News When will the world reach peak fossil fuel production?

[apeiron]

Can't fear and NIMBY, mixed with our electoral process and strong existing energy lobbies explain it well enough? I think I'll choose "a", but with the addition that the people and the government are, as the Egyptians have been saying so eloquently, "One hand". NIMBY comes from the public, not from the top.

He's back!

Nimby is of course an issue. On the other hand, when governments really want to do things, they can manipulate public opinion. The US problem is probably that the government wanted to leave it to the free markets and it does in fact require a state-level commitment.

India wants to/must go nuclear in a big way. China and Korea are eyeing up the market leadership position. So the "moonshot" effort may well come from the East if anywhere.

 

[nismaratwork]

He's back!

Nimby is of course an issue. On the other hand, when governments really want to do things, they can manipulate public opinion. The US problem is probably that the government wanted to leave it to the free markets and it does in fact require a state-level commitment.

India wants to/must go nuclear in a big way. China and Korea are eyeing up the market leadership position. So the "moonshot" effort may well come from the East if anywhere.

True on all counts, and it seems like just another industry we're ceding for no good reason. Still, for humanity at large, it has to come from SOMEWHERE.

 

[Al68]

...My starting question on nuclear is, if it is so cheap and clean, how come countries are not already doing it?...

Who said nuclear power was cheap? Still not understand my comments? The fuel is cheap. Building and operating the plant is expensive.

And countries are already doing it, despite the high initial cost of building a nuclear power plant. And the fact that the fuel is cheap, plentiful, and very, very efficient relative to burning fossil fuels provides an incentive to continue building them, since improved efficiency, technology, efficiency of scale, and innovation can potentially drastically reduce that cost over time. After all, we are talking about a technology in its infancy.

And it should be pointed out that the above claim that nuclear power is inherently "very, very efficient relative to burning fossil fuels" is a monstrous understatement.

 

[apeiron]

Still not understand my comments?

It was the relevance that was in question.

You could argue wind is cheap too. In fact it cost nothing does it? And it will never run out. However obviously we still have to go a little futher to talk meaningfully about it as a substitute cheap energy.

 

[mheslep]

One authorative figure in the peak oil debate is Robert Hirsch, ...

Well informed, knowledgeable maybe. Not authoritative, especially not on matters of economics. The fact that Hirsch, who still keeps a working http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inertial_electrostatic_confinement" fusion reactor on his desk that he famously co-invented, attempts to go beyond his field and declaim on worldwide economic predictions discredits him in my view.Edit:
I see http://www.authorstream.com/Presentation/Nivedi-61110-ASPO2005-Hirsch-PEAKING-WORLD-OIL-PRODUCTION-IMPACTS-MITIGATION-RISK-MANAGEMENT-PRESENTATION-PROBLEM-CON-Business-Finance-ppt-powerpoint/" which says in part (slide 5):

Experts overestimated North American natural gas reserves and future production as late as 2001
...
US natural gas production is now flat and in decline
If wrong on natural gas what's the risk on oil?

Then when I go to check actual US production figures I see http://www.eia.doe.gov/dnav/ng/hist/n9050us1m.htm" , with US production up nearly 400 billion cf since 2005, and leaves me thinking Hirsch is prone to unsupported, if not crackpot, assertions on at least this subject.

 

[mheslep]

Who said nuclear power was cheap? Still not understand my comments? The fuel is cheap. Building and operating the plant is expensive.

Apparently even nuclear construction can be done relatively inexpensively, even if it is not currently inexpensive in the West.
https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2115378&postcount=115

 

[apeiron]

Well informed, knowledgeable maybe. Not authoritative, especially not on matters of economics.

You may not have noticed that he has two co-authors...both economists. And economists specialising in energy issues.

Roger H. Bezdek is president of Management Information Services, an economic-research firm. He received his Ph.D. in economics from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign in 1971 and has worked in academia and for the federal government.

Robert M. Wendling is vice president of Management Information Services. He received a master’s degree in economics from George Washington University in 1977. He has served as senior economist at the U.S. Department of Commerce, program manager at the U.S. Department of Energy and director of the Department of Commerce's STAT-USA office

 

[apeiron]

with US production up nearly 400 billion cf since 2005, and leaves me thinking Hirsch is prone to unsupported, if not crackpot, assertions on at least this subject.

I think your quotes are rather selective and out of context here. Are you saying that in 2005, production was not in decline? Or that in 2001, reserves weren't being over-estimated?

