Contributor Opinion by Carl Henn: Peak Oil and Rockville
Nov 11, 2009 8:49 - 53 Comments
Our new Council should name a commission consisting of two council members, and one each from the Planning, Traffic and Transportation, Environment, Human Rights and Human Services Advisory Commissions, as well as REDI and the Bicycle Advisory Committee. The Commission should be charged with addressing two questions: What is the nature of the challenge that peak oil presents to our city and what responses should we implement?
World oil production stopped growing in 2005. Oil consumption in the U.S. has declined since 2005. The price run up from $50 per barrel in 2005 to $147 in 2008 was in large part due to the continued growth in demand for a product that was no longer growing in production. The collapse in price from $147 in 2008 to $35 in early 2009 was due in part to the damage the high prices did to our economy and in part to the exposure and collapse of various Ponzi schemes in finance and real estate. The rapid recovery of oil price to $80 a barrel in spite of no economic recovery reflects that the underlying problem remains – our economy needs more oil than the interaction of economics and geology can provide. Many oil experts have concluded that the peak of oil production is now in the past.
If the economy recovers and begins to grow again, oil demand will likely recover with it. But oil supply is now in decline so that another price spike will result. Oil can easily exceed the $147 we saw in 2008. We will see a repeat of the process – price spike followed by economic collapse. The next collapse might finish off the domestic auto industry, put the final nail in the coffin of the sprawl housing industry and wipe out several airlines leaving flight as the province of the wealthy.
If the economy remains anemic, we could see oil prices fall as capital and demand destruction outpace deficit stimulus spending. We will scratch our collective heads for a few years trying to figure out what’s wrong. In a few years oil depletion will drop production below our depressed demand and price will rise in spite of high unemployment. This will squeeze the industries listed above into collapse. In either case, those dieing industries will drag others down with them. The unemployed can’t eat out much so the restaurants suffer. Business falls off all around. We already know what this feels like. It will be the same only more so.
While this crisis may hit first in oil, it will soon affect other areas. During the 2008 oil price spike, industry poured tremendous amounts of corn into ethanol production. This drove up corn prices, which drove up rice prices and resulted in suffering and food riots in foreign capitals. While there are key differences between various energy sources, their markets connect. If rising oil price leads to more use of electric cars or plug in hybrids, this will drive up the price of coal and natural gas which are used to generate electricity. Or if we convert coal to gasoline, the price of coal goes up as we destroy climate stability in order to get our gasoline fix. Of course we could just convert to hydrogen, except that hydrogen isn’t a fuel source at all – only a leaky fuel storage system that can only work when we have excess energy, which we don’t.
Another scenario is possible. Recognizing the nature of our problem, we work collectively and individually to reduce our energy demand and to convert to renewable sources. Turning off the water while you brush and putting in curly light bulbs isn’t enough. We will need to choose to have fewer children, admit fewer immigrants, eat lower on the food chain, dump our gas guzzlers, take transit, bike, and find ways to use far less energy in our homes and offices. In the long run I suspect we will be doubling up in some homes and selling sprawl McMansions for scrap and returning the yards to farming. If this sounds unpleasant, note that the alternatives are worse. It is possible our oil supply will fall off fairly rapidly. The dangers both long and short term are grave. We need to leave oil before it leaves us.
I suspect most people reading this don’t agree with my diagnosis of the problem. Knowledge of peak oil isn’t widespread. Faith in technology to fix our problems is high, as indeed technology is part of the solution. Our media has done nearly nothing to inform us. We are distracted by less important matters.
If only peak oil were our only problem. It isn’t. It may not even be our most serious problem, though they all interrelated. We must also face the prospect of climate change, the demographic challenge of retiring boomers, too much debt at all levels, water shortages, soil degradation, the extinction crisis and more, all within the context of a weak economy.
There are a number of things we can do to address these problems here in Rockville. But it starts with understanding the problem. The more I’ve read about our situation, the more concerned I’ve become, though it is easy to get sidetracked by stories taken out of context. For instance, new technology has allowed us to put oil shale into production. But oil shale provides us less than 1% of the oil we consume and the shale wells deplete quickly. Nuclear energy doesn’t rely on oil and doesn’t put out much carbon. But we will need to build many plants just to replace retiring ones, and there are limits in available fuel. The big picture is relatively clear. We face declining energy availability.
Carl Henn
This is a contributor opinion. Rockville Central encourages readers to submit such opinions for consideration — the more voices the better. We especially welcome people who disagree with us. We ask that all such contributions be civil and we reserve the right to edit (in consultation with the author) or reject. Contributor opinions should not be seen as reflecting opinions held by Rockville Central editors, as they are just as frequently at odds with our own views. That’s the whole point!
Subscribe in a reader
I would be one of the people you mention who doesn’t agree with your diagnoses or the doomsday scenarios you describe from selling my SUV to having you “double up” in my home.
“Peak oil” is a theory and while there is an argument that we have reached “Peak Oil” there is equally good evidence that we have not.
There have been some huge oil discoveries made in the last few years and there remains vast unexplored areas of the globe that may well meet our needs for generations to come. It is true that these new finds are not the easily accessible ones (on many fronts) that we have become accustomed to but technology is allowing us to overcome what were once huge obstacles. Some sources estimate that alternative oil sources such as the tar sands in Canada and shale oil from our Western states are even larger than the traditional oil well discoveries that we have today.
Politics has corrupted the energy market: oil, natural gas, nuclear, coal, solar and wind. Drilling for domestic oil is nearly politically impossible. T. Boone Pickens spent millions on his natural gas-wind idea but the plan is dead for several reasons including the fact that he is politically on the wrong side of President Obama. We haven’t built a new nuclear power plant in 30 years (though that may change with a proposal to expand at Calvert Cliffs in S. MD). We still aren’t “there” yet with “clean coal” but we are much closer than we were several years ago and the US has been called the Saudi Arabia of coal.
Then there is our energy grid which is aging and inefficient. Replacing the grid is hugely expensive but it would help save energy as it would deliver power more efficiently while it would suffer less break downs and be less prone to those who want to disrupt our energy supply for political reasons (terrorism).
