commentary in London Financial Times, 11-11

"It was barely 10 years ago that a well-reasoned cover story in The Economist
told us we were 'drowning in oil' and that its price could drop by more than
half to $5 a barrel. As everybody now knows, prices rose tenfold before peaking
last summer. There are just so many moving parts to the energy market that
making forecasts is a mug's game. If exhaustive detail is a measure of
credibility, though, few sources equal the International Energy Agency's World
Energy Outlook, published yesterday.

"Coinciding with the first time since 1981 that global energy use has declined,
2009's report is not complacent about future energy supply and environmental
challenges. Like many forecasts, though, it makes the mistake of extrapolating
recent trends too freely. For example, the IEA expects global oil production to
rise from last year's 85m barrels to 105m by 2030 while acknowledging that about
two-thirds of this will come from fields yet to be found or developed. But at
what cost ?

"In just the past decade, exploration spending has nearly tripled in order to
maintain a similar rate of supply growth. Leaving aside arguments that the IEA's
forecast skirts the edge of what is geologically feasible, incremental barrels
are getting pricier to find and, once out of the ground, are more coveted. The
IEA expects real oil prices to hit $87 a barrel by 2015 and $115 by 2030 to make
this all possible. What about the possibility that supply will falter and that a
far higher clearing price will instead do the trick ? Living with $300 crude is
no more outlandish than suggesting a decade ago that $80 would be the new
normal. The payoff from conserving oil could soon outstrip that of drilling for
it.

"Just as forecasters failed to appreciate the market's reaction to low prices a
decade ago, they may be underestimating how we will react to increasingly
expensive oil tomorrow."

posted by

Burwell Marshall
Louisville

~~~~~~~~~EnergyResources Moderator Comment ~~~~~~~~

Folks, I looked into getting the above document, but they want a lot of money
for it, like 120 Euros for a PDF file. The thing does have a lot of pages (696)
but that is still a lot of money for a public document.

See for yourself at:

http://www.iea.org/w/bookshop/add.aspx?id=388

~~~~~~ EnergyResources Moderator Tom Robertson ~~~~~~

Power for U.S. From Russia's Old Nuclear Weapons

Vladimir Mashatin/Agence France-Presse - Getty Images
Nuclear missiles prepared for destruction at a base near the city of Nizhny
Novgorod in Russia. Utilities have been loath to publicize the Russian bomb
supply line for fear of spooking consumers.


   a.. Sign in to Recommend
   b.. Twitter
   c..                E-Mail
   d.. Send To Phone

   e.. Print
   f.. Reprints
   a.. ShareClose
     a.. Linkedin
     b.. Digg
     c.. Facebook
     d.. Mixx
     e.. MySpace
     f.. Yahoo! Buzz
     g.. Permalink
     h..

By ANDREW E. KRAMER
Published: November 9, 2009
MOSCOW - What's powering your home appliances?

Skip to next paragraph
Related
More on Nuclear Energy »
Enlarge This Image

Vladimir Mashatin/Agence France-Presse
Multiple warhead ballistic missiles like the ones deployed at this site north of
Russia's border with Kazakhstan are being dismantled. Some nuclear material goes
to the United States.



A blog about energy, the environment and the bottom line.

Go to Blog »
For about 10 percent of electricity in the United States, it's fuel from
dismantled nuclear bombs, including Russian ones.

"It's a great, easy source" of fuel, said Marina V. Alekseyenkova, an analyst at
Renaissance Capital and an expert in the Russian nuclear industry that has
profited from the arrangement since the end of the cold war.

But if more diluted weapons-grade uranium isn't secured soon, the pipeline could
run dry, with ramifications for consumers, as well as some American utilities
and their Russian suppliers.

Already nervous about a supply gap, utilities operating America's 104 nuclear
reactors are paying as much attention to President Obama's efforts to conclude a
new arms treaty as the Nobel Peace Prize committee did.

In the last two decades, nuclear disarmament has become an integral part of the
electricity industry, little known to most Americans.

Salvaged bomb material now generates about 10 percent of electricity in the
United States - by comparison, hydropower generates about 6 percent and solar,
biomass, wind and geothermal together account for 3 percent.

Utilities have been loath to publicize the Russian bomb supply line for fear of
spooking consumers: the fuel from missiles that may have once been aimed at your
home may now be lighting it.

But at times, recycled Soviet bomb cores have made up the majority of the
American market for low-enriched uranium fuel. Today, former bomb material from
Russia accounts for 45 percent of the fuel in American nuclear reactors, while
another 5 percent comes from American bombs, according to the Nuclear Energy
Institute, an industry trade association in Washington.

Treaties at the end of the cold war led to the decommissioning of thousands of
warheads. Their energy-rich cores are converted into civilian reactor fuel.

In the United States, the agreements are portrayed as nonproliferation treaties
- intended to prevent loose nukes in Russia.

In Russia, where the government argues that fissile materials are impenetrably
secure already, the arms agreements are portrayed as a way to make it harder for
the United States to reverse disarmament.

The program for dismantling and diluting the fuel cores of decommissioned
Russian warheads - known informally as Megatons to Megawatts - is set to expire
in 2013, just as the industry is trying to sell it forcefully as an alternative
to coal-powered energy plants, which emit greenhouse gases.

Finding a substitute is a concern for utilities today because nuclear plants buy
fuel three to five years in advance.

One potential new source is warheads that would become superfluous if the United
States and Russia agree to new cuts under negotiations to renew the Strategic
Arms Reduction Treaty, which expires on Dec. 5.

Such negotiations revolve around the number of deployed weapons and delivery
vehicles. There is no requirement in the treaty that bomb cores be destroyed.
That is negotiated separately.

For the industry, that means that now, as in the past, there will be no direct
correlation between the number of warheads decommissioned and the quantity of
highly enriched uranium or plutonium, also used in weapons, that the two
countries declare surplus.

(This summer, Mr. Obama and President Dmitri A. Medvedev of Russia agreed to a
new limit on delivery vehicles of 500 to 1,100 and a limit on deployed warheads
as low as 1,500. The United States now has about 2,200 nuclear warheads and the
Russians 2,800.)

Mr. Medvedev has reaffirmed Russia's commitment to a 2000 agreement to dispose
of plutonium, and both countries plan to convert that into reactor fuel as well.

An American diplomat and an official with a federal nuclear agency in Washington
have confirmed, separately, that the two countries are quietly negotiating
another agreement to continue diluting Russia's highly enriched uranium after
the expiration of Megatons to Megawatts, using some or all of the material from
warheads likely to be taken out of the arsenals.

The government officials were not authorized to publicly discuss these efforts.

This possible successor deal to Megatons to Megawatts is known in the industry
as HEU-2, for a High Enriched Uranium-2, and companies are rooting for it,
according to Jeff Combs, president and owner of Ux Consulting, a company
tracking uranium fuel pricing.

"You can look at it like a couple of very large uranium mines," he said of the
fissile material that would result from the program.

American reactors would not shut down without a deal; utilities could turn to
commercial imports, which would most likely be much more expensive.

Enriching raw uranium is more expensive than converting highly enriched uranium
to fuel grade.

To make fuel for electricity-generating reactors, uranium is enriched to less
than 5 percent of the isotope U-235. To make weapons, it is enriched to about 90
percent U-235.

The United States Enrichment Corporation, a private company spun off from the
Department of Energy in the 1990s, is the treaty-designated agent on the Russian
imports. It, in turn, sells the fuel to utilities at prevailing market prices,
an arrangement that at times has angered the Russians.

Since Megatons to Megawatts has existed, American utilities operating nuclear
power plants, like Pacific Gas & Electric or Constellation Energy, have
benefited as the abundance of fuel that came onto the market drastically reduced
overall prices and created savings that were ultimately passed along to
consumers and shareholders.

Nuclear industry giants like Areva, the French company; the United States
Enrichment Corporation and Nuclear Fuel Services, another American company; and
Rosatom, the Russian state nuclear corporation, are deeply involved in recycling
weapons material and will need new supplies to continue that side of their
businesses.

In the United States, domestic weapons recycling programs are smaller in scale
and would be no replacement for Megatons for Megawatts. The Nuclear Fuel
Services, in Erwin, Tenn., in 2005 began diluting uranium from the 217 tons the
government declared surplus; so far 125 tons have been processed. It is used at
the Tennessee Valley Authority plant.

The American plutonium recycling program is also well under way at a factory
being built at the Energy Department's Savannah River site in South Carolina to
dismantle warheads from the American arsenal; a type of plutonium fuel, called
mixed-oxide fuel, will come on the market in 2017.

In total, the 34 tons to be recycled there are expected to generate enough
electricity for a million American homes for 50 years.