Of course, if you can show sources where Hirsh was calling 2005 already the US peak in natural gas production, then that might have something. But so far you haven't.

In the meantime here is a good assessment of the actual picture on natural gas...being more than a single slide of bullet points easily taken out of context, at least there is something concrete here you can now attack.

http://oilprice.com/Energy/Natural-Gas/Dont-Count-on-Natural-Gas-to-Solve-US-Energy-Problems.html

In summary, a review of information related to US natural gas production (and in particular shale gas production) does not give much confidence that it can ramp up by more than a small percentage over the next 25 years. Even if it can, there is a chance that global warming gases associated with shale gas will suddenly become an EPA concern, and production will need to be scaled back.

There is little evidence that shale gas producers can make money at current low prices. At higher price levels, coal becomes a cheaper alternative, and substitution becomes more difficult. Coal and petroleum consumption is so large in relationship to natural gas consumption that trying to ramp up natural gas to replace more than a very small percentage of these fuels would seem to be impossible.

 

[Al68]

It was the relevance that was in question.

How so? My comments were in response to a claim that a limited supply of uranium stands in the way of nuclear power being a good solution. My obvious point was that uranium supply is irrelevant to the cost of nuclear power. But I pointed that out already, so now I'm baffled as to why my comments were so difficult to understand.

You could argue wind is cheap too. In fact it cost nothing does it? And it will never run out.

Yes, and if someone claimed that wind power was expensive due to a limited supply of wind, my response would be similar to my comments in this thread.

 

[nismaratwork]

Well... wind does run out, just not on a human timescale. I think when our atmosphere is balsted away by an expanding sun, we can rest assured that wind will no longer be a factor.

Wind isn't magic, it's just very VERY plentiful... but not everywhere, not all of the time.

My view: we NEED nucelar power as a stop-gap until we can begin to add storage capcity to the power grid, and that's not coming soon it seems. I don't think giant building-sized liquid batteries count... there need to be storage in the grid, or we need to burn SOMETHING.

 

[Proton Soup]

can we not just dig down to the magma and steal heat stored in the earth? i mean, how many eons would it last before we shut down the magnetic shield?

 

[nismaratwork]

can we not just dig down to the magma and steal heat stored in the earth? i mean, how many eons would it last before we shut down the magnetic shield?

Heh... probably a very long time, but then it might be a poor idea to breach a magma chamber by accident, and WOW that equipment would need to be tough. Still, I get your point, and there are other ways to exploit the geomagnetic field... just not cost effective.

If you added storage to wind, solar, and even more exotic means... efficient and reusable capacitor, then suddenly it's not insane to do this. I don't mean one house with a battery, I mean long term serious storage, and a new infrastructure to transmit it.

 

[Proton Soup]

Heh... probably a very long time, but then it might be a poor idea to breach a magma chamber by accident, and WOW that equipment would need to be tough. Still, I get your point, and there are other ways to exploit the geomagnetic field... just not cost effective.

If you added storage to wind, solar, and even more exotic means... efficient and reusable capacitor, then suddenly it's not insane to do this. I don't mean one house with a battery, I mean long term serious storage, and a new infrastructure to transmit it.

capacitors that don't leak would be a blessing indeed. heck, i need to go look that up again. i was under the impression we had them lasting up to a few days already...

 

[nismaratwork]

capacitors that don't leak would be a blessing indeed. heck, i need to go look that up again. i was under the impression we had them lasting up to a few days already...

I believe so... I think it was MIT or Caltech (I always forget names) that made some real inroads into "supercapactiors" using various arrangements of carbon. It seems promising to me, but this is an area where my ignorance is profound.

Still, we need more than a few days, or we need a few days dirt cheap. Time... both will take time, and until then we have to consider whether it's coal, or clickclickclick. My preference is nuclear, because frankly with coal moving toward sequestering carbon... toxic waste is toxic waste. If we're going to deal with that, let's at least get our bang for our buck in a proven science.

 

[Al68]

My preference is nuclear, because frankly with coal moving toward sequestering carbon... toxic waste is toxic waste. If we're going to deal with that, let's at least get our bang for our buck in a proven science.

I agree with that, and would add that building and operating nuclear power plants has the added bonus of making us better at building and operating nuclear power plants.

Nuclear power has far greater potential than other energy sources. And currently operating commercial plants are far from representative of that potential.

As a single (but typical of the US Navy nuclear program) example, the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Dwight_D._Eisenhower_%28CVN-69%29" nuclear aircraft carrier was commissioned in 1977, designed and built with nuclear technology in its infancy, and went in for refueling for the first time in 2001, and with a reactor design that very, very safe, to say the least.

