The 12-step programme was developed by Alcoholics Anonymous, which found its roots in the Oxford Movement - a Christian based fellowship which provided consolation to those suffering from troubles with drink and other misfortunes of the human condition. The 12-steps of AA are intended to (1) admit you have a problem, (2) sort-out your past, grievances and own-up to your own part in them and (3) forge a link with a Higher Power and find spiritual salvation in communion with whatever god you believe in (or don't) and in the assistance of others suffering from the same problem you have.
It's a simple approach, but very difficult to apply in practice on all the the above three accounts. Now I note that the conversion of an oil-based town (or village) to a "Transition Town" (or village) is also reckoned to be abided by a 12-step programme. I will list the steps here, as in this oil-deprived inevitability we are seeing now, I feel that I need to try and do something practical rather than just write about it. I have not yet tossed-in the towel over the survival of humanity and feel there is a road to salvation, albeit with far less vehicles on the roads.
I am thinking specifically about the village of Caversham where I live with my family, neighbours and friends, which is indeed a very friendly and lovely place to live, set on the north bank of the River Thames, across from Reading. I am trying to "think local" as E.F.Schumacher urged us to in his classic and best-selling book, "Small is Beautiful"... subtitled, "a study of economics as if people mattered." Well, I think we do matter, all of us, and that man's words were published in 1973, while he was also a consultant economist to the British National Coal Board. They are far more relevant now because hardly anybody heeded them, then or since. If we had we would not be where we are now.
The Transition Town community have not nailed together a complete plan of action as yet, but it is the essential first stage in the ultimate arrival in a world without cheap oil and eventually without much of it on sale at all. The notion of a 12-step programme I take to be ironic, in that we have become utterly addicted to oil as alcoholics are to drinking, and we need to place ourselves in a condition of "recovery". AA has it that no alcoholic is ever cured but keeps sober and improves through a state of daily maintenance; so it is, most likely with oil. Put another way, the TT is an evolving fellowship in which we have to learn to live a new way: sober, without oil. The word "sober" does not just mean neither drinking oil nor booze but it reflects a state of altered comprehension, where one no longer desires or needs these things. Hence the spiritual transformation that AA promise to those who work their way assiduously through its 12-steps, usually with the help of a "sponsor".
Since no-one has done the TT programme as yet there are no sponsors and we will have, though cooperation, to work it out for ourselves, probably drawing on past knowledge, and finding the old ways of running a society before the first oil-well was struck in Pennsylvania in 1859 (exactly 100 years before I was born). The first field in the Middle East was found in 1908, by an Englishman, an explorer by the name of George Reynolds.
(1) Set up a steering committee and design its demise from the outset (now the latter is a lovely touch!).
(2) Awareness raising (yes like the AA programme, admitting we have a problem).
(3) Lay the foundations.
(4) Organise a great unleashing (i.e. set some plans and timescales).
(5) Form sub-groups (now this means potential action!).
(6) Use open-space (yes, if you look around there is more than we might think even in densely populated and built-up regions like the south east of England).
(7) Develop viable practical manifestations of the project (spot-on - real action afoot!).
(8) Facilitate the great reskilling (more difficult, but it may simply be learning woodwork, how to grow food, to cook and other practical arts, which have been long-lost since WWII and the plentiful appearance of cheap oil and transportation).
(9) Build a bridge to local government (yes, I'm working on that one now!).
(10) Honour the elders (yes, because they can still remember those lost arts alluded to in Step 8).
(11) Let it go where it wants to go (now since this is not about the market forces the mess we are in now has been excused by, I agree - the Higher Power knows best!).
(12) Create an energy-descent plan (this speaks for itself and is really the conclusion and purpose of the whole of the programme)... and then (AA "paraphrased": having undergone a spiritual conversion as a result of these steps, to carry the message to others that they can sort themselves out too).
As Ghandi said: "Be the change which you wish to see in the world."
Related Reading.
http://transitiontowns.org/TransitionNetwork/12Steps.
Sunday, May 25, 2008
Saturday, May 24, 2008
World Lithium Supplies.
If electric vehicles or their analogous plug-in-electric hybrid vehicles (PHEV) are to become widespread in the face of a lack of cheap oil, some source of battery technology will be necessary to carry the charge to run them. I wrote an article a couple of years ago "Electric Vehicles and World Lithium Supply", October 13, 2006) in which I concluded there was insufficient lithium to fabricate an equivalent of 500 million cars, as was then estimated to be on the roads worldwide, by PHEV's. This was based on the assumption that the world stock of lithium was around 5 million tonnes and that it would take 9 million tonnes to make 500 million PHEV's. For all-electric cars, the situation is worse since they each take four times the amount of lithium that a PHEV would. I did also refer to other kinds of battery technology which use materials that are known to be more abundant.
