaign financing. Now the shoe is on the other foot. Car and finance CEOs are coming to Washington, hat in hand, begging for bailouts. The elected representatives of the people suddenly have the right to govern -- for a while. And this gives them a chance to generate some new perspectives and innovative solutions. One can see this in the so-called bailout for the American car companies. Detroit is asking for tens of billions of dollars to make the transition to more fuel-efficient cars, along the lines of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 passed in December of that year. The new CAFÉ standards require that automakers increase fleet wide gas mileage to 35 mpg by 2020, including “light trucks” (SUVs). This is well below current existing standards in the rest of the world. With these companies implying they may not be around in six months, it seems silly to be talking about providing government money for such relatively minor goals 12 years from now. It takes time to develop engineering teams to make good quality small cars. If Honda and Toyota would stop development for five years, then maybe Detroit would be able to catch up. U.S. companies will make a few bad models and learn from them, the way most things are done. But what is the point? In terms of fuel-efficient vehicles, the rest of the world is far ahead of the US and the thought that we can easily catch up is arguable -- we haven't so far. This is true for regular cars, diesel vehicles, hybrid cars and even the long delayed fuel cell car. General Motors is advertising its Volt electric car while acknowledging that there are no batteries available yet to make it feasible. Batteries for cars are still the province of the Japanese, particularly Panasonic, which will provide the batteries for a PHEV that Toyota has announced will ship in 2010. It's hard to visualize GM begging the government for money to build a technology that can beat Toyota. (Recall that GM made a decision in the past to forego EV and hybrid cars for the doomed fuel cell car.) Toyota is also adding more energy efficient vehicles beyond its highly successful Prius, including a natural gas Camry hybrid. It is also resurrecting four RAV4-EV models to be used in Portland Oregon. In addition to the PHEV, Toyota will also market an all-electric commuter car in the early 2010s. http://earth2tech.com/2008/09/25/toyota-to-debut-natural-gas-car-launch-rav4-ev-project/ Detroit senior executives do not inspire much confidence as innovative leaders. Rick Wagoner, CEO of General Motors, in an interview with Motor Trend magazine in 2006, said his most regretted decision was axing the EV1 electric-car program and not putting the right resources into hybrids. Ford's CEO Alan Mulally was a Boeing executive for 40 years before switching to cars just a little over two years ago. During his tenure Ford's stock price has declined 75%. Robert Nardelli, after a long career at GE and a 6 year stint at Home Depot, took over the presidency of Cerberus (who bought Chrysler in August 2007). His experience in retail at Home Depot may or may not have prepared him to be head of an automobile company. It seems strange that the American automobile industry has been unable to develop sufficient leadership depth to deal with the challenges. The nation needs fuel-efficient cars but we don't need engineering departments and managers who are not able to build them. It just may not be possible psychologically for American car companies to make the shift away from the SUV. One solution is to buy the designs or manufacturing rights from Honda and Toyota and begin manufacturing high quality Japanese cars in volume in this country with American workers. As a happy owner of one of the first hybrid cars made in this county, the Honda Insight (with a Prius as a second car), it’s clear to me that very reliable high-mileage designs have been available for about a decade. This would keep the vast majority of the American manufacturers’ work force employed along with dealers and other service organizations. U.S. engineers can then take some time to study these cars, make a few errors -- and then develop the next generation of vehicles. Simply put, let's invest a few billion dollars into manufacturing already well-designed cars here. Japan will probably be delighted to provide the designs for a fee -- especially since their horded dollars will be worthless if America as a nation goes out of business. We are in an emergency situation now and car companies should be required to operate as if this is the case. One way to hunker down is to stop building new models every year. A lesson we might adopt from the airplane industry is that there is no more need for model years. When a new airplane design becomes available every five years or so, the aerospace companies then build it. Even today, Detroit does not design and build a new engine or new transmission each year for every model. Most of a new "model" consists of cosmetic body changes -- unnecessary except for styling. If we replace 20-mpg SUVs with 45-mpg Toyota Priuses and Honda Insights we will use far less material and labor. We will therefore need fewer production plants. Twice the number of cars would come out of the factories using half the workers and selling at half the price of the big behemoths we would stop making. What would we do then with the excess capacity of workers and production plants? I suggest they should begin building buses. (GM used to build buses but sold that business a long time ago). Better mileage cars are not a complete answer to our long-range energy problem in spite of the hope for PHEVs (a.k.a. the coal car). Mass transit is needed and that can be provided most rapidly by buses. Currently U.S. cars and light trucks (SUVs) use 60% of transportation fuel -- buses use less than 1% (.7%). Medium and heavy trucks use 18.7% of the fuel. There are 222 million cars and light trucks (SUVs) and only 83,000 buses in the U.S. (Transportation Energy Data Book 2008. Table 2-6 and Table 2.12.). One Greyhound bus takes an average of 34 cars off the road, and achieves 184 passenger miles per gallon of fuel. (http://www.greyhound.com/home/en/About/FactsAndFigures.aspx) How quickly could we do this? GM began building the CCKW, the first version of the so called "deuce and a half" military truck in 1941. The company produced 43,000 CCKWs in 1941, and ramped up to 111,000 in 1942 and 131,000 in 1943. Could all the extra capacity plants in the U.S. deliver 100,000 buses per year after ramping up? Does this mean we could take 3.4 million SUVs off the road each year? Now that's progress! We can also lower the speed limit immediately. On October 28, 1942, a War Speed Limit of 35 mph was set. In the first energy crisis of the 1970s the nation adopted a 55 mph speed limit which had the added benefits of significantly reducing deaths from automobile accidents. The fact that we have not already slowed down in response to the current crisis is a reflection of our "fast is best" cultural outlook since that time. We refuse to give up speed -- even though doing so would benefit our children enormously. But we will learn. These approaches may all seem rather prosaic. Energy-aware commentators periodically call for something more dramatic -- like a new Manhattan Project to save the nation. But isn't it more than a bit ironic to hear a call for us to repeat something that represents the worst in human beings -- the development of atomic weapons (which we might recall are still set to be fired when the computers decide conditions are right). We might also recall that WWII was essentially over when the bombs were dropped to show their scientific feasibility and I guess to punish the Japanese. The war was really won with CCKW trucks, airplanes, victory gardens and other social mechanisms that required effort and sacrifice from a willing citizenry. Throwing a few billion dollars to the National Labs and asking them to repeat the military innovations of the 1940s would deprive the mass of today's citizens of the chance to contribute their own efforts and show their willingness to bear some responsibility for our common future. Some Peak Oil proponents such as Matt Simmons and James Kunstler have called for a rebuilding of the national railroad network. This would take decades -- if it is even possible. I am sure they will think of buses as unimaginative. Light rail and bullet trains have all the excitement of high technology. Thoughts of racing between Paris and London on the Eurostar evoke the thrills of speed and cultural exploration. But an extensive investment in buses would not require that we build any new parallel transport rail-based network (presumably running alongside our existing roads). The magnitude of the effort to re-build a national rail system has not yet even been described. People seem to think there are some rusty tracks just waiting to be dusted off, which is not the case. Table 1: Railroad Line Miles and Track Miles Year Line miles Track miles 1929 229,530 381,417 1947 214,486 355,227 1960 207,334 340,779 1970 196,479 319,092 1980 164,822 270,074 1990 119,758 200,074 2000 99,250 168,535 Source: "Railroad Facts." Washington, DC: Association of American Railroads, 2004. The number of railroad line miles and track miles has been decreasing steadily and dramatically since the 1930s, as shown in Table 1, while car traffic has increased enormously. By 1920, car vehicles traveled approximately 45 billion miles on roads annually. Vehicle miles of travel increased more than 66-fold during the intervening 85 years to approximately three trillion vehicle miles in 2004. Road mileage also grew during those 85 years to 3.99 million miles in 2004. If mileage driven has expanded 66 times since 1920 and there are about four million miles of roads, how would we size a rail effort? If we had continued to build railroads from 1929 on, rather than moving to roads, how many miles would we have built? Would it have grown by a factor of 10 to 20 million miles? Since we increased miles traveled by 66 times, maybe a factor of 10 is too low. But in any case, laying a new network of tracks on top of the now-existing road system will result in a huge number of crossings. At present there are about 2.4 crossings per railroad line mile. Will we need 20 million new crossings? How many of them will be hugely expensive viaduct projects (bridges over rail tracks)? There seems to be a horrible fear in the American psyche of any change that can be experienced as "going backwards," a fear of what it will mean to reject the "progress" we have made by developing Hummers, jet airplanes, nitrogen fertilizers, McMansions, credit cards, credit swaps and derivatives. The thought of going back down the ladder of so-called progress from cars to buses to bikes to walking fills us with despair. So we cling to faith in innovations -- such as light rail, pluggable hybrids and government bailouts -- that are already best understood as fading dreams, misguided steps toward an increasingly barren future. More optimistic people, people who never really thought that all this stuff was the core of life, have a different view. They see the coming change as an opportunity for creativity. Why not just bail out Detroit with a government bus program? Maybe growing food in the backyard with neighbors could be a source of joy. Wearing sweaters doesn't seem all that great a sacrifice. Buses might be a way to meet interesting people. Could dealing with climate change, Peak Oil and bad debts actually be fun? Curitiba, Brazil has implemented a Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) system. The buses run frequently and reliably, and the stations are convenient, well-designed, comfortable and attractive. Curitiba has one of the most heavily used, yet low-cost, transit systems in the world. The above ground system offers many of the features of a subway system. Vehicle movements are unimpeded by traffic signals and congestion. Fare collection is done prior to boarding. Quick passenger loading and unloading is featured and the systems are above ground and visible. It would be easy to implement such a system in an American city that has had some bus transit experience and this kind of system can eliminate a lot of the problems with American road mass transit. It’s interesting to see the rest of the world dealing with the energy/CO2 problems of today using existing systems. Maybe we should try it!