This article has been revised to reflect the following correction:

Correction: November 11, 2009
A subheading on Tuesday with an article about the use of old nuclear bomb cores
to produce electricity misstated the source of the bomb material used to
generate power in the United States. It comes from bombs dismantled by both the
United States and Russia - not from Russian bombs alone

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/10/business/energy-environment/10nukes.html?_r=5






[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Hi Eric,

I would say rather they are seeking an "extraordinary" recovery rate of 70%.
Maybe one of our upstream experts can comment on feasibility of this for Ghawar.


cheers
brent




--- On Wed, 11/11/09, Eric Pfeiffer <devise9876@...> wrote:

From: Eric Pfeiffer <devise9876@...>
Subject: Re: [energyresources] Halliburton to coax more oil out of largely
depleted Ghawar field
To: energyresources@yahoogroups.com
Date: Wednesday, November 11, 2009, 3:58 PM


       Afternoon Brent,

 

So they are seeking what is considered a normal recovery rate

from a field.  It is still an interesting shift in policy.

....Keep your oil news coming and whatever else you

find, especially on the global energy conferences upcoming

this winter and spring.  I am watching the extensive

political maneuverings in the Senate now to catch some

inkling of how things are going but it's like watching snow

during a blizzard ...no idea where the stuff is

piling up at.

....El Nino has strengthened again substantially and is

second only to the 1997 event. Enjoy what should be

a much nicer winter,in your neck of the woods, hopefully

without the ice storms this time.

    Enjoy,,,Eric



--- On Wed, 11/11/09, brent_ns <brent_ns1@yahoo. com> wrote:

Saudi oil is nice light crude from the old reservoirs.  The new ones, just
developed are cruddy oil - full of hard to remove Vanadium and other
contaminants.

Saudi has pumped lots of light crude - and Ghawar will continue to do so for the
next 100 years.   Ghawar is aging, and it will take lots of technology to
extract more and more.  HOwever, it may have some of the best rock around, and
the Saudis are masters of technology with some of the biggest computer systems
in the world for modeling.

However, they need to bring on other cruddy fields.  They need to build a
special refinery to handle two or three of them since no one else wants to oil
or can handle it.

The percent recovered is a function of the reservoir geology.  Parts of Ghawar
will do well.  Other parts not so well

DrT in Dallas, TX , aka Bob

--- In energyresources@yahoogroups.com, Eric Pfeiffer <devise9876@...> wrote:
>
> Saudi oil was always low quality.
>

Afternoon Brent,
 
So they are seeking what is considered a normal recovery rate
from a field.  It is still an interesting shift in policy.
....Keep your oil news coming and whatever else you
find, especially on the global energy conferences upcoming
this winter and spring.  I am watching the extensive
political maneuverings in the Senate now to catch some
inkling of how things are going but it's like watching snow
during a blizzard ...no idea where the stuff is
piling up at.
....El Nino has strengthened again substantially and is
second only to the 1997 event. Enjoy what should be
a much nicer winter,in your neck of the woods, hopefully
without the ice storms this time.
    Enjoy,,,Eric

--- On Wed, 11/11/09, brent_ns <brent_ns1@...> wrote:


From: brent_ns <brent_ns1@...>
Subject: Re: [energyresources] Halliburton to coax more oil out of largely
depleted Ghawar field
To: energyresources@yahoogroups.com
Date: Wednesday, November 11, 2009, 2:06 PM


 




Hi Eric,

There was a news story out within the past couple of months that the Saudis were
increasing their target for oil recovery to 70% from a previously assumed 50%.

That's what this new contract for Halliburton would be about

cheers
brent

--- On Sun, 11/8/09, Eric Pfeiffer <devise9876@yahoo. com> wrote:

From: Eric Pfeiffer <devise9876@yahoo. com>
Subject: Re: [energyresources] Halliburton to coax more oil out of largely
depleted Ghawar field
To: energyresources@ yahoogroups. com
Date: Sunday, November 8, 2009, 10:08 AM

Saudi oil was always low quality. Now it will be much

more expensive and even lower in quality.  If the Saudi's are

so awash in other oil from other fields why are they

bothering with this???? Or are we being fed a line of

Bull about their other oil fields??

...This story raises quite a few questions and definitely

suggests higher prices for oil in years upcoming as well

as global supply issues.

--- On Sun, 11/8/09, brent_ns <brent_ns1@yahoo. com> wrote:

From: brent_ns <brent_ns1@yahoo. com>

Subject: [energyresources] Halliburton to coax more oil out of largely depleted
Ghawar field

To: energyresources@ yahoogroups. com

Date: Sunday, November 8, 2009, 7:43 AM

http://www.glgroup. com/News/ Halliburton- to-coax-more- oil-out-of-
largely-depleted -Ghawar-field- 44671.html











[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I have inserted below refutation of the assertions Tom makes.

Denis Frith

~~~~~~~~~EnergyResources Moderator Comment ~~~~~~~~
Denis, your "refutation" of my assertions simply proves your lack of knowledge
about energy systems and thermodynamics in particular.

In the following, the original comments by Denis are quotes, like "" and his
comments to my comments are in <> such as in <blah, blah>.

I will add my comments following those "refutations" and enclose them in double
brackets, such as {{blah, blah}}.

Hope this does not get messed up.

And this is certainly open to comments by the rest of you folks!
~~~~~~ EnergyResources Moderator Tom Robertson ~~~~~~


--- On Thu, 12/11/09, ThomasR <t1r@...> wrote:

From: ThomasR <t1r@...>
Subject: [energyresources] Re: Film about the insanity of  growth
To: energyresources@yahoogroups.com
Received: Thursday, 12 November, 2009, 3:03 AM

~~~~~~~~~EnergyResources Moderator Comment ~~~~~~~~

In his message posted below, Denis Frith argues that:

"Focusing just on the energy flows is misleading. What about all the material
wastes that the operation of civilization produces."

Energy is embodied in all physical and ecological processes, and as so, becomes
a common denominator that greatly aids in understanding the complex and dynamic
characteristics and behavior of all the systems around our lives--including
human culture.

<The first part of that observation is correct although why the distinction
between physical and ecological processes. They are all materialistic processes
that are subject to a range of natural laws, not only the laws of
thermodynamics. Human culture is largely based on decisions which are not
subject to these laws not involve energy flows.>
{{1. physical processes are distinct from ecological processes because the
latter involves life and living--e.g., replication. 2. The First and Second Laws
of Thermodynamics apply to all physical/ecological processes, including those
resulting from human culture. The "meaning" in human abstract/symbol processes
are the only exception to those Thermodynamic processes. In contrast, the
physical/ecological human actions taken in accord with that "meaning" have the
same relationship to the thermodynamic circumstances of energy as all other
aspects of the universe.}}

For example, the "material wastes that the operation of civilization produces"
are the Second Law of Thermodynamics consequences of human processes.
<The 'wastes' human bodies produce are Second Law consequences. The 'wastes'
produced by kangaroos are likewise bu they contribute to soil fertility.

As such, not only do we know that Second Law circumstances will result in wastes
from everything we do, but that it (the Second Law) also provide a means of
identifying and measuring those wastes so we can assess their real costs, as
well as seek out any benfits they may have--for example by the diversion of
urban wastes into more beneficial use by recycling.
<The Second Law applies to all materialistic operations in nature and in systems
we install. So it does not provide a means of identifying or measuring the
consequences. The worth of recycling depends on what other systems have to be
installed to carry it out. The Second Law has no impact on that decision>

{{Sorry, Denis, but you have some catching up to do regarding the Second Law.

It applies--in terms of influence and measurability--to ALL physical,
ecological, and those cultural processes around our lives that involve energy
flows and storages (though as noted above, Thermodynamic circumstances do not
apply to the "meaning" component of the abstractions and symbols used in and by
cultures.)

Thus, the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics absolutely does provide a
means of identifying and measuring the actions and consequences of all physical,
ecological processes, as well as those cultural processes where "meanings" are
translated into physical actions."}}

~~~~~~ EnergyResources Moderator Tom Robertson ~~~~~~


[[[[Original text follows]]]

--- In energyresources@ yahoogroups. com, Denis Frith <denisaf2000@ ...> wrote:
>
> Henry
> Your wise comment is spoilt by the reference at the end to dependence on
energy. The operation of materialistic world depends on energy flows. That is
so. But the energy flows are operating on materials. Focusing just on the energy
flows is misleading. What about all the material wastes that the operation of
civilization produces. Human understanding of what happens is metaphysical. So
is the common misunderstanding. Society is now having to come to terms with the
bad decisions made about using energy obtained from fossil fuels. Society is
addicted to using energy and to hell with the consequences.
>
> Denis Frith
>
> --- On Wed, 11/11/09, Henry Warwick <misterwarwick@ ...> wrote:
>
> From: Henry Warwick <misterwarwick@ ...>
> Subject: [energyresources] Re: Film about the insanity of  growth
> To: energyresources@ yahoogroups. com
> Received: Wednesday, 11 November, 2009, 12:36 PM

>~~~~~~~~~EnergyResources Moderator Comment ~~~~~~~~
> Right, except there is a problem or two--or three.
>
> The monetary system that has the capacity to increase debt can do so without
thermodynamic constraint-- till those debt chickens come home and there is no
thermodynamically- constrained energy to do the work that debt-money is supposed
to represent.
> ~~~~~~ EnergyResources Moderator Tom Robertson ~~~~~~

> Let's say you want to buy a house. It costs $100k.