However, the amount of lithium in the world has now been called into question, and one analyst thinks there is much more of it available [1], mostly based in Chile's Atacama desert, amounting to an economically recoverable total of 28.4 million tonnes. Clearly that would be plenty: enough for 1.58 billion PHEV cars or almost 400 million fully electric vehicles, so the physical amount of lithium is not a problem. There are also sources of lithium in the Andes and in Tibet, along with hectorite (a lithium containing clay) and oil-field brines that contain lithium, albeit more expensive to extract than the mountain-sources, and the material should be recycleable, so for example a direct comparison with the oil the technology is intended to replace is not strictly justified.
The issue is not without contention, however, since another author [2] concludes there are 6.2 million tonnes in reserves of lithium and its reserve base is 13.4 million tonnes.
In my opinion, if all sources of lithium are worked-out there is probably enough of it to go round to make 600 million cars, as there are now. It should be noted that there is an increasing demand for the metal to go into laptop computers and mobile phones, and it is anyone's guess what that total demand might amount to.
However, the latter devices are made out of oil too, and with current roaring prices which I do not expect to fall, along with a near and eventual shortage of oil, I see another limiting factor - raw materials to make plastics from and the lack of money in people's pockets rather than of lithium.
60 million new cars are put on the roads each year and if they were made as PHEV's which might take 18 kg of lithium each, we would need an annual production of 1.08 million tonnes of it. This is around 54 times the present output of lithium (20,000 tonnes), and so that production capacity (mining and processing) would need to be installed (a considerable task). If it could be done, we would be "there" within 10 years. However, will there be enough energy to do the job, and what will these cars actually cost.
Given that I see financial distress for many in the West the car may well be seen as a luxury and by default, we will set-aside our travelling lifestyles in the difficult oil dearth years ahead of us. We don't have 10 years in which to begin reducing oil consumption: we need to do that now. If only we had begun 10 years ago we would have saved massive amounts of oil, and be facing-off a future gap in the supply/demand conundrum, with time in hand. We didn't though, but permitted the market-forces to prevail. The present number of cars replaced by fully-electric vehicles will take 40 years to produce, and again against the backdrop of an energy crunch.
Another potential strife is that some kinds of lithium battery contain a phosphate component and I have discussed recently that there are likely to be problems with mining a finite source of rock phosphate which is mainly used for agriculture. As a rough estimate, assuming one phosphate anion per lithium cation in a lithium-iron-phosphate battery (the strongest contender for EV's) 600 million cars would need around 148 million tonnes of phosphate or about 15 million tonnes a year assuming we could equal the world annual total of 60 million new cars annually. That is to be compared with the total phosphate mined for food production of about 140 million tonnes, and so we would need to sacrifice a good 10% of that, while a hungry population rises.
It isn't going to happen, and to conclude once more, car use will be curbed by a combination of factors, with all that implies for civilization.
Related Reading.
[1] "Peak Lithium." By Bill Moore. http://www.evworld.com/article.cfm?archive=1&storyid=1180&first=3171&end=3170
[2] "The Trouble with Lithium." ByWilliam Tahil. http://www.evworld.com/library/lithium_shortage.pdf
However, the amount of lithium in the world has now been called into question, and one analyst thinks there is much more of it available [1], mostly based in Chile's Atacama desert, amounting to an economically recoverable total of 28.4 million tonnes. Clearly that would be plenty: enough for 1.58 billion PHEV cars or almost 400 million fully electric vehicles, so the physical amount of lithium is not a problem. There are also sources of lithium in the Andes and in Tibet, along with hectorite (a lithium containing clay) and oil-field brines that contain lithium, albeit more expensive to extract than the mountain-sources, and the material should be recycleable, so for example a direct comparison with the oil the technology is intended to replace is not strictly justified.
The issue is not without contention, however, since another author [2] concludes there are 6.2 million tonnes in reserves of lithium and its reserve base is 13.4 million tonnes.
In my opinion, if all sources of lithium are worked-out there is probably enough of it to go round to make 600 million cars, as there are now. It should be noted that there is an increasing demand for the metal to go into laptop computers and mobile phones, and it is anyone's guess what that total demand might amount to.
However, the latter devices are made out of oil too, and with current roaring prices which I do not expect to fall, along with a near and eventual shortage of oil, I see another limiting factor - raw materials to make plastics from and the lack of money in people's pockets rather than of lithium.
