Redstate

Well what do you have to say about this:

Oil reserves will be totally depleted in 13 years.

...US Department of the Interior - 1939

We ran out of oil in 1952; we're just too dumb to realize it.

:-)

Why do they so badly want us to believe the sky is falling?

Is it:

1. Because there is a Republican in the White House?
   
   
2. Becasue playing Chicken Little vis-a-vis oil prices helps promote their "Green" Watermelon agenda?
   
   
3. Because every time they talk about "Oil" it gives them another opertunity to say HALIBURTON!
   
   
4. Same as 3), but add IRAQ! to the equation
   
   
5. All of the above.

For me, I go with 5).

Let's see - oil prices go up leading people to go looking harder for that which is assumed not to exist until, lo! and behold!, it is found - which leads to a glut of supply, bringing costs down and making exploration less desirable - leading to a short-term shortage in supply which in turn makes exploration more attractive.

Simple, eh?

I blame Bush.

...about there being abundant untapped oil reserves...it would not undo the fact that oil is a finite quantity...or that our dependence on (foreign) oil is a national crises that demands resolution.  We owe it to ourselves (and to the world) to undo our dependency on oil as energy.  That would make for a much more stable world!

We should embark on a "Manhatten Project-Like" national effort to rid ourselves of dependency on oil as an energy source.  We may find that the cost of an alternate energy source is indeed HIGHER than oil.  But at least we will then have an option:  pay for cheaper oil and suffer the political consequences...or push for an alternate energy source and lead the world in alternative energy technology.  FOR SURE, someday the invesment will pay off handsomely.  Especially, if it is does not increase global CO2 production.

And I don't think the author would either.  I for one would love to see 25-30 new Nuke plants go-up starting this year while we simultaneously ramp-up the Quest for that long sought-after source of "clean" energy.

But it's like walking and chewing gum - we should be able to both explore for and exploit existing resources AND search for new resources, should we not?

Cheers.

...to above!

Someday, and probably sooner than most think, particularly since precious few are even talking about it now, the discussion will change from "finding" oil to manufacturing oil.

All of the discussion about oil prices is an ongoing reminder of Stein's law:

"If something cannot go on forever, it will stop."

The price mechanism is past the point of affecting energy development. We're just not noticing it yet, and the popular press is not reporting it. Meanwhile, $3/gal. is a pain.

There is actually a hypothesis that oil is in fact not a 'fossil fuel' but a constantly generated product of processes deep in the earth. Reference

It all stems from the work of a Doctor Thomas Gold, a Cornell astronomer, who says that petroleum is actually not the product of 'decaying dinosaurs and plants' but the product of abiotic processes. I don't know enough to know whether to give this any serious credibility or not, but there it is.

------------------

I believe strongly in alternative energy R&D and especially implementation.  That sounds too cliche, so I'll restate my views briefly:

I've advocated here on RedState for technological solutions to our global energy problem, especially thermonuclear fusion.  There are at least a half-dozen of my posts in the archives about the fusion research projects at the National Ignition Facility, the Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory, the new ITER reactor that is being constructed in France, etc.

I've also written about efforts to construct a space elevator, which could usher in a new age of exoatmospheric solar power collection.  Collecting solar energy from outside the Earth's atmosphere is much, much more efficient than having large solar arrays on the ground, even the most elegant ones proposed to date, which are under construction in Australia and will require a carbon cap'n'trade emissions treaty to be economically competitive.  The main hurdle with exoatmospheric solar is the (currently exorbitant) cost of moving a pound of material into orbit, but new technologies could change that situation dramatically in the next decade.

I've also talked quite a bit about the coming renaissance in nuclear power for central power station needs.  

I'd like to make a very quick comparison:  in 2003, it was forecast in a report to Mayor Michael Bloomberg of New York that the peak electricity demand for the city would be over 11,000 megawatts during the summer months, and that the City would require an additional 2,600 megawatts of supply by 2008.  The most interesting solar power proposal I've seen to date is from Enviromission in Australia, who are constructing a 200MW solar tower in Australia.  The first operational tower, constructed by Schlaich Bergermann Und Partner of Germany, wiil be 1,000 meters high and cover a land area 6 to 7,000 meters in diameter -- approx. 4 miles in diameter and over 3,200 feet high, covering an area of more than 12.5 square miles to produce 200MW of power.  

