December 23, 2014 at 11:01 am #17722Raúl Ilargi MeijerKeymaster
John Vachon Hull-Rust-Mahoning pit, largest open pit iron mine in the world, Hibbing, Minnesota Aug 1941 This is another entry by our friend Euan Mear
[See the full post at: Broken Energy Markets and the Downside of Hubbert’s Peak]December 23, 2014 at 11:54 am #17723V. ArnoldParticipant
Thank you Euan Mearns; I learn more here than any other site that I visit.
Costs; the true costs are predictably hidden or just ignored. Fracking may prove to be the single biggest environmental/human disaster in U.S. history and maybe even the planet.
Aquifers; our most valuable resource, are being destroyed/poisoned by extraction industries.
We humans have a very strange way of costing our activities.
Aboriginal’s have the most accurate assessment standards and are treated with contempt.
This is going to bite us in the ass and ultimately kill us.
Why are these realities regularly ignored when assessing extraction’s true costs?
CheersDecember 23, 2014 at 2:23 pm #17729Dr. DiabloParticipant
There are many ways to run the economy–large, centralized projects run by the state is just one of them, and I would argue, one of the worst. By the evidence given here, wind, shale, nuclear–all run by or greatly interfered with by the state–are riddled with graft, fraud, safety violations, and basic engineering inefficiencies so massive that otherwise good ideas are barely energy positive (if at all, see Ethanol, or all-in costs to fracking groundwater). With such a track record, why on God’s earth would you promote the State as a solution to anything?
The other way to run the economy would be to abandon huge, centralized, capital-intensive projects in favor of small-scale, localized solutions. 1/5 of electricity is wasted in transmission. Another 1/5 is wasted in vampire loads like TVs and cell charging cubes. Clearly, you could close 20% of all power generators today. The easy, low-cost answer is efficiency coupled with production so localized it is basically generate-in-place. We have this: it’s called a off-grid photovoltaic system. Is the cost-per-watt high? Yes. But yes only until you realize the astronomical subsidies the rest of the energy system is pulling out of the taxpayers. What were the numbers yesterday? Near trillion a year, worldwide? Re-allocating that dead-loss system would more or less pay for the generate-in-place system while the challenge of generating enough power would focus attention on lowering consumption to rational levels.
But that isn’t the point, is it? Clearly the point of the system is not to provide energy or a higher quality of life to citizens but to concentrate profits, and more importantly, control. No one profits from efficiency. No one profits from independence. So because power and control are our sole fascinations, they are not promoted, although rational, healthy people would see them as self-evident. We all know the other system is better, healthier, and more sustainable. That’s why we can’t have it, and existing powers of the states, corporations, and oligarchs will fight tooth and nail right down to the collapse of society to defend their wealth and power. Which is only to be expected, really. I’m only pointing out that the solution is cheap, easy, and obvious, requiring nothing but a change in mind and focus–the money and tech are there. But I’m not holding my breath for it.
And as long as otherwise smart people promote only large-scale, centralized power-and-control projects, we can’t even have the discussion.December 23, 2014 at 5:38 pm #17734GetAbikeParticipant
Well said Diablo.
“And as long as otherwise smart people promote only large-scale, centralized power-and-control projects, we can’t even have the discussion.”
Reminds me of the non-debate surrounding Obama care. Single payer was considered for ..mmm.. maybe 5 minutes.
Even if large scale solutions turn out to be the most viable for any given problem, other ways of looking at solutions should be included.
