NationStates Jolt Archive

The presentation notes are Here (http://www.natresnet.org/conference/2006/presentations/Fairey_Keynote.pdf)

Here is the conclusion.

An astonishingly hard-hitting presentation to a green building conference, covering both Peak Oil and Global Warming. Comprised of 55 slides, the presentation gives many technical details. It concludes:

Who is the captain of the ship?
There is no captain. And worse yet, the crew is misinformed about the dangers of the sotrm.

How bad is the storm?
Highly uncertain - much of the Peak Oil data are highly questionable.

How fast are we closing on the storm?
Closing speed is contentious - often argued using sophisticated disinformation campaigns.

How strong is the ship?
She may not be strong enough - economic and political systems may not be up to the task.

How large is the ship and how quickly can she be turned?
She is extremely large and it will literally take decades to bring her about.

What is Plan B?
There is no Plan B!

Grand Challenges

Where great challenges are well understood, humanity has proven very adaptable and innovative but . . .

Great Need for better and more reliable data

Urgent Need for frank and factual public discourse

But . . . It’s Political Suicide-

Who will step up to the plate?

Probably no one until very late in the game!

You are the critical component of Plan B!This is a very quick read with pictures and graphs. Not very optimistic.

I have a different conclusion: use solar power, wind power, or other renewables. If necessary, resort to coal. It's not that much of a problem.

What's with all the naval metaphors?

Thank god I hid 59 kilos of uranium ore under my bed, so I'm prepared for peak oil.

Gee I feel tired and I'm sick of having to continually brush my hair off the keyboard.

I have a different conclusion: use solar power, wind power, or other renewables. If necessary, resort to coal. It's not that much of a problem.
Yep. I got my solar car waiting in my garage. It'll be easy for us to just change over all of our infrastructure in a year or two. It only took us about 150 to build it so changing everything about it in half a decade shouldn't be hard. :)

What's with all the naval metaphors?
Yeah, the metaphores were lame but the presentation is still pretty good.

We've got one giant source of energy which we are barely using at the moment.

Our own star, the sun.

It's just floating out there, heating up things, unstoppable and yet we barely wield it's potential. What is our problem?

What is our problem?
Apathy.

Apathy.

Apathy may be a big problem in some places, but not so much here, but of course things could be better. But I think the apathy will dry up once oil hits $100 a barrel. Bye-bye SUV dealership, hello economical hybrids etc. Sure people whinge a lot about how they deserve cheap oil, but they will start using less oil once they've been kicked hard enough in the hip pocket.

Apathy may be a big problem in some places, but not so much here, but of course things could be better. But I think the apathy will dry up once oil hits $100 a barrel. Bye-bye SUV dealership, hello economical hybrids etc. Sure people whinge a lot about how they deserve cheap oil, but they will start using less oil once they've been kicked hard enough in the hip pocket.
Well, we just hit $70 today. $100 is only a bomb, hurricane or oil worker strike away.

Well, we just hit $70 today. $100 is only a bomb, hurricane or oil worker strike away.

$70 already? Sheesh! And there are people who want to bomb Iran! Imagine what that will do? Maybe they are following an updated Von Clauswitz doctrine. War is oil conservation by other means.

NEW YORK (MarketWatch) -- Crude-oil futures rose Monday, touching a seven-and-a-half-month high of $70.05 a barrel, as continued worries about friction between Iran and the West over the nation's nuclear activities pushed prices close to last summer's hurricane-related highs.
http://www.marketwatch.com/News/Story/Story.aspx?column=Futures+Movers&siteid=mktw&dist=

Last I checked it was actually at $70.15 seven minutes ago.

Well, we just hit $70 today. $100 is only a bomb, hurricane or oil worker strike away.

Or massive commodity fund inflows; a lot of this pricing is artificial and driven by paper demand/speculation, but that's fine by me because it accelerates the rate at which we're implementing alternatives.

I'd rather have an artificial elevation of the price now (an Iran embargo might be quite beneficial to that end) than an organic one in the future due to shortages.

Apathy may be a big problem in some places, but not so much here, but of course things could be better. But I think the apathy will dry up once oil hits $100 a barrel. Bye-bye SUV dealership, hello economical hybrids etc. Sure people whinge a lot about how they deserve cheap oil, but they will start using less oil once they've been kicked hard enough in the hip pocket.
The question is, will there be enough time and enough oil left to power the change?

