Rabbit on a Roof

John Rawlins has a B.S. in physics and a Ph.D. in nuclear physics. He retired in 1995 from the Westinghouse Hanford Co. at the Hanford site in Eastern Washington. Currently, he teaches physics and astronomy at Whatcom Community College.

Editor’s Note: Last month, readers were encouraged to suggest a title for John Rawlins’ peak oil column. We selected Betsy Behnke’s entry, “Rabbit on a Roof,” as the title. See page 2 for Betsy’s rationale.

http://www.energyjustice.net

The value of this link as an information resource far exceeds the scope indicated by the Web site name. The site includes good descriptions of all the popular energy alternatives such as biofuels, hydrogen, nuclear, various coal technologies, and the potentially sustainable renewables like solar and wind power.

One section delves into energy policy, and politicians would do well to read and understand this section. Also included are some price charts for oil, natural gas, coal and uranium. I agree with almost all their energy technology assessments, which is the main reason for including the reference here.

http://www.energybulletin.net/39308.html

Are you still a little unsure of the meaning and causes of the term “peak oil?” This article does about the best job I’ve seen of explaining the concept and focuses on the important distinction between “rate” (as in oil production rate, barrels per day) and “reserves” (barrels yet to be produced). What matters to our economy today is production rate; what matters to our descendants are the reserves left for them to use and the rate at which they can produce those reserves.

http://www.energybulletin.net/38948.html

This article describes the most serious problem the industrialized, oil-importing countries face over the next couple of decades, bar none. The analysis demonstrates the potential, even likelihood, of world oil exports declining to zero by 2030. For the U.S., with its present dependence on those exports for 60 percent of its oil, that would translate to an 80 percent decline in oil availability by the year 2030 (no exports left, and half of our present 40 percent U.S. production).

For the global climate that would be good news. For the U.S. economy it will be devastating. The past year was the first one in which total world exports declined, so in a decade we might look back and realize 2007 marked the beginning of an awesome transition. In two decades we might be too busy growing food to look back.

http://www.energybulletin.net/39886.html

Have you ever wanted to get the straight scoop on Alaskan oil production, history and future? I have, many times, ever since I became aware that two-thirds of Washington state’s gasoline originates as oil in Alaska. This article provides a very clear picture of Alaskan production and future prospects, including a good map that includes the pipeline route. I highly recommend reading it carefully if you live in this state.

Much of Oregon (and a bit of California) also depends on Alaskan oil. My projection for the Pacific Northwest for 2030 (see previous article) is that we are likely to have zero imports from other countries (except possibly oil from Canadian tar sands, which will be in high demand worldwide) and half of the present Alaskan production, for a total of about one-third of today’s oil delivery rate — assuming no change in distribution of Alaskan oil and locally produced refinery products.

http://www.energybulletin.net/39096.html

The CEO of General Motors (GM) explains why GM will focus on ethanol-fueled and electric vehicles — because of oil peaking. It will be interesting to see whether he’s able to turn around GM’s economic situation, brought about by continuing to build inefficient vehicles even during the last five years of escalating oil prices. In spite of poor performance recently, GM remains the largest vehicle manufacturer in the world.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2004162453_bikedanger04m.html

This is a good article in The Seattle Times about biking in Seattle. The lessons are also relevant to biking in Bellingham (or any other city). The article emphasizes the need for bikers to be aware of the “right hook” scenario, in which a biker in the bike lane wants to proceed straight through an intersection, while a passing/following motorist wants to turn right at the same intersection (at the same time).

Nearly all my own biking near misses have been this kind of situation, and I’ve learned the hard way not to trust the relative speed judgment (aka common sense) of any motorist.

http://www.energybulletin.net/39089.html

Ever since learning about what’s involved in sustainable food production, I’ve realized that most proposals for using cellulosic material for ethanol production (a liquid fuel substitute) are not sustainable. This article articulates that logic really well, and I highly recommend it to Whatcom Watch readers interested in this kind of economic substitution.