“Peak Oil” or not, the answer is a national energy policy, not a Rockville energy “think tank” with City Council members and Bicycle Advisory Committee members. We do face an uncertain energy future and making wise choices to conserve energy within reason is admirable but the solutions to our energy problems lie outside the scope of the Rockville City Council or Rockville Government.
If oil is finite (which it is) and if we are using it (which we are) then peak oil isn’t really a theory but rather a necessary logical outcome of these physical facts. The fact that non renewable resources run out is so basic that it isn’t worthy of comment.
The insight that peak oil brings to the discussion is that it doesn’t matter when the oil runs out. That may be a hundred or a thousand years from now when it goes from a small amount one year to none the next. It won’t matter because at that point we will no longer be so greatly dependent on oil. Peak Oil refers to the point at which oil production can no longer grow due to underlying resource constraints. This is the point at which our growing population collides with declining energy availability. Multiple lines of evidence suggest that this is where we find ourselves today.
Note that we can have vast quantities of reserves and still face declining production. This is particularly true when the remaining reserves are of lower grade than what we have used in the past. Regarding tar sands, the production is limited by the availability of water and natural gas which are used in its production, as well as the availability of capital. Tar sands make up less than one percent of our oil supply. If we double that, it still comes up to nearly squat.
Regarding coal – When I was in high school I was told we have a 500 year supply of coal. Now they say we have a 200 year supply of coal. The logical inference is that I graduated in 1709. Nope – a better inference is that the model they used was wrong. Their model was simply to divide the reserves by production. As production increased and reserves fell, the prediction of when we run out fell. But the model is still wrong in that it pretends that production will stay the same from here on out as it was last year, for 200 years then fall to zero in year 201. Coal, like oil, will experience a peak in production then decline before running out. Peak Coal is predicted a few decades out. Replacing oil with coal or tar sands isn’t a brilliant plan since both are fossil fuels. Chasing ever greater quantities of ever lower quality fossil fuels would destroy our environment while not establishing a sustainable economy.
Regarding the need for a national energy policy – Amen. But I’m not holding my breath. Just this week The Guardian newspaper reported that the International Energy Agency is inflating the size of reported reserves due to U.S. pressure to cover up the depth of the problem we face. See http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/nov/09/peak-oil-international-energy-agency/print. Its hard to face a problem that you are sweeping under the rug.
We will experience Peak Oil right here in Rockville. Efforts we make here will have a greater effect than national policy since we don’t have an effective national policy. National policy won’t give us bicycle parking at every Rockville business. Local action could make that happen. National policy won’t give us a renewable energy back up for our water system. With the right policy, we could get that installed here at no cost to the taxpayer. A commission would cost us just about nothing. Not having such a commission could mean more of the same – no recognition of a serious problem. The sooner and more strongly we begin to address this problem, the more likely we get through it without major disturbance.
You mention selling your SUV as a doomsday scenario. I got a chuckle out of that.
I don’t know much about Peak Oil, but I know that energy costs are going up, and they will continue to climb as Chinese and Indian consumers buy more and more cars and start heating their homes. The negative impact of imported oil on our trade deficit isn’t a theory.
There are ways that the City might think about dealing with rising energy costs. First, we need to invest in energy conservation in every City building. The Thomas Farm Community Center should be the model. It takes money, but the life-time savings are big.
Second, the City should consider beginning a program that helps residents conserve energy and use alternative energy sources. I just spent hours looking for a firm that would install foam insulation in my existing stud walls. My house was built in 1958 and has about 2 inches of rockwall insulation in the walls, which hardly does the job. I finally found a firm in Baltimore which does retrofits in this area. At a minimum, the City could provide a directory of certified foam insulation installers.
The City could also sponsor a solar energy coop that would provide a start to finish map for installing solar technology in resident’s homes. I read about this recently in the Wash Post. It’s daunting to consider all of the ins and outs of the financing, finding good products and installers, and the legal aspects. We might encourage a lot more folks to take the plunge, if we saved them from having to start the entire process from scratch. Carl would be a natural candidate to serve on such a group. Lots of candidates talked about being green, but I believe Carl is the only one who has solar collectors on his roof. He’s taken some hits for talking about Peak Oil, but he’s a practical guy who practices what he preaches.
Meanwhile, Bill, I hope you enjoy driving your SUV. It’s your hard-earned money, and how you choose to spend it is none of our business.
I don’t think Carl was begrudging Bill his SUV.
But if you ask me- I happen to believe that it is morally and environmentally irresponsible to drive one….and It DOES matter how we spend our “hard-earned money” — ie, resources and the impact our personal choices have on our planet.
I can’t say I look at all favorably on any Hummers and the like I see on the road beside me.
I drive a small car (that can hold 3 kids), and I have worked from for home for 17 years. I try to eat lower on the food chain, reduce and reuse as much as possible and am trying to raise my kids to be conscious consumers. I need to be more aggressive about all of these, and do more.
I would appreciate the city taking an active role in this, and would much rather see such a commission as you propose than the fake budget commission that would just serve as a vanity platform for people who don’t understand our form of government.
I didn’t about the peak oil concept and appreciate your post and the explanation in the follow-up.
Ultimately, there is a bigger problem nobody is talking about. Our sun is doomed to go dark one day, possibly after expanding and destroying earth in the process.
Seriously, though. Carl is right, there is a valid point here. BUT you’re not going to get anyone around here to make any meaningful changes to their lives that involve real sacrifice. People seem to do things that feel good or are easy (recycle those soda cans) versus something that is more of a benefit but involves sacrifice (not buying the soda at all).
I don’t agree that we aren’t going to get anyone to change.
Clearly Carl doesn’t think that or he wouldn’t have written his post.
I definitely get Andrew’s point. It is very difficult to lead people to meaningful change. People’s lives are too full to focus. People think that their small efforts don’t add up to much. The oil I save will only be burned by someone else anyway (Jeavon’s paradox) etc.
In the face of powerful evidence that we our fossil fuel use is destabilizing the climate in a manner that can’t be good for mankind we do essentially nothing.