The Market Has Spoken -- Go Plan C!

November 25, 2008 By Pat Murphy Executive Director, Community Solutions Our book Plan C -- Community Survival Strategies for Peak Oil and Climate Change hit the book stores in July of 2008. In that month the Dow Jones Industrial Average (DJIA), the barometer of what is most meaningful in modern U.S. culture, was around 11,000, down about 3,000 points from its high of slightly above 14,000 in October, 2007. Since July of 2008 the DJIA has dropped another 3,000 points to around 8,000. Comparisons with the pattern of the DJIA in the late 1920s abound. Arguments suggesting we cannot be in a depression for various reasons are constantly being proposed -- and countered by new negative events. We are told that in the Great Depression government failed to provide bailout loans, something which world governments are now doing with abandonment. But these are no more effective in stopping the decline than the opposite actions of governments of the 1920s. At the core of Plan C is the action of curtailment -- a word I selected to make a distinction from mere conservation. The definition of curtailment includes both the act of curtailing, which implies voluntary actions, as well as the state of being curtailed, which can be construed to be involuntary. To curtail means to cut back, to shorten, to abbreviate, to retrench, to reduce. These words now need little detailed definition because people are experiencing them daily (albeit some more than others). Some are having their work hours shortened. Many are retrenching in every way possible. In our office we are cutting back on our use of natural gas for heating, wearing heavier clothing, and sometimes putting on gloves with the fingers cut off to keep our hands warm while typing. Home thermostat levels are being lowered, and extra blankets laid out in the living room to be used when the sun goes down. Trips to speak at conferences are now being reconsidered and driving has been reduced. Curtailment is upon us and it is uncomfortable to everyone and painful to many -- particularly those that are being laid off. We may have been physically more comfortable a year ago. But at that time a deep fear was growing in our souls that the human race might not make it. James Hansen recently called for us all to cut back our CO2 emissions to 350 parts per million (ppm), down from the current 387 ppm – and way down from the official estimates that we could (probably!) survive at 450 ppm. The International Energy Agency (IEA) in its November 2008 report expressed the seriousness of the situation in newly bleak terms, noting that "Preventing catastrophic and irreversible damage to the global climate ultimately requires a major decarbonization of the world energy sources." There are many other sobering statements in this report, including projections of existing oil fields depletion rates in the range of 4-6 percent annually. In support of this, recent reports from intelligence and defense agencies darkly acknowledge the high probability of future resource wars. In terms of CO2 generation we have a significant new source of hope. Curtailment is happening! And at a rate that may meet the reductions recommended by the climate scientists, namely about four percent per year. That's not a lot--at least for the first year. But with overall vehicle miles being reduced this year, and our domestic car companies heading for bankruptcy because they have no really good fuel efficient vehicles, we are seeing a turnaround in driving habits. With layoffs and shorter working hours we can guess that many thermostats are being set back by at least four percent as well. Utility companies report drops in electricity consumption at rates that are more than four percent annually. Maybe some people are even beginning to cut back their food intake--a positive step since we consume 30 to 40 percent more calories than is healthy, and most of us are overweight. Did all of America read Plan C in the last few months? Book sales numbers suggest not. And we have had no invitation from Oprah to appear on her TV show. So did Americans somehow intuit for themselves the curtailment recommendations of Plan C? Or did the finance gods simply decide to punish us for buying derivatives and credit swaps--violating some obscure commandment dealing with fiscal responsibility? Has something happened in the culture that woke up old ancient survival memories buried in our DNA? Are we experiencing a disquieting common dream in which the muses whisper "Hard times are coming?" I have my view--which is simply that Americans are beginning to wake up to evidence and their own experience. They are starting to see that greed is not good. They are beginning to question the cultural story that material consumption is our reason to live and what makes us great (meaning superior). They are losing confidence in the American view of the good life. They are starting to recall spiritual roots that warn against the pursuit of Mammon (the ancient Christian false god of riches and avarice). They are remembering Matthew 19:24--"And again I say to you, it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God" and Matthew 6:26--"Look at the birds of the air; they neither sow nor reap nor gather into barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not of more value than they?" What is the stock market collapse essentially? I see it as a loss of confidence in the American system. Americans are now realizing that oil companies like Exxon have been funding anti-climate change lobbyists for decades. They are seeing that American car companies continued to make gas guzzlers in the US while making efficient cars abroad. And they have experienced a most awful shock upon discovering that the venal and manipulative management that prevailed in those kinds of industries was also in control of the finance industry, which meant that their life savings have been subjected to foolish risks. Americans are now beginning to understand that supposedly staid Wall Street bankers in fact more closely resembled Las Vegas casinos. The big-money players knew that the house would take its percentage and support them in casting the dice again and again. Citizens of Las Vegas know that there may be criminal elements behind the casinos; they assume their interests are being watched over by law officials subject to manageable levels of graft and bribery. But citizens of America did not have that protection. To have discovered that the quasi- criminal elements behind the banks had as little regard for honest citizens as do Mafia dons, and that government officials and Congresspersons were part of the financial manipulation, has been a blow. Oil companies and car companies were only too easy to hate. But banks and financial institutions were supposedly to be pillars of trustworthiness. And now we are observing those very same officials who invented the financial instruments which defrauded us (Henry Paulson, for example) demanding that Congress pass bank bailouts of a magnitude beyond belief. We have watched CEOs take excessive pay for years, backed up with golden parachutes. Now we've learned from David Korten (in his essay in the winter issue of Yes magazine) that in 2007, the 50 highest-paid private investment fund managers averaged $588 million each in compensation, 19,000 times as much as the average worker's pay. Let's consider some basic questions, questions that as citizens we should be prepared to answer. Why, for example, do stock markets seem to go up and down constantly? Certainly fundamental business conditions don't change that rapidly. Review the stock markets of 40 years ago and you will find their daily swings were much less than today's. This has a lot to do with confidence and the view of the market's possibilities. One barometer that measures the confidence is the Price to Earnings (P/E) ratio of stocks. Over a long period of time, this ratio increases and decreases depending a lot on the mood of the country. Figure 1 illustrates this ratio, and the "irrational exuberance" that has existed in the first decade of the 21st century is