David
I agree, it needs a benign dictatorship to implement useful actions.
So-called democracies will never do so, because unpopular actions lose
votes at the next elections (at least in some countries :-) ).
Unfortunately, the present-day neo-conservative dictatorships are far
from benign, especially, as you point out, when they are lobbied by the
energy companies who provide the political parties with their cash.
I have some hopes re China, less so for India. China has already started
on a lot of carbon-free electricity generation (hydro and nuclear). I'm
personally opposed to Three Gorges, since I visited the site and the
region, for various reasons but mainly because it will put many millions
of lives in danger, but it will allow them to close down a number of the
dirtiest, oldest, coal-fired stations (some of them 60 years old). If
only other countries would follow suit.
In Europe, only Finland and France are actively pursuing nuclear
generation, although I can feel the tide may be turning. In the UK, they
seem to be betting mainly on wind, like some of the other N. European
states, but they seen to forget that the wind doesn't blow all the time.
There are three massive anticyclonic weather systems that cover the
whole of N. Europe, from the North of Scotland to the S. of France and
from Ireland to nearly Poland, each year. They can last 2 - 3 weeks,
almost without wind. The strongest one is in late November, with clear
skies and hard frosts at night, so that heating requirements and
electricity demand are high.
Certainly, the world economy is in for a hard time but the point I want
to make is that PO will not happen overnight; it will be a slow process
with lots of negative feedback (as energy prices rise, so the demand
will fall, manufacturing industry will slow down, except for innovative
technology, with low energy demand, so costs will tend to level out).
Hopefully, the Prius will kick the hell out of Cherokees and Hummers and
demand for fuel will drop, as the prices rise, so the overall cost for
the household, in constant dollar terms, will not rise too significantly.
We, in Europe, will probably be better off than you, in the USA. You are
in the start of a terrible inflationary spiral as other currencies than
the dollar will appear safer because of lower national debt levels and
the consequent de facto devaluation. Where you are paying twice as much
per bbl of crude oil in dollars, we, in terms of the euro, are paying
only 25% more.
Here's some food for thought. Do you know that the USA needs 38.2
quadrillion barrels of oil equivalent to produce all the electricity you
need, yet you distribute only 11.9 quads of actual electricity with 26.3
quads as energy losses? Worse, for transportation, the figures are 26.5,
5.3 and 21.2 quads respectively. Overall, for the ~97 quads of total
energy input, you use only 35.2 quads in useful work and lose 56.2
quads. So, not only do you consume vast amounts of energy (>85% from
fossil fuels), you waste the best part of 60% of it - and 40% of that
comes from oil. (2002 figures http://eed.llnl.gov/flow) Lest you think
that I'm US-bashing, some other countries, such as the UK, are only
marginally (~5%) better.
Brian
David Douthit wrote:
> Brian,
>
> The fact that there are variables in the numbers indicates some "wiggle
> room" for the end results.
> Your assessments are quite accurate. They are based on the concept of
> "present rate of consumption".
>
> This is an achievable goal provided a massive education campaign and
> direct governmental intervention is done. Even the Chinese have had only
> mild success holding done the birth rate and they have (as well as
> India) no intention of maintaining their "present rate of consumption".
> Who will "force" these nations , as well as all others (the United
> States included!), to stop growing/expanding their economies.
>
> Doubling the price of oil will have a major impact on the economic
> "health" of many powerful nations.
> This will be a critical point in our future. I believe the current
> Administration in Washington D.C. has taken the position of going to war
> for the remaining oil supplies (driven by companies such as Exxon/Mobile).
> This may lead to very dangerous and gloomy results.
>
> The "present rate of consumption" is the key and the United States of
> America has rejected the
> Kyoto Protocol. The rising gas prices will "remove" the SUV problem and
> hopefully get the USA back to the treaty and not to war. (BTW China and
> India are not required to reduce their immissions under Kyoto and will
> continue expanding energy usage at an estamated 2% to 4% per year).
>
> David A. Douthit
> Manager
> LoCan LLC.
>
> Brian Ellis wrote:
>
>> I've been following the Peak Oil (PO) arguments for about a year, now.
>> I'm sorry, but I do believe Climate Change (CC) is the #1 long-term
>> threat. The PO protagonists are mostly extremist-style activists who
>> prognosticate that the world will drop into total anarchy within the
>> next few years. OK, the facts, as I see it:
>>
>> 1. At our present rate of consumption, there is enough oil from known
>> and proven reserves for at least 50 years.
>>
>> 2. At our present rate of consumption, there is enough natural gas
>> from known and proven reserves for at least 100 years.
>>
>> 3. At our present rate of consumption, there is enough coal from known
>> and proven reserves for at least 300 years.
