[VMarcHart]

By Barry K. Worthington, Executive Director, U.S. Energy Association

"Meeting the world's energy needs over the next several decades represents incredibly complex challenges on many fronts. These include access to the resource base for fossil fuels; availability of an adequate workforce, specifically engineers and skilled tradesmen; siting every variety of energy facility; dealing with climate change challenges; stability and predictability of regulation; and attracting $22 trillion ($22,000,000,000,000) into the sector. Never before, on a global basis, has the energy industry been expected to site, finance and manage the construction of infrastructure on this scale. It is doubtful that any other industry has ever been compelled to deal with this level of capital investment."

Did you bring your check book?

[shortonsense]

By Barry K. Worthington, Executive Director, U.S. Energy Association

"Meeting the world's energy needs over the next several decades represents incredibly complex challenges on many fronts. These include access to the resource base for fossil fuels; availability of an adequate workforce, specifically engineers and skilled tradesmen; siting every variety of energy facility; dealing with climate change challenges; stability and predictability of regulation; and attracting $22 trillion ($22,000,000,000,000) into the sector. Never before, on a global basis, has the energy industry been expected to site, finance and manage the construction of infrastructure on this scale. It is doubtful that any other industry has ever been compelled to deal with this level of capital investment."

Did you bring your check book?

The implication here is that $22 trillion is more than the world can afford for a better energy system.

World GDP is approximately 44 trillion dollars a year (2005)

Median US income is approximately $50Gs/year in 2007.
Median home price in the US is approximately $185G's.

No one would think it unreasonable to purchase a house which is more than 3X our annual income, so the world purchasing itself a new energy infrastructure would be the equivalent of an American buying a $25G house.

Quite a bargain when looked at this way rather than a big scary number which is the implication in the quote.

[outcast]

Can you link to the full article?

[VMarcHart]

Can you link to the full article?

Please look it up on energycentral.com. You need to register, which is free.

[seahorse2]

By Barry K. Worthington, Executive Director, U.S. Energy Association

"Meeting the world's energy needs over the next several decades represents incredibly complex challenges on many fronts. These include access to the resource base for fossil fuels; availability of an adequate workforce, specifically engineers and skilled tradesmen; siting every variety of energy facility; dealing with climate change challenges; stability and predictability of regulation; and attracting $22 trillion ($22,000,000,000,000) into the sector. Never before, on a global basis, has the energy industry been expected to site, finance and manage the construction of infrastructure on this scale. It is doubtful that any other industry has ever been compelled to deal with this level of capital investment."

Did you bring your check book?

The implication here is that $22 trillion is more than the world can afford for a better energy system.

World GDP is approximately 44 trillion dollars a year (2005)

Median US income is approximately $50Gs/year in 2007.
Median home price in the US is approximately $185G's.

No one would think it unreasonable to purchase a house which is more than 3X our annual income, so the world purchasing itself a new energy infrastructure would be the equivalent of an American buying a $25G house.

Quite a bargain when looked at this way rather than a big scary number which is the implication in the quote.

You think the world could ever come together and jointly appropriate $22 trillion dollars on anything? Hell, the US won't even pay its dues to the United Nations. You think the already bankrupt US taxpayers would agree to this?

Then, the next big assumption, assuming the world gov'ts miraculousy come together and appropriate the money, how will they ever agree on how and where the money will be spent? Which private companies on which private projects will get the funding?

It may seem simple math problem to you to resolve, but, real life isn't that simple. Look at how the US cannot come together and solve its own Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare problems which are all going bankrupt. Those problems are easy to solve on paper too, but people get in the way. So, dream on.

[outcast]

The article was reposted on redorbit, anyway here's my take:

The author said it would take $22 trillion over the next 25 years to meet the world's daily requirement. Wow, some big numbers there. But lets put that into perspective:

$22 trillion/25 years = $880 billion each year world wide.

Suddenly that doesn't seem like such a big number. Does anyone have any statistics on how much is currently being invested per year?

[seahorse2]

This view that the world will hold hands and solve their energy problems peacefully is a pipe dream.