Just to supply the central power station requirements of New York City using the 2003 peak power estimate, that means they'd have to construct 55 of those towers, covering a land area of about 700 square miles (actually more, because these are circles, so there's some wasted space)!  That's for one city!  And that's the BEST solar design we've seen to date, and it won't be operational until 2008. Where will New York come up with 700 square miles of flatland to put the power stations?

To make a long story short, I'm very sensitive to the fact that eventually, oil is ultimately a finite and relatively dirty resource to consume for the purposes of energy production.  We're going to have to transition away from it.  But the peak oil cassandras are deliberately trying to scare people in a very deliberate, cynical and unprecedented way.  Don't believe them.

There are something like 2400 power plants in the US, not including the 'helpers' and smaller natural gas merchant plants that have sprung up in the past few years. Of that there are something around 120 nuclear plants. Those 120 or so plants alone produce 20% of all the electricity in the country. Burning oil and natural gas to make electricy is simply nuts.

Where will New York come up with 700 square miles of flatland to put the power stations?

There's always New Jersey - particularly Bergen, Passaic and Hudson Counties.  No one will miss them.

Sorry - couldn't resist.  Grew up there, so I come by it honestly.

Cheers.

...and whether or not we use an exotic sounding "space elevator, which could usher in a new age of exoatmospheric solar power collection" or something else is besides the point.  We need political leaadership (presidential or congressional) to get rid of our dependency on finite oil.

This should not be postponed while we also develop "stop-gap" short term increases in oil production and thereby relieve many world political problems.

(he, he... and as a supporter of space exploration, I would tend to support some sort of exoatmospheric solar power collection, if do-able and cost-wise beneficial).

and as a supporter of space exploration, I would tend to support some sort of exoatmospheric solar power collection, if do-able and cost-wise beneficial).

At the Liftport Group.  They seem to think it can happen.  NASA seems to believe it's feasible, so does Space.com.  

...and a point of view completely unknown to me previously.  For me, the most criticial point in the reference was, "since the nineteenth century, knowledgeable physicists, chemists, thermodynamicists, and chemical engineers have regarded with grave reservations (if not outright disdain) the suggestion that highly reduced hydrocarbon molecules of high free enthalpy (the constituents of crude oil) might somehow evolve spontaneously from highly oxidized biogenic molecules of low free enthalpy."

It would be nice, if true, but I somehow doubt it.  In a real sense, oil (& natural gas ) is, in fact, not "finite" since even if abiogenic oil is not really significant, biogenic oil will continue to be produced...but not at a rate to replace the amount used each year by the world today.

In any case, it boils down to CO2 production.  We have to limit it as much as possible.

Since life began on earth about 3.9 billion years ago, the sun has increased its luminosity about 30%.  The only reason the earth is not a barren oven today is due to the decrease in atmospheric greenhouse gasses over the last 3.9 billion years (one of the many "fine-tuning" anthropic characteristics of this earth, and a very unlikely natural phenomenon).  This decrease in greenhouse gasses matched very nicely the increase in solar luminosity.  But now the greenhouse gasses have deceased to the point where any more significant decrease (especially in CO2) in these gasses are no longer possible.  (For example, any significantly less CO2 will kill off green plants).

Therefore, whether or not oil can be produced from an abiogenesis means or not is a moot point.  In any case, with slowly increasing solar luminosity, we will need to keep CO2 levels about the same (or perhaps a tad lower as long as green plants can grow and the climate stays stable).  Other factors affect global climate such as cycles in solar emissions and small earth oribital changes over long periods of time.

Regardless of what we do, in millions of years with increasing solar luminosity, the earth will become an oven & the seas will turn to steam even if CO2 levels fall to zero!  

...$3.00/gallon of gas (or more!) may be a blessing in disguise, if we can just make an alternate energy source now cost-beneficial.

...for the link!

Regardless of what we do, in millions of years ...