http://www.theoildrum.com/node/2431

Here’s yet another brilliant article by Stuart Staniford of The Oil Drum fame. It’s about the quick growth of corn-based ethanol and biofuels in general, and the title might sound a little strange: “Fermenting the Food Supply: Modeling Biofuel Production as an Infectious Growth on Food Production.” It’s a long article but worth at least a quick read to understand the conclusion that rampant biofuel production will result in rapid inflation of food prices, as well as increasing scarcity of food. These trends have already begun and are a clear threat to poor people everywhere.

http://enews.earthlink.net/article/nat?guid=20080130/47a00450_3422_1334620080130-1276885639

In one of the most ironic news stories for the month, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) is threatening to pull its support from a project to build a demonstration coal plant, because of rising construction costs (pouring all that concrete requires lots of liquid fuel). The purpose of the demonstration was to test the economic and environmental feasibility of clean coal-burning technology, including sequestration of carbon dioxide. This will be an interesting political story to follow.

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/01/23/6584

The author of this article summarizes the logic behind the conclusion that the U.S. needs to begin the long process of once again becoming an “agrarian nation.” It’s a short, well-written article. Some of the comments I found quite helpful.

http://www.greb.ca/publicationspdf/Peakphosphorus.pdf

The author of this extremely sobering article analyzes future availability of phosphorus, in the natural form of rock phosphate, using the same mathematical methods as M. K. Hubbert used decades ago for estimating future U. S. and world oil production.

The conclusion is that the world phosphate production rate peaked around 1985-1990, and by 2030 production will be about 13 percent of the peak value. The U.S. situation is similar. Since phosphorus is essential for growing food, the implication is that we must begin recycling phosphorus to growing land starting as soon as possible — including human wastes.

http://transitionculture.org/2008/01/10/book-review-eco-house-manual

Whatcom Watch readers wanting to take action on reducing energy use might be interested in the book reviewed in the above article. The name of the book is “Eco-House Manual: how to carry out environmentally friendly improvements to your home” by Nigel Griffiths.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/feb/05/climatechange (the article)

http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Guardian/documents/2008/02/05/World_Tipping_map_0502.pdf (the graphic)

Our planet’s atmosphere has always trapped geo-thermal and solar heat just like a blanket (covering us) on a bed, and for a hundred-plus years our carbon-based lifestyle has resulted in adding greenhouse gases to our atmosphere. This results (of course!) in trapping more and more heat as we burn through those fossil fuel resources. This article describes a scientific study that identifies nine areas most vulnerable to “tipping points” in our changing global climate — meaning changes that could be irreversible for thousands of years.

At least one of these areas, the northern Arctic, has already tipped and the eventual outcome will be loss of permanent ice cover during the summer season. The article includes a nice world map graphic showing the regions threatened, the approximate time scales for change, and the relative risks. There's no mention of the impact of fossil fuel peaking and decline, but alert Whatcom Watch readers will of course know about this.

http://www.earthpolicy.org/Indicators/Ice/2008.htm (article)

http://www.earthpolicy.org/Indicators/Ice/2008_data.htm#table (data, map, graphs)

The most visible sign of global climate change is disappearing ice from all regions of the planet. This article provides a wonderful summary of representative data from many parts of the globe. In particular, check out the 2007 data point for Arctic Ocean ice extent — scientists will be watching carefully during the summer of 2008 to see whether 2007 is an anomaly or the beginning of an accelerating trend.

As you read the article, remember that we have burned not quite half our worldwide fossil fuel resource, and that has resulted in a global average temperature increase of about 0.8 degrees Centigrade, with another 0.6 C still to come from what we’ve already burned (due to lag time). So we easily have the potential to burn twice as much fuel, with a total potential minimum temperature increase of 3 C (plus whatever feedback surprises might be in store for us) — and most of that during this century.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7225451.stm

Here’s a novel story from England: the ex-chairman of Shell Oil, of all people, proposes that the European Union (EU) ban the sale of inefficient cars — which he defines as those that have gasoline mileage worse than 35 miles per gallon. His logic: allowing poor gas mileage vehicles on the road is allowing richer people to avoid dealing with climate change, and nobody needs a car larger than that (the size of a Honda Civic).