EDIT: Anyone know how long before Saudi Arabia probably peaks?

EDIT: Anyone know how long before Saudi Arabia probably peaks?
It is already at capacity.

Matthew Simmons' study of the Saudi oil industry's technical papers lead him to conclude their production will commence a decline within the next few years.

Anyone know how long before Saudi Arabia probably peaks?

We don't know. Maybe today? Saudi Arabia no longer appears able to increase production despite now having more oil wells than ever. Many of what were their best well heads are now sucking up 3/4 water. On the other hand they have a definate interest in making people think they are peaking in order to push the price of oil up. But then on the other hand they may want to convince their population that they aren't heading for a disaster and that oil reserves are better than they are. So we just can't say.

What is good news is that very little in the way of advanced recovery techniques such as CO2 injection or polymer injection have been used in Saudi Arabia. This means that by using these technologies Saudi Arabia will be able to continue to produce oil for many decades to come, just not as much as now. There are now plans to refine oil in the gulf, capture the CO2 released by refining and inject it into oil wells, resulting in a slight reduction in environmental damage.

Saudi Arabia can continue to produce oil for centuries. A stripper well pumps oil from an exhausted field. Once the bulk of the oil has been removed, remaining oil in the rock slowly seeps into the original geological oil trap. Although production is slow small amounts of oil can be removed for decades. Saudi oil fields are so huge stripper wells could operate for hundreds of years.

So yes, there is enough oil to change over. It's a matter of how difficult that change will be.

It is already at capacity.

Matthew Simmons' study of the Saudi oil industry's technical papers lead him to conclude their production will commence a decline within the next few years.
Probably better called a collapse than a decline. He's predicting an 8% decline/year, I believe.

Stripper wells produce a few barrels per day. I would hope people sit up and take notice before Saudi Arabia is reduced to that.

Probably better called a collapse than a decline. He's predicting an 8% decline/year, I believe.
Indeed, seems to be the North Sea's experience throughout this decade.

Probably better called a collapse than a decline. He's predicting an 8% decline/year, I believe.

Is that a linear or an exponential fall?

Indeed, seems to be the North Sea's experience throughout this decade.
You mean this north sea?
http://www.ukooa.co.uk/issues/storyofoil/images/F119.jpg

Is that a linear or an exponential fall?
It's year over year. It means it will drop like a rock. It means that they are producing about 10 million barrels/day now and in 10 years they may be producing about 1 million.

Is that a linear or an exponential fall?
The hilarious thing about the Saudi national oil industry is that most of the information necessary to build up a detailed picture, is a state secret.

I suspect probably linear, followed by a reduced exponential. The reasoning being when the rising water levels in Ghawar and aother fields reach the horizonal wellbores, a large amount of production capacity will be cut off almost instantly. Subsequent redrilling to redirect the wellbores to remaining pockets of oil with greater accuracy, would put the remainder of Saudi production onto an exponential decline with a lower annual depletion rate. There would however be no recovery from the steep initial fall.

That's as detailed a scenario as can be deduced from what they are willing to divulge. It's not as though they have to report any data to the SEC or anything.

Saudi Arabia can continue to produce oil for centuries. A stripper well pumps oil from an exhausted field. Once the bulk of the oil has been removed, remaining oil in the rock slowly seeps into the original geological oil trap. Although production is slow small amounts of oil can be removed for decades. Saudi oil fields are so huge stripper wells could operate for hundreds of years.
Yes, but what good is that? That's like being in the desert sipping water from a wet cloth. You still die of thirst.

Even injecting CO2 or N2 only allows to keep up production for a bit longer and nowhere near the full capacity it once had.

EDIT: Just found out that Cantarell, the second largest field in the world, officially peaked earlier this year. In Spanish: http://www.jornada.unam.mx/2006/01/29/026n1eco.php
I remember hearing about it's predicted decline about 6 years ago when I worked for the Mexican oil company, and even before that, when they started injecting N2.

You mean this north sea?
http://www.ukooa.co.uk/issues/storyofoil/images/F119.jpg
Hehehe, remarkable how nasty 7% is when you plot it.

A similar plot for Saudi Arabia seems likely.

'Ouch' is all I can say.

Indeed, seems to be the North Sea's experience throughout this decade.