I'm glad I read this twice, first time through I thought it said a few thousand years :-)

Seriously, I don't know if all the proposed processes actually occur in nature but it is an interesting hypothesis. I do agree that we need to reduce the combustion products over time. Like any other human endevour however I'm farily confident we won't do so until there is absolutely no other choice, regardless of one's political party that's just human nature :-)

I would like to see significantly more investment in non-hydrocarbon systems. I just don't see the current 'enviro-favorites' like wind, solar and biomass as being very effective. We need enormous amounts of energy and these technologies just don't cut it.

In my humble opinion wind is a loser. As I like to tell people 'flipping the light switch in LA does not cause the wind to start blowing in Palmdale.' And don't get me started on Ethanol! All of these 'technologies' are low output methods; they all require some kind of 'conventional' power plant to pick up the slack, the peaks and cover for when conditions aren't right for power generation; not enough wind, too much cloud cover, etc. Not to mention when 10 people flip the switch in LA :-)

We need more 'conventional' nuclear and research into advanced nuclear such as fusion. In the menatime we need to find more oil while we pursue these.

Before we go putting too much stock in anything Russia or Saudi Arabia say about their oil reserves; perhaps we should consider what kind of dog they might have in the fight.  

It seems to me that "peak oil" concerns, if validated, would prompt development of new non-oil dependent technologies.  If that is the case, these purveyors of the old "technology" stand to lose quite a lot. All their eggs are in a basket labeled "oil." Best that they tamp down enthusiasm for anything that might send oil the way of the horse and buggy.

I'd like to believe it; but I find it hard to believe that their motives are pure.

The origins of the "peak oil" idea in its current incarnation began with the statements of M. King Hubbert back in the 50's.  He predicted, accurately, that the availability of oil in American fields would begin to decline in the '70's.  Here is the paper from 1956 in which he presents his case.  Hubbert was not a lefty, anti-capitalist, or doomsday prognosticator.  He was a geologist in the employ of oil companies.

It's also worth noting that the issue of peak oil is less about there suddenly being "no oil", and more about there being decreasing amounts of oil that are inexpensive to extract and refine into the industrial products we want to make out of them.  Include in the computation of "inexpensive" the fact that some of the extraction technologies you mention have serious impacts on other resources, such as the fresh water table.

Finally, I'll join redstatesoccermom in taking the sudden "discovery" and announcement of a doubling of Saudi Arabia's proven reserves with a grain of salt.  No doubt geologists have been over every inch of that area with a fine toothed comb every way but Sunday for the last 50 years.  Where'd a new reserve equal in size to their current reserves magically appear from?  Anything is possible, but color me skeptical.

Putting aside for the moment global warming, tree-huggers, etc. -- our economy and general way of life is based on the profligate use of a resource that we are not self-sufficient in, and for which we have no credible ready replacement.  It's a vulnerability that is not to our advantage, economically or in terms of our national security.  Doubling the reserves in SA, Russia, or anywhere but home doesn't change that.

...agree with what you say.  We need a cost-effective & energy rich source of energy to replace oil (& reserves of coal & natural gas).  Wind, biomass, & ethanol may help, but won't fill the bill and the energy cost in making the ethanol counterbalances the energy benefit to a high degree.  We should go for more nuclear fission (nuclear fusion would be great, but uncertain technically), more efficient use of energy (? LED light bulbs) and I really am interested in the possibility of exoatmospheric solar power (if possible).

And I'll note that a couple of press statements from some government officials doesn't make it a conclusive fact or a guarantee.  But there's something that bothers me about this:

Putting aside for the moment global warming, tree-huggers, etc. -- our economy and general way of life is based on the profligate use of a resource that we are not self-sufficient in, and for which we have no credible ready replacement.  It's a vulnerability that is not to our advantage, economically or in terms of our national security.

Why is trading with other countries for a commodity that we don't have "enough of" in our own particular area of the world a "vulnerability" unless you believe that in order to accomplish that trade we're oppressing the rest of the world into doing so?  Oil is a global market and even if you castigate the United States for being profligate in its consumption, the fact remains that 75% of the oil is being consumed elsewhere.  Are we wrong for supporting regimes around the world that are supplying a commodity that the rest of the world consumes 3 times as much of as we do?  