Maybe a mix of large and small, regionally tailored energy plans would allow Wind- for example- to be used locally and not viewed as needing a large grid to justify its implementation.December 23, 2014 at 6:58 pm #17736
The author displays a chilling disregard for climate issues. Renewable subsidies must be provided at the very least – trumping concerns about consumer prices, fossil-fuel profitability or the mechanisms of capitalist markets – if we are to rescue a habitable planet from the holocaust into which the power-elite is intent on driving us. If such incentives (or even more forceful policy leading rapidly to renewables replacing fossil fuels) contributes to systemic collapse, then the blame falls squarely on the shoulders of ignorant commentators and market-players (consumers perhaps most of all) for decades of their hubris.December 23, 2014 at 7:43 pm #17737galacticsurferParticipant
If in reality the risks of loss are socialized so that banks are TBTF then oil then essentialy we are becoming defacto socialists. State control of energy and banking with price controls seems to lie in our future as state run subsidized utilities. Either that or chaos as yoyo capitalism maes stable investment impossible.December 23, 2014 at 7:56 pm #17738
Maybe I’m overlooking deliberate abstraction for the sake of a pure market analysis (although he happily subverts market forces when convenient: “a new credit crunch where the debts are socialised via government bailouts”, “A better way to manage such enormous capital expenditure on vital infrastructure is via the state”) but phrases like “governments are going to have to explain to their electorates why they have distorted the electricity market so badly, delivering a monopoly to wind producers”, “If it were possible to produce shale gas at $1 / million btus then everyone would be happy” or “If LTO could be produced in large quantities for $20 / bbl then there would be no problem” nonetheless leave me fuming.December 23, 2014 at 8:13 pm #17739
Thanks to all for your generous support 😉 A few thoughts…..
In counting costs, you always have to count the benefits too. Ask, is it a good thing that Small Pox was eradicated? Or would it be better if it were still at large keeping the population in check?
It is a fact that we have 7+ billion souls. The planet and its diversity will survive despite us for hundreds of millions more years. So who or what are we preserving the planet for? I have as much if not more concern about preserving habitat diversity than most and simply pissed off that we seem to be destroying habitats right left and centre in the name of Green.
In the UK, most of the large centralised energy infrastructure was built by the state. I gather that in the USA, energy industries were so heavily regulated so as to be The State in all but name until 1992. BP was owned by the UK State as recently as the 1980s. I am not advocating State control simply looking for alternatives.
About 2% of power is lost to transmission. The math I learned at school makes that 1/50th 😉
The other way to run the economy would be to abandon huge, centralized, capital-intensive projects in favor of small-scale, localized solutions.
Good luck with roads, air travel, higher education and research, food production and medical research with that model. Without the huge centralised resource, we would not be able to have this conversation.December 23, 2014 at 8:51 pm #17742
“pissed off that we seem to be destroying habitats right left and centre in the name of Green”
Please do not drop that in as if it were established fact; to me it is meaningless.December 23, 2014 at 9:11 pm #17743
I’m not wanting to excuse the ripping apart of Alberta (which is up to the Canadians) but 1) burning or rain forest in Indonesia and killing loads of orang-utans to make way for nut oil plantations, 2) clearing rainforest in Brazil to make way for sugar cain 3) burning US hard wood forests in England to make electricity 4) REE mining in China 5) hydro electric dams that kill salmon and 6) wind turbines that reportedly kill many raptors; are collectively not to be swept under the carpet IMO. There is no such thing as a free lunch in energy world.December 23, 2014 at 9:19 pm #17744John DayParticipant
Thank You Euan,
Even if each of us does not have the identical viewpoint, due to our different roles and expertise, we should value the analysis you have given, which is broadly applicable outside the UK.
In Texas, where I live, a lot of electric load comes from running air conditioning in the summer, when the sun shines, so solar helps match production and load.
There are lots of specific regional differences that have to be considered in reducing buffer and swing capacity expenses.
To some degree, load needs to learn to follow supply better, too.
Global warming may already have is baked to a crisp. Models diverge widely based on analysis of positive feedback loops.
This will be a hard transition, and I don’t know how hard, but I’m looking at the back yard turned into kitchen=garden, and I will bike 14 miles to work in a little while.
I’m seeking to adapt in anticipation of events now beginning to unfold.December 23, 2014 at 9:20 pm #17745John DayParticipant
Oh, Yves Smith at Naked Capitalism has a very good complimentary (shorter) piece to this today.
https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2014/12/saudis-tell-shale-industry-will-break-plans-keep-pumping-even-20-barrel.htmlDecember 23, 2014 at 9:54 pm #17746
PV powering AC in hot sunny places makes sense when you have lots of folks living in hot sunny places.
