Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

37re: start working on your gardening skills

Expand Messages
  • Abrigon Gusiq
    Jun 14, 2009
    • 0 Attachment
      Teh fun about things is Cali going under, but they are sitting on massive
      oil reserves but will not touch?

      How much methane is produced by the cattle we eat or milk? Much more than
      most other source of green house gases.

      Thermal radiation the other side of the green house gas problems, or how
      much solar radiation is turned into thermal, thr thermal that is then
      captured by the green house gages and what is its major sources?

      Roads and Roofes are major sources, but what else?

      Cities like New York that are massive heat dumps, meaning they produce
      massive amount of heat, but have major usage of power, but do they use the
      heat they produce to make power? NO? But can they? Simple old science
      experiment was to use heat radiation to turn one of four paddals in a glass
      jar. How much power can be generated from just finding ways to use the heat
      producted in most of NYC?

      Also, wind power, does it have to be like windmils, NO. How much wind is
      bring produced by the air dump that major world cities present? Or as the
      earth moves around its axis, the ratio between ground movement and the air
      it goes thru, and if you can put horizontal (versus virticle) wind miles
      (more like wind .. like how a fish wheel works?). OR what?\

      Back to how things in Cali are, like how wars are best fought, on someone
      elses lands.. So when the rest of the planet is dry of oil, then Cali can
      move in and be ... hum..

      But if you can make all the same stuff you can from Petrochemicals, but make
      it from Soy Oil, but then why can't you make fuel from it? Or someone just
      does not want to? Control? Who would control the fuel source? British
      Petroleum or Simplot or like Major Farming Combine? Or if you can raise your
      own fuel, then why have the massive transport, find/process and distribute
      network we have now, let alone the massive oil/gas companies that keep it
      under control?

      Price gouging or price control, go figure.. Some how in Alaska, our gasoline
      is little more than the rest of the US, I can see since the oil/gas here is
      controlled by the same companies how it could be the same and all, or higher
      maybe cause of they need for someone to pay for the cheaper prices else
      where but ... Adam Smith is not happy. But .. Oil/Gas OWN Alaska, well them
      and Fishing, Federals, and Tourism. Mining as well. Pallin is a wimp, done
      nothing but piss the Oil Companies off, but .. Do we really need to rape
      and pillage Alaska just so lower 48 people can have lower prices? No
      comment, but it would be funny if things was reversed?

      So who wants to NATIONALIZE Alaskan Minerals, first we have to become a REAL
      NATION, and no hanky panky like the last election to become a State, remain
      a territory, Common Wealth, or Independent. Such as how come all the
      Soldiers got to vote most who was not residents? Stacking the vote is sadly
      not uncommon. See Texas, California, Utah and like, grin.

      Tobacco if it was newly found today, I doubt it would get past first stages
      of FDA approval, but alot of money is being paid in taxing it..

      Hemp into biodiesel and what about all the fry oil we waste? New standards
      on solid and liquid waste for one. But then NYC would no longer be able to
      ship all its waste to Pennsylvania, like it used do to New Jersey and people
      wondered why New Jersey STANK? All the chemical waste for one!? Hard to
      garden on toxic waste, you never know what the plants will pick up and give
      back?

      Mike

      ----- Original Message -----
      ________________________________________________________________________
      1. start working on your gardening skills
      Posted by: "bromisky@..." bromisky@... stephenbromm
      Date: Sat Jun 13, 2009 8:20 pm ((PDT))

      Right now the US consumes approximately 21 million barrels of oil a day, and
      this is projected by the Energy Information Administration to increase to
      28.5 million barrels by 2025. China is expected to pass the US in a couple
      of years as the leading consumer of energy. It's fairly obvious when you
      crunch the numbers that after the US, China, and Europe, there's isn't going
      to be much left for the rest of the world. This is only within twenty years
      also, so you would have to expect oil prices to increase past the levels set
      last summer permanently. Published on Friday, June 12, 2009 by
      TomDispatch.comIt's Official: The Era of Cheap Oil Is Over Energy Department
      Changes Tune on Peak Oil by Michael T. Klare



      Every summer, the Energy Information Administration [1] (EIA) of the U.S.
      Department of Energy issues its International Energy Outlook [2] (IEO) -- a
      jam-packed compendium of data and analysis on the evolving world energy
      equation. For those with the background to interpret its key statistical
      findings, the release of the IEO can provide a unique opportunity to gauge
      important shifts in global energy trends, much as reports of routine
      Communist Party functions in the party journal Pravda once provided
      America's Kremlin watchers with insights into changes in the Soviet Union's
      top leadership circle.



