cellulosic ethanol?

Can we "Just say no" to cellulosic ethanol?
http://www.omaha.com/index.php?u_page=1208&u_sid=2354471

Perhaps I'm just a pessimist, yes, no doubting that, but really, isn't "biomass" good for the soil? I mean does it really make sense to take even MORE biomass from our agricultural fields? Are we going to redistribute the bioproducts BACK on the soil? What IS left over after creating ethanol?

One ton of biomass (dry?) costs $60 to collect. One ton will produce about 80 gallons of ethanol. SO we're talking $0.75/gallon JUST for collecting the material.

I have to think it MUST be a net energy loser. I mean maybe as a "coproduct", but switchgrass is intended as a single product.


I know I can be wrong, so easy to fail to comprehend the scale of things, but overall it seems like density is the key. Biomass sunk in swamps and compressed and heated for millions of years can create a nice fuel sometimes, but when we're in a hurry it seems doubtful.

My judgement is that farms ought to keep as much materials and energy as close to home as possible, so they ought to produce their own fertilizers and energy sources. Maybe that's a false perspective, but it is a safe one - one which confinced Wendell Berry that the Amish are the only group in America with a serious plan for sustainability.

At least I agree "minimizing inputs" is good, and cellulosic ethanol might help over corn ethanol. I don't think you could possibly do much worse that corn for ethanol.

Okay, okay, keep up the studies, but let's hold back promises for subsidies. I just don't know. Of course my solution is to reduce consumption of energy, solution because it gives us time, and done by high energy taxes.

The energy bubble

Just depressing to read apparently reasoned and honest assessment of oil assets of Mexico - One of the top-3 producers for U.S. imports:
http://www.eluniversal.com.mx/miami/23934.html

Mexico claims to have enough oil reserves for somewhere between 9 to 28 years - 2016 to 2035. And when will their oil production enter terminal decline? No suggestion.

I read part of a big thesis paper yesterday, on history of money and economic theory:
E-Diss1237_Dis_Money_upside_down.pdf

Fairly readable, although skimmed much. Most interesting simple idea I took out is claim that there's three uses for debt: (1) Investment (2) Consumption (3) Speculation.

They may not be mutually exclusive, but still seem informative. I wondered in the past "What's a reasonable level of production of a finite energy resource?", first answer is "none", and second answer is "less".

Well, seeing a resource as the opposite of debt. That is WE are "borrowing" from the earth, taking a resource that we won't have again. What uses can such a resource be?

An optimist will say it allow humanity to expand and find newer and better resources to exploit. Like an inheritence to pay for college, there can be good uses for one time money.

But it is hard to have faith. I see more that power corrupts, and whatever sensibilitity humanity had before cheap energy, we've long lost. However much scientific discovery expands our horizons, it offers no security against collapse, and population increases have already closed the door to any clear promised land for everyone. the future will not have the American dream for the rest of the world, at least not within secure measures of knowledge.

Just like the Fed created a "credit bubble", cheap borrowing, to invigorate the economy, the "energy bubble" has done the same over a longer time period, so we have no idea any more what it means to live sustainably, without resources we'll one day have to do without.

Depressed as usual, no solutions as usual, even with spring bonus and dividend checks today for a good 2006 year. What shall I invest in? I'm thinking my mortgage. Fool yes, in an abstract world. Paying down debt is the conservative bet. Afterall I can't invest with it, but if I'm lucky and someday have REAL money without selling my house, maybe I'll reconsider what's my next priority.

Even if the optimists are right and the world's energy use is still increasing in 2020, where does the game end? When is it "time" to invest in renewables?

I ought to stop complaining and put my time into renewables, but for now I just am glad to get a paycheck like everyone else. I still wonder about investments - and believe in measuring "returns" .... paying $20,000 for Solar EV might be worth it, but maybe in the bigger picture investing in a wind farm is better, at least living in the city.

It is funny. Even 100 million environmentalists working by ourselves can make poor economic choices. I mean from "penny wise, pound foolish" to just plain myopic vision of where resources will be most needed in the near future. If I try "self-defense", I might have the only energy-self sufficient home in the neighborhood, but what does it cost in choices lost in a collective investment?

I think everyone ought to realize we're playing a game of musical chairs, and even if the chairs are yet expanding with new players, a day will come when the chairs will stare disappearing. I think we all must look to other games sooner or later, and make more room for others with less flexibility to change immediately.

I'm proud to have gone now two years without a car, although I still consider my options on sharing a car. Many challenges for all of us, whatever our resources and affluence.

Scary to imagine being a teacher, can't share the good news like a good evangelical. I'm a brimstone and hellfire preacher, and don't like to tell people we're fucked. Ignorance is bliss, so I guess I'll follow the natural course:

Let those hear who will, and follow who can....

Debt theory and "maxed out"

I've not seen the movie "Maxed out" yet, but seems interesting, especially since the producer didn't expect a serious topic of human pain, just thought how foolish we are.

I thought of my own perspective on debt. There's one side of "perfection" where you "ought to" be able to save first and never go into debt. The idea of "paying interest" is a sort of "scam" where a person WITH money MAKES MORE by taking advantage of those who don't have enough. There's plenty of religious "opinions" on the morality lending money and charging interest.

And myself, being a lender, to my brother, I long ago learned it is useless to "pretend" I'm loaning money when I have no WILL to demand it back. Lenders automatically put themselves in a position of weakness if they have any compassion (or guilt) at all!

On the other side, I see there are expenses, like a HOME, which is NEEDED, and since you still have to live somewhere, is potentially worthy to borrow money to purchase. The "potential" is a tricky issue, based on how much rent costs, and whether the cost to own a home is managable.

At least "heartless" lenders can "take heart" in their long term investment, knowing they can foreclose and usually get their money back on a resale. ALTHOUGH being a 30-eyar fixed 5.2% mortgage lender seems risky if inflation hits, although I suppose at least all the early payments are interest.

Well on "debt theory" I'm more thinking in terms of "unsecured credit" - i.e. credit cards. The game has taken off incredibly well, and might seem to benefit everyone involved. People who need money now get it, and pay a hefty interest charge. You'd THINK that people who see the charge and pay it down, but even 20% is still a small monthly charge for a modest sum, so easy to get used to holding a balance for a while.

So I see the "theory" is on human nature to (1) Worry about new things abstractly (2) Get used to things that offer a small short term cost and a large short term benefit.

The difficulty with money is because it IS ABSTRACT, it has no natural limits or scales to measure. You can look at a tree or a mountain and say "Wow, that's big!", but what's big with money? Sure, there are "benchmarks" - like annual income. BUT what's the difference between owing a mortgage for 3 times your income versus owing credit card debt for 1 times your annual income? Which is bigger? Both are "damned" big, and certainly monthly minimum payments are a good standard. But again, if I have a 1 year income CC debt, and I charge more each month than the minimum payment, the balance goes UP. Comparatively mortgages always go down. So CC debt has a "freedom" that allows long term costs to pile up far longer than the borrower intended from the start.

I remember watching a program on debt, and one young woman said "I like to keep a savings" as a reason to hold CC debt. So she'd hold $5000 in savings, $10000 in CC debt, and feel secure because she can make the minimum payments. It was astounding to me since I like the savings idea, but don't get the "security" in paying high interest debt (say an extra $750/year). A rational person says that's dumb, but apparently there's unseen emotional security.

