[KaiserJeep]

@ sjn..... I agree with your characterization ......it is going to be interesting.....

it seems that many people have trouble quite how fragile our agricultural systems are....and how many areas are already borderline

on the other hand the best minds are continually working on adaptations even though many in the agricultural sphere are deeply conservative.....it's a race against both ingrained policy's and time

Fragile? People like to eat, and will go on eating as long as possible. When something breaks in our agricultural system, some smart ape fixes it and probably makes his fortune doing so.

Face it, for every Doomie there are thousands of drones, who get up and go to work and push the system along in the ultimate triumph of BAU.

At the high level view, nothing is fragile. Not the planet, not the human race, not our technological civilization, and certainly not our ability to keep feeding ourselves.

Long term, there is trouble coming. It should be obvious that we are approaching the limits of what can be produced from limited amounts of cheap fossil fuels. In another couple of human generations, there will be more people than can be fed. That is already true in some places in the Third World. It is likely that it never will be true in the any First World country.

[vtsnowedin]

In another couple of human generations, there will be more people than can be fed. That is already true in some places in the Third World. It is likely that it never will be true in the any First World country.

I'd have to research it but I would be surprised if not at least one Roman Senator said "Chaos and famine may happen in the far flung provinces of Briton and Judea but it can never happen in Rome."

[KaiserJeep]

In another couple of human generations, there will be more people than can be fed. That is already true in some places in the Third World. It is likely that it never will be true in the any First World country.

I'd have to research it but I would be surprised if not at least one Roman Senator said "Chaos and famine may happen in the far flung provinces of Briton and Judea but it can never happen in Rome."

I don't know if anybody ever said that, but the Roman Empire survived through barbarian invasions, plagues, and wars, even several civil wars. The only time there was a food shortage was when Alaric blockaded the ports in the 4th Century. The Roman Empire arguably lasted 500 years, the American Empire is only half that old.

[vtsnowedin]

In another couple of human generations, there will be more people than can be fed. That is already true in some places in the Third World. It is likely that it never will be true in the any First World country.

I'd have to research it but I would be surprised if not at least one Roman Senator said "Chaos and famine may happen in the far flung provinces of Briton and Judea but it can never happen in Rome."

I don't know if anybody ever said that, but the Roman Empire survived through barbarian invasions, plagues, and wars, even several civil wars. The only time there was a food shortage was when Alaric blockaded the ports in the 4th Century. The Roman Empire arguably lasted 500 years, the American Empire is only half that old.

Yes the Romans had a long run but the city has been sacked six times. 387BC, 410 AD,455, 546, 1048 and 1527AD.
Our turn may well come in time.

[KilonBerlin]

In another couple of human generations, there will be more people than can be fed. That is already true in some places in the Third World. It is likely that it never will be true in the any First World country.

I'd have to research it but I would be surprised if not at least one Roman Senator said "Chaos and famine may happen in the far flung provinces of Briton and Judea but it can never happen in Rome."

I don't know if anybody ever said that, but the Roman Empire survived through barbarian invasions, plagues, and wars, even several civil wars. The only time there was a food shortage was when Alaric blockaded the ports in the 4th Century. The Roman Empire arguably lasted 500 years, the American Empire is only half that old.

Yes the Romans had a long run but the city has been sacked six times. 387BC, 410 AD,455, 546, 1048 and 1527AD.
Our turn may well come in time.

500 years roman empire and American Empire is only half that old? 250 years? Before 1914 the US were much, but not an "Empire", even before 1945 many did not see the US as an "Empire", in January 1940 the US had such a small and bad equipped army (as the Marines in the early battles in 1942 against Japanese troops felt, they had mostly WW1 machine guns, modern aussault rifles and I think even mobile anti-tank and anti-air guns with more than 50 mm caliber), they were Rank 40 in 1940 by the Number of soldiers!

But I did read above at the post with the picture of the planet (I can not identify which part this is, no point like Italy, Korea, Australia, Middle East or so... what are the "lights seen from space"? I always thought much lights concentrated, I also wonder about Expressway lights?! In the US with a West to East driving route of like 4,000 kilometers the expressways have light?! "Autobahn" in Germany has no light except small weak ones to make shields visible in the dark, also no advertisement, in recent time they are not building always usual shields but complete electric signs to show what is the allowed speed etc... I think they use modern LED-technology for this.

Problem are the people, since someone said he reduced his fuel demand by 90% and would even buy a 125cc if he would not be 65 and would live in an area with real winter... "other" people, especially in the US, think different. I mean almost all SUV's in the US are completely useless. California, L.A. Area... how many of these rich people there will drive in an area where you need an SUV or the top-seller F-150 Series Pickup...