apparent in it. When people buy into the story that they can "get something for nothing," the P/E ratio rises. And when that bubble pops, P/E ratios decline regardless of the popular delusion (pushed until recently by securities sales people) that sophisticated financial schemes have taken the risk out of the market. http://www.generationaldynamics.com/ww2010/g070818c.gif But the "investment party" (for which a more accurate term might be the "speculation binge") is now over -- whether it be in internet stocks, rapidly increasing housing prices, gold, or oil stocks. A lot of paper profits for companies, for stock holders, and for home owners have disappeared. Friends with 401 K programs from respectable corporations and educational institutions tell me they now plan to add years to their work life because their retirement funds (based on the stock market) have lost so much value. No one I know believes that things will return to the way they were. But sadness at this loss of the "good life" is tempered a bit because we know that if things do return to the way they were, oil consumption and CO2 generation will once more threaten the lives of all beings on the planet. It's easy to blame the CEOs and board members of our institutions, for as leaders they have indeed failed the people. But we were all complicit. Automobile unions supported the building of SUVs since it increased their wages and retirement benefits. The huge population of workers who entered financial services was smart enough to recognize a financial bubble. But like most people, they hoped to get their stake and get out before collapse occurred. We continued to elect politicians who promoted growth prosperity as the end all and be all. We were not forced to take out home equity loans and remodel our kitchens and take vacations with money borrowed from an uncertain future. To quote the famous Pogo Possum, a character in a political satire comic strip by Walt Kelly popular during the first energy crisis, "We have met the enemy and he is us." We selected a path that our grandparents knew would lead to perdition. So we are now "in the state of being curtailed" and we must accept that and begin "the actions of curtailing." Books and tip sheets abound to tell us how to live more frugally. Most of us now understand better that energy is at the heart of our challenges and that we must move beyond simple and easy efforts like recycling paper and plastic to big steps in reducing our personal energy consumption. Chevron, a major oil company, is running ads in which individual Americans announce "I will leave the car at home more," "I will carpool to work," "I will use less energy," "I will replace three light bulbs with CFLs", and "I will finally get a programmable thermostat." When oil companies run curtailment advertising campaigns, can the people be far behind? What can we expect from the new Obama government? This is hard to predict but we do know that our chances are hugely better with the end of the George W. Bush era. Bush's administration will continue to practice damage control for the economy, bailing out banks and maybe car companies, but without a coherent overall plan or convincing explanations of what they are doing. For now, the bailout is being extended to whoever has political clout. Some corporations are even buying small banks so they can list themselves as financial institutions in hopes of staking a position at the cash trough. But even proponents are already questioning the Troubled Assets Act. Preliminary loans of hundreds of billions to the financial institutions have not resulted in a resurgence of loans. Even if the banks regain a level of confidence that will allow interbank lending, will consumers jump again at the opportunity to speculate in consumer and housing goods? This is highly unlikely. The early years of the Great Depression were a time of experimentation, and this period will likely be no different. We can expect little reassurance from the government for at least some months. And any effort they make will be risky. A core strategy of simply printing more electronic dollars to send either to banks or underwater mortgage holders or car companies merely patches a system that has been torpedoed and is rapidly taking on water. The necessary steps for any and all of us are to understand and deal with the reality of what is happening. Hard times are coming. We are beginning a grieving process for a way of life that is passing. Many are now still at the first stage -- denial. Watching the Dow Jones Industrial Average and (for the better off) checking our 401 K programs will make believers of us all. The second stage -- anger -- is probably predominant now, with the targets being banks, appraisers and government home-lending agencies. The third phase -- bargaining -- is probably best illustrated by the huge number of bailout scenarios. "Give us a few paltry billions and we will create a corporate miracle!" The fourth stage -- depression -- is a loaded term, since it can describe either a difficult emotional state or the long-term pain of an extended economic disaster. Hardly anyone who is paying attention is fully free from emotional depression as they see an economic depression coming. Unfortunately either kind of depression can last for many years. The fifth and final state is acceptance -- facing our losses and moving on, focusing our efforts more positively again, and setting appropriate new goals. Many people working on Peak Oil and climate change, local organic farming, and home weatherization are in this stage. They are as yet small in numbers but strong in effect. They form the beginning of a larger grassroots movement which will be vital to a successful transition. We cannot afford to wait for a miracle from Washington. One of the most important reasons that Cuba survived their economic hell (caused by the cutoff of oil exports from Russia) was that the government informed the people that it did not know what to do. Instead, the government enlisted the people in solving the problem. And in many cases the government itself learned from innovative local efforts and helped most by disseminating those efforts around the island. Could things get so bad here that we might even listen to ideas from a socialist nation? Our very recent efforts of socialization of corporations and banks may make us more open to this possibility. Curtailment has arrived -- it did not wait for an invitation. Circumstances and our own greed for goods have brought it to us. Five years of talking about peak oil and climate change combined with the huge decline of housing and stock values over the last two years (possibly precipitated by crude oil prices, as some economists claim) have brought not only America but all nations to an understanding that massive change is in the offing. The continuing failure of techno-fixes to provide any really substantial help in these years has not been overlooked by the public. As a people, we will continue to drill (Plan A) and to build windmills and solar panels (Plan B). But in our hearts we know this will not be enough. The crises have been coming too fast and the scientists have been too Pollyannaish about new technology to have kept our trust. Plan C has won by default. Unpopular and painful though it may be, it is the only game in town for long term adaptation. The current system is rotten; its financial benefits have accrued to the few who are rich, and its huge negative externalities to the multitudes of the middle class and poor. Justice calls for a change. In the meantime the market, which sums up the views of hundreds of millions of people, has spoken. It has told us (or maybe we are telling ourselves), "The party is over." Today's market reflects a reality that people are beginning to experience and understand. People are "hunkering down." They no longer trust their financial leaders. The task is damage control, not expansion. Our job is no longer to determine rationales and schemes to avoid the difficulties but rather to develop strategies and tactics for managing them. This is what the changing market now demands.

