[Graeme]

And here's more from the EIA:

EIA outlook: More gas and renewable energy

The Energy Information Administration is predicting more than twice as many natural gas-fired capacity additions than coal-fired by 2030, continued renewable sector growth and several new nuclear units, according to the agency's 2009 energy outlook report.

The report, which makes predictions based on EIA models up to the year 2030, concludes that concerns about greenhouse gas emissions, volatile fossil fuel prices and the worldwide economic downturn will all be important drivers on U.S. energy markets in the long term.

http://pepei.pennnet.com/Articles/Article_Display.cfm?Section=ARTCL&SubSection=Display&PUBLICATION_ID=6&ARTICLE_ID=357984

[Schmuto]

OPEC again revised down its estimate for world crude demand on Wednesday, saying a "devasting contraction" in consumption would keep prices under pressure in the months ahead. "In the coming months, the market is expected to remain under pressure from uncertainties in the economic outlook, demand deterioration and the substantial overhang in supply," the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries wrote in its latest monthly report.

It said "vigilant monitoring is essential" ahead of the cartel's next meeting at the end of May at which some members are expected to push for further output cuts to help support prices. "Oil demand is suffering more and more from the world economic recession," it said, saying this had resulted in another downward revision in its forecast for demand this year of 0.4 million barrels per day (bpd).

link

It's going to get very interesting over the next year or two if OPEC keeps cutting production.

[heroineworshipper]

If terrorists didn't kill so many of us, maybe there would be more beneficial demand for their product.

[Quinny]

That sounds like a well reasoned argument.

If terrorists didn't kill so many of us, maybe there would be more beneficial demand for their product.

[Mike Morin]

Demand Side Management, Neighborhood Redevelopment, and Transportation Planning

I would like to address the supply side scenario for energy production based on assumptions of economic growth requiring an increase in the use of energy.

The trouble with focusing on supply side economics and energy is that they both ignore demand. In relation to economics, the lack of effective demand for the plethora of consumer products will prove to be the downfall of this past generation's experiment with supply side economics. With respect to energy, we must recognize that demand side management is critical to any possibility of a sustainable future. Liberal economics (laissez faire, the so-called free market) cannot deal with the problem(s). We need a planned economy to effectively retrofit the infrastructure and to rebuild our communities to be walkable, therefore eliminating the terrible daily waste of oil/energy resources for transportation purposes.

I have to differ with rosy scenarios regarding the contribution that photovoltaics can make. I'm not an electrical engineer or an electrician, but it is my understanding that PVs don't have the oomph (be it voltage, amperage, and/or wattage) to contribute very significantly to the current and recommended increased usage of electricity. Sure, PVs and wind might be able to contribute to lighting applications and a few very high efficiency appliances, but they can not power our transportation, industrial, business, and home heating and air conditioning, hot water, agricultural inputs, refrigeration, drying, and cooking needs.

We could go full throttle to the building of nuclear power plants, but I am highly leery of their toxicity and safety issues. Even if we pursued the path of electrification with the maximization of nuclear power, it will require a tremendous overhaul of our transportation infrastructure, and other applications currently met by oil products, coal, and natural gas.

First of all, nuclear is not a "free market" technology. Government programs paid for most of the resources for development of such. Then, there is the waste issue. Is it not the Federal Government who is going to or proposing to pay for the waste depository at Yucca Mountain (Nevada)? Also, there is the issue of bringing back the so-called Price-Anderson legislation. This was legislation in which the Federal Government provided insurance for nuclear power plants and related operations. No private insurer would underwrite the risks, thus the Feds had to step in.

Perhaps a better scenario could be realized if we started very soon with a planned economy that focused first on economic and energy demand side management and also retrofitted infrastructures with respect to very scarce and relatively clean (I view carbon resources, if appropriately used, to be cleaner than nuclear) energy applications.

The potential for solar thermal hot water is immense. Imagine all hot water demanding properties on the planet equipped with such devices. Imagine all the (community/worker owned) jobs involved with the production, installation, and distribution of these units. I list distribution last, because all efforts need to be made to maximize the localization of such production and installation, as well as any other products for which going towards relocalization may be possible (e.g. food).

