It seems cogeneration at swimming pools is becoming a trend, with Fremantle pool looking to use a combination of ground source heat pumps and cogeneration - Freemantle pool goes geothermal.

Freemantle’s deployment of a cogeneration facility means that underground thermal energy will be used to both heat the pool and generate electricity. According to the council the facility uses “shallow geothermal” cogeneration unit because this was the most sustainable.

“Once the geothermal and cogeneration system is fully operational, heated water from the bore will be pumped through the leisure centre’s heat pumps to warm the centre’s two larger pools, with the cool water then re-injected back into the aquifer via a separate injection bore,” the council said.

CleanTechnica has a series of articles from Better Place founder Shai Agassi on the process for electric vehicles replacing petrol powered cars - Part 1 Part 2 Part 3 Part 4.

In the previous three parts of this series we have looked at the lessons the auto industry can learn from Tesla. I identified four key takeaways all carmakers should use as the foundation for their electric vehicle plans. The lessons all add up to the following principle:

Design a desirable Electric car that is upgradable over the years. Separate between car ownership and the battery, since batteries continue to improve exponentially. Finally, don’t force this new category of product through a mixed channel selling both ICE cars and EVs.

The recommendation to mass volume carmakers, those making more than 1 million cars per year, was not to try and beat Tesla in the category it created and dominates – Luxury electric cars. Tesla predicts it will make 21,000 cars this year – Nothing in the scale these massive carmakers operate enables to make any meaningful profit when they make a model at such low volume.

Instead, my recommendation was to make a desirable electric crossover, with space and power, then equip it with enough of a battery to get great range – say 150 to 200 miles. Most crucially of all – do not sell that battery. Instead, partner with an operator that owns the batteries, the one you buy with the car, the ones available on the road, and the ones drivers will use over the life of the car. The operator will package batteries together with electricity and offer those as “electric-miles” offered for a fixed monthly fee. For the sake of argument, let’s make that monthly fee equal to the cost of a weekly stop at the gas station today – roughly $300 a month.

Picture a great car serviced through an energy model that allows you to drive it unlimited miles but pay a flat monthly fee as you do so. #Like

The last remaining question was the price point that will make this electric crossover so disruptive as to drive demand through the roof. We pegged “infinite demand” at the imaginary market size of 1M cars worldwide. Mind you, that is only 1% of cars sold each year.

The final claim of Part III was:

If the market leader priced such a car starting at $9,999 after all incentives, without the cost of the battery (remember there is an operator that owns that battery) – a new category will be born, with demand far surpassing any imagination.

The metaphor I used was the iPad. At launch the first iPad was priced at $499, far below the price point for a powerful laptop. Compare that with Windows’ TabletPCs that asked for a premium above the price of a laptop, due to the “Tablet features”, such as touch. The result – TabletPC was always considered a niche segment where meaningless numbers were sold over the first 5-10 years in the market. Apple’s genius pricing of its first iPad at sub $500, combined with the fact that it was “an object of desire” disrupted the laptop market and shifted non-buyers (people who didn’t consider the need for a tablet before) into “Tablet devices”.

The SMH has an article on the solar power boom sweeping across Australia's rooftops - Money trail backs the clean energy revolution.

Here's a bright idea: what if, instead of paying for solar panels to keep your electricity bills down, you asked a solar company to put them on your roof for free, then paid them back with excess energy that you didn't need?

Well, it's already happening. Solar panel installation with no upfront payments, paid off over several years from the money saved out of your power bills, began in Australia almost two years ago. In a few years, it is likely that companies will be competing with each other to pay you for the privilege of using your roof to generate electricity for your home.

If that sounds fanciful, bear in mind that a decade ago there were just a few hundred working solar-powered home in the country, run mostly at significant personal expense by enthusiasts. By the end of last year, 936,810 solar systems were installed, and the number cruised past 1 million earlier this year.

Slowly but surely, renewable energy is eating into the business model of the fossil-fuel-burning energy generators. Those in the industry liken it to the effect the internet is having on publishing: disrupting revenue, overturning tradition and, literally, tilting the balance of power in favour of the customer, rather than big corporations.

