ENERGY INDEPENDENCE – THE BIG LIE

 

 PRICE OF A BARREL OF OIL 1978 – $14.00

“We are the generation that will win the war on the energy problem and in that process, rebuild the unity and confidence of America.” – President Jimmy Carter, 1979

“We have it in our power to act right here, right now. I propose $6 billion in tax cuts and research and developments to encourage innovation, renewable energy, fuel-efficient cars, and energy-efficient homes.” – President Bill Clinton, 1998

“I think that in ten years, we can reduce our dependence so that we no longer have to import oil from the Middle East or Venezuela. I think that’s about a realistic time frame…That’s why I’ve focused on putting resources into solar, wind, biodiesel, geothermal. These have been priorities of mine since I got to the Senate, and it is absolutely critical that we develop a high fuel efficient car that’s built not in Japan and not in South Korea, but built here in the United States of America.” – President Barack Obama, 2008

“We don’t have to wait on OPEC anymore. We don’t have to let them hold us hostage. America’s got the energy. Let’s have American energy independence.”- Rick Perry, CNN Debate, October 18

“We must become independent from foreign sources of oil. This will mean a combination of efforts related to conservation and efficiency measures, developing alternative sources of energy like biodiesel, ethanol, nuclear, and coal gasification, and finding more domestic sources of oil such as in ANWR or the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS).”Mitt Romney  

PRICE OF A BARREL OF BRENT OIL 2011 – $114.00

 

It is too bad that our 255 million cars can’t run on hot air. American presidents have propagated the Big Lie of energy independence for the last three decades. The Democrats have lied about green energy solutions and the Republicans have lied about domestic sources saving the day. These deceitful politicians put the country at risk as they misinform and mislead the non-thinking American public. They have been declaring our energy independence for 30 years, but we import three times as much oil today as we did in the early 1980’s. The CPI has gone up 350% since 1978, but the price of a barrel of oil has risen 800% over the same time frame. Today, I hear the same mindless fabrications from politicians and pundits about our ability to become energy independent. Any critical thinking analysis of the hard facts reveals that the United States will grow increasingly dependent upon other countries to supply our energy needs from a dwindling and harder to access supply of oil and natural gas. The fantasy world of plug in cars, corn driven vehicles and solar energy running our manufacturing plants is a castle in the sky flight of imagination. The linear thinking academic crowd believes a technological miracle will save us, when it is evident technology fails without infinite quantities of cheap oil.

I know the chart below requires some time to grasp, but I’m sure the average American can take five minutes away from watching Jersey Shore, Dancing with the Stars, or the latest update of the Kardashian saga to understand why the propaganda about energy independence is nothing but falsehoods. You have U.S. energy demand by sector on the right and the energy source by fuel on the left. Total U.S. energy use is nearly 100 quadrillion Btu. In physical energy terms, 1 quad represents 172 million barrels of oil (8 to 9 days of U.S. oil use), 50 million tons of coal (enough to generate about 2% of annual U.S. electricity use), or 1 trillion cubic feet of natural gas (about 4% of annual U.S. natural gas use).  

Please note that 37% of our energy source is petroleum, which supplies 95% of the energy for our transportation sector. That means your car and the millions of 18 wheelers that deliver your food to your grocery stores and electronic gadgets to your Best Buy. You can’t fill up your SUV with coal, natural gas, nuclear energy or sunshine. Without the 7 billion barrels of oil we use every year, our just in time mall centric suburban sprawl society would come to a grinding halt. There is no substitute for cheap plentiful oil anywhere in sight. The government sponsored ethanol boondoggle has already driven food prices higher, while requiring more energy to produce than it generates. Only a government “solution” could raise food prices, reduce gas mileage, and bankrupt hundreds of companies in an effort to reduce our dependence on oil. Natural gas as a transportation fuel supplies 2% of our needs. The cost to retro-fit 160,000 service stations across the country to supply natural gas as a fuel for the non-existent natural gas automobiles would be a fool’s errand and take at least a decade to implement.   

    

The green energy Nazis despise coal and nuclear power, which account for 31% of our energy supply. They want to phase coal out. They aren’t too fond of fracking either, so there goes another 23% of our supply. You might be able to make out that itsy bitsy green circle with the 7% of our supply from renewable energy. And more than half of that energy is supplied by hydro power. Less than 2% of our energy needs are met by solar and wind. For some perspective, we need to use the equivalent of 17 billion barrels of oil per year to run our society and solar and wind supplies the equivalent energy of about 300 million barrels of that total. I think our green energy dreams will come up just a smidgen short of meeting our demands. Nothing can replace oil as the lifeblood of our culture and there is no domestic supply source which will eliminate or even reduce our dependence upon the 10 million barrels per day we import from foreign countries. There are some hard truths that are purposefully ignored by those who want to mislead the public about the grim consequences of peak cheap oil:

  • The earth is finite. The amount of oil within the crust of the earth is finite. As we drain 32 billion barrels of oil from the earth every year, there is less remaining within the earth. We have drained the cheapest and easiest to reach 1.4 trillion barrels from the earth since the mid 1800s. The remaining recoverable 1.4 trillion barrels will be expensive and hard to reach.
  • The United States has about 2% of the world’s proven oil and gas reserves, but consumes 22% of the world’s oil production and 27% of the world’s natural gas production.
  • Demand for oil will continue to rise no matter what the United States does, as the developing world consumption far outstrips U.S. consumption. Oil is fungible and will be sold to the highest bidder.
  • The concept of energy returned on energy invested (EROEI) is beyond the grasp of politicians and drill, drill, drill pundits. EROEI is the ratio of the amount of usable energy acquired from a particular energy resource to the amount of energy expended to obtain that energy resource. When the EROEI of a resource is less than or equal to one, that energy source becomes an “energy sink”, and can no longer be used as a primary source of energy. Once it requires 1.1 barrels of oil to obtain a barrel of oil, the gig is up.
  • There is a negative feedback loop that revolves around oil supply, oil price and economic growth. As demand continues to rise and supply is more difficult to access, prices will rise. Since oil is an essential ingredient in every aspect of our lives, once the price reaches $120 to $150 a barrel economic growth goes into reverse. Demand crashes and investment in new sources of energy dries up. Rinse and repeat.