To drill home the pipe dream of energy cooperation, again, the US can't cooperate enough to solve a much easier problem on paper, that of social security. If the people of a democracy can't even solve a simple math problem like social security, what makes you think that the many different countries of the world will suddenly come together and solve their collective energy problems??? Keep in mind the real problems with thinking this will happen. Most in the US don't even believe we have an energy problem. They think they are being gouged by greedy oil companies and infidel arabs, who, likewise, think we are infidels.

Assuming religion somehow quits affecting world politics, why would Opec want to invest any of its money in overseas projects? What makes you think they would allow us in to help them develop theirs when they nationalized their energy years ago and kicked the west out. The Russians are kicking out western oil companies as we speak, and Mexico still won't allow foreign investment despite Cantarell peaking; Venezuela kicked out everyone, and you think anyone is going to cooperate to the tune of $800+ billion a year to work together?

[Tyler_JC]

You think the world could ever come together and jointly appropriate $22 trillion dollars on anything? Hell, the US won't even pay its dues to the United Nations. You think the already bankrupt US taxpayers would agree to this?

Then, the next big assumption, assuming the world gov'ts miraculously come together and appropriate the money, how will they ever agree on how and where the money will be spent? Which private companies on which private projects will get the funding?

Where to begin...

You realize that Exxon, Allegheny Energy, Duke Energy, Xcel, and the rest are private enterprises, right?

Not only are they private, but they are very profitable.

Energy is a profitable industry. Utilities tend to be profitable over the long term with a nice fat dividend for investors. A decline in oil production pushes up energy prices, making these companies even more profitable. Not only do profits go up, but the need for investment will go down because of basic supply and demand. Higher prices mean less future demand. That 22 trillion figure is based on current trends continuing. As if that's going to happen.

Energy companies will borrow money from investors and build the pipelines, powerlines, and power plants necessary to power the world. They've been doing it for at least the past 100 years and they will continue to do it.

The energy won't be as cheap as it used to be so we'll have to adjust our living standards downward accordingly, but unless people go crazy and actively rebel (which is possible but not likely, IMO), we should be able to manage this transition without too many dead bodies.

I just don't understand why people think that energy is some kind of government owned and controlled commodity and that if government doesn't provide it...it won't exist. Even in the places with state-run utility companies, there could exist competition from private companies if the state-enterprises fail to catch up with demand.

Second, not the entire world needs to build the infrastructure in order to keep civilization afloat. If Peru fails to build the necessary infrastructure, Peru could collapse. But the collapse of Peru does not necessarily threaten modern industrial civilization. The rest of the developed world WILL build the necessary infrastructure because of the profit motive.

Third, who do you think currently pays for the energy infrastructure? It's not the UN! It's you and me, the consumer.

If a company needs more money to build another natural gas pipeline or a wind farm, they will raise their rates. That gives them the capital they need and gives us an incentive to turn off the TV when we leave the room or swap out those inefficient windows.

As for OPEC, they already invest in western energy infrastructure!

What do you think those sovereign wealth funds invest in, art?

[Tyler_JC]

The article was reposted on redorbit, anyway here's my take:

The author said it would take $22 trillion over the next 25 years to meet the world's daily requirement. Wow, some big numbers there. But lets put that into perspective:

$22 trillion/25 years = $880 billion each year world wide.

Suddenly that doesn't seem like such a big number. Does anyone have any statistics on how much is currently being invested per year?

That's a projection for infrastructure spending, just in the emerging markets.

The $880 billion a year figure is about half of the projected number for 2010.

But much of that infrastructure spending IS energy infrastructure so it's not like we'd need to increase the investment significantly.

Another large chunk of that figure is air travel. We could easily re-direct that money away from unprofitable air travel into very profitable hydroelectric dams, powerlines, wind farms, etc.

[seahorse2]

Tyler,

Where to begin with you? Energy companies will just borrow from private industry? First, do you realize the US is not building any new coal plants until at least 2010 bc the Federal Gov't is not backstopping all those private industry loans? Go read the Olduvai thread for the links on that.

Further, if private industry is going to ride to the rescue, why aren't they increasing their exploration budgets?