That's essentially the argument that most people on the Left use when they talk about why the United States needs to be more "self-sufficient" in terms of energy -- and we could be, if the oil shale is extracted and converted into petroleum -- but they don't want that, either.  They don't want more oil and gas exploration by the United States, they don't want more drilling -- anywhere -- and they most certainly don't want us to develop our oil shale resources.  It's a neat solution because it leaves us with exactly what they claim are the real alternatives:  a drastic decrease in consumption and a fundamental change in the way our society operates.

I trade things with people every day:  I trade money for groceries, I trade money for legal advice, I trade services based on the skills I have and that someone else wants in exchange for the money that I need to trade with others.

These discussions always get raised to such a feverish pitch when it seems that the oil supply will dwindle, forcing hard choices on us all.  I'll agree with you that the United States is a profligate consumer of oil in the aggregate, especially in personal transportation.  We can do a lot better there, and we should.  We'd go a long way to reclaiming some of the moral high ground if we each, individually, gave more thought to conservation.

And finally in this rambling reply, you can take the Saudi assertion that they have doubled their found reserves with a grain of salt, but I really don't see why they would want to lie about that.  Even if the United States reduced its consumption to 0 barrels a day they would still want to assure the rest of the world that they can keep up with the demand for crude for at least another 20-30 years.    

Something like 70% of our energy requirements go to motor-fuel for transportation. The (generally agreeable) comments about nuclear generation largely imply that the electricity will be used to produce hydrogen.

This may or may not be a plausible dream. (Of all the alternatives, it certainly does the most to address global warming.) But we are a very long way, perhaps 20 years or more, from hydrogen as the standard transport-fuel.

There is a lot of great technological work being done on oil-replacement alternatives. I think it's obvious that technological breakthroughs are needed, and also that they are coming. The economics assures that, if nothing else.

Not very much gets said about ethanol. It has a terrible reputation among conservatives, but you can get ethanol from sources other than Iowa corn. And a technological breakthrough or two may reduce costs to the point that ethanol might replace, say, 50 percent or more of our gasoline requirements. And this is a much nearer-term proposition than hydrogen because (except for pipelines) the gasoline infrastructure will largely accomodate it.

The oil-shale initiatives are important, but oil-shale extraction is energy-intensive.

Bottom line, we will need to pursue all of the above. There is no political will whatsoever in the US to pursue a foreign policy that will secure our access to oil reserves. Meanwhile, China is buying up every field it can (at above-market prices), and building a blue-water navy to take oil reserves by force if that should ever become necessary.

Why is trading with other countries for a commodity that we don't have "enough of" in our own particular area of the world a "vulnerability" unless you believe that in order to accomplish that trade we're oppressing the rest of the world into doing so?

That isn't quite where I was going with it.  I'm not against robust international trade, and I don't think we're oppressing other people.

Having an economy that requires resources we don't have means that we are wedded at the hip to the folks that do.  It means the Carter Doctrine and everything that comes from that.  It means we're competing for those resources with China, India, and every other place that wants to grow their industrial base.  It limits our options.

At the present moment, it makes us crucially vulnerable to terror attacks targeting other countries' infrastructure.  Yikes.

It's the difference between "want to have" and "will die without".

I wanted to read more but frankly couldn't get past the first sentence...

Something like 70% of our energy requirements go to motor-fuel for transportation.

The implication is that 70% of all energy consumption in the US is done by motor vehicles (not the generation of electricity, etc.)  That simply cannot be correct.

I did my little exercise on The Google and the best I can find is here - and it says:

Although some oil products are consumed in industrial processes and in electric power generation, about 60 percent of all crude oil goes to make transportation fuels, with an emphasis on gasoline and diesel.

Care to revise and extend?

Cheers, and thanks.

Unfortunately, ethanol is a net negative energy source; it take more energy to produce a gallon of ethanol that it give up when it is used as a motor fuel. It's been a long time since I was in the chemical business but I don't know of any of the alcohols that have high energy contents, they simply don't have the right atomic makeup and chemical bonds. While it is true that when they burn the lower alcohols are 'fairly clean', they burn at low temperatures, indicative of low energy content.