Of course commercial nuclear plants are necessarily hamstrung by national security concerns with enriched uranium, but to say there is much room for improvement in commercial nuclear plant technology is a monumental understatement.

 

[mugaliens]

Please post links to the valid sources that prove your statements to be facts.

This thread is bursting with valid sources, at least a third of 300 worth.

 

[mugaliens]

If the USA got back into the reprocessing business much more of the uranium/plutonium in the fuel rods could be "burnt" and make much more energy.

A little known fact in the industry is that most nuclear powered subs and surface ships in the US Navy are breeder reactors. I suspect the same is true of the Russian Navy.

 

[nismaratwork]

I agree with that, and would add that building and operating nuclear power plants has the added bonus of making us better at building and operating nuclear power plants.

Nuclear power has far greater potential than other energy sources. And currently operating commercial plants are far from representative of that potential.

As a single (but typical of the US Navy nuclear program) example, the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Dwight_D._Eisenhower_%28CVN-69%29" nuclear aircraft carrier was commissioned in 1977, designed and built with nuclear technology in its infancy, and went in for refueling for the first time in 2001, and with a reactor design that very, very safe, to say the least.

Of course commercial nuclear plants are necessarily hamstrung by national security concerns with enriched uranium, but to say there is much room for improvement in commercial nuclear plant technology is a monumental understatement.

In a rare fit of total kinship, I agree with literally everything you said. I would emphasize that it just seems mad to cede this potential ingenuity and skill in reactor design out of old fear.

mugaliens: Really? I had no idea. What are the benefits specific to a naval vessel in having a breeder?

 

[Al68]

In a rare fit of total kinship, I agree with literally everything you said. I would emphasize that it just seems mad to cede this potential ingenuity and skill in reactor design out of old fear.

I agree completely (one too many beers? ). Most people just have no idea how much difference there is between commercial nuclear plants and what nuclear power is capable of. I used the USS Eisenhower as an example because I'm a former crew member (Naval nuclear program, decades ago).

And that "ingenuity and skill in reactor design" was decades ago. Much has been learned since then. For example, new aircraft carrier http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Naval_reactor" cores are designed to last 50 years before refueling. Nuclear power with today's technology could easily power the world's electric demand for the foreseeable future. Very easily and very safely.

 

[nismaratwork]

I agree completely (one too many beers? ). Most people just have no idea how much difference there is between commercial nuclear plants and what nuclear power is capable of. I used the USS Eisenhower as an example because I'm a former crew member (Naval nuclear program, decades ago).

And that "ingenuity and skill in reactor design" was decades ago. Much has been learned since then. For example, new aircraft carrier http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Naval_reactor" cores are designed to last 50 years before refueling. Nuclear power with today's technology could easily power the world's electric demand for the foreseeable future. Very easily and very safely.

Yeah, it just drives me up the wall when I consider it. The Russians are still fiddling with old designs, but what if we'd been really funding our nuclear industry instead of paralyzing it? Maybe not, they'd be buying plants from us, and maybe given plant designs they'd have to buy fuel too!

It just seems like throwing away solid gold. I realize that mining for Uranium is not exactly green, but neither is coal. I see people here like Astronuc, and I just wish there had been more like him in the period when "green" became anti-nuclear. Truly, the gift of splitting the atom is harnessing that energy... the bombs are just a messy side-note... albeit one that could wipe us out. By focusing so much on nuclear weapons, I feel the public inextricably links memories of "nuclear" with "Nukes".

 

[Argentum Vulpes]

A little known fact in the industry is that most nuclear powered subs and surface ships in the US Navy are breeder reactors. I suspect the same is true of the Russian Navy.

I thought the long time between core refueling on US navy nuclear craft was from a highly enriched uranium load, not from breading.

For clarification I was referring to the civilian power side when it comes to reprocessing. The USA has a current mode of operation of once through loads on fuel. Heck even without reprocessing, just repacking, USA light water fuel could get an extended life going through a CANDU reactor. However thanks to anti nuc nuts that plan fell through.

 

[mugaliens]

Nuclear power with today's technology could easily power the world's electric demand for the foreseeable future. Very easily and very safely.

I've seen estimates ranging between 80 years and 500 years. I suspect the huge variances are due to different assumptions about who gets to use the technology and to what extent. Long enough, hopefully, for us to perfect a fusion solution. From what I gather, we've enough fusion fuel for longer than the Earth will last with an expanding sun about 5 trillion years from now.