But world peak oil will be different from any individual oil fields that may have already peaked. For example, when the Texan oil fields peaked prices stayed low because Texas oil companies had no ability to raise prices because the Saudis were selling cheap oil. There is no source outside earth to keep prices down. World peak oil means that prices will go up which will result in more economy and substitution. This will act as a very effective brake, slowing down our oil consumption.

But world peak oil will be different from any individual oil fields that may have already peaked. For example, when the Texan oil fields peaked prices stayed low because Texas oil companies had no ability to raise prices because the Saudis were selling cheap oil. There is no source outside earth to keep prices down. World peak oil means that prices will go up which will result in more economy and substitution. This will act as a very effective brake, slowing down our oil consumption.
Production would still continue in unrestrained fashion as the ceiling falls. Consumption may slow in the West, but the experience of the 1980s may not hold true in a world where China and India can absorb any increase in efficiency in the West.

Hehehe, remarkable how nasty 7% is when you plot it.

A similar plot for Saudi Arabia seems likely.
Yeah, that's why I like to use pictures. 8% seems like such a small number because the number 8 usually is in everyday life. Relative to depletion it is a very large number. It is also a very common number relative to depletion because its the rate at which most of our large oil fields deplete. Canterall may be looking at 10% depletion. Saudi oil production falling from 10 million barrels/day to 1 million in 10 years puts a new perspective on Canadian tar sands production reaching 3 million barrels/day in 15, no? :)

Production would still continue in unrestrained fashion as the ceiling falls. Consumption may slow in the West, but the experience of the 1980s may not hold true in a world where China and India can absorb any increase in efficiency in the West.

If China and India can absorb any increase in efficiency in the West I would be very happy. That would indicate massive economic growth in both countries. Maintaining such growth through peak oil would be quite an achievement. Go India! Go China!

Canterall may be looking at 10% depletion.
Cantarell already started going and they predict it'll go fast as a consequence of N2 injection earlier. Ku Maloob Zaap has the capacity to pick up most of the lost production, but it's still undeveloped, and I pray that Mexico resists US pressure to exploit this field as fast as inhumanly possible and instead implements a policy of technological development supported on this oil.

But I might as well wish I could crap diamonds.

Alas, pictures frighten people off just as easily as equivalent stats put them to sleep.

It wasn't until last year's 10% North Sea decline that politicians sat up and took notice, even though a 7% depletion plot was available in the late 1990s. It was dismissed as alarmism back in those days. Even now there isn't any consensus on what to actually do about it. The latest thinking seems to be to build more gas turbines even though gas is declining, because nuclear is 'bad'.

A 7% decline rate halves production in a decade, which is why it's such a great benchmark. A 3.5% global decline rate halves production in 20 years. That really puts things into perspective.

Unfortunately few are aware there is a discussion even taking place. Controversy over moving the line one percent this way or that way is bitter enough, but what's really bad is the profound ignorance out there. :(

Alas, pictures frighten people off just as easily as equivalent stats put them to sleep.
A good way to put it is: would you be able to cope with a 2% yearly cut in your salary?

A good way to put it is: would you be able to cope with a 2% yearly cut in your salary?
Haha. For the first decade, yeah. Thereafter, I wouldn't be happy. Regardless of what 'substitutions' I made, after a second decade I would officially be poor. More people need to make that sort of comparison. It applies equally to any government seeking to build its way out of a problem once the trouble begins.

A good way to put it is: would you be able to cope with a 2% yearly cut in your salary?

In some places in Australia people drink their own sewage. After it's been treated of course. Thirty years ago this probably would have been unthinkable. What we have to do to cut our oil comsuption over the next thirty years might seem unthinkable now, but I'm sure we'll do them.

In some places in Australia people drink their own sewage. After it's been treated of course. Thirty years ago this probably would have been unthinkable. What we have to do to cut our oil comsuption over the next thirty years might seem unthinkable now, but I'm sure we'll do them.
We won't have a choice. You can't burn what you can't produce. The problem will come in the choices you have to make. They will be devestating. Especially if you have a house and a lot of debt.

We won't have a choice. You can't burn what you can't produce. The problem will come in the choices you have to make. They will be devestating. Especially if you have a house and a lot of debt.

