SWARM: Fuel and Oil Disruption in Iraq

Iraq. December 2005. In concert with the recent swarms on electricity production, Iraq's Beiji refinery (joined at the hip to a major power station that will likely be disrupted too) has been shut down due to threats against tanker drivers since December 19th. Iraq is already importing $200 million a month in gasoline and this disruption will cost the country up to an extra $20 million a day. With gas lines already a quarter mile long and a recent tripling of the consumer price for gasoline to compensate for the costs of these imports, the hit to the new government's legitimacy is already in motion. Cost of the attack (letters and potentially phone calls) = $0 (another example of global guerrilla efficiency).

In order to exacerbate the cash crunch, the guerrillas again destroyed a section of the $7 million dollar a day northern pipeline system (29 December) returning it to its normal inoperative state (which indicates that while the Kurds may control Kirkuk's oil fields as well as other newly found fields, they might never be able to profit from it). Due to this disruption, the Basra terminal (the export location for Iraq's southern oil fields in the Persian Gulf) has again become a single point of failure. Nature provided a second disruption, in the form of a storm and rough seas, that has prevented exports from Basra since Christmas at a cost of $70 million plus a day (1.21 million barrels a day in lost exports). For insight on how infrastructure disruption has kept Iraq in continuous economic failure, see my brief on Lawrence's of Arabia's Methods.

Comments

[wtofd]

If Iraqi federalism doesn't work out to Kurdish or Shi'a expectations and they secede would this prompt constant disruption from the Sunni? Do you see Turkey and Iran getting involved? Saudi?

[josh]

Give me a break! did u know iraqis are paying 35 cents per gallon!? they throw a fit if the price goes up one penny. i think the oil and gas supply will run out a lot sooner than we predict. honestly, i think that since we are liberating the country, we need to at least get a little in return. they might not have asked for our help but they are glad to finally get it. what do we get out of it, nothing but raising gas prices when we are sitting on top of it all and could easily take it all. they should be thankful for the price they pay and the money they get payed for having so much. and to the people blowing up the pipeline, just a bad move on their part that will only hurt their economy more

[Valdis]

After getting less then 1% of the Iraqui vote in December, Chalabi takes over Oil Ministry!

Looks like another "You are doing a good job, Brownie" in the making... What do you make of this John?

[John Robb]

Wtofd -- The disruption is already going on in Kurdish controlled pipelines. If they broke away, their income from oil would be nearly nil.

Valdis -- Chalabi probably figured that he didn't have anything to lose and thought he would focus on making money (corruption). Another perk is that he gets his own militia (the oil system's guards) jobs from which he can use as patronage to his current militia personnel and others from his extended ties. This will give him influence even after he leaves (for bunkering operations). From the view of the government, they have to keep raising prices and who better to blame it on than Chalabi.

[Adam]

John and Valdis,

My take on the Chalabi promotion is that its a minor change. Chalabi - CIA flunky, Iranian agent, Iraqi deputy premier and nicknamed "Chalabi the thief" - was already the chairman of the "Energy Commission", a position where the convicted fraudster could loot as much as he liked. As such he already controlled the security guards at the oil refineries but they've shown no particular loyalty to him so the idea of them taking a bullet for Chalabi is a little hopeful (lets put it this way, would you?)

With a month to go before the Shi'ites take over for a four-year term there's only a little extra time to loot before fleeing for a non-extradition country. The beauty of this is that the Shi'ite leaders are putting the CIA guy in charge of stealing so that when they take over they can announce that they are "shocked, shocked" that such things occured in Ricks Cafe (twinned with Iraq), and then blame the Americans. The other side of it is that the man that Chalabi is replacing is a Shi'ite cleric-connected expert (A PhD no less) who ran on a non-UIA, non-Sistani approved platform in early December. This is the start of his punishment.

I have to give the UIA credit here - one move, two impacts in different areas and both leave the UIA stronger.

What is more interesting is that the resignation/firing of the previous petroleum minister was supposedly caused by a price rise in petrol (a tripling, In Iraq where cheap petrol has always been a basic perk). But this price rise was demanded by the US controlled IMF. I suspect that the price rise was ordered to reduce internal Iraqi demand, as exports have now collapsed.

According to collegues in the Maritime business average tanker waiting times in the Gulf are now 14 days, which is far too long to have a multi-million dollar asset just sat around.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4569360.stm

[Duncan Kinder]

"For insight on how infrastructure disruption has kept Iraq in continuous economic failure, see my brief on Lawrence's of Arabia's Methods."

If, in fact, the global guerillas are following the Lawrence of Arabia strategy, then it would be no more in their interest to drive the United States out of Iraq than it would have been in Lawrence's interest to have expelled the Turks from Medina.

