\"The Long Emergency\" (Steamhead)

Steamhead

which appeared in this month's Rolling Stone. Whatever you think of this particular publication, the article is well worth reading.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/_/id/7203633

<A HREF="http://www.heatinghelp.com/getListed.cfm?id=157&Step=30">To Learn More About This Professional, Click Here to Visit Their Ad in "Find A Professional"</A>

S Ebels

Alot of gloom and doom in that one

Makes you want to get a little place in the country where you could grow our own food, tend a few milk cows and install a wood fired gravity hot water system.

What the,,,,, I'm all set!

Constantin

Aye...

The bleakness painted in that article is bleak indeed. However, there are a number of viewpoints that don't line up with what I have read elsewhere.

For example, the statement that Fusion reactors are no closer to commercialization than they were in the 1970's is quite untrue. ITER and the follow-on DEMO reactors may in fact produce more net energy than they consume to make the power. Should fusion reactors become a commercial success, we may see a renaissance of electrical heating in homes...

On the other hand, I agree that there has been a huge misallocation of funds away from cities and into a ever-widening sprawl of suburbia. However, who am I to cast stones and tell people how to live? No, the market will do that for us...

Jason_15

Constantin

What are some other things that don't line up... I'm glad to hear about new reactors, but after reading this article We all need a little reassurance so as not to become depressed...

Maine doug

Be depressed

As we saw lately, oil is now over 57 bucks a barrel.
Two major factors, IMHO, at work. Ever increasing demand by the US, India and especially China. US demand pushed by a lack of a real energy policy. Also the smoke and mirror screen about how drilling in Alaska will save us. That oil is not enough to make a dent. China's real growth is causing a huge demand for energy. They are making long term agreements with a number of countries and in some cases, edging out the US.
The other factor is the increasing "unrest" in oil producing countries. Oil production infrastructure is at risk and being damaged on a regular basis. Countries like Venezuela are starting to decide that they want more say in how their oil is managed, this may spread. Also the Iraq oil is not paying for their "reconstruction" as some in the administration said it would.

So we have demand always going up with production not matching and competition increasing. In fact the world is about tapped out as far as production rates are concerned, it is unlikely that we will see any significant increase in production rates in the near future. Even assuming there is enough oil, those that have it will want to measure it out to the highest bidder- not a pleasant situation for countries with unrelenting demand for a foreign resource.

Mark Eatherton1

Here I sit...

on pile of Solar Collectors, armed with the knowledge of how to make it work...

Who, ME worry?!?

Bring it on... (That's what I need. An excuse to get busier!)

Looks like major opportunity to me...

ME

Weezbo

Mark, listen to the deal i got for You! *~/:)

alaska has daylight 24 & 7 in the summer...we hook up a god zillion of your plates and sell it back to the electric company turn it all off come winter ...and crank it back up the next summer that way we can keep selling sunlight for higher and higher prices just like the Government *~/:)

Constantin

Well, for instance...

... the minute homes start going cold because there isn't enough natural gas left over in the tanks, is the minute that people around the NE will likely make less emotional and more rational choices regarding LNG terminals. Production facilities in Trinidad (and to a lesser extent Algeria) are constrained by transportation, not reserves.

...I agree that the hydrogen economy is a canard, only to be made possible if potenially ultra-cheap fuel sources like fusion become viable. Hydrogen makes natural gas look super safe, and if people worry about a LNG terminal, just wait until they find out what the local gas tank can do if it contains hydrogen instead of natural gas or even propane.

... there is a ton of coal that this country can access and with the right fluid-bed reactors, the combustion can be clean. So, the technology is there, how about the will to combust a fairly dirty fuel... that is the same problem that faces oil heat nowadays, clean combustion is all good until the incoming fuel is contaiminated with sulfur (in the case of oil) or mercury (in the case of coal).

...I also agree that under the present circumstances, there is little hope in terms of getting nuclear energy off to a quick start. On the other hand, a couple of cold winters with insufficient fuel or summers w/o AC, and I'll bet you an ice cream that the regulatory approvals will be herded through congress, the NRC, etc. in record time. Perhaps the US will adopt the French model and keep replicating on reference design in the name of returns to scale, ease of maintenance, etc. Seems to work for them (80% nuclear)

...I agree that the US economy is far too focused on the car... many cities have been allowed to whither on the vine as people move into the suburbs under the illusion of no crime, etc. Meanwhile, the denizens of suburbia have to commute a lot more, etc. putting a strain on the transportation networks, gas consumption, etc.