      As it happens, the recent release of the 2009 IEO has provided energy
      watchers with a feast of significant revelations. By far the most
      significant disclosure: the IEO predicts a sharp drop in projected future
      world oil output (compared to previous expectations) and a corresponding
      increase in reliance on what are called "unconventional fuels" -- oil sands,
      ultra-deep oil, shale oil, and biofuels.



      So here's the headline for you: For the first time, the well-respected
      Energy Information Administration appears to be joining with those experts
      who have long argued that the era of cheap and plentiful oil is drawing to a
      close. Almost as notable, when it comes to news, the 2009 report highlights
      Asia's insatiable demand for energy and suggests that China is moving ever
      closer to the point at which it will overtake the United States as the
      world's number one energy consumer. Clearly, a new era of cutthroat energy
      competition is upon us.



      Peak Oil Becomes the New Norm



      As recently as 2007, the IEO projected that the global production of
      conventional oil (the stuff that comes gushing out of the ground in liquid
      form) would reach 107.2 million barrels per day in 2030, a substantial
      increase from the 81.5 million barrels produced in 2006. Now, in 2009, the
      latest edition of the report has grimly dropped that projected 2030 figure
      to just 93.1 million barrels per day -- in future-output terms, an
      eye-popping decline of 14.1 million expected barrels per day.



      Even when you add in the 2009 report's projection of a larger increase than
      once expected in the output of unconventional fuels, you still end up with a
      net projected decline of 11.1 million barrels per day in the global supply
      of liquid fuels (when compared to the IEO's soaring 2007 projected figures).
      What does this decline signify -- other than growing pessimism by energy
      experts when it comes to the international supply of petroleum liquids?



      Very simply, it indicates that the usually optimistic analysts at the
      Department of Energy now believe global fuel supplies will simply not be
      able to keep pace with rising world energy demands. For years now, assorted
      petroleum geologists and other energy types have been warning [3] that world
      oil output is approaching a maximum sustainable daily level -- a peak -- and
      will subsequently go into decline, possibly producing global economic chaos.
      Whatever the timing of the arrival of peak oil's actual peak, there is
      growing agreement that we have, at last, made it into peak-oil territory, if
      not yet to the moment of irreversible decline.



      Until recently, Energy Information Administration officials scoffed at the
      notion that a peak in global oil output was imminent or that we should
      anticipate a contraction in the future availability of petroleum any time
      soon. "[We] expect conventional oil to peak closer to the middle than to the
      beginning of the 21st century," the 2004 IEO report stated emphatically.



      Consistent with this view, the EIA reported one year later that global
      production would reach a staggering 122.2 million barrels per day in 2025,
      more than 50% above the 2002 level of 80.0 million barrels per day. This was
      about as close to an explicit rejection of peak oil that you could get from
      the EIA's experts.



      Where Did All the Oil Go?


      Now, let's turn back to the 2009 edition. In 2025, according to this new
      report, world liquids output, conventional and unconventional, will reach
      only a relatively dismal 101.1 million barrels per day. Worse yet,
      conventional oil output will be just 89.6 million barrels per day. In EIA
      terms, this is pure gloom and doom, about as deeply pessimistic when it
      comes to the world's future oil output capacity as you're likely to get.



      [4]The agency's experts claim, however, that this will not prove quite the
      challenge it might seem, because they have also revised downward their
      projections of future energy demand. Back in 2005, they were projecting
      world oil consumption in 2025 at 119.2 million barrels per day, just below
      anticipated output at that time. This year -- and we should all
      theoretically breathe a deep sigh of relief -- the report projects that 2025
      figure at only 101.1 million barrels per day, conveniently just what the
      world is expected to produce at that time. If this actually proves the case,
      then oil prices will presumably remain within a manageable range.