Post-Oil Cities

Sesion abierta de trabajo para diseñar el JUEGO de POST-OIL CITIES

Participa en la sesión abierta de trabajo para diseñar el JUEGO de POST-OIL CITIES! POCJoc es un juego de estrategia para concienciarnos de manera lúdica de los retos a los que se enfrentan nuestras ciudades y pueblos ante un cambio de paradigma energético. Trabajaremos en el diseño de un Juego de Mesa y de un Juego en Red. El viernes 22 de enero d'11 a 20h. estaremos trabajando en el estudio de Straddle3 en la /c Riereta, 32 1er 3era de Barcelona. Estáis todos invitados a participar y a compartir esta jornada de trabajo! EL PROGRAMA 11-14h. Dinámicas de juego: Jugaremos y analizaremos otros juegos como el Catan, el Carcassonne o el Modularq (el juego de construcción sostenible ideado por Straddle3) 14-16h. Comida 16-20h. Diseño del POCJoc: Trabajaremos en el al ideació y el diseño del juego: dinámica de juego, objetivos, reglas, diseño… Os esperamos a todos! Se ruega confirmar asistencia enviando un correo a coordinacio (arroba) hibrids.net

Taula Rodona POST-OIL CITIES_Girona

WORKSHOP POC ON-LINE

Objetivo del taller El objetivo de este taller es analizar y proponer intervenciones para independizar del petróleo tu ciudad ante los retos del Peak Oil y del Cambio Climático. Presentación Casi la totalidad de las actividades de nuestra sociedad contemporánea dependen directa o indirectamente del petróleo; una sustancia que se usa no tan sólo para generar energía - que utilizamos mayoritariamente en el transporte-, sino que también se utiliza para la producción de alimentos (fertilizantes, pesticidas…) ropa, tintes, plásticos, barnices, jabones, cremas… El petróleo ha modelado en menos de un siglo la sociedad y las ciudades tal y como las conocemos hoy en día, con todos sus adelantos y crecimiento, pero a la vez con todas sus carencias y sobre todo con las consecuencias derivadas: sobre-explotación del planeta, contaminación, cambio climático… Depender tanto de una sola materia provoca una enorme vulnerabilidad y más si esta materia es no-renovable, o sea hay una cantidad finita que en algún momento se acabará -estancándose la producción primero y después cayendo, lo que se conoce como Peak Oil (Pico del petróleo). Nuestras ciudades actuales han crecido se han diseñado y se organizan a partir de patrones de funcionamiento basados en el uso y la disponibilidad del petróleo barato pero sabemos que esto debe cambiar en los próximos años. Porqué no empezar hoy a pensar y planificar nuestras ciudades más allá del petróleo? Modalidad Curso on-line. Programa del taller El curso cuenta con 4 módulos: Módulo I - INTRODUCCIÓN AL TEMA Y ANÁLISIS DEL CONTEXTO ACTUAL Módulo II - ESCENARIOS DE FUTURO Módulo III - PROPUESTAS DE ACTUACIÓN Módulo IV - REPRESENTACIÓN GRÁFICA Y PRESENTACIÓN DE LAS PROPUESTAS FINALES Autores del curso Daniel Gomez - ASPO - www.aspo-spain.org Lluís Sabadell Artiga - www.postoilcities.org Carlos Sant’Ana - S’A Arquitectos - www.sa-arquitectos.com Ecosistema Urbano - www.ecosistemaurbano.com David Juárez - Straddle3 - www.straddle3.net Laura Cantarella - www.lauracantarella.it Bea Ramo - Star Strategies + Architecture - www.s-t-a-r.nl Fechas y duración Modalidad 1 - Del 9 al 23 de diciembre de 2009 Horas lectivas: 34 horas Duración: 14 días Modalidad 2 (Intensivo libre) - A escoger entre el 9 y el 23 de diciembre de 2009 Horas lectivas: 34 horas Duración: Mínimo 7 días Fechas: a escoger entre el 9 y el 23 de diciembre (la fecha de inicio máxima será el 17 de diciembre y la fecha de finalización máxima será el 23 de diciembre) Esto quiere decir que las unidades didácticas serán las mismas para ambos cursos pero los alumnos de la modalidad 2 podrán empezar el curso en cualquier momento (como muy tarde el 17 de diciembre) y finalizarlo en cualquier momento (siempre antes del 23 de diciembre). Trabajo final El trabajo final consistirá en un proyecto concreto que ayude a independizar tu ciudad del petróleo que puede incluir diversas escalas de actuación: objeto, arquitectura, urbanismo, individual, colectiva social… A quién va dirigido Arquitectos, urbanistas, diseñadores, ingenieros, artistas, biólogos y a cualquier persona interesada a investigar como independizar las ciudades del petróleo. Metodología de trabajo Los alumnos gozarán de un seguimiento personalizado por parte de un tutor. Habrá un tutor por cada 20 alumnos además de contar con los comentarios de los tutores adjuntos (Daniel Gomez, Carlos Sant’Ana, Ecosistema Urbano, David Juárez, Laura Cantarella y Bea Ramo). Cada alumno individualmente o en grupos de dos personas realizarán un proyecto propio. Idiomas Las unidades didácticas están editadas en castellano y catalán y las tutorías se podrán realizar independientemente en castellano, catalán o inglés. Necesidades técnicas Disponer de un ordenador con conexión de alta velocidad. Preferiblemente: altavoces o auriculares y micrófono. Cuenta en Skype (para