Europe consumes a bit less than ~50% of the private consumed fuel per capita in the US, and I have not been in the US and I will never be I think, but I would not say we have a worse life... look at Scandinavia, they are always on the top of the country rankings, best places to live... and even Norway as major oil producer has a low fuel consumption.

I mean 2008 we had a gasoline price of ~8 US-$ per gallon, even now with a very very weak €uro and a low oil price we have over 5 US-$ per gallon. US gasoline is just too cheap, New Jersey made a good step with its increase and other follow:

At the start of 2017 five states will collect more tax at the fuel pump. Elected officials in at least nine more states are discussing whether to adopt their own rate increases.

In Alabama, the Association of County Commissions is advocating for a $1.2 billion bond issue for roads in the upcoming regular session.

The plan would use a 3-cent increase in the fuel tax to pay off the bonds. The rate increase would sunset when the bonds are paid off.

The US have to increase the federal tax for gasoline and the states too. The actual taxes are not enough to maintain infrastructure. Same with electricity, the use is high because of a dream price of 0.12$/kWh in 2012 (last info I did read months ago), we payed in 2015 in Germany over 0,30$ (or 0,285€/kWh) for example.

[KilonBerlin]

I don't know if anybody ever said that, but the Roman Empire survived through barbarian invasions, plagues, and wars, even several civil wars. The only time there was a food shortage was when Alaric blockaded the ports in the 4th Century. The Roman Empire arguably lasted 500 years, the American Empire is only half that old.

Yes the Romans had a long run but the city has been sacked six times. 387BC, 410 AD,455, 546, 1048 and 1527AD.
Our turn may well come in time.

500 years roman empire and American Empire is only half that old? 250 years? Before 1914 the US were much, but not an "Empire", even before 1945 many did not see the US as an "Empire", in January 1940 the US had such a small and bad equipped army (as the Marines in the early battles in 1942 against Japanese troops felt, they had mostly WW1 machine guns, modern aussault rifles and I think even mobile anti-tank and anti-air guns with more than 50 mm caliber were not available for the troops, it took a while until the US extreme potential was used and reached the far away pacific theatre islands and the US Navy there, since many of recent produced weapons went to the United Kingdom and the Soviet Union), they were Rank 40 in 1940 by the Number of soldiers!

But I did read above at the post with the picture of the planet (I can not identify which part this is, no point like Italy, Korea, Australia, Middle East or so... what are the "lights seen from space"? I always thought much lights concentrated, I also wonder about Expressway lights?! In the US with a West to East driving route of like 4,000 kilometers the expressways have light?! "Autobahn" in Germany has no light except small weak ones to make shields visible in the dark, also no advertisement, in recent time they are not building always usual shields but complete electric signs to show what is the allowed speed etc... I think they use modern LED-technology for this.

Problem are the people, since someone said he reduced his fuel demand by 90% and would even buy a 125cc if he would not be 65 and would live in an area with real winter... "other" people, especially in the US, think different. I mean almost all SUV's in the US are completely useless. California, L.A. Area... how many of these rich people there will drive in an area where you need an SUV or the top-seller F-150 Series Pickup...

Europe consumes a bit less than ~50% of the private consumed fuel per capita in the US, and I have not been in the US and I will never be I think, but I would not say we have a worse life... look at Scandinavia, they are always on the top of the country rankings, best places to live... and even Norway as major oil producer has a low fuel consumption.

I mean 2008 we had a gasoline price of ~8 US-$ per gallon, even now with a very very weak €uro and a low oil price we have over 5 US-$ per gallon. US gasoline is just too cheap, New Jersey made a good step with its increase and other follow:

At the start of 2017 five states will collect more tax at the fuel pump. Elected officials in at least nine more states are discussing whether to adopt their own rate increases.

In Alabama, the Association of County Commissions is advocating for a $1.2 billion bond issue for roads in the upcoming regular session.

The plan would use a 3-cent increase in the fuel tax to pay off the bonds. The rate increase would sunset when the bonds are paid off.

The US have to increase the federal tax for gasoline and the states too. The actual taxes are not enough to maintain infrastructure. Same with electricity, the use is high because of a dream price of 0.12$/kWh in 2012 (last info I did read months ago), we payed in 2015 in Germany over 0,30$ (or 0,285€/kWh) for example.

I think this low price is only possible through extreme high own natural gas and coal production, the extreme much nuclear reactors and an increasing renewable energy part... Increase the price from 0.12$ to 0.35$ per kWh and people would care more about their energy use...