Oil Companies not increasing exploration budgets

[seahorse2]

You realize that Exxon, Allegheny Energy, Duke Energy, Xcel, and the rest are private enterprises, right?

Not only are they private, but they are very profitable.

Yes, and they aren't increasing their exploration budgets.

That 22 trillion figure is based on current trends continuing. As if that's going to happen.

You mean the Chinese and Indians will quit having babies?

Energy companies will borrow money from investors and build the pipelines, powerlines, and power plants necessary to power the world. They've been doing it for at least the past 100 years and they will continue to do it.

See above, no more coal plants are being built in the US bc the US gov't won't backstop the loans. Funny how this shows your private industry will come to the rescue theory bc they can simply raise rates is complete b.s.

The energy won't be as cheap as it used to be so we'll have to adjust our living standards downward accordingly, but unless people go crazy and actively rebel (which is possible but not likely, IMO), we should be able to manage this transition without too many dead bodies.

Did I say there would be dead bodies? You infer too much. My only point is the world will not come together and jointly spend $22 trillion dollars.

I just don't understand why people think that energy is some kind of government owned and controlled commodity and that if government doesn't provide it...it won't exist. Even in the places with state-run utility companies, there could exist competition from private companies if the state-enterprises fail to catch up with demand.

Lots of naive assumptions here. You constantly overlook the fact that gov't plays a huge role in energy, even in the capitalist U.S. First, just look to coal and biofuels, the US backstops loans (or used to) and gives subsidies. Further, don't underestimate the role that gov't regulation plays in energy profitability with taxes, credits, permits etc. Its foolish to think that energy acts on its own in a political vacuum. It doesn't.

Second, not the entire world needs to build the infrastructure in order to keep civilization afloat. If Peru fails to build the necessary infrastructure, Peru could collapse. But the collapse of Peru does not necessarily threaten modern industrial civilization. The rest of the developed world WILL build the necessary infrastructure because of the profit motive.

Profit motive? How many countries subsidize fuel purchases for their citizens? How many gov'ts tax fuel to subsidize social programs?

Third, who do you think currently pays for the energy infrastructure? It's not the UN! It's you and me, the consumer.

No, only in the west maybe. Clearly, many countries with high demand for fuel subsidize fuel to their citizens. Your capitalist beliefs don't apply worldwide, and in fact, don't even apply in the US which is heavily influenced by taxes on fuel, fuel subsidies, blah blah blah.

If a company needs more money to build another natural gas pipeline or a wind farm, they will raise their rates. That gives them the capital they need and gives us an incentive to turn off the TV when we leave the room or swap out those inefficient windows.

Really? That easy? Why aren't we building more coal plants then? Did you just solve all the NIMBY problems on LNG plants, nuke plants, wind farms, etc. Are you now able to get rate increases without state approval?

As for OPEC, they already invest in western energy infrastructure!

What do you think those sovereign wealth funds invest in, art?

The only thing I've seen them invest in are our failing banks and infrastructure, some talk now they may buy some foreclosed homes. Last I heard, we kept the Chinese from buying our oil companies, it flew against our national security interest.

[TheDude]

The balance could swing back towards more government sponsorship/coordination if things run down. The Grand Coulee Dam was built by a consortium of contractors supervised by the Bureau of Rec, who operate it, for instance. Neither fish nor fowl, as seahorse says. Other GD projects like the Rural Electrification Administration were implemented wholly as government enterprises - with private sector opposition the chief incentive. This has worked before and could work again; certainly it would give idle hands something to do, which well may be an issue before long.

[seahorse2]

My point is this - Its easy to say the world needs to spend $22 trillion over the next generation, but the devil is always in the details of making that happen.

[Tyler_JC]

Exxon increases budget for oil exploration

Marathon Announces $8 Billion Capital, Investment and Exploration Budget for 2008

Marathon Oil Corporation
(NYSE: MRO) today announced an $8 billion capital, investment and exploration budget for 2008, which represents a 67 percent increase over 2007 spending of $4.8 billion.