Since getting a mortgage I've had to question how much money to pay down the debt and how much savings to keep, and I admit having "cash" has some security, MORE since I can't borrow back against a mortgage, but when I can I do feel good to make extra payments, AND I can still get a home equity loan if I really had a reason.

I suppose the other side of the CC debt is there's no one standing over you shaking their head and telling you what you can't do - like would happen if you lost your job and tried to get a home equity loan. A CC company is happy if you want to live off of it for 6 months, job or not, as long as you can make the minimum payments.

Myself I know enough about my lack of discipline that probably I don't trust myself down the slippery slope of CC debt, even if I could ignore the interest, which I agree still seems small in the short term. I just don't know how to mentally budget my life when I have unlimited access to money. I'm afraid I could always justify "next month" I'll pay down the balance, and yet year after year keep increasing my balance. The credit card company OUGHT to say something like a good daddy, but they offer a different message - they RAISE your credit limit! Even if you don't have a job, as long as their measures look good - making your payments faithfully.

Speaking of "maxed out", the U.S. goverment raise its debt ceiling to $9T in March 2006, and looks like it'll be "maxed out" by mid-June 2007!
http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock

Government debt is completely opaque to understanding. $29k/American? Does that mean I can CUT MY INCOME TAXES by 20% if I "pay off" my $29k share? Nope. And good thing I have no kids!

Most annoying I see DEBT/GNP graphs showing the graph holding steady around 60% of GNP, it looks like smooth sailing!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_public_debt

Well, I admit it is curious. What does it mean if GNP has increased at the same rate as the debt?
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0104575.html
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
GNP $9,817 $10,100 $10,480 $10,987 $11,734 $12,487
Debt $5,674 $5,807 $6,228 $6,783 $7,379 $7,932
% 57.7% ............................. 63.5%
The GNP increased 27%, 4.9%/year.
The Debt increased 40%, 6.9%/year.

Anyway, the disturbing thing is that the government borrows from SS surpluses now, which will have to be repaid later. We are playing "credit card", making "minimum payments" each month and charging MORE.

Someday soon our "minimum payments" are going to grow and so we'll have even less to put towards the balance. We're going to have to keep borrowing more and more since taxpayers are permanently pissed now, so even reasonable tax increases are rejected.

And meanwhile pie-in-the-sky economics can pretend we can "grow" our way out of debt, somehow secretly allowing inflation to work its wonders. Who knows, I certainly accept lenders are crazy to think government bonds are a secure investment, unless indexed by inflation.

Anyway, I mainly wanted to paint some of the "emotional landscape" of debt and see what it looked like. The economy hasn't crashed yet, so our debt must not be too bad. That's the "empirical" way to test debt.

I don't trust it, but I have to live with this too. I just hope those foreign lenders "get smart" and stop increasing our credit limit! Please!

Sovereign power and compromise

Imagine any locale with the ability to produce energy locally, sustainably, with natural resources available to meet local needs.

A community in such a position might find certain local resoures lacking, and neighbors willing to trade resources for mutual benefit. If things are good, there may be the OPTION of expanding local production of energy or any resource for export, and allowing local wealth to be expanded.

If it is possible to evaluate production on the grounds of sustainability, there will be a limit on production, possibly estimatable, and if considered, would put a limit on exports and potential gains in short term wealth and prosperity.

As well, such a local can look at its population, how much local consumption takes up from the local resources. Population can be evaluated both on the "cost" (of consumption) and the "benefit" of extra labor capacity.

Anyway, for any locale, basically depending solely on local resources means diminished culture, having to do without things that they could otherwise have through trading.

On the other side, a locale may find local natural resources limited and focus more on buying resources from other places, and creating "value added" products to be sold again for a profit. That approach allows the potential of great profits, at the risk of their export products becoming less valuable, perhaps as others copy their techniques or underprice them. Ideally a community should see export income as a bonus to their wealth, but not depend on it.

If something new is to be produced, some level of investment and development must occur. If this investment takes too long, there's an incentive to speed things up by borrowing money from a neighbor, developing the resource or product, and when successfully exported, pay back the loan and interest. It's a risky deal for both lender and borrower, depending on the terms. A lender might ask for colateral, like land, to protect the investment, and a borrower who is willing to take the risk might agree because it promises quicker wealth if successful.

A powerful neighbor will tend to grow in power by providing access to wealth and resources for development, and skim off the cream of successes. Smaller locales, without strong bargaining skills or leverage, will take what terms they can get, if it promises wealth.

A powerful locale may also attract immigrants who will see greater opportunity, and a powerful locale may support immigration because poorer imported people will expect less and work hard.

A powerful locale might look at their wealth and power as a something to generate new wealth and power, or it might look forward and see their wealth and power is not sustainable, and a future time may come where wealth and power is not as easy. They might prepare for a future which does not depend as much on expanding wealth and power.

Such a conservative wealthy locale would have to look more seriously at population, which may not be sustainable in a future when imported wealth dries up and local resources must be used to meet local needs. If people see opportunity here rather than where they come from, a smarter approach would be to help neighboring locales make more opportunity, and also set some limits on local population that can be supported under harder times.

Even so, some advantages may not be sharable. One locale might have a great river to provide hydropower, but only so much land to grow food. If local population exceeds the potential for local food, should population be limited? What could be done to limit population growth?

AND even if a local population finds plenty of resources, and relative wealth and posperity, and controls its populations, what should it do with neighbors who have too many people to meet their own needs with anything like a similar standard of living?

Perhaps the neighboring populations have shorter lifespans, and people die of simple things that could be handled with knowledge. Should the "reasoned community" share its well-being on exporting antibiotics or better sanitation or food production systems that can grow more food with care, even if can be abused and decrease the future fertility and potential for the land?

I wonder such things, imagining I am in the "reasoned community" looking down at the "suffering masses" and THINK I have something to offer for my knowledge and experience. I might even find benefit, since if my neighbors prosper more, they can share their own resources in trade and improve my community.

I can imagine two seemingly honorable sides (1) The conservative side that hoards and protects resources for defending my future (2) The benefits of trade to everyone's short term gain.

The conservative ideally gets ahead and shares only what can be safely shared, but the conservative might still be the monkey in the tree looking out for preditors. Our species evolved by boldness, taking risks, and exploiting opportunties without our grasp, using communal protection to average out the failures and shortfalls.

I guess my main point is that there is such thing as "sovereign" power of every community to govern its own destiny. This power is limited by the benevolence of neighbors who may be more powerful, as well as local cleverness to protect its own resources.

All trade agreements are advanced by those who benefit the greatest from trade, and this "greed" will tend to encourage people to surrender part of their community's sovereign powers in exchange for immediate advantage. In "good times" such agreements will tend to benefit every (via trickle down economics or whatever) but will always benefit some more than others. Those on top will tend to unfairly wield power, even unintentially, making the weaker side take greater risks, and the weaker sides must agree to any terms, because it promises something better.

It would be nice to believe in benevolent power, and it can exist, in "economic aid", in sharing knowledge, in open borders to development, but even benevolent power can fail to help in the long term problems. When it comes down to it, even the best intentions can go astray, and power corrupting decisions.