realizar los chats y las conversaciones VOIP - Gratuitas entre usuarios Skype) Inscripciones Modalidad 1 - Antes del 9 de diciembre de 2009 Modalidad 2 (Intensiva Libre)- Antes del 17 de diciembre de 2009 Plazas limitadas. Las plazas se otorgarán por estricto orden de inscripción. Para inscribirse hay que enviar un correo electrónico con el asunto “inscripción worshop POC on-line” a coordinacio@hibrids.net con los siguientes datos: -Nombre y apellidos -Fecha de nacimiento -Estudios/Formación -Dirección -País -Idioma de preferencia para realizar el curso (Castellano, Catalán, Inglés) -Email -Cuenta skype (si dispones de ella) -Breve escrito (max. 10 líneas) sobre porqué te interesa inscribirte en este taller y cuales son tus intereses sobre este tema. -¿Cómo nos has conocido? -Si NO deseas que te incluyamos en nuestra newsletter especifícalo. -Si solicitas descuento especifica cual y adjunta el documento acreditativo escaneado. -Si solicitas beca, adjunta el escrito explicando los motivos por los cuales crees ser merecedor de la beca y la cantidad que puedes pagar. Atención!: Las inscripciones no se harán efectivas hasta que se reciba la confirmación del pago de la matrícula. Precio El precio del taller es de 100€. Becas y descuentos 85€ parados y estudiantes. Se ofrecen becas de entre un 20% y un 90% sobre el precio del curso. Si deseas solicitar una beca, antes de realizar el pago deberás enviarnos un escrito explicando los motivos por los cuales crees ser merecedor de la beca y la cantidad que puedes pagar y te confirmaremos su aceptación por mail en breve. A cambio deberás comprometerte a publicar en el blog de Post-Oil Cities entre 5 y 10 artículos (dependiendo del importe del descuento) relacionados con la temática del proyecto. Forma de Pago Mediante transferencia bancaria al número de cuenta: 2030 0042 88 3300030706 (Caixa de Girona) MUY IMPORTANTE! Indicar en el concepto el Nombre del curso + nombre y apellidos. O bien mediante Paypal: Publicación Todos los trabajos se publicarán en la página de www.postoilcities.org y una selección de los mejores se presentará en la exposición itinerante Post-Oil CIties. Los proyectos publicados en la web www.postoilcities.org estarán bajo licencia Creative Commons (Atribución - Share Alike - No Comercial) si no se especifica lo contrario por parte de los participantes.

Workshop GIRONA_Escenaris de Futur

WORKSHOP POST-OIL CITIES: Girona_Escenaris de Futur L’objectiu d’aquest taller és analitzar i proposar intervencions per a la independització del petroli de la ciutat de Girona i la seva àrea d’influència davant dels reptes del Peak Oil i del Canvi Climàtic. Es desenvoluparan entre 4 i 8 escenaris de futur per Girona on seran processades i creuades informacions locals i globals. L’objectiu és trobar una llista de 100 accions positives que donin resposta a possibles situacions futures en el context de la ciutat de Girona i la seva àrea d’influència. A càrrec de Straddle3 straddle3.net Arquitectes, (Barcelona) Lluís Sabadell Artiga www.postoilcities.org Artista i comissari, Post-Oil Cities (Girona) Programa 14-16 de Desembre Documentació prèvia. Els participants hauran de llegir i visionar la documentació prèvia que se’ls facilitarà abans de l’inici del taller. 17 de Desembre 16 a 20h. Conferències obertes al públic. 18 i 19 de Desembre 9 a 14 i de 16 a 21h. Workshop A qui va dirigit Arquitectes, urbanistes, dissenyadors, enginyers, artistes, biòlegs i a qualsevol persona interessada en investigar com independitzar les nostres ciutats del petroli. Lloc Centre Cultural La Mercè Pujada de la Mercè, 12 - 17004 Girona Inscripcions Places limitades - Inscripcions gratuïtes fins el dilluns 14 de desembre Enviar un correu a direccio@hibrids.net amb l’assumpte “Inscripció Taller POC-Girona” amb les següents dades: Nom, Cognoms, Data de naixement, Estudis/Formació, Email i Telèfon de contacte. Més informació a www.postoilcities.org o bé truqueu al t. 661 79 27 50 Workshop POST-OIL CITIES: Girona View more documents from Hibrids.

POC EXHIBITION AT GIRONA

Inauguració de l’exposició a la Sala La Cova de la Demarcació de Girona del CoAC, el dilluns 23 de novembre a les 20h. Sala La Cova - Demarcació de Girona del CoAC Pia Almoina - Plaça catedral, 8 - 17004 Girona Telf: 972412896

Culture Change

Plastics Keep Coming after You: a Comprehensive Report and a Call to Action

"Coming after You" means both your legacy of non-biodegradable plastics and that they are out to kill you. Now that the hilarious double entendre is out of the way, we can go on to our patient heroines. The nurturing, brave journalists about to be presented are patient as heroines and they succor untold numbers of unknown patients suffering from plastic-caused diseases. For you hardy men who may not care about this girly-men stuff, and pride yourselves in being out to have a good time, keep in mind that erectile dysfunction is on the rise thanks to plastics.

