This goes to show how ecotopian "alternatives" to the current petroleum energy system require massive energy subsidies from current oil supplies. The Grangemouth refinery strike in Scotland lasted just a couple days, but the resulting fuel shortages shut down construction of a wind farm in that country:
MORE than 100 construction workers could face the dole after the fuel crisis brought their project to a halt.
The drivers for Glasgowbased AB2000 were grounded at the new wind farm at Fenwick Moor, Ayrshire, on Thursday after contractors Morrison Construction were unable to find more diesel.
The job was restarted on Friday but bosses fear the limited fuel supply will soon run out and lead to job cuts.
Ted Reilly, of AB2000, said: "We have 70-odd vehicles stuck there because we are hiring men and vehicles to a contractor which can't supply diesel. That situation can't go on any longer.
"Our fear is that we might have to pay men off soon because these people can't get their act together.
"We have to pay stand-by money and if we don't get money in then we can't pay them or we would go under."
The firm are now actively seeking work elsewhere.
The Fenwick wind farm is part of a £150million project.
-----------------------
You have to wonder how we'll build and maintain wind farms when we can't get diesel fuel at all, indefinitely.
BTW, American Airlines reportedly now loses $3.3 million a day because "no airplane was ever designed to make a profit with jet fuel at these prices, and no carrier has figured out a way to charge enough to make up the difference." Even business-class airlines like Eos couldn't make money flying between New York and London. Who predicted that this sort of thing would happen because of the crisis in oil supplies?
This message has been edited by advancedatheist on Apr 29, 2008 8:17 PM
"This goes to show how ecotopian "alternatives" to the current petroleum energy system require massive energy subsidies from current oil supplies."
Mark, the diesel fuel is for CONSTRUCTION of a wind farm. You don't help your case by exaggerating it. The news item says nothing about the subsequent efficiency of the turbines.
"BTW, American Airlines reportedly now loses $3.3 million a day"
How can they recoup this loss? Well, let's do the math. A quick Google search shows that AA runs about 2300 flights per day:
I believe they average about 150 passengers per flight. That would mean they transport about 350,000 passengers per day. To make up the daily loss that you quote, AA has to increase its fares by less than $10 per passenger. This does not seem a big deal to me. TSA operations alone have already added $10 per flight.
"no airplane was ever designed to make a profit with jet fuel at these prices, and no carrier has figured out a way to charge enough to make up the difference."
Where did that quote come from? My multiplication sum seems to indicate that any carrier can make up the difference. Of course there will be an unpleasant period of losses while each carrier delays a fare increase, for fear of losing business to the others. Ultimately however market forces will prevail, and I would not be at all surprised if air fares increase by an average of $50 per person rather than $10, during the next year. Passenger volume may diminish somewhat, but the sky will not fall. Life will continue. And a higher sustained price for oil will encourage more exploration and exploitation of new fields.
"Who predicted that this sort of thing would happen because of the crisis in oil supplies?"
Many people predicted it, during the 1970s as I recall.
I don't think you should take popular news items so seriously. Journalists love to make things sound as ominous as possible. Like you, Mark!
"The problem is that no airplane was ever designed to make a profit with jet fuel at these prices, and no carrier has figured out a way to charge enough to make up the difference."
This quote came from the journalist, not the source for the article. The journalist presumably was under the usual pressure to come up with something dramatic to please his editor. It is not meaningful, Mark.
From the same piece: "Analysts say more may be on the way - and some believe American is in danger. That's because as the only so-called legacy carrier to have avoided Chapter 11, American has significantly higher labor costs than many of its competitors and operates a largely aging fleet of gas-guzzling aircraft - two problems without easy fixes."
For the sake of argument, let's accept the nebulous and probably bogus attribution to those unnamed "analysts." Okay, so American Airlines is not competitive, and may ultimately be forced to merge or go out of business. Giants such as PanAm and TWA suffered similar fates. Meanwhile airlines such as JetBlue are introducing new routes, and VirginAmerican began operations from zero.