Sorry if I'm off on the dates/timelines. I'm remembering from a similar discussion on another science forum from a few years back.

 

[nismaratwork]

I've seen estimates ranging between 80 years and 500 years. I suspect the huge variances are due to different assumptions about who gets to use the technology and to what extent. Long enough, hopefully, for us to perfect a fusion solution. From what I gather, we've enough fusion fuel for longer than the Earth will last with an expanding sun about 5 trillion years from now.

Sorry if I'm off on the dates/timelines. I'm remembering from a similar discussion on another science forum from a few years back.

I think the fusion dream will be far too late for anyone. I used to think that way, but managing the plasma with magnetic fields isn't exactly easy to scale... what a shock. Even more damning in my eyes, would be the reactor 'blanket', which right now would need to breed enough tritium to keep the reaction going, absorb and transfer enough energy aside from that to be a viable reactor, withstand nearly constant bombardment by high energy neutrons, and run at least 18 hours a day... at LEAST.

No, I think we'll be splitting the atom for a long time to come before a fusion solution we can see currently emerges. New science, and breakthroughs of course, are always welcome to make me look like a fool, and I'm thrilled when they do! I have very little hope for fusion as a viable source of energy in the grid, and if they did emerge we'd need MASSIVE storage to make it viable and serviceable.

Remember, what happens to pretty much EVERY material when it gets the tar knocked out of it by high energy neutron bombardments? BRITTLE... not what you want in your reactor blanket. That... and tritium... do much deuterium so little tritium.

 

[mugaliens]

I think the fusion dream will be far too late for anyone. I used to think that way, but managing the plasma with magnetic fields isn't exactly easy to scale... what a shock. Even more damning in my eyes, would be the reactor 'blanket', which right now would need to breed enough tritium to keep the reaction going, absorb and transfer enough energy aside from that to be a viable reactor, withstand nearly constant bombardment by high energy neutrons, and run at least 18 hours a day... at LEAST.

No, I think we'll be splitting the atom for a long time to come before a fusion solution we can see currently emerges. New science, and breakthroughs of course, are always welcome to make me look like a fool, and I'm thrilled when they do! I have very little hope for fusion as a viable source of energy in the grid, and if they did emerge we'd need MASSIVE storage to make it viable and serviceable.

Well, that sounds like you're talking about a tokamak. What about laser inertial confinement?

 

[nismaratwork]

Well, that sounds like you're talking about a tokamak. What about laser inertial confinement?

Impressive, but it's not about to make us rich with fusion power... the same issues are there, minus the confinement issues. A break-even reaction doesn't mean we actually get the energy we put into it back, just that the reaction itself yields as much or more than we put in. CAPTURING it... making that into a viable plant?... I have no idea.

Frankly I thought that blasting holraums was more about the study of nuclear weapons and high energy, as well as the study of fusion... not a viable reactor design.

 

[apeiron]

Ooh, some action on renewables and subsidies from that nice Mr Obama...

President Barack Obama proposed on Monday boosting funds for clean energy research and deployment in his 2012 budget by slashing subsidies for fossil fuels such as oil, gas and coal.

The budget would also provide $853 million to support new nuclear energy technologies, such as small modular reactors.

To help pay for the clean energy initiatives, the White House is asking Congress to repeal $3.6 billion in oil, natural gas and coal subsidies, a move that would total $46.2 billion over a decade.

But many Republicans oppose cutting subsidies for fossil fuels, saying it would hurt industries that provide jobs while the economy is still fragile.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/02/14/us-usa-budget-energy-idUSTRE71D3V420110214

 

[nismaratwork]

Ooh, some action on renewables and subsidies from that nice Mr Obama...

If he gets that through, I can take a little Good Old Party 'sticking it to the poor'. No offense R's, but each party has its "thing". Democrats want to save the unsalvageable, and Republicans want Darwin, Reagan, and Goldwater genetically merged into an Uber-president.

Both are frankly laughable to me, but that is my view only. I think this is clever... democrats will vocally oppose the president on cuts for "aid", the republicans will be complaining that... we don't subsidize coal. That is not the kind of situation you want to be in as a politician.

 

[apeiron]

If he gets that through, I can take a little Good Old Party 'sticking it to the poor'.

He has failed a few times already, apparently. So nice to see he is sticking at it.

And it is of course a global issue, though for a different reason in oil-producing nations with a large poor population to keep placated.