Sailing away from Lotsageddon

My lovely little sailboat just completed a most unusual catastrophe trifecta: she and I have now ridden out an earthquake in San Francisco, a multitude of hurricanes in Key West and a nasty flood in Panama. During the hurricanes my land-dweller friends ridiculed me exuberantly for staying aboard. But then enormous trees fell on their apartments. And when a devastating tidal surge destroyed their ground floor belongings, while my sloop just floated above it, they gained a reinvigorated appreciation for my “stubborn stupidity.”

Is "More Jobs" Sustainable or Necessary in the Post-Peak Oil World?

What was required for a growing economy, that was supposed to uplift all of modern humanity, is at root a false notion for the manipulated public: the overwhelming majority must work for others to enrich the few so that all of society benefits through unlimited expansion. This problematic profit-scheme is failing to hold up, what with general economic uncertainty on the rise (apart from “Hope”) and the advanced depletion of easily extracted, cheap oil.

The Century of Famine

Humanity has struggled to survive through the millennia in terms of balancing population size with food supply. The same is true now, but population numbers have been soaring for over a century. The limiting factor has been hidden, but this factor -- oil and natural gas, or petroleum -- is close to or beyond its peak extraction. Without ample, free-flowing petroleum, it will not be possible to support a population of several billion for long.

Social and Individual Breakdown: Pent up toward Collapse

The U.S. appears to be breaking down on all levels, probably taking the rest of the modern world with it. Noticing this helps us understand the hopelessness of our intrinsically flawed system. Also, recognizing breakdown is helpful for seeing impending collapse in a new light. Breakdown should be seen in such a way to realize that order is becoming an illusion. Breakdown is preceding and adding to future collapse. Simultaneously there are myriad magnificent yet small-scale efforts to improve people's lives and the health of our Earth.

DeGrowth

Baptiste Mylondo

THEMES DE RECHERCHE Revenu inconditionnel et systèmes de redistribution Sociologie du travail Économie solidaire et consommation engagée PUBLICATIONS Ouvrages : Ne pas perdre sa vie à la gagner. Pour un revenu de citoyenneté, Paris, Homnisphères, mars 2008. Des caddies et des hommes. La consommation citoyenne contre la société de consommation, Paris, La Dispute, octobre 2005. Ouvrages collectifs dirigés : La décroissance économique. Pour la soutenabilité écologique et l'équité sociale, (dir.), Bellecombe-en-Bauges, Le Croquant, octobre 2009. Pour une politique de décroissance, (dir.), Lyon, Golias, octobre 2007. Articles dans des ouvrages collectifs : « Peut-on être payé à ne rien faire ? », dans Paul Ariès (dir.), Viv(r)e la gratuité. Une issue au capitalisme vert, Lyon, Golias, mai 2009. « Travailler moins, trois fois moins ! », dans Jean-Pierre GELARD (dir.), Travailler plus, travailler moins, travailler autrement, Rennes, Presses Universitaires de Rennes, mars 2007. Articles et tribunes : « Imbécile valeur travail ! », dans Politis du 27 août 2009. « Le salaire du labeur. Souffrance au travail et consolation consumériste », sur Mouvements.info, mai 2009. « Revenu d'existence : ni pauvres ni soumis ? », dans Silence !, mars 2009. « Face à la crise, peut-on payer les gens à ne rien faire ? », dans Le Sarkophage, janvier 2009. « La chasse aux fraudeurs », dans Le Sarkophage, mai 2008. « Le revenu de citoyenneté peut-il être suffisant ? », sur Revue du Mauss Permanente, décembre 2007. « Le RMI est mort, vive le RMI ! », dans Le Sarkophage, octobre 2007. « Contrôle de productivité. La travail comme instrument de contrôle social », dans Silence !, juin 2007. « Travailler ni plus, ni moins, bien au contraire ! », dans L'Humanité du 14 avril 2007. « Revenu maximum autorisé ou revenu inconditionnel de citoyenneté », sur decroissance.info, février 2007. « Consommer moins pour travailler moins », dans L'Humanité du 28 décembre 2005. EXPERIENCE PROFESSIONNELLE 2009 : Chargé de cours d'économie à L'ITECH et l'ECAM de Lyon 2004 - 2008 : Créateur et animateur de la Société Coopérative d'Intérêt Collectif Alter-Conso, système de distribution de produits agricoles locaux en circuit court sur l'agglomération lyonnaise.

Local organizing committee

Local organizing committee (preliminary) Joan Martinez-Alier, François Schneider, Giorgos Kallis, Mario Giampietro. Amalia Cardenas, Beatriz Labajos, Christian Kerschner, Claudio Cattaneo, Christo Zografos, Cristina Madrid, Elisabeth Gsottbauer, Federico Demaria, Filka Sekulova, Giorgio Mosangini, Leah Temper, Mariana Walter, Marta Condé, Monica Vargas.

Barcelona Degrowth conference

2nd international Conference on 26-29 March 2010, Barcelona, Spain http://www.degrowth.net/-barcelona2010-