Ecopreneurist has an article on South Africa's first solar thermal power plant, which includes 2 hours of thermal storage - Khi Solar One Tower — First Concentrating Solar Power Plant In South Africa — Is Now Online.

The Khi Solar One concentrating solar power plant is now one step closer to reality with the recent completion of the Khi Solar One tower in the Northern Cape province, near Upington, in South Africa. The company behind the 50 MW project — Abengoa, together with its partners the Industrial Development Corporation (IDC) and the Khi Community Trust — recently held a ceremony to commemorate the important milestone. An important milestone with regard to the project itself, and also with regard to the pursuit of South Africa’s renewable energy goals.

The newly completed 205-meter tall tower — which will be the centerpiece of, and driving force behind the 50 MW concentrating solar power (CSP) plant — represents a significant advance in solar tower efficiency, possessing both the capacity for higher temperatures than previous designs, and also a new ‘innovative’ dry-cooling system. ...

Khi Solar One, a 50 megawatt (MW) superheated steam solar tower with two hours of thermal storage, and KaXu Solar One, Abengoa’s 100 MW parabolic trough plant also under construction in the Northern Cape, will be the first concentrating solar power plants in operation in South Africa. The South Africa Department of Energy intends to bring 17,800 MW online from renewable sources by 2030, framing South Africa’s strategy for energy independence.

Apparently winter finished here on Saturday - but given that it felt like summer had arrived a few weeks before no one noticed. Apparently we're on track for the hottest year ever, again - Past year is hottest on record for Australia.

The past year has been the hottest ever in Australia since temperatures have been recorded, according to the Bureau of Meteorology, with every one of the past 12 months recording hotter than average temperatures. On average, August was the second warmest on record for maximum and mean temperatures for the whole of Australia, with the maximums averaging 2.60 °C above normal and the mean temperatures averaging 1.60 °C above normal.

CleanTechnica has an article on new flow battery technology from GE - GE Flow Battery Aims For 240-Mile EV Range… And Beyond.

We were just fooling around with the notion that new fuel cell technology could shake up the electric vehicle market, when here comes GE with another alternative: a flow battery that combines with a fuel cell to push EV range up to the Department of Energy’s goal of 240 miles, and even farther. The official rated range of Tesla Motors’ highly regarded but highly costly Model S is already 265 miles on a lithium-ion battery pack, so the big factor here is going to be affordability. With that in mind let’s take a look at that GE flow battery and see what’s doing. Read more at http://cleantechnica.com/2013/08/29/new-ge-flow-battery-aims-for-240-mile-ev-range/#wQQwrHS1wJ9DHwP6.99

Jesse's Cafe has a great quote from Senator Frank Church, who managed to put limits on the NSA back in the 1970's that lasted until the post 9/11 era (he also chaired the Senate hearings into the oil industry that were the basis of "The Control Of Oil") - Frank Church: The Abyss From Which There Is No Return.

[America’s intelligence gathering] capability at any time could be turned around on the American people and no American would have any privacy left. Such is the capability to monitor everything: telephone conversations, telegrams, it doesn’t matter. There would be no place to hide.

If this government ever became a tyrant, if a dictator ever took charge in this country, the technological capacity that the intelligence community has given the government could enable it to impose total tyranny, and there would be no way to fight back because the most careful effort to combine together in resistance to the government, no matter how privately it was done, is within the reach of the government to know. Such is the capability of this technology.

I don’t want to see this country ever go across the bridge. I know the capacity that is there to make tyranny total in America, and we must see to it that [the NSA] and all agencies that possess this technology operate within the law and under proper supervision so that we never cross over that abyss. That is the abyss from which there is no return.

ReNew Economy has a post on a Deutsche Bank report on the economics of distributed solar power - Deutsche Bank: Solar, distributed energy at ‘major inflection point’.

Deutsche Bank analysts have painted a bullish outlook for the global solar market, noting that solar PV is about to enter a “third growth phase” where it can be deployed without subsidies, and can resist a backlash from utilities.