I'll revise from 70% to 60% :-). Doesn't change my point in the slightest.

A quick read of your source didn't say anything about jet fuel.

If you think this can't be right, bear in mind that internal-combustion engines are essentially very small power plants. The net efficiency (proportion of the expended energy that actually drives the wheels) is shockingly low, well below half. (If you accept Amory Lovins' numbers, and he accounts for things like wheel friction, then the efficiency of your average automobile is in the low single digits.)

Now take a look at your average 1000 megawatt combined-cycle oil-fired electrical generating plant. Much more economy in the design and in the scale too. They are around 60% efficient.

The process of generating automotive power from nuclear energy through water electrolysis, hydrogen collection, compression and transport, conversion to water in the fuel cell and final drive compares very poorly with gasoline. That's one reason I'm skeptical about it. (Lots of relevant docs on google.)

I'm very much in favor of nuclear power for electric generation (approximately 50% efficient). But the big prize is in transportation.

You're right, it's well known that its a net loser. It's symptomatic of what's wrong with the process: anything "green" is appealing, and farm states (plus Cargill et al) have disproportionate influence in Congress.

The dirty secret is that the ethanol industry uses natural gas to dry the waste product; ethanol by itself is too poor of a fuel to do the job.

it's well known that its a net loser

well known everywhere but on the left and Capitol Hill :-) But then the members of the "Church of Global Warming" are not known for embracing facts.

The people that support ethanol production are:

(1) People who grow corn

(2) Politicians representing places where people grow corn

(3) Politicians who want to run for President one day (and hence want to win the caucuses in Iowa, where lots of people grow corn)

Trying to tie the ethanol boondoggle to the left is just silly.  The list of prominent Republican supporters of ethanol is very long.

Becoming energy self-sufficient is a simple matter of national security, at this point. The world will not be able to add enough production capacity fast enough (even if the "peak oil" theory is wrong) to sustain a normal supply-demand relationship.

For positive proof of this, look at the relationship between the price of crude oil and the cost. The Saudis pay about $2.50 a barrel to produce, transport, and terminal their crude. (American producers pay about $6.) This is for a barrel of stuff that goes for nearly $70. The world hands the Saudis about $100 billion a year in pure profit. (Now you know where terrorism comes from- you pay for it every time you fill your tank.)

Demand only needs to exceed supply by a relatively small amount for serious price volatility to occur. We are seeing that now.

Now the Saudis are fouling their underwear (or whatever they wear underneath those gowns) at the thought of $70 crude. We are well past the price point at which serious investment on alternatives starts happening. That's why we're having this conversation.

Ethanol (and methanol) as motor fuels have always had a cost disadvantage relative to hydrocarbons. There is literature on this going back to the 19th century.

And it is certainly true that to encapsulate energy in a stable, reasonably dense, transportable liquid takes more energy than you will get back by burning the liquid. That's just basic thermodynamics. The same is true for petroleum hydrocarbons but the energy-cost is less visible because the sun expended it when it grew the ferns in the first place.

It's also certainly true that current processes for converting corn to ethanol are terribly inefficient. But corn is not the only way to get ethanol, and the processes will improve too. In Brazil (where about 50% of motor fuel is ethanol today) they use spent sugar cane. There is a lot of research here on using sawgrass. (Google for docs.)

Bottom line, we will need a chemical-engineering breakthrough or two before ethanol can displace an interesting proportion of our gasoline usage. And the economics are now in place to start looking for the breakthroughs.

The political aspects of this are boring. If we can't get past the lobbying power of Archer Daniels Midland and Cargill against Iowa senators and presidential hopefuls, then that just tells me we haven't yet mustered enough will to solve the problem.

From today's Star Tribune:

Gov. Tim Pawlenty is putting his choice of an official vehicle where his mouth is. The governor, who has emerged as one of the nation's most aggressive salesmen for ethanol fuels, revealed Tuesday that he is getting a Chevrolet Suburban that will be powered by E85, gasoline with 85 percent ethanol content. Minnesota, rich in corn and soybeans, is one of the nation's biggest ethanol producers, and Pawlenty has become one of its biggest national advocates, serving as chairman of the Governors Ethanol Coalition.