Llamado en Castillano/Espanol

DECRECIMIENTO ECONÓMICO HOY Llamado para la Segunda Conferencia Internacional sobre Decrecimiento ICTA, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona y Research & Degrowth Barcelona, del 26 al 29 de Marzo de 2010 Este es un llamado a la presentación de trabajos para la 2da Conferencia Internacional sobre decrecimiento económico socialmente sostenible que busca vincular perspectivas económicas, ambientales y sociales, con énfasis en políticas prácticas y propuestas concretas. Hace 30 años, Nicholas Georgescu-Roegen publicó un libro en francés (editado por Jacques Grinevald e Ivo Rens) con el título “Demain la Décroissance” (Mañana el decrecimiento) (1979). Nosotros proponemos: “Aujourd'hui la Décroissance” (Decrecimiento hoy). El decrecimiento económico puede ser bueno para el ambiente pero debe ser socialmente sostenible. La 2da Conferencia Internacional de decrecimiento económico para la sostenibilidad ecológica y la equidad social es la continuación de la primera Conferencia Internacional (Paris, abril del 2008, http://events.it-sudparis.eu/degrowthconference/en/) que contó con el apoyo de la Sociedad Europea de Economía Ecológica, el Club de Roma (Bruselas), Telecom Sud-Paris y el SERI (Instituto de Investigaciones Europa Sostenible). En el evento 90 científicos presentaron sus trabajos y se convocaron hasta unos 150 participantes. La 2da conferencia desarrollará propuestas políticas claras, estrategias de acción para el decrecimiento y buscará delinear las preguntas claves y la agenda de investigación. La conferencia promoverá la interacción entre los participantes y pondrá énfasis en el desarrollo de investigación cooperativa. Esta conferencia seguirá un novedoso formato. Incluirá presentaciones plenarias de especialistas invitados y mesas redondas de reconocidos académicos del decrecimiento. Pero estaráprincipalmente organizada en base a la presentación de trabajos en sesiones de pósters y talleres participativos. Comité organizador local: Joan Martinez-Alier, François Schneider, Mario Giampietro, Giorgos Kallis, Marta Conde Llamado a abstracts (y papers) Un resumen de 400 palabras debe ser enviado al correo electrónico: barcelona2010@degrowth.net antes del 30 de noviembre del 2009. Los resumenes seleccionados permitirán presentar un póster durante la conferencia y los artículos serán incluidos en las actas de la Conferencia. Entre los artículos presentados algunos serán seleccionados para ser publicados en una revista científica internacional. El decrecimiento debe aparecer de manera explícita en el trabajo. No debe limitarse a un análisis de la situación actual, y debe estudiar y proponer acciones y transformaciones necesarias. El trabajo debe reconocer la equidad social y la sostenibilidad ecológica como objetivos clave en el marco de la democracia y los derechos humanos. Talleres participativos Se organizarán una serie de reuniones participativas sobre “políticas y acción” y “prioridades de investigación”. La discusión se basará en documentos de internet y artículos introductorios propuestos, a pedido de los organizadores del evento, por selectos investigadores y activistas del decrecimiento. Los materiales serán discutidos en talleres participativos y asambleas plenarias. El objetivo es delinear propuestas concretas de políticas y acción y una agenda de investigación en decrecimiento. Si piensa que puede tomar la iniciativa y preparar un documento introductorio para los talleres sobre políticas y acción o agenda de investigación, contáctese con los organizadores enviando una breve presentación de sus conocimientos en el tema y trabajos recientes. Participación y Costos Se cobrará una tasa de 150 euros a todos los participantes para cubrir parte de los costos de organización y publicación de la conferencia. Esta tarifa está muy por debajo de los usuales costos de inscripción de conferencias internacionales dado que se busca promover una amplia participación. Activistas, participantes del sud o estudiantes sin beca u otras fuentes de ingreso están exentos del cargo. Si usted tiene razones para no pagar la tasa póngase en contacto con los organizadores ya que puede usted colaborar con la organización y participar de forma gratuita en la conferencia. Correo electrónico de contacto: Barcelona2010@degrowth.net

Texte en français

!Attention changement de date! La conférence se déroulera du Vendredi 26 mars au Lundi 29 mars 2010. AUJOURD'HUI LA DECROISSANCE Appel à contribution pour la seconde conférence internationale sur la décroissance économique socialement soutenable ICTA, Université Autonome de Barcelone, et Recherche & Décroissance Barcelone, 26-29 mars 2010 Ceci est un appel pour une seconde conférence sur la décroissance économique socialement soutenable, liant les perspectives économiques, environnementales et sociales et dont le but est de développer des propositions politiques et actions concrètes. Il y a trente ans, Nicholas Georgescu-Roegen a publié un livre en Français (édité par Jacques Grinevald et Ivo Rens) dont le titre est “Demain la Décroissance” (1979). Nous disons maintenant: “Aujourd'hui la Décroissance”. La décroissance économique peut être bénéfique pour l'environnement mais elle doit être socialement soutenable. La seconde conférence internationale sur la décroissance économique pour la soutenabilité écologique et l'équité sociale suit la première conférence internationale (Paris, avril 2008, http://events.it-sudparis.eu/degrowthconference/), qui eu lieu avec le soutien de la Société Européenne pour l'Economie Ecologique (ESEE), le Club de Rome (Bruxelles/Europe), Telecom Sud-Paris et le SERI (Institut de Recherche pour une Europe Soutenable) et a été suivie par 150 participants et impliqué les présentations d'environ 90 scientifiques. La seconde conférence internationale développera des propositions politiques claires et des stratégies d'action dans le cadre de la décroissance. En outre elle identifiera les questions clés non résolues ainsi qu'un programme de recherche. La conférence privilégiera l'interaction entre les participants et mettra l'accent sur le développement de recherche coopérative. Comité d'organisation local: Joan Martinez-Alier, François Schneider, Mario Giampietro, Giorgos Kallis. La conférence suivra une structure nouvelle. Elle inclura des tables rondes et des présentations par différents chercheurs renommés. Mais la conférence sera principalement basée sur des présentations de travaux par posters et publications, et sur des ateliers participatifs. Appel à contributions Nous invitons à soumettre un résumé de 400 mots à envoyer à barcelona2010@degrowth.net avant le 30 novembre 2009. Les résumés sélectionnés permettent de présenter un poster lors de la conférence et de soumettre un article dans les actes de la conférence. Ateliers participatifs Des propositions de fond de 4 pages (« les steering papers ») commandés par les organisateurs sont discutés en groupe de travail et présentés en assemblée. L'objectif est d'aboutir à des propositions politiques et d'actions concrètes ainsi qu'à un programme de recherche pour la décroissance. Participation et frais Une participation de 150 euros est envisagée pour tous les participants afin de couvrir une partie des frais d'organisation de la conférence. Ces frais sont réduits en comparaison à d'autres conférences internationales pour encourager une large participation. Les étudiants, les participants du sud et les membres d'organisations non gouvernementales sans source de revenus bénéficient de frais d'inscription réduits. Si vous ne pouvez pas payer les frais d'inscription, nous vous proposons de faire partie de l'équipe de volontaires pour organiser la conférence. La conférence sera principalement en langue anglaise mais nous organiserons des traductions en Français et Espagnol en assemblée et pour certains ateliers. Contact Email: Barcelona2010@degrowth.net