Back to oil, we will see which are the other states, the article is quite long:

http://www.landlinemag.com/Story.aspx?StoryID=32484#.WF5nJVPhCM8

But more important would be a federal tax increase which would affect all of the current ~325.5 million people living in the US.

[vtsnowedin]

KilonB
Highways in the US are lighted in urban areas where there are multiple lanes and heavy traffic . City streets are lighted for pedestrian safety and to reduce crime. Long stretches of highways between towns are not. Sign shields use reflective tape but some in urban areas are also lighted. My electricity cost me 0.22 $ per kwh retail.
Yes the gas tax should be increased both to rebuild infrastructure on a pay as you go basis and to decrease gasoline consumption.
By the end of Americas civil war the USA was recognized as a world power to be reckoned with, not for the size of it's standing Army but for it's industrial capacity.
By WW2 we were literally building ships and planes faster then anyone could destroy them.

[onlooker]

Here is something to keep in mind. Look at the major hurdles to scaling up wind and solar.
1: Power Storage Is Incredibly Expensive On A Large Scale
2: The U.S. Power Grid Is Older, And Has Trouble Handling Solar And Wind
3: Rebuilding The Power Grid To Handle Solar And Wind Is Absurdly Expensive
4: Solar and Wind Don’t Provide Power At Useful Times
5: Solar And Wind Can’t Keep the Lights On By Themselves
6: The Best Places For Solar And Wind Are Usually Far Away From Consumers
7. Solar And Wind Are A Very Small Percent Of The Power Grid Despite Years of Subsidies
8: The Solar And Wind “Low-Hanging Fruit” Have Already Been Taken
http://dailycaller.com/2015/12/25/top-1 ... ind-power/
Now, look at just what amount of building out of renewable infrastructure we are talking about.
In fact, at the global level, in order to shift away from a world that gets 81 percent of its energy from fossil fuels and to cut emissions of carbon dioxide to just 14 gigatons per year, here is what the International Energy Agency says will have to be built every year between now and 2050: 35 coal-fired and 20 gas-fired power plants with carbon capture and storage; 30 nuclear power plants; 12,000 onshore wind turbines paired with 3,600 offshore ones; 45 geothermal power plants; 325 million square meters-worth of photovoltaics; and 55 solar-thermal power plants. That doesn’t even include the need to build electric cars and hydrogen fuel cell vehicles in order to shift transportation away from burning gasoline.
http://e360.yale.edu/feature/green_ener ... g_up/2362/

[ROCKMAN]

Looker - Let's take some of those points one at a time:

"Power Storage Is Incredibly Expensive On A Large Scale" Just like badges: "We don't need no stinking storage". LOL. The power goes straight into the grid and immediately consumed. Don't need storage since we haven't gotten rid of any of our fossil fuel powered generation.

"The U.S. Power Grid Is Older, And Has Trouble Handling Solar And Wind" There is no "U.S. Power Grid". There are 3 grids...not one: East, West and Texas. And the Texas grid is preforiming admirably.

"Rebuilding The Power Grid To Handle Solar And Wind Is Absurdly Expensive". Not too expensive at $7 BILLION since the Texas politician spent those tax payer $'s to expand our grid. As far as the wind farms themselves being too expensive: apparently the folks investing $BILLIONS in private capex disagreed.

"Solar and Wind Don’t Provide Power At Useful Times". Our wind turbines spin really fast when the winter storms blow hard across those west Texas plains. Especially when demands exceeds the out put of our ff plants. Like when a polar vortex shut down some NG fueled plants and the wind farms prevented blackouts by providing nearly 40% of THE TOTAL STATEWIDE DEMAND. Pretty damn useful in north Texas when the polar vortex knocked out all of their ff generated electricity when the temp dropped below 0°.

"Solar And Wind Can’t Keep the Lights On By Themselves" Which is why they are a perfect SUPPLEMENT for our ff fired plants as well as a great SUBSTITUTE for the additional ff fired plants we would have had to build to meet our booming electricity demand.

"The Best Places For Solar And Wind Are Usually Far Away From Consumers". And thus the easy economic justification for expanding our grid with tax payer $'s. In addition to shipping wind power in to our major population centers our solar is about to boom now that prices are coming down. And fortunately that grid expansion covers south Texas where we have a gazillion acres of open and nearly worthless sun drenched acres.

"Solar And Wind Are A Very Small Percent Of The Power Grid Despite Years of Subsidies" In Texas, by far the largest electricity consuming state, that "small percent" has ranged from 10% to 40%.