In part that is why I raise peak oil instead of climate change. Peak oil is much easier to understand than global warming. While we feel GW is too big to effect a meaningful change about, Peak Oil turns the equation around. Our individual efforts to prepare (more efficient car, job closer to home etc.) will help with the big picture, but first and foremost will help that family when energy prices rise.
Frankly, I’m not optimistic regarding change. But history gives examples of massive change over short periods of time after years of glacially slow change.
I guess we need a new term for glacially slow change now that they are melting before our eyes…
Regardless of how likely powerful change is, it is our responsibility to meet this challenge as I see it.
Baby steps: my wife drives an SUV hybrid (Mercury Mariner); I also drive a hybrid (Prius).
I enjoy the fact that we are, perhaps, the only (and most certainly the first) two hybrid Rockville family.
Carl, my doomsday scenario isn’t getting rid of my SUV (it’s my first one and it’s new enough to do pretty well on hwy mpg - like my drive to Richmond and back today). My doomsday scenario is having you move in with me when you mentioned doubling up on housing.
Seriously, I agree with you that oil is finite and it will run out one day if the world continues to use it as it has for the last 50 years. That is not my argument. My argument is that if and when Peak Oil occurs we will have plenty of warning to put in merchant bike racks and backup power at our water delivery system as you suggest.
Conservation is a worthy effort now and Rockville should encourage that. I hound my kids to turn off the lights and I have a programmable thermostat that I set back at night. I applaud your conservation efforts as well and I know you do “walk the walk”.
I understand the concept of “Peak Oil”. I’m only suggesting that there are two sides to each issue and that the issue is not a Rockville issue with all the other issues we have here today. Google “Peak Oil” and Google “Peak Oil Myth”. There is debate as there is on most issues. The Guardian article you post is interesting but it quotes one person and we don’t know what that persons background or agenda is.
Here is an article from the US Bureau of Land Management. It says we have shale oil 5 times larger than Saudi Arabia’s oil reserves right here in the US. Add to that the tar sands in North America. Tar sands may only account for 1% of current use but reserves in Canada are estimated to be larger than all of the Saudi Arabia oil again. http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/energy/oilshale_2.html
I’m not advocating for drilling in National Parks in Utah and Colorado and I understand the environmental damage done by the alternative oil sources but technology will one day help us overcome some of these obstacles.
Having a meeting or an Environmental Club in Rockville is fine but I don’t believe we need a Rockville Commission to deal with Peak Oil at this time.
Change starts at the local level. Cities absolutely can and should play a role in this.
In fact, they might even LEAD.
I don’t know first hand, but from what I read Tar Sands are an environmental nightmare to recover energy from. Plus the EROEI is super low compared to just poking a hole in the ground. Our real future has to be in nuclear generation, eventually a fusion reactor using elements in seawater. This might sound far-fetched. But imagine telling someone in 1865 about electrification, telephones, and cars.
Meaningful changes mean people have to have information about the entire life cycle of their change. I haven’t heard or read anything yet on disposal and recapitalization of batteries for hybrid vehicles. Where are all the old batteries going to go? Is the user going to pay for its disposal and replacement? Batteries tend to last based on time, not how much you use them. Is Uncle Sam going to tip the scale again and borrow money to give people another tax credit to dispose of their old battery?
I don’t think we’re at the point where a city commission can effectively engage this issue. But even the most unrealistically pessimistic people weighing in on the Oil issue are right about a renewed emphasis on Local organization to deal with challenges as larger (and more complex) entities are unable to respond effectively.
It’s interesting that projections are being made here about 50 years hence, since it’s been over 35 years since we had the first “oil crisis”. Despite the fact that we’ve subsequently had more than a few severe oil crises, our energy consumption rates continue to increase, and we become more and more dependent on potentially precarious sources of energy.
I remember sitting in gas lines on Rockville Pike for two or three hours at a time in 1973 and 1974, waiting to buy gas, and I couldn’t have imagined then that we would have learned so little since, nor that we would have continued acting as though it’s an infinite asset, despite the fact that it should certainly have sunk into our consciousness by now. People who were horrified just a few years ago that gas was over $3.50 a gallon have now subsequently forgotten their concerns, which leads me to believe that it will only take a catastrophic event like nuclear explosions on the oil fields of Saudi Arabia to shake us out of our collective amnesia.
I’ve managed to decrease my own carbon footprint by over 75% by having the good fortune to be able to live in downtown Rockville, which allows me to walk to work and to nearby mass transit and shopping. I now drive my old car (39 mpg highway/30 city) less than 3000 miles a year, and my absence from Rockville Pike during rush hour is contributing a small amount to decreasing the relentless congestion on the roads. However, not many people are lucky enough to be able to have that choice in their lifestyles, since our development and zoning patterns continue to favor suburban-type neighborhoods, even in the midst of what is now obviously an urban city.
I spent much of my childhood in the Middle East as the daughter of a U.S. Foreign Service Officer, and saw firsthand how volatile and frightening regional and international politics can be. This country is at the mercy of, and beholden to, governments that often act contradictory to our national and social interests, and that is the thing that concerns me most about our current profligate energy policy.
Bill is right that we will have plenty of warning before Peak Oil hits. After all, we were warned in 1956 when M. King Hubbert predicted that American oil production would peak around 1970. We were warned again when American oil production peaked in 1970. We were warned in 1997 with the Campbell-Laheirre Scientific American article predicting global peak around 2010. We were warned again by the 2005 Hirsch report. We were warned when Britain, Norway and Mexico’s production all peaked when the peak oil experts said they would. So yes, we have had plenty of warning. But now there is a good chance that peak oil has already occurred. That our lead time has already been squandered. That what we have left is the time before production declines begin to mount up and foreclose more options.
Yes, the Guardian article is poorly sourced. It would be nice to have the names, some leaked e-mails and such. But note that a reporter and the lead editor over at World Oil magazine were just fired for attemping to publish an article that would challenge the exaggerated shale gas claims - see http://www.energybulletin.net/node/50679 When you challenge powerful players, you can lose your job.
We have long found that the best oil information comes from retired oil experts who can no longer be fired for speaking their minds. Though poorly sourced, I suspect the Guardian article is accurate.
Having ignored all the earlier warnings, I hope that a Rockville commission that calls key players to the table and asks them to focus on the issue could put us ahead of other communities.