Finite World

World oil production peaked in 2005 has been flat since then, despite a continuous stream of promises from Saudi Arabia that they are on the verge of increasing production. The chart below from the U.S. Energy Information Administration propagates the standard fabrications about energy supplies. Even though worldwide oil production has clearly peaked, the oil industry PR whores and government agencies continue to project substantial production growth in the future. The mainstream media trots out Daniel Yergin whenever it wants to calm the masses, despite his track record of being 100% wrong 100% of the time. The brilliance of his July, 2005 Op-Ed shines through:

“Prices around $60 a barrel, driven by high demand growth, are fueling the fear of imminent shortage — that the world is going to begin running out of oil in five or 10 years. This shortage, it is argued, will be amplified by the substantial and growing demand from two giants: China and India. There will be a large, unprecedented buildup of oil supply in the next few years. Between 2004 and 2010, capacity to produce oil (not actual production) could grow by 16 million barrels a day — from 85 million barrels per day to 101 million barrels a day — a 20 percent increase. Such growth over the next few years would relieve the current pressure on supply and demand.”

Oil production capacity has not grown by one barrel since Yergin wrote this propaganda piece. This is despite the fact that prices have almost doubled, which should have spurred production. The current energy independence false storyline – the Bakken Formation – has gone from production of 10,000 barrels per day in 2003 to 400,000 barrels per day now, while the hundreds of millions invested in developing the Canadian tar sands have increased production by 50% since 2005. Despite these substantial increases in output, worldwide production has remained flat as existing wells deplete at the same rate that new production is brought online.

 

The facts are there is approximately 1.4 trillion barrels of recoverable oil left in the crust of the earth. We currently suck 32 billion barrels per year out of the earth. This means we have 44 years of oil left, at current consumption levels. But we know demand is growing from the developing world. Taking this fact into consideration, we have between 35 and 40 years worth of recoverable oil left on the planet. That is not a long time. Additionally, the last 1.4 trillion barrels will much more difficult and costly to extract than the first 1.4 trillion barrels. The remaining oil is miles under the ocean floor, trapped in shale and tar sands, and in the arctic. Despite these hard facts, governmental agencies and politicians continue to paint a rosy picture about our energy future. I watched in stunned amazement last week as five bozos on the McLaughlin Group news program unanimously proclaimed the U.S. would become a net exporter of oil in the coming decade. Do these supposedly intelligent people not understand the basic economics of supply, demand and price?  

It seems the governmental organizations always paint the future in the most optimistic terms, despite all facts pointing to a contrary outcome. The EIA predicts with a straight face that oil production will rise to 110 million barrels per day, while the price of a barrel of oil remains in the current $100 to $125 per barrel range. Non-OPEC production has been in decline since 2004, but the EIA miraculously predicts a 15% increase in production over the next 25 years. OPEC production has been flat since 2005, but the EIA is confident their 50 year old oil fields will ramp up production by 25% in the next 25 years. Does the EIA consider whether OPEC even wants to increase production? It would appear that constrained supply and higher prices would be quite beneficial to the OPEC countries. And then of course there is the unconventional oil that is supposed to increase from 4 million barrels per day to 13 million barrels per day, a mere 325% increase with no upward impact on prices. These guys would make a BLS government drone blush with the utter ridiculousness of their predictions.

 

The picture below is an excellent representation of how the easy to access oil and gas of the earth have been tapped. They were close to the surface. The remaining oil and gas is deeper and trapped within shale and sand. The new technology for extracting gas from shale has concerns regarding whether fracking and disposal of waste water can be done safely, especially near highly populated areas. The relationship between fracking and earthquakes could also prove to be problematic. The wells also have rapid decline rates. Add a mile of ocean to the picture below and you have some really expensive to access oil and potential for disaster, as witnessed with the Deep Water Horizon.

 

The EIA projects natural gas supply to grow by 10% between now and 2035 due to a 300% increase in shale gas supply. It seems the EIA believes the fantasy of 8 Saudi Arabia’s in the Bakken formation of North Dakota and decades of gas within the Marcellus Shale. These fantasies have been peddled by the natural gas industry in order to get support for their fracking efforts. This false storyline is damaging to the long-term planning that should be taking place now to alleviate the energy scarcity that is our future. In 2006 the EIA reported the possibility of 500 billion barrels of oil in the Bakken formation, based on guesswork. The U.S. Geological Survey has since scaled this back ever so slightly to 3.65 billion barrels, which is six months of U.S. consumption. The deceptions peddled regarding Marcellus shale are also colliding with reality. The U.S. Geological Survey recently produced an estimate of Marcellus Shale resources, which will cause the EIA to reduce its estimate of shale gas reserves for the Marcellus Shale by 80%. The price of natural gas is currently $3.54 MMBtu, down from $13 a few years ago. Extracting natural gas from shale has high capital costs of land, drilling and completion. It is not economically feasible below $6 MMBtu.

 

Based on the known facts and a realistic view of the future, there will be less supply of oil and natural gas as time goes on. We can already see the impact of these facts today. Even though Europe and the U.S. are in recession, the price of oil continues to rise. The developing world continues to demand more oil and the supply is stagnant. Stunts like withdrawing oil from the Strategic Reserve are foolish and politically motivated. Is the world then running out of oil then? No, but any increase in future global oil production will be modestly incremental and production could be thrown off course by any number of possible events, from an Israeli attack on Iran to (another, but successful this time) al Qaida attack on Saudi Arabia’s Abqaiq oil refinery. Any forecast regarding future oil production and prices isn’t worth the paper it is written on unless consideration to wars, revolutions and terrorism are factored into the equation.