"The Solar And Wind “Low-Hanging Fruit” Have Already Been Taken". As mentioned already with solar costs coming down we have a gazillion acres of "low hanging" solar fruit in south Texas that's ready to be picked since they are already tied to our expanded grid. FYI: one of our biggest wind farms is on our southern coastline.

But that's just us environmentally conscious Texans doing what we can to save the planet. LOL.

[onlooker]

Pretty thorough counter to my post Rockman. You are making a convert out of me. Question though can Texas become the whole US?

[KaiserJeep]

The short answer is no. However wind and solar and a scattering of other sources can replace FF's if we first learn to conserve, and re-implement our infrastructure to use 15% of the energy we consume now. It would be a useful thing for the US Federal Government to set such a goal, say over a 25-year implementation period, and then shut down any enterprise that fails to meet such a goal.

[onlooker]

The short answer is no. However wind and solar and a scattering of other sources can replace FF's if we first learn to conserve, and re-implement our infrastructure to use 15% of the energy we consume now. It would be a useful thing for the US Federal Government to set such a goal, say over a 25-year implementation period, and then shut down any enterprise that fails to meet such a goal.

Thanks K for that interesting reply

[ROCKMAN]

Looker - Actually not a very fair counter. First, we do have some significant geographical adavtages over many states. And then having decided long ago to have a separately electrical grid was probably critical: had we been in East or West I question if we could have gotten a consensus among the adjacent states AND the feds to expand. Then we've had a booming economy that demanded something be done to expand electricity generation. If a state's economy/population wasn't growing (let alone if it was shrinking) how could it justify EXPANDING or REPLACING capacity? Remember we were going to have to build NEW plants and not replace EXISTING infrastructure. And let's not forget we have a sh*tload of money thanks to fossil fuels...like our $10 BILLION sovereign fund to fall back on. Ironic, eh: our huge fossil fuel industry provided Texas with the incentive and capex to expand alternative energy sources. How many states can claim the same?

[onlooker]

So not easily translated to the whole of the US. Still good to know at least one state is making it work

[ROCKMAN]

KJ - "It would be a useful thing for the US Federal Government to set such a goal". But that brings us full circle back to that hindrance again: local vs national policy. Are the feds going to institute the same motor fuel conservation measures for NY as Wyoming? The same heating/cooling policies for PA as F!orida?. The same overall energy consumption policy for the growing Houston economy as the crippled Detroit economy?

And if the feds try to avoid a one-size-fits-all approach and customize by state or region can you imagine the political battles in Congress. As I just pointed out to Looker: Texas has a very unique energy dynamic. As does CA to a degree. Each state, or at least each region,has a unique set of advantages and negatives. Thus each has to develop its own unighunighue plan going forward.

The country has sat for many decades waiting for the feds to come up with a plan forward. The national mpg of the ROLLING FLEET improving just a fraction of 1% per year? An SPR costing many $BILLIONS that would allow us (for a very short pertiod) to burn as much motor fuel as we have been? = conservation? President Obama signing a $205 BILLION bill for highway construction (compared to the $478 BILLION budget he originally propoided) = conservation? And today exporting more oil, NG and coal then ever before in history = conservation? And 40% of US coal production coming from federal lands = conservation? The govt offering more offshore oil/NG leases at one time to the industry then every before in history = conservation? The federal offshore areas projected to producd more oil in 2017 then ever before in history = conservation? The govt spending $TRILLIONS in tax revenue and the lives of thousands of our military to maintain ME oil production = conservation?

Is that similar to the model of the 25 year plan you have in mind? As Dr. Phil would ask: How's that working for you? LOL.

And again the irony: the person that for more then 4 decades worked so hard to find fossil fuels is also often the one that posts the most damning facts about on energy gluttony? LOL.

[KaiserJeep]

RM, 15% of the current energy consumed is my estimate of what can be achieved if we make a good try. I admittedly have given little thought to the implementation details. Things like giving up security lighting, banning bulbs other than LEDs for general lighting applications, taxing the He!! out of fuel-burning vehicles and their fuel, while subsidizing EVs, etc. Probably a whole lot of other things. Then there are things like fertilizer production which cannot be done without natural gas. Mandating that each and every building be renovated or replaced is still another item.

The pushback will be enormous. If you think that it would be fair enough, just limit each state to 15% of the hydrocarbon fuels they now consume, and let each state apportion them as they wish. But DOT regs and CAFE goals and the like have always been Federal and probably should remain so, we just need to crank the screws down on the fuel consumers and the fuel producers, because we want the oil reserves to last 6X as long as they are likely to consuming at the present rates.

I'm not saying it won't be disruptive - it will be, in spades. The screams of the Congress Critters will be heard in Virginia and Maryland, all the way from Capital Hill.