Passive solar design combined with electronic environmental sensors and controls (also relevant to solar water heating and weatherization projects) qlso can provide many high paying jobs and equity opportunities.

However, priority to upgrading housing and housing ownership conditions for the poor should take precedence over these type of projects.

Relocalization is a fundamental part of the plan (and not just for food). Instead of reversalism, the term that the author Staniford has coined as being emblematic of the relocalization paradigm, let me offer the following "re" words that imply a gradual evolution to a future which incorporates the best of the past, for your consideration, response, and action.

Reformation

Little to no beneficial change will occur without an almost religious change from the paradigm of economic growth and standard of living to one that emphasizes community redevelopment and quality of life. This is an important educational component of an alternative ecological economic plan.

Reorganization

If we can be successful and realize the educational/ reform component, the next (concurrent) step is to reorganize to one of cooperative (or at least partially so – we will probably need to compromise on the divide between one dollar/one vote and one person/one vote as the dominant paradigm of economic organization) communitarian local and regional economic entities, at least until the day that we are all nearly equal in terms of ownership of the means and goods of production and distribution. How to assure the transition from inequality is problematic. However, as the entire economic system begins and proceeds to fail, those wealthy seeking to avoid total financial ruin will welcome the opportunity to accept the quality of life paradigm, foregoing their opulent, ostentatious, enslaving, ecocidal, genocidal, and suicidal "standard of living" modus operandi.

Reallocation

We need coordinated regional planning agencies that agree on the fundamental mission of a global ecological economy that have the three basic pillars of equity, humanity, and sustainability. These "planning" agencies would work together and with the local/regional economic entities to determine how resources are allocated to and within communities based on the relocalization paradigm and other governing principles. The vehicle, That I envision here is a Peoples' Equity Union with "branches" in all communities/ neighborhoods.

Restructuring

Many communities will need to be physically rebuilt to make them liveable and walkable (i.e. new urbanism, retrofitting residential communities built in the oil/automobile age by renovating, building or otherwise appropriately employing community economic and cultural centers making necessities and other important quality of life amenities, available to all within walking distance of their homes Also such a plan should include housing and other built environment improvement and ownership opportunities for all. Included in such a plan would be neighborhood work stations which would aid in the ability of office workers to telecommute in their occupations as we transition from a supply-side nightmare to a sustainable, equitable, and quality of life economy.

Imagine all the jobs!

But jobs are not enough, restructuring equity arrangements and reallocating resources in an equitable, humane, and ecological manner need to be a fundamental part of the plan.

Reduce

Reuse.

With respect to electric vehicles, my thoughts are that they may be a small part of a longer term solution and probably restricted to rebuilt/walkable urban and suburban neighborhoods for the use of the elderly and/or infirm. The top priority with respect to fossil fuels and other energy resources is demand side management. The chief priority in planning the role of the automobile is to reduce automobile use by 80% in the next 20 to 40 years. We are currently burdened by a terrible oversupply (including owned and overstocked inventories at factories and dealerships) of fuel inefficient and poorly designed internal combustion vehicles. If these vehicles weren't so poorly designed, there could be a significant opportunity to convert a minority of them to hybrid and plug-in hybrid vehicles. But they are very poorly designed. Perhaps the current population of vehicles should be deconstructed and parts reused or recycled. New vehicles should be exclusively, hybrid, plug-in hybrid, and electric, except maybe for long-term transport and work vehicles..

There could be tremendous amounts of work generated by the reconstruction of neighborhoods and the rearrangement (read reallocation) of production, distribution, and communication systems to make them neighborhood friendly. In addition, a great potential for work lies in the field of deconstruction of transportation and related infrastructure adaptation. Parking lots could be torn up and converted to community gardens. Streets (and rail systems) could be torn up and converted to walking and bike paths and others altered to be less wide, restoring the liveability of housing located on these very noisy busy passageways. Parking garages could be torn down and replaced by mixed use developments. Highways could be dedicated mostly to bus travel, long distance transport, and perhaps some, if not many, of them torn down and reclaimed as natural and agricultural land. For automobile usage, it would be optimal to encourage the development of car-sharing cooperatives. All vehicles left in use must be quiet, and all vehicles slower (with the exception of busses, trains, and long range transport). With respect to transport and distribution systems (and production systems) relocalization and neighborhood telecommunications (including teleconferencing facilities) should be the major goal, greatly reducing the need for long-range transport.