The imbalance between subsidies for fossil fuels and those for renewables is an issue faced by countries around the world. In a recent report, Bloomberg New Energy Finance calculated global fossil fuel subsidies at $557 billion, compared to $46 billion for renewable energy. In 2009, the G-20 nations pledged a reduction in their domestic fossil fuel subsidies, but little action has followed.

http://leadenergy.org/2011/02/cutting-fossil-fuel-subsidies-third-times-the-charm/

 

[nismaratwork]

He has failed a few times already, apparently. So nice to see he is sticking at it.

And it is of course a global issue, though for a different reason in oil-producing nations with a large poor population to keep placated.

Agreed... and damn that is one depressing article.

 

[mugaliens]

Ooh, some action on renewables and subsidies from that nice Mr Obama...

Oh. So that's where he's planning to spend http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110214/ap_on_re_us/us_obama_taxes" :

"Obama's proposal would extend tax credits for college expenses and expand them for child care. A more generous Earned Income Tax Credit for families with three or more children would be made permanent.

The plan would enhance and make permanent a popular business tax credit for research and development, and would provide tax breaks for investing in manufacturing and for making commercial buildings more energy efficient."​

It's a little early for him to start campaigning for a 2012 run, isn't it?

 

[Al68]

I've seen estimates ranging between 80 years and 500 years.

For all practical purposes, relatively cheap uranium supply is unlimited. Most sources are just not used because uranium is so plentiful and cheap to obtain from open-mining. Even http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium_mining#Recovery_from_seawater" contains 3.3 mg/m^3 uranium. Very low uranium prices prevent that from being cost effective ($240-300/kg) using current methods, and very little research has been done to evaluate better ways to concentrate it for the same reason. And that virtually unlimited supply is but a fraction of the total, and I only mention it to make the point: we live on a very uranium-rich planet.

Again, the cost of nuclear power is driven by construction and operating costs, which are driven by safety and national security concerns. The amount of uranium easily and cheaply obtainable is orders of magnitude greater than we could ever use to meet any foreseeable demand. Like I said before, if we ever improved nuclear technology to the point where uranium supply drove the cost, household electricity would be too cheap to meter.

 

[Al68]

...and Republicans want Darwin, Reagan, and Goldwater genetically merged into an Uber-president.

Nah, just Goldwater would do very nicely.

 

[apeiron]

The amount of uranium easily and cheaply obtainable is orders of magnitude greater than we could ever use to meet any foreseeable demand.

What is your source for this claim? Do you have some peer-reviewed reference you can supply?

 

[Al68]

What is your source for this claim? Do you have some peer-reviewed reference you can supply?

Well, that's more of a gross understatement than a claim IMO, but no, I don't have a peer-reviewed reference. I gave my more than adequate source in that post: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium_mining.

The only reason all those other sources of uranium aren't used is because it's too cheap now to open-mine to even bother with other sources. Even concentrating uranium from seawater is fairly cheap, and if you do the math at 3.3 mg/m^3, I think you will agree that plentiful is an understatement. And we haven't even bothered with R&D to make that much cheaper because it's so plentiful from other sources.

Edit: Here's a paper in the http://sustainablenuclear.org/PADs/pad11983cohen.pdf" that says uranium from seawater, using fast breeder reactors, would economically last at least 5 billion years. My claim was apparently far too modest.

 

[apeiron]

Even concentrating uranium from seawater is fairly cheap, and if you do the math at 3.3 mg/m^3, I think you will agree that plentiful is an understatement.

Given that the recovery process has only been demonstrated at the experimental level and the scaling up to commercial production is untested, I would say you could be risking overstatement.

It is like getting x60 more out of uranium with fast breeders. Or shifting to thorium. The ideas are attractive, but still to be proven in practice.

This does not mean I think the prospects aren't good, just that everything needs to be kept in perspective and judged on the best evidence available.

This could be one such summary (which does argue uranium supply is not an issue in any immediate sense)...

http://www.worldenergy.org/publications/survey_of_energy_resources_2007/uranium/673.asp

 

[Al68]

Given that the recovery process has only been demonstrated at the experimental level and the scaling up to commercial production is untested, I would say you could be risking overstatement.

Nope, still huge understatement. The $240-300/kg "experimental" cost should get much cheaper if scaled up, it certainly wouldn't get more expensive. Common sense says potentially much, much cheaper, but that's just speculation.

But even that number is reasonably cheap by fossil fuel standards, it's just not economical compared to other, cheaper uranium sources.

It is like getting x60 more out of uranium with fast breeders.