Rather, it would be their strategy to keep the United States military tied down there weakened but effectively immobilized while the global guerillas build up their resources elsewhere ( e.g., Bolivia, the sub-Sahara, the Golden Triangle ).

The counterargument to this is that perhaps, the United States - unlike WWI Turkey - does not have the strategic option to retreat from Iraq and regroup. Because of its oil dependency, the United States must maintain its Iraq presence at all costs, pouring good money in after bad - a Jean Paull Sartre "No Exit" scenario.

[Cletus van Damme]

"i think that since we are liberating the country, we need to at least get a little in return. they might not have asked for our help but they are glad to finally get it."

Please tell me that this is intentional sarcasm on your part and not your real beliefs.

[dan]

Duncan:

It all depends on which GG's you're talking about. For some its a win-win either way. Al Qaeda has a massive interest in keeping the US on the ground as it's a recruitment, propaganda and fundraising bonanza. For local Sunni islamists/Iraqi Nationalists, getting the US out is an imperative.

For a whole host of third-parties - Venezuela, Iran, Russia, China, Saudi, Norway, Halliburton for example - it's been one of the best free rides ever, and they're quite content for it to remain the gift that keeps on giving.

[anon]

Not to quibble, but cost does not = 0 for threats. It is a low marginal cost tactic, but it is based on an expensive, fragile, and difficult to maintain infrastructure of threat capabilities to mount direct action attacks against selected targets. The tactic only works whilst the target audience's belief system supports the fear of direct personal consequence of the threats - something that can be opposed; or in the case of the elections related threats, can result in a direct loss of prestige should the capability not be exercised in a dramatic enough fashion to sustain the belief in future threats.

There is more to this dynamic than suggested. However, the targeting pattern is the point of interest, and your conclusions are supported despite this.

[John Robb]

Correct. Coercion only works if the target believes that the promised consequences are not only possible but likely.

[Noumenon]

With gas lines already a quarter mile long and a recent tripling of the consumer price for gasoline to compensate for the costs of these imports...

According to basic economics, the tripling of the price will act to shorten the gas lines. The price-controlled 35-cent gasoline is the only reason the lines exist at all.

[John Robb]

Noumenon: That assumes no shortages.

A small number of tankers are now running. A pipeline was hit over the weekend from the refinery. Another pipeline was hit from the al Doura refinery on Sunday that runs to a powerplant south of Baghdad.

Here's the effect sought after by Iraq's GGs (from Reuters):

"A week ago it took half an hour to fill my car, but I've been standing here since 7 o'clock and now it's 12," said 55-year-old taxi driver Saed Abu Ali as he leant on his car by the side of a Baghdad highway. "When we voted (on December 15) we believed our circumstances would get better but things are worse than before. It's a disaster."

[marcello]

"Noumenon: That assumes no shortages"

Not really.The lines exist because demand vastly outstrips the available supply.This should normally drive price up.
Fewer people will be able or willing to purchase the commodity at the new increased price therefore ensuring shorter queues.
Or that at least is what I think he was trying to say.

[enigma_foundry]

The whole creation of choke points in certain kinds of networks invites the attacks of those choke points, but at a certain point the continued attacks on those choke points actually become an attack on the network topology itself.

This means that alternate network topologies will begin to develop, and those alternate topologies could be very resistant to the type of choke point attacks that have been occurring to date.

The point that I have been studing recently is that certain imperatives in developed economies (for example sustainability) are also leading to these alternate networks.

For example if solar power/wind power generation becomes the way of generating power in the industrialized world, the choke point in the network of oil distribution become irrelevant. The attacks on these networks are accelerating the development of alternate technologies, and these are replacing the old networks.

It is important to understand that the new networks will have a fundamentally different topology, are are not just a replacement of one network for another similar one.

Thus, the attacks are having the effect of speeding the evolution of the economies of the industrialized world into alternate forms that are more resistant to GG attacks.

[Marcello]

"For example if solar power/wind power generation becomes the way of generating power in the industrialized world, the choke point in the network of oil distribution become irrelevant. The attacks on these networks are accelerating the development of alternate technologies, and these are replacing the old networks."

That is questionable.The power requirements for western style industrial societies are staggering and cannot be met by power sources which are fickle and consume large amounts of scarce space.Windmills and solar panels can only be used to supplement a core power generation capability which has to rely on fossil or nuclear fuels.
It is not that there are no alternatives to oil in absolute terms,just no good alternatives in a decent timeframe.
Nuclear power is relatively expensive, massively unpopular in the West and when it is all said and done it may take a decade or so between deciding to build a new nuclear plant and it coming online (and this is a sector where cutting corners is not advisable).
There are new designs which are being studied but the extent to which the above factors can be mitigated is yet to be seen.
So we will be stuck in the present situation for quite a long time.
Even some of the things that could improve the energy situation have potentially big drawabacks.
For example rail transportation is more efficient than going by road but rail systems are an heaven for any sabouteurs.