We have plenty of time to deal with “global warming”- ie “climate change.”
Are we? Absolutely not.
Having “time” just breeds inaction.
When it’s too late, it will really be too late.
I would like to hear thoughts about my suggestion for the City to sponsor/support a Rockville solar energy coop that would research options for residences to add solar, create a cookie cutter approach for doing so that covers all of the legal/technical aspects, lays out the financial requirements and the tax incentives, helps to marry about prospective buyers to place a bulk order, and certifies firms to participate in the program.
I don’t care to argue about oil statistics and climate change and what Rockville can do to confront them. I think the whole discussion bogs down and invites inaction.
One of the things I learned from my Rocktrash campaign is that there’s a strong environmental constituency in Rockville. I also know that a lot of people care about the hit on their budgets of rising energy costs. There’s also a large number of homeowners who are financially able to carry through on something like this. But it’s too daunting to do it on their own. Hence, my suggestion.
A solar co-op is a good idea. The more people who get peak oil, the more people would support and make use of such a co-op.
I agree that declining traditional fuel sources is a significant issue, one that is hard to know how to address.
I lived for a while in Northfield, MN, which set a goal for renewable energy, created a task force, and has been very successful in finding alternative power and even in helping a windmill get constructed.
http://www.ci.northfield.mn.us/government/boards/environmentalquality/energytaskforce
also:
+1 solar co-op, good idea. At minimum you get economy of scale. This doesn’t need to be coordinated through gov’t, by the way… often it is organized by neighborhood or by congregation.
I agree that civic leaders should provide leadership on these important issues. And we should expect some action soon to appease Rockville’s strong environmental constituency (nice phrase, Art). Of the two concerns voiced so far in this thread, solar power is the most likely to be addressed in the short term. Sandwiched between two coal fired states that provide little (PA) or no incentives (VA), MD residents can get a nice state grant to put up solar panels. Additionally, Montgomery County residents qualify for a property tax credit along with a federal income tax credit, and can sell Renewable Energy Credits generated by their solar systems.
Arguing against our vehicle dependency is currently not an election winning campaign strategy in our town, but that doesn’t mean we should avoid the topic. Maryland’s Smart Growth Policy is innovative, widely studied, but recently criticized as being ineffectual against sprawl. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/01/AR2009110102470.html). Another aspect of this policy that didn’t make it into the article is the intense traffic in the concentrated population centers. Smart Growth is supposed to encourage the use of public transportation, but we Rockville Central readers know that people still want to drive and park in urban areas. If Smart Growth residents really used mass transit, would we have to debate parking in town center? OK, many drivers do come from areas not served by transit, so they still prefer to park.
Mark made a point of campaigning from his bike, and noticed first-hand the issues encountered by bike commuters. Our streets are designed for cars, and his trek from the College Gardens to North Farm completely avoided the major north-south thoroughfare which presently isn’t safe for bikes. Distances are too vast for most pedestrians. Rockville has its Millennium Trail which is great for exercise, but it doesn’t get commuters or errand-runners to most destinations. If we provided a parallel path to the Pike, we could provide a real alternative to cars. It would be much like a Bethesda Trolley extension up through Rockville. Then Gaithersburg could connect, and they could relieve traffic, too. My thought is using the currently inaccessible area west of the strip malls, shopping centers, etc. Woodmont CC may be an obstacle, but we could work with them on providing an easement across their front lawn to keep the bikes off of the pike. I’ll be bring this up to with the bicycle advisory committee. Thanks for posting, Carl. By being proactive, we can provide viable alternatives that don’t put bikes in harms way. This will be useful for generations to come.
Hey Tim Hampton; I too lived in Northfield, MN for a time
Nice little town. (Two competing wind turbines at Carleton and St. Olaf!) Small world!!!
No commission can solve my energy concerns, but having better products and services at a reasonable cost will.
My comments relate to my personal experiences and what it costs me. All the talk about global warming and energy consumption gives me little assurance of a solution. Scare tactic are not acceptable.
Why was solar energy not more successful? If the cost outweighs the benefit, people will not buy into it, unless of course forced by laws.
Regarding fuel cost, once it is rationed people are forced to conserve. If it is plentiful and costly, people with more capital will pay for it. It is those with less money who are penalized with the high cost of fuel.
I have many personal stories to share that give me a whole different perspective on the energy issue. In the late 70’s we were convinced that adding aluminum siding on the house would save us money in the long term on the heating bill. We believed a 10-year loan with a high interest rate would save us money with future utility bills. After living in our house since 1975, there is little evidence of heating bill savings. The great savings in energy was not realized. However, we all know the rates have risen.
Windows were also replaced and new attic installation was added. Do you want to see my utility usage and explain were I am saving money?
All of my replaced kitchen appliances (with new required energy efficiency) have required repairs. The new appliances are built to be more efficient but are not lasting as long as my older models.
Recently I replace my outdoor light fixture with a motion light fixtures. Converting the old light fixture with new ones required an expensive certified electrician work order. To my disappointment the light fixtures goes on during the day and I can’t figure out why it is doing this. Am I really saving energy buying new products? To fix my lighting problem I will need to hire another electrician to give me advice.
Another observation with the new efficient systems is the electrical toilets. They flush when I simply walk in the stall or when I bend over while sitting. I have also seen electrical faucet continually run. How efficient is that and how much are we saving? The good side of this is someone is employed to convert all the old systems to the new systems.
While there are arguments with Peak Oil and global warming, I am concerned with our every day appliances which are inefficient and costly. Costly progress is not always the best solution in my opinion. This is just another opinion.
Brigitta -
Regarding your motion sensor light - if its like most such lights, it has two dials on the bottom. One controls at what lighting level it will come on at - they are designed not to come on in daylight even if the motion sensor sees something. The dial determines what you consider daylight. Crank it back a bit. The other control is for how sensitive it is to motion. This determines whether the light turns on as you walk by on the sidewalk, or only as you walk up to your door.
Your comments reflect the need to get an energy audit to help decide which investments make the most sense - new siding, or new window? Foam insulation in the walls or a new refrigerator? They can assess your home and tell you which things you should do first.