> The owner says, I want my money NOW. You say, "I haven't got it, I need a
loan." The bank says "I will loan you money as a claim on your future labour. I
anticipate that your future labour will exceed $100k. Therefore, yes, you may
have the loan. But you have to pay the loan back in a month."
>
> Obviously, that won't do.
>
> OK. a year?
>
> Sorry. no can do.
>
> OK - FIVE YEARS. Maybe, depending on how much money I am making.
>
> OK - 30 YEARS. Fine. Sign me up.
>
> So, now, all you have to do is abstract it and say the loan isn't for your
house, it is for EVERYONE'S HOUSES. And it's not a 30 year loan, it's a 1000
year loan. Or a 10,000 year loan. Or, in the case of the US Federal gov't, a
27,860 year loan, if they pay a million dollars a day.
>
> As long as the fiscal situation is checked and the money keeps coming in,
thermodynamics don't really matter, because THE LOAN DOESN'T REALLY EXIST.
>
> Seriously. It's a product of your imagination. You can loan as much as you
want for whatever flips your crank. There doesn't have to be inflation or
deflation. It simply doesn't exist outside of humanity's language centre.
>
> Work? That exists. It is based on energy. Everything else ABOUT that is
metaphysics. Existence precedes essence. Read your Sartre, and remember, he was
a communist...

http://2010.newsweek.com/essay/party-like-its-1999.html
 
As we enter the new decade loaded with ultraexpensive
technological gadgets which will make us greener and
maybe use less energy, what shape is the US consumer
in to buy this new technology?

...Is US energy policy in sync with the American
public's ability to adopt changes?  If improved energy
efficiency and lowered CO2 output are to be achieved,
is the pricing of that achievement in line with the
public's ability to purchase that change? If not, what
chance of success do these technologies have in
actually bringing change?

...Is building 20B dollar nuclear plants to power 100K dollar Telsa's
relevant to the needs of improved energy efficiency
of the other 98% of Americans or is it a heavy draw
of resources away from that target group?

..As the Energy Bill aka the Cap and Trade Bill, grinds it's
way through the Senate, this issue lurks beneath
the surface, unspoken, but sensed. Will this bill lead
Joe Citizen to a better future or just push him deeper
into the red with no discernable improvement in quality
of life?  Is this Bill about Joe Citizen or a battle between
the 100K Landrover and the 100K Telsa? for maket
dominance in the high income group?.




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Hi Eric,

There was a news story out within the past couple of months that the Saudis were
increasing their target for oil recovery to 70% from a previously assumed 50%.

That's what this new contract for Halliburton would be about

cheers
brent






--- On Sun, 11/8/09, Eric Pfeiffer <devise9876@...> wrote:

From: Eric Pfeiffer <devise9876@...>
Subject: Re: [energyresources] Halliburton to coax more oil out of largely
depleted Ghawar field
To: energyresources@yahoogroups.com
Date: Sunday, November 8, 2009, 10:08 AM


       Saudi oil was always low quality. Now it will be much

more expensive and even lower in quality.  If the Saudi's are

so awash in other oil from other fields why are they

bothering with this???? Or are we being fed a line of

Bull about their other oil fields??

...This story raises quite a few questions and definitely

suggests higher prices for oil in years upcoming as well

as global supply issues.



--- On Sun, 11/8/09, brent_ns <brent_ns1@yahoo. com> wrote:



From: brent_ns <brent_ns1@yahoo. com>

Subject: [energyresources] Halliburton to coax more oil out of largely depleted
Ghawar field

To: energyresources@ yahoogroups. com

Date: Sunday, November 8, 2009, 7:43 AM




http://www.glgroup.com/News/Halliburton-to-coax-more-oil-out-of-largely-depleted\
-Ghawar-field-44671.html

Wind turbines will never be a replacement for fossil fuels in a "Business as
Usual" scenario.  In the county where I reside on the northwest shore of Lake
Ontario, up to 300 turbines are proposed in a 1000-square km area.  That means
that no matter where you turn, you will see a windmill.  People think that if
they allow turbines here, the Province of Ontario will not have to use nuclear
or coal.  The reality is that with "Business as Usual" they are going to get all
three.  What they are going to get is ass-raped.  I'm in favour of small-scale
wind and solar to provide power for a region, but large scale wind is just more
of the same problem that got us here in the first place.

The following is a letter I wrote to someone that explains some of this.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

I am supportive of some of the people who are against large-scale wind, and also
in support of some who are promoting it.  After attending the public windpower
meeting this week I have changed my policy regarding use of our video footage by
others.

As one who has become very familiar with the issues of energy depletion and the
resulting economic collapse that is an inevitable result of global energy
decline, I found it frustrating to experience the lack of critical thinking from
speakers on both sides of the issue.

Global oil production has peaked forever.  Canada has a natural gas crisis
coming in the next 10 years.  The Province knows that unless it does something
NOW it cannot guarantee that our lights will remain on beyond 2012, especially
it if wants to grow out of the current recession.  An economy cannot grow
without cheap energy.

Without cheap energy, economic growth - as we have known it - is over.  Period.

This means that turbines are coming to Prince Edward County, whether you or I or
anyone else want it or not.  So the residents of the County need to come
together and decide what that scenario is going to look like.  Perhaps a cap on
the number of turbines and where they will be placed will be a compromise that
people can live with.  Given that there WILL be shortages provincewide in the
future, the residents of the County need to negotiate a deal where they have
control over how much energy stays in the County rather than the Province
selling it to the highest bidder.  Ideas such as the GAP and community energy
cooperatives will be a necessary part of the mix, and we need accessible private
and government financing for those people and organizations that are ready to
make it work. Micro-generation promotes a culture of conservation.  Without an
effort at conservation, we will only need to build more energy generation
infrastructure.

I heard many people at the meeting talk of sustainability, climate change,
resiliency, and the well being of future generations.  I'd like to deal with
some of these points.

Sustainability

The Provincial government's plan to implement industrial wind farms in the
County is playing the game of Business As Usual.  It should be apparent to
anyone who has studied the problems of energy depletion that Business As Usual
is no longer an option. We have burned up the best half of 300 million years of
densely-stored energy and to carry on the way we have for the past 100 years is
not possible. Business As Usual is not sustainable.

Climate Change

Wind turbines will have no effect on climate change.  Why?  Because in order to
do Business As Usual, the Province will be forced to continue using natural gas,
nuclear, and even coal, in addition to renewable energy to grow the economy. 
With an energy-return-on-energy-invested ratio of only 5:1, and as low as 3:1,
renewables like wind and solar will only compliment fossil fuels (generally 10:1
to 30:1).

Resiliency

According to Thomas Homer Dixon, in a resilient system, individual nodes - like
people, companies, communities - are able to draw on support and resources from
elsewhere, but they're also self-sufficient enough to provide for their
essential needs in an emergency.  Putting all the County's energy eggs in one
basket with large-scale wind will make it less resilient for the coming energy
crunch.  In fact, micro-systems with a small initial investment that can be
tweaked to higher efficiency are more resilient.  However, a basket of
solutions, including large wind turbines, is more resilient still.

Future Generations

I grew up in an age of entitlement.  I live in a world where we had two cars in
the driveway and a colour TV.  I attended college and had good jobs that paid
well.  But that way of life had a cost.  Few people that I am acquainted with
know how to play a musical instrument.  North Americans are the most entertained
people in the world but some of the least informed.  We are addicted to
lifestyle.  Why do we assume that any other way of life is less desirable?  Why
do we think that other generations are entitled to what we had?  Our
over-consumption is the reason they will have less.  In a world with less than
half the energy we had, they may curse us.  Or they might pity us.  Who can say
that they will want what we had?