[Valdis]

Network Warfare over gas... in the flow of gas from Russia to EU, Ukraine is like "Heather" on this map...

http://www.orgnet.com/sna.html

----------------------------
Ukraine steals 100 million cubic meters of gas - Gazprom

MOSCOW, January 2 (Itar-Tass) - Russia's gas giant Gazprom said Kiev had tapped the pipeline brining Russian gas to European consumers, stealing 100 cubic meters of gas worth over 25 million dollars in market prices as of January 1.

"If thievery continues at this rate, the volume and cost of stolen bas will be quite considerable," deputy chief of Gazprom Alexander Medvedev told reporters on Monday.

[Noumenon]

Marcello said what I meant to say more persuasively by actually giving the argument. I have a hard time imagining true shortages anyway. Economics texts always give multiple examples of price controls causing lines (rent control, Carter's gas price controls, Soviet bread lines) and must leave actual shortages for some upper level class where markets don't clear.

[Earth Sentinel]

The whole state sponsored system disruption that Gazprom is doing right now brings back memories of Soviet sabre rattling. I think the larger issue here is that the networks are so far flung and interconnected, that a failure or intentional disruption (state sponsored or independent) has the potential to affect millions, as well as cause rampant economic effects. I've addressed the Ukraine/EU situation at my site, Earth Sentinel in light of the other disruptions we've seen this past year, including those in Iraq, England (Buncefield depot leading to petrol shortages still), and the gas price spike after the hurricane impacts. Much of it will be a recap for GG readers, but it as well as some other posts address other aspects of the issue. I think many countries will be looking to increase their energy independence following this.

[Duncan Kinder]

I recommend this thought provoking piece on DailyKos which discusses the probable impact of resource conflict over the next year or so.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/1/2/84040/12187

To throw in my commentary about this posting, I would assert that much of the United States' economic prosperity since about 1980 has resulted from the increasing ability of industrialized states to control commodity prices through the use of sophisticated derivatives.

The so-called "War on Terror" has coincided with the decreasing effectiveness of using derivatives to control commodities. The disruptions caused by Global Guerillas helps further decrease this control and the popular support they command results from the economic restiveness of populations dependent upon commodities.

Several points:

When critics assert that the Iraq is "about oil," they should note that oil is the big, bad commodity - that it has broader implications than oil alone.

Like coffee beans and soybeans, poppies and coca leaves are commodities. The War on Drugs is part of the larger War Against Commodities.

Gold and silver are apt to become more valuable relative to various securities. Global guerilla money laundering and the like is apt to focus on such low tech, tangible forms of wealth rather than high tech electronic funds and the like.

[Marcello]

"I have a hard time imagining true shortages anyway."

Doh, I doubt that people in a place like Baghdad go around driving for the sake of it.
Leaving market forces free to play instead of imposing price caps/rationing/whatever is more efficient and straightforward but some people will be screwed either way.

[enigma_foundry]

"That is questionable. The power requirements for western style industrial societies are staggering and cannot be met by power sources which are fickle and consume large amounts of scarce space.Windmills and solar panels can only be used to supplement a core power generation capability which has to rely on fossil or nuclear fuels."

nothing like having an opinion without bothering to know any of the RELEVANT FACTS:

http://www.earth-policy.org/Updates/Update5.htm

"Denmark, which is fourth with 2,500 megawatts, now gets 18 percent of its electricity from wind. Two thirds of the capacity added in 2001 was concentrated in the top three countries: Germany added 1,890 megawatts; the United States, 1,600; and Spain, 1,065. For the United States, this translates into a growth in generating capacity of some 63 percent in 2001.

Despite this spectacular growth, development of the earth's wind resources has barely begun. In densely populated Europe, there is enough easily accessible offshore wind energy to meet all of the region's electricity needs. In the United States, there is enough harnessable wind energy in just 3 of the 50 states--North Dakota, Kansas, and Texas--to satisfy the country's electricity needs. And China can easily double its current electricity generation from wind alone."

[enigma_foundry]

It is important to understand that the difference between the network topology of the carbon based economy is fundamentally different than that of an economy based on sustainability.

Wind generation done at point of use:
http://www.westendword.com/moxie/news/lean-green-machines.shtml

Now compare with the extremely centralized topology that is providing the GG's with so many opportunities. And creating such chances for theRussians to leverage against the Ukrainians...