The report by analysts led by US-based Vishal Shah estimates that three-quarters of the world’s market will be “sustainable” for solar within 18 months, meaning they can operate with little or no subsidy. (see graph at end of story). In two years, the market for solar will have flipped from one largely “unsustainable” – needing big subsidies – to one mostly sustainable.

That’s because with module prices stabilising at around $US60c-70c/watt, and installation costs of around $US1-$US1.20 a watt, the levellised cost of solar electricity is between US10c-20c/kWh.

I've been trying to ignore the beating of the war drums as the US, Britain and France attempt to build a pretext for attacking Syria (following the well trodden path they used to invade Iraq a decade ago), but the latest round of stories about chemical attacks in Damascus make it difficult to remain entirely silent.

In Iraq's case the motivation seemed to be a mix of a desire to control the oil, the seemingly insatiable appetite of the military industrial complex for new wars to keep the revenue flowing and pleasing the Israel lobby by keeping one of it's enemies in the middle east weak and under western control.

I've always held that the first of these was the dominant influence.

In Syria's case the country doesn't "float on a sea of oil" (as Paul Wolfowitz once accurately said of Iraq) so it's tempting to view the other 2 influences as the dominant ones in this case. Syria does, however, sit across some of the routes from the middle east to Europe that any potential gas pipelines could take if they wished to move gas from Iran and/or Iraq and/or Qatar to Europe, providing competition to Gazprom's dominant position in the European gas market.

It's this angle that some media reports are starting to look at, noting that Russia's support for Syria may have a strong economic basis (Ambrose Evans Pritchard recently came up with a story about the Saudi's trying to bribe Russia to abandon Assad).

The Guardian has an article looking at the gas pipeline angle - Syria intervention plan fueled by oil interests, not chemical weapon concern.

The 2011 uprisings, it would seem - triggered by a confluence of domestic energy shortages and climate-induced droughts which led to massive food price hikes - came at an opportune moment that was quickly exploited. Leaked emails from the private intelligence firm Stratfor including notes from a meeting with Pentagon officials confirmed US-UK training of Syrian opposition forces since 2011 aimed at eliciting "collapse" of Assad's regime "from within."

So what was this unfolding strategy to undermine Syria and Iran all about? According to retired NATO Secretary General Wesley Clark, a memo from the Office of the US Secretary of Defense just a few weeks after 9/11 revealed plans to "attack and destroy the governments in 7 countries in five years", starting with Iraq and moving on to "Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Iran." In a subsequent interview, Clark argues that this strategy is fundamentally about control of the region's vast oil and gas resources.

Much of the strategy currently at play was candidly described in a 2008 US Army-funded RAND report, Unfolding the Future of the Long War (pdf). The report noted that "the economies of the industrialized states will continue to rely heavily on oil, thus making it a strategically important resource." ...

The report noted especially that Syria is among several "downstream countries that are becoming increasingly water scarce as their populations grow", increasing a risk of conflict. Thus, although the RAND document fell far short of recognising the prospect of an 'Arab Spring', it illustrates that three years before the 2011 uprisings, US defence officials were alive to the region's growing instabilities, and concerned by the potential consequences for stability of Gulf oil.

These strategic concerns, motivated by fear of expanding Iranian influence, impacted Syria primarily in relation to pipeline geopolitics. In 2009 - the same year former French foreign minister Dumas alleges the British began planning operations in Syria - Assad refused to sign a proposed agreement with Qatar that would run a pipeline from the latter's North field, contiguous with Iran's South Pars field, through Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria and on to Turkey, with a view to supply European markets - albeit crucially bypassing Russia. Assad's rationale was "to protect the interests of [his] Russian ally, which is Europe's top supplier of natural gas."

Instead, the following year, Assad pursued negotiations for an alternative $10 billion pipeline plan with Iran, across Iraq to Syria, that would also potentially allow Iran to supply gas to Europe from its South Pars field shared with Qatar. The Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) for the project was signed in July 2012 - just as Syria's civil war was spreading to Damascus and Aleppo - and earlier this year Iraq signed a framework agreement for construction of the gas pipelines.