I just have to wonder how it all works out. I'm confident our successes has encouraged too much local responsibility being abdicated, and that the consequences are good and bad, good for increased affluence, and bad because centralized power and local knowledge are separated.

I have to wonder how our excesses will be "cured", and since I don't see them cured through benevolent centralized power, it must come through locales reasserting their independence, setting limits on their dependence upon external resources for local needs. And as scary as it seems, the poor must lead. The poorest must assert first, what power they can find, and not accept the easy road of development through imported resources.

It's a fun thought because the truth of it exists at many levels, from individuals to families to towns to cities to states to nations. We must all strive to stand on our own and hold our independence, at least as a goal, accept sometimes a slower path is better, even when seemingly benevolent forces are offering aid.

It's one of those "divergent problems" with no right solutions. The only thing to realize is neither side can win - complete surrender or complete sovereign power, and both perspectives are needed.

Muddling towards renewables

I wish someday I could look towards the future with hope rather than dread. Perhaps such a day will happen in my lifetime? Certainly I think in my lifetime (or hopeful lifetime) resource constraints (compared to demands) will continue to drag down our projected futures, and this is good in the sense of necessity, but bad since past successes will mean energy will be devoted too long into diminishing returns to do thing as we've done them.

I get as impatient as anyone, and my impatience stands squaring on uncertainty - whether or not we can live anything like we do now in the future - and basically my grim conclusion is no, at least by American standards - seeing if the world's population used energy like we do, the world would be using sometimes like 5 times as much energy as now, and even if production rates could be scaled up so fast, reserves would be depleted so much sooner.

Just the thought that dirtier sources of energy - coal, tar sands, shale oils, will rise as the oil and natural gas sources decline, is disturbing. We're creating a world that will DEMAND ever dirtier fuels to be consumed. I see no renewables that can "scale up" to our demands, so we'll keep going down the fossil fuel chain as long as it'll carry us.

I'd like a future where the costs of renewables could better compete, but I can't well except the economics of subsidies. I'd much prefer simply taxing fossil fuels at a level that makes alternatives competitive, even ignoring magic calculations of "full environmental costs" or whatever.

It is interesting, lets stop all farm subsidies for ethanol production from corn. Let's triple the costs of natural gas, electricity, diesel fuel, etc. What's going to happen to the cost of producing ethanol? It's going to go way up, probably much higher than the cost of gasoline, even subsidized by animal feed coproducts.

If biofuels make sense, we're going to have to learn to make them without fossil fuels. Quite obvious expectation, but no so obvious answers. Some suggest we can use biomass to fuel ethanol production.
http://www.tcdailyplanet.net/node/3669
http://notexactlyrocketscience.wordpress.com/2007/02/04/opinion-how-biofuels-could-cut-carbon-emissions-produce-energy-and-restore-dead-land/

I remember in Minnesota 1994, NSP (now Xcel Energy) needed storage space for used nuclear power waste, and an agreement was made to develop wind power and biomass. Wind power came out as very cost effective, while biomass less so. Basically what I read was that the cost of harvesting and transporting the biomass made the resulting energy noncompetitive. The experiments were with fast growing poplar trees I remember.

Can we really create a biomass energy source to meet our current energy needs? I mean sustainably, and scalably? I wish to be positive, but just hearing about the failed tree biomass experiment, I expect not.

On the issue of "energy/acre", it is something I looked at before, and I was "shocked" to hear an acre of land could only produce something over 100 gallons of ethanol, even ignoring the small energy gain. I admit trees would seem an ideal fuel compared to grass - being dense and tall - how can grasses beat wood for energy density?

Well, I suppose I shouldn't judge so quickly. And even if biomass energy costs 10x more than other energy sources, perhaps there'll be a day when other sources will also cost as much, and we'll be using less energy by necessity. I still have to wonder - at least for electricity, wind power seems a great source for electricity. Using biomass PURELY for energy (burning) seems rather inefficient - solar panels over the same area ought to generate 10 times more electricity directly than can be stored in biomass.

I probably would be less impatient if I could be a part of the solution, rather than just another sheep. My personal solution to transportation is good - bicycle and bus - for 90% of my transport, but a hard sell, and I admit my "range" is cut. Transportation already seems so expensive - maybe for a single person, bus fare is cheap, but add 3 kids? And to know it is already greatly subsidized is discouraging. Hearing about the Northstar train
http://www.mn-getonboard.org/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northstar_Corridor
http://anokacountywatchdog.com/northstar_rail/northstar_menu.htm

So much money, and still subsidized travel. I don't much understand. I like my bike! :)

The Upside of Down

Fun article at:
http://canada.theoildrum.com/node/2155 The Upside of Down: Catastrophe, Creativity and the Renewal of Civilization
http://www.homerdixon.com/

The question of complexity and what sustains it and what breaks it is fasinating to wonder about. According to my small-world mind, the current success of humanity is incomprehensible, the vast networks of institutions and infrastructure that makes our consumption possible. I can "reduce" my incomprehension on the idea that the availability of energy drives it all, however much our cleverness makes it possible.

It is curious to imagine how the pyramid of consumption can be flattened to include the developing world. I access the judgments that bottleneck resources WILL not only put a damper on those ambitions, but on our own as well.

I also accept the simplifying vision that our pyramid scheme is maintained through assumption of continued growth, and that all our economic models can not handle sustained periods of drawback.

It is curious to imagine how anyone can willingly play the game, knowing the futile result, knowing the more you have the more you'll lose. From the outside it is insanity, but I can try to see my own participation. I'm drawn by success, drawn by vision of ever advancing of human knowledge (and power there derived).

Well, back to the book I've not read, but nice review at link above.

I'm attracted to ideas that put our growth in context of a wider cycle. Growth feeds on itself, and success creates success, until the neglected costs slowly begin to accumulate and lower the returns. Complexity responds to new challenges by new complexity, tightening the system, squeezing out the inefficiencies, and optimizing the system to extract more from less. Necessity is the mother of invention, and we're creating necessities much more quickly than we can hope to solve them. At some point a series of bottlebnecks must come that can not be solved, and the system begins to disintegrate. The massive support systems declines, and smaller ones must arise to plug the local holes, if there's time.

The stock market is a good example of a powerful system that can't clearly deal with cascading failure. When there's success (bull market), everyone jumps in and succeeds. When there's too many people too far over their heads, they'll retreat what wealth they can to protect themselves and in the process destroy the good and the bad.

I'm not a risk-taker. What wealth do I have I'm willing to lose? It is astounding to me that people are lead to believe "investing in stock" is a means towards retirement. I mean it can be under good times, but for me I figure in good times, those knowledgeable will make more money off my investments than me, and under bad times, I'm going to be the one losing out. Power is not equal, and as much as the lottery is a fool's game, so to me is dumb investors who trust their money to others. And most of all I dislike the fact that innumerable "good ideas" go nowhere today because they don't have promised returns.

Investing for retirement purely based on expected returns is a corruption to me, a corruption of the stewartship of wealth. Sure, an investor CAN be smarter, but in a world of specialization, the bottom line is profits, and experts will play the game for us, and even when we win, we lose, because our path is further from facing the demands of the future. We may have more $s, but their value can disappear faster than anyone will admit.