[Marcello]

"nothing like having an opinion without bothering to know any of the RELEVANT FACTS:"

FACT 1: Denmark is a small, and as far I can see well placed for that, country.
FACT 2: Germany is going to progressively phase out its nuclear power plants and all that wind power will not even begin to compensate for the over twenty thousands MW that will be lost that way.
Coal will supply the bulk of german power.
Yeah, in theory if you plaster a couple of states or so with windmills you may get that.But then so what?
It is neither sensible nor feasible and it will not happen.Installation of windmills is already facing popular opposition in some places (Italy for example).Anything in that order of magnitude is simply unthinkable for a large variety of environmental, economical and political reasons.
Furthermore those power sources are reliant on climate conditions and therefore are not dependable.Additional standby power generation is required to compensate for that.

I really would love to see how China could accomplish that without sacrificing space badly needed for agriculture and development.

[Marcello]

And that is just the beginning.Take that all that russian gas for example, it is not used just for power generation.
Heating, cooking and such thermal applications.
It would be inefficient to do those things with electricity and what amount of windmills and solar panels you would need for that is something I prefer not to think about.
Then there is trasportation.
Even when we will get fuel cells powered cars the hydrogen for them will require power to be made.
In short our civilization will be based on fossil fuels for quite a long time.

[Duncan Kinder]

"I really would love to see how China could accomplish that without sacrificing space badly needed for agriculture and development."

Chinese civilization is traditionally accustomed to resource deprivation. Historically, from times before Confucious, it has suffered numerous famines and the like.

The wok, for example, is designed to transmit maximum heat for cooking from minimum use of fuel. Indeed, the entire Chinese cuisine evolved to obtain maximum nutrition from scarce resources.

( Gloria Bley Miller discusses this in her, The Thousand Recipe Chinese Cookbook, well worth reading for reasons having nothing to to with Global Guerrillas ).

More broadly, you gentlemen appear to be addressing the energy crisis in terms of a few big things - whereas perhaps rather it may be resolved in terms of many little things. That would be the subject - not of politics but rather of cookery and myriad sundry everyday items.

[Marcello]

"whereas perhaps rather it may be resolved in terms of many little things."

Not really, at least not without massive lifestyle changes that nobody would accept.
Personally for example I would be glad to do away with cars and planes except in those cases where they are absolutely necessary.
But I do not think that the average american would be happy with the idea of having to renounce to his car.

[Tex MacRae]

Interesting item:

Insurgents burn 19 fuel tankers north of Baghdad

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2006-01/04/content_4009250.htm

Looks like they blew the pipeline and then laid in wait for the inevitable convoy of tanker trucks.

[Sarah]

"But I do not think that the average american would be happy with the idea of having to renounce to his car."

I don't think whether Americans will be happy about giving up their cars matters one whit. The point is, there is a dwindling resource, one that is rising in cost and demand every few months, and we have Captain Krunch in charge. There will be massive changes to our economy and way of life whether we "like" it or not.

[enigma_foundry]

having worked with several multi-disciplinary teams for projects that have sustainability as a priority, I can see already that the efficiency of wind generated power has reached a tipping point for certain applications.

Recall that US is now spending $200 billion on the war, and there are estimates that the war could cost 2 trillion dollars. US could build a lot of generating capacity with that, and be free of the dependency that the war has actually exacerbated.

But the really important point here is that the sustainable economy network is fundamentally different than the traditional economy network, and the sustainable economy network will be highly resilient to GG tactics.

Traditional economy:
Biosphere generated energy (oil) flows into centralized economic structures (Big Oil Companies) which distributes it through the global commodity trading and distribution (oil trucks, tankers).

Note: Multiple choke points, and globalised distribution is required for this to work.

Sustainable economy:
Biosphere generated power (wind, solar) flows throug local grid, which can be very close to ppoint of use. The only globalised flows required are flows of information (Intellectual Property such as patents on wind or solar technology)

Note: lack of choke points and that the distribution of the power does not create large concentrations of wealth power--the network is evenly distributed and there are not 'high value' targets that are part of this network.

Summary: the different network is fundamentally resist to GG attacks, and as the attacks on the traditional network increase, the adoption of sustainable networks will be quickened by economic forces. GG's are attacking a network topology, and other topologies will evolve from resilient societies. Those societies that can adapt to sustainable strategies quicker will prove to be more successful in the post GG world.