Actually, high oil prices might be good for debt because higher inflation rates would decrease its relative value over time; just like the 1970's, when a lot of people were able to reduce their debt burden because loans from the 1960's became real interest negative.

Haha. For the first decade, yeah. Thereafter, I wouldn't be happy. Regardless of what 'substitutions' I made, after a second decade I would officially be poor. More people need to make that sort of comparison. It applies equally to any government seeking to build its way out of a problem once the trouble begins.

But oil isn't the same as money; there are already available substitutes for oil that are going to improve rapidly as the market matures and expands in the face of high prices. There are no feasible substitutes for money right now, unlike oil.

Actually, high oil prices might be good for debt because higher inflation rates would decrease its relative value over time; just like the 1970's, when a lot of people were able to reduce their debt burden because loans from the 1960's became real interest negative.
It's never good when the value of a real peice of property falls below the amount of money you owe on it. Most of teh housing boom of the last decade has been in the outer bands of sprawl surrounding center cities. The value of those homes has skyrocketed. When it costs you as much in gasoline every month to drive from Palmdale to Los Angeles every day for work the value of those houses will plummet. That's a hard choioce to make. Provided your job is still there, do you keep paying off your $500,000 mortgage even though your house is only worth $250,000 and you are spening $1,500/month on gasoline or do you sell yoru house at a loss move to Los Angeles and continue paying off a house that you no longer own for the next 10 years? People are going to be stuck in no win situations.

The problem will come in the choices you have to make. They will be devestating

Four dollars a litre for petrol? Choice: Ride bicycle to shops, cancel gym membership.

Five dollars a litre for petrol? Choice: Sell current car for low price (but people will still want to buy it because it is fuel efficent) Buy Hybrid that gets 40+ kilometers to the litre like the 2008 Prius, or buy a plug in hybrid.
Choice: Rely more on communications technology instead of flying.

Considering I actually own part of several natural gas fields high prices for oil and gas don't scare me too much. Although I'll have to make choices I don't think they'll be devestating.

And for those of you who think petrol will hit $100 dollars a liter - Choice: I will produce ethanol in my back yard. Then I'll ride my bicycle everywhere and sell the ethanol. I won't be able to distill much on my own, but I could bring in a couple of thousand extra dollars a week.

Four dollars a litre for petrol? Choice: Ride bicycle to shops, cancel gym membership.

Five dollars a litre for petrol? Choice: Sell current car for low price (but people will still want to buy it because it is fuel efficent) Buy Hybrid that gets 40+ kilometers to the litre like the 2008 Prius, or buy a plug in hybrid.
Choice: Rely more on communications technology instead of flying.

Considering I actually own part of several natural gas fields high prices for oil and gas don't scare me too much. Although I'll have to make choices I don't think they'll be devestating.

And for those of you who think petrol will hit $100 dollars a liter - Choice: I will produce ethanol in my back yard. Then I'll ride my bicycle everywhere and sell the ethanol. I won't be able to distill much on my own, but I could bring in a couple of thousand extra dollars a week.
Ummm... I'm curious about how much ethanol you think you can produce in your backyard. For corn it comes to about a four barrels/acre. How many acres do you have in your backyard and you do realize that you get one harvest a year, right?

Ummm... I'm curious about how much ethanol you think you can produce in your backyard. For corn it comes to about a four barrels/acre. How many acres do you have in your backyard and you do realize that you get one harvest a year, right?

Corn? Pah! Sugar cane is the way to go. But yeah, I won't be able to produce much. But the example was for $100 a litre petrol, so even a single barrel is going to bring in a lot of money. And there is plenty of stuff I can convert into fuel just lying around. I'll sneak into state forests and tap trees for sap like for maple syrup. I'll sneak into people's yards and night and cut their lawn with sissors and use the clippings to heat my still. I'll go through the supermarket's bin and turn rotton mangoes into fuel! But when all is said and done, I don't think petrol will get to $100 a litre.

Corn? Pah! Sugar cane is the way to go. But yeah, I won't be able to produce much. But the example was for $100 a litre petrol, so even a single barrel is going to bring in a lot of money. And there is plenty of stuff I can convert into fuel just lying around. I'll sneak into state forests and tap trees for sap like for maple syrup. I'll sneak into people's yards and night and cut their lawn with sissors and use the clippings to heat my still. I'll go through the supermarket's bin and turn rotton mangoes into fuel! But when all is said and done, I don't think petrol will get to $100 a litre.
No, demand will crash way before then. People will have lost their homes, their jobs way before it costs that much.

