|
Post by steve on Feb 10, 2010 10:00:19 GMT
BP's chief executive Tony Hayward reckons peak oil supply is about 10 years off, but that peak demand will happen before then. news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_8497000/8497578.stmIf I recall correctly from the interview, he also reckoned the oil price would stay mostly $70-$100 for now, as above $100 was the point where demand dropped off, and below $70 was where supply levels tended to drop off. I don't now Steve, maybe because my children are so very young, but when 10 years out to peak is considered optimistic by most, it just doesn't' give me those warm fuzzy feelings. He is right though. Most are saying peak demand is here for OECD countries, but what will China and India do? BBC Radio 4 this morning had a chap saying a similar thing. Basically his argument was that the next government would need to plan for the possibility of $150-200 within 5 years. He also claimed that China and India were much better set up for planning for more expensive oil than the OECD countries. "The Industry Taskforce for Peak Oil and Energy Security (ITPOES) has claimed big changes are needed now, as oil production is likely to peak in as little as five years. John Miles, Director, Arup Group" news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_8507000/8507740.stm
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Feb 10, 2010 10:43:01 GMT
The Oil Crunch - a paper released by a group including Richard Branson has hit the streets.... in the foreword.. "By the middle of the century warning bells began to ring and some such as King Hubbert began to point out that world oil was a finite resource and furthermore that it was possible to estimate how much remained. At the time Hubbert was regarded by many as a crank and the industry line was that new discoveries would continue to replace what had been used. We now know differently. A great deal more oil has been discovered since Hubbert’s day but his basic thesis still holds. The difference is that today, with more exploration and more sophisticated exploration tools, we know the Earth much better and it is pretty clear that there is not much chance of finding any significant quantity of new cheap oil. Any new or unconventional oil is going to be expensive."
<<SNIP>>
"There is also another change from the past. Today around 80% of the world’s oil and gas reserves are controlled by governments through national oil companies. This is in marked contrast to a couple of decades ago when international oil companies had the major influence. Disregarding the potential use of fuel supplies as political levers, it is entirely reasonable that national governments should have legitimate policies different from those of oil majors when it comes to exploiting the natural resources of their countries. They are starting to regard their shrinking oil and gas resources as something to be husbanded. King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia recently described his response to new finds: “No, leave it in the ground … our children need it.” In other words, even those who have less expensive oil may wish to exploit it slowly and get the best possible price for it – a marked contrast with the past when oil was sold in a highly competitive market for little more than it cost to get it out of the ground."Report at: peakoiltaskforce.net/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/oil-report-final.pdf
|
|
|
Post by karlox on Feb 11, 2010 8:43:59 GMT
Climate Changes (by definition not including weather oscillations), foreseen shortage of main natural resources availability -such as gas, oil, coal, uranium- world´s population steady growth, current status of unbalanced wealth distribution (20% of humans consuming 80% of resources), strongly overpopulated and emerging economic countrys, especially China and India, increasing dependence of USA, Europe, Australia, Japan, South Korea and other smaller developping countries to non-friendly, mostly non-democratic regimes (check China´s investments in USA Federal Debt, location of oil main deposit, coltan, uranium...) increasing polution of waters, air and land, forest destruction, all of them associated to our prevailing ´growth model´... Well I am not very optimistic for what we could expect for our lifes and economy in the not-so-far future ahead, not to mention likely foreseen conflicts risks -specially from Eastern Africa through Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Middle East, Iraq, Iran, Afganhistan, Pakistan and India (draw the line in the map, as this new social, religious an political tectonic fault might cause severe political and economic disturbances to all of us not long ahead, not to mention Venezuela and mostly corrupted African countries) and don´t forget all that social dumping, mainly in Asia, which we should fight back if we want to have a chance mankind should prevail...
My point is that coal, oil, and gas consumption cuts are a MUST for the most wild expending countries, specially USA... even from a highly patriotic minded point of view it is unacceptable the high degree of dependence to non-democratic societies we are reaching, regardless one is AGW or not! Same with health: keep on burning increasing amounts of coal, oil and gas is a threat to billions in mankind, specially the poor that haven´t got the choice to get away from polutants and live close, over and around them. So it might be very costly, it shall mean sacrifices, but letting aside Global (non) warming discussion, there are quite plenty good reasons to support emerging clean power sources, and more funds for its investigation.