[enigma_foundry]

Iraq war could cost US over $2 trillion, says Nobel prize-winning economist

· Economists say official estimates are far too low
· New calculation takes in dead and injured soldiers

Jamie Wilson in Washington
Saturday January 7, 2006
The Guardian


The real cost to the US of the Iraq war is likely to be between $1 trillion and $2 trillion (£1.1 trillion), up to 10 times more than previously thought, according to a report written by a Nobel prize-winning economist and a Harvard budget expert.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1681119,00.html

[Adam]

Its looking like one of the ironies of the Iraq war is that body armour appears to create a greater number of surviving cripples (Spinal injuries, brain damage, loss of limbs). These survivors cost money and don't produce anything useful (rather like American politicians, but the suriviors drool less).

So its going to be an interesting societal choice for the floundering US empire: accept lots of former soldiers hanging around for their full natural term or cynically move towards a proposition that dead soldiers cost very little.

My personal inclination is to guess that soon a Pentagon study will say that body armour is good enough, and stop purchasing most advanced items until a likely enemy turns up with something better than the Ak-47. And having typed that cyncial sentence AP then pops up with:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-5531267,00.html

It seems that even I cannot be too cynical. OK my next guess is that the veterans benefits will be cut to save money.

Even so, 1-2 trillion dollars for Iraq seems like a bad choice. Who remembers in 2003 when Wolfowitz was claiming that it would cost 1-2 billion dollars? A side-note - empires don't collapse militarily, they normally collapse economically first. If Iraq pushes the US closer to economic collapse then the future for the West looks pretty bleak.

[Marcello]

"But the really important point here is that the sustainable economy network is fundamentally different than the traditional economy network, and the sustainable economy network will be highly resilient to GG tactics."

The issue is not if wind or solar power can be cost effective to use.They are or they will be at some point in the near future.
The problem is that simply you cannot run a modern society on the amount of energy that can be harnessed locally with those sources.
Period.
Large cities,a lot of manufacturing activities and so on require amounts of energy vastly in excess of what can be collected locally.
Fossil and nuclear fuels on the other hand can meet the huge energy needs of such activities and can do so without much concern for climate conditions.
As I noted previously Germany can add
1000 MW worth of windmills each year for a decade without even making a dent in its fossil fuel consumption for electricity only.
Such is the order of magnitude of energy demand of a modern country.
As far as I can see the only way to reduce energy consumption to levels which would make such a thing feasible is going back to a largely agriculture based economy.
And I bet that people would be happy to support a final solution to the muslim problem before being forced to do that.

[enigma_foundry]

" The problem is that simply you cannot run a modern society on the amount of energy that can be harnessed locally with those sources.
Period."

Again, a statement of opinion made without reference to any facts , by someone who is apparently being deliberately innumerate.

Also, please read the study referenced here, in which it is concluded by several scientists that wind power can adequately meet the industrialized world energy needs:

http://alt-e.blogspot.com/2005/05/wind-energy-nasa-funded-study.html

The fact is that ample wind power resources exist to adequately supply our energy needs.

"The cost of wind-generated electricity at prime wind sites has fallen dramatically in the United States over the last 15 years-from 35¢ per kilowatt-hour in the mid-1980s to 4¢ per kilowatt-hour in 2001. (See Figure 2-8.) A few long-term supply contracts have even been signed recently for 3¢ per kilowatt-hour."

http://www.earth-policy.org/Indicators/indicator10.htm

Marcello: if you have any informed opinions about this, please add references, etc. but as someone working, actually doing sustainable planning for a living, who is familiar with this issue, I would like to here any relevant facts surrounding your opinions, as they do not agree with the observed facts surrounding wind power generation.

Instead your quotes that appear to represent the oil industry's propaganda (and 10 year old propaganda at that)...

[enigma_foundry]

Not to bury important discusions with the tangent about the efficacy of wind power generation, but the observation that sustainable economic structures are fundamentally more resistant to GG tactics is an important observation because the reasons that sustainable economic structures are more resistant to GG methods is that the networks that arise as part of sustainable economy are much more distributed and shorter (distance from biosphere created energy to its consumption) and the globalized part of these networks is centered on flow of information, rather than commodities.

These differences are inherent in the nature of sustainable economic networks, not just accidental co-incidences and these two fundamental differences totally change the effectiveness of GG methods.

[Marcello]

"Again, a statement of opinion made without reference to any facts , by someone who is apparently being deliberately innumerate."

I gave you a very concrete example: Germany

http://www.worldenergy.org/wec-geis/edc/countries/Germany.asp
"A total of 19 reactor units, with an aggregate net generating capacity of 21 283 MWe, were operational at the end of 2002. Nuclear power provided 30% of Germany's net electricity generation in that year."

They can go on installing wind turbines for quite a long time without even making a dent in their fossil fuels consumption.
Do you get it?
This is not propaganda.These are the cold hard facts.
I have already given you this example before but interestingly enough you failed to address it while complaining about my lack of numbers.Why,if I may ask?