60 million new cars are put on the roads each year and if they were made as PHEV's which might take 18 kg of lithium each, we would need an annual production of 1.08 million tonnes of it. This is around 54 times the present output of lithium (20,000 tonnes), and so that production capacity (mining and processing) would need to be installed (a considerable task). If it could be done, we would be "there" within 10 years. However, will there be enough energy to do the job, and what will these cars actually cost.
Given that I see financial distress for many in the West the car may well be seen as a luxury and by default, we will set-aside our travelling lifestyles in the difficult oil dearth years ahead of us. We don't have 10 years in which to begin reducing oil consumption: we need to do that now. If only we had begun 10 years ago we would have saved massive amounts of oil, and be facing-off a future gap in the supply/demand conundrum, with time in hand. We didn't though, but permitted the market-forces to prevail. The present number of cars replaced by fully-electric vehicles will take 40 years to produce, and again against the backdrop of an energy crunch.
Another potential strife is that some kinds of lithium battery contain a phosphate component and I have discussed recently that there are likely to be problems with mining a finite source of rock phosphate which is mainly used for agriculture. As a rough estimate, assuming one phosphate anion per lithium cation in a lithium-iron-phosphate battery (the strongest contender for EV's) 600 million cars would need around 148 million tonnes of phosphate or about 15 million tonnes a year assuming we could equal the world annual total of 60 million new cars annually. That is to be compared with the total phosphate mined for food production of about 140 million tonnes, and so we would need to sacrifice a good 10% of that, while a hungry population rises.
It isn't going to happen, and to conclude once more, car use will be curbed by a combination of factors, with all that implies for civilization.
Related Reading.
[1] "Peak Lithium." By Bill Moore. http://www.evworld.com/article.cfm?archive=1&storyid=1180&first=3171&end=3170
[2] "The Trouble with Lithium." ByWilliam Tahil. http://www.evworld.com/library/lithium_shortage.pdf
Correspondence.
23 May 2008.
Dear Chris,
I don't know what you do but I enjoy your comments, you have obviously been doing a bit of thinking about this problem. Personally I think that we have been too obsessed with the concept of markets. Let the market rip and it will cure all problems. It has been obvious for the last 20 years that we were heading for a energy catastrophe (acute shortage). America has always be a slave too the market and Maggie has slavishly followed.
One of the sayings that used to be said many years ago was what is good for General Motors is good for America. I have watched how General Motors have shot themselves in the head and
America in the foot. I don't know if you have seen the video of Who killed the Electric car, it is extremely fascinating. There is no real smoking gun just circumstantial evidence. You wouldn't get a conviction in court lets put it that way. But if you know how short term most American industry is it is easy to work it out. The American motor industry was forced to go for an electric car because of Californian pollution regulations. Ford bought THINK a Norwegian firm which made electric cars spent millions developed a crash tested electric vehicle with a rather limited range and then sold the firm when the pollution regulations in California somehow got rescinded.
G.M. built EV1 did exactly the same called in all the models that were leased and crushed them with a few exceptions, which ended up in a couple of museums I think. It doesn't make any difference. Now it is easy to see why they did it.
The massive Hummers and gas squandering top of the range models had a higher profit margin, the more you sold of them the more money you made which meant that the share prices were
higher and as the top management usually received a bonus if the share prices were high it was in there interest to pursue this type of sales. By going for short term profits they have squandered the chance of long term viability. I can see the time in the not too distant future when Think could be buying the remnants of ford motor company.
I have great difficulty blaming the large motor corporations. If I was in the position of General manager of one of the large corporations such as G.M. I would find it very difficult to go against the flow and sacrifice short term profits to invest in producing a product line in 10 years that would be a world leader, very high mileage, High quality, cheap, good performance, etc. etc. unfortunately they have lost about a 10 years lead and are now going to be thrashed.
The other problem is of cause breaking out of the mental box,basically mentally retooling which is almost as difficult as retooling a new assemble line.
Now I have just retired. 50 years ago I started as a 15 year old working in the mines in Midlands and in Yorkshire. I finished school the week I reached 15 and went down the mines the following Monday. Things were a bit different then. I took an apprenticeship as an electrical engineer. Dam good apprenticeship too may I say. Mainly hands on, but plenty of theory, none of your wishy washy shit you get dolled out now, if you couldn't scrap a bearing, rewire a motor or work out the size of cables to carry the load to certain districts you didn't need to come to work. So I think I know what I am talking about
Now I would like to suggest a few things that should have been put in place years ago and would have saved us so much pain and money.