What I'm saying, is this needs to be done, while we have the energy reserves to re-implement our infrastructure and power grid.

[kublikhan]

So not easily translated to the whole of the US. Still good to know at least one state is making it work

Not true. Texas is actually below average among the states in share of electricity from renewables. The US average in 2015 was 13.4% renewable(16.9% this year). Texas was 10.6%. California was 30.5%. Vermont was 99.8%.

States by 2015 renewable electricity production:
Vermont: 99.8%
Washington: 76%
South Dakota: 75.3%
Idaho: 74.6%
Oregon: 68.4%
Maine: 66.3%
Montana: 39.5%
Iowa: 33.1%
California: 30.5%
Alaska: 29%
...
US Average: 13.4%
...
Texas: 10.6%

Or even just talking wind alone plenty of other states have managed to top Texas in Wind's share of generation:
US Wind Energy Share of Electricity Generation during 2015 by state
Iowa: 31.3%
South Dakota: 25.5%
Kansas: 23.9%
North Dakota: 17.7%
Minnesota: 17.0%
Idaho: 16.2%
Colorado: 14.2%
Maine: 10.5%
Texas: 10.0%

[kiwichick]

thanks for that info Kublikhan.......and of course we don't actually have a choice about transitioning to low carbon emitting power sources......if we want a planet capable of supporting the majority of species currently present on this planet

https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... isaster-un

[KilonBerlin]

KilonB
Highways in the US are lighted in urban areas where there are multiple lanes and heavy traffic . City streets are lighted for pedestrian safety and to reduce crime. Long stretches of highways between towns are not. Sign shields use reflective tape but some in urban areas are also lighted. My electricity cost me 0.22 $ per kwh retail.
Yes the gas tax should be increased both to rebuild infrastructure on a pay as you go basis and to decrease gasoline consumption.
By the end of Americas civil war the USA was recognized as a world power to be reckoned with, not for the size of it's standing Army but for it's industrial capacity.
By WW2 we were literally building ships and planes faster then anyone could destroy them.

Thanks for the Info, I only did read it, and as I wrote it was 2012 and the average price is not only for the like I think you call "Lower 48", Hawaii and Alaska's prices are included in the "US average", DC was quite high too I think, since it is like Berlin (Berlin is a city, capital but also its own State, like Hamburg and Bremen are "City-States") only urban there, Maryland is very small too I think, Virginia was the 2nd state close to DC I think... I think like with gas.. Texas is cheap I guess and rural areas and West- and Eastcoast is expensive I guess.

0.22$ is "ok", but still lower, the €uro was strong in 2012 and early 2014, the 0,285€ meant something like 0.40$ per kWh! In Germany (I guess whole EU) there is a quite strong bonus if you build a new house and install an special strong heat insulation, if you take for example wood pellet heating, or new and highly effective natural gas heating, for oil I don't know, maybe if you change your old for a new one,

all kind of electric things (from washing machine to LED light bulbs) has its Energy-Class, A++ or A+++ being the best, in many cases there is a bonus, or you buy it because over the time you save money, I bought in 2010 for example a i3-540 CPU instead of the AMD because the intel one was much much more efficient, and now I write from this CPU (its now my mothers, I have my own at home), and it was a good decision, I saved dozens of kWh... that is a good thing, the stupid idea of the "Grüne" (green party) around ~2002 to bring all nuclear reactors down until 2020 in Germany is such a stupid idea on the other side, I would even increase it like our neighbors or some of them, but well I'm a nothing...

I was just wondering, Russia now for the first time has a official reserves of over 100 billion barrels at the source I read, a few years ago it was 30 billion, even lower at the CIA Factbook, now even the CIA factbook says 80 billion for 2015 estimate. Interesting to see what will happen 2017, but like the Russian state I think oil remains cheap, they say until late 2017, I think it is longer if Iraq, Libya and Iran continue rising and if US/Canadian production comes back,

and if Russia needs cash and increase the production again since with 60$ and increasing LNG in Europe they do not really have the income to keep up large military AND civil spending, EU sanctions and weak rouble are hard things for many of the lower income Russians already now... not to talk about Venezuela, Nigeria, Columbia, Kazakhstan and others..

[ROCKMAN]

KJ - "...what can be achieved if we make a good try.". My point wasn't about what could be done. It was about who to expect will guide the effort: local govt vs the feds. The states that have made significant advances did it primarily with locals...not the folks in DC. Can't tell for sure but I get the sense that a lot of folks are waiting for Sir Federally to ride in on his white horse to save then the nasty Dr. FF. LOL.