...This is not to say that you can't have both: suburbia and gas efficient commuting... the older parts of the US have it left over from the rail era (wherever the rights of way weren't converted to jogging paths). Yet, most new communities in the US scoff at public transportation, since that's only what their help uses. To install provisions for public transportation (rights of way, etc. during the planning phase costs nothing. Retrofitting it later costs millions.

...I also don't buy the notion that we'll be moving back to cottage industries as transportation charges increase. No one in their right mind will try to grow anything in some parts of the country due to the geography, climate, or soil. Similarly, the economies of the midwest will be hard to beat, under any circumstances, all things being equal.

... back when I helped regulate minimum efficiency standards, I wrote a lot of cost models for a living. One assumption for the factory price of goods was the energy consumption of the plants that the good were manufactured in. If my memory still serves me well, the average we used was about 2.5%. So even if the cost of energy (not just oil), were to increase five-fold, the net cost to the consumer wouldn't be a five-fold increase in the product cost.

...there is a lot of improvement potential in many areas of the US economy that simply wait to be used. For example, if the regulators woke up and started penalizing companies for being energy hogs instead of rewarding them with a progressively lower price for every kWh, therm, etc. used, then there would be a reason for companies to reduce their energy footprint. Some industries, like transportation, figured this out a long time ago. Now it's time for the rest of the conomy to start looking at basic economics, physics, etc.

... For example, there is no reason not to build homes and office buildings so as to be comfortable, yet easy to heat and cool. Simple architectual details like overhangs over windows, etc. combined with effective insulation, etc. can allow structures to reduce their energy footprints significantly. Smart building systems, like the ones Geoff McDonald designs are fantastically efficient, yet only require more thought up front in return for long-term energy savings.

...Plus, there are technologies out there that have tremendous potential, like hybrid cars, improved IC engines, fast-charge LiOn batteries, that could re-shape we think about transportation. However, the biggest instigators of such change will be high oil prices, just as they were in the early eighties. The first extinction of the huge US automobile was not precipitated by a fashion change, it was the oil prices. The market is wonderfully efficient that way.

t. tekushan

Steam belt

One of the complicating factors in oil supply with respect to peak output is that while world oil production has been approaching the peak of the bell curve of oil production, the consumption seems to be a straight line going upward starting at the origin of the bell curve graph, intersecting at the peak of the bell. If in fact we have reached peak production (all evidence points to this) the world consumption line is going to have to flatten quickly and then drop if the price of oil is not to increase exponentially from here on in.

This is particularly bad news for those regions of the US that have grown so quickly in the last 20-30 years due to the ultra cheap energy supply. On a microeconomic and regional scale, outlying suburban areas of old established cities are likely to feel the squeeze quite heavily.

Which gets us to the Steam Belt. Older Northeastern and Upper midwestern areas (like my hometown, Cleveland) have enormous amounts of local, already existent, underutilized infrastructure. I think these areas are prime for reutilization because of their location, saving transportation time and fuel. I live in Cleveland, and work 8/10 mile from home in Lakewood which is a very old inner ring suburb. Lakewood has the highest population density between New York City and Chicago. The services are great, its safe, and it is a true walking city, where a car is optional for most daily activities. Because of this, there is a true "community" that most suburban areas totally lack. The best part? We're loaded with STEAM HEAT!

My take on this as an Urban Planner by education, is that the picture is not as bleak as the article suggests. There is a potential silver lining to whole thing. That is, struggling northeastern and upper midwestern cities will regain their lost vibrancy due to their efficiency (when properly utilized). Society can benefit from reurbanization. And they're in the Steam Belt!

-Terry

Mad Dog

Don't forget.................................................

A dozen M-16s and several crates of ammo...and a stack of Mad Magazine for the kiddies. Matt

To Learn More About This Professional, Click Here to Visit Their Ad in "Find A Professional"

JeffD

Some portions of that article are based more on fiction than fact. The U.S. alone has enough farm land that the government is paying farmers not to grow on to grow enough soybeans to provide all of the U.S. needs for diesel and #2 heating oil. As prices go up, people will conserve more, the SUV will become a thing of the past. 50-60mpg cars will become the norm. Electric utilities will raise prices high enough to encourage factories to use energy saving technologies. U.S. demand for foreign oil will drop, and even China and India won't be able to pay huge energy prices forever. Worldwide demand for energy will actually decrease leaving excess oil capacity, prices will eventually decline. The world has gone through all this before. There are many new technologies that are about to reach the market that will save a lot of energy. While wind, solar, and hydro power will never replace all our oil needs, a barrel saved is a barrel earned:) Even though Uranium is a limited resource, we have a lot of nuclear waste that can be reprocessed into fuel again. It was Jimmy Carter that signed an agreement that the U.S. would never reprocess that waste through an experimental reactor called a fast breeder reactor. Fast breeder reactors create more fissible nuclear material than they use. The whole idea of using this scheme was trashed as the fissible material is plutonium of a grade high enough to make weapons. Nuclear energy will end up playing a huge role in our energy budget. Just my thoughts on the subject:)

steve gates

I will not be depressed. I am an American and America always finds a way.