To put a man in Moon was a fulfilled challenge, to provide clean, affordable energy to over half of the population -which for our own sake should not repeat our errors in their own legitimate pursuit of happiness- and reducing same time our per-capita energy comsumption (efficiency) is the Challenge Mankind have for this century. If we fail we´ll collapse. AGW or anti AGW discussion is missing the point, reality is much more complex and shouldn´t be analysed using only green, red or blue glasses as most of us do according to our ideology, nationality or personal interest. Thanks for all your good opinions I always enjoy Carlos from Madrid (Spain)
|
|
|
Post by poitsplace on Feb 12, 2010 5:10:15 GMT
Karlox Pollution in the industrial nations has been drastically reduced...or do you remember any lakes and rivers catching fire lately? Smog is a thing of the past in all but the largest cities and then its only during certain (stagnant) weather conditions. Fossil fuels are by no means perfect but they are quite safe and largely harmless to the environment when used properly. China will very soon start taking measures to clean up their environment. They technology for that is surprisingly cheap...far cheaper than converting to many renewables.
In time (a decade or two) newer forms of energy and storage technologies will be cheap enough to replace coal. Until then the massive hit to the economies (and with them R&D) from a premature switch to renewables will do far more harm than good.
|
|
|
Post by pidgey on Feb 12, 2010 22:06:08 GMT
|
|
|
Post by pidgey on Feb 12, 2010 22:10:40 GMT
|
|
|
Post by pidgey on Feb 12, 2010 22:43:37 GMT
|
|
|
Post by karlox on Feb 13, 2010 21:51:50 GMT
Hi Poistplace, when you say that ´Pollution in the industrial nations has been drastically reduced...` you´re certainly right... but this is true for -may be- one third at the most of global population... meanwhile another third is about to jump from third to ´second class´ world and just committing and repeating same growth patterns and errors... and their aim and main goal -I am talking, for instance, about China- is growth by any means, and if -by the way,why not?- they can make good bussiness and good profits selling solar panels half the price, paying one tenth of a mean western salary for a 12 hours a day working journey... well, they will take that too for sure! And never forget that this is all planned by a central authoritarian government, which only leift motiv is Growth and Power... but we are too many people around already... no place for next generation of 2000 millions new drivers... China... uff! is it our future? and -by the way- world´s main financial powers and big companies worldwide are first ones making good bussiness with them... it´s us, plain good-willed people which are the ones to be crashed and trapped in the middle of this power game... that´s how I regard it... sorry for I am not very optimistic at all... I feel we are reaching sort of a breaking point -worldwide- and that too many lines are converging into something which doesn´t look good at all... Regards karlox (nick) you can call me Carlos, real name Madrid. Spain
|
|
|
Post by karlox on Feb 13, 2010 22:52:09 GMT
Pidgey, I´ve found your links very interesting... and closely related to my point of view by the way. Poistplace, I am not saying we should crash our global economy sharply switching -or trying to- from the old model to a new one being much more ecological effic and socially sustainable. That simply cannot be done that way. But be sure that Big Oil and Nuke lobbies´ main interest is to squeeze the orange until its last juice-drop is gone... no matter what the real cost for all of us is going to be...They only care for their profit (namely including shareholders, which saddly also includes quite a few of their future victims) So, this case, in my opinion, Public interest must be sustained by our Democratic Goverments, provided they are not already in such kind of lobbies and companies pay-roll...Can you figure how much money and efforts are they investing trying to convince us of how good fossil power sources have been and will keep on being in the future? Reading through these threads, sometimes it looks the only lobby on Earth is AGW people! Come on! Think, please.
Defrosted Artic? Great!! Now we can get some more Oil out of there and get all these new Reservoirs ready to be used for our own good sake and growth... that´s how it works!
I would be more than happy if I could only witness -for instance- how USA´s citizens would cut their water and energy expenses to European standars... but by the time USA could perhaps make it -if ever- China, India, and one thousand millions more ´round the world, will be probably consumming twice as much as both Europe and USA together...