We Don’t Matter

Americans like to think we are the center of the universe. Those who propagate the misinformation about U.S. energy independence are clearly math challenged. The total proven oil reserves in the world total 1.4 trillion barrels and the United States has 22 billion barrels of that total, or 1.6% of the world’s oil. The U.S. burns 7 billion barrels per year, so we have enough oil to survive for three whole years. The U.S. consumes 22% of the world’s oil despite having 4.5% of the world’s population and less than 2% of the world’s oil. Do these facts lead you to the conclusion the United States will be exporting oil in the near future?

 

When you hear the pundits breathtakingly describe our vast natural gas resources you would think we are the dominant player in this market. Not quite. The United States has 4% of the world’s natural gas reserves. Predictably we consume 22% of the world’s natural gas. Russia controls 25% of the world’s natural gas reserves, with the Middle East countries controlling 40% of the world’s reserves. The pundits can hype our “vast” supplies of natural gas, but the facts clearly reveal it is nothing but hype.

  

The U.S. is consuming less oil than it was in 2005. U.S. consumption is not the crucial factor in determining the price of oil today and our consumption will matter even less in the future. Emerging market countries, led by China and India, will be the driving force in oil demand in the coming decades. According to the IEA, “Non-OECD [emerging markets] account for 90% of population growth, 70% of the increase in economic output and 90% of energy demand growth over the period from 2010 to 2035.”

 

This demand is being driven by the growth in vehicles in emerging markets. The U.S. market has reached a saturation point, but China, India and the rest of the world are just beginning their love affairs with the automobile. The accumulation of facts regarding both supply and demand should even convince the most brainless CNBC talking head that the price of oil will continue to rise. The 2008 peak price of $145 per barrel will not hold. The tried and true American method of ignoring problems until they reach crisis proportions will bite us in the ass once again.

 

Slippery Road Ahead

The concept of EROI is incomprehensible to the peak oil deniers. When Larry Kudlow or one of the other drill, drill, drill morons proclaims the vast amount of oil in North Dakota shale and in Alberta, Canada tar sands, they completely ignore the concept of EROI. Some estimates conclude there are 5 trillion barrels of oil left in the earth. But, only 1.4 trillion barrels are considered recoverable. This is because the other 3.6 trillion barrels would require the expenditure of more energy to retrieve than they can deliver. Therefore, it is not practical to extract. When oil was originally discovered, it took on average one barrel of oil to find, extract, and process about 100 barrels of oil. That ratio has declined steadily over the last century to about three barrels gained for one barrel used up in the U.S. and about ten for one in Saudi Arabia.

The chart below clearly shows the sources of energy which have the highest energy return for energy invested. I don’t think I’ve heard Obama or the Republican candidates calling for a national investment in hydro-power even though it is hugely efficient. The dreams of the green energy crowd are shattered by the fact that biodiesel, ethanol and solar require as much energy to create as they produce. Tar sands and shale oil aren’t much more energy efficient. It’s too bad Obama and his minions hate dirty coal, because has the best return on energy invested among all the practical sources.   

 File:EROI - Ratio of Energy Returned on Energy Invested - USA.svg

Worse than the peak oil deniers are those who pretend that oil isn’t really that important to our society. They declare that technology will save the day, when in reality technology can’t function without oil. Without plentiful cheap oil our technologically driven civilization crashes. We are addicted to oil. Americans consume petroleum products at a rate of three-and-a-half gallons of oil and more than 250 cubic feet of natural gas per day each.  You might be interested in a partial list of products that require petroleum to be produced.

Solvents Diesel fuel Motor Oil Bearing Grease
Ink Floor Wax Ballpoint Pens Football Cleats
Upholstery Sweaters Boats Insecticides
Bicycle Tires Sports Car Bodies Nail Polish Fishing lures
Dresses Tires Golf Bags Perfumes
Cassettes Dishwasher parts Tool Boxes Shoe Polish
Motorcycle Helmet Caulking Petroleum Jelly Transparent Tape
CD Player Faucet Washers Antiseptics Clothesline
Curtains Food Preservatives Basketballs Soap
Vitamin Capsules Antihistamines Purses Shoes
Dashboards Cortisone Deodorant Footballs
Putty Dyes Panty Hose Refrigerant
Percolators Life Jackets Rubbing Alcohol Linings
Skis TV Cabinets Shag Rugs Electrician’s Tape
Tool Racks Car Battery Cases Epoxy Paint
Mops Slacks Insect Repellent Oil Filters
Umbrellas Yarn Fertilizers Hair Coloring
Roofing Toilet Seats Fishing Rods Lipstick
Denture Adhesive Linoleum Ice Cube Trays Synthetic Rubber
Speakers Plastic Wood Electric Blankets Glycerin
Tennis Rackets Rubber Cement Fishing Boots Dice
Nylon Rope Candles Trash Bags House Paint
Water Pipes Hand Lotion Roller Skates Surf Boards
Shampoo Wheels Paint Rollers Shower Curtains
Guitar Strings Luggage Aspirin Safety Glasses
Antifreeze Football Helmets Awnings Eyeglasses
Clothes Toothbrushes Ice Chests Footballs
Combs CD’s & DVD’s Paint Brushes Detergents
Vaporizers Balloons Sun Glasses Tents
Heart Valves Crayons Parachutes Telephones
Enamel Pillows Dishes Cameras
Anesthetics Artificial Turf Artificial limbs Bandages
Dentures Model Cars Folding Doors Hair Curlers
Cold cream Movie film Soft Contact lenses Drinking Cups
Fan Belts Car Enamel Shaving Cream Ammonia
Refrigerators Golf Balls Toothpaste Gasoline