Finally to the title, I'm sure there is an upside to down, but I'm not sure if we'll see it on the way down. I've long thought that if everyone thought like me, the economy would callapse quick, not just because I'm often stupid and don't always take the free rides offered, but because I must believe in a system of limits, and would overprotect (like any good environmentalist) so the crash happens sooner than later.

It is funny, since I often agree environmentalists are CRAZY - seeing the downside in EVERYTHING, they allow more downersides to continue because they're harder to attack. Like attacking nuclear for electricity while allowing coal plants, or complaining wind turbines kill burns while neglecting the mercury pollution from coal.

Well, I wish I had something good to end with, but I'll have to surrender as usual.

Biomass in the sky with diamonds?

I wanted some sort of fancy title for my blog, like Lucy-in-the-Sky with-Diamonds for LSD, maybe BSD could mean something else too.

Well, below is a fun compentary published in Saturday's Strib.

Let's see if I can offer an inline commentary, in italics....

Overall, it is too vague, without any evidence success is possible. It seems unrealistic to believe corn-based ethanol can at all be made carbon neutral, or that burning biomass could reduce the nonrenewable energy consumed. There's too much "conversion" going on to get "liquid" fuels. If we're going to use electricity for transportation, I'm sure using it directly is better than using it to create a liquid fuel.

My perhaps wrong conclusions are:
(1) There's no reasonable renewable energy solutions without reducing consumption.
(2) There's no reasonable solutions to produce liquid fuels from biomass.

That said, I have no objections to experiments in closing the energy and carbon loop in production. I'd say we ought to be looking how to make our agricultural production independent of fossil fuels first, at least experimentally. Energy produced on a farm and used on a farm stands that best chance to be economic. Converting and transporting energy further just seems to decrease my hope for viability.

I just can't offer much hope for transportion as we know it to be at all based on agriculture.

-------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.startribune.com/562/story/1060375.html
Last update: March 17, 2007 – 4:52 PM

Jason Hill And G. David Tilman: There's a new phrase that should be on the lips of all Minnesotans, and that phrase is ... CELLULOSIC BIOMASS!

Sensational? Perhaps. But this is the fuel of the future, and Minnesota is in a position to produce it -- if we do it right. Today, two U scientists show us the way.

Jason Hill And G. David Tilman

A little more than a century ago our personal transportation in this country (horses) was fueled by the products of agriculture (hay and oats). When automobiles came along, we tried fueling them with corn ethanol, but gasoline has always been the cheaper alternative.
• Today, however, we know that fossil fuels are finite and that burning them contributes to destructive global warming. And so it is back to the future: Corn ethanol and, to a lesser extent, soybean biodiesel have emerged as leading candidates to reduce our nation's use of oil.

What about "back" to 10mph and traveling 1/10th of what we do today?

• There are serious concerns, however, about how these biofuels will impact the environment -- and about the wisdom of trying to use our corn and soybean crops to meet both the food and energy needs of the world's growing population. Global population, which has quadrupled since 1900, is expected to increase by 3 billion over the next 50 years. Energy and food consumption will at least double as those in China, India and other developing countries seek to emulate our lifestyle.

So we're going to use less energy, right?

• Research that we have conducted at the University of Minnesota shows that there might be even better alternatives to corn- and soybean-based fuels, and it puts us in a better position to make decisions about energy use that will affect future generations.

In July 2006, we published a report in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences on the costs and benefits of corn ethanol and soybean biodiesel. Soybean biodiesel has significant advantages over corn ethanol, yielding 93 percent more energy than the fossil fuel energy that is used to produce it, compared with 25 percent for corn ethanol. Soybean biodiesel produces 41 percent less greenhouse gas emissions than diesel, while corn ethanol produces only 12 percent less emissions than gasoline.

Soybean biodiesel is also a better choice for the environment because soybeans require less fertilizers and pesticides, both of which pollute groundwater, streams, rivers and oceans.

Soybeans better than ethanol. Okay.

We also showed in our study that neither corn ethanol nor soybean biodiesel can come close to weaning us from our addiction to oil. Dedicating all of our nation's current corn and soybean production to biofuels would meet only 12 percent of our gasoline demand and 6 percent of our diesel demand. Plus, once we subtract the fossil fuel energy needed to produce these biofuels, our true energy gain from each would only be about 3 percent.

That's bad news.

Worse, using food for fuel raises the price of food and makes crop markets more volatile. In the past two years, the price of corn has doubled. As demand continues to rise, farmers both here and abroad will plant more of their acres to corn, which will reduce the number of acres planted with less environmentally damaging crops and acres set aside for conservation.

That's bad news.

Prairie plants' benefits

But our research did not end there. In a recent issue of Science, we published research showing that mixtures of native prairie plants grown on marginal land are a good source of biomass for biofuel. Our study, based on 10 years of biodiversity experiments at Cedar Creek Natural History Area near East Bethel, demonstrated that ethanol made from mixed prairie plants can provide more usable energy per acre than either corn ethanol or soybean biodiesel.

So that's CELLULOSIC BIOMASS right? We know how to use some amount of ENERGY to convert cellulose from biomass and create more ethanol per acre than corn. How much energy does this take?

In addition, mixed prairie plants are highly productive and easy to grow. As they are perennial, they don't need to be replanted each year. Certain species in these mixtures, such as legumes, interact with soil bacteria to "fix" their own nitrogen from the atmosphere just as soybeans do. These diverse mixtures also prevent soil erosion and don't require pesticides, herbicides or irrigation. They remove carbon dioxide from the air, storing carbon in their massive root systems as organic matter and in the soil itself. This actually adds fertility to degraded lands.

Okay, but how much energy input?!

Less than 2 percent of Minnesota's precious native prairie ecosystem remains, and planting more land to diverse prairie would restore valuable wildlife habitat if it is managed and harvested properly. How can we use this diverse prairie biomass to produce biofuels? The cellulose in the leaves and stems can be converted into ethanol much as we make ethanol from the starch in corn. However, breaking down cellulose is a more complex and currently more expensive process than breaking down starch. Many private entities and public research groups are pursuing cost-effective technologies for producing ethanol from cellulose, and although it is unlikely to be available for five or more years, we should begin establishing the infrastructure of this new industry today.

Okay, so we can NOT do it in a cost effective way, and perhaps never can!

The new U.S. farm bill, which is the first in this nation's history to consider fuel as well as food crops, provides an excellent opportunity for promoting prairie biomass. We would like to see this legislation include incentives for farmers to begin shifting our biofuel industry from food to perennial plants as its main input.

For example, the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) now pays farmers to leave pieces of their land uncultivated for reasons such as erosion control. The increase in corn prices created by ethanol production is causing many farmers to consider taking their land out of this program and planting it back into corn. As an alternative, we propose a pilot program for using this land to restore diverse native prairie in a way that achieves the environmental benefits this ecosystem offers while providing us with a valuable energy source.

To reduce CO2 emissions

Until the technology to convert cellulose into ethanol is economically viable, we suggest that current corn ethanol plants burn this prairie biomass instead of natural gas or coal to provide them with the steam and electricity they require. This practice would actually greatly reduce net carbon dioxide emissions both by reducing fossil fuel use and by storing carbon in prairie soils (removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere).

From what I've read growing and collecting biomass for burning costs much more than traditional energy sources. If we need electricity wind power seems much more cost effective than biomass.