He also advocates for other measures to reduce emission of greenhouse gases. Can you imagine the former chairman of Exxon-Mobil saying something like this? Or any U.S. politician outside the peak oil caucus?

http://www.theoildrum.com/node/3386

Nate Hagens, a frequent blogger at The Oil Drum, likes to post articles about why we humans do what we do in the context of peak energy. This is a long, funny, but seriously scientific article that helps me understand how people react (or not) to the news that their carbon-based energy crutch will get a few percent shorter every year until there’s nothing left. If you don’t have the curiosity to read the entire article, at least check out the graphics.

The information on evolution of our brain was particularly interesting. We generally tend to forget that most of human evolution involved a very dangerous world with scarce food, and those conditions guided brain development for those of us who now live in a safe world with lots of cheap food. As a result, we are ill-equipped to deal now with threats we know to be just a few years distant — a trait called “future discounting.”

http://www.energybulletin.net/39490.html

For psychologists, there’s finally a group of articles about energy-related anxieties at the Energy Bulletin. These five articles are quick to read and summarize the kinds of concerns prevalent among voters and thinkers around the world.

Politics And Energy (‘Tis The Season, After All)

http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/112305_peakoil_caucus.shtml

Here’s a story about the “Peak Oil Caucus” in the U.S. House of Representatives, now more than two years old. At that time, the caucus consisted of eight people. The caucus proposed a resolution to establish a huge international renewable energy program to develop fossil fuel replacements on a crash basis. The effort apparently failed. Today (early 2008) the caucus has 13 members.

http://money.cnn.com/galleries/2007/news/0712/gallery.candidates_energy

Do you want to know where our 2008 presidential candidates stand on energy policy, especially on how to deal with peak oil? I do, but so far I have heard not one word about peak oil. The following CNN article surveys what the then-leading candidates had to say about energy policy — and in my opinion it was a pretty lame survey.

http://www.altenergystocks.com/archives/2008/01/the_candidates_on_clean_energy.html

Google helped me find another article about energy policy priority among the candidates. The only candidate who has said energy policy is a top priority is Barak Obama.

http://www.heatison.org/content/blank/candidate_chart

The League of Conservation Voters has also summarized candidate positions on energy policy as of November 2007, primarily from the context of mitigating climate change (as opposed to surviving without enough energy).

http://www.grist.org/feature/2007/07/06/candidates

The Grist Blogsite might be the one to watch for updates on candidate energy policies. Their latest update compares what the surviving (as of Feb. 5, 2008) candidates have said about energy policy — again primarily in the context of mitigating climate change. Some of the things I read here sound like they come from people with insufficient oxygen getting to the brain. There are some major differences in what various candidates have to say (or not say) about energy policy.

Bottom line: from my perspective as a person concerned about energy prices, energy shortages, future food challenges and global climate change, no candidate even comes close to having what I would even call an energy policy, let alone a comprehensive energy policy (which must include societal reorganization).

Furthermore, that development won’t happen unless a large segment of the public demands it, and right now energy comes in at the bottom of all issue polls. Apparently, the only thing most of our population understands is high gasoline prices: in that case, the year 2008 might result in a big jump in understanding, which could lead to interesting (including nonsensical) campaign developments.

http://www.energybulletin.net/39472.html

Richard Heinberg once again scores an excellent story, this time on the U.S. economic crisis, which promises to unfold further during the 2008 presidential campaign. The combination of a bursting housing bubble and increasing energy prices (especially oil) may lead to some perplexing and unusual economic consequences, hence the title of the article: “Peak everything economics, or, what do you call this mess?”

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2004137726_waterbike22m.html

And finally, on the lighter side, have you ever heard of commuting by water-bike? Neither had I, but here it is!

I recently purchased a copy of Representative Jay Inslee’s book called “Apollo’s Fire: Igniting America’s Clean Energy Economy.” Jay and co-author Bracken Hendricks have put a large effort into formulating a fairly comprehensive energy policy and it deserves serious attention, because it might well become a template for energy policy discussions during the next administration.

I am planning to review and critique the book and publish it here at Whatcom Watch in the near future, in time for voters to consider before casting votes in November 2008. As a preview, scan the various portions of the first reference (Energy Justice: http://www.energyjustice.net) in this month’s column. §