 

The propaganda blared at the impressionable willfully ignorant American public has worked wonders. The vast majority of Americans have no clue they have entered a world of energy scarcity, a world where the average person is poorer and barely able to afford the basic necessities of life. This is borne out in the vehicles sales statistics reported every month. There have been 10.5 million passenger vehicles sold through the first 10 months of 2011. In addition to the fact they are “purchased” using 95% debt and financed over seven years, the vast majority are low mileage vehicles getting less than 20 mpg. Only 1.8 million small energy efficient vehicles have been sold versus 6.1 million SUVs, pickup trucks and large luxury automobiles. Americans have the freedom to buy any vehicle they choose. They also have the freedom to not think and ignore the facts about the certainty of higher prices at the pump. By choosing a 20 mpg vehicle over a 40 mpg vehicle, they’ve sealed their fate. How could the average soccer mom get by without a Yukon or Excursion to shuttle Biff and Buffy to their games? Have you ever tried to navigate a soccer field parking lot in a hybrid? The horror!

The American public has been lulled back into a sense of security as gas prices have receded from $4.00 a gallon back to $3.40 a gallon. This lull will be short lived. Oil prices have surged by 15% in the last two months, even as the world economy heads into recession. The link between high oil prices and economic growth are undeniable, even though the deceitful pundits on CNBC will tell you otherwise. Ten out of eleven recessions since World War II were associated with oil price spikes. Gail Tverberg sums up the dilemma of energy scarcity for the average American:

“High-priced oil tends to choke economies because high oil prices are associated with high food prices (because oil products are used in food growing and transport), and people’s salaries do not rise to offset this rise in food and oil prices. People have to eat and to commute to their jobs, so they cut back on other expenditures. This leads to recession. Recession leads to lower oil consumption, since people without jobs can’t buy very much of anything, oil products included. In some sense, the reduction in oil extraction is due to reduced demand, because citizens cannot afford the high-priced oil that is available.”

But don’t worry. The rising oil and food prices will only impact the 99% in the U.S. and the poorest dregs across the globe that spend 70% of their income on food. The 1% will be just fine as they will bet on higher oil prices, therefore further enriching themselves while the peasants starve. The market for caviar, champagne, NYC penthouses, and summer mansions in the Hamptons will remain robust.

There is no escape from the ravages of higher priced oil. There is plenty of oil left in the ground. But, the remaining oil is difficult, slow and expensive to extract. Oil prices will rise because they have to. Without higher prices, who would make the huge capital investment required to extract the remaining oil? Once oil prices reach the $120 to $150 per barrel range our economy chokes and heads into recession. We are trapped in an endless feedback loop of doom. The false storyline of renewable energy saving the day is put to rest by Gail Tverberg:

“Renewables such as wind, solar PV, cellulosic ethanol, and biogas could more accurately be called “fossil fuel extenders” because they cannot exist apart from fossil fuels. Fossil fuels are required to make wind turbines and other devices, to transport the equipment, to make needed repairs, and to maintain the transport and electrical systems used by these fuels (such as maintaining transmission lines, running-back up power plants, and paving roads). If we lose fossil fuels, we can expect to lose the use of renewables, with a few exceptions, such as trees cut down locally, and burned for heat, and solar thermal used to heat hot water in containers on roofs.”

Predictably, the politicians and intellectual elite do the exact opposite of what needs to be done. We need to prepare our society to become more local. Without cheap plentiful oil our transportation system breaks down. Our 3.9 million miles of road networks will become a monument to stupidity as Obama and Congress want to spend hundreds of billions on road infrastructure that will slowly become obsolete. The crumbling infrastructure is already the result of government failure, as the money that should have been spent maintaining our roads, bridges and water systems was spent on train museums, turtle crossings, teaching South African men how to wash their genitalia, studies on the mating habits of ferrets, and thousands of other worthless Keynesian pork programs. If our society acted in a far sighted manner, we would be creating communities that could sustain themselves with local produce, local merchants, bike paths, walkable destinations, local light rail commuting, and local energy sources. The most logical energy source for the U.S. in an oil scarce scenario is electricity, since we have a substantial supply of coal and natural gas for the foreseeable future and the ability to build small nuclear power plants. The Fukushima disaster is likely to kill nuclear as an option until it is too late. The electrical grid should be the number one priority of our leaders, as it would be our only hope in an oil scarce world. Instead, our leaders will plow borrowed money into ethanol, solar, and shale oil drilling, guaranteeing a disastrous scenario for our country.

The United States is a country built upon the four C’s: Crude, Cars, Credit, and Consumption. They are intertwined and can’t exist without crude as the crucial ingredient. As the amount of crude available declines and the price rises, the other three C’s will breakdown. Our warped consumer driven economy collapses without the input of cheap plentiful oil. Those at the top levels of government realize this fact. It is not a coincidence that the War on Terror is the current cover story to keep our troops in the Middle East. It is not a coincidence the uncooperative rulers (Hussein, Gaddafi) of the countries with the 5th and 9th largest oil reserves on the planet have been dispatched. It is not a coincidence the saber rattling grows louder regarding the Iranian regime, as they sit atop 155 billion barrels of oil, the 4th largest reserves in the world. It should also be noted the troops leaving Iraq immediately began occupying Kuwait, owner of the 6th largest oil reserves on the planet. Oil under the South China Sea and in the arctic is being hotly pursued by the major world players. China and Russia are supporting Iran in their showdown with Israel and the U.S. As the world depletes the remaining oil, conflict and war are inevitable. The term Energy Independence will carry a different meaning than the one spouted by mindless politicians as the oil runs low.

And as things fell apart
Nobody paid much attention

Nothing but Flowers – The Talking Heads 

Subscribe
Notify of
guest
108 Comments
llpoh
llpoh
November 15, 2011 6:30 pm

This is a test to see if I have been banned.