I am telling you all this so you will understand why I am only offering my
footage to a group or individual who is making an effort to unite the County in
this issue, for the benefit of as many County residents as possible.  Efforts
must fairly evaluate the pros and cons of all available energy sources, as well
as demonstrate an understanding of Transition Towns. For example, I will support
anyone who:

challenges the Province promote and fund conservation efforts, and allow the
County to set it's own standards for wind farm placement and density

demands that the County government address local energy security

promotes the creation of local energy coops that benefit the County

creates awareness about global energy issues and discussion of local solutions

I can't assist anyone whose efforts, whether intentional or not, further divide
the community.  The "enemy" lies outside the borders of the County.  It is part
of a global system and it does not care about the well being of this place,
beyond what it can extract from it.  We believe that the story we are telling
will help bring people together and we don't want to do anything that would
contribute to the problem.  I hope you will join us.
-------------------------------------------------------------------

Barry Silverthorn
Producer/editor, The End of Suburbia
somewhere near Toronto





--- In energyresources@yahoogroups.com, "Gregkaye" <gregoriousity@...> wrote:
>
> We love windmills and there's no denying it - they definitely have a certain
appeal. They creaked noisily around in their charmingly inefficient way and did
an amazing thing.  They harnessed the power of the wind to facilitate activities
like the baking of bread.
>
> Modern wind turbines are beautiful things. Within their graceful structures
they prove to be masterworks of form and function.  They whirl with a phenomenal
level of efficiency so as to prevent us from frying the planet. And the great
news is that the wind cannot be over farmed.  What's not to like?
>
> At the end of the day we can note that all of our most notable sources of
energy are generated via the heavens and the earth. The nuclear fusion of small
atom allows energy to shine down on our planet, the nuclear fission of large
atoms continues to allow heat to rise up from below while gravitational
attraction between the moon and the Earth allows both objects to continue to
spin around in their merry way. There's just one problem. Nuclear fuels are a
finite resource and this begs the question as to what will happen when this fuel
is gone. How might future generations regard our generation once we've completed
not only the glazing of the atmosphere but also the stripping of the most
valuable resources that our planet has to offer.
>
> The word atmosphere means sphere of water.  Perhaps the description is apt.  A
heated atmosphere may, depending on the weather, hold more water than a cold
atmosphere.  A heated earth could, onoccasion, turn into a form of steam room
while, on later occasions, it would become a shower.  Floods may be devastating
.  Winds may be high.  Future generations may want to build wind turbines but
they may have difficulties in ensuring their survival.
>
> It is possible that future generations will look back at our "modern" wind
turbines and view them amongst the most beautiful things that man has ever
produced. We look back on old styled windmills with nostalgia as we give respect
to the great efforts that our ancestors made just to feed themselves. Future
generations will look at our wind turbines with nostalgia knowing that the
turbines were built to help secure their future.
>
> Wind turbines need to be built but, more than that, they need to be
successfully integrated into the power networks of our planet.  The problem with
wind turbines is that they only work when the wind blows. So what can we do? 
The best option would be to institute a tiered pricing structure for electricity
and pass any necessary legislation so that our very high powered industries
might only operate at times when green energy is available.  If we had
cheaperelectricity on windy days then these would be the days on which people
would stay in to do the washing and to use their power tools.  We could also
have an industry that was based on a greener form of revolution.
>
> more at Attempts at Survival
> http://www.attempts.org.uk
> http://www.facebook.com/home.php?#/group.php?gid=149310585856
>

So many reasons that the energyresources list should join Jan Lundberg
in trying to stop this highway project.
V.
........................................................................
.............................
-----Original Message-----
From: culturechange-bounces@...
[mailto:culturechange-bounces@...] On Behalf Of Culture
Change
Sent: Wednesday, November 11, 2009 4:03 AM
To: Culturechange
Subject: Stop a Highway Project Through the Ancient Redwoods

Stop a Highway Project Through the Ancient Redwoods
By Center for Biological Diversity

Sign the Center for Biological Diversity's Petition to save Richardson
Grove!
http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/o/2167/t/5243/p/dia/action/public/ind
ex.sjs?action_KEY=1629

Ask any visitor to California's North Coast who has driven the Redwood
Highway north from San Francisco, and they'll be able to tell you
exactly
where they passed through the fabled "Redwood Curtain." At Richardson
Grove
State Park, just north of Humboldt County, Highway 101 narrows to a
two-lane road winding through a dim, lush grove of ancient redwoods.
These
huge trees provide crucial habitat for endangered birds like the marbled
murrelet; threatened salmon and steelhead still return each year to
spawn
in the creeks running through the park.

This iconic gateway to the redwoods is now gravely threatened by an
ill-advised and unnecessary highway project. Caltrans and the Federal
Highway Administration are on the brink of approving a proposal to widen
and realign the portion of Highway 101 passing through Richardson Grove.

  _ _

Read the whole report at http://www.culturechange.org/go.html?545

* * * * *

Help Culture Change by pre-ordering Jan Lundberg's book Petrocollapse:
the
Basis for Crash and Culture Change.  Along with new analysis it contains
food for right-brain thought.  See the book flyer at
http://www.culturechange.org/PetrocollapseFlyer.pdf .  Release is in
several weeks.  Get your copy at a discount off anticipated list price.
Inquire via email: jan [at] culturechange.org

Culture Change
P.O. Box 4347, Arcata, CA 95518 USA, tel/fax: 1-215-243-3144
http://www.culturechange.org
Please send any feedback or questions via email to
info@...

Pass this along to a friend:  Sign up to receive Culture Change Letters
via
email, using the first link below -- all that's needed is the email
address; no other fields are necessary.
_______________________________________________
You are subscribed to the Culturechange mailing list
http://lists.mutualaid.org/mailman/listinfo/culturechange
To unsubscribe from this or any mutualaid.org hosted mailing list,
visit: http://lists.mutualaid.org/unsub.php

The Solar Impulse project is pursuing the objective of circumnavigating the
Earth powered only by sunlight. The German Aerospace Center (Deutsches Zentrum
für Luft- und Raumfahrt; DLR) has played a significant role in the development
of this visionary flying technology platform, which has now been awarded the
Braunschweig Research Prize.

http://www.greencarmagazine.net/2009/11/circumnavigating-the-earth-in-a-solar-po\
wered-plane/

~~~~~~~~~EnergyResources Moderator Comment ~~~~~~~~

Cute, but in the scheme of things energetic???

~~~~~~ EnergyResources Moderator Tom Robertson ~~~~~~

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5iDnELYrlZn9joITRFQZRRst8TXMg

Brazil seeks cause of massive blackout
By Marc Burleigh (AFP) – 15 hours ago

SAO PAULO — Brazil on Wednesday sought to uncover the cause of a massive and
mysterious blackout overnight, amid concerns of energy supply stability for the
2016 Olympic host nation.

The outage, which hit at 10:15 pm Tuesday (0015 GMT Wednesday) and lasted four
to six hours, plunged nearly half the country into darkness.

An estimated 50 million people -- more than a quarter of Brazil's
190-million-strong population -- were affected, mainly in the major cities in
the southern part of the country, including Sao Paulo and Rio de Janeiro.

Off-duty police were called up as thousands were trapped in immobile elevators
and subway trains. Cars were forced to nose through intersections made dangerous
by suddenly extinguished traffic lights. Some cafes closed out of fear of a
nocturnal crime wave.

Power was mostly returned before dawn, though several areas remained without
energy, including nearly a quarter of the state of Minas Gerais, according to
Globo television news.

Blame for the emergency was leveled at the Itaipu hydro-electric station that
straddles the border between Brazil and Paraguay and supplies both countries
with much of their energy needs.

Brazilian Energy Minister Edson Lobao said the problem originated there,
possibly because a storm shorted out one of its five transmission lines.

Paraguay, which gets 90 percent of its power from the huge plant, was left in
the dark for 15 minutes during the outage.

But Furnas, Brazil's state-owned electricity company responsible for the
affected area, said in a statement on Wednesday that it found no problem with
the facility's lines.

"Furnas's transmission lines that link the Itaipu plant to the national
interlinked grid are operating normally and no damage has been identified in its
circuits and transmission towers," it said.

It said that the National Electric Grid Operator "is seeking the causes of the
blackout," adding: "Any diagnostic at this time is purely speculative."

The head of the Itaipu facility, Jorge Miguel Samek, told Globo he also believed
a storm was likely behind the cut in power from the second-biggest
hydro-electric plant in the world.

An energy ministry spokesman told AFP three of the plant's transmission lines
failed during the emergency.

Despite Furnas's statement, the ministry's secretary, Marcio Zimmerman,
speculated that an unspecified "adverse meteorological condition" set off a
"domino effect" through the grid.

Itaipu has an output of 14,000 megawatts, which supplies 20 percent of the
energy needs of Brazil, Latin America's most economically active nation. All of
that was off-line overnight.