Chevy Chase just adopted a program wherein they pay $200 toward resident’s energy audit and up to $600 toward implementing the energy upgrade. See http://www.townofchevychase.org/assets/documents/pdfs/forms/Audit%20Program%20Sign%20Up%20Form.pdf
Carl thanks for the information on the motion sensor settings, which has been adjusted. However, it frustrates me when I come home during the day and see the light on.
My house already has siding with foam insulation. That was our expensive outlay in the late 70’s. We don’t believe the return in energy saving was worth the cost, but the house does look nicer with siding versus unpainted wood.
My point is that all these nice environmental improvements cost money which some folks just don’t have. That is why my parents moved to Florida. We haven’t found much that is free. The consultations you get are to find customers willing to spend money…that is always the bottom line.
Brigitta brings up a critically important point. While some of the answer lies in educating ourselves, ultimately it comes down to money. I think that we will make better decisions as individuals when we better understand both the depth of crisis we face and the options available to us.
But for people who don’t have the upfront money needed for energy upgrades, or don’t own the homes they live in, we need to provide better options. I support moving our low income property tax rebate to a program to provide energy upgrades for low income residents.
This comes down to a “give a man a fish” versus “teaching a man to fish” decision. A low income energy upgrade program provides income security (on the expenditure side) that can move on to more households each year. A tax break has to be repeated each year for each household to maintain the same impact. Factor in the liklihood of higher energy prices as oil declines, and the decision becomes easier.
I made this suggestion to the council last year and was ignored. That is part of why I see a peak oil commission as so important. A council that gets peak oil would be less likely to ignore such a suggestion.
I certainly don’t want to speak for Brigitta but I believe she makes two points: 1, she believes that some of the energy consultations are to sell products. and 2, she has installed insulated siding, new windows and attic insulation and she really has not noticed much of a savings on her energy bill.
I know a local energy consultant who’s company specializes in commercial energy audits. The person did take a few courses but is not yet college degreed and is not someone I would point to as an energy expert…yet. This person sold an unrelated building product in the industry in which I am employed. I also spent time in a trade show both at Rockville Hometown Holidays this past May and had a neighboring booth that offered residential energy audits. The person “selling” the free audits was once both a lawyer and school teacher and was brand new in this profession (he was from well outside of Rockville and will probably never read this).
My point is that you don’t know the qualifications of the “energy expert” and some of them only make money if you purchase products from them. I’m sure there are some very good, honest ones too. You need to balance actual science and reason against the marketing claims.
As far as siding and windows go, most articles not written by manufacturers state that the cost of replacing these items strictly for energy savings is a poor investment. Insulation returns vary by type and area used. There are of course functional and aesthetic reasons to replace windows and siding.
Cost is a major factor in making homes more energy efficient as Brigitta and Carl state. I’m all for offering caulking, weatherstripping and helpful hints to low income residents but I’m not in favor of offering tax credits for windows, siding and blown in insulation only to low income residents. If the value of these replacements are in conserving energy as we near “Peak Oil” why don’t we offer tax credits to the homeowners with the largest and oldest houses first? Start on West Montgomery Ave? These houses are where we will see the greatest energy savings. If big ticket energy improvements are not deemed a good return on investment for a homeowner then they aren’t a good value for the tax payers who are subsidizing the tax rebate either.
My thinking in providing energy upgrades to low income homes rather than the least efficient homes is based on several factors:
- We don’t have enough money captured through taxation to upgrade all the homes that need it.
- There is a large overlap between low income residents and poorl insulated, low efficiency housing.
- Poor residents are less likely to have the several thousand dollars needed for a major overhaul. Residents who have the money don’t need a tax financed system to get their houses upgraded.
- As a matter of equity it makes no sense to tax low income residents to provide energy upgrades to high income residents.
Bill does raise some valuable points. It would make sense to prioritize energy upgrades within the low income residents on those who live in the most energy inefficient homes. And noting that some of the cheapest interventions make the biggest difference, particularly with old drafty homes, perhaps we would be wise to consider a program of free caulking for old drafty homes regardless of the income of the residents. While this runs contrary to the points I made above, it recognizes Bill’s point about where we may get the biggest bang for our buck.
Regarding rental housing, another approach would be through regulation - requiring a given level of energy efficiency for rental housing. I’m not sure what the best approach is for rental housing, but it is important that we resolve the renter’s dilemma where the renter pays the utilities but can’t upgrade a house he doesn’t own.
“If big ticket energy improvements are NOT deemed a good return on investment for a homeowner then they aren’t a good value for the tax payers who are subsidizing the tax rebate either.”
Bill validated my point on energy saving and energy audits. I totally agree with his last statement.
Continuing to discuss the energy situation, will not change my personal experience or my concern of cost.
Bill thank you for understanding my point of view. Carl has some good concerns. How the government controls the energy concerns is sensitive and there needs to be some REAL concrete evidence before changing policies.
Foam backed aluminum siding without a Tyvek wrapper is a fairly poor energy upgrade. Putting this in in the late 1970s was poorly timed in that you had high interest rates locked in for ten years with falling energy prices over the same period. Oh well. You made the best decision you could given the information you had at the time.
We face very different circumstances now. In the early 80’s North Sea and Alaskan oil were flooding the marketplace, while car fleets were getting more efficient due CAFE standards and the recent memory of gas lines resulting in over a decade of cheap oil. Now both North Sea and Alaskan oil production are in decline. The few areas with increasing or new production can no longer offset the declining production from existing oil fields. Energy will become less affordable - either directly due to price increase or indirectly via unemployment and declining wages.
Part of the point of a Rockville commission to examine peak oil is to review the concrete evidence and if appropriate raise the alarm. Another part is to point us in the right direction. For instance, we could review the many companies out there claiming to do energy audits and recommend the good ones so that people are less likely to be snookered by the bad ones. Regarding free energy audits - you get what you pay for. If its free, they must be pushing some product line.
I think the discussion we are having here shows that this is an important discussion to have.
What about Peak Natural Gas?
In my Rockville Townhouse, natural gas is used for heating, water, cooking and, in a round-about way…electricity.