      In fact, however, the consumption part of this equation seems like the less
      reliable calculation, especially if economic growth continues at anything
      like its recent pace in China and India. Indeed, all evidence suggests that
      growth in these countries will resume its pre-crisis pace by the end of 2009
      or early 2010. Under those circumstances, global oil demand will eventually
      outpace supply, driving up prices again and threatening recurring and
      potentially disastrous economic disorders -- possibly on the scale of the
      present global economic meltdown.



      To have the slightest chance of averting such disasters means seeing a sharp
      rise in unconventional fuel output. Such fuels include Canadian oil sands,
      Venezuelan extra-heavy oil, deep-offshore oil, Arctic oil, shale oil,
      liquids derived from coal (coal-to-liquids or CTL), and biofuels. At
      present, these cumulatively constitute only about 4% of the world's liquid
      fuel supply but are expected to reach nearly 13% by 2030. All told,
      according to estimates in the new IEO report, unconventional liquid
      production will reach an estimated 13.4 million barrels per day in 2030, up
      from a projected 9.7 million barrels in the 2008 edition.



      But for an expansion on this scale to occur, whole new industries will have
      to be created to manufacture such fuels at a cost of several trillion
      dollars. This undertaking, in turn, is provoking a wide-ranging debate over
      the environmental consequences of producing such fuels.



      For example, any significant increase in biofuels use -- assuming such fuels
      were produced by chemical means rather than, as now, by cooking -- could
      substantially reduce emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases,
      actually slowing the tempo of future climate change. On the other hand, any
      increase in the production of Canadian oil sands, Venezuelan extra-heavy
      oil, and Rocky Mountain shale oil will entail energy-intensive activities at
      staggering levels, sure to emit vast amounts of CO2, which might more than
      cancel out any gains from the biofuels.



      In addition, increased biofuels production risks [5] the diversion of vast
      tracts of arable land from the crucial cultivation of basic food staples to
      the manufacture of transportation fuel. If, as is likely, oil prices
      continue to rise, expect it to be ever more attractive for farmers to grow
      more corn and other crops for eventual conversion to transportation fuels,
      which means rises in food costs that could price basics out of the range of
      the very poor, while stretching working families to the limit. As in May and
      June of 2008, when food riots spread across the planet in response to high
      food prices -- caused, in part, by the diversion of vast amounts of corn
      acreage to biofuel production -- this could well lead to mass unrest and
      mass starvation.



      A Heavy Energy Footprint on the Planet




      The geopolitical implications of this transformation could well be striking.
      Among other developments, the global clout of Canada, Venezuela, and
      Brazil -- all key producers of unconventional fuels -- is bound to be
      strengthened.



      Canada is becoming increasingly important as the world's leading producer of
      oil sands [6], or bitumen -- a thick, gooey, viscous material that must be
      dug out of the ground and treated in various energy-intensive ways before it
      can be converted into synthetic petroleum fuel (synfuel). According to the
      IEO report, oil sands production, now at 1.3 million barrels a day and
      barely profitable, could hit the 4.4 million barrel mark (or even, according
      to the most optimistic scenarios, 6.5 million barrels) by 2030.



      Given the IEA's new projections, this would represent an extraordinary
      addition to global energy supplies just when key sources of conventional oil
      in places like Mexico and the North Sea are expected to suffer severe
      declines. The extraction of oil sands, however, could prove a pollution
      disaster of the first order. For one thing, remarkable infusions of
      old-style energy are needed to extract this new energy, huge forest tracts
      would have to be cleared, and vast quantities of water used for the steam
      necessary to dislodge the buried goo (just as the equivalent of "peak water"
      may be arriving).



      What this means is that the accelerated production of oil sands is sure to
      be linked to environmental despoliation, pollution, and global warming.
      There is considerable doubt that Canadian officials and the general public
      will, in the end, be willing to pay the economic and environmental price
      involved. In other words, whatever the IEA may project now, no one can know
      whether synfuels will really be available in the necessary quantities 15 or
      20 years down the road.