...

Although the price of E85 has risen along with that of mostly petroleum fuels, Pawlenty said that is driven by legitimate market forces and that "there is value beyond the price," namely reduced use of non-renewable fossil fuels and a benefit to Minnesota's rural economy.

(The Democrat mayor of Minneapolis drives a hybrid.)

One of the technical issues that always held oil shale development back was that conventional extraction led to waste product that occupied more volume than it did before extraction; that is, it would overfill the hole you took it out of.

Shell's process, described here depends on cooking the stuff at high temperature in place, meanwhile keeping the whole mess under control using underground ice dams!

My point being, oil resources may be inexhaustable, but the easy stuff, the "low hanging fruit", is gone. Economics (read high product prices) drives ingenious folks to consider unconventional solutions. Whether enough new reserves will be found to offset the decline from known sources is anybody's guess.

By the way, I'm reading Matt Simmons' book on the Saudi oilfields; the guy has done his homework. I wouldn't believe their reserve claims for a minute.

Simmons is the leading current advocate for the peak-oil theory. His book is very interesting and well-informed but commands little respect among pros in the field.

(That's not to say he's wrong of course...)

Capitol Hill. That includes bozos on both sidees of the aisle. There is no such thing as a politician that does not harbor thoughts of being President. Fortunately due to the good sense of the American people the vast majority never get beyond pipedreams.

There is plenty of oil, natural  gas and coal.  We just need to use what we have.  I'm not opposed to nukes either and if private capital wants to chase alternatives let them. No way  would I sponsor a government funded program. No way. Just think of the corruption that would result.

The only way to get conservation is to drive up the cost. I don't think $3 is doing it.

The simple hedge it to buy a little XOM. If gas is at $2.50 I spend $2500/year. At $3.00/year the marginal cost is $500 per year - this assumes I drive my 12MPG truck 12,000 per year. Not exactly the end of the world and worth it if it gets us drilling in coastal florida. See I fish and fish like structure and their ain't no structure like a rig.

...

Plants love it. There has been tons in the past. Hopefully it warms up the planet a bit.

Seriously. What's wrong with global warming? Isn't the alternative much worse. I'm not buying global warming is man made but if we could make it why not?

That doesn't add up.  First, could you cite a source for the claim of a 30% increase in luminosity.  Further, even taking that as a given, the earth has experienced significant variations in temperature over that time, at times having the icecaps melt and in other eras nearly freezing over.  Unless there's nonlinear variation in that luminosity increase, you've lost correlation, let alone causation.  The composition of the atmosphere (N2, O2, CO2 balance) has also varied a great over time in response to changes in the respiration of the dominant life forms.

And if 30% has taken 3.9 billion years, then in the next 50 years of my life I can expect to see a rather modest 30/3.9e9*50*100 = 0.0000385% increase in luminosity.  Doesn't seem like a matter for much concern.  Factoring in "millions" of years, let's say 5.0e6 instead of 50 (so multiply the above by 1.0e5) would give 3.85% increase.  So that last tenth or so of the luminosity increase would suddently boil the seas?  Doesn't seem likely.

And if someone out there can really turn a large amount of biomass into coal in a non-geologic period, I hope they patent the process quickly and help us all out.  I find the presence and predominance of primitive plant fossils in coal strata convincing evidence for their origin.

...particularly the point that oil won't disappear, rather its recovery costs will increase.

Here's food for thought...just what are the Saudis and Russians doing with all those boatloads of cash?  I'm not keen on their spending habits and especially in the case of the Saudis, the folks they finance, particularly that skinny fellow who keeps making bad videos in Pakistani caves.  I'd like to keep a lot more of that money at home.

Think back to the oil embargo of the 70's to see the economic impact to our nation of hostile countries cutting back the supply.  And the Russians do the same to their neighbors on a regular basis.  It's harder for fledgling democracies such as the Baltics and especially Ukraine to strike an independent foreign policy course when Big Brother Bear can literally turn off the faucet to express displeasure.