I had to remind a friend about this the other day as he was complaining. He'd just finished another 35thou solar project.

Some are just negative. Got a problem wtih everthing. I say don't come to me without a possible solution... sorry starting to rant.

Steamhead

Not only

did the fast-breeder produce weapons-grade plutonium, but it was never stable enough to be safe or reliable. This was evident since the start of the fast-breeder program (in the early 1950s?) but was never addressed. And the biggest problem with nukes seems to be human error.

Recommended reading: "We Almost Lost Detroit" about the Fermi 1 fast-breeder, "The Warning" about Three Mile Island, and "Final Warning" about Chernobyl. I don't recall who wrote these books but none of them are anti-nuke ravings- like all good writers, these three just tell the stories and let the reader draw his or her own conclusions.

To Learn More About This Professional, Click Here to Visit Their Ad in "Find A Professional"

Mike T., Swampeast MO

The bricks making up the wall of "Iraq is not about oil" continue to fall. MUCH more of the same to come, I suspect.

Kind of makes me glad I made a conscious choice not to have children. Nothing at all wrong with serving and dying for your country--I'm willing to do both--but it's hard to muster the proper attitude when you feel that your own culture is a part of the problem. Many would rather "fight than switch", but I'm a bit more adaptable...

jerry scharf_3

a few random thoughts

An interesting article. I actually sympathise with the article in many ways. Popping some of the "savior technology" myths was quite enjoyable.

We are quite wasteful, and there will be a reckoning to be had. We are extremely dependent on goods transported a long way, and I am as guilty as the next. Clothes from random places in asia, equipment from Europe, parts that cross the country "on demand".

On the other hand, I have long been tired of these doomsday predictions. How many of you are old enough to remember the book "The Population Bomb"? This had similar and more dire predictions on a worldwide level, and by the book it should have already happened.

My brother pointed me to a book on epidemiology that was quite a good read. They start the book with a short discussion of historic doomsday predictions. They conclude that all doomsday predictions have two things in common: 1) that they were wrong (as proven by our exisitence!) and 2) that the societies that build ap around these must either disappear or change to something more mainstream. The mormons are a perfect example. Went on to learn that the black plague killed 1 in 4 people in Europe...

Now I see a different threat and one I do see as very close at hand. For over half a century, the US Dollar has been the currency base of the world. People still talk worldwide about costs of things in dollars. But over the last couple decades, we have incurred an ever increasing trade deficit. This will have to shake out when people outside the US decide to invest less in the US because an eroding dollar reduces return. What the impact will be and when it will come are beyond me, but the likelyhood of significant impacts is high.

Now I'm hoping that a high efficiency house with parts from Europe will be a net deficit win (more parts, more transportation, less energy demand) but I haven't done the math.

jerry

JeffD

> did the fast-breeder produce weapons-grade

> plutonium, but it was never stable enough to be

> safe or reliable. This was evident since the

> start of the fast-breeder program (in the early

> 1950s?) but was never addressed. And the biggest

> problem with nukes seems to be human error.

> Recommended reading: "We Almost Lost Detroit"

> about the Fermi 1 fast-breeder, "The Warning"

> about Three Mile Island, and "Final Warning"

> about Chernobyl. I don't recall who wrote these

> books but none of them are anti-nuke ravings-

> like all good writers, these three just tell the

> stories and let the reader draw his or her own

> conclusions.

>

> _A

> HREF="http://www.heatinghelp.com/getListed.cfm?id=

> 157&Step=30"_To Learn More About This

> Professional, Click Here to Visit Their Ad in

> "Find A Professional"_/A_

JeffD

I agree 100% that nuclear power is not the safest form of electricity production. If memory serves me correct the Fermi plant accident was pure human error. They were sealing cable runs with insulation and using an open flame, basically a candle to check the runs for drafts. They caught the wire harness on fire and lost control of the plant. At least I think it was the Fermi plant, I could be wrong on that one though. Newer reactors should be safer due to the major advances in computers and control technologies. I wouldn't even call chernobyl a reactor, that thing was just, well silly. I mean come on, they could see daylight through the containment building. The biggest key to energy independance in this country is for the feds to raise fuel economy standards. I know some think this will cost Detroit jobs, but in reality the demand for fuel efficiency is there. Countries like China are more than willing to build highly fuel efficient vehicles for the U.S.
If Detroit doesn't get on board now they will lose out big time. When the feds mandated higher efficiencies for heating equipment the manufacturers balked at first, now look at them, they are far exceeding what the feds asked for, and competing agressively to do so.