Indeed, our calculations suggest that corn ethanol produced using prairie biomass to power ethanol plants would, in effect, result in a zero net release of carbon dioxide to the air. By blending this type of ethanol with gasoline, instead of our current corn ethanol, Minnesota could lead the nation in providing its citizens with a much more climate-friendly fuel.

So you want to take corn ethanol which already "takes too much land", and "costs too much to produce without subsidies" and make it take MORE land and cost MORE to produce?

Ultimately, federal policy should favor those biofuels that offer the greatest environmental benefits to society. Rather than choosing to promote the biofuels that may look the best to us today, we should decide which energy and environmental benefits we want our biofuels to deliver, and allow the best to rise to the top. We would also like to emphasize that biofuels are only one part of the overall solution. Other sources of renewable energy such as wind, solar and hydrogen are equally important. Setting new standards for energy efficiency in buildings and transportation could produce even more significant effects.

The Minnesota Legislature and Gov. Tim Pawlenty recently set an ambitious new requirement that our state's utilities obtain 25 percent of their electricity from a variety of renewable sources by 2025. We commend them for setting what is now the highest standard in the nation. We hope our proposal will contribute to similar high standards for our transportation biofuel production.

I've not seen your proposal, but sounds fishy to me.

Jason Hill is a research associate in the University of Minnesota's College of Food, Agricultural and Natural Resources and the College of Biological Sciences. G. David Tilman is Regents professor of ecology in the university's College of Biological Sciences.
©2007 Star Tribune. All rights reserved.

Found 24 page report. (see page 24)
http://www.cbs.umn.edu/main/aboutcbs/bio/winter2006/BIOwinter06.pdf

A new study led by David Tilman, Regents Professor of Ecology in the University of Minnesota’s College of Biological Sciences, shows that mixtures of native perennial grasses and other flowering plants provide more usable energy per acre than corn-grain ethanol or soybean biodiesel, and are far better for the environment. “Biofuels made from diverse mixtures of prairie plants can reduce global warming by removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, meet a substantial portion of global energy needs, and leave fertile land for food production,” Tilman said. The findings were published in the Dec. 8 issue of the journal Science and featured on the cover. Based on 10 years of research at Cedar Creek Natural History Area, the study shows that land planted with highly diverse mixtures of prairie grasses and other flowering plants produces more than twice the amount of bioenergy than the same land planted with any single prairie plant species, including switchgrass. Tilman and two colleagues, postdoctoral researcher Jason Hill and research associate Clarence Lehman, estimate that fuel made from prairie biomass would yield 51 percent more energy per acre than ethanol from corn grown on fertile land.

This is because prairie plants, which are perennials, require little energy to grow and all parts of the plant above ground are usable. Fuels made from prairie biomass are “carbon negative,” which means that they reduce the amount of carbon dioxide (a greenhouse gas) in the atmosphere. This is because perennials store more carbon dioxide in roots and soil than is released when fuels made from them are burned. Using prairie biomass to make fuel would remove and store from 1.2 to 1.8 U.S. tons of carbon dioxide per acre per year. In contrast, corn ethanol and soybean biodiesel are “carbon positive,”meaning they add carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, although less than fossil fuels.

The researchers estimate that growing mixed prairie grasses on all of the world’s degraded
land could produce enough bioenergy to replace 13 percent of global petroleum consumption and
19 percent of global electricity consumption. The research was supported by the University of
Minnesota Initiative for Renewable Energy and the Environment and by the National Science
Foundation (NSF). Cedar Creek Natural History Area has been an NSF Long-Term Ecological
Research (www.lter.umn.edu) since 1982.

What the goldbugs know

I've LONG and terminally rejected the "advice" from the goldbugs - the idea that "hoarding" gold as an investment opportunity.

Primarily there's not enough gold to go around. So this means anyone who BUYS gold wants others to buy gold too, because this increases the demand for what they HAVE!

Secondarily, gold is NOT an investment that creates anything. It just sits there waiting for someone to want it.

Thirdly, if there was a depression or something like high inflation, and the value of gold skyrockets, its value means you have to PAY someone to protect it! And even if you can store it, how do you spend it?

No sorry, I just can't defend "individual ownership" for gold, at least for investment. As a government, there's value because it can be used for collateral for paper money.

If it comes to "physical investments" that "just sit there", my first and last choice would be land and property. Property can devalue as well as anything, but at least it can be USED while you're holding it. You can live on it. You can start a business on it. You can grow food on it. You can make it beautiful as you like.

Thinking of the value of land, and seeing it impractical for a gold-backed currency, perhaps a "land-backed" currency is meaningful.

Let's say the U.S. Government own X acres of land, with a claimed value of say $Y. When the government prints money, that money can be backed by the value of land. If the U.S. wants to borrow money from a foreign government, it can print an IOU note which promises land (specific land) for that note if it can't repay it. Just like a home mortgage - fail to make the payments and lose your property.

I'm not saying this is GOOD, although effectively this is what many levels of government are doing - selling off public assets to private hands for cash. At least borrowing keeps the property under public hands.

Anyway, shallow thoughts, unsure of real meaning, but for me it explains why there is a meaning to printing money and a limit to it. I mean in a good system.

The "what goldbugs know" is that money is a risky investment - greedy bastard bankers can take huge risks and huge profits when they succeed and know if they fail the government will bail them out, inflating the money, and hurting lifelong investments of individuals.

It is curious to listen to "investors" versus the average person without great assets, or even net debt. Inflation is good to anyone with debt, at least with fixed interest rates. It is hard to believe anyone would be willing to invest in a fund making money from a fixed-rate 30-year mortgage.

Someday perhaps I'll understand how this works - WHO LOST money in the 1970's on mortgage "investments" when inflation destroyed the value of money?

Transitioning from the automobile

Sooner or later, our energy supplies will no longer be able to keep up with demand. Even without imminant fears of "peak oil", there's too many people in the world aspiring to follow the U.S. consumption levels, or at least European levels, and the supply just won't be there.

Since a transition must happen sooner or later, I wonder what it might look like? I mean thinking of my own stomping grounds, the Twin Cities metro area.

Since transportation is something near 99% dependent upon oil, any sharp rises in oil prices, or even shortages will have a great affect. Given our dependence level is there any way to transition to another fuel?

From what I've heard the next-best energy source for metro transportation is electricity, like Light rail, although perhaps battery technology will advance enough to also help.

My approach would do some mixture of stick and carrot. The stick is to put limitations on automobile travel - stop widening roadways, limit parking, raised "user" fees. These can be justified by assuming land itself is valuable and alternative uses can be found which have a greater value in a future when automobiles won't be as dominate. The carrot is to expand infrastructure to support alternative transportation, development along transportation corridors, and walkable ammenaties.

Now given perhaps 90% are dependent upon auto travel these won't be popular, and perhaps impossible. There's also going to be competition between "central metro areas" and "suburban areas". Businesses perhaps will move if they can't get enough local parking to support them.

The process seems clear for higher density areas, or ones that can be modified to support density. Suburbs themselves can perhaps create their own local centers of walkable development and haSooner or later, our energy supplies will no longer be able to keep up with demand. Even without imminant fears of "peak oil", there's too many people in the world aspiring to follow the U.S. consumption levels, or at least European levels, and the supply just won't be there.