It takes about 20 to 15 Hp to keep even a large motor car cruising at about 70 miles per hour. I don't know what a modern motor produces, but I would not see any difficulty in getting at least 20 hp from a 400cc motor most of the rest of the modern motor car motor is used to get you up to that speed in as shorter time as possible, the larger the motor the shorter the time and the more energy you use. What I am suggesting is that you couple the 20 hp motor too a flywheel. Switch on your engine and wait a couple of minutes until the flywheel is up to speed. Modern Flywheels are beautiful machines. They are very simple robust and the maths is also very simple. I put in 20 hp for 50 seconds and I can get out 100 hp in 10seconds. Now that shouldn't
cause much trouble to get up to cruising speed with modern lightweight bodies. The nice thing about the system is that you can use the flywheel for regenerative braking. None of that energy used to slow you down being transformed into heat during braking, that should increase mileage.
Now comes another suggestion. One of the big fallacies is that petrol burns. I was taught from early on that petrol never burns what burns is petrol vapour. Petrol has to go through a phase change before you can burn it. The problem with modern carburettors is that don't vaporise petrol they only atomize it. What is needed is a carburettor that vaporises the petrol. It is certainly not difficult to vaporise petrol spray it on the exhaust pipe. Is it beyond our imagination to run the exhaust pipe through the carburettor to do this.
Another thing that might interest you that always interested me. I was for many years a member of the mines rescue brigade. One the the interesting things I learned was that if I used a miners safety lamp in a methane atmosphere nothing happened, but if I used it in an atmosphere of Hydrogen then I would cause an explosion. It seems that the problem with Hydrogen was the flame speed propagation. The flame spread so swiftly that the gauze in a miners safety lamp didn't have time to cool the flame down. Add hydrogen to the carburettor and you will certainly give the mixture a better burn, with less pollutants.
Mind you these sort of things should have been done 30 years ago but we refused to think and used that panacea that all good conservatives use to stop themselves thinking the market always knows best. If we had done this or something similar, we would have had a fleet of vehicles with at least double the mileage which would have meant we would have halved our oil imports.
What did you say the price of a barrel of oil is now $135 most of that
is nothing more than a stupidity tax.
Deep Regards
David.
Dear David,
I am with you all the way regarding "Market Forces", Maggie/Ronald and all that went on then.
Me, I left school at 16 with hardly any qualifications. I then worked as a technician in the pharmaceutical industry (Beechams, which no longer exists). I studied part time at what was Croydon Technical College and got the ONC and HNC.
I was then persuaded by my boss (an ex-Cambridge man who missed-out on getting a permanent university job because they were all taken by the end of the '70's; generally by protégés of the great and the good - some without any formal interview! It would be illegal these days.) to go to university. I did and studied chemistry; I got a good degree and then did a Ph.D (D.Phil, in fact, as they call them at Sussex University - they also awarded me a D.Sc in 2003) in physical-organic chemistry... well the long and the short of it is that I became a university professor in physical chemistry when I was 34. However, due to the maxims of "inclusiveness" and "education, education, education" (oh yes and the cash - bums on seats funding) the formerly great British university (and polytechnic) system has now been ruined.
In some of the new universities (ex-polytechnics which were fine institutions that trained the workforce for industry - where did that go... yes, we know don't we?!) there are "professors" with no published work or research experience in the subject they are supposed to be professor of... well there are many such disgraces, and in the end, 5 years ago, I thought bugger this and set-up as an independent consultant. I advise industry on keeping its pollution levels down; I also do some work on radiation effects on satellite components and work with engineers (I work out the chemistry and they build the stuff).
I am also a writer now - I have my first book of poems with a publisher and an offer from another publisher for my novel which is called "University Shambles" - a black comedy along the lines I have described.
I'm 50 next year and I wonder what kind of a year that will be for the world.
Interesting that petrol is atomised, not converted to vapour (gas) form. Now that does strike me as a huge waste of fuel potentially. But you smell the raw fuel from an engine don't you - before it's had time to warm-up, I mean? I know there is only about 12% well-to-miles efficiency got from a spark-ignition engine (maybe twice that under favourable circumstances from a diesel engine).
Yes, you are right about hydrogen and the matter of flame-propagation: it also has the greatest explosive mixture composition range with air than any other gas! Interesting to think that good old town-gas was about 51% hydrogen... and 21% carbon monoxide so people could "do themselves in" in the gas oven if they felt like it.
But what we will have in the future is heavy (diesel) fuel and so I think a retooling of manufacturers will be needed to convert to diesel engines as the sweet light crude oil runs-out. But what is the manufacturing capacity for that? I sincerely fear we have left it too late to implement any such changes on a comparable scale to current transport and simply we will go back to village life and the horse and cart.