The article you quoted was written around a sob story from an AA executive who is no doubt emphasizing his problems in the hope of gaining leverage in union negotiations, or perhaps some kind of tax break from the federal government. The executive used the journalist to place a story. The journalist did his part of the duet by accepting it uncritically. This is why I have very little trust in, or respect for, most old-school media--including supposedly serious publications such as Fortune (which published the piece in question).
you wrote:
"The article you quoted was written around a sob story from an AA executive who is no doubt emphasizing his problems in the hope of gaining leverage in union negotiations, or perhaps some kind of tax break from the federal government. The executive used the journalist to place a story. The journalist did his part of the duet by accepting it uncritically. This is why I have very little trust in, or respect for, most old-school media--including supposedly serious publications such as Fortune (which published the piece in question)."
I agree completely. But isn't this perspective from you a substantial change on your part? As I recall, through the years, when you were confronted with such viewpoints, you would denounce them as "conspiratorial." Which they are not of course, and your reasoning above is perfectly sound. But the "conspiratorial" rebuttal is just part and parcel of a certain widespread type of worldview, which you seem to have left behind. Tell me, have you changed in this regard?
"Mark, the diesel fuel is for CONSTRUCTION of a wind farm. You don't help your case by exaggerating it. The news item says nothing about the subsequent efficiency of the turbines."
How do you build the next wind farm, assuming you can finish the first one? Wind farms don't generate enough net energy to reproduce themselves without help from petroleum. Petroleum forms the basis of all our other energy technologies, including getting more petroleum.
"And a higher sustained price for oil will encourage more exploration and exploitation of new fields."
When will this miracle happen, Charles? The mainstream business media keep dropping hints that new supplies don't seem forthcoming, while the handful of supergiant oil fields that supply a fifth of the world's oil have all pretty much gone into decline.
"Passenger volume may diminish somewhat, but the sky will not fall. Life will continue."
Perhaps, but not the life of a cryonicist who really, really needs air transportation but he can't afford it or he doesn't have the political influence to secure a seat on an airline heading where he needs to go. Airlines do go bankrupt suddenly, and they do strand people in dangerous parts of the world. For example, consider the U.S service people who depended on ATA Airlines to get home from Iraq and Afghanistan.
"Many people predicted it, during the 1970s as I recall."
The oil crisis in the 1970's happened because U.S. oil production peaked in 1970 and the OPEC countries wanted to fuck with the West given their new-found bargaining power, not because a world geological peak happened back then. World Peak Oil forecasts as far back as the 1950's still projected the real crisis to happen around the beginning of the 21st Century.
Charles may have his own material, but I just had to jump in on this comment of yours:
"How do you build the next wind farm, assuming you can finish the first one? Wind farms don't generate enough net energy to reproduce themselves without help from petroleum."
Do I misunderstand you, but are you saying that no wind farm can run long enough to produce enough electrical power for the machines that would run long enough to make another identically-functioning farm? Give us proof, references, whatever, of this claim you make, and I might seriously reconsider your thesis that alternative energy methods are of no use.
Don't do it, and prove yourself to be the mere spreader of FUD I have long suspected you of being.
Hello my little cryonic friends. Well, I have been gone a few months. I am nearing the end of another school year and yes I am another year closer to my doctorate. Still have not figured out what I want to do in life. I have spent a few hour reading over the posts that I have missed in the past few months. Seems like the same old crap. I see that since I have been studing my ass off, you guys continue to fight amongst yourselves. Some things will never change. Have we accomplished anything yet? I would say not. I have reviewed some great posts from FD and Melody, I love their style. However, I am wondering about this new person who goes by the name of Sally. I think she is really Charles Platt in drag. Opinions???? This new posting about Mark Plus is old. I found it weeks ago on www.freeted.com. It was recently relocated under the "news video" page towards the bottom.
Lets see what else, I see my arch enemy "unperson" is still around. LOL unperson. I am sure he will remark on my very brief return. He always does. Well, got to get back to my studies. Take care my friends. XXXOOOXXX, DR
Did you ever share these snippets of atheistic frontline battle with us before? They are just hilarious, in how many languages and cultures I did not count.
It looks like you too. I saw you once, but you do not know when or where.
Now we know how excited you get when somebody does not believe in "peak oil".
Cheers,
FD
P.S. Thanks to Charles for the posts in the other thread. I was thinking "o g*d here we go again" but you sniffed the journalistic spin right out of it all. The mark of a true professional :D