Plush commodity prices prove irresistible to oil exploration and production companies

Even supposing that the old energy industry is dying. Oil production will begin its inevitable decline shortly, if it hasn't already.

That's why we have alternatives rushing to fill as much of the void as they can:



Clean energy investment is already at 10% of the $800 billion/year level that is necessary according to that report.

Almost a third of America's new electrical generating capacity is coming from renewable sources. EIA

You mean the Chinese and Indians will quit having babies?

I mean that those babies aren't going to be living in a China/India that is growing its GDP at 10%+ a year. Moreover, China's one-child policy will result in a declining population by 2025 according to many estimates. India's fertility rate is falling rapidly as well. Population growth outside of Africa and the Middle East is decelerating.

Governments around the world are going to have to abandon fuel subsidies if prices maintain their relentless march upwards (the past two months excluded). India is a prime example of this. Heavy fuel subsidies encouraged wasteful consumption and are bankrupting the government. That is going to stop.

US ethanol subsidies are driving up food prices and wasting government resources, both candidates seem inclined to cut back on those subsidies.

Really? That easy? Why aren't we building more coal plants then? Did you just solve all the NIMBY problems on LNG plants, nuke plants, wind farms, etc. Are you now able to get rate increases without state approval?

As for NIMBY problems or rate increases, wait till a few rolling blackouts or 30 cent kilowatt/hour prices ripple through the system. If the government doesn't get out of our way after that, this country deserves to collapse.

Assuming that the Feds get out of our way, higher prices will encourage a wave of conservation, lowering/eliminating the need for new net additions to the electric grid in the developed world.

[seahorse2]

Tyler,

The headline on the Exxon increasing its exploration budget is misleading. This is from the article:

The capital budget is to be increased about 5.5 percent over the $19.9 billion that the company spent last year on exploration and construction

That barely keeps up with the inflation rate, assuming you use gov't statistics to measure inflation.

Oil production will begin its inevitable decline shortly, if it hasn't already.

That's seems a little doomerish Tyler. I personally don't think we are there yet. I sure hope not, bc the resulting economic ramnifications of that mean that there will be a depression (which we may be entering one already). If there is a depression for any reason, I don't see how that is good for anybody in any way. Energy supply will not be the problem to deal with, starving masses will be.

That's why we have alternatives rushing to fill as much of the void as they can:

First, your chart is a little misleading to others that may not realize that even 20 years from now, oil will provide about 80% of the world's energy needs, something like that. I'm to lazy to look it up right now.

But, if we have entered oil decline already as you suggest we might have, I don't think the alternatives can fill even the modest 4% decline rate predicted by CERA. Further, if we are entering the decline of oil and a depression at the same time, I don't think money will be available to do anything about alternatives etc. There's a lot of speculation there on your part and my part, I hope you're right. I have three kids.

I mean that those babies aren't going to be living in a China/India that is growing its GDP at 10%+ a year. Moreover, China's one-child policy will result in a declining population by 2025 according to many estimates. India's fertility rate is falling rapidly as well. Population growth outside of Africa and the Middle East is decelerating.

Interesting, you think China's population will continue to grow until 2025 but they will live like cavemen? I don't know. Something has to give. Takes a lot of energy just to grow food to support an extra billion or two in people, even if all they do is eat and nothing else. So, if we are at the precipice in oil decline as you suggest, I don't know how we will be feeding all these new cavemen by say, 2020. Maybe Maslow will take care of them.

So, arguing "optimistically" that the oil will decline "shortly" and somehow arguing optimistically that China's population will start decreasing in 2025 just does not sound that optimistic to me.

India is a prime example of this. Heavy fuel subsidies encouraged wasteful consumption and are bankrupting the government. That is going to stop.

There's a reason why they haven't stopped subsidizing yet, bc when they do, a billion people will get pissed, and that's just in India alone. Add to that a billion pissed off Chinese and several hundred million pissed of Arabs and that's a lot of pissed off people. If gov'ts are going to have to quit doing that, it cannot end well. You and I may both agree that all good things like subsidies must come to an end, where we disagree is whether this is a good thing or a bad thing. Gov'ts may cease to function, at least for awhile. This will not help rebuild the energy infrastructure, not until the people's anger is spent.