Kindest regards too!
Chris.
Dear Chris,
I don't know what you do but I enjoy your comments, you have obviously been doing a bit of thinking about this problem. Personally I think that we have been too obsessed with the concept of markets. Let the market rip and it will cure all problems. It has been obvious for the last 20 years that we were heading for a energy catastrophe (acute shortage). America has always be a slave too the market and Maggie has slavishly followed.
One of the sayings that used to be said many years ago was what is good for General Motors is good for America. I have watched how General Motors have shot themselves in the head and
America in the foot. I don't know if you have seen the video of Who killed the Electric car, it is extremely fascinating. There is no real smoking gun just circumstantial evidence. You wouldn't get a conviction in court lets put it that way. But if you know how short term most American industry is it is easy to work it out. The American motor industry was forced to go for an electric car because of Californian pollution regulations. Ford bought THINK a Norwegian firm which made electric cars spent millions developed a crash tested electric vehicle with a rather limited range and then sold the firm when the pollution regulations in California somehow got rescinded.
G.M. built EV1 did exactly the same called in all the models that were leased and crushed them with a few exceptions, which ended up in a couple of museums I think. It doesn't make any difference. Now it is easy to see why they did it.
The massive Hummers and gas squandering top of the range models had a higher profit margin, the more you sold of them the more money you made which meant that the share prices were
higher and as the top management usually received a bonus if the share prices were high it was in there interest to pursue this type of sales. By going for short term profits they have squandered the chance of long term viability. I can see the time in the not too distant future when Think could be buying the remnants of ford motor company.
I have great difficulty blaming the large motor corporations. If I was in the position of General manager of one of the large corporations such as G.M. I would find it very difficult to go against the flow and sacrifice short term profits to invest in producing a product line in 10 years that would be a world leader, very high mileage, High quality, cheap, good performance, etc. etc. unfortunately they have lost about a 10 years lead and are now going to be thrashed.
The other problem is of cause breaking out of the mental box,basically mentally retooling which is almost as difficult as retooling a new assemble line.
Now I have just retired. 50 years ago I started as a 15 year old working in the mines in Midlands and in Yorkshire. I finished school the week I reached 15 and went down the mines the following Monday. Things were a bit different then. I took an apprenticeship as an electrical engineer. Dam good apprenticeship too may I say. Mainly hands on, but plenty of theory, none of your wishy washy shit you get dolled out now, if you couldn't scrap a bearing, rewire a motor or work out the size of cables to carry the load to certain districts you didn't need to come to work. So I think I know what I am talking about
Now I would like to suggest a few things that should have been put in place years ago and would have saved us so much pain and money.
It takes about 20 to 15 Hp to keep even a large motor car cruising at about 70 miles per hour. I don't know what a modern motor produces, but I would not see any difficulty in getting at least 20 hp from a 400cc motor most of the rest of the modern motor car motor is used to get you up to that speed in as shorter time as possible, the larger the motor the shorter the time and the more energy you use. What I am suggesting is that you couple the 20 hp motor too a flywheel. Switch on your engine and wait a couple of minutes until the flywheel is up to speed. Modern Flywheels are beautiful machines. They are very simple robust and the maths is also very simple. I put in 20 hp for 50 seconds and I can get out 100 hp in 10seconds. Now that shouldn't
cause much trouble to get up to cruising speed with modern lightweight bodies. The nice thing about the system is that you can use the flywheel for regenerative braking. None of that energy used to slow you down being transformed into heat during braking, that should increase mileage.
Now comes another suggestion. One of the big fallacies is that petrol burns. I was taught from early on that petrol never burns what burns is petrol vapour. Petrol has to go through a phase change before you can burn it. The problem with modern carburettors is that don't vaporise petrol they only atomize it. What is needed is a carburettor that vaporises the petrol. It is certainly not difficult to vaporise petrol spray it on the exhaust pipe. Is it beyond our imagination to run the exhaust pipe through the carburettor to do this.
Another thing that might interest you that always interested me. I was for many years a member of the mines rescue brigade. One the the interesting things I learned was that if I used a miners safety lamp in a methane atmosphere nothing happened, but if I used it in an atmosphere of Hydrogen then I would cause an explosion. It seems that the problem with Hydrogen was the flame speed propagation. The flame spread so swiftly that the gauze in a miners safety lamp didn't have time to cool the flame down. Add hydrogen to the carburettor and you will certainly give the mixture a better burn, with less pollutants.
