THE T. Boone Pickens Thread (merged)

[MonteQuest]

Addicts don't NEED heroin, and people don't need to waste as much oil as we are now wasting.

No they don't, but how high would unemployment need to go to stop the waste in our use of energy? How much would real wages need to drop? Or, how far would the overall standard of living need to decline?

Unemployement will almost certainly rise significantly, but it isn't like most of those people can't be retrained. Given the current levels of debt, I'm sure most will be plenty motivated to get retrained. Given our current over reliance on oil and the need to build out new infrastructure and switch energy usage patterns, there will likely be a great number of jobs that need filling.

Retrained to consume what? The energy you just saved?

See, this is the paradox of eliminating waste to reduce consumption. It doesn't matter how the energy is used if you don't have enough of it.

If you cut out the waste, then the displaced workers must be absorbed by the remaining work force, but not at the same wages. If 10 people are making $10 an hour, now 20 people will make $5.

They are re-employed but at a lower standard of living. Why? Because you must prohibit a return of the consumption you just reduced. It doesn't matter whether the energy is wasted or not, it provides employment.

You cut out the waste, you must lower the standard of living to prevent the energy you saved from being re-consumed. Remember, we are looking for a net reduction, not a transfer from one use to another.

[FatherOfTwo]

Retrained to consume what? The energy you just saved?
See, this is the paradox of eliminating waste to reduce consumption. It doesn't matter how the energy is used if you don't have enough of it.
If you cut out the waste, then the displaced workers must be absorbed by the remaining work force, but not at the same wages. If 10 people are making $10 an hour, now 20 people will make $5.
They are re-employed but at a lower standard of living. Why? Because you must prohibit a return of the consumption you just reduced.
It doesn't matter whether the energy is wasted or not, it provides employment. You cut out the waste, you must lower the standard of living to prevent the energy you saved from being re-consumed. Remember, we are looking for a net reduction, not a transfer from one use to another.

In your scenario you are assuming a continuing net loss in total available energy with a continuing increase in population. If that is the case, I agree.
But you don't consider the scenario where other sources of energy begin taking up the slack (or population declines, which is less likely in the forseeable future).
Energy gains can come from... here comes the N word... nuclear.
(I can hear Monte groaning now )

[OilsNotWell]

Retrained to consume what? The energy you just saved?
See, this is the paradox of eliminating waste to reduce consumption. It doesn't matter how the energy is used if you don't have enough of it.

Perhaps a better (and appropriate in many ways) analogy to oil would be to food. Some folks eat too much and get fat. Some folks don't have enough to eat. Some even starve. Some folks (the fat ones, can and should eat less). They start losing weight. Pretty soon, they are starving too. Pretty soon, some of them die, too.

[FatherOfTwo]

Perhaps a better (and appropriate in many ways) analogy to oil would be to food. Some folks eat too much and get fat. Some folks don't have enough to eat. Some even starve. Some folks (the fat ones, can and should eat less). They start losing weight. Pretty soon, they are starving too. Pretty soon, some of them die, too.

It all depends on what the breaking points are and how evenly distributed the remaining energy is.

But again, the key thing is you guys are assuming a continuing drop in available energy. You can't guarantee this. Just like I can't guarantee that nuclear will be able to make up 10-50-100-200% of the shortfall in oil energy. I can guarantee you we sure as hell are going to try.

[MonteQuest]

In your scenario you are assuming a continuing net loss in total available energy with a continuing increase in population. If that is the case, I agree.
But you don't consider the scenario where other sources of energy begin taking up the slack (or population declines, which is less likely in the forseeable future). Energy gains can come from... here comes the N word: nuclear. (I can hear Monte groaning now )

No, I am assuming a continuing increase in the cost of energy which will equal a loss in accessiblity, as it is money that gains humans access to energy.
And no, I don't consider a population decline. Overshoot will continue even in the face of declining energy supplies.

And no, at less thatn 8% of the world's primary energy, I don't see a ramp up of nuclear. The more I read, the more I am convinced that cooling the nuke plants will be site-limiting, thus setting a limit of plant construction.

Right now, it is coal-fired powerplants that are on the drawing boards and under construction. I think I will start some "construction progress" threads in Technology just to track what is actually being built, because that is what matters, is it not?