Stucky
Stucky
November 15, 2011 6:52 pm

I was testing the Thumbs Down clickee thingy on the above post. Seems to be working fine.

SSS
SSS
November 15, 2011 8:05 pm

Admin

What did I tell you when I said above, “Thanks for the article. One of your best. Despite its critical importance and message, it will receive few comments.”

This sucker is going down like a dying quail. Not sure how many hours you spent putting this article together for a well above-average informed audience, but I’m sure it was a lot.

Energy is an extremely complicated and difficult subject to grasp. Wikipedia won’t hack it. You have to make a concerted effort to try and understand what’s going on. I’ve been trying, as you have, to make sense of all the variables, and I admit I’m still learning.

I just wish MANY, MANY other visitors would weigh in with their thoughts. The fact they haven’t is not a good sign.

Persnickety
Persnickety
November 15, 2011 8:13 pm

Great article overall. I think SSS and some others are too negative on Thorium and solar; no, currently proven technology for either one doesn’t cut it, but progress is being made rapidly. Both of those have a chance of providing a relatively soft landing, which is about the best we can hope for. The global civilization of today is built on oil, which is rapidly becoming scarce relative to demand, and there is no available replacement. The consequences of peak oil will be groundshaking even if a quality fixed-source power supply becomes available (Thorium, fusion, solar, etc.), but will be absolutely devastating if we don’t come up with some kind of new energy source.

llpoh
llpoh
November 15, 2011 8:23 pm

The sad truth is that the gas prices need to be high – higher in fact than they are. Low prices = more consumption = quicker exhaustion of oil reserves. Time is in desperately short supply. The energy crunch is coming. Fuel conservation will not occur without cost incentive. It will be a bitch. Poor planning decades ago, and an unwillingness to face reality, will result in enormous pain quite soon.

Stucky
Stucky
November 15, 2011 8:41 pm

“I just wish MANY, MANY other visitors would weigh in with their thoughts. The fact they haven’t is not a good sign.” —- sss

I disagree. I think it’s more of a function of Jim writing such a good article that it’s almost impossible to refute.

Sure, some disagreements on thorium, solar, etc. Maybe I should post some Abiotic shit.

Also, peak energy just isn’t an emotional subject. It’ll be emotional once gas costs $10 a gallon .. but for now, The Biggest Loser is on tv. That’s way more important.

Persnickety
Persnickety
November 15, 2011 8:45 pm

“Abiotic shit”

Two words that go together when the first one is referring to oil.

The people of the developed world in the 20th Century are like a trust-fund kid who hits 18 and blows his entire fortune on a weekend of hookers and blow.

John John
John John
November 15, 2011 10:22 pm

I remember back in high school a friend saying that before they’d moved to Texas, another friend had converted his motor cycle to run on water, Ford had paid him well for the patent, then hidden it. I was like, right, what bullshit. Then I started using electrolysis to remove rust from antique tools and learned you had to have good ventilation or risk blowing the roof off your garage! Basically you are using a battery charger to produce, come to find out, the same hydrogen and oxygen they use to get the bloody space shuttle into space! (or “used” I guess I should say…) More research and you find little hydrogen from water producers being patented almost 100 years ago…and stories about garages getting raided when the wrong people found out (a fair number of stories, not just a couple of the usual internet el-creapos out there) and guys that supplied kits getting shut down and now only supplying plans. Sure is a lot of water out there! And the exhaust is…water…or oxygen. I have no clue how you could run a whole power plant this way, but there sure are lots of cars…and some have already mass produced engines for hydrogen fuel cells…

Zara
Zara
November 15, 2011 10:38 pm

SSS, do you understand the concept of “prototype?” If there is substantial potential during trials of modifications to the design, why would you waste money on a larger operation?

SSS
SSS
November 15, 2011 10:48 pm

Snick said, “I think SSS and some others are too negative on Thorium and solar; no, currently proven technology for either one doesn’t cut it, but progress is being made rapidly.”

I’m not negative on Thorium and solar, but I am realistic. I SUPPORT both Thorium and solar, but the cold, hard reality is that neither will produce, AT PRESENT, the massive amount of baseline power we will require in the near to mid term, ie. the next 20 years. We cannot afford to waste time hoping for a “breakthrough” on this or that technology.

The biggest solar plant on earth is in California and produces 365 megawatts…………..part time. It’s backed up by a natural gas plant that picks up the slack when the sun sets. The solar arrays sit on over 6,000 acres. That’s nearly 10 fucking square miles of land.

In contrast, our largest nuclear plant (a triple reactor) produces 3,900 megawatts, serves 4,000,000 customers, and operates 24/7, 365. If we built 100 of these puppies, we’re good to go for half a fucking century. We could actually take some of the older, dirtier coal plants offline and still be in the black for our power needs. And here’s a bonus: sell the excess coal to China, India, whomever………………………at a premium.

Here’s the bottom line, Snick: for baseline power, you either have to burn something or go nuclear. That’s it. No other options. None.

llpoh
llpoh
November 15, 2011 11:07 pm

SSS – right you are as of today. I do believe that over time we will slowly convert to a range of sources – nuclear/hydro/coal/gas(maybe)/solar/wind/wave/ and coal. There is plenty of coal oat there. And I do not think we will ignore it when people are shivering in the dark. We have just touched the surface of renewables – but I do not think they can fully offset current sources and they are all subject to the forces of nature – which leads back to nuclear or fossil fuel energy to at least top the system up. I also can envision a HUGE drop-off in deamnd as prices skyrocket. SUVs and central heating will just not be affordable by average joe.

Persnickety
Persnickety
November 15, 2011 11:13 pm

Actually the best base load power by far is hydroelectric, but the US has exploited most of its useful hydro capacity already (as you pointed out earlier). There is some remaining potential, but not huge amounts.