I imagine the transitioning can occur relatively smoothly in cities, smoothly in the sense that some preplanning and gradual changes can make it possible for more to live without owning cars, and it can become a critical mass process of being seen as an attractive lifestyle.

Suburbs and small towns can also move in that direction, with small experiments in "town centers" and transportion corridors and development that allows the brave to live without cars or at least without one car per driving adult!

Exurbs, rural areas are were it is harder to see. It would be interesting to see who does the most driving, but certainly many organize their lives efficiently for auto freedom and not for a future when energy costs much more. I imagine upgrading rail systems for passenger service can help, and smaller electric cars.

Higher energy costs give me hope these things will come, although easy to get impatient, easy to think we ought to be more proactive, and we should, but without a dictatorship I'm afraid the best I can hope for is a milder version of Kunster's "Long Emergency" where small crises trigger a response and hope resources remain to lead.

Debt is still perhaps my bigger fear. A country full of debt means decisions are made on short term gain rather than long term vision. I believe "good debt" is debt that reduces the cost of living in the future. The rest is going to make everything harder when the shit hits the fan.

World population balance

I went to a meetup for the Independence Party of Minnesota tonight, speaker David Paxson talked about the issue of human population - focusing on convincing people there was a problem and that it is the issue the trumps all others.
http://www.worldpopulationbalance.org/ The organization he founded

I respect his position and devotion to the issue. When it came right down to it on "human solutions" his position was (1) Family planning (2) Education. Political solutions could also discuss ending public subsidies for large families - like no tax reduction after two children.

I've heard the issue before and my fundamental problem is that I don't believe you can talk about population in isolation without consumption. For instance for Minnesota specifically he proposed the state government pass a constitutional amendment stating population stabilization as a goal. Then set about making policies that support this goal. He also claimed even "sprawling landscape" of Minnesota was still overpopulated relative to our current population and consumption.

I believe Minnesota has the highest population increase in the mid-west, and of course largely focused on the Twin Cities metro area. It is difficult for me to imagine any policy that could do a "head count" for limiting population. I mean the only system I can imagine would be basically to make living here less desirable (winter!?!?). At least that discourages people moving here. But the other side we equally don't want to be an "exporter of people" - that's the traditional response to population, and what brought my ancestors to America.

I agree on the minimum - education and family planning, most especially in regards to poverty and immigrants. And most of all I believe in the "empowerment of women". More than a few women will boldy say that "having children is natural", and if they love their husband, (and devote their energy fully to "homemaking"), having 4 kids can seem quite reasonable and desirable.

On one side, good education and opportunity for women to particpate as equals in the community is a strong "tool" to encourage women to "want" fewer kids. It might be "enough", but ultimately many couples will want 3,4,5,6 kids, AND at least in our times of abundance, have the resources to raise them. WELL, to proper thinking, there IS real disadvantage to kids in larger families for opportunities and attention, but I'll certainly accept single-child families even as wealthier can lead to a diminished upbringing.

I can think of my own childhood - one sister, one brother (adopted), and so perhaps a "fair" size, and so far only 1 "grandchild" for the next generation, and good odds it'll end there. But really I meant to note that a 3 kid household was not too much by love and attention, even if my learning-disabled brother needed more attention than me.

It is sort of a crazy world to "blame" people for having kids. I mean at least if they really want them. It is easy to mentally think PEOPLE are the problem, while even if not at this moment, "underpopulation"can become exponentially a problem as easily, at least in terms of exponential declines can happen, and COULD happen - like my little "failed" family branch.

One way to think perhaps is not of people as a problem but as a miracle with a "cost". There's the cost to parents to devote their time and energy to raise the kids and give them the opportunity to thrive on their own.

There's a GOOD desire to define "human rights" - fundamentals to human dignity and all that. But such good thoughts need to have some extrapolations to costs.

If "religion x" says women should all have as many children as possible (to spread the word of god), and this belief causes poverty for many of the followers, I'm sure everyone will agree it may not be in the best interests of wider society to subsidize the costs of this belief, well at least for people who are concerned for "overpopulation".

In talking religion (or culture) there's as much a fear of this in other groups - that MY cultural values are going to get diluted and lose influence. Ultimately EVERYONE can consider themselves as a part of some minority group, and consider that more kids as a "duty" to keep my cultural influence. It may be in an "open" culture that GENES can be passed in this way, but not necesssarily culture. Probably the U.S. is one of the weaker world locales worried on losing our culture, even if it is increasing with serious "goals" of minority groups to "grow" themselves into power, most specifically thinking of the Mexican population in the Southwest.

My thoughts are generally for open borders, but not to encourage immigration, but to make it clear that we HAVE TO care about the well-being of our neighbors. If our neighbors are suffering, even if deserved via poor planning, their problems become ours whether we like it or not. What sort of "aid" to offer neighbors is a deep question. Aid ought to empower them to meet their own needs where they are.

Probably states like California will end up overpopulated no matter what, because of the great resources, but ultimately their success must have costs and will drive out people until an equilibrium is found.

It is horrible to imagine - how steep variations in wealth and power can exist. Minnesota deals with "affordable housing" but nothing like on the coasts. In high population centers, minimum infrastructure "cities" will form as people come to cities without the ability to shelter them.

I still try to imagine what Minnesota could seriously do. Overall I'm very tempted to follow the republican ideals of empowering government as close to the people as possible. The state government can't well defend in my mind subsidizing local government taxes, or offering subsidies for families with kids.

If I go that way I know the result. All school funding becomes localized. The wealthy choose to live together to get the best of the best, and the rest make do as they can. Economics works at the cost of equality. As soon as social classes form where children are treated differently for their parents, the game of democracy is over. I mean in degrees, but direction is undefendable.

The two contradictory goals are (1) Moving power close to results (2) Keeping equal opportunity. It is an illusion to pretend democracy really exists under unequal means, and the only defense is to believe that those with a dispoportionate share will see their means as stewardship to the needs of the whole.

Overall I'm pretty hopeless, no clear "incremental" policies that give me hope.

Yes-men to their last breath

A great summary article on peak oil from the industry's perspective:
http://www.spe.org/spe/jpt/jsp/jptmonthlysection/0,2440,1104_1585_0_6547035,00.html
How Do We Get There From Here? Global Energy Transitions Planning

I much appreciate the candid admissions in the article absent from most public positions from the industry. Peak oil WILL come in practice when supply fails to keep up with demand. (Really more of an inflection point, transitioning from a demand limited economics to supply limited, even if actual production can still inch upwards under heroic efforts.)

It would be interesting if the engineers could actually step back and admit - the day of reckoning is sooner than we'd all like - within the decade world oil production will fail to meet demand. The oil will be there, but not for all, but only for those with the means to pay for it, or take it. The economy that lifts all boats will change into something different, and we'd all better be prepared for it.

I suppose it is up to the economists to offer their assessments of the consequences of peak oil. It is funny how easily the economists just accept prices will lead to new supply. What's the story if things don't go optimally - if Civil war in the middle east sends oil prices to $300/bbl? Sure maybe it's a long way off, but maybe in two weeks. How do you prepare for such bottlenecks?