Another Iteration of "the Plan"

There is No Alternative to Socialism

We need some perspective.

Fossil fuel use is about 150 years old and automotive use about 100 years old. Look how absurdly, the personal automobile dominates our life and is destroying any hope for a future.

We need to deal with more than incremental adjustments from the modern automotive age. If we want to continue the many benefits of precious fossil fuels, the many opportunity costs of those fuels, to personal automobile usage, then we need to set as a goal (here in the USA) and realize it, to reduce the use of the personal automobile by 80% in the next 20 to 40 years.

It is not encouraging, because Obama explicitly stated the other day that the automobile is such an important part of American history and culture and needs to remain so. This is a statement of a myopic politician beholden to special interests.

If you've never lived in the Northeast (USA) where much of the city, town, and village centers were built before the automobile, it may be hard to imagine a future with the greatly reduced automobile use, but it is very possible and absolutely desirable.

The key is the walkable neighborhood. That is, neighborhoods for everybuddy where everyone can get what they need within walking distance of their residence. This will take a major shift in the way that resources are allocated and products distributed to communities. The major over-supply side mall outlets (for those products and services that have utility) could become regional warehouses and older town and village centers, where they exist could be explicitly brought back as outlets for these products. Where the town and village centers do not exist, such as here out West (I'm in Eugene, Oregon), where the mindless assumption of the automobile has led to the mindless, endless residential districts with their equally alienating and squandering strip malls and malls, communities could be rebuilt (think of all the jobs) to provide community centers and outlets.

Of course, this will not happen in the absence of a complete commitment to neighborhood/ inter-community/ inter-regional/ worldwide ecological economic resource planning and allocation and redevelopment.

This Plan is too bold for American Politicians. This Plan is Socialism. With advances in communications technology, much progress, in the development of community centers, could help greatly increase the amount of tele-commuting that could help people work from and/or near their homes.
The resource allocation issue could be handled with a reformed economic system, an Equity Union, with a "plan and implement" modus operandi for economic operations. Reforming the financial system to take the fundamentally inflationary Capitalist aspect of "discounting the future" (i.e. assuming that money in the future will be worth less) could lead to a system of ecological economical redevelopment where only true growth in wealth would occur and be shared and could occur under the aegis of a mission emphasizing peace, equity, humanity, inclusion, quality of life, and sustainability.

Removing the gluttonous oil resource use by the USA and Capitalist automotive oriented allies would slowly rescind the need for the hegemonic occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan, and the world acting in concert would stand much better prospects for peace.

The Ecology of Redevelopment

A big part of my redevelopment plan (aside from the financial systems reform) is the REBUILDING of neighborhoods to make them liveable, and walkable for the necessities of life (that is, assuming a goal of a much less harried pace than today, but also assuming that people will have responsibilities, obligations, and desires). and the relocalization of production of necessities to the maximum extent possible. Such a plan would include a massive education program in retraining workers and training in youth in the building trades and cottage industries of local production. Human resource management would be utilized to try to maximize the match between where the primary contractors/ instructors and student/workers lived and the neighborhood building projects. Whether or not we can summon up the "ancient" knowledge associated with local production artisanry, is questionable, but given enough time and the consensual commitment, I think it could possibly be done. Certainly, the over-supply (of those "goods" with utility) and the return to a rational demand brought about by the goal of quality of life in lieu of standard of living could buy us some time to overhaul the educational component.