No, demand will crash way before then. People will have lost their homes, their jobs way before it costs that much.

So we will have a lot of people living in the street because they've lost their homes and a lot of empty homes that the banks will be unable to sell? Couldn't we put like the people living in the street like into these homes that banks aren't able to sell? Or is that just too wild and crazy an idea?

And if things get really bad, wouldn't there be many jobs available? Such as pulling rickshaws, building home stills, putting vegetable patches in people's back yards so food won't have to be transported so far and so on? I doubt that things will get that extreme, but there would be plenty of work.

So we will have a lot of people living in the street because they've lost their homes and a lot of empty homes that the banks will be unable to sell? Couldn't we put like the people living in the street like into these homes that banks aren't able to sell? Or is that just too wild and crazy an idea?

And if things get really bad, wouldn't there be many jobs available? Such as pulling rickshaws, building home stills, putting vegetable patches in people's back yards so food won't have to be transported so far and so on? I doubt that things will get that extreme, but there would be plenty of work.
Exactly. You're describing the third-worldization of the industrial world.

Exactly. You're describing the third-worldization of the industrial world.

But I can't see that happening. The Nazis were able to liquify coal in WWII and we are smarter than the Nazis and in my country we have more coal. I don't see how it's possible for peak oil to third-world the industrial world.

That's a hard choioce to make. Provided your job is still there, do you keep paying off your $500,000 mortgage even though your house is only worth $250,000 and you are spening $1,500/month on gasoline or do you sell yoru house at a loss move to Los Angeles and continue paying off a house that you no longer own for the next 10 years? People are going to be stuck in no win situations.

We're assuming that people will continue to be required to commute to work all of the time, which is likely not going to be the case given the rise and rapid evolution of telecommuting, internet telephony, email, wireless, etc. The rate of development is getting faster and the devices available are of better quality with each passing year.

It's very likely that many companies will immediately save some costs by increasing the number of telecommuters, which will reduce both gasoline consumption and drive growth in the telecom sector. Also, they may pursue alternative means of transportation for their employees.

We're also assuming that they are going to keep spending $1,500/month for gasoline and are not going to switch to more fuel efficient cars or use alternative fuels in the vehicles if prices continue to rise. The house would be worth less, but as a percent of income the mortgage payments on it would also be a much smaller percentage of income as inflation continued (assuming they lock in the rate rather than keep it variable).

There are a lot of things that would have to remain constant for that situation to happen; if oil from all sources peaks in 2020 as Laherrere predicted recently, then it's almost impossible that the status quo will still be in place by then. Given that the rate of technological development today is a lot faster than it was even in the past 20 years, it's almost impossible that we will not have many new alternatives to the traditional commute.

But I can't see that happening. The Nazis were able to liquify coal in WWII and we are smarter than the Nazis and in my country we have more coal. I don't see how it's possible for peak oil to third-world the industrial world.

Actually, the industrial world will probably be the least vulnerable since our petroleum demand is much more "discretionary" than it is in India, China or the rest of the developing world. We can save and replace much more of it much more easily than the Third World can which means the peak will not be as damaging to us. It will absolutely change our lifestyles, but not our standard of living.

They absolutely need almost all of their consumed oil for their economic development, while the industrial world consumes over 60% of it for nonindustrial, nonfreight transportation purposes; therefore, the places most vulnerable are those who can't reduce consumption without stopping economic growth.

But I can't see that happening. The Nazis were able to liquify coal in WWII and we are smarter than the Nazis and in my country we have more coal. I don't see how it's possible for peak oil to third-world the industrial world.
The biggest coal reserves in the world are in the US. It is estimated that we have 200 years worth of coal here but, and this is the caveat, at present rates of production.If we are to start subbing coal for oil and gas it'll be gone in a few decades, maybe sooner. In anycase, you still will not be able to ramp up production fast enough nor will you be able to ever match oil production rates. A significant drop in the amount of oil, or let's call it liquid fuels, will have a catastrophic effect especially in the far flung areas of sprawl. People will be losing their homes and their livelyhoods and this will efect the political landscape as well because its these very same people who have tremendous influence on the political systems. People are not going to be able to go from accountant to ethanol farmer in a year or two. People are going to be stuck, confused. They will look to blame people, oil companies, other countries... You act as though people can just one day change everything about their lives or that we'll just up and start creating all these new fuels. It's not going to happen that way. You read about these inventions people are coming up with and you think, "There's the answer!" It's not that simple. We have to retool and rebuild infrastructure that has taken decades to build. We have to reorganize how we do everything from manufacturing to food production and we need to do it fast and we need oil to do it with and that's exactly what we're not going to have. Its not going to be easy and its not going to be fun.