I'd love to see more windmills dotting our countryside, like the ones that seem so ubiquitous in Germany.  Every cost-effective bit helps...

It gets cold and nasty here in the wintertime. I'd welcome a little global warming. ;-)

(Before someone wonders if I would also welcome a little coastal flooding here in NYC, the answer is that we'll have hundreds of years of warning and that's plenty of time to do something about it.)

The short answer is that it might actually end up a bit cooler in NYC in the long run.  It would certainly be alot colder in Europe.

The reason being that an influx of fresh water into the Atlantic could shut down the "conveyor belt" of the Gulf Stream, which helps keep some of the East Coast and much of Europe alot warmer than they should be, based on their latitude.

There's alot of other effects-- drought, giant hurricanes, etc.-- that would be likely results of changing climate globally.  The best thing to do is try to not mess up what we have now.  Even if we are shown not to be the cause of global warming, it would behoove us to try and find a way to stop it, if possible.

Remember Sematech?

You don't know that. Nobody knows. There is a long, long, long chain of causality that you just have NO clue on. It is like Bobby Bonds going to the Dominican Republic every winter to watch cows graze.

The facts are the planet has three choices. Stay the exact same temperature everywhere for ever. Get slightly warmer over centuries, or get slightly cooler. SIightly warmer is better.

The notion that the Gulf Stream will always be there if man gives up his SUVs is arrogance beyond believe. We do not control this planet. We could not if we tried.

This is a good thing? Who pays? It is an "official vehicle." People who complain about the price of gasoline at $3 and propose bio-fuels are economically-challenged. Why not just subsidize XOM?

"There is a long, long, long chain of causality that you just have NO clue on."

Well, I have some clue.  Melting ice in the north Atlantic causes the salinity of the nearby water to decrease.  This in turn lowers the density of the water, making it more difficult to "sink".  If the density drops to a certain point, the water will not sink fast enough to draw in warmer water from the south, and the Gulf Stream will slow down or stop.

What is it that you find so mystical about this-- that freshwater makes salt water less dense?  That water density controls the Gulf Stream?

"The facts are the planet has three choices. Stay the exact same temperature everywhere for ever. Get slightly warmer over centuries, or get slightly cooler."

OK.

"Slightly warmer is better."

What are you basing that on?  After telling me that it is absolutely impossible for anyone to predict anything that might happen concerning global climate, you nonetheless feel confident that a warmer temperature is the best thing for us.  You've got alot of chutzpah for a devout skeptic.

"The notion that the Gulf Stream will always be there if man gives up his SUVs is arrogance beyond believe."

Where did I say that?  I did say that if we can keep things how they are right now, we should.  

First, any assumption that the planet temperature will remain constant for the first time in billions of years is redic. IMHO.

Second, if the temp gets slightly cooler that would not make me happy since I do not want to see my local temperatures drop even by a single degree. It would stress out the snook. Now I know in the pseudo science of man-made-global-warming it is possible that my temperature could go UP while the world as a whole goes down. But I will take my chances that SW Florida goes-with-the-flow.

Third, I think I will take my chances that if the temperature of the planet goes up slightly it will get warmer where I live, slightly. That is a good thing.

Fourth all this is academic at BEST. The Chinese are going to do what the do and they are going to massively increase industrial output. Pointed heads in this country are not going to do a thing about it. There is no way I fear that China will abide by any agreements that harm them in the short term in any way.

SW Florida, in the possible scenarios I've seen, would likely "go with the flow" as far as global temp.  And I realize even if we make changes, that China and developing countries will still be a problem.  

I've vacationed a few times on the Gulf side of the FL penninsula, and I'm suprised you'd want it any warmer there (although if Chicago's winters are as bad as I hear, I might like a few extra degrees here this winter).  IMO, the weather we have now may not be perfect, but it's better than gambling with an unknown and possibly unpleasant future.  Whether or not the temperature will eventually change without our influence is somewhat besides the point (it almost certainly will).  The ideal, IMO, is for the current temperature to stay with us as long as possible-- and that's something we may well be able to effect, by not actively speeding up the warming process.

bad analysis=bad policy.  Please see www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/usa.html.