US ethanol subsidies are driving up food prices and wasting government resources, both candidates seem inclined to cut back on those subsidies.

Both candidates seem inclined to do something about the ailing Social Security system too, but don't hold your breath. Bush, the oilman, approved subsidies even though the oil industry fought against them. The farm lobby is powerful. Paper solutions seem easy, but putting them into practice is not so easy.

As for NIMBY problems or rate increases, wait till a few rolling blackouts or 30 cent kilowatt/hour prices ripple through the system. If the government doesn't get out of our way after that, this country deserves to collapse.

There we go. In order for things to turn out optimistically, we have to wait for the worse case scenario to unfold, like blackouts that piss millions enough off to get shit done. As Simmons says, the New York blackouts should have been a wake up call, everyone kept snoozing. Same with the California crisis. No one listens, even hear they don't listen. I've long said that all problems are solvable, if people would just act to solve them. But, most people, 99.9% of them don't even think there is a problem, so the solution? We need a crisis, then, they will act. How is that optimistic?

[Tyler_JC]

It's not an optimistic scenario to react after disaster, it's human nature.

We only respond when a crisis becomes obvious.

DDT, ozone layer hole, deforestation, American Buffalo over-harvesting, massive flooding along the Mississippi.

When the situation gets bad enough, people do their very best to fix it. They don't always succeed, but they make a concerted effort. The current opposition to energy development (waning rapidly as gas prices hit $4/gallon) will drop off even further after our first real blackout.

I also think if we consume even a third of today's energy in 40 years, we'd still be living pretty decently. The infinite material growth mentality is not sustainable and I don't believe it is necessary.

[shortonsense]

That's why we have alternatives rushing to fill as much of the void as they can:



Clean energy investment is already at 10% of the $800 billion/year level that is necessary according to that report.

Almost a third of America's new electrical generating capacity is coming from renewable sources. EIA

Some excellent research Tyler, and an excellent graph.

[outcast]

Tyler,

The headline on the Exxon increasing its exploration budget is misleading. This is from the article:

The capital budget is to be increased about 5.5 percent over the $19.9 billion that the company spent last year on exploration and construction

That barely keeps up with the inflation rate, assuming you use gov't statistics to measure inflation.

So we go from "not increasing at all" to something like "not increasing as much as I think it should". If we want to talk about misleading articles, lets talk about the article that started this thread. Of course you swallowed that one whole. Tyler proved that the average amount that needs to be invested per year worldwide is already being invested, and then some.

Oil production will begin its inevitable decline shortly, if it hasn't already.

That's seems a little doomerish Tyler. I personally don't think we are there yet. I sure hope not, bc the resulting economic ramnifications of that mean that there will be a depression (which we may be entering one already). If there is a depression for any reason, I don't see how that is good for anybody in any way. Energy supply will not be the problem to deal with, starving masses will be.

If we will enter a depression it is because our financial system is collapsing, not because of PO (or peak anything). Oil will probably peak in 10 years, and that is a long time to wait.

That's why we have alternatives rushing to fill as much of the void as they can:

First, your chart is a little misleading to others that may not realize that even 20 years from now, oil will provide about 80% of the world's energy needs, something like that. I'm to lazy to look it up right now.

But, if we have entered oil decline already as you suggest we might have, I don't think the alternatives can fill even the modest 4% decline rate predicted by CERA. Further, if we are entering the decline of oil and a depression at the same time, I don't think money will be available to do anything about alternatives etc. There's a lot of speculation there on your part and my part, I hope you're right. I have three kids.

It also seems rather speculative to say "I don't think alternatives can fill the gap".

I mean that those babies aren't going to be living in a China/India that is growing its GDP at 10%+ a year. Moreover, China's one-child policy will result in a declining population by 2025 according to many estimates. India's fertility rate is falling rapidly as well. Population growth outside of Africa and the Middle East is decelerating.