Communities would be rebuilt to emulate mature ecological systems, in that they maximize the efficiency of energy and resource input into the community so that once resources enter a community, they stay in the community for the maximum amount of time possible. Once all communities are sufficiently rebuilt (a timeline of 20 to 40 years?) under such guidelines, they would evolve to ongoing day-to-day and maintenance communities and the amount of heavy labor required would decrease and the amount of leisure time increase greatly. Again, (day-to-day and maintenance) workers would be employed in, surrounding, and/or as close to their residency as possible and it would be a priority for real and capital assets to be owned by the workers and the community patrons who ideally would be one and the same. The Neighborhood Equity Union would replace credit unions and of course, other forms of financial institutions. Parks and gymnasiums would be an important part of the plan as leisure time increased and the healthy aspects of physical labor decreased.

Concurrent with rebuilding, and the reallocation of production and distribution resources, would be efforts to make office, communications, knowledge and intelligence based labor into primarily home and/or neighborhood based vocations. Occasional travel would be necessary and desirable, but quiet bus and train travel and car-sharing cooperatives could be employed to fill this need along with family visit and recreational needs and desires. With respect to the former, extended families would be encouraged to reunite geographically

Mike Morin

http://www.peoplesequityunion.blogspot.com

[Mike Morin]

I know that the original article is a bit long and rambles...

Answer me the following questions:

Do you not think that it is time to put the fossil fuel age into perspective relative to human existence and progress?

And if we want to salvage all the great benefits of fossil fuels, that we put the even more super-nova phenomenon, the personal automobile, where it belongs - in the junkpile of history, next to extinct.

Do you not think that increasing the awareness of the damage the automobile will do towards the survival of the human species is worthwhile and that pursuing an active plan for its demise, rebuilding communities, is an important answer to the terrible consequences associated with the demise of the fossil fuel resource?

Are we going to continue with apathy as the automobile extincts us?

Don't we need to clamor for a "plan and implement" socialist economic system to assure the continuation of the species?

[patience]

I agree with this plan's objectives, if not to how it is to be done in all cases. (Socialized ANYTHING is anathema to me.) But the stumbling block I see to any major direction change for the US anyway, is how hooked we are on cars and trucks. I don't see people giving them up willingly, rather, I think they will fight for them to the last breath of the species, if need be. Yep, dumber than a sack of hammers! But they'll do it anyway.

It would take the force of poverty, govt decree (provoking rebellion), or simple unavailability to get the US out of their cars.

I know a little about PV, enough to assure you that you're right about it not being very practical for bulk energy production. My engineering background says that to maximize efficiency in a system, make it simple, that is, do the fewest conversions possible of energy from one form to another. So, use solar for HEATING. That's what it does best, and directly at that. Solar water heating and space heating are the best paybacks. Make use of an intermittent source like wind for pumping water that can be stored cheaply.

Conservation is still the most bang for the buck. INSULATE everything. Major gains there. Better standards on new construction for conservation, too. Tax the worst energy wasting buildings out of existence, along with private use of gas guzzlers. Use the proceeds to subsidize insulation and public transoportation. (Won't win many elections at that, but necessary.) Jack up the CAFE gas mileage standards to much higher levels to force production of 50 MPG cars. Doable today. Tax over-the-road semi trucks and subsidize short-line railroads. This would end JIT and force an increase in inventories to provide any sort of decent supply, and give a quick boost to suppliers. The shopping malls are going broke anyway, so use them for warehouses. In short, turn the US back into how it worked in 1930, with the advantages of our better technology today.

A lot less socialism this way, and J6P would be a lot more accepting of most of it, at lower cost than trying to reinvent the society overnight. We can't afford that anyway. We'll be fortunate to mitigate the downside of Hubbert's Curve with some transition measures.

[AgentR]

You bring up various alternative energy sources, nuclear, pv solar, passive solar, thermal solar; but you leave out a very large source from wind which is currently being deployed as we speak. I'm not sure whether the government support for nuclear really is problematic, since government supports all kinds of economic activity in a large number of ways. Is it government support for pv solar when they truck them on the interstate?

