Australian Politics Forum - The Peak Energy Debate

perceptions_now

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 11694
Perth WA
Gender: male

Re: The Peak Energy Debate
Reply #60 - Jul 21^st, 2010 at 12:27pm

China Tops U.S. in Energy Use

China has passed the U.S. to become the world's biggest energy consumer, according to new data from the International Energy Agency, a milestone that reflects both China's decades-long burst of economic growth and its rapidly expanding clout as an industrial giant.

China's ascent marks "a new age in the history of energy," IEA chief economist Fatih Birol said in an interview. The country's surging appetite has transformed global energy markets and propped up prices of oil and coal in recent years, and its continued growth stands to have long-term implications for U.S. energy security.

China overtook it at breakneck pace. China's total energy consumption was just half that of the U.S. 10 years ago, but in many of the years since, China saw annual double-digit growth rates. It had been expected to pass