OK, what's 5 billion years divided by 60 (or 100?)? We are obviously not going to run out of atoms to split in the foreseeable future, regardless of the details.

 

[mheslep]

Ooh, some action on renewables and subsidies from that nice Mr Obama...

To help pay for the clean energy initiatives, the White House is asking Congress to repeal $3.6 billion in oil, natural gas and coal subsidies, a move that would total $46.2 billion over a decade.

Thanks for this. Repeal of fossile subsidies is well overdue. I hope these cuts pass. I do have one reservation, in that there's a game the government has played with industry over the years: with one hand the government bashes the energy industry over the head by encouraging or allowing frivolous law suits and regulation, and then when recognizing the same industry is responsible for jobs and critically needed energy, the same government hands out subsidies with the other hand. The point is that when the subsidies go, and they should, attention should by paid to industry harassment as well.

But many Republicans oppose cutting subsidies for fossil fuels, saying it would hurt industries that provide jobs while the economy is still fragile.

Really? Many, unnamed Republicans, in this Reuters article.

 

[nismaratwork]

Thanks for this. Repeal of fossile subsidies is well overdue. I hope these cuts pass. I do have one reservation, in that there's a game the government has played with industry over the years: with one hand the government bashes the energy industry over the head by encouraging or allowing frivolous law suits and regulation, and then when recognizing the same industry is responsible for jobs and critically needed energy, the same government hands out subsidies with the other hand. The point is that when the subsidies go, and they should, attention should by paid to industry harassment as well.

Really? Many, unnamed Republicans, in this Reuters article.

Are you making an argument for fairness in government and business, and then beyond that, is a Reuters no longer a valid source for P&WA? If "unnamed R/D/I, official, aide" is no longer valid from a generally trusted source, there's going to be very little to talk about.

I agree with the cuts, but which frivolous lawsuits do you mean... there are are lot lawsuits past and present in that arena, and not all are frivolous. It would probably help to know which you consider to be, and which you believe are valid, if any.

Other than a sense of wounded feelings, which I think the energy industry can handle, I'm not hearing any material damages put forth. Profits... plenty of those, but not a lot of damages.

 

[mheslep]

A PF valid news source is basis for argument. That doesn't mean the source is beyond question or somehow infallible.

 

[nismaratwork]

A PF valid news source is basis for argument. That doesn't mean the source is beyond question or somehow infallible.

Fair enough, so what was your point in the "unnamed republicans"? That's pretty much standard fare from a wire source and this kind of information. Asking for a better source, sure, but Reuters is what it is.

I'd add, if it's basis for an argument, maybe you'd be better served by addressing its content, or challenging its veracity outright, not side-stepping it.

 

[mheslep]

Fair enough, so what was your point in the "unnamed republicans"?

Just what I said. The article did not name any Republicans, nor even use an unnamed source. Your bit about unnamed "aids" above is imaginary; there's no source what so ever in that article claiming any kind of direct knowledge of lawmakers minds. The author just asserts.

Back to the topic ... peak fossil fuels.

 

[nismaratwork]

Just what I said. The article did not name any Republicans, nor even use an unnamed source. Your bit about unnamed "aids" above is imaginary; there's no source what so ever in that article claiming any kind of direct knowledge of lawmakers minds. The author just asserts.

Back to the topic ... peak fossil fuels.

To be clear, the bit about aides was not related to THIS, but a generalization. Besides, isn't this how politics is conducted through the media in general?

So... DO Republicans support cuts to fossil fuel subsidies, because if so, I can understand why you'd be so annoyed at a Reuters line. If it's just an illustration of a well understood and long-held position on the other hand, I think that would just be rhetorical and not entirely forthright. Still, as you say, peak fossil fuels:

Given the power of fossil fuel lobbies in congress, is it realistic to believe that we'll be more successful in reducing them than with farming subsidies?

 

[apeiron]

Regardless of which politicians say what, the economic logic of oil pricing (and so subsidies among other market manipulations like ME airbases and support for despotic rulers) is clear enough.

Richard Heinberg is writing a book with a nice explanation.
http://postcarbon.us1.list-manage1.com/track/click?u=311db31977054c5ef58219392&id=4e04de2333&e=00411b992d

as the new decade wore on, the price of oil soared relentlessly, reaching levels far higher than the “pessimistic” $30 range. Demand for the resource was growing, especially in China and some oil exporting nations like Saudi Arabia; meanwhile, beginning in 2005, actual world oil production hit a plateau. Seeing a perfect opportunity (a necessary commodity with stagnating supply and growing demand), speculators drove the price up even further.