On oil, and oil only:

The United States consumed an average of about 20.4 million bbl/d of oil during the first ten months of 2004, up from 20.0 million bbl/d in 2003. Of this, motor gasoline consumption was 9.0 million bbl/d (or 44% of the total), distillate fuel oil consumption was 4.1 million bbl/d (20%), jet fuel consumption was 1.6 million bbl/d (8%), and residual fuel oil consumption was 0.8 million bbl/d (4%)l. Total 2005 petroleum demand is projected to grow by just 1.4% (280,000 bbl/d), to an average 20.7 million bbl/d, in response to the combined effects of somewhat slower economic growth and relatively high crude oil and product prices. All the major products (except residual fuel oil) are expected to contribute to this growth. Motor gasoline demand is projected to increase 1.8%, to 9.22 million bbl/d. Jet fuel demand is projected to post a growth rate of 3.1% in 2005 to average 1.67 million barrels per day, still below 2000 jet fuel consumption but sharply up from post-9/11 lows it reached in 2002 and 2003. Distillate demand in 2005 is projected to grow only 1.5% year-over-year as industrial growth slows. Demand for residual fuel oil is projected to remain about flat in 2005.

Remember that we have gas, coal, hydro, nuclear, and "alternative" in the mix, too.  While transportation accounts for more than 70% of our petroleum consumption, it doesn't account for 70% of our energy consumption.  Not even close.

Country Energy Balance:

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/world/country/cntry_US.html

Provides the breakdown of energy consumption by fuel and by quadrillion BTUs.  Gasoline accounts for about 9% of total energy consumption, jet fuel about 1.6%, all petroleum about 21%.

EIA is a goldmine.

On Simmons' book until I've read it, but I've got to tell you that much of this recent peak oil frenzy reminds me of Ed Yourdon's Y2K prognostication.  I'm not saying that's necessarily bad -- Yourdon's hundreds of thousands of words of impassioned warnings of the impending catastrophe arguably did quite a bit of good.

I also know that you'll never go broke in the book market selling a story about the end of the world, especially if you can marshal 200 pages of technical papers...and are a good creative writer...

Just sayin'

What's interesting about the peak-oil debate among the geologists and engineer-types (I'm neither) is that everything is hidden underground. Simmons theorizes, inter alia, that major damage has been done to underground formations in Saudi Arabia. His major evidence for this appears to be the fact the the Saudis won't publish audits of their production statistics. His critics point out that no one can directly observe the supposed damage, and that such claims have been made many times before.

EIA is a goldmine.

Quite so.  Your tax dollars at work.

Sometimes those tax dollars do accomplish useful things.

The 30% figure (over 3.5 billion years) is in Lovelock, Gaia, page 19 of the Oxford paperback 0-19-286030-5. But the result is well-established astrophysics. In Astrophysics (0-674-32659-8), E. H. Averitt, ed., I find an article Endpoints of Stellar Evolution by A. G. W. Cameron, which supplies a reason on page 113.

In the process of hydrogen burning ... two hydrogen atoms have been lost .... In the deep interior of the star the principle process acting to confine the photons toward the center is the electron scattering process; the loss of electrons thus makes it easier for the energy of the star to diffuse toward the surface, and this accounts for the small rise in luminosity in the star which occurs as the hydrogen becomes exhausted in the central core of the star.

Elsewhere I have seen estimates of 6-8%/billion years, consistent with the 30% figure.

You are right that this effect is not significant for today's global warming or anything within the time span of a human life. But it is an essential starting point for seeing how the earth, or life on the earth, has maintained an apparent equable temperature over billions of years despite considerable stress from the sun.

Lamar Alexander would have you believe that those windmills are the equivalent of football fields rotating in the sky which sound like locomotives.

Have motored past many windmills in Denmark, I found this not to be the case and have to wonder if Alexander is a bit daft or if the quiet, elegant windmills I've seen are the exception.

What are the windmills in Germany like?

to read this critiques from the "pros in the field?"

Thanks