The Iran-Iraq-Syria pipeline plan was a "direct slap in the face" to Qatar's plans. No wonder Saudi Prince Bandar bin Sultan, in a failed attempt to bribe Russia to switch sides, told President Vladmir Putin that "whatever regime comes after" Assad, it will be "completely" in Saudi Arabia's hands and will "not sign any agreement allowing any Gulf country to transport its gas across Syria to Europe and compete with Russian gas exports", according to diplomatic sources. When Putin refused, the Prince vowed military action.

It would seem that contradictory self-serving Saudi and Qatari oil interests are pulling the strings of an equally self-serving oil-focused US policy in Syria, if not the wider region. It is this - the problem of establishing a pliable opposition which the US and its oil allies feel confident will play ball, pipeline-style, in a post-Assad Syria - that will determine the nature of any prospective intervention: not concern for Syrian life.

Looking at a map of the region many of the proposed pipelines from Iran and/or Iraq go direct from Iraq to Turkey, bypassing Syria entirely, so its not clear how much of an advantage having passage across Syria would provide - other than perhaps being more economic as the route would avoid the mountainous regions and political instability in Kurdistan.

ReNew Economy has a pair of posts on the problems posed by the combination of renewable energy, energy storage and electric vehicles to existing energy utilities - Solar and storage means “game over” for traditional utilities and How solar and EVs will kill the last of the industry dinosaurs.

Last Friday’s story about the predictions of Stanford University energy expert Tony Seba that solar would displace fossil fuels by 2030 – and how electric vehicles would do the same to liquid fuels – certainly generated a lot of readership, and a big response.

Some questioned whether we should be taking the opinion of just one academic at his word. So we’ve followed up with some quotes from two of the most senior energy chiefs in the US, the world’s biggest electricity market. And the predictions are just as striking.

Jon Wellinghoff, the chairman of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), which regulates utilities in the US, said in an interview last week that solar will “overtake everything”, and said that once storage is brought in to the equation it is pretty much “game over” for traditional forms of generation. “Solar is growing so fast it is going to overtake everything,” he told Greentech Media on the sidelines of the National Clean Energy Summit in Las Vegas.

He noted that in the next 2.5 years, the US will double its entire cumulative capacity of distributed solar built up over the previous four decades, and the installation cost of solar would continue to plunge from its current level of $4-$5 a watt, to $2 a watt and $1 a watt.

“At its present growth rate, solar will overtake wind in about ten years. It is going to be the dominant player. Everybody’s roof is out there,” he said. “Once it is more cost-effective to build solar with storage than to build a combustion turbine or wind for power at night, that is ‘game over.’ At that point, it will be all about consumer-driven markets.”

That is an extraordinary comment by the head of the US energy regulator, and not one you will hear in Australia, even though the level of penetration of rooftop solar is much higher, the installed cost of solar much lower (Australia has fewer “soft” costs and is already at around $A2/watt), and the retail price of solar is much higher.

But Welinghoff’s comments fit in with what the heads of his country’s biggest independent generation and utility companies have said about the potential of solar to change the game. That is just starting to dawn in Australia, where the market operator and utilities admit an increasing impact from solar, and state energy ministers are admitting that they are struggling to cope.

Ugo at Cassandra's Legacy has his farewell to The Oil Drum> up, declaring a victory of sorts for the "peakers" - Peak Oil: a fertile concept.