As prices lofted, oil companies and private investors started funding expensive projects to explore for oil in remote and barely accessible places, or to make synthetic liquid fuels out of lower-grade carbon materials like bitumen, coal, or kerogen.

But then in 2008, just as the price of a barrel of oil reached its all-time high of $147, the economies of the OECD countries crashed. Airlines and trucking companies downsized and motorists stayed home. Demand for oil plummeted. So did oil’s price, bottoming out at $32 at the end of 2008.

But with prices this low, investments in hard-to-find oil and hard-to-make substitutes began to look tenuous, so tens of billions of dollars’ worth of new energy projects were canceled or delayed. Yet the industry had been counting on those projects to maintain a steady stream of liquid fuels a few years out, so worries about a future supply crunch began to make headlines.[29]

It is the financial returns on their activities that motivate oil companies to make the major investments necessary to find and produce oil. There is a long time lag between investment and return, and so price stability is a necessary condition for further investment.

Here was a conundrum: low prices killed future supply, while high prices killed immediate demand. Only if oil’s price stayed reliably within a narrow—and narrowing—“Goldilocks” band could serious problems be avoided. Prices had to stay not too high, not too low—just right—in order to avert economic mayhem.

So the question is how laisser faire economic policies can fix these kinds of systemic problems? Market behaviour gets locked into a fixed point attractor until at some stage the buffers are hit. A market unable to correct itself gets "corrected" in much the same way as a drunk driver on a windy road.

Cornucopians claim that technology and substitution always gallop to the rescue of markets. This is why free markets work. But what is the model for a market locked into a state by larger forces? Where is the theory that would introduce rationality to longterm behaviour in such a market.

Industry subsidies would be one of the symptoms of the actual "market forces" at work. Along with a resistance to fuel taxes. And military budgets, etc.

Removing fossil fuel subsidies is of course a good idea both if you are a peak oiler, or simply a free market purist. But if the diagnosis is correct - there are tight constraints on the free functioning of the fossil fuel market, it is in almost everyone's near term interests to manipulate the market - then any action that causes a price rise will find itself by some other action to force it back down.

And consequently there will be no money going into the development of substitutes (nuclear for instance) and little voluntary efficiency measures.

Perhaps someone can find a cornucopian modelling of this situation. Maybe it can be argued that what we should expect is a chaotic phase followed by a swift transition to some new economic attractor. We will be in for a rough few decades, a time when a succession of crashes results eventually in that new mix of efficiency and new "cheap" fuel sources, but then sail out the other side with an economy that prices in its fuel at a different long-run level.

Where are these optimistic, but realistic, cornucopian models when you need them?

 

[nismaratwork]

Regardless of which politicians say what, the economic logic of oil pricing (and so subsidies among other market manipulations like ME airbases and support for despotic rulers) is clear enough.

Richard Heinberg is writing a book with a nice explanation.
http://postcarbon.us1.list-manage1.com/track/click?u=311db31977054c5ef58219392&id=4e04de2333&e=00411b992d



So the question is how laisser faire economic policies can fix these kinds of systemic problems? Market behaviour gets locked into a fixed point attractor until at some stage the buffers are hit. A market unable to correct itself gets "corrected" in much the same way as a drunk driver on a windy road.

Cornucopians claim that technology and substitution always gallop to the rescue of markets. This is why free markets work. But what is the model for a market locked into a state by larger forces? Where is the theory that would introduce rationality to longterm behaviour in such a market.

Industry subsidies would be one of the symptoms of the actual "market forces" at work. Along with a resistance to fuel taxes. And military budgets, etc.

Removing fossil fuel subsidies is of course a good idea both if you are a peak oiler, or simply a free market purist. But if the diagnosis is correct - there are tight constraints on the free functioning of the fossil fuel market, it is in almost everyone's near term interests to manipulate the market - then any action that causes a price rise will find itself by some other action to force it back down.

And consequently there will be no money going into the development of substitutes (nuclear for instance) and little voluntary efficiency measures.

Perhaps someone can find a cornucopian modelling of this situation. Maybe it can be argued that what we should expect is a chaotic phase followed by a swift transition to some new economic attractor. We will be in for a rough few decades, a time when a succession of crashes results eventually in that new mix of efficiency and new "cheap" fuel sources, but then sail out the other side with an economy that prices in its fuel at a different long-run level.

Where are these optimistic, but realistic, cornucopian models when you need them?

re bolding mine: Oh, they would be in the circular file with Cold Fusion, Anything with the word "Over-unity" in it, a signed photograph of Ronald Reagan giving a thumbs up in a cowboy hat, and Everything Tesla said after he lost his marbles.