"Also, please read the study referenced here, in which it is concluded by several scientists that wind power can adequately meet the industrialized world energy needs"

It is a theoretical calculation.I do not doubt that in principle there may be enough wind energy to do that.The same could be done with solar energy if you plaster a large enough portion of earth surface with solar panels.Nothing new.
In the real world however available coastlines in the western countries are already used for many different purposes,from housing to harbors and so on.Wind farms will have to compete with that.
In the real world wind farms are alredy beginning to run into NIMBY opposition.

A study estimating the amount of energy which could be actually harnessed in the western countries with all the above factors taken in consideration would be far more useful.

[Sarah]

"As far as I can see the only way to reduce energy consumption to levels which would make such a thing feasible is going back to a largely agriculture based economy. And I bet that people would be happy to support a final solution to the muslim problem before being forced to do that."

Unfortunately even if we "support a final solution to the muslim problem" (which would do nothing besides create more political problems instead of less) the energy problem will still be there, staring us in the face. And the longer we wait to deal with it rationally, the more chance there is of our being not just knocked back to an agricultural economy, but knocked back suddenly. We could decide to become locally reaquainted with our dependence upon the natural world and the food we must grow on it... if we were smart. But most people in the so-called "developed" world are acutely psychologically removed from that awareness so much that most of us still think Mother Nature delivers us our cows conveniently wrapped in shrinkwrap and that it's perfectly normal to eat tropical mangoes in January.
We could do a lot if we set our minds to it. And quit pretending that "market forces" will somehow save us.

[Marcello]

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/germe.html

"On the downside, suitable sites for additional wind farms in Germany are becoming scarce."

Surprise surprise

"As a result, the government has permitted the building of wind parks offshore. By 2006, the German government hopes to increase offshore installed capacity to 500 MW; by 2010 to 2,000-3,000 MW; and by 2030 to 20,000-25,000 MW. If this plan is realized, wind energy on both land and sea could meet 25% of Germany’s electricity demand in 2030"

In other words it will not be until 2030 that they will have finally managed to replace nuclear power with wind.What was I saying?

[Marcello]

http://www.tatsachen-ueber-deutschland.de/563.0.html
"The federal government’s long-term aim is for renewable energy to cover roughly fifty percent of all energy requi
rements by the middle of the century."

Which leaves a 50% which will have to be covered by fossil or nuclear fuels.Assuming that everytyhting goes as planned.
A 100% wind and solar energy scenario in any realistic timeframe is just a pipe dream.It might be theoretically possible but it is evel less practical than the "tout éléctrique, tout nucléaire" once touted by the EDF.And we all know what has happened to that.

[Marcello]

In conclusion, mr Enigma,did you want
numbers and references?
Well you got them.And they do not support a 100% wind and solar energy scenario.
Sorry.
Germany is doing what it can while dealing with the actual practical difficulties (land availability etc) of such enterprise.
And the bottom line is that wind and solar energy will supplement but not replace a core power generation relying on fossil and nuclear fuels.

[enigma_foundry]

"After analyzing more than 8,000 wind-speed measurements to identify the world's wind-power potential for the first time, Cristina Archer, a former postdoctoral fellow, and Mark Z. Jacobson, an associate professor of civil and environmental engineering, suggest that wind captured at specific locations, if even partially harnessed, can generate more than enough power to satisfy the world's energy demands. Their report appears in the May Journal of Geophysical Research-Atmospheres, a publication of the American Geophysical Union.

"The main implication of this study is that wind, for low-cost wind energy, is more widely available than was previously recognized," said Archer.

The authors found that the locations with sustainable Class 3 winds could produce approximately 72 terawatts, that's 72,000 Gigawatts or 72 million Megawatts. A terawatt is one trillion watts, the power generated by more than 500 nuclear reactors or thousands of coal-burning plants. Capturing even a fraction of those 72 terawatts could provide the 1.6 to 1.8 terawatts that made up the world's electricity usage in 2000. Converting as little as 20 percent of potential wind energy to electricity could satisfy the entirety of the world's energy demands."

The study, supported by NASA and Stanford's Global Climate and Energy Project, may assist in locating wind farms in regions known for strong and consistent breezes. In addition, the researchers suggest that the inland locations of many existing wind farms may explain their inefficiency.

"It is our hope that this study will foster more research in areas that were not covered by our data, or economic analyses of the barriers to the implementation of a wind-based global energy scenario," Archer said.

Marcello: this adresses completely your statement that wind-power cannot provide adequate power generation for an industrialized society.

This field has been moving very quickly in the last several years, so I can understand why someone who is not very close to the field would have relatively uninformed opinions, which represent where the state of the art was about ten or twelve years ago.