I agree that among well-proven technologies for large-scale base load generation, which can be increased in number for the US, uranium fission nuclear plants make the most sense. There are some issues here:
-as a matter of practice it’s taking something like 10-15 years to get a new nuke plant operating from the early approval stage. A lot of this is bureaucratic hassle and NIMBY, but it’s not a good standard.
-This reflects a focus on megascale centralized base load plants. That is certainly a proven approach, but it’s probably not the best one. There is a LOT of potential for more localized generation.
-Proven approaches to uranium fission have a mediocre EROEI; at least it’s still positive, but it’s not great.
-Whatever the technical merits of proven fission technology, good fucking luck getting any new ones approved and built after Fukushima. And we probably need to shut down a lot of the older ones for safety reasons.
-Likewise, we need nuclear waste storage. Yucca Mountain would work perfectly and is about as good as you could ask for, but politically it’s dead. If you can’t get political approval to store waste deep underground in a mountain in a barren desert next door to a nuclear test range in a barren western state far from civilization, where exactly are we going to decide to store it?

As for the California solar plant, a massive base-load centralized solar plant is about as dumb and economically inefficient as having gasoline generators for base load. It’s somewhere between the trilobite and the dinosaur of solar technology. The useful future of solar is with rooftop generation and net metering into the utility grid. There are breakthroughs being made in PVA cell efficiency and cost. Check out the link below.

Solar Power’s Good News

SSS
SSS
November 15, 2011 11:16 pm

Zara asked, “SSS, do you understand the concept of prototype?”

No, Zara, as a former Air Force pilot, I’m totally fucking clueless on what a prototype is. The Air Force only buys aircraft that go straight from the drawing board to fully operational and combat-ready. No trials. No test flights. Right straight to the battlefield. No exceptions. So please explain to me what this mysterious word means.

Zara followed with, “If there is substantial potential during trials of modifications to the design, why would you waste money on a larger operation?”

WTF are you talking about? Trials of what? Thorium reactors? What larger operation are we wasting money on here? Give me a break. I’m not a fucking mind reader.

llpoh
llpoh
November 15, 2011 11:18 pm

I will also make this prediction, as it obliquely has to do with energy. I predict that meat will radically reduce from western diets. Meat takes ten times more energy to produce than does grain per calorie produced. So it will become gruesomely expensive. World-wide demand for calories/protein will be enormous. Meat will be too expensive except for special occassions or for those who own farms I who will have the great temptation to sell the meat or to produce calories for sale. If there is sufficient world-wide food, them ethanol may replace meat for use as a fuel source.

This is not a good-looking future for those accustomed to an endless foodbasket.

Kill Bill
Kill Bill
November 15, 2011 11:23 pm

When I copied and pasted something its not what I said nor does it mean I agree with what was ‘said’

SSS wrote: Even if all that were true, 300 megawatts is a piss ant power plant.

True.

But its a safe natural energy source. I could say that gasoline engines are piss ant power plants but that doesnt stop them from being useful. Cars are pissant power producers but that didnt make them obsolete,

Kill Bill
Kill Bill
November 15, 2011 11:27 pm

“They (India) dont seem to have abandoned thorium based fuel as yet.” —- Kill Bill

They also haven’t abandoned burning cow shit in their stone ovens to bake bread.

So what’s your point? -Stucky

That India is still building Thorium based energy plants and havent, from what I gather, given up on it. Period.

SSS
SSS
November 15, 2011 11:30 pm

Snick

+10 on your last, thoughtful comment. Now, we’re talking. Just a short comment on your “focus on megascale centralized base load plants. That is certainly a proven approach, but it’s probably not the best one. There is a LOT of potential for more localized generation.”

I’m with you on more localized generation of nuclear power, as is Admin, who mentioned it in his article. I just haven’t gotten comfortable with the security aspects of a proliferation of smaller nuclear power plants. But that’s just me.

Kill Bill
Kill Bill
November 15, 2011 11:32 pm

No, Zara, as a former Air Force pilot, I’m totally fucking clueless on what a prototype is -SSS

Hmm. I have a feeling they wanted the clueless to test prototypes

=)

llpoh
llpoh
November 15, 2011 11:33 pm

I see little wind generators on every house and roofs covered in solar panels. I see fields of wave generators esp. On the pacific seaboard. I see beds individually heated not entire houses. Air conditioning? Bwahahahahaha! Swamp coolers if anything. SUVs? Nope. Bicycles yes. Local food sources. No bottled water. Less transport by truck. Smaller homes better insulated. Huge pressure to plant drought resistent and low cultivation GM plants. Lots more chicken eaten (efficient to grow) and a lot less beef (highly inefficient). Falling birthrates as reality bites into the combined pysche.

I see yards turned out to vegetable patches. Communal farms. Turmoil as the FSA realizes they must learn to fend. More nuclear plants.

I see a return to the past with respect to peopel needing to be self-sufficient. But it will be quite a shock. Too bad. So sad. Life goes on.

SSS
SSS
November 15, 2011 11:38 pm

Kill Bill

Your comments are well taken.

As I stated above, I approve of whatever efforts are being made on Thorium power plants. I hope we or India or whoever can come up with a breakthough on this energy source.

What I don’t approve of is hanging your hat on something that may or may not work out well. That’s not only not smart, it may prove fatal.

SSS
SSS
November 15, 2011 11:47 pm

llpoh

That “I see” comment was really good and quite interesting. Glad you didn’t mention dead people.

llpoh
llpoh
November 15, 2011 11:54 pm

SSS – i see those too! 7 million died. Hard to miss them.

crazyivan
crazyivan
November 16, 2011 12:03 am

llpoh,

-This is not a good-looking future for those accustomed to an endless foodbasket.-

That is precisely why I have not poisoned the gophers that live along side me, nor shot the cyotes that keep me awake with their yipping half the night.

It also contributes to the reason I don’t have a wife. Ever tried to eat a woman more than she eats?