The Archdruid Report

Barbarism and Good Brandy

A taste for irony is a useful habit to cultivate if you happen to write about energy issues in the declining years of a civilization defined by its extravagant use of energy, on the one hand, and the dubious logic it uses to justify that extravagance on the other. One of the things you can count on, if that description fits you, is that any time you discuss one of the fallacies that has helped back that civilization into a corner, plenty of readers will respond with comments that demonstrate the fallacy in question more clearly than any of your examples could have done.Last week's Archdruid Report post was no exception to that rule. Regular readers will recall that it focused on the difference between the quantity of energy in an energy source and the concentration of energy in that energy source, and pointed out that the latter, not the former, determines the exergy in the source -- that is, the amount of work that the energy source is able to perform. True to form, I fielded a flurry of comments that took issue with this, or with the conclusions I drew from it, on the grounds that I wasn't paying enough attention to the quantity of energy in some favorite energy source.The example I'd like to highlight here is far from the worst I received. Quite the contrary; it's precisely because it's a thoughtful response from an equally thoughtful reader that it makes a good starting point for this week's discussion. The reader in question pointed out that the photons that reach the Earth from the Sun each contain exactly as much energy as they did when they left the solar atmosphere, and argued on that basis that a point I made about the exergy of solar power was at least open to question.He's quite right about the photons, of course. The energy contained in a photon is defined by its frequency, and that remains pretty much the same (barring a bit of gravitational redshifting) from the moment it spins out of the thermonuclear maelstrom of the Sun until the moment eight minutes later when it arrives on earth and gets absorbed by a green leaf, let's say, or the absorbent surface in a solar water heater. Once again, though, that's a matter of the quantity of energy, not the concentration. The concentration, in this case, is determined by the rate at which photons impact the leaf or the solar panel; that depends on how widely spread the photons are, and that depends, in turn, on how far the leaf and the panel are from the Sun.Think of it this way. The individual photons that heat the planet Mercury each contain, on average, the same quantity of energy as the individual photons that heat the planet Neptune. Is Neptune as warm as Mercury? Not hardly, and the reason is that by the time they get out to the orbit of Neptune, the Sun's rays are spread out over a much vaster area, so each square foot of Neptune gets a lot fewer photons than a corresponding square foot of Mercury. The photons are less concentrated in space, and that, not the quantity of energy they each contain, determines how much of the hard work of heating a planet they are able to do. There are stars in the night sky that produce photons far more energetic, on average, than those released by the Sun, but you're not going to get a star tan from their light!This may seem like an obvious point. Still, it deserves restatement, because so many contemporary plans for using solar energy ignore it, fixating on the raw quantity of solar energy that reaches the Earth rather than the very modest concentration of that energy. A habit of comforting abstraction feeds that sort of thinking. It's easy to insist, for example, that the quantity of solar energy falling annually on some fairly small fraction of the state of Nevada, let's say, is equal to the quantity of energy that the US uses as electricity each year, and to jump from there to insist that if we just cover a hundred square miles of Nevada with mirrors, so all that sunlight can be used to generate steam, we'll be fine. What gets misplaced in appealing fantasies of this sort? Broadly speaking, three things.The first is that familiar nemesis of renewable energy schemes, the problem of net energy. It would take a pretty substantial amount of highly concentrated energy to build that hundred square mile array of mirrors, counting the energy needed to manufacture the mirrors, the tracking assemblies, the pipes, the steam turbines, and all the other hardware, as well as the energy needed to produce the raw materials that go into them -- no small amount, that latter. It would take another very substantial amount of concentrated energy, regularly supplied, to keep it in good working order amid the dust, sandstorms, and extreme temperatures of the Nevada desert; and if the amount of energy produced by the scheme comes anywhere close to what's theoretically possible, that would probably be the only time in history this has ever occurred with a very new, very large, and very experimental technological project. Subtract the energy cost to build and run the plant from the energy you could reasonably (as opposed to theoretically) expect to get out of it, and the results will inevitably be a good deal less impressive than they look on paper.The second is another equally common nemesis of renewable energy schemes, the economic dimension. Plenty of renewables advocates say, in effect, that people want electricity, and a hundred square miles of mirrors in Nevada will provide it, so what are we waiting for? This sort of thinking is extremely common, of course; mention that any popular technology you care to name might not be economically viable in a future of energy and resource constraints, and you're sure to hear plenty of arguments that it has to be economically feasible because, basically, it's so nifty. There's a reason for that -- it's the sort of thinking that works in an age of abundance, the kind of age that's coming to an end around us right now.The end of that age, though, makes such thinking a hopeless anachronism. In an age of energy and resources constraints, any proposed use of energy and resources must compete against all other existing and potential uses for a supply that isn't adequate to meet them all. Market forces and political decisions both play a part in the resulting process of triage. If investing billions of dollars (and, more importantly, the equivalent amounts of energy and resources) in mirrors in the Nevada desert doesn't produce as high an economic return as other uses of the same money, energy, and resources, the mirrors are going to draw the short end of the stick. Political decisions can override that calculus to some extent, but impose an equivalent requirement: if investing that money, energy, and resources in mirrors doesn't produce as high a political payoff as other uses of the same things, once again, the fact that the mirrors might theoretically allow America's middle classes to maintain some semblance of their current lifestyle is not going to matter two photons in a Nevada sandstorm.Still, the problems with net energy and economic triage both ultimately rest on thermodynamic issues, because the exergy available from solar energy simply isn't that high. It takes a lot of hardware to concentrate the relatively mild heat the Earth gets from the Sun to the point that you can do more than a few things with it, and that hardware entails costs in terms of net energy as well as economics. It's not often remembered that big solar power schemes, of the sort now being proposed, were repeatedly tried from the late 19th century on, and just as repeatedly turned out to be economic duds. Consider the solar engine devised and marketed by American engineer Frank Shuman in the first decades of the 20th century. The best solar engine of the time, and still the basis of a good many standard designs, it was an extremely efficient device that focused sunlight via parabolic troughs onto water-filled pipes that drove an innovative low-pressure steam engine. Shuman's trial project in Meadi, Egypt, used five parabolic troughs 204 feet long and 13 feet wide. The energy produced by this very sizable and expensive array? All of 55 horsepower. Modern technology could do better, doubtless, but not much better, given the law of diminishing returns that affects all movements in the direction of efficiency, and most likely not enough better to matter.Does this mean that solar energy is useless? Not at all. What it means is that a relatively low-exergy source of energy, such as sunlight, can't simply be used to replace a relatively high-exergy source such as coal. That's what Shuman was trying to do; like most of the solar pioneers of his time, he'd done the math, realized that fossil fuels would run out in the not infinitely distant fut