Humanity changes in small steps. Sometimes lots of small steps in a short period of time. Private enterprise is not a silver bullet. We are in for a period of adjustment between State and private control.
PS hope the word order here is better than in my prior comment 😉December 23, 2014 at 10:14 pm #17748AndrewParticipant
At a slight risk of thread diversion, Hinkley Point is a disaster all round. They saw us coming. All the risks are socialised. And still no long term waste storage solution.
The more I read, the more i am convinced we are headed for a low energy intensity future. The majority will return to agriculture.December 23, 2014 at 10:31 pm #17749ZaphodParticipant
Euan or others,
Society struggles to account for externalities except through heavy-handed legislation, so it is always apples-and-oranges when comparing various energy sources and their taxes or supports. Still, the obvious points, as they have been since 2005/6 when I self-educated via The Oil Drum, remain:
1) When talking about any peak or production level of oil the discussion must include “at what price” else it is meaningless. It is not yet clear to me, even after 5 years of apparent success, that the world really affords $100 oil.
2) There is no fundamental issue with backstopping intermittent renewables with fossil fuels, other than cost penalties. Any use of renewables, or better still efficiency and conservation, will postpone fossil fuel peaks and delay climate or ecological impacts….but it comes at a cost.
High oil prices enabled technology development for shale that will persist through a fairly significant downturn, as marginal cost of production on the downturn will be much less than on the upswing. The US, if it manages to gain an energy policy, could elect to protect its own industry, and complicate the world economy more with trade wars. If we are indeed at the cusp of the next step down, that would be a natural progression of post-globalism.
Still, I don’t get as doomerish as in 2006-8 as we watched the trainwreck unfold, as the gov’ts have proven to be really good at spinning the plates. The difference between envisioned collapse scenarios (the slow ones, anyway) and what we have now is that the little guys are feeling the pressures as envisioned yet the main indicators look rosy, so there is global cognitive dissonance. I’d bet higher fractions of GDP go to energy over time, and lifestyles ratchet down, but I still struggle to see a fast-crash collapse.December 24, 2014 at 2:04 am #17761UnhingedBecauseLucidParticipant
[“Either way, the brave new world that awaits us will be characterised as the time of less that will be in stark contrast to the time of plenty many of us enjoyed during the 20th Century.”]
If you ever wonder what psychological leanings got us this far into painting ouselves in a corner; you’d probably be hard pressed to come out with a more splendid specimen:
Segment of relevance: 4:15 – 6:05
It’s quite the anthropological case of study. How a guy in his position can be so stunningly full of shit. It is not ignorance that made him look like the idiot he is; it’s Willful ignorance -aka- ideology.
Even Pickens is incredulous and started to loose it….lol
It’s hilarious if you manage to watch the thing from a detached enough perpserctive.
It’s an epic archival footage if you ask me…December 25, 2014 at 3:06 am #17803steve from virginiaParticipant
Just dropping by to say that central banks cannot ‘print money’ or create new credit. What they can do is shift bits of purchasing power around to their clients from everyone else. If you take fifteen minutes and think about it you can see how silly it is for any firm to simply give away its product willy-nilly. What the central banks do is lend against collateral … which tends to be the IOU for a loan that has been already made. By making unsecured loans commercial banks create new money, that is, money (credit) that did not exist in any form before the loan was made.
Purchasing power flows from customers to oil drillers leaving too few with funds able to support high prices. What appears to have caused the oil price crash is Abenomics which has contributed to the decline of the yen by 35% in a matter of months. That means Japanese customers = 35% poorer, taking a bite out of global consumption. American- and S. European non-speculators are also broke = more bites out of consumption. China is slowing down … you get the picture.
Assuming peak oil was supposed to take place in the future: the ongoing crash means it is happening right now. All your tar sand, deepwater, arctic and fracking plays are too costly to pursue, so are oil plays where above ground costs have ballooned out of control such as in Iran where corrupt fingers of government are in the oil pie.
Energy deflation is running away on its own, Saudi oil minister is simply admitting it. There is nothing they can do but hold on and pray. We should do the same.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.