One interesting project in Missouri, for example, uncovered a previously unknown wind resource near Kansas City MO, which could provide for that cities energy needs.

Certainly Wind Power will not totally replace all other sources of energy, and I never said that it would, but there are ample supplies of wind to generate all of our power if we decided to do that.

But the important point here is that an alternate source exists, and that the network that is created by using this resource, and other sustainable resources, is fundamentally different that that is created by using the conventional fossil fuel based economy.

A world in which sustainable economic networks predominate is one in which GG's will be much less effective than they are today.

[enigma_foundry]

"After analyzing more than 8,000 wind-speed measurements to identify the world's wind-power potential for the first time, Cristina Archer, a former postdoctoral fellow, and Mark Z. Jacobson, an associate professor of civil and environmental engineering, suggest that wind captured at specific locations, if even partially harnessed, can generate more than enough power to satisfy the world's energy demands. Their report appears in the May Journal of Geophysical Research-Atmospheres, a publication of the American Geophysical Union.

"The main implication of this study is that wind, for low-cost wind energy, is more widely available than was previously recognized," said Archer.

The authors found that the locations with sustainable Class 3 winds could produce approximately 72 terawatts, that's 72,000 Gigawatts or 72 million Megawatts. A terawatt is one trillion watts, the power generated by more than 500 nuclear reactors or thousands of coal-burning plants. Capturing even a fraction of those 72 terawatts could provide the 1.6 to 1.8 terawatts that made up the world's electricity usage in 2000. Converting as little as 20 percent of potential wind energy to electricity could satisfy the entirety of the world's energy demands."

The study, supported by NASA and Stanford's Global Climate and Energy Project, may assist in locating wind farms in regions known for strong and consistent breezes. In addition, the researchers suggest that the inland locations of many existing wind farms may explain their inefficiency.

"It is our hope that this study will foster more research in areas that were not covered by our data, or economic analyses of the barriers to the implementation of a wind-based global energy scenario," Archer said.

Marcello: this adresses completely your statement that wind-power cannot provide adequate power generation for an industrialized society.

This field has been moving very quickly in the last several years, so I can understand why someone who is not very close to the field would have relatively uninformed opinions, which represent where the state of the art was about ten or twelve years ago.

One interesting project in Missouri, for example, uncovered a previously unknown wind resource near Kansas City MO, which could provide for that cities energy needs.

Certainly Wind Power will not totally replace all other sources of energy, and I never said that it would, but there are ample supplies of wind to generate all of our power if we decided to do that.

But the important point here is that an alternate source exists, and that the network that is created by using this resource, and other sustainable resources, is fundamentally different that that is created by using the conventional fossil fuel based economy.

A world in which sustainable economic networks predominate is one in which GG's will be much less effective than they are today.

[enigma_foundry]

Well, Marcello for example you state:
"As a result, the government has permitted the building of wind parks offshore. By 2006, the German government hopes to increase offshore installed capacity to 500 MW; by 2010 to 2,000-3,000 MW; and by 2030 to 20,000-25,000 MW. If this plan is realized, wind energy on both land and sea could meet 25% of Germany’s electricity demand in 2030"

Those are your numbers, but they are very old and, in fact wrong Here are the real numbers: "Germany continues to lead the world in installed wind power capacity with 17,132 cumulative MW in place as of the end of June 2005, according to the German wind energy institute DEWI. Forecasts indicate an anticipated 28,871 MW will be installed in the country by the end of 2012."

So, let's take the dabate about Wind Power off this thread, because it is much more significant that the sustainable economic network is fundamentally resistant to GG methods than the traditional economy.

[Marcello]

"Those are your numbers, but they are very old and, in fact wrong"

In case you missed it, the amount of MW was referred to the OFFSHORE installed power.
Not the TOTAL installed power which instead is what you are speaking about.
Which by when those data were published,two years ago and not ten or twelve (you would know that if you actually bothered to check my links), was around 14000 MW or so IIRC and has obviously grown since then.
No contradiction here.
I specifically singled out that to illustrate the practical difficulties which stand between the theoretical maximum and what can be achieved practically.
The 50% in 2050 target figure for renewables comes from the official federal german government website and is current.Have they revised upwards their estimate?
It may well be but if so you have shown no evidence.
I agree on the greater resilience of such energy production against GG attacks.The premise is however that it can be done in first place.Wind availability is only part of the equation.Many others variables enter into it.

[Marcello]

"Marcello: this adresses completely your statement that wind-power cannot provide adequate power generation for an industrialized society."