We live in a world where scientific evidence is trashed by ideological opinion, where people who learn from experience are accused of being flip-floppers, where changing one's mind on the basis of new data is seen as admitting one's lack of moral fiber. The debate on peak oil is no exception and the recent demise of "The Oil Drum" site has been often seen as an admission that the whole idea of peak oil was wrong from the beginning. But what is happening exactly with peak oil and why so much fuss about it? The problem may be simply that the idea had too much success. Let's go back to 1998, when Colin Campbell and Jean Laherrere raised up again a problem that had been first noticed by Marion King Hubbert, in 1956. Oil depletion, Campbell and Laherrere surmised, will be gradual: production will go through a symmetric “bell shaped” curve that will show a peak when, approximately, half of the available resources will have been used up. According to this study, the peak, that Campbell later dubbed “peak oil,” would have occurred around 2005. The pioneering work by Cambell and Laherrere gave rise to a whole scientific field that used similar methods to study oil depletion. Most of these these studies arrived to the conclusion that troubles with oil would start within the first decade of the 21st century, or perhaps a little later. It was a view of the future in stark contrast with the generally optimistic attitude of the oil industry up to recent times. Just as an example, in 1999 "The Economist" published an article titled "Drowning in Oil" predicting oil at under 10 dollars per barrel. But the predictions based on the peak oil concept turned out to be spectacularly successful, at least within the unavoidable uncertainties involved. Oil production stopped its growth in 2004 and oil prices spiked up to almost 150 dollars per barrel in 2008; about a factor of 5 higher than the price that was considered normal in the early years of the decade (and more than 15 times higher than the 1999 predictions of “The Economist”). Today, oil prices remain high; in the range of 100 dollars per barrel. We aren't seeing a production decline, but certainly we are seeing evidence of serious problems for the oil industry to maintain production at constant levels. As things stand, it seems impossible that we could return to the stable growth trends and the relatively low prices that were the rule until about 10 years ago.

So, “peakers” won their bet with cornucopians. The predicted troubles have materialized and peakers were also able to approximately identify the timing of the crisis. But, not everything is well in the world of peak oil. The elegant and symmetric “bell shaped” curve at the basis of most peak oil models did not appear for the global production data. What we are seeing, instead, is a plateau or, at most, a slow increase, in large part generated by the use of the so-called “non-conventional resources”, from biofuels to shale oil. The expected decline is not appearing; at least for the time being. ...

So, is peak oil dead? Well, no. For one thing, peak oil never was just a doomer's game where players tried to guess the exact day for the end of the world. No; it was – and it still is - a fertile concept; a way of seeing the world. It taught us a lot, and it is still teaching us a lot.

Peaking in the exploitation of non renewable (or slowly renewable) resources is a necessary consequence of the way the human economy works in the real world. It occurs with all kinds of mineral resources and with biological ones as well, as in fisheries. It is also the essential feature of the “tragedy of the commons” proposed by Garrett Hardin in 1966. It is an integral part of the dynamic world models that generated the “The Limits to Growth” study that, in 1972, changed the way we see the world.

In the end, it turns out that our planet is not an abandoned coffer out of which we can plunder treasures at will. The mineral resources we found in it should rather be seen as a gift that we should have managed much more carefully. Now, we are facing a difficult situation, squeezed in between resource depletion and catastrophic climate change. But the concept of “peak” can still help us to be prepared for the future. Remember that those who don't understand the bell shaped curve are condemned to follow it.

North Sydney Council has installed a cogeneration plant at my local pool - Cogeneration Plant at North Sydney Olympic Pool.

A 100kW cogeneration plant has been installed (July 2013) at the North Sydney Olympic Pool by the contractor Urban Energy. The plant, which will be powered by natural gas, will reduce CO2 emissions by 367 tonnes per annum and contribute to achieving Council’s sustainability targets.

The plant will produce more than 450,000kWh of electricity per annum, saving $58,000 on the Pool’s power bill. The Olympic Pool facility accounts for 35% of Council’s total electricity use, with an annual consumption of more than 1,450,000kWh.

Cogeneration technology, or cogen as it is usually called, is the process of using a heat engine to simultaneously generate electricity and heat - both essential for the operation of the Olympic Pool. The new system will heat the outdoor pool at a pleasant 25 degrees all year round and maintain the indoor pool at a steamy 29 degrees.

ReNew Economy has an article on 4 renewable energy scenarios developed by Bloomberg New Energy Finance for China - Graph of the Day: China’s future generation mix.

China – already the world’s second largest electricity market, largest carbon dioxide emitter, and consumer of half the world’s coal – is on course to more than double its power market in size by 2030. But with increased awareness of environmental pollution, a potential price on carbon emissions and increasingly competitive renewable energy alternatives, how will it meet the challenge?

As part of its latest report, The Future of China’s Power Sector: From centralised and coal powered to distributed and renewable?, Bloomberg New Energy Finance attempts to answer this question by modelling the outlook according to four different scenarios – Traditional Territory, New Normal (BNEF’s base case), Barrier Busting, and Barrier Busting plus carbon price.