[Free]

My comments in regards to the above article were deleted by the NY Times in their forum.

Why??? Does it happen more often that comments get deleted there? Your comments seemed perfectly sane, why would they do that?

It's my paranoia again, but I wouldn't be surprised if there are people who try to suppress PO-awareness as good as they can.
Over in the open discussion forum is a post from a guy who works at a stock broker firm, and a working colleague referred to POers as "intellectual molesters". Interesting point of view, but I guess if one has no intellect one gets easily molested by it...

[DantesPeak]

My comments in regards to the above article were deleted by the NY Times in their forum.

Why? Does it happen more often that comments get deleted there? Your comments seemed perfectly sane, why would they do that? It's my paranoia again, but I wouldn't be surprised if there are people who try to suppress PO-awareness as good as they can.

Over in the open discussion forum is a post from a guy who works at a stock broker firm, and a working colleague referred to POers as "intellectual molesters". Interesting point of view, but I guess if one has no intellect one gets easily molested by it.

I entitled my post "In the Peak Oil Debate, Opinions aren't Rational". Usually they just delete unintelligible posts or posts with bad language. I thought of resubmitting, but I'll just wait for the next PO article.

By this winter, we may have stories such as "Natural Gas Shortage Leaves Nation in the Cold", where some comments about PO may be more acceptable.

[MonteQuest]

But again, the key thing is you guys are assuming a continuing drop in available energy. You can't guarantee this. Just like I can't guarantee that nuclear will be able to make up 10-50-100-200% of the shortfall in oil energy. I can guarantee you we sure as hell are going to try.

Like I said earlier, I assume an ever increasing price making it less available. I can guarantee that. Energy is not going to get cheaper or remain static.

As to nuclear making up the shortfall...no, I think we will go to war over the remaining fossil fuel resources before we try to use nukes to close the shortfall. History and current reality is on my side.

[FatherOfTwo]

No, I am assuming a continuing increase in the cost of energy which will equal a loss in accessiblity, as it is money that gains humans access to energy.

True enough. Given escalating energy prices the third world countries aren't likely to ever pull themselves out of their morass. That's a sad commentary. As for the first world, it depends. How much money can continue to be rerouted to pay for energy before causing irreversible problems? That's unknown. Also, I'd like to see some definitive (unbiased) numbers on the $$ costs of nuclear energy. Many have stated it is very cost-effective to run the plant. In a world where peak oil is evident, all of the non-engineering related capital costs are either going to go away or be covered by the government (which sounds suspiciously familar to a certain provision in the latest energy bill, doesn't it?)

And no, at less thatn 8% of the world's primary energy, I don't see a ramp up of nuclear. The more I read, the more I am convinced that cooling the nuke plants will be site-limiting, thus setting a limit of plant construction.

I'd be interested to read more on this. But Monte, I thought you considered nuclear "still born"?

Right now, it is coal-fired powerplants that are on the drawing boards and under construction.

I think I will start some "construction progress" threads in Technology just to track what is actually being built, because that is what matters, is it not?

If everyone had the same knowledge about the pending energy crisis, then yes, what is being built now would be what matters. Unfortunately, the big building spree isn't going to happen until energy costs are exhorbitant and the peak is undeniable. Piss poor planning 101.

[Concerned]

Piss poor planning 101.

Oh god priceless

[MonteQuest]

And no, at less thatn 8% of the world's primary energy, I don't see a ramp up of nuclear. The more I read, the more I am convinced that cooling the nuke plants will be site-limiting, thus setting a limit of plant construction.

I'd be interested to read more on this. But Monte, I thought you considered nuclear "still born"?

It seems largely ignored, but nuke plants much have access to vast amounts of cooling water to disperse the excess heat. France had a big problem with this issue in 2003 during the heat wave. You can't just build one anywhere.

And yes, I think nuclear power will remain "stillborn."

[nero]

It seems largely ignored, but nuke plants much have access to vast amounts of cooling water to disperse the excess heat. France had a big problem with this issue in 2003 during the heat wave. You can't just build one anywhere.

A coal fired plant also needs cooling water. I don't think this is really an issue though because new plants can be designed to minimize the water uasage. And it's not like we don't have alternative cooling sinks if we can't use a water body.