>>
>> 4. We are hitting a ceiling on the rate of extraction of oil within
>> the next 5 - 10 years because, as the easy-to-extract oil is depleted,
>> so we have to use more difficult-to-extract sources with lower flow
>> rates. The price of oil will increase, foreseeably to $100/bbl within
>> a couple of years or so.
>>
>> 5. The increased price will force swingeing increases in energy costs
>> which will make alternative sources more interesting.
>>
>> 6. If we burn all the reserves in 1, 2 and 3 above, bearing in mind
>> the residence time of CO2 is 300 years, the CO2 loading in the
>> atmosphere will increase from about 360 ppm today (from 280 ppm 150
>> years ago) to over 500 ppm, which is estimated to cause a global
>> temperature increase of 5° - 10°C. This is a dire threat to millions
>> of people, but it is impossible to predict the results.
>>
>> 7. As oil becomes more costly, there will be a tendency to swing
>> towards increased use of NG and coal. NG is less potent a CO2
>> generator, but it is estimated that 5% of all the gas that is
>> extracted is emitted through infrastructure leaks and venting etc. As
>> CH4 is ~35 times more powerful as a GHG than CO2, increased use will
>> be negative, not positive. Coal, is, of course, the most carbonaceous
>> of all fossil fuels (and the dirtiest).
>>
>> 8. I conclude, at this point, that we must reduce the use of ALL
>> fossil fuels ASAP. In this way, we shall also extend the longevity of
>> our known reserves, so that future generations may also profit from
>> them, and thus delay PO, PNG and PC. This will make the impact of
>> these phenomena less important.
>>
>> 9. As an aside, sequestration of GHGs is a pipe-dream (see
>> http://www.cypenv.org/Files/sequest.htm )
>>
>> 10. What can we use for fuels to replace fossil fuels without dropping
>> our style of life significantly, using proven technology?
>>
>> 11. Transport. Scrap all gas guzzlers, SUVs etc. by decree. Replace
>> them with cars like the Prius, which has a fraction of the
>> consumption, especially for urban use. Scrap all aircraft flights of
>> <1000 km. Use high-speed trains for passenger and goods transport.
>> Remove trucks from the road for all distances of >150 km in areas
>> served by high-speed trains.
>>
>> 12. Electricity. Use fixed renewables (e.g., wide-range tide, biomass
>> and trash combustion/gasification) to a maximum. Use variable
>> renewables (wind, solar, wave) up to 20% of peak demand (limit of grid
>> stability). Use nuclear for the rest. (We have the technology of
>> several centuries of uranium and thorium reserves.)
>>
>> 13. Housing. Make excellent insulation mandatory in all buildings to
>> reduce heating and aircon requirements. Domestic heating should be
>> uniquely electric from nuclear/renewable sources.
>>
>> 14. Energy conservation. This is an essential part of 21st c. life.
>> Tungsten lamps should be declared illegal etc. Anyone found using
>> extraordinary amounts of energy should be sanctioned.
>>
>> 15. Research. Government funding for all of the above should be of
>> primary importance.
>>
>> 16. Countries not conforming to the Kyoto Protocol (which entered into
>> force yesterday), its future amendments and other such international
>> measures should have severe trade sanctions imposed on them.
>>
>> Brian has spoken!
>>
>> David Douthit wrote:
>>
>>> Joe,
>>>
>>> I share your concern about global warming but I don't think
>>> it's the number 1 environmental concern.
>>>
>>> It will become a moot point in about 30 years.
>>> Go to http://eclipsenow.org
>>>
>>> David A. Douthit
>>> Manager
>>> LoCan LLC
>>>
>>> Joe Fjelstad wrote:
>>>
>>>> Forwarded for your consideration...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Have you heard about the Climate Stewardship Act? It's a
>>>>> bipartisan bill in Congress to undo global warming. And your
>>>>> help is needed to get it passed.
>>>>>
>>>>> Global warming is the number 1 environmental issue we face. And
>>>>> America -- the largest global warming polluter -- needs to act.
>>>>>
>>>>> Environmental Defense is working to get 1 million people to sign
>>>>> the online Emissions Petition in support of this bill. Hundreds
>>>>> of thousands have already signed. Please, do as I did and sign
>>>>> the petition today. It's easy -- just use the link below:
>>>>>
>>>>> http://actionnetwork.org/campaign/globalwarming_petition?rk=_paG6nF1EcJTW
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ***********************************
>>>>> Powered by GetActive Software, Inc.
>>>>> Relationship Management for Member Organizations (tm)
>>>>> http://www.getactive.com
>>>>> ***********************************
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
|