The Australian election is on next weekend and I've found myself largely unmotivated my all the nonsense that has made up the "campaign" - it's like watching an episode of Dumb and Dumber. As always my recommendation is vote Green or for an Independent and put the Liberals last (unless you live in Malcolm Turnbull's electorate of course, in which case there's no harm voting for him). Peter FitzSimons column in the Herald this weekend asks "Who would the planet vote for?" - Playing Dirty With Clean Energy.

Yes, I know you think tweeting is nonsense, but at its best it can be like a radar system that helps identify strong public sentiment on a particular issue. On most of my tweets, I can count on five or 10 retweets as people wish to spread whatever I might say to their own network of followers. But, as I write, this tweet of mine just a few days ago received 507 retweets: ''Weird. The Libs proud boast in their advertising: 'The 10 Billion dollar Clean Energy Fund will go!' This is a PLUS? Staggering. #auspol''

The point is that even if the ALP seems to have made little hay out of the fact that, for all their sins, at least they are serious about climate change, many people are equally staggered the Libs are so proud of dismantling an institution already proven successful. The Clean Energy Fund makes a profit by lending money on a commercial basis to those seeking to ''mobilise capital investment in renewable energy, low-emission technology and energy efficiency in Australia''. As recently elucidated by journalist Lenore Taylor, that lending has been so disciplined, that ''in this year's budget the CEFC [Clean Energy Finance Corporation] costs only $18 million in start-up costs in each of the first three years - suggesting there would be almost no savings from its abolition''.

The bottom line? The claim the Coalition is saving $10 billion by abolishing it is a demonstrable nonsense. The fact that they want to abolish it in the first place suggests the Coalition is simply not interested in doing anything to alleviate the gravest issue of our time. And I pose this as a serious question: if the planet itself could vote in the election, would it vote for the ALP or the Coalition?

The Atlantic has an article on declining car use in the US - Evidence Suggests It's Not About the Economy. Its interesting that the one state showing large increases in miles travelled is North Dakota - lots of driving around trying to increase shale oil production from the Bakken it seems...

Driving has been on the decline in the United States since 2004, as researchers have documented every which way. What they still don't know, though, is precisely why. The answer likely has to do with some messy mix of rising gas prices, changing demographics, new technology, a souring economy and the shifting preferences of Millennial drivers. But it's tempting to lean on some of those explanations more heavily than others. ...

Since VMT peaked nationwide in 2004, driving has also declined in nearly every state

Biofuels Digest has an article on a new biochar / pyrolysis project being proposed for Louisiana - Cool Planet to invest $168M in Louisiana – stealthy biotechnology heads for scale. The updated program looks to be using wood waste rather than miscanthus.

In Louisiana, Cool Planet Energy Systems CEO Howard Janzen, flanked by Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, announced the company will build three bio-refineries in Louisiana with a capital investment of $168 million. The project will consist of modular biomass-to-gasoline refineries in Alexandria, Natchitoches and a site to be determined. ...

Its not hard to see why everyone has been excited — sometimes laced with skepticism — about Cool Planet. With claimed operating costs of $1.00 to $1.15 per gallon, and adding another 13 cents or so for the capital costs (amortized over 15 years) – well, you get the picture. It’s drop-in, renewable gasoline, in prospect, for about half the price of the incumbent fossil fuels.

Now those claims were built around – to some extent, an emerging feedstock, miscanthus. That was the secret sauce in reports of 4,000 gallons per acre yields for production of renewable gasoline, Ahem, there’s been a change.

Now, Cool Planet will harvest wood waste and forest byproducts to make gasoline at its initial commercial-scale facilities in Louisiana. Each bio-refinery will be capable of producing 10 million gallons of high-octane, low-vapor pressure gasoline for strategic distribution through existing market channels and for blending at Louisiana refineries.

I quite like this comment on Stuart Staniford's farewell to The Oil Drum as a quick summary of the current state of peak oil.

The one small disagreement I have is that things are boring at the moment. Although liquids are usually measured by volume, what really counts is the net energy which they yield to society. This is more nuanced and complicated than the original peak oil story based on conventional oil alone, but as such is rather more interesting.