I can live without a car. I can take public transportation. However, heat, bathing and food are generally considered necessary.
Granted, transportation infrastructure decisions are most clearly within the municipal realm, but what about energy infrastructure? I guess since PEPCO is bigger than the city, our hands are tied until…when?
Maybe I’d switch to solar electric if there were some way to ensure a transmission standard and net metering.
Can the city demand such things or are we at the mercy of cultural inertia?
Erik, I’m not sure about natural gas, but the net metering standards for solar electric (PV or photovoltaic) are already in place. What transmission standard are you asking about? A PV system produces direct current, and comes with an inverter to match the household alternating current which is also present on PEPCOs transmission lines. No cultural inertia is needed to install PV, and Rockville has several systems in place, and more coming. It might help with the co-op idea mentioned earlier.
Natural gas is seen as likely to peak later than oil. Clearly that is true in the US, where our oil production peaked in 1970. Our natural gas production probably hasn’t peaked yet. It had declined from 2000 to 2005 when new technology and high prices allowed shale based gas to enter production. I think we will experience what feels like peak natural gas at the same time that oil production falls.
Natural gas is used in the production of tar sand based oil. Gas to liquids refining can also be used to feed natural gas to our cars. And to the extent that we use electric cars, this will increase demand for electricity which we make with natural gas.
One scary connection - we use natural gas to make nitrogen fertilizer. This is one of the key reasons we’ve been able to grow our population to over 6 billion. When oil enters decline and prices rise, the market connections will drive fertilizer prices higher, meaning we will use less, meaning we will have less food.(all else remaining equal.) Yes, peak oil calls the ability to feed ourselves into question. This isn’t hypothetical - when natural gas prices spiked in California a few years ago, fertilizer factories shut down.
Regarding using solar to replace natural gas, its worth noting that there are two main types of solar panels - hot water systems and Photo Voltaic. Using sunlight to heat water directly is less expensive and more efficient than using PV panels to create electricity which you then can use to heat water. You could have both types of solar panels.
Goodness, take a few days off Rockville Central and you have a thread that just blows up
Mainly speaking to Brigitta’s point is the intent of my reply. I also live in an older house that I basically tore apart two years and made a 1500 sq. ft addition. When I moved in this house had apparantly been remodeled but boy was it a poor job. After basically tripling the size of the house (relax it was very small to begin with) our energy bills are LOWER than they were before we built on.
Some of the insulation jobs and window installations were just done very poorly. Leaking HVAC systems in the crawl space, no floor insulation and no caulking between support beams are just a few of the nice little gems that I uncovered.
Of course most people aren’t going to tear the walls down to find most of these issues but really changing small things ESPECIALLY making sure that you have a programmable thermostat is very important.
I have had one for years but just got a mailer today from Pepco about free installation of ones that you can monitor online and change online as well. Part of this allows you to participate in “cycling” off your AC in the summer months during the day. Find more info at http://www.pepco.com/rewards
I think Brigitta’s problems illustrate the need for a coop that is sponsored by the City and gives us good info about energy conservation and alternative energy installations, like solar. Or geothermal, which apparently is a big success at the Thomas Farm Community Center.
There are a lot of energy conservation fads out there. Like insulated aluminum siding. Unless your wall cavity is filled with insulation, it isn’t going to help much to add insulated siding. If your house was built in the late 1950s, like mine, the walls most likely have too little rockwall insulation that’s just falling down in the cavity. That’s why I’m backfilling with foam insulation. I’ll let you know if it makes a difference.
Meanwhile, I’d really like to see a coop. There’s a lot of energy just on this thread.
Trapper sounds like you have done a lot of renovating in your house to make it more energy efficient. No doubt you invested money to make all those improvements.
Several years ago I applied for the recycling of my electricity to save money. Soon after being on the program I had a problem with my AC not working properly. The repairman told me the problem was caused because of the program I was on with Pepco. Needless to say, I opted out of that program. My house has had a programmable thermostat for years and it is efficient.
Last year I had the original heater replaced and I am waiting to compare my usage with the new system. The AC is the new energy efficient system. The cost of the new system was not cheap. I doubt I will live long enough to get the return on the investment.
My point to Carl is that my energy efficient systems cost more than the savings in return. No Commission is going to solve that problem. I also want to say there is some energy saving with my aluminum sliding with foam insulation and new windows. But again, the point is it took an investment upfront to produce the little savings in energy costs.
Art’s comment is really good about all the energy we are generating on this Blog. Free advice is good. Let’s keep it going.
“My point to Carl is that my energy efficient systems cost more than the savings in return. No Commission is going to solve that problem.”
If the commission concludes that we are near the peak of global oil production and that energy will soon cost more, it could change your view about the payback period for energy efficiency investments.
There is a nice summary of the case for peak oil being roughly now posted at http://www.theoildrum.com/node/5969#more This analysis also examines the likely effect of declining oil production on debt financing.
I too have made energy investments that haven’t paid off. In my case it was due to the inverter for my PV panels breaking just outside the warranty period. Arg. That doesn’t change the fact that oil is finite, that America’s production peaked 39 years ago, that Mexico’s oil exports are plummeting, that we now burn several times more oil each year than we discover and that many oil experts believe the global peak of production was last year.
We lose just about nothing by establishing a high level Rockville commission to look at this problem. Not forming such a commission could cost us our most precious and irretrievable commodity - time.
The Hirsch report asked how long in advance we would need to start preparing for peak oil to avert serious disruption to our economy. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hirsch_report) They say we should start 20 years before the peak. Oops. Twenty years before peak was probably 20 years ago. Every year we waste now means greater economic damage as oil declines, and greater suffering.
Geez, have you ever seen such a string of comments here, Brad? So this proves the poularity of our interest in saving energy and money. Duh! I think the solar co-op thing is the best idea since air conditioning. Seriously, how many times have I (and lots of other I am sure) really wanted to go solar, and looked into it, only to be dismayed by all the time and energy it takes to figure out pros and cons, how to do it, who provides what, etc. If the city had what art envisioned, I bet hundreds of us would jump on it. We could become the national model and leader in it. Do you realize the tax incintives (fed, state and even MoCo) cut the cost about in half! Last time I checked, it would cost about $30,000 (so that’s about $15,000 after tax credits) to get enough solar generated capacity installed to meet about half my home electric consumption. Has anyone ever got similar estimates?