Kill Bill
Kill Bill
November 16, 2011 12:06 am

What I don’t approve of is hanging your hat on something that may or may not work out well. That’s not only not smart, it may prove fatal -SSS

If necessity is the mother of invention then surely failure is the father of invention.

Persnickety
Persnickety
November 16, 2011 12:13 am

Since it doesn’t appear I have anything left to argue, let’s rehash Yucca Mountain. WTF?? Really, WTF?? As I said, if you can’t get political approval to store waste deep underground in a mountain in a barren desert next door to a nuclear test range in a barren western state far from civilization, where exactly are we going to decide to store it? I’ve been to the Nevada Test Site, next door to Yucca Mountain, and considering there’s about 900 radioactive craters there, and that the groundwater is 1000’s of feet down and moves at something like an inch per decade, that Vegas is more than an hour away and there are no other significant human settlements for a much greater distance in all other directions, I simply cannot imagine a better place within the US to store nuclear waste. But, because Congress is utterly dysfunctional and corrupt, Hairy-Balls Reid managed to prevent any actual use of Yucca Mountain, with absolutely no alternative existing. Last I knew they authorized the price of a happy meal to study other options, and report back in 10 years, or maybe it was 20. I think we should send a ton of waste home with each and every Congresscritter – and 5 tons for each committee chair or minority rep, and 20 tons for each Speaker – until all the high-level waste is safely stored in the homes of Congresscritters. Can I get an amen?

SSS
SSS
November 16, 2011 12:41 am

Snick

Amen.

Melvin Shapiro
Melvin Shapiro
November 16, 2011 10:34 am

No reorganization with bankruptcy. That’s the way humans work; whether it be individuals, families, companies, local government or Federal government – or as we can witness right now: the Eurozone.

We won’t admit that we can not afford the home mortgage we agreed to until the day arrives that we have no money upon which to write a check! And at that point we still won’t admit the fact: we’ll blame it on the lender! This applies to most of what we do when we live in a fantasy world; we believe in selected fiction.

In reality we will never runout of energy….. we will just runout of the money and then credit required to obtain it. On that day we will “reorganize,” whatever that requires. Until then, it would appear, we will not runout of hot air.

Persnickety
Persnickety
November 16, 2011 10:44 am

Melvin, are you trolling, or just unable to read and comprehend?

How much do paid trolls make an hour, anyway?

majormocambo
majormocambo
November 16, 2011 5:02 pm

Not sure what Melvin was saying, but maybe this is along the same thinking.
A barrel of oil contains over 20,000 man hours of work in it. At 10 dollars an hour, that makes the barrel worth 200,000 dollars, thats 4292 dollars per gallon. I guess we have a ways to go yet. The point being that eventually no one will buy it, and hence, never run out. I can’t believe we (the US) smoke 17 million barrels a day. That’s got to be bad for the earths lungs.

SSS
SSS
November 16, 2011 6:27 pm

majormocambo said, “I can’t believe we (the US) smoke 17 million barrels a day. That’s got to be bad for the earths lungs.”

Look, I’m not on board with this global warming, carbon dioxide shit. I think the jury of climate and other scientists are still deliberating. Al Gore and his ilk made up their minds years ago. Guilty.

But what I proposed above, moving sharply in the direction of nuclear energy, satisfies both sides of the equation, unless some anti-nuke critic is opposed to nuclear power plants emitting steam (water vapor) into the atmosphere. Under the best of circumstances, water vapor’s shelf life in the atmosphere is no longer than seven days. (In Arizona, it’s probably seven minutes.)

Meanwhile, the Warmers claim that carbon dioxide molecules can last as long as 400-500 years!!! How in hell do they know that? Do the CO2 molecules in the upper atmosphere carry a birth certificate?

At any rate, nuclear energy is the only CURRENTLY available baseline technology that should shut down the Global Warming Chicken Littles. No pollution, massive power source.

But as Admin said with his Thelma and Louise photo, not a fucking chance will it ever get a fair hearing. Especially not with this dumbass society.

SSS
SSS
November 16, 2011 6:30 pm

@ majormocambo

Forgot one point. I’m all for reducing our dependence on oil, foreign and domestic, in any way we can reasonably do so. The price of oil is headed in only one direction. Up.

John John
John John
November 16, 2011 8:04 pm

Why did the American gov’t subsidize nuclear in the first place? You know, if it were fully private, the bloody company would have had to buy the friggin mountain to put the waste under before the plant was ever built!!!! Now, you have to get agreement amongst a few million people for where to put it *sigh* and how come all the plants that exist in America, including the ones being built, were permitted no later than the 70’s??? If they’d simply allowed the scientists to do what scientists do, we’d have had fission a decade ago I’d bet. Nice and clean. Right up there with stem cell research…lovely to watch your child almost die from diabetes and know you will out-live him.

majormocambo
majormocambo
November 16, 2011 8:56 pm

The only thing I fear of nuclear energy is the stupidity of man. They make mistakes all the time. When you have all out nuclear energy plan, that increase the chances for mistakes, and you get the added increase of mistakes by adding massive amounts of corporation/government red tape and politics which increases the chances of stupidity creeping in. For example, who in their right mind put the backup generators in Japan at sea level. Nuclear energy scares me. If there is any hope on earth for a “hail mary” on energy, it has to be atomic, and it has to harness the energy released (binding energy) you get when you change an atoms configuration. The nuclear energy we produce now comes from a naturally occurring decay of an atom. We need to be able to force it on an atom without the bad nuclear radiation. The promise of nuclear fusion is doing exactly that, but getting the atom transformation going and sustaining it had proved to be difficult. The quacks over in Italy say they can mix nickle and hydrogen and a little heat and produce copper, with a huge amount of binding energy released in the process (more energy released than input). Some call this cold fusion, I don’t buy it. So we can only dream, and maybe nuclear energy in the short term will tide us over and buy us a bit more time. But like you say, no chance in hell that is going to happen, so we keep burning the coal. Eventually we are going to get to the point where all the mining, which relies on liquid fuels, is going to take a hit. Getting the minerals out of the ground is only getting harder. it doesn’t get any easier from here.