[Antimatter]

If the helium cooled pebble bed thingis work out they will need less cooling water, though helium supply may be an issue after peak natural gas. I also don't think a water cooled reactor needs much more water than a coal fired plant.

[Leanan]

CNN had a story about Pickens this morning. He gave a speech in Oklahoma, warning about peak oil again.

I found an AP story about it here.

In the foreseeable future, he said, production is coming down at the same time demand will be growing. He said China had doubled its demand for oil in 10 years and the demand will continue to grow.

Pickens, the founder of Mesa Petroleum Co., said demand is so tight that if Iran pulled one million barrels of oil off the market "you'll have $75 (a barrel) oil in 24 hours."

He also says a Congressman has accused him of talking up the price of oil. And he thinks Dubya's switch grass solution is ridiculous.

Pickens seems to be supporting the NY Times solution: raise taxes on gas on refund them via a reduction in the payroll tax.

[DantesPeak]

In a related story in the Daily Oklahoman, Pickens also sees NG prices going back up:

As for natural gas, Pickens said prices probably will fall below $6 per thousand cubic feet because of warm weather and temporary oversupplies.

"But it won't stay there long," he warned.

If next winter is expected to be normal or colder than normal, the price quickly could climb back above $15.

A mixture of alternative energy sources eventually will reduce the demand for oil and natural gas, Pickens said. But in the meantime, alternative fuels and increased access to known oil reserves probably will not be enough to meet climbing demand. Higher prices may be the best way to prevent demand from continuing to outpace supply, Pickens said.

"In the past, price increases have only impacted demand briefly before it continued to trend upward," Pickens said. "But there will be a place where there will finally be a demand choker."

Registration required:
http://newsok.com/article/1787254/

On energy alternatives

“I’m 100 percent a President Bush guy, but I fell out of my chair when he said wood chips and switchgrass ... are going to get us ethanol at a cheap price. I’m not sure you want ethanol. The emissions from ethanol are not good. You can’t do it efficiently or economically with corn. Ethanol is not the answer.”

“I don’t think anybody in this room will drive a hydrogen car. Hydrogen is a secondary fuel that has to be manufactured from somewhere.”
On environmentalists

“I can ask a room of 100 people how many of them are environmentalists, and everybody will raise their hands. Now for $1,000, how many are environmentalists? Nobody will raise their hands. I can get 20 people for $10. If you try to sell clean fuel, you can’t do it. It all goes by economics.”

On Arctic drilling

“Even if producers find 10 million barrels per day of oil in ANWR (the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge), you can only fit 2 million barrels per day through the pipeline. I don’t think ANWR is as big as people say. I’ve heard it could hold as much as 16 billion barrels of recoverable oil, which is more than Prudhoe Bay. I predict we won’t get over 4 billion barrels out of ANWR. That won’t save us.”

[whereagles]

$5 a gallon is nothing. In Europe we're paying ~$6 and most middle-class families could easily pay two or three times as much. Even four times, if they really wanted to stick to the car.

I estimate that only at $15 a gallon would the lower classes be unable afford a car anymore, and at $30 the middle-class.

[frankthetank]

$5 gas in the US would probably lead to riots in certain places.

[emersonbiggins]

$5 a gallon is nothing. In Europe we're paying ~$6 and most middle-class families could easily pay two or three times as much. Even four times, if they really wanted to stick to the car.

I estimate that only at $15 a gallon would the lower classes be unable afford a car anymore, and at $30 the middle-class.

Apples and oranges. What's your VMT there in Portugal, like 6 000 km/year? Americans drive 3-5 times that much in vehicles that are half as efficient as yours, mostly because they 'have to'.

[TorrKing]

In Norway we pay about $7,20 a gallon these days. After Katrina we payed about $10 a gallon.

Torjus Gaaren

[Zardoz]

Five bucks will hardly have any effect.

We're addicted to bloated, oversized, gas-swilling vehicles. God knows what it'll take to get people out of their Suburbans. Most will have to be dragged out bodily, no matter what the price. We'll chain ourselves into our Escalades. We'll tape our hands to the wheels of our Navigators like suicide bombers.

Kunstler really is right about us, sad to say.