Interesting, you think China's population will continue to grow until 2025 but they will live like cavemen? I don't know. Something has to give. Takes a lot of energy just to grow food to support an extra billion or two in people, even if all they do is eat and nothing else. So, if we are at the precipice in oil decline as you suggest, I don't know how we will be feeding all these new cavemen by say, 2020. Maybe Maslow will take care of them.

So, arguing "optimistically" that the oil will decline "shortly" and somehow arguing optimistically that China's population will start decreasing in 2025 just does not sound that optimistic to me.

A lot of them don't live like cavemen as it is, and the future fewer of them will. China's population is going to peak around the same time oil does, within 10 years (more or less). It's population will not reach 2 billion, not even close.

India is a prime example of this. Heavy fuel subsidies encouraged wasteful consumption and are bankrupting the government. That is going to stop.

There's a reason why they haven't stopped subsidizing yet, bc when they do, a billion people will get pissed, and that's just in India alone. Add to that a billion pissed off Chinese and several hundred million pissed of Arabs and that's a lot of pissed off people. If gov'ts are going to have to quit doing that, it cannot end well. You and I may both agree that all good things like subsidies must come to an end, where we disagree is whether this is a good thing or a bad thing. Gov'ts may cease to function, at least for awhile. This will not help rebuild the energy infrastructure, not until the people's anger is spent.

So much of India is subsidized it is ridiculous, but they do it because it helps them pander to get votes. At this point if the Indian government officially ceased to function I doubt anyone would notice, that's how dysfunctional it is. [/quote]

US ethanol subsidies are driving up food prices and wasting government resources, both candidates seem inclined to cut back on those subsidies.

Both candidates seem inclined to do something about the ailing Social Security system too, but don't hold your breath. Bush, the oilman, approved subsidies even though the oil industry fought against them. The farm lobby is powerful. Paper solutions seem easy, but putting them into practice is not so easy.

True, but farmers are only a small percentage of the total population. If push comes to shove, they would go with the 95% of the people who aren't farmers.

As for NIMBY problems or rate increases, wait till a few rolling blackouts or 30 cent kilowatt/hour prices ripple through the system. If the government doesn't get out of our way after that, this country deserves to collapse.

There we go. In order for things to turn out optimistically, we have to wait for the worse case scenario to unfold, like blackouts that piss millions enough off to get crap done. As Simmons says, the New York blackouts should have been a wake up call, everyone kept snoozing. Same with the California crisis. No one listens, even hear they don't listen. I've long said that all problems are solvable, if people would just act to solve them. But, most people, 99.9% of them don't even think there is a problem, so the solution? We need a crisis, then, they will act. How is that optimistic?

[/quote]

People in the US only change when they get kicked in the ass hard enough. It's always been that way.

and BTW, the California crisis of 2000 had nothing to do with electricity generation or infrastructure, but rather it was because of Enron's tampering.

[seahorse]

I hope everyone realizes that Tyler's graph does not show what percentage of energy will be provided by alternatives, but is showing percentage growth of alternatives. Although it appears impressive, alternatives are not predicted to provide much, percentage wise, to the world energy production even in 2025.

IEA gaph on future energy sources/production

So, everyone thinks it will take some type of disaster or calamity to get people moving and that's a good thing?

Now, outcast, you don't read my posts very well do you. I have consistently said that the world will not come together, hold hands, and cooperatively invest $22 trillion in energy production and given several examples that fly in the face of that notion - like Russia, Venezuela, etc.

Tyler then suggested we are already spending that amount today, and nothing suggest we are. Even with the western oil majors, the articles linked show that exploration budgets are essentially flat, meaning, not enough to make up for any increase in demand.

If we will enter a depression it is because our financial system is collapsing, not because of PO (or peak anything). Oil will probably peak in 10 years, and that is a long time to wait.

Now, I never said what would cause a depression did I? However, Tyler said oil has either peaked or will peak shortly. Assuming that to be true, then the critical and unknown fact is what will be the average decline rate. If, for example, CERA is correct that there will be an average 4% decline rate, than it will not be possible for alternatives to fill that gap. That's not an assumption, that statement is made based on the IEA graph posted above and the Hirsh report to the DOE on "Mitigating the effects of PO." At least, I've adopted the assumption of those who have been paid to research and make those assumptions.