The shallow upward gradient in C+C is entirely due to tar sands and tight oil, both marginal sources of supply at large environmental cost. Tar sands relies on cheap natural gas to be profitable. Tight oil is a classic bubble with misallocation of capital, woeful regulation and sharly diminishing returns. The situation with tight oil in particular seems to be quite dynamic, with significant yearly changes to flow rates, drilling and average returns.

An oft used metaphor is the cartoon coyote running off the edge of the cliff, legs pumping furiously. How long can the frantic motion delay the inevitable onset of gravity? We're seeing the dregs of liquid fuels being sucked out of the earth in a desperate attempt to keep our hydrocarbon addiction going. Each month sees a deterioration in EROI, so net energy is likely flat or at best rising very slowly.

Assuming 'peak oil' is defined as maximum rate of net energy flow, then I suspect we are not many years away. Tar sands can continue to expand slowly it seems, but tight oil will peak in volume terms this decade, and earlier in net energy terms.

I can understand that the original TOD cohort are feeling tired, after the peak oil debate has taken some unexpected twists and we're in an apparently stable phase. But dig down into the detail and IMO the key elements of peak oil are playing out in front of us, today, this year and for the next few years. In many ways it's a privilege to see and understand what's happening at such a critical inflexion point. In other ways is scary, because most of the world is still deep in denial and we'll have to adapt in uncomfortable ways once the net energy peak is passed (we ain't seen nothing yet).

All the main TOD contibutors should feel proud of providing such a valuable role in shaping awareness of peak oil and its likely remifications.

Think Progress has an article on pumped hydro storage in the US - The Inside Story Of The World’s Biggest ‘Battery’ And The Future Of Renewable Energy.

The largest battery in the world has sat quietly in George Washington National Forest along the Virginia-West Virginia border for nearly 30 years. A five-hour drive from the nation’s capital, it sits in the middle of the Appalachians, tucked behind the Blue Ridge Mountains. ... The Bath County Hydro Pumped Storage Facility is not really a battery in the common sense of the term, but it is the largest pumped storage facility in the world. It stores a lot of energy, which helps 60 million people in 13 states (and DC) served by the regional transmission organization, PJM Interconnection. ...

Europe continues to invest heavily in pumped storage, with skyrocketing renewable output and decent capacity. There are 40 pumped storage facilities in the U.S., and Bath County is one of the youngest, even though it remains the largest in the world. Rocky Mountain Hydroelectric Plant in Georgia is the newest, commissioned in 1995. Development in the U.S. has been slow because the facilities are expensive, hard to site, and hard to build.

The Atlantic has an interesting article on the bandwidth limitations to human cognition - How Poverty Taxes the Brain.

This understanding of the brain’s bandwidth could fundamentally change the way we think about poverty. Researchers publishing some groundbreaking findings today in the journal Science have concluded that poverty imposes such a massive cognitive load on the poor that they have little bandwidth left over to do many of the things that might lift them out of poverty – like go to night school, or search for a new job, or even remember to pay bills on time.

In a series of experiments run by researchers at Princeton, Harvard, and the University of Warwick, low-income people who were primed to think about financial problems performed poorly on a series of cognition tests, saddled with a mental load that was the equivalent of losing an entire night’s sleep. Put another way, the condition of poverty imposed a mental burden akin to losing 13 IQ points, or comparable to the cognitive difference that’s been observed between chronic alcoholics and normal adults.

Bloomberg has a (2 week old) article on the fading shale oil boom in the US - Shale Grab in U.S. Stalls as Falling Values Repel Buyers.

Oil companies are hitting the brakes on a U.S. shale land grab that produced an abundance of cheap natural gas -- and troubles for the industry. The spending slowdown by international companies including BHP Billiton Ltd. (BHP) and Royal Dutch Shell Plc (RDSA) comes amid a series of write-downs of oil and gas shale assets, caused by plunging prices and disappointing wells. The companies are turning instead to developing current projects, unable to justify buying more property while fields bought during the 2009-2012 flurry remain below their purchase price, according to analysts.