Frank, my estimate for a $30,000 system would entail tax credits of 9k fed and 5k MoCo. MD will give a grant based on the power output of the system. $30,000 should get you 4kw from Clean Currents, or 3kw from Standard Solar.
MD would grant you $4k for 4kw, or 3250 for 3kw. Then the renewable energy credits are amassed based on the system’s productivity (shading and orientation dependent) and should start around $1500/year. Peerless held a going green event last May where the benefits and details of going solar were discussed. I’m sure another one can be arranged.
Cool! Even better than half price. Herb, can I appoint you Rockville Solar Co-op Chairman?
Has anyone researched the possibility of a shared alternative power source that might be located in vacant lots or abandoned alleys; something we have several of on the east side. Such as a small wind turbine or two and several solar panels shared by adjacent home owners.
There was a good article on solar coops in the Wash Post this year. About 3 months ago maybe. I don’t quite remember which neighbourhoods they wrote about (chevy chase, takoma park ??).
Anyways, it sounded that they had done all of the legwork already. Even with all the tax credits it wasn’t cheap but I would love to have a solar powered system for my home if I could afford it.
At the Mayor and Council’s inauguration today, Mayor Marcuccio announced her intention to form three committees. I briefly hoped that this would include one such as I suggested in this column. No such luck. The proposed committees are to cover budget, city charter and communications.
The budget committee was stated as being important given the bad economy. I think that understanding peak oil would help us understand the bad economy and help us to set better priorities, which is central to budget processes.
The communication committee was announced in regard to low voter turn out, with the observation that it can’t be due to soley to apathy. My observation is that low turn out is mostly due to apathy. The barriers to voting are low. We have same day registration, we have polls open before and after work, we have absentee balloting, we have local press coverage, announcements through Channel 11, Rockville Reports and 12 candidates doing their best to get people to vote. A communication committee will talk about communication, or communicate about talking and two years from now the people who care enough to vote will vote.
My thought is that if we can only have three committees, a peak oil committee is more important than a communications committee. It could broaden the type of conversation that we have been having here on Rockville Central. It would likely create more communication that would a communication committee.
Or maybe I’m just missing the point and a communication committee would really add value. In which case I say we need 4 committees.
Carl,
Why is the Rockville Environmental Committee not the appropriate committee to deal with your concerns?
Can that group not review the energy concerns and help educate the Rockville citizens with energy efficient systems households can consider?
The irony of municipal apathy…
I agree with Carl, it’s mostly apathy but with a good slice of ignorance. My sense is that most voters don’t participate in municipal elections because they misapprehend the true impact on their daily lives relative to flashier yet more distant national elections.
The true challenge lies in educating the populace just how far reaching and direct the reach of municipal government actually is in their lives.
The problem is that there is a dearth of comprehensive well organized reporting and analysis on the issues at hand. Sure their are individual efforts and even online resources, but they are incomplete on their own. There is very little synthesis available.
Carl, did you read the Post today? George Will had a piece on fossil fuels: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/20/AR2009112002619.html
OK, I know it’s George Will and he is easily dismissed and you can predict what he will say before you read it but hearing both sides is important. He does recite some “Peak Oil” history.
I was surprised he didn’t even casually argue for conservation. He seems to thinks technology will bail us out as it usually does.
Organizing a Rockville “Peak Oil” Committee made up of members who are inclined to believe we have reached “Peak Oil” is too easy. Of course they would recommend that we have reached “Peak Oil”. Doesn’t George Will live in Chevy Chase? Maybe we could have a Rockville/Bethesda/Chevy Chase “Peak Oil” committee and you and Mr. Will could be the inaugural members. I’d attend those meetings!
I’m not saying I agree with him to the point where I am not sensitive to the “Peak Oil” argument. Only that there are two sides to every argument.
If nothing else, this is a very timely editorial. I bet this topic will quickly pass 50 comments now.
We need a Peak Oil Committee made up of Councilmembers, Planning Commission members, Traffic and Transportation Commission members and a broad cross section of other Commission members because we need to convince our policy makers that the problem is real and needs to be addressed.
It is Council members who make policy in Rockville. If they don’t get it, policy is unlikely to change. If a few of them are on the commission that thinks through the issue, they are far more likely to get it. The Planning and Traffic Commissions also play important roles. If they are on such a commission, they are more likely to incorporate this issue into their actions.
If the Environment Commission alone handles this issue, then there is a good chance that even if they do a fine analysis and write a brilliant report, it will make no impact on City policy. I used to be on the Environment Commission. I don’t recall a single instance in which the City adopted a new policy because of our recommendations. They did occasionally adopt our recommendations when they already agreed with what we recommended. I’m sure the Commission has had greater impact since I left it. I do believe that the Environment Commission should be represented on the Peak Oil committee.
Bill –
Thanks for the link. I hadn’t seen Will’s article yet. Interesting that he quotes the incorrect ‘peak oil’ predictions from 1914, 1924 and 1939 while ignoring later correct peak oil predictions. The 1914, 1924 and 1939 numbers were accurate statements that known reserves would be depleted in short order. They weren’t intended to predict how much was left to be found, only to speak to how far current reserves would carry us. Reserves means oil that we have found already. Resources means how much we think we have based an analysis of the geology. Reserves are based on drilling. Resources are can be estimated for areas where drilling hasn’t been done yet. Reserves close in on resources as drilling continues. Not surprisingly, early projections based on proved reserves don’t stand up well when we pretend that they were predictions of total oil depletion.
Will quotes reserve based predictions taken out of context. He ignores the actual peak oil predictions that don’t support his point of view. M. King Hubbert is the geologist who created the model upon which peak oil estimates are based. In 1956 he estimated that production from the lower 48 states would peak around 1970. Production from the lower 48 states did peak in 1970. As it happens, production from the lower 48 fell off faster than production from Alaska came on, so that 1970 was the peak of American production overall rather than just from the lower 48 states. Now Alaskan production is also in deep decline.