Steamhead

You're thinking of Brown's Ferry

which I believe is in Alabama. That was a regular fission reactor. I can't do better than to quote Firedragon on that one- "You can't fix stupid!". Fermi's near-meltdown was caused by a piece of metal the size of a beer can that somehow came loose and blocked the flow of coolant.

To Learn More About This Professional, Click Here to Visit Their Ad in "Find A Professional"

Henry_9

Cheap energy

My father used to call people that had this view point "fatalists". He introduced me to the term in 1984 after some "prophecy experts" spoke at our church on the imminence of judgment on the world and the doom of The Revelation.

If you go to Amazon, there is no shortage of books on this subject, the two most popular being: "Out of Gas, the End of the Age of Oil" by David Goodstein and "The Party is Over" by Richard Heinberg. Both books remind me of the FED EX commercial where one of the actors says:

"if we don't get this package out, we will be doomed" and the second says (ominously) "Doomed" and the third (more ominously) “DOOMED!”

Well, just like the old adage about the plumber stating that he protects the health of the nation (which is so true in so many ways), the HVAC expert protects the resources of the world. But do we?

Far and away, we can easily become very industrious lemmings, marching right into the sea. While I disagree with the doom and gloom scenario, I do try to affect my sphere of influence with solid advice on home heating and cooling. Unfortunately, most do not care because the sense of imminence is not there. So, constructively, how do we as industry professionals expose people to the fact that cheap energy may be a thing of the past?

The most effective method has been for the market to hit people in there pocket book. And this is exactly what is happening. Will it change habits? Are all of the people with 80% on off furnaces and 12 year old 40 gallon water heaters going to change?

We have allowed so much of our suburban minded, economic infrastructure to be built on low upfront cost, high life time cost equipment. But those of us that live with this equipment have failed to invest the difference for the next round of equipment that they are sure to need and instead have upgraded cabinets and bought new cars, computers, vacations, appliances, blah blah blah.

At risk is the American consumer, throw away mindset. In order for the better ideas of our industry to take hold, the market must be ready to make a commitment to a better program. Until then, great ideas like high efficiency wall mounted Vitodens boilers (insert your brand here) will continue to be a fun fringe, same with solar, same with rfh, same with indirect water tanks, etc, on and so, but not main stream (90% of the populace being aware).

My belief in market economics states that one cannot force change the market, unless you are government, but then you are no longer a market economy but a fascist economy and that has proven to not work. However, we can position ourselves to respond accordingly as the market demands. When the US market economy wakes up to the need for better equipment, we are going to be so busy, we will not have time to breathe, even worse than now for some.

My point, what are you as a contractor and equipment dealer doing to prepare? Anyone reading this already has a grasp of the better ways to utilize HVAC technology; you are here, aren’t you. Are you trying to help your competition, not just other guys that compete for your boiler sales, but the guys that cannot even spell boiler, by encouraging them to get smart? Ultimately, you guys, the dealers need to be flush with knowledge and willing to teach the general public, why? Mom and dad look in the yellow pages under heating contractors, not boiler manufacturers to make their problems of discomfort and inefficiency go away. For equipment, are we selling an investment or an instantaneous depreciation device? Are we willing to make a stand on principle and say “NO” I will not sell you an on off replacement for your house. (I know, the only principals that feed anyone are the ones that work in schools). But how far are we willing to push in order to get the consumer to move up. Are we willing to lose a job because the future is just as valuable to us as the present?

We can make endusers as much or more money than they will ever make in the stock market, just in reduction of energy used. Imagine emailing out hot tips to your customers on heating equipment like hot stocks form the discount brokerage firms. Why not?

Are the manufacturers that you work with investing in the future of their equipment through an aggressive R&D program? There was just a huge fight here last week about who makes the best use of marketing and R&D and what that does to cost (I'll be thanking Constantine for his salient and well thought points). I do not want to turn over that rock, please do not pick that fight up again here with me; but an aggressive R&D campaign will raise the cost of equipment. Who is investing in the future? Who is supporting those that do?

"In time of peace, prepare for war” -Churchill

I believe that we are coming to an end of a type of "peace" ($2.25 / gallon regular unleaded). Low cost energy has been the "peace" that has lulled the market to sleep. We are the front line soldiers of the energy use battle. Are we ready?