Moving on to the more important part I think, is the notion of relocalization, political and cultural ties to cars, walkability, and all that stuff. Its not a bad notion, but I don't think its as practical as you might wish. I once lived in a very walkable part of town, church was one block this way, groceries were one block the other way; numerous restraunts within a couple blocks, even a hardware store less than a block away. Everyone still drove. They would go down into the basement, get the car out of the garage, navigate the turn onto the main road, and then off again even before reaching the speed limit. People would see you walking the one block distance, and assume you were either homeless, or needed a lift, depending on the clothes you wore.

My conclusion after a few years of contemplation, is that you have to do something much, much harder than rebuild every community in America. You have to complete rewrite the culture; and thats not going to happen in the time we have left.

But then again, I'm a doomer of the worst variety.. I visualize my grandchildren barely surviving, fighting over muddy water and the rat Bob caught for the soup.

[dunewalker]

I know a little about PV, enough to assure you that you're right about it not being very practical for bulk energy production. My engineering background says that to maximize efficiency in a system, make it simple, that is, do the fewest conversions possible of energy from one form to another.

First I need to pick on patience, as usual. There's nothing simpler than photovoltaic electrical production--no moving parts, no maintenance--what more could you ask for. The efficiency rating is irrelevant, it just does what it does. Make the panel, collect energy ad infinitum. My overall philosophy is that if something works on an individual scale, then it is viable at any scale. You just keep it simple, not complex and centralized. Nature works that way. Grids are not necessary. Reduction in per capita consumption is.

As for the original post, nice essay. Not realistic though to think that much of any sort of re-organizing of society is gonna get done before general collapse, which is imminent. The greatest attempt at changing the system in recent history was the campaign to elect Obama. We can all see already how much real change is going to result from that grand effort. It hasn't even slowed the rate of collapse, let alone re-directed available resources toward a sustainable alternative.

[odegaard]

New Urbanism, Walkable Communities etc. by any other name remain a cornucopian mirage unless two conditions are met: sustainable (closed-loop-nutrient-cycling) agriculture and public transport. Both have been rendered next to impossible by the current suburban build-out.
...

One of the reasons why I'm such a doomer is because I do not see any major political group having a realistic plan.
Even mainstream environmentalism and public transit advocates are no help.

Most Americans live in a living arrangement with a density of about 3,000 people / sq mi
I once tried (without luck) to explain:
Low density living and Public transit is like oil and water. It will never mix.
The mathematics was simple.
$150 million / 3,000 = $50,000 per person
It does not make sense to build a $150 million per mile public transit railroad just so 3,000 people / sq mi. can be within walking distance to use it.
That's just too much money.

The person became incest with rage because he felt that I slaughtered his sacred cow. (which was light rail transit)
We are trekking onto unknown territory.
So therefore the best plan for PO is to declare nothing to be sacred and place EVERYTHING on the table for close scrutiny.
There should be NO sacred cows.

my 2 cents...

[Mike Morin]

I was hoping, though certainly not expecting, to enlist the very eloquent and visible Barack Obama in my cause.

It would take that level of eloquence, trust?, and exposure to elevate the problems and solutions associated with peak oil to the consciousness of the people of the USA and the world.

Look what Al Gore did for the issue of climate change.

But enlisting Gore in the cause would probably do only what he has done for climate change, raise awareness of the problem while offering only ineffectual solutions.

The long term planned economy (for those of you who don't understand and like the term socialism) approach, while mitigating the problems associated with peak oil (and hostilities and war over regions rich in fossil fuel resources) would also go a long way towards alleviating that colossal concern also.

We so desperately need to plant the seeds of a cultural revolution, to strongly commit to turning back 100 years of automobile driven evolution and concomitant sprawl, and to explain the need to do such to the people of the USA.

CAFE standards are MUCH TOO LITTLE, much too late.

Yes, we have to "rewrite the culture" and as Agent R and dunewalker so astutely point out, we probably don't have that much time left.

Yet this is what I do, and I think it is of paramount importance. As long as I have an outlet for my work, I will continue to try.

Can I enlist any of thee in the effort? How can we elevate the problem and the SOLUTIONS to where both become part of the daily discourse?

Any spokespersons that you can think of that would have the eloquence, the exposure, and the trust to move such an agenda forward?

Can I help clarify any aspects of the plan and the changes necessary to implement such?