Back to the engineers, maybe it's just a matter of technical problems requiring a myopic focus, and past success says the end-game is yet long off. I just continue to wish some sort of "warning" could be issued from the oil companies that they can offer no promises for future production.

Richard Heinberg, not at all a geologist or engineer, still can point out the astounding failures of optimism to pan out:
http://www.energybulletin.net/27103.html

The biggest question for all of us is when do we start to prepare? The selfish question becomes "How long can we exploit easy-street while protecting our future when it dries up?" Or like going to an auction, we can ask "How much is oil worth to us?" $100/bbl ? $250/bbl?

I think we're in a lot more trouble than a coming energy crisis (or liquid fuel crisis at least). In the short run I accept the economy has room to squeeze. Of course it'd have MORE room if people actually knew how to save some of their income and invest in ways that reduces future costs.

It's just rather sad how little planning there seems to be. I think engineers are smart capable people. I just wish a few more would admit the days are numbered, and encourage preparation, whether alternatives, conservation and powerdown, or whatever responses we can find.

Debt

I worry about the future, my dependence upon a seemingly insane economic system built on debt and a dependency upon ever increasing consumption to continue the pyramid scheme going.

A friend of mine, a believer in positive thinking, and that thoughts can affect reality, said I should EXPECT there'll be plenty to help others.

My silent response is no, my vote is for $5/gallon gasoline this summer. What does it take to convince people there are serious problems ahead? Concince people to convince politicians that conservation ought to be the top priority, and redesigning our lifestyles to run without continual increases in consumption.

I don't know really, what things ought to be done. I don't think policitians are much smarter than me, if they do peek at the truth of our risks. It's not even that there's no dialogue going on on renewable energy. Minnesota will move from 10% ethanol in our fuel to 20% by some year. We're expanding wind power. Lots of good projects that offer some good.

Basically the message I wish that could get out is the idea that the cost of living must increase in the future with energy costs. I'd like to believe the "economy" (i.e. "our jobs") can continue smoothly into a higher cost future, but overall I think there can be no security for any of us - most of all for carrying debt.

I feel dependent with mortgage debt, the debt with the lowest interest, smallest risk to lenders. I'll admit my perhaps foolish 5-year ARM mortgage, calculated to save money if I pay down a good fraction of the principle in the first 5 years. That is, I'll pay down the principle close to $110,000 in 5 years with luck, and $120k left. So if my rate jumps from 4.75% to say 8% after a couple years, I'm still ahead as long as I continue extra payments, I'm ahead.

I've done my reading about ideas that the financial world allows the banks to create money through loans - allowing up to 90% of money to be based on debt. I can deny this a little - at least for equity-based debt - property - which has some real value. I figure investing in my home strengthens my position whatever happens.

Beyond mortgages I must admit I don't see what money is about. I don't trust the stock market. I think anyone foolish enough to live from credit card minimum payments is in trouble under any economy.

I must admit I can't imagine any security being an "investor" in banks, credit cards. Someone is making lots of money now, but it seems to me like it has to be a business where people are ready to jump ship when things are looking down.

It is curious. I imagine the HARDEST place is to have large wealth and need to invest it somewhere. Maybe there are 50% wealthy suckers out there ready to take the fall when the shit hits the fan? Someone must lose, and that's where I imagine our economy must fail. It's a great scheme as long as things are going up, but how many wealthy people will take a guaranteed loss when things go down? Those "in the know" will protect themselves, and the rest will pay.

Back to the average people, my happy friend wanting positive thinking to keep the game running, I still have to say no, sorry, the game can't last. Best to take what you have now, conserve, invest in ways to protect your future.

I don't know any good advice for those who are already deep in debt. Perhaps this "scheme" can still work for them? Perhaps when they lose their job they can just declare bankruptsy? Perhaps the bill collectors will get overwhelmed and ignore you?

I just have to wonder what govermment and community owes to speculators, owes to people who stretch their resources too far and enslave their futures?

Why democracy will never work

An attempted controversial title I can't hope to defend, except sidewise.

Thinking about this in regards to global warming. The U.S. produces something around 25% of the world's CO2 releases, with under 5% of the world's population. If there's problems NOW, the problems will be worse if the rest of the world tries to catch up to us.

When we talk of "CO2 released per person" the U.S. leads the field by a long shot. Therefore any cutback lands squarely on us the hardest, and it's hard to defend the rest of the world even contemplating their own cutbacks as long as we're the leading "polluters".

In short, the reality of the world is an unequal distribution of wealth and power, and those with more will not be interested in "fair shares", or in reducing their wealth/consumption/power to meet the needs of the whole.

I can say that both depressingly, and questioningly. Surely people want to help make a difference, and the wealthy can feel as much responsibility as anyone, but it still comes down to what they're willing to give up.

Just imagine a "CO2 quota/credit" system where every PERSON the world got a quota to spend each year, and they could SELL that quota/credit to the highest bidder if they didn't need it. Imagine the giant sucking sound of 20% of the wealth of the U.S. being spent on importing credits to conver consumption, that on top of our already trade deficits.

Even if you're so benevolant to accept that, now think of your lazy pot smoking nephew sitting back on his "low-impact" lifestyle selling his "fair" given credits to avoid getting a job. I just try to think of an example of the freedom "entitlement" that a simple democratic ideal offers.

If we imagined a "world democracy", it means the U.S. interests stand worth 5% of the world's power with 5% of the population. Well we might fall to that someday, but not without a fight, not without draining every last drop of unsustainable natural resources within our bloody grasp.

Consider this lecture given, by fairly rational man against a "cap and trade" system for CO2:
http://www.eande.tv/transcript/574

Well, I don't even disagree with that. He says cap and trade means winners and losers in the competition for credits and the politically unviable options of any fair distribution system. He promotes direct carbon taxes as better, and I can consider that.

Where we differ, is that he is HONEST and admits U.S. MUST increase in energy usage to support our way of life, however much there's room for efficiency. He doesn't see our lifestyle as unsustainable but an entitlement we can't surrender.

His optimism lies in a place that I'm very skeptical about - the idea that our GNP continues to get less and less dependent upon energy. Somehow he's implying we're moving in the right direction by an abstract economic measure. Basically he thinks we're getting MORE PRODUCTIVE because there's more money flowing without costing energy.

I must question the nature of the GNP measure. If my company buys your company for $1 billion, is that sale in the GNP? I just don't know how you can ever compare absolutes from the real world to abstract measures of money flow. I think like statistics, economic numbers can perhaps be spun in ANY direction a person wants. If one curve is declining, just divide by another curve that is declining faster! I don't believe there's any incentive for honest measurements of the economy.

It would be nice to know the "truth" of such analyses - how they are spun, or what they hide to make their point.

If you say "Cutting CO2 by 20% will cost 50% of the GNP" - that is ultimately cut our annual incomes by 50%, yes, it looks bad, and maybe is politically unviable, but that doesn't mean the results are unacceptable if its were we need to be in the long run.

There's crazy things going on. It could be on on current path, we'd hit a severe depression in the year 2022, and if we do the right things, we'll hit a severe depression the year 2012. Well, whose to say which is better - if a depression is a "correction" to a market out of control, perhaps a sooner correction is better than later. But whose going to vote for that?

And just to end with my title question, I'm not excited by conspiracy, but really when it comes to power, I must hope there's some benevolant abuse on top where long term decisions are made acceptable through manipulation.