As I stated earlier, I am not a fatalist, but I am trying to get people educated in the better solutions available to them, high efficiency boilers, solar, energy cell, etc. To my advantage, Viessmann Manufacturing is on the fore front of so much of that technology. When the market moves, I will be in place. I look forward to continuing the conversation, but more than that, I look forward to continuing in the education project of the front line.

I live in the now but am always mindful of the future.

Henry Nichols

Viessmann Manufacturing
Regional Sales Manager Midwest

jeff_51

a couple of more things to think about

In 1970 we had less than 30 yrs worth of proven oil reserves, today we have 110 yrs of proven oil reserves. Old, abandoned, played out wells have all been reopened and guess what? Oil. The soviet oil feilds infustructure has essentially collapsed and is really not producing anything the nut who is currently running venezualia has pretty much destroyed that economey and there oil output has plummeted, Mexican oil production is a fraction of what is could be because of incompetance and corruption (notheing new there though, been that way for thirty years) in short, there is no shortage of oil, and I doubt there ever will be. Our two biggest problems are lack of refinary's (we haven't built one in over thirty years) the designer gas that is required in certain locals which atre very expensive and time consuming to refine, and of course the taxes on each gallon of gas which currently amounts to over 40% of the total cost. I don't claim that all of those taxes are necessarily unfair, but it does contibute alot the the cost of gas. You give a FREE MAN THE INCENTIVE TO SOLVE A PROBLEM AND HE WILL. Just look at all the stuff we have come up with that we don't even need. like pet rocks or the 6 bucks a gallon people are paying for water at the convienece store. Worry? Who me?

t. tekushan

good point and/but...

Its true that often times a book or article is written with a doomsday the-sky-is-falling slant. History is littered with these. Were they wrong in their assessments? Probably not. Usually the doomsday scenario for whatever is based on a projection that assumes no change in the market or individual behavior. The projection necessarily looks awful. But projections are NOT the same thing as predictions. Usually this line gets blurred.

I wonder about China sometimes. Sure, they're succeeding because of extrodinarily cheap labor (the governors' wealthy class not withstanding). Their energy costs and supply issues will be the same as ours. As their energy costs increase, can they reduce labor costs? Hmmmm? We assume civil unrest cannot exist in China, ever. Are the ruling classes invulnerable? Will the cost of shipping heavy items always be negligible? What if we begin to reutilize our existing railways for shipping? The point is that the future holds so many possibilities that it begins to resemble chaos theory. New order can come of chaos. The worst aspect is the fear of the unknown. We can't reliably predict the outcome of rising energy costs, but I think we should resist panic based on an unsustainable and impossible projection.

Its also true that there is not an unlimited supply of oil in short run (our lifetimes). Yes there's more oil, but once you achieve peak production, your in trouble price wise. I'm confident that we can adapt so that the time it took us to reach the peak of the oil production bell curve will be similar in the time line toward the end. We may never quite reach the end. Would it be so awful to reduce our energy consumption to a level we used in 1960? 1960. Cold war. Balanced budget. Low personal debt. Single earner households. Low unemployment. Strong industry. Was life really so terrible when we consumed so much less energy as a nation?

Just some thoughts. No answers.

jerry scharf_3

careful about the reserves comment

Jeff,

You have to be careful about the comment about estimated reserves. In the land of OPEC, what you get to pump is based on how much reserves you have. There has been a signigicant increase in "reserve capcity" that seems to be purely about being able to pump more oil. Who set's the oil reserve estimates? The countries themselves, with no real oversight. It's one of the dirty secrets of the oil production biz.

This is not to say that there is a greater ability to get oil out of the ground than in 1970. Also, with increased oil costs more expensive oil recovery techniques become viable.

As with everything related to oil, it's complex science, chance and obscured business practices combined that make it very hard to find anything resembling the truth. Been that way since Standard Oil got started.

jerry

Henry_9

fuel market back down again

Oil Prices Drop Sharply As Gas Plummets



http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050407/ap_on_bi_ge/oil_prices_75

Supply and demand dictates the pace of capitalism. There has been a tremendous amount of "over buying" which I am sure has been partially fear motivated and now either the fear is receeding because: A. no one cares B. There is more available oil than initially estimated before the spike C. If I knew this I would be much richer buying and selling calls, puts and option on hedged futures

However, my earlier points are still relevant regardless of where we are in the energy cycle. The HVAC tech is the point man for educating the end user and making a principled stand over quality system design and equipment choice.

Henry Nichols

Viessmann Manufacturing Midwest