It seems to me that the faux-Libertarian model is just what you said... let the poor bastards (most of us) slam into a jersey barrier at speed... that'll teach 'em! The fact that a cleanup effort, towing the wreck, unintended victims, you know... Blowback... has that ever been an issue in, "Die Beste aller möglichen Welten?" Not that I can see, although that's one hell of a way to resolve the cognitive dissonance of actively participating in your own destruction.

I'm curious though, to me, your case is very convincing... BUT... what's the solution?

 

[Al68]

Fair enough, so what was your point in the "unnamed republicans"? That's pretty much standard fare from a wire source and this kind of information.

Standard fare, yes, but that assertion in the Reuters piece provided absolutely no information regarding the position of any politician, yet pretended to do so. It would rise to the level of hearsay if it provided a name and quote. Another issue is that the position of the "unnamed" politician is paraphrased, which may or may not accurately portray the actual position even if a name was provided.

...Besides, isn't this how politics is conducted through the media in general?...

Yes, for decades. That's how people are mislead and manipulated by media sources. That piece may or may not itself be misleading, but has no legitimate value for the purpose of determining any politician's position on the issue.

 

[nismaratwork]

Standard fare, yes, but that assertion in the Reuters piece provided absolutely no information regarding the position of any politician, yet pretended to do so. It would rise to the level of hearsay if it provided a name and quote. Another issue is that the position of the "unnamed" politician is paraphrased, which may or may not accurately portray the actual position even if a name was provided.Yes, for decades. That's how people are mislead and manipulated by media sources. That piece may or may not itself be misleading, but has no legitimate value for the purpose of determining any politician's position on the issue.

I agree with that, but given that it's hardly a controversial or new position (see apeiron's post), I was a little taken-aback that mheslep felt that the content wasn't worth addressing, only the source.

 

[apeiron]

I'm curious though, to me, your case is very convincing... BUT... what's the solution?

My solution was to move me and my family to New Zealand .

The optimistic view among peak oilers is to point out that energy descent may mean going without a lot of consumer junk, a lot of life choices, but on the other hand, it could be psychologically healthier (physically too as we get back to working the land, cycling everywhere).

So the solution - as advocated by the transistion town movement - is get to know your neighbours, learn to grow, invest in quality tools, plant fruit and nut trees. Build resilience and know-how.

 

[nismaratwork]

My solution was to move me and my family to New Zealand .

The optimistic view among peak oilers is to point out that energy descent may mean going without a lot of consumer junk, a lot of life choices, but on the other hand, it could be psychologically healthier (physically too as we get back to working the land, cycling everywhere).

So the solution - as advocated by the transistion town movement - is get to know your neighbours, learn to grow, invest in quality tools, plant fruit and nut trees. Build resilience and know-how.

Yeah, I seriously considered moving once or twice myself. Good for you, and good for your family. Beyond that, it sounds like my view, but with the addition that you hope to survive, and I expect doom. I like your viewpoint more, but then, you have a family to care for and presumably age and experience on me. I hope I can settle on a view before I simply become misanthropic, because given your knowlege-base and conclusions, I'd be pretty terrified.

 

[apeiron]

I hope I can settle on a view before I simply become misanthropic, because given your knowlege-base and conclusions, I'd be pretty terrified.

On a personal level, what's the worst that can happen except that you will get to witness even more history being made?

Being alive at this precise moment in human history must be winning the ultimate jackpot. You get to see "what happened" to a species, as well as enjoy the likely highspot for understanding the reality within which this species arose. You just have to invent a life that maximises the opportunity presented.

For the kids though, it could be a bit of a bugger .

 

[nismaratwork]

On a personal level, what's the worst that can happen except that you will get to witness even more history being made?

That sounds pretty either really good, or like a curse! Still, I take your meaning.

Being alive at this precise moment in human history must be winning the ultimate jackpot. You get to see "what happened" to a species, as well as enjoy the likely highspot for understanding the reality within which this species arose. You just have to invent a life that maximises the opportunity presented.

For the kids though, it could be a bit of a bugger .

Well, I enjoy the lack of lice and other parasites, and sewerage and lamps are really fantastic. This "series of tubes" we're using right now isn't half bad either... then again, it deepens on what you want from a jackpot. It might have been a more peaceful life before it was conceivable that we might be in the process of systematically drowning in our own waste and stupidity. I think I can hear Voltaire laughing...