Novista
Novista
November 16, 2011 10:27 pm

majormocambo

Quacks? Maybe. Haven’t followed that story. But I know about theories and experiments and the idea of replicability. Yes. When it happens — and when it doesn’t, quack!

You may remember Edin Land’s initiat Retinex experiments, I think published in Scientific American in 1959. He got results, the scientists that dismissed him as ‘just a businessman’ didn’t. Quack. But decades later, some young turks said, how about this, and lo! replication, why golly gosh, Land was on the right idea.

SSS
SSS
November 17, 2011 12:19 am

majormocambo

Where to start?

“The only thing I fear of nuclear energy is the stupidity of man.” Try researching the Westinghouse AP 1000 third-generation plus nuclear reactor. It removes a lot of the stupidity of man, specifically the Three Mile Island factor.

“For example, who in their right mind put the backup generators in Japan at sea level.” Wrong. Japan moved the backup generators to higher ground NOT affected by the tsunami. The stupid engineers left the switching station (from primary to backup power) next to the reactor plants. It got flooded and failed. Surprise!!!!

“Nuclear energy scares me.” Why? Doesn’t scare me in the least. It’s perfectly safe. Mushroom clouds from nuclear bombs scare me.

“The quacks over in Italy say they can mix nickle and hydrogen and a little heat and produce copper, with a huge amount of binding energy released in the process (more energy released than input). Some call this cold fusion, I don’t buy it.” Neither do I. Cold fusion is a hoax.

Take a walk on the wild side, Major. Research today’s nuclear power potential.

majormocambo
majormocambo
November 17, 2011 1:37 am

SSS

Ok, so they moved the generators and left the switches at sea level, same effect.
I’m not dead set against nuclear power. I was a nuclear engineer through my junior year (switched to Electrical) and was in the Nuclear Navy. Again, man worries me. I have checked into the newest technology and I am impressed. It has always interested me.

Novista

Edwin Lands retinex algorithm based on the same principle that the visual cortex uses to achieve color constancy is a bit different than creating energy. Its ironic because my masters thesis was simulating the calculations performed by the piriform cortex. No one wants a computer that smells though. In any case, there can and should be hope, and I think I’m hanging my hope on clean atomic energy. If you research Sergio Focardi and Andrea Rossi, you’ll find the stuff on nickle-hydrogen reactions. The reason I call them quacks is …. you decide.

Jimmy
Jimmy
November 19, 2011 11:23 am

Good article, here are some grounded suggestions if you are worried about sudden oil shortage.

1 – Copper disinfects and purifies water. used for thousands of years, suppressed in the last century due to oil based products. An almost unlimited water purifier. Stay near a freshwater source, you have plenty of water – irrespective of the water company.

2 – Oyster mushrooms. This species of mushroom will digest any dead organic matter, including plastic and oil based products. If you get some plastic tubs, some used coffee grounds from the coffee shop and some spawn, you will have an almost indestructible food supply, just throw your old food,hair,leaves,sawdust etc on it to build up your supply.

3 – Hemp – Hemp, if grown, provides food(seeds) oil(seeds) fuel(stalk) fibre(stalk) mushroom substrate(leaves) it needs little water and will protect soil. If the whole system went down, if your rations can last 3-6 months, then that should give you enough energy to cover you whilst you grow a crop of hemp, which should last you until the following year.

4 – Health. If you have a genuinely healthy mind and body, you will feel great without any stimulants such as caffeine, alcohol, etc. You will also improve your resilience under stress if you are genuinely healthy. I have grown up in the western world, but cannot see how energy intensive methods of keeping healthy will compete against eastern methods such as qi gong and yoga.

The key to survival if the show hits the rocks is clean water and sufficient food. Copper will get your water clean, oyster mushrooms will provide nutrition and food. Personally, i am not going to wait until i’m thirsty before i dig my well.

Stucky
Stucky
November 19, 2011 11:58 am

Anybody heard of or seen the new movie, “Thrive”?

“On 11-11-11, Thrive, the documentary movie event, will open around the globe on the Internet. The trailer gives a tantalizing glimpse of a movie that asks and answers tough questions about why we are not thriving and how we can. It explores free energy and how we have the knowledge right now to free ourselves from the chains of the current global energy policies. ”

On the surface it seems a little too involved with conspiracies. But, it also looks interesting.

http://thrivemovement.com/

Stucky
Stucky
November 19, 2011 12:08 pm

[imgcomment image[/img]

majormocambo
majormocambo
November 19, 2011 6:18 pm

I wonder who will “Thrive” when you rent this documentary. They push all the right buttons to get your interest. Kind of like a “Chris Martenson” site, where he baits you with one article, then makes you pay to see what the really good insights are, of which you can get for free if you read enough of the right blogs. Knock yourself out, rent it.

Novista
Novista
November 19, 2011 7:58 pm

stucko, thanks for link .. I see a lot of names I know. Nathan Stubblefield isn’t there, but another unconvention inventor from the late 19th C.

major m … be careful you do not fall into the FSA camp!

Stucky
Stucky
November 19, 2011 8:08 pm

majormocambo

It’s just five bucks to rent. Cheap bastard. lol

It’s not the money …. it’s the TIME I don’t want to waste. Was just wondering if anyone saw it already, and their input.

Jay
Jay
November 21, 2011 2:59 pm

Well no shit. Did you just figure this out? Better call Brandon Smith and work it all out.

If you wanna use the car do go ridin next Sunday….
Summertime Blues Blue Cheer yea Cochran wrote it.