Mind you these sort of things should have been done 30 years ago but we refused to think and used that panacea that all good conservatives use to stop themselves thinking the market always knows best. If we had done this or something similar, we would have had a fleet of vehicles with at least double the mileage which would have meant we would have halved our oil imports.
What did you say the price of a barrel of oil is now $135 most of that
is nothing more than a stupidity tax.
Deep Regards
David.
Dear David,
I am with you all the way regarding "Market Forces", Maggie/Ronald and all that went on then.
Me, I left school at 16 with hardly any qualifications. I then worked as a technician in the pharmaceutical industry (Beechams, which no longer exists). I studied part time at what was Croydon Technical College and got the ONC and HNC.
I was then persuaded by my boss (an ex-Cambridge man who missed-out on getting a permanent university job because they were all taken by the end of the '70's; generally by protégés of the great and the good - some without any formal interview! It would be illegal these days.) to go to university. I did and studied chemistry; I got a good degree and then did a Ph.D (D.Phil, in fact, as they call them at Sussex University - they also awarded me a D.Sc in 2003) in physical-organic chemistry... well the long and the short of it is that I became a university professor in physical chemistry when I was 34. However, due to the maxims of "inclusiveness" and "education, education, education" (oh yes and the cash - bums on seats funding) the formerly great British university (and polytechnic) system has now been ruined.
In some of the new universities (ex-polytechnics which were fine institutions that trained the workforce for industry - where did that go... yes, we know don't we?!) there are "professors" with no published work or research experience in the subject they are supposed to be professor of... well there are many such disgraces, and in the end, 5 years ago, I thought bugger this and set-up as an independent consultant. I advise industry on keeping its pollution levels down; I also do some work on radiation effects on satellite components and work with engineers (I work out the chemistry and they build the stuff).
I am also a writer now - I have my first book of poems with a publisher and an offer from another publisher for my novel which is called "University Shambles" - a black comedy along the lines I have described.
I'm 50 next year and I wonder what kind of a year that will be for the world.
Interesting that petrol is atomised, not converted to vapour (gas) form. Now that does strike me as a huge waste of fuel potentially. But you smell the raw fuel from an engine don't you - before it's had time to warm-up, I mean? I know there is only about 12% well-to-miles efficiency got from a spark-ignition engine (maybe twice that under favourable circumstances from a diesel engine).
Yes, you are right about hydrogen and the matter of flame-propagation: it also has the greatest explosive mixture composition range with air than any other gas! Interesting to think that good old town-gas was about 51% hydrogen... and 21% carbon monoxide so people could "do themselves in" in the gas oven if they felt like it.
But what we will have in the future is heavy (diesel) fuel and so I think a retooling of manufacturers will be needed to convert to diesel engines as the sweet light crude oil runs-out. But what is the manufacturing capacity for that? I sincerely fear we have left it too late to implement any such changes on a comparable scale to current transport and simply we will go back to village life and the horse and cart.
Kindest regards too!
Chris.
Friday, May 23, 2008
Running on Empty?
No, the world is not running on empty. There is plenty of oil left in the ground, but we are getting through it too fast. There is some debate about whether we have reached peak oil now or not, in view of the surge in the price of crude oil, but it doesn't really matter: supply is struggling to meet demand, even before we have reached that point of remorseless production depletion and so our lives are going to change profoundly and irreversibly. I have commented on this repeatedly, but the only reality I see is a partial relocalisation of society into smaller, independent communities supplied by their own farms and businesses. I am not fooled that there is some new technology just around the corner that is going to pull us out of the hole in terms of transportation fuel that geology, not politics has delivered us to.
In Britain there are angry calls for the government to cut the tax on fuel to get the price down to more manageable amounts, while the French are picketing oil-refineries (as happened in this country in 2000), and across the pond the car manufacturer, Ford, is preparing to reduce production of SUV's and concentrate on more fuel-efficient vehicles. The price of oil has increased day on day for 13 days, finding a record $135 for a barrel of light sweet crude. Only 5 months a go it reached $100 a barrel, a psychological watershed figure that it seemed would not be breached for a long time.
It seems there is no particular plan by any government for what to do about the oil-gap, which the Paris-based International Energy Agency has issued a downward revision of the oil-industry's capability to fill. There seems to be a state of denial - as though everyone is sticking their fingers in their ears and going "La - La - La- La" to drown out the noise of realities no one wishes to hear.