The blackout occurred two nights after the US television network CBS broadcast a
report in which unidentified former US national security officials claimed
massive power outages in Brazil in 2005 and 2007 were caused by cyber hackers
attacking control systems.

Although Brazilian media were skeptical of that assessment, the US channel said
those incidents should serve as a wake-up call to the United States, which could
see its own power supplies hit by computer sabotage.

Brazil's energy ministry was to hold an urgent meeting later Wednesday with all
the country's grid operators to determine the exact causes of the outage and
what can be down to prevent a repetition.

Authorities are especially concerned about the damage that might be done to
Brazil's reputation ahead of Rio hosting the 2016 Olympic Games and the 2014
football World Cup.

The city, which is already struggling with rampant crime, was the worst-affected
by the power cut, according to electricity grid officials.

Copyright © 2009 AFP. All rights reserved.


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

~~~~~~~~~EnergyResources Moderator Comment ~~~~~~~~

In his message posted below, Denis Frith argues that:

"Focusing just on the energy flows is misleading. What about all the material
wastes that the operation of civilization produces."

Energy is embodied in all physical and ecological processes, and as so, becomes
a common denominator that greatly aids in understanding the complex and dynamic
characteristics and behavior of all the systems around our lives--including
human culture.

For example, the "material wastes that the operation of civilization produces"
are the Second Law of Thermodynamics consequences of human processes.

As such, not only do we know that Second Law circumstances will result in wastes
from everything we do, but that it (the Second Law) also provide a means of
identifying and measuring those wastes so we can assess their real costs, as
well as seek out any benfits they may have--for example by the diversion of
urban wastes into more beneficial use by recycling.

~~~~~~ EnergyResources Moderator Tom Robertson ~~~~~~

--- In energyresources@yahoogroups.com, Denis Frith <denisaf2000@...> wrote:
>
> Henry
> Your wise comment is spoilt by the reference at the end to dependence on
energy. The operation of materialistic world depends on energy flows. That is
so. But the energy flows are operating on materials. Focusing just on the energy
flows is misleading. What about all the material wastes that the operation of
civilization produces. Human understanding of what happens is metaphysical. So
is the common misunderstanding. Society is now having to come to terms with the
bad decisions made about using energy obtained from fossil fuels. Society is
addicted to using energy and to hell with the consequences.
>
> Denis Frith
>
>
> --- On Wed, 11/11/09, Henry Warwick <misterwarwick@...> wrote:
>
> From: Henry Warwick <misterwarwick@...>
> Subject: [energyresources] Re: Film about the insanity of  growth
> To: energyresources@yahoogroups.com
> Received: Wednesday, 11 November, 2009, 12:36 PM
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>  
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>       ~~~~~~~~~EnergyReso urces Moderator Comment ~~~~~~~~
>
>
>
> Right, except there is a problem or two--or three.
>
>
>
> The monetary system that has the capacity to increase debt can do so without
thermodynamic constraint-- till those debt chickens come home and there is no
thermodynamically- constrained energy to do the work that debt-money is supposed
to represent.
>
>
>
> ~~~~~~ EnergyResources Moderator Tom Robertson ~~~~~~
>
>
>
> depends.
>
>
>
> Let's say you want to buy a house. It costs $100k.
>
>
>
> The owner says, I want my money NOW. You say, "I haven't got it, I need a
loan." The bank says "I will loan you money as a claim on your future labour. I
anticipate that your future labour will exceed $100k. Therefore, yes, you may
have the loan. But you have to pay the loan back in a month."
>
>
>
> Obviously, that won't do.
>
>
>
> OK. a year?
>
>
>
> Sorry. no can do.
>
>
>
> OK - FIVE YEARS. Maybe, depending on how much money I am making.
>
>
>
> OK - 30 YEARS. Fine. Sign me up.
>
>
>
> So, now, all you have to do is abstract it and say the loan isn't for your
house, it is for EVERYONE'S HOUSES. And it's not a 30 year loan, it's a 1000
year loan. Or a 10,000 year loan. Or, in the case of the US Federal gov't, a
27,860 year loan, if they pay a million dollars a day.
>
>
>
> As long as the fiscal situation is checked and the money keeps coming in,
thermodynamics don't really matter, because THE LOAN DOESN'T REALLY EXIST.
>
>
>
> Seriously. It's a product of your imagination. You can loan as much as you
want for whatever flips your crank. There doesn't have to be inflation or
deflation. It simply doesn't exist outside of humanity's language centre.
>
>
>
> Work? That exists. It is based on energy. Everything else ABOUT that is
metaphysics. Existence precedes essence. Read your Sartre, and remember, he was
a communist...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>      
________________________________________________________________________________\
__
> Win 1 of 4 Sony home entertainment packs thanks to Yahoo!7.
> Enter now: http://au.docs.yahoo.com/homepageset/
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

On Tue, 2009-11-10 at 18:40 -0800, Denis Frith wrote:
> Society is addicted to using energy and to hell with the consequences.
>

Sadly, Denis, you are correct, both the addiction and the lack of
consideration about the outcome.


--

Frank
53.22N 2.07W

Henry
Your wise comment is spoilt by the reference at the end to dependence on energy.
The operation of materialistic world depends on energy flows. That is so. But
the energy flows are operating on materials. Focusing just on the energy flows
is misleading. What about all the material wastes that the operation of
civilization produces. Human understanding of what happens is metaphysical. So
is the common misunderstanding. Society is now having to come to terms with the
bad decisions made about using energy obtained from fossil fuels. Society is
addicted to using energy and to hell with the consequences.

Denis Frith


--- On Wed, 11/11/09, Henry Warwick <misterwarwick@...> wrote:

From: Henry Warwick <misterwarwick@...>
Subject: [energyresources] Re: Film about the insanity of  growth
To: energyresources@yahoogroups.com
Received: Wednesday, 11 November, 2009, 12:36 PM







 









       ~~~~~~~~~EnergyReso urces Moderator Comment ~~~~~~~~



Right, except there is a problem or two--or three.



The monetary system that has the capacity to increase debt can do so without
thermodynamic constraint-- till those debt chickens come home and there is no
thermodynamically- constrained energy to do the work that debt-money is supposed
to represent.



~~~~~~ EnergyResources Moderator Tom Robertson ~~~~~~



depends.



Let's say you want to buy a house. It costs $100k.



The owner says, I want my money NOW. You say, "I haven't got it, I need a loan."
The bank says "I will loan you money as a claim on your future labour. I
anticipate that your future labour will exceed $100k. Therefore, yes, you may
have the loan. But you have to pay the loan back in a month."



Obviously, that won't do.



OK. a year?



Sorry. no can do.



OK - FIVE YEARS. Maybe, depending on how much money I am making.



OK - 30 YEARS. Fine. Sign me up.



So, now, all you have to do is abstract it and say the loan isn't for your
house, it is for EVERYONE'S HOUSES. And it's not a 30 year loan, it's a 1000
year loan. Or a 10,000 year loan. Or, in the case of the US Federal gov't, a
27,860 year loan, if they pay a million dollars a day.



As long as the fiscal situation is checked and the money keeps coming in,
thermodynamics don't really matter, because THE LOAN DOESN'T REALLY EXIST.



Seriously. It's a product of your imagination. You can loan as much as you want
for whatever flips your crank. There doesn't have to be inflation or deflation.
It simply doesn't exist outside of humanity's language centre.



Work? That exists. It is based on energy. Everything else ABOUT that is
metaphysics. Existence precedes essence. Read your Sartre, and remember, he was
a communist...























      
________________________________________________________________________________\
__
Win 1 of 4 Sony home entertainment packs thanks to Yahoo!7.
Enter now: http://au.docs.yahoo.com/homepageset/

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

~~~~~~~~~EnergyReso urces Moderator Comment ~~~~~~~~

Right, except there is a problem or two--or three.