Geologists who follow Hubbert’s model and use more recent adaptations have correctly predicted the peak in Great Britain, Indonesia, Norway and Mexico. President Carter’s prediction was unfortunate. Note that he isn’t a geologist. But we would have been better served to follow his advice to take the problem seriously even though he got the timing wrong.
We do have enormous fossil fuel resources left. But the high grade easy oil is going fast. How we move forward from here is critically important. Pretending that oil is in grand abundance a full 39 years after our production peaked does our nation a disservice. Will is right that replacing oil will be difficult. The sooner we start the better.
I was watching Monday Night Football last night and saw a cute mother/daughter commercial suggesting that have a 100 year supply of natural gas right here in America. I’m sure it was paid for by the natural gas industry but I decided to look it up anyway.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601072&sid=a0vNeQSytLD4
NY Times Greenwire.
http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2009/06/18/18greenwire-report-of-abundant-us-natural-gas-supplies-rat-50410.html
This is a more detailed explanation.
http://www.mines.edu/Potential-Gas-Committee-reports-unprecedented-increase-in-magnitude-of-U.S.-natural-gas-resource-base
Yes, I’ve seen that ad claiming America has 100 years worth of natural gas. This is based on “resource divided by production”. So if production doubles, the number of years of supply is cut in half. And of course production will peak and decline before it runs out, so don’t count on having current production for 100 more years.
The 100 years of supply is based on the resource estimate in the Potential Gas Committee report of 2 trillion cubic feet of supply. But the 2 trillion cubic feet is a “3 P” estimate. Proved, Probable and Possible. Proved = 90% probability of actually being produced, Probable = 50% probability of actually being produced, Possible = 10% chance of being produced. To be safe, we should rely on 2 P estimates, wherein there is an equal chance that more or less will be produced. The Potential Gas Study was clear that the 2 P number is much lower – only 700 million cubic feet. That’s still an increase over the previous estimate and well worthy of note.
The increase in the natural gas resource estimate is due to the recent breakthrough that allows us to produce natural gas from shale source rocks. The process requires highly pressurized water mixed with sand and chemicals to be pumped down the drill hole in a process to fracture the rock. It results in high production that falls off by over half in about two years, then has a longer low production tail. It requires high prices to support this more expensive extraction process.
It’s interesting how many ideas people have for this natural gas. George Will includes it in his vast fossil fuel resources that he hopes will allow us to go on with business as usual, restoring growth to our growth based economy that recently stopped growing. T. Boone Pickens recognizes that conventional oil is in decline, so his vision for natural gas is to use it for truck and bus fleets and replacing the natural gas currently used for electricity with wind based power. Some environmentalists want to use natural gas to replace coal for electricity production with the intention of leaving the coal in the ground since natural gas puts out about half as much carbon as coal does. Note that we only get to burn it once, and it can’t serve all three purposes outlined above.
You can’t have infinite growth on a finite planet. Attempting to do so will build a high peak of production followed by a steep decline. Worst case scenario for people who care about their children.
If our intention is to replace gasoline with natural gas, the math shows it runs out in 20 years (based on the 2 P numbers – see http://www.theoildrum.com/node/5615)
It is clear that America has a lot of natural gas resources. It is also clear that as we use them, we use them up, that natural gas production will peak and enter decline well before it runs out. We currently use natural gas to heat homes, run factories, create nitrogen fertilizer, and generate electricity. Wind and solar energy are nicely complemented by natural gas in electricity generation since it can offset the variability of the renewable energies. Far better to use our natural gas for its current uses than to run it out faster in an unsustainable effort to continue business as usual. Oil is likely to enter decline roughly now. Our primary response should be to find ways to use less energy as oil declines and ramp up renewable energy. Natural gas clearly has a major role to play since we have a lot and it will take time to reduce our demand and increase production of renewable energy. Having lots of natural gas doesn’t mean we don’t have a problem due to peak oil.
See http://www.theoildrum.com/node/5997 for an analysis of George Will’s recent editorial urging us to ignore concerns about peak oil.
See http://energybulletin.net/node/45535 for 26 things you can do to reduce peak oil anxiety.
See http://www.energybulletin.net/node/50827 for an analysis predicting that the peak oil is more likely to result in recession and relatively low oil prices rather than very high oil prices.
Carl, just as I was about to give up on this topic, the Washington Post put this story on the front page today: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/02/AR2009120204305.html Then they run a companion story detailing some of the issues you mention with pollution caused by the shale drilling procedure: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/02/AR2009120203984.html
In the 2nd story, the 2005 Congressional ruling exempting the chemicals used in this type of drilling from being disclosed is worrisome but it looks like that ruling is being reviewed. It should be. At the same time, other companies have adapted to using “green” fractioning fluids.
I also viewed the links you provided in your last posting. While interesting, they are very one sided. The Energy Bulletin is a self described clearinghouse for peak global energy news. The Oil Drum is a Peak Oil blog. I guess that’s fair though as I posted George Will’s editorial. At least I linked to Bloomberg and the NY Times last time.
Bill -
So we made to 50 posts on this topic after all. Yes, I saw the Post’s article on the front page above the fold. They never provide similar coverage of peak oil issues. No coverage at all of GAO’s report on Peak Oil - http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d07283.pdf. No coverage at all of DOE’s Hirsch report - http://www.netl.doe.gov/publications/others/pdf/Oil_Peaking_NETL.pdf
Hope these two government references make up for my earlier references to peak oil sites. I find the Energy Bulletin provides summaries of a broad range of useful articles. I find the Oil Drum to have an overwhelming amount of well informed discussion (though it takes an effort to learn the host of acronyms they use to speed communication - KSA = Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, ELM = Export Land Model, etc.
I’ve sent a letter to the Post in response to their shale oil article which they won’t print. The Post rarely ever covers peak oil even in letters to the editor.
Carl
We discussed solar coops earlier, and there is a workshop tomorrow at the Solar Energy Industries Association conference in Gaithersburg.
The model that we can promote may be based on the Mt. Pleasant Solar Coop, I’ll keep you posted…
Herb: I didn’t see this in time… hope someone posts an article about this event!
Herb, I had no idea that such a thing exists. Keep us informed.