No, it does not.I have already read it and I addressed it in the previous posts.It is a theoretical global calculation.
It does not calculate the power which can actually be installed in the western countries taking in consideration actual available space, competition with others human activities, local political opposition and all that stuff.

"This field has been moving very quickly in the last several years, so I can understand why someone who is not very close to the field would have relatively uninformed opinions, which represent where the state of the art was about ten or twelve years ago."

I will repeat it, since it seems necessary
The links I posted are either current or dating back to a couple of years.The german government in one of its official websites states that they are aiming for a 50% renewables energies target goal in 2050.This is what they are stating now, not "ten or twelve years ago".
Are they revising upwards their estimates?
If so I would like to know.

This time please read what I have actually written before posting an other answer based upon false assumptions about my sources and misinterpretations of what I have written.

[enigma_foundry]

"This time please read what I have actually written before posting an other answer based upon false assumptions about my sources and misinterpretations of what I have written."

It is clear that you refuse to read the links that I have posted!

The study above documented that wind power could provide 72 terawatts of energy.

"Capturing even a fraction of those 72 terawatts could provide the 1.6 to 1.8 terawatts that made up the world's electricity usage in 2000."

In other words, just 2.5% (1.8/72) of the identified wind generating capacity could provide the entire world's electricity needs. The small fraction required allows more than adequate allowance for those sites that would not be developed due to scenic or other concerns.

There exists no other source of energy that could provide such an amount of power.

And the real benefit is that such an infrastructure would provide highly reliable power, and the resultant network would be much more resistant to GG attacks.

[Marcello]

"In other words, just 2.5% (1.8/72) of the identified wind generating capacity could provide the entire world's electricity needs. The small fraction required allows more than adequate allowance for those sites that would not be developed due to scenic or other concerns."

Again it is a global estimate.Wind power generation potential along the african coast or in antarctica or whatever is irrilevant for electricity generation purposes (actually I suppose you could generate hydrogen there but certainly it would not call it local power generation).
Energy demand is concentrated in the western countries and some others places.
Where coincidentally human development, local political opposition etc would be concentrated as well.
Germany is already running into this problem.Hence, as the DOE report I posted noted, the increasing need for offshore wind farms which while a bit more efficient are a maintenance and installation headache.

[Marcello]

And when you start to do things like that the "local" part of the equation really goes out of the window.Often there will be hundreds of of km between the point of generation and the point of use (let's say a wind farm out in the northern sea and a german city inland) and therefore a fully fledged conventional power grid will be necessary.Such power grid will be vulnerable
to sabouters operating within the state exactly as one fed by conventional power plants.
It is a big improvement in resilience over importing fuel from an other continent but otherwise is just as vulnerable as anything else.

[enigma_foundry]

"It is a big improvement in resilience over importing fuel from an other continent but otherwise is just as vulnerable as anything else."

It is a huge improvement, and as the technology is improving, these systems are being integrated into the buildings in which the power is used. Certain kinds of buildings, e.g. Hospitals will require more than can be generated on site for quite a long time to come. But, coupled with improvements in energy conservation and efficiency, the nature of the power network is changing.

GG attacks on the conventional non-sustainable energy infrastructure just increase the
need for switching to a more sustainable development model. Thus, GG attacks fuel the development of alternate economic structures that will be more resistant to those attacks.

Wind Power is just one of many examples of a sustainable initiative that is more resistant to GG methods.

[enigma_foundry]

"It is a big improvement in resilience over importing fuel from an other continent but otherwise is just as vulnerable as anything else."

It is a huge improvement, and as the technology is improving, these systems are being integrated into the buildings in which the power is used. Certain kinds of buildings, e.g. Hospitals will require more than can be generated on site for quite a long time to come. But, coupled with improvements in energy conservation and efficiency, the nature of the power network is changing.

GG attacks on the conventional non-sustainable energy infrastructure just increase the
need for switching to a more sustainable development model. Thus, GG attacks fuel the development of alternate economic structures that will be more resistant to those attacks.

Wind Power is just one of many examples of a sustainable initiative that is more resistant to GG methods.

[Barry]

Posted by: Noumenon: "Marcello said what I meant to say more persuasively by actually giving the argument. I have a hard time imagining true shortages anyway. Economics texts always give multiple examples of price controls causing lines (rent control, Carter's gas price controls, Soviet bread lines) and must leave actual shortages for some upper level class where markets don't clear."

From what I understand, upper level (really, graduate) classes do discuss situations where markets don't clear. Not really covered in Econ 101.

As another poster has pointed out, pleasure cruising is probably not a major consumption factor in the Iraqi economy. Any increase in price will therefore result in (a) a low decline in consumption and (b) immiseration of a lot of Iraqis. Which plays into the guerrilla hands quite nicely.