Now, if we do have a depression, for any reason, it only means that financing will not be there to move to alternatives. The worse case scenario would be for Tyler to be right, that PO is now or soon to arrive. In this case, we would be fighting a decline in oil production with no money to invest in alternatives.

Now, as for your comment that oil will probably peak in 10 years, this is a guess based on what? And you think that 10 years is a long time? You must be young. I just have my 25th high school reunion, and it seems like only yesterday I graduated from high school. I have a 13 year old daughter who will graduate in a mere 5 years, funny how 10 years to a peak in oil production doesn't seem like a long time to me, certainly not to my daughter. And, if that IEA graph is right, alternatives won't do much to ameliorate a decline in oil production, not now, and not 10 years from now. What do I base that statement on? The IEA graph linked above.

It also seems rather speculative to say "I don't think alternatives can fill the gap".

Again, based on the IEA graph above and based on the Hirsch report to the DOE, I've merely adopted the assumption of those paid to make those assumptions.

A lot of them don't live like cavemen as it is, and the future fewer of them will. China's population is going to peak around the same time oil does, within 10 years (more or less). It's population will not reach 2 billion, not even close.

Tyler made the assumption that energy use would decline in a depression despite the fact that world population would continue to grow. I don't see how this is possible. More people means more energy use. I think your statement above confirms what I am saying, yet you seem to want to argue when we say the same thing. You said in the future fewer Chinese, who are growing in population, will live like cavemen. This means that China's energy use will continue to grow, which was my point to Tyler.

Tyler said China's population would peak about 2025. How he came up with that figure, I don't know. But I would hope it would peak now so that we could hope to possible contain their increasing energy needs. Now, you disagree with Tyler and argue their population will peak in 10 years, again, it is unknown how you arrive at this date or what their population will be in 10 years, but at any rate, it only suggests that China's energy demands will continue to grow and alternatives to oil will not be producing enough to offset any declines in oil production at this time. So, something has to give.

So much of India is subsidized it is ridiculous, but they do it because it helps them pander to get votes. At this point if the Indian government officially ceased to function I doubt anyone would notice, that's how dysfunctional it is.

You don't think India without a gov't would matter? You push the ridiculousness here. What about their nukes? It seems the world is very concerned with their neighbor Pakistan who is teetering on not having a gov't, so why wouldn't we be concerned with an India without a gov't? You need to think more about these extreme statements.

True, but farmers are only a small percentage of the total population. If push comes to shove, they would go with the 95% of the people who aren't farmers.

You base this on what? So far, you are wrong, so, how do you define "push comes to shove" some sort of depression? revolution?

People in the US only change when they get kicked in the ass hard enough. It's always been that way.

Have you ever been kicked in the ass real hard? Is that what you are waiting for? to get kicked in the ass real hard before you decide to act? Are you waiting for a blackout? before you go broke or can't find a job before you care? Maybe, just maybe, instead of being the victim, you should be proactive and demand more from your politicians instead of waiting for you to get kicked in the ass by something very preventable.

But, again, you and Tyler both saying it will take a good ass kicking to get anything done on the energy front is what makes me a pessimists. I don't like getting my ass kicked. No one that has ever had their ass kicked financially or physically enjoys the experience. It tells me you haven't been there, be careful what you pray for.

and BTW, the California crisis of 2000 had nothing to do with electricity generation or infrastructure, but rather it was because of Enron's tampering.

So we shouldn't use that experience to teach us about how we should be moving to alternatives like solar, wind, whatever, which makes us less vulnerable to blackouts? Nothing to be learned about changing laws to prevent this type of energy manipulation? You do realize that one of the criticisms of energy deregulation was the fact that it lead to energy manipulation and also - lack of investment in energy infrastructure. So, I believe there is a lot to be learned from the California experience, but the fact that you don't see that, well, is typical of the average American for sure.

[VMarcHart]

...you realize the US is not building any new coal plants until at least 2010...

I know of 2 being built right now, one of which off Jamestown, ND. Construction started a little over a year ago.