There's too much damned arrogance in America - a false sense of entitlement - in myself too surely. There's no reason to believe we can continue on our path, so if it takes some manipulation to change things, I'm not against it 100%.

If it wasn't for hurting the poorer nations, I'd vote for $300/bbl oil tomorrow, or in 6 months if you like. Demand destruction isn't a good way to run an economy, but people ought to be scared, and we ought to be taking the harder road sooner than later, whether peak oil or climate change or debt reduction.

The myth of the benevolance markets

Just a quick late night thought, nothing factual, but lots of easy soft fear that disappears in the light of day when there's places to see, people to do, things to go, or something like that.

My mind imagines a slow process that occurs as people surrender their power in exchange for trinkets offered by strangers. First its pretty beads maybe, then a nice mirror for the Mrs, some white lightning for the wild nights, and perhaps a warm wool blanket for the kids. Nothing to object about.

It's all not looking too bad, and then the settlers start coming, and you question but are assured the land was legally sold to them, where you had once roamed free, and they're cuttin' down the trees, building things that never were ther before.

Wait, that's the WRONG story. No this one maybe has a little thing called a mortgage and monthly payments a little beyond what you can handle, at least with that credit card balance that has been rising for the last few years so now the once easy minimum payments are starting to seem a bit steep. And that car payment is due next week, and your paycheck today is already emptied just paying last week's bills, and of course your car insurance is also 2 weeks overdue and they're going to turn off your policy in two weeks even if you can make your car payment.

Wait, that's not MY story either. Naw, but there's an unlimited number of stories of people who choose NOT to turn down a no-brainer offer by hucksters known by many names, but all comes down to greed.

AND more scary yet, these direct marketers of greed are NOT even the real culprits in this pyramid scheme. They might as well be just like you, just another Joe trying to make a buck to pay for their nice home or new car. No the real enemy is worse that that. The enemy is those who actually have a couple pennies to rub together and CHOOSE to invest those pennies in a few stocks in companies that pay marketers to figure out better and better ways to sucker money from people. No it is probably worse that that. Average Joes with a few bucks in the MARKET are not the problem, but its the above-average Joes with more than a few pennies to rub together who think the right investment can double their wealth again, like it has for the last 17 times or whatever.

Debt is the simplest measure of the blackness of the heart of this system we call "The free market." On the bright surface it is OPPORTUNITY. It is creativity. It is the best and the brightest envisioning a better world and having the tools to see what they can do.

But WHY does it cost so much? Why does it depend on the vast majority holding great debt and a few on top controlling the vast majority of the wealth?

Any well-trained marketeer will tell you that the RICH earned their wealth and the damned government better keep their grubby hands off the loot, so these inspired folk can continue making the rest of us rich by trickling down on us.

I know how easy it is to support the socialist/communistic propaganda as well - blame the rich for all the shortcomings that happen upon a naive people who were tricked into enslaving themselves for trinkets. If only we could take all the wealth back, and share it everyone will be happy.

No no, I accept that dream is mere projection, scapegoating, even as I accept more than not, the market is full of darkness and small mindedness.

But here, in my dark hours I tell you: Beware!

There are limits to our good fortunes, and ever though there will be convenient scapegoats to be found when the tide seems to turn away from you, that does NOT end your responsibility for where you ended up.

So be afraid. Consider the market is NOT your friend, but at best a neutral force that can help or hurt, but most of all IT DOES NOT CARE ABOUT YOU. It will not save you or your neighbor if the dominoes finally get rolling.

Sometimes I look to enemies, sometimes I just think we're all playing the game of running down the slope and hoping the momentum can carry us over the next hill. It's a gambling game.

Overall my trust of the markets is a trust those who have most succeeded will want to continue the game FAR BEYOND good sense, and for all their risk, they've already won, and can pull out if the chips turn down, while the rest of us can lose everything, if we're unfortunate to miss the timing.

I can't imagine why ANYONE would invest in the stock market. It's CRAZY to me to imagine all the trillions invested in a market that can evaporate overnight.

It's crazy to me that local businesses are dependent upon bank loans of imaginary money created from the fractional reserve system for real profits, while we ought to be supporting our OWN debt by our OWN savings.

It is amazing to think. Put $1000 in the bank, and the collective banking system can turn it into a $9,000 debt to the lend out. It's a great scheme. It allows the money system to expand and allows a new business to open sooner than later, and create new wealth to pay back the loan.

And the house of cards works as long as there's no wind.

Unfortunately as much as I love happy endings, really, there's lots of wind we can't control, and I don't like the idea we're dependent upon a vast system of growing debt to support everything we depend upon!

Well maybe it's all legit. Maybe all the wealth really does have colateral to pay up when things don't work out? Well, in the end, wealth equals land and hard assets - things not fixed in value, but ownable at least.

An interesting thought - Apparently something over 60% of the people "own" homes, but I wonder what that means if the banks have mortgages on all of them.

I wonder what a graph would look like for "OWNED homes and businesses" without debt? I mean like over time. How is it distributed?

No, not thinking about sharing the wealth, just questioning success and power and how things are going.

Peak oil exports?

A fun idea I read tonight at - http://www.fcnp.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=937&Itemid=33 The Peak Oil Crisis: The 4 Facets of Peak Oil By Tom Whipple

Whether world peak oil is last year or in 20 years might not matter as much as when there's a peak of exported oil for trade. Case-in-point, Mexico's production appears in decline, and at some point it won't be able to meet domestic consumption.

It's an interesting question. Generally oil exporting nations SUBSIDIZE local consumption, even at the cost of black market exports. When Mexico production approaches consumption, will it allow domestic consumption costs to equalize with export value? Will it risk domestic outrage to have local shortages when exports can earn the government more money?

Overall I assume a compromise, but still "subsidy" (from global prices) even as exports drop and government income drops.

I know Canada as a part of NAFTA is obligated to sell oil to the U.S. at the same price it sells oil domestically, although I heard Mexico did not make this agreement.

The black market of oil exports is an interesting reality. The U.S.-Mexican border is one of the steepest in the world between the have and have-nots. If the Mexican government puts price controls on domestic sales, there's an incentive for corruption - for both oil producers, and oil distributors to BUY cheap and find black market buyers who will pay more than the domestic price, whether domestic or exported. Maybe I'm wrong, but suggests that maybe there CAN be no goverment controls to keep domestic prices low AND supply high anyway. Just like 1970's price controls merely created shortages.

So by "market power", oil will generally continue to flow away from oil rich nations to oil poor nations, regardless of the wealth of the people in the exporting countries.

Still, even with this "leaking", I imagine an interesting graph would show "World oil exports" rather than simply "World oil production", and exports will likely peak significantly before production.

Well, since I have no pretty graphs, just a fun thought. Fun in the "What will happen?" curious sense, not in the happytimes sense!

It's strange sitting in a country consuming 25% of the world's oil with 3% of the reserves. Something's gotta give you have to think, and wonder how we'll continue this trick in the coming years. Wonder how we'll continue borrowing to pay for consumption and government spending as well, and how trillion dollar ways can be maintained.

Wonder how investors keep up their enthusiasm for this the game of "Musical chairs". Maybe the chairs haven't started being removed yet?