We have to retool and rebuild infrastructure that has taken decades to build. We have to reorganize how we do everything from manufacturing to food production and we need to do it fast and we need oil to do it with and that's exactly what we're not going to have. Its not going to be easy and its not going to be fun.

The bulk of the infrastructure changes are going to be in the motor fuel sector; wind, nuclear, solar and other renewable plants can be integrated in to existing grids without problems, especially with the development of new batteries for storing offpeak surplus electricity. Agriculture could be shifted to biodiesel, and bioplastics could replace a lot of our petroleum-based plastic needs.

Also, there's the possibility of geothermal energy from old oil wells; IIRC New Zealand is looking in to the technology, and if it's feasible in the US that would be extremely helpful. We've got some 13,000 oil wells to use for power generation if they're all feasible.

However, the ethanol and biodiesel system will be the main problem, since they can't be distributed at present with the pipeline infrastructure available; however, Goodyear's new biodiesel fuel pump will help because it can be used for either gasoline or biodiesel. Nevertheless, we're going to have (quite possibly major) problems with the system until the transport infrastructure is in place.

In anycase, you still will not be able to ramp up production fast enough...

I said we were smarter than Nazis and the Nazis managed it.

...nor will you be able to ever match oil production rates

We need to match oil production rates to prevent becoming third world economies?

It's not going to happen that way. You read about these inventions people are coming up with and you think, "There's the answer!" It's not that simple.

Um, Nazis? Like 65 years ago. We're not exactly talking about new inventions here.

The bulk of the infrastructure changes are going to be in the motor fuel sector; wind, nuclear, solar and other renewable plants can be integrated in to existing grids without problems
:D

Sorry, can't help but grin there.

No.

The changes to electrical energy networks will have to be extensive. Renewables integration is actually a major technological headache for the industry.

especially with the development of new batteries for storing offpeak surplus electricity.
There have been a few pilot plants, nothing else. It's prototype stuff at the moment. There isn't a company out there with a mass-production facility, and there isn't a company out there including the technology in its strategy.

The changes to electrical energy networks will have to be extensive. Renewables integration is actually a major technological headache for the industry.

We're probably not going to need to build an entire new distribution system or replace the existing one with the electrical grid, unlike the pipeline distribution system which is pretty much useless for biofuel transport.

Grid computing is already a possibility, especially with the falling cost for large-scale processing power. If there's a profit in it (and there is quite a bit of that right now with $70/bbl oil), they will make the changes. As long as oil remains expensive, people are going to put up the money for these projects and they're doing that right now by researching these alternatives. (Also, more and more people may end up going off the grid entirely).

California's been integrating alternative energy quite well and their grid is more reliable now than it was prior to installation of solar and wind energy. Besides, they're not going to be the main source of power; most states are aiming for 20% which is entirely possible. The rest can come from coal, nuclear, geothermal, hydropower, biomass, or natural gas all of which can produce a lot of additional power.

There have been a few pilot plants, nothing else. It's prototype stuff at the moment. There isn't a company out there with a mass-production facility, and there isn't a company out there including the technology in its strategy.

Once it's profitable, there will be a lot of money coming its way. Alternative energy is really popular right now, and if someone comes up with a feasible idea, companies will give them the funds they need. If anything, the economic environment today is going to get these things on the market quite soon.

The changes to electrical energy networks will have to be extensive. Renewables integration is actually a major technological headache for the industry.

Yes, it is a bit of a problem. In Australia gas turbines are typically used in conjunction with wind farms to deal with fluctuations in output. In areas with hydroelectric power surplus capacity can be used to pump water back into the dam. Currently in Australia they are experimenting with using thermal solar to split ammonia into nitrogen and hydrogen to recombine later and provide a constant power supply. Of course solar hot water, nuclear, geothermal etc. aren't problems.