The monetary system that has the capacity to increase debt can do so without
thermodynamic constraint-- till those debt chickens come home and there is no
thermodynamically- constrained energy to do the work that debt-money is supposed
to represent.

~~~~~~ EnergyResources Moderator Tom Robertson ~~~~~~

depends.

Let's say you want to buy a house. It costs $100k.

The owner says, I want my money NOW. You say, "I haven't got it, I need a loan."
The bank says "I will loan you money as a claim on your future labour. I
anticipate that your future labour will exceed $100k. Therefore, yes, you may
have the loan. But you have to pay the loan back in a month."

Obviously, that won't do.

OK. a year?

Sorry. no can do.

OK - FIVE YEARS. Maybe, depending on how much money I am making.

OK - 30 YEARS. Fine. Sign me up.

So, now, all you have to do is abstract it and say the loan isn't for your
house, it is for EVERYONE'S HOUSES. And it's not a 30 year loan, it's a 1000
year loan. Or a 10,000 year loan. Or, in the case of the US Federal gov't, a
27,860 year loan, if they pay a million dollars a day.

As long as the fiscal situation is checked and the money keeps coming in,
thermodynamics don't really matter, because THE LOAN DOESN'T REALLY EXIST.

Seriously. It's a product of your imagination. You can loan as much as you want
for whatever flips your crank. There doesn't have to be inflation or deflation.
It simply doesn't exist outside of humanity's language centre.

Work? That exists. It is based on energy. Everything else ABOUT that is
metaphysics. Existence precedes essence. Read your Sartre, and remember, he was
a communist...

Is this 5GW at the mirror source or at the reception
point on the North Pole or equivalent. Does this light
as it travels to Earth follow the inverse squared relationship
with distance regarding intensity as other light sources do?
...What is the transfer mechanism to urban centers after
that?  Sounds like great way to break up the long winters
darkness on the poles at any rate. Maybe if the light
were defocused somewhat, the Eskimoes along the
arctic coastline could have a somewhat brighter nights.

--- On Sun, 11/8/09, Walter Derzko <wderzko@...> wrote:


From: Walter Derzko <wderzko@...>
Subject: [energyresources] Sun Spring-Unlimited solar power
To: runningonempty2@yahoogroups.com, energyresources@yahoogroups.com,
torontopeakoil@yahoogroups.com
Date: Sunday, November 8, 2009, 11:37 PM


 



Sun Spring-Unlimited solar power

The Ukrainian Space Agency has a unique project proposal. Code named Sun
Spring, the project plans to harvest 5 gigawatts of solar sunlight in space.

http://smarteconomy .typepad. com/smart_ economy/2009/ 11/sun-springunl
imited-solar- power.html

Walter Derzko

Smart Economy

Toronto

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]











[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

CO's state income tax rate is pretty low.
Your income would have to be enormous to
owe the state in excess of 42K to take any
advantage of this.  I suspect most people in
that income group are planning their next
Mercedes or Bently purchase rather than a
Telsa.

--- On Mon, 11/9/09, usahiker <usahiker@...> wrote:


From: usahiker <usahiker@...>
Subject: [energyresources] EV & Hybrid News: Colorado residents get $42G refund
on Tesla
To: energyresources@yahoogroups.com
Date: Monday, November 9, 2009, 11:31 AM


 




EV & Hybrid News: Colorado residents get $42G refund on Tesla

5 Benefits of a Do It Yourself
F1 designer unveils electric car
Hymotion Conversion Plug-In Prius: First Drive
Time right for budget-minded shoppers to buy a green car
Electric Car Plant Bringing Jobs To Stockton
Electric car built in Tallahassee on display at Las Vegas show
Nissan to Begin Recycling Electric-Car Batteries
Seattle getting 2,500 electric car charging stations
Whoa! Colorado residents get $42G refund on Tesla Roadster
Tesla breaks record for going the distance
Electrifying EEStor Plot Thickens

For these stories and a video of the Tango Electric, Click Here
<http://electricandh ybridcars. com/index. php/pages/ electriccarnews. html>

Cheers,
Susie

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]











[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

<http://www.elpais.com/articulo/sociedad/eolica/supera/primera/vez/mitad/producc\
ion/electrica/elpepisoc/20091109elpepisoc_2/Tes>


A wind storm has taken the wind mills to break new records in wind energy
generation.

Between 03.20 and 08.40 of November 8th, over the 50 percent of the electricity
produced in Spain was generated by wind  generators, with maximums of 53
percent. On October 8th. the record was set on 11,546 MW of wind origin, the
equivalent to 11 nuclear reactors. The President of Red Electrica Española, Luis
Atienza summarized by phone what happened: "It is a milestone that make us to be
proud. There is no other country of our size, and even less, isoltated (from the
electric point of view) that has exceeded a contribution higher than 50 percent
for so much time".

The wind power status in Spain is becoming increasingly interesting. The
increase in installed power since 1997 is beating records once deemed as
impossible. The president of the Wind Business Association, José Donoso,
remembers how in 2004 they mentioned that on reaching a 14 percent penetration,
the grid will blow up and will lead to a bog blackout. " Some years ago nobody
would have believed these figures, so we believe we can grow form the present
17,000 MW to 40,000 MW in 2020"

The above, considering that the wind storm came in the worst moment, as Atienza
explained: "In the middle of the week, with a high demand it is easy to manage
so much wind, but in the dawn of a Sunday, when the demand is at mínimum, the
challenge is higher". In November 2008, during a wind storm in weekend, Red
Electrica had to switch off one third of the wind parks, because the lack of
demand. Yesterday, there was not necessary. The system increased the exports and
the pump up in the dams. "With the export and the pump up we abosorbed 4,000 MW
(like 4 nuclear power plants)", Atienza said. "It is a pride that the system
could overcome the problems arising from these situations"
At 11.54 of  Saturday, some 1,000 MW fomr wind power were disconnected in a
substation. Thanks to  the Renewable Management Center, that is a world
reference in green energy fed in systems, Red Eléctrica foresees in every moment
the worst case and how to overcome it. Tonight, the forecast was that wind power
will provide more than 40 percent of the electricity

In November, wind poweer has been "the first technology in producing electricity
in the Spanish electric system, with 913,251 GWh, ahead of gas combined cycle,
with 907,984 GWh and nuclear, with 593,553 GWh. This leadership will consolidate
with the production of this week", according to the Wind Business Association.
This year, wind power will supply 13% of the electricity; hydro between 9 and 10
percent and solar PV some 2.5 percent; therefore, more than a quarter of the
electricity will come from renewable sources.

This percentage is more valuable, because Spain is an energetic island. Denmark
has more percentage (renewable), but if one day there is no wind or it exceeds
consumption, they can import or export through Germany. Spain has only a 3
percent of interconnection capacity in its peak with France and exports almost
continuously to Portugal and through a couple of submarine cables, to Morocco.
We have managed some 11,500 MW of wind power, but few weeks ago we have had days
with only 150 MW" says Atienza, who shows off: "Spain is leader in renewable,
because we are leaders in integrating them (feeding-in them) into the network.
The Spanish model is an example in all the world. Not only because the
investments in wind power, but also in the less vivible part: the network.

The head of the Transition Office between Bush and Obama, john Podesta, declared
last October in his visit to the Control Center of Red Eléctrica: "The US has
realized that in order to implement the renewable foreseen by Obama, it needs
first to improve the network. Wind and sun exists in the Middle East and demand
in the coasts. With its present obsolete network, it could not support the
variations of the renewables"

We love windmills and there's no denying it - they definitely have a certain
appeal. They creaked noisily around in their charmingly inefficient way and did
an amazing thing.  They harnessed the power of the wind to facilitate activities
like the baking of bread.

Modern wind turbines are beautiful things. Within their graceful structures they
prove to be masterworks of form and function.  They whirl with a phenomenal