      Venezuela has long been an important source [7] of crude oil for the United
      States, generating much of the revenue used by President Hugo Chávez to
      sustain his social experiments at home and an ambitious anti-American
      political agenda abroad. In the coming years, however, its production of
      conventional petroleum is expected to fall, leaving the country increasingly
      reliant [8] on the exploitation of large deposits of bitumen in the eastern
      Orinoco River basin. Just to develop these "extra-heavy oil" deposits will
      require significant financial and energy investments and, as with Canadian
      oil sands, the environmental impact could be devastating. Nevertheless,
      successful development of these deposits could prove an economic bonanza for
      Venezuela.



      The big winner in these grim energy sweepstakes, however, is likely to be
      Brazil [9]. Already a major producer of ethanol, it is expected to see a
      huge increase in unconventional oil output once its new ultra-deep fields in
      the "subsalt" Campos and Santos basins come on-line. These are massive
      offshore oil deposits buried beneath thick layers of salt some 100 miles off
      the coast of Rio de Janeiro and several miles beneath the ocean's surface.



      When the substantial technical challenges to exploiting these undersea
      fields are overcome, Brazil's output could soar by as much as three million
      barrels per day. By 2030, Brazil should be a major player in the world
      energy equation, having succeeded Venezuela as South America's leading
      petroleum producer.


      New Powers, New Problems



      The IEO report hints at other geopolitical changes occurring in the global
      energy landscape, especially an expected stunning increase in the share of
      the global energy supply consumed in Asia and a corresponding decline by the
      United States, Japan, and other "First World" powers. In 1990, the
      developing nations of Asia and the Middle East accounted for only 17% of
      world energy consumption; by 2030, that number, the report suggests, should
      reach 41%, matching that of the major First World powers.



      All recent editions of the report have predicted that China [10] would
      eventually overtake the United States as number one energy consumer. What's
      notable is how quickly the 2009 edition expects that to happen. The 2006
      report had China assuming the leadership position in a 2026-2030 timeframe;
      in 2007, it was 2021-2024; in 2008, it was 2016-2020. This year, the EIA is
      projecting that China will overtake the United States between 2010 and 2014.



      It's easy enough to overlook these shifting estimates, since the reports
      don't emphasize how they have changed from year to year. What they suggest,
      however, is that the United States will face ever fiercer competition from
      China in the global struggle to secure adequate supplies of energy to meet
      national needs.



      Given what we have learned about the dwindling prospects for adequate future
      oil supplies, we are sure to face increased geopolitical competition and
      strife between the two countries in those few areas that are capable of
      producing additional quantities of oil (and undoubtedly genuine desperation
      among many other countries with far less resources and power).



      And much else follows: As the world's leading energy consumer, Beijing will
      undoubtedly play a far more critical role in setting international energy
      policies and prices, undercutting the pivotal role long played by
      Washington. It is not hard to imagine, then, that major oil producers in the
      Middle East and Africa will see it as in their interest to deepen political
      and economic ties with China at the expense of the United States. China can
      also be expected to maintain close ties with oil providers like Iran and
      Sudan, no matter how this clashes with American foreign policy objectives.



      At first glance, the International Energy Outlook for 2009 hardly looks
      different from previous editions: a tedious compendium of tables and text on
      global energy trends. Looked at another way, however, it trumpets the
      headlines of the future -- and their news is not comforting.



      The global energy equation is changing rapidly, and with it is likely to
      come great power competition, economic peril, rising starvation, growing
      unrest [11], environmental disaster, and shrinking energy supplies, no
      matter what steps are taken. No doubt the 2010 edition of the report and
      those that follow will reveal far more, but the new trends in energy on the
      planet are already increasingly evident -- and unsettling.



      © 2009 TomDispatch.comMichael T. Klare is the Five College Professor of
      Peace and World Security Studies at Hampshire College in Amherst,
      Massachusetts, and the author of Blood and Oil: The Dangers and Consequences
      of America's Growing Dependence on Imported Petroleum [12]. A documentary
      version of that book is available at bloodandoilmovie.com [13]. His newest
      book, Rising Powers, Shrinking Planet: The New Geopolitics of Energy [14],
      was recently published by Metropolitan Books. To listen to a TomDispatch
      audio interview in which Klare discusses the future of oil in 2009 and
      beyond, click here [15].



      Article printed from www.CommonDreams.org
      URL to article: http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/06/12
      ____________________________________________________________

      ------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Yahoo! Groups Links