We should fight for our energetic independence for the sake of both our planet and democratic societies, and that means sacrifice, no doubt.
|
|
|
Post by hairball on Feb 13, 2010 23:06:53 GMT
Carlos, I'm sure it gets just as cold in Madrid as it does here in Ireland. If my country had to depend on windmills to heat our homes this Winter many of us would be dead.
I see the green energy techs as just another economic bubble: the rich will get in the market early, wait for taxpayers' money to inflate it and then sell just before the crash. They do it all the time. The deepest oil well we've drilled is 10km, there's plenty more oil down there and even if there isn't we've got hundreds of years worth of coal. Only AGW can stop this from being used. It's a confidence trick. Democracy is the last thing on the minds of Western governments.
|
|
|
Post by karlox on Feb 13, 2010 23:54:49 GMT
Hairball, I can see you also know how ´the rich´ manage this world... and I agree indeed. But you´re sort of comparing ´green energy´with other economic bubbles such as Properties, I guess (burbuja inmobiliaria/negocio del ladrillo, which means ´brick bubble´ the way we say it, and suffer from it, by the way)... but if I can afford -no matter how expensive still is- a windmill in my property or a solar panel on my roof (here is Spain we can get some sun, you know...) then I simply cannot do it by myself... need permissions, forced to sell my energy production to the Power Companies, lots of papers... they just don´t want us to be ndependent! Sun is free, wind is free, that´s the pointl ... And by ´they´ I mean the ones that are selling you and me gas, oil, electricity etc. Ireland (great land, I love it!) is a very windy country; my question is: Are you really sure that windmills farms couldn´t support a sustantial part of your countries energy needs if conveniently sponsored and supported by your Goverment? Would that harm you anyway? I can´t see how could that be so... In Spain -which is highly dependent on oil imports- we are undergoing a dramatic switch towards clean energy sources -nuke excluded- and at least we are somehow in the right direction (some more nuke needed though in the meantime, in opposition to my Goverment´s current policy, but I am to be blamed for being too ´open minded´ even for a greenfreak as I consider myself) If Democracy is the last thing on the minds of Western governments figure it out what´s on the mind of governments from such countries as Saudi Arabia, China... and think who is making big bussiness with them, but don´t go look too far away for that.
|
|
|
Post by scpg02 on Feb 14, 2010 2:12:14 GMT
The Green lobby is the problem with going green here in California. They block conventional energy sources but also won't let you build green energy sources. All for environmental reasons. They want you to use windmills and solar but won't let you put them anywhere as you might harm some poor creature.
As for putting them on my house, well that is a dilemma as well. Our local utility company gives you free trees to shade your house and save on summer air conditioning. How can I then put solar on my roof if the thing is shaded?
|
|
|
Post by hairball on Feb 22, 2010 19:28:11 GMT
Personal power plant in your home? Virtually no death-gas emissions? Never-before-imagined technology that one plucky guy came up with on his own and got $400mil funding to develop? 50% more efficient than centralised power production? Being launched - right now - out of the blue? www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=6228923n&tag=apiFar too good to be true. And seriously, if you're paying Powell to endorse something, at least get him to rattle an ampule of pretend anthrax or flash a cookie around and ask people to imagine it's yellow cake or something. Sheesh.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Feb 23, 2010 1:41:51 GMT
Thank you hairball. That was an interesting link to view. I hope the 3,000 price tag is correct! Just think......the thing would be oblivious to storms etc!
|
|
|
Post by hairball on Feb 24, 2010 7:07:15 GMT
I've been at the calculator and diesel fumes again. If current proven coal reserves were converted to liquid fuel (which would be economic at today's oil prices) we'd have enough oil equivalent to last at least 1,000 years at present rates of consumption. I'm also pretty sure that there's a hell of a lot more coal down there that we haven't bothered looking for. Someone needs to start building coal-to-liquid conversion plants right about now unless we're planning to live like the Amish. EDIT: Of course, I forgot to check how much coal is burned to produce electricity every year, so the above should be completely ignored since proven reserves will be gone in 150 years just firing power stations EDIT 2: Actually, everywhere I look for info on coal reserves I find 100's of billions of tonnes appearing and then suddenly vanishing. I think we're all being taken for a ride and a sizable percentage of the Earth's crust is probably made of coal. *nods to self*
|
|