level of efficiency so as to prevent us from frying the planet. And the great
news is that the wind cannot be over farmed.  What's not to like?

At the end of the day we can note that all of our most notable sources of energy
are generated via the heavens and the earth. The nuclear fusion of small atom
allows energy to shine down on our planet, the nuclear fission of large atoms
continues to allow heat to rise up from below while gravitational attraction
between the moon and the Earth allows both objects to continue to spin around in
their merry way. There's just one problem. Nuclear fuels are a finite resource
and this begs the question as to what will happen when this fuel is gone. How
might future generations regard our generation once we've completed not only the
glazing of the atmosphere but also the stripping of the most valuable resources
that our planet has to offer.

The word atmosphere means sphere of water.  Perhaps the description is apt.  A
heated atmosphere may, depending on the weather, hold more water than a cold
atmosphere.  A heated earth could, onoccasion, turn into a form of steam room
while, on later occasions, it would become a shower.  Floods may be devastating
.  Winds may be high.  Future generations may want to build wind turbines but
they may have difficulties in ensuring their survival.

It is possible that future generations will look back at our "modern" wind
turbines and view them amongst the most beautiful things that man has ever
produced. We look back on old styled windmills with nostalgia as we give respect
to the great efforts that our ancestors made just to feed themselves. Future
generations will look at our wind turbines with nostalgia knowing that the
turbines were built to help secure their future.

Wind turbines need to be built but, more than that, they need to be successfully
integrated into the power networks of our planet.  The problem with wind
turbines is that they only work when the wind blows. So what can we do?  The
best option would be to institute a tiered pricing structure for electricity and
pass any necessary legislation so that our very high powered industries might
only operate at times when green energy is available.  If we had
cheaperelectricity on windy days then these would be the days on which people
would stay in to do the washing and to use their power tools.  We could also
have an industry that was based on a greener form of revolution.

more at Attempts at Survival
http://www.attempts.org.uk
http://www.facebook.com/home.php?#/group.php?gid=149310585856

"It's Really Bad" - Oil Supplies Intentionally Overstated

http://www.chrismartenson.com/blog/its-really-bad-oil-reserves-intentionally-ove\
rstated/31155

Monday, November 9, 2009, 8:39 pm, by cmartenson

The Guardian published an explosive article today. If true, it means that
governments have been intentionally overstating the amount of oil that we have
and could pump out of the ground. The implications are enormous.

This confirms the evidence that I saw at ASPO that had been painstakingly
developed by independent researchers and so we might want to incorporate this
news into our personal and financial frameworks.

First, a snippet:

Key oil figures were distorted by US pressure, says whistleblower

     The world is much closer to running out of oil than official estimates
admit, according to a whistleblower at the International Energy Agency who
claims it has been deliberately underplaying a looming shortage for fear of
triggering panic buying.

     The senior official claims the US has played an influential role in
encouraging the watchdog to underplay the rate of decline from existing oil
fields while overplaying the chances of finding new reserves.

     The allegations raise serious questions about the accuracy of the
organisation's latest World Energy Outlook on oil demand and supply to be
published tomorrow – which is used by the British and many other governments to
help guide their wider energy and climate change policies.

     In particular they question the prediction in the last World Economic
Outlook, believed to be repeated again this year, that oil production can be
raised from its current level of 83m barrels a day to 105m barrels. External
critics have frequently argued that this cannot be substantiated by firm
evidence and say the world has already passed its peak in oil production.

     Now the "peak oil" theory is gaining support at the heart of the global
energy establishment. "The IEA in 2005 was predicting oil supplies could rise as
high as 120m barrels a day by 2030 although it was forced to reduce this
gradually to 116m and then 105m last year," said the IEA source, who was
unwilling to be identified for fear of reprisals inside the industry. "The 120m
figure always was nonsense but even today's number is much higher than can be
justified and the IEA knows this.

     "Many inside the organisation believe that maintaining oil supplies at even
90m to 95m barrels a day would be impossible but there are fears that panic
could spread on the financial markets if the figures were brought down further.
And the Americans fear the end of oil supremacy because it would threaten their
power over access to oil resources," he added.

     A second senior IEA source, who has now left but was also unwilling to give
his name, said a key rule at the organisation was that it was "imperative not to
anger the Americans" but the fact was that there was not as much oil in the
world as had been admitted. "We have [already] entered the 'peak oil' zone. I
think that the situation is really bad," he added.

If this is true, and it needs to be confirmed, it means that all models of
stocks and bonds that rely on long-term cash flow models are wrong. It means
that our primary assumption of petroleum fueled growth is wrong.

It means that we are several decades late in responding. It means that we do not
have time to slowly modify our fleet to carbon-fiber electric cars or any other
fantasy technology.

It means that we've squandered (and continue to squander) our most valuable
resource of them all - time.

I'll be honest, I would feel completely differently if there was even a glimmer
that anybody in DC had the slightest inkling of the seriousness of the
situation, but they display no public awareness.

To give one example of what I would be looking for, if we were on a crash
program to convert cars to natural gas, mandating smaller and lighter vehicles
going forward, and building the NG distribution pipelines and refueling stations
necessary to make it all work, I'd have some reason to hope that we could manage
the outcome somewhat favorably.

Instead we have Cash4Clunkers as our most significant energy policy of the new
millennium.  The gap between reality and policy dwarfs the Grand Canyon.

Given the complete lack of official leadership, and the presence of willful
obfuscation of the public on the matter, I come to the conclusion that those who
are working to secure the future of their own households and communities are the
visionaries of our times.

The definition of a hero is someone who does something at risk to themselves
because it needs to be done. They see something that needs their efforts and
they give it. It is not easy to do something completely different from everybody
else and there's a distinct social risk involved when that requires telling
people a difficult truth.

Yet most people in most communities get their news and information from sources
that are steadily being revealed to be more than unreliable, but actually
misdirective. One of the most common things I hear from people is that most
people in their community have no idea what is coming or what the main issues
really are.

Most would have no idea what is implied by the possibility that governments have
been systematically overstating oil reserves and future flows.

But you do.

I implore you to keep on attempting to educate your friends, neighbors and
community. I honor you for taking on the heroic efforts that requires.

Because if what the Guardian reported is true, it means that the future will
change profoundly, and radically and probably quite suddenly when the
implications are more widely appreciated.

Worth a read, from today's Guardian in the UK. Apparently it is all
America's fault...

<Quote>

The world is much closer to running out of oil than official estimates
admit, according to a whistleblower at the International Energy Agency
who claims it has been deliberately underplaying a looming shortage
for fear of triggering panic buying.
<Unquote>


www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/nov/09/peak-oil-international-energy-agency