Let's not let this thing die. It is too important for the future of the planet.

Thank you.


Mike Morin

[patience]

dunewalker,

A bit of math is in order here.

My water heater is a fairly efficient Energy Star model from RUUD, and uses around 5000 KWHR/ year. Divide by 365 days = about 13.7 KWHR/day. My locale gets about 4.5 hours of usable sun/day on a yearly average (from Solar Energy International's book, Photovoltaics), so divide 13.7 KWHR by 4.5 hours = 3.04 KW of solar panels.

I just got an ad from Sun Electronics in Miami, who is selling their Suntech brand of monocrystalline panel, 205 watt, for $508. 3.04 KW of panels required divided by 205 watts = 14.85, or 15 panels at a cost of $7620. If I build the mounting and do all the wiring and engineering, I might get them installed and wired up for another 3 or 4 grand, say $11,000 total (VERY conservative here--more like another $10K is closer due to the electronics and steel costs), and about 2 months of work. I COULD do that. At a 25 year guaranteed life, that is $440/year, or about what it costs me now for grid electric to run the water heater. (I ignored the interest on the money for 25 years, which at 3 or 4% might double in that time.)

These panels are roughly 3 ft. x 5 ft., so the bank of them would be 5 ft. high, and 45 feet long. That would, in the only location I have for them on my acre lot, block the sun from about half my gardens on a north slope. So far, so good.

NOW, I can start on what's required for my electric heat, at up to 10 times that amount. Sorry, I ran out of money powering the water heater. Can't do it. And I still have to cover the 440 amp 220 volt welder and a few other things. No can do. This gets impractical pretty fast.

I don't want my efforts to be to no avail, so I'm putting in a wood stove.

[patience]

"CAFE standards are MUCH TOO LITTLE, much too late.

Yes, we have to "rewrite the culture" and as Agent R and dunewalker so astutely point out, we probably don't have that much time left."

I wholeheartedly agree. I only dispute that you will get any more than that done. What little I think is feasible to GET done, is not enough.

The US got a wake up call in 1973-74 with the Oil Embargo. We did essentially nothing about it since then. And I don't believe we will do anything now, or ever, that is preemptive enough.

So, I reccomend that we concentrate on what is realistically possible. Result, though, is gonna be like Rocc used to say here---500 MPH into a brick wall, because of the political and social realities.

[AgentR]

seeds of a cultural revolution, to strongly commit to turning back 100 years of ...

You should rapidly and with not the slightest bit of hesitation, reach into your brain and eradicate that phrase "cultural revolution". Considering the sentence in which you used it; oh my.

[patience]

I should clarify that the reason I won't consider socialist solutions here, is that it involves govt, which invariably screw up everything they touch. Exhibit A: Where we are right now.

I rest my case.

[odegaard]

......We need a planned economy to effectively retrofit the infrastructure and to rebuild our communities to be walkable, therefore eliminating the terrible daily waste of oil/energy resources for transportation purposes.

A planned economy will NEVER work because it creates Moral hazard.

Those in charge of the planning aka government agents do so using my tax money and NOT their own money.
Therefore if the plan fails it's my problem not theirs.

ummm no thanks.

[Mike Morin]

seeds of a cultural revolution, to strongly commit to turning back 100 years of ...

You should rapidly and with not the slightest bit of hesitation, reach into your brain and eradicate that phrase "cultural revolution". Considering the sentence in which you used it; oh my.

Sound too Maoist for thee?

How about "cultural evolution"?

Do you disagree with just the language, or with the concept as well (pun intended).

We have invested 100 years of evolution into and around the automobile. It is going to take some massive amount of co-ordinated thought, education, planning, and activity to undo that damage.


Mike

[patience]

I think it is going to take DAMAGE to undo that damage. Show me an intentional community that worked, and maybe I'll reconsider.

Don't get me wrong here, yeah we need an all-knowing, benevolent dictator, but I ain't seen any yet, and don't believe those who claim to be such.

I'm gonna hide. This situation sucks SOOOO bad. Thanks for reminding us, though. I guess.