I read that unless demand in the US curbs its thirst for oil (which amounts to one quarter of the world's output for this highly car-dependent nation) and China does the same - unlikely in the white-heat midst of its industrial revolution - the gap is inevitable and incurable. Ms Clinton and Mr McCain have proposed a "fuel tax holiday" in the US this summer, and British lobbyists are urging the same kind of event over here. However, these actions merely obfuscate the simple fact that underpins the surging price of oil, and that is that supply can no longer keep up with demand.
There is some opinion that a global oil-shock would be a good thing. Meaning that this will force us to curb our dependency on fossil fuels. Well, it will do that all right, but without substitution by some other form of energy provision, noting that alternatives like hydrogen are a long way off if they will ever become a reality, while biofuels cannot match the quantity of petroleum we currently use, and their electrical counterparts in the form of electric cars and PHEV's would take many years to install, and to do so renewably, solar and other technologies would need to be implemented on an enormous scale too, an alternative way of living at an equivalent level of energy consumption is not obvious. Thus I can only see a powering-down of society and that does mean a relocalisation of society as part of a general focus on energy efficiency and to address the most immediate problem, specifically regarding oil. The oil-shocks of the 1970's did precipitate some focus on more efficient cars and many other ideas appeared on the drawing board. Sadly the resurgence of cheap oil on the markets caused much of this potential good to evaporate. We need this kind of thinking again and now for facts of geology not mere politics.
But does any government have a plan as to how this eventuality will be achieved? If the event is left to market forces to bring it about, I foresee extremely difficult times ahead both economically and socially.
Related Reading.
[1] "Is the world about to be running on empty?" By Stephen Foley. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/is-the-world-about-to-be-running-on-empty-832874.html
[2] "Soaring oil prices are a warning that we need to change." http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/leading-articles/leading-article-soaring-prices-are-a-warning-that-we-need-to-change-832807.html
In Britain there are angry calls for the government to cut the tax on fuel to get the price down to more manageable amounts, while the French are picketing oil-refineries (as happened in this country in 2000), and across the pond the car manufacturer, Ford, is preparing to reduce production of SUV's and concentrate on more fuel-efficient vehicles. The price of oil has increased day on day for 13 days, finding a record $135 for a barrel of light sweet crude. Only 5 months a go it reached $100 a barrel, a psychological watershed figure that it seemed would not be breached for a long time.
It seems there is no particular plan by any government for what to do about the oil-gap, which the Paris-based International Energy Agency has issued a downward revision of the oil-industry's capability to fill. There seems to be a state of denial - as though everyone is sticking their fingers in their ears and going "La - La - La- La" to drown out the noise of realities no one wishes to hear.
I read that unless demand in the US curbs its thirst for oil (which amounts to one quarter of the world's output for this highly car-dependent nation) and China does the same - unlikely in the white-heat midst of its industrial revolution - the gap is inevitable and incurable. Ms Clinton and Mr McCain have proposed a "fuel tax holiday" in the US this summer, and British lobbyists are urging the same kind of event over here. However, these actions merely obfuscate the simple fact that underpins the surging price of oil, and that is that supply can no longer keep up with demand.
There is some opinion that a global oil-shock would be a good thing. Meaning that this will force us to curb our dependency on fossil fuels. Well, it will do that all right, but without substitution by some other form of energy provision, noting that alternatives like hydrogen are a long way off if they will ever become a reality, while biofuels cannot match the quantity of petroleum we currently use, and their electrical counterparts in the form of electric cars and PHEV's would take many years to install, and to do so renewably, solar and other technologies would need to be implemented on an enormous scale too, an alternative way of living at an equivalent level of energy consumption is not obvious. Thus I can only see a powering-down of society and that does mean a relocalisation of society as part of a general focus on energy efficiency and to address the most immediate problem, specifically regarding oil. The oil-shocks of the 1970's did precipitate some focus on more efficient cars and many other ideas appeared on the drawing board. Sadly the resurgence of cheap oil on the markets caused much of this potential good to evaporate. We need this kind of thinking again and now for facts of geology not mere politics.
But does any government have a plan as to how this eventuality will be achieved? If the event is left to market forces to bring it about, I foresee extremely difficult times ahead both economically and socially.
Related Reading.
[1] "Is the world about to be running on empty?" By Stephen Foley. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/is-the-world-about-to-be-running-on-empty-832874.html
[2] "Soaring oil prices are a warning that we need to change." http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/leading-articles/leading-article-soaring-prices-are-a-warning-that-we-need-to-change-832807.html
Thursday, May 22, 2008
Oil Above $135 a barrel and Heathrow Expansion On-Hold.