~~~~~~~~~EnergyResources Moderator Comment ~~~~~~~~

Of course, all the numbers in the above article are for gross production,
nothing is said about the net productivity of our energy production systems,
which have been declining at an accelerating rate probably since the early
1990s.

(And no one is really looking at those numbers. At the same time, the financial
system is generating money at unprecedented rates and with increasingly less
energy to do the work all that money represents.

~~~~~~ EnergyResources Moderator Tom Robertson ~~~~~~

Natural capital is being used up irreversibly by the operations of civilization.
These operations also use natural income. So balance is not possible. You say
that view is simple. I say it is simply wrong. Natural capital is being lost
irrevocably by the day by day operations of civilization. Growth in consumption
and population just increases the rate of this depletion of natural capital.

Denis

~~~~~~~~~EnergyResources Moderator Comment ~~~~~~~~

You have made your point.

So, what do we do?

~~~~~~ EnergyResources Moderator Tom Robertson ~~~~~~



--- On Tue, 10/11/09, Dell Erickson <ricks@...> wrote:

From: Dell Erickson <ricks@...>
Subject: Re: [energyresources] Re: Film about the insanity of  growth
To: energyresources@yahoogroups.com
Received: Tuesday, 10 November, 2009, 3:27 AM

       Overpopulation and growth means the scarcity of natural capital is
worsening in lock-step.

Ignoring population as the fundamental remedy implies ever increasing
populations and resource consumption.

Seems simple enough, being in balance locally and internationally implies no
additional losses of natural capital.

Getting their implies vigorously addressing populations --decades ago.  :(

For the U.S., it meant that balance was very easy to accomplish, must
have stopped all in-migration.

Dell Erickson
Minneapolis

11/08/2009, you wrote:
>Dell
>You talk about carrying capacity and the population being in balance
>locally and internationally. What do you mean by that? The
>population and its systems are irreversibly using up natural goods
>and services. The carrying capacity of the ecosystem is continually
>declining. The stock of fossil fuels and many other raw materials is
>being depleted rapidly. The terrestrial and marine ecosystems are
>being irreversibly devastated. how do you reconcile these facts with
>your statement?

>You go on to say that my argument actually forces the increase in
>consumption of resources. How do you manage to get that
>interpretation when I say natural capital is becoming scarce?
>Denis Frith
>
>--- On Sun, 8/11/09, Dell Erickson
><<mailto:ricks% 40tc.umn. edu>ricks@ .edu> wrote:

>

>From: Dell Erickson <<mailto:ricks% 40tc.umn. edu>ricks@ .edu>

>Subject: Re: [energyresources] Re: Film about the insanity of growth

>To: <mailto:energyresou rces%40yahoogrou ps.com>energyresources@ yahoogroups.
com

>Received: Sunday, 8 November, 2009, 2:00 AM

>

>Yes.

>It's less than a half-truth and certainly won't help resolve our

>resource use dilemmas.

>ALL life requires the use of natural resources.

>To be sustainable the population must be in balance with the

>resources. And it does NOT matter where the populations are located,

>they ALL must be in balance locally and internationally.

>To ignore that --or as you say "I will not comment on it", is to not

>only ignore the most fundamental equation of carrying capacity or of

>optimum populations, it actually forces the increase in consumption

>of resources.

>Dell Erickson

>11/06/2009, you wrote:

>

> >~~~~~~~~~EnergyRes ources Moderator Comment ~~~~~~~~

> >Denis, a main problem with your comments below, is your resistance

> >to seeking solutions.

> >You have made your point.

> >Now what?

> >~~~~~~ EnergyResources Moderator Tom Robertson ~~~~~~

>

> >Henry

>

> >You miss the point that I make. I agree that there is an urgent need

> >for population growth to cease. I will not comment on how that may

> >come about or the regions where it is most urgent. However, the

> >reality is that the operation of the systems of civilization

> >invariably entail using limited natural capital. That will continue

> >to be the case even when the population is decreasing. What will be

> >happening to New York, London and here in Melbourne when the goods

> >and services provided by using natural material resources (including

> >food, oil, electricity and water) needed for their operation and

> >maintenance become very scarce in the near future. I am well aware

> >of the arguments about the dangers of growth. I will, however,

> >continue to point out that the operation of civilization entails the

> >consumption of natural material capital. Growth just increases the

> >rate of that consumption. Do you have any problem with that assertion?

> >Denis

....























      
________________________________________________________________________________\
__
Win 1 of 4 Sony home entertainment packs thanks to Yahoo!7.
Enter now: http://au.docs.yahoo.com/homepageset/

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Overpopulation and growth means the scarcity of natural capital is
worsening in lock-step.

Ignoring population as the fundamental remedy implies ever increasing
populations and resource consumption.

Seems simple enough, being in balance locally and internationally
implies no additional losses of natural capital.

Getting their implies vigorously addressing populations --decades ago.  :(

For the U.S., it meant that balance was very easy to accomplish, must
have stopped all in-migration.

Dell Erickson
Minneapolis


11/08/2009, you wrote:
>Dell
>You talk about carrying capacity and the population being in balance
>locally and internationally. What do you mean by that? The
>population and its systems are irreversibly using up natural goods
>and services. The carrying capacity of the ecosystem is continually
>declining. The stock of fossil fuels and many other raw materials is
>being depleted rapidly. The terrestrial and marine ecosystems are
>being irreversibly devastated. how do you reconcile these facts with
>your statement?
>You go on to say that my argument actually forces the increase in
>consumption of resources. How do you manage to get that
>interpretation when I say natural capital is becoming scarce?
>Denis Frith
>
>--- On Sun, 8/11/09, Dell Erickson
><<mailto:ricks%40tc.umn.edu>ricks@.edu> wrote:
>
>From: Dell Erickson <<mailto:ricks%40tc.umn.edu>ricks@.edu>
>Subject: Re: [energyresources] Re: Film about the insanity of growth
>To: <mailto:energyresources%40yahoogroups.com>energyresources@yahoogroups.com
>Received: Sunday, 8 November, 2009, 2:00 AM
>
>Yes.
>It's less than a half-truth and certainly won't help resolve our
>resource use dilemmas.
>ALL life requires the use of natural resources.
>To be sustainable the population must be in balance with the
>resources. And it does NOT matter where the populations are located,
>they ALL must be in balance locally and internationally.
>To ignore that --or as you say "I will not comment on it", is to not
>only ignore the most fundamental equation of carrying capacity or of
>optimum populations, it actually forces the increase in consumption
>of resources.
>Dell Erickson
>11/06/2009, you wrote:
>
> >~~~~~~~~~EnergyRes ources Moderator Comment ~~~~~~~~
> >Denis, a main problem with your comments below, is your resistance
> >to seeking solutions.
> >You have made your point.
> >Now what?
> >~~~~~~ EnergyResources Moderator Tom Robertson ~~~~~~
>
> >Henry
>
> >You miss the point that I make. I agree that there is an urgent need
> >for population growth to cease. I will not comment on how that may
> >come about or the regions where it is most urgent. However, the
> >reality is that the operation of the systems of civilization
> >invariably entail using limited natural capital. That will continue
> >to be the case even when the population is decreasing. What will be
> >happening to New York, London and here in Melbourne when the goods
> >and services provided by using natural material resources (including
> >food, oil, electricity and water) needed for their operation and
> >maintenance become very scarce in the near future. I am well aware
> >of the arguments about the dangers of growth. I will, however,
> >continue to point out that the operation of civilization entails the
> >consumption of natural material capital. Growth just increases the
> >rate of that consumption. Do you have any problem with that assertion?
> >Denis
....

MUST HAVE GROWTH in order to pay interest on debt.  Every government program
that increases debt also increases the pressure for economic and population
growth.

V.

~~~~~~~~~EnergyResources Moderator Comment ~~~~~~~~

Right, except there is a problem or two--or three.

The monetary system that has the capacity to increase debt can do so without
thermodynamic constraint--till those debt chickens come home and there is no
thermodynamically-constrained energy to do the work that debt-money is supposed
to represent.

~~~~~~ EnergyResources Moderator Tom Robertson ~~~~~~
________________________________

From: energyresources@yahoogroups.com [mailto:energyresources@yahoogroups.com]
On Behalf Of scottsworth
Sent: Sunday, November 08, 2009 2:23 AM
To: energyresources@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [energyresources] Re: Film about the insanity of growth


Well, we have been debating this for some time now. At the political level,
*ANY* discussion that I have had with politicians of limiting growth is tossed
out upon hearing it. They will simply not discuss it. And that is *limiting*
growth. In reality, we need to *stop* all growth, not just limit it. And it goes
well beyond that. We need to reverse growth if we are going to survive as a
species. We are in a state of severe human population overwhoot. Say, about 6
billion people over the sustainable number. The earth simply cannot support
anything near this size of a population past the peak fossil fuel era. But no
one wants to talk about that either (the subject of peak oil). We are in the
throws of an expanding global civilization. We are at, or very near to being at
the peak in the greatest civilization of mankind. And in all this growth, all
anyone wants is more of it.

Our cultural, political, religious and financial institutions are all steeped in
growth. It is an unbending paradigm that all civilizations must grow to be
sustained. As soon as they stop growing, there is no leveling off. They go into
decline. It happened during the fall of Greece, it happened during the fall of
Rome, and it will happen in the fall of our time. There seems to be no avoiding
it. Look at what the US government is doing to avoid a deep depression. Bankrupt
the future, and print money and borrow more money than is in the global
financial system. Growth at all costs, and right now. Otherwise more people will
be unemployed, and more unhappy people tend to put another group of people in
political power. So that is the reason that the politicians will nto talk to me
about limiting growth. They simply cannot survive without it.

We are but bacteria in a petri dish. We will grow until there is nothing left on
this planet. We will consume it all at our peril.





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

EV & Hybrid News: Colorado residents get $42G refund on Tesla

5 Benefits  of a Do It Yourself
F1 designer unveils electric car
Hymotion Conversion Plug-In Prius: First Drive
Time right for budget-minded shoppers to buy a green car
Electric Car Plant Bringing Jobs To Stockton
Electric car built in Tallahassee on display at Las Vegas show
Nissan to Begin Recycling Electric-Car Batteries
Seattle getting 2,500 electric car charging stations
Whoa! Colorado residents get $42G refund on Tesla Roadster
Tesla breaks record for going the distance
Electrifying EEStor Plot Thickens

For these stories and a video of the Tango Electric, Click Here
<http://electricandhybridcars.com/index.php/pages/electriccarnews.html>

Cheers,
Susie



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

A project to develop a new all-electric urban car, that will be affordable for
many consumers when it reaches market and manufactured using an innovative and
sustainable production process has been announced in the UK. It comes at a time
when many companies are announcing development programs for electric or zero
emission vehicles , hybrids and plug-in hybrids but how these vehicles are made
may be as important to the environment as the fuel they do or don't use.

http://www.greencarmagazine.net/2009/11/how-green-are-zero-emission-vehicles/

Sun Spring-Unlimited solar power


The Ukrainian Space Agency has a unique project proposal. Code named Sun
Spring, the project plans to harvest 5 gigawatts of solar sunlight in space.

http://smarteconomy.typepad.com/smart_economy/2009/11/sun-springunlimited-solar-\
power.html



Walter Derzko

Smart Economy

Toronto



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Time is running out! Former United Nations secretary-general Kofi Annan wants us
to act now!
Read on... http://alturl.com/gy4e

  Get greenbefore it's too late.




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

see...

http://www.every10mins.com/video/4288_fear_and_loathing_in_las_vegas_the\
_wave_speech.html
<http://www.every10mins.com/video/4288_fear_and_loathing_in_las_vegas_th\
e_wave_speech.html>

~mike~



--- In energyresources@yahoogroups.com, ferrand <ferrand@...> wrote:
>
> A new engine design is being put forward by a New Zealand firm. They
> state that "The Pivotal engine is the ideal CNG/hydrogen internal
> combustion engine design" a further quote from them is :- "The Pivotal
> engine is a new mechanical means of harnessing the power from
combustion
> fuels.  It is an internal combustion engine (ICE) that overcomes
> inherent limitations of the conventional device.  It delivers the
> potential for a significant advantage in power density and thermal
> efficiency on a wide range of fuels.  With full thermal control of the
> combustion chamber environment it is a clear choice for hydrogen and
> will become the ubiquitous hydrogen engine of the future.  The Pivotal
> engine will successfully adapt to a wide range of alternative fuels
and
> is particularly suited to gaseous fuel blends."
> see www.pivotalengine.com
> regards
> Ferrand
>



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]