The price of crude oil has reached a new record at $135.08 a barrel. It is amazing to think it was near $20 five or six years ago. The blame for this latest increase is placed on an unexpected drawdown in oil inventories coupled with a weaker dollar. US crude has increased in price by 20% since the beginning of the month with supply concerns making traders cautious about selling oil. Sam Bodman, the US Energy Secretary commented that these hitherto unknown oil prices are a fair reflection of tight supplies and strong demand for oil globally, rather than the cost being artificially elevated by investors.
I don't see the situation getting any easier either in terms of supply or demand, and the $150 barrel by the end of 2008 that I reckoned both recently and a couple of years ago seems very likely. Goldman Sachs have said that oil will top $200 a barrel by the end of 2010, but my own feeling it it will get there by the end of 2009.
Meanwhile, advisers to the UK government have recommended that the expansion of Heathrow and Stansted Airports should be put on hold for years, such is the controversy attending such actions. There are plans to build a third runway at Heathrow and potentially a sixth terminal, which has alarmed environmentalists. It is thought that there may not be a firm decision made until 2011.
Now this is an interesting coincidence, namely that some analysts estimate the arrival of peak oil by exactly then. I have said so before, but I simply don't understand why in the face of an alleged determination to cut CO2 emissions there is even the glimmer of an idea that the number of flights should be tripled by 2030. What will anyone put into the planes by way of fuel by then, anyway?
More likely there will be the economic brake of rising fuel costs and airport taxes which will act to constrain air-travel, the budget carriers will go out of business and there will be a huge downturn on tourism. This will be especially tough on countries e.g. the Czech Republic whose economy has grown well on cheap tourism. I read the other day that Prague is now the sex-tourism capital of Europe, having taken-over from Amsterdam.
I also noted a news-item this morning that the price of food is expected to increase at twice the rate of inflation year on year for the next ten years, but who knows really? It does seem clear that prices in general even of basic items like food and fuel are going to rise remorselessly and people will begun to hang onto their cash. The upshot of that will be a knock-on effect to the service sector, with people being laid-off there, less circulating money and taxes available and a downward economic spiral.
The Governor of the Bank of England commented last week that "The nice decade was over", and I'm sure he is right.
Related Reading.
[1] "Delay Heathrow airport expansion, say government advisers." By Andy Bloxham. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1999057/Delay-Heathrow-airport-expansion,-say-Government-advisers.html
[2] "Oil hits record to surpass $135 a barrel. Reuters. http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/05/22/business/22oil.php
[3] Mervyn King: Bank of England has no room to maneuver." http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/economics/article3930094.ece
I don't see the situation getting any easier either in terms of supply or demand, and the $150 barrel by the end of 2008 that I reckoned both recently and a couple of years ago seems very likely. Goldman Sachs have said that oil will top $200 a barrel by the end of 2010, but my own feeling it it will get there by the end of 2009.
Meanwhile, advisers to the UK government have recommended that the expansion of Heathrow and Stansted Airports should be put on hold for years, such is the controversy attending such actions. There are plans to build a third runway at Heathrow and potentially a sixth terminal, which has alarmed environmentalists. It is thought that there may not be a firm decision made until 2011.
Now this is an interesting coincidence, namely that some analysts estimate the arrival of peak oil by exactly then. I have said so before, but I simply don't understand why in the face of an alleged determination to cut CO2 emissions there is even the glimmer of an idea that the number of flights should be tripled by 2030. What will anyone put into the planes by way of fuel by then, anyway?
More likely there will be the economic brake of rising fuel costs and airport taxes which will act to constrain air-travel, the budget carriers will go out of business and there will be a huge downturn on tourism. This will be especially tough on countries e.g. the Czech Republic whose economy has grown well on cheap tourism. I read the other day that Prague is now the sex-tourism capital of Europe, having taken-over from Amsterdam.
I also noted a news-item this morning that the price of food is expected to increase at twice the rate of inflation year on year for the next ten years, but who knows really? It does seem clear that prices in general even of basic items like food and fuel are going to rise remorselessly and people will begun to hang onto their cash. The upshot of that will be a knock-on effect to the service sector, with people being laid-off there, less circulating money and taxes available and a downward economic spiral.
The Governor of the Bank of England commented last week that "The nice decade was over", and I'm sure he is right.
Related Reading.
[1] "Delay Heathrow airport expansion, say government advisers." By Andy Bloxham. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1999057/Delay-Heathrow-airport-expansion,-say-Government-advisers.html
[2] "Oil hits record to surpass $135 a barrel. Reuters. http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/05/22/business/22oil.php
[3] Mervyn King: Bank of England has no room to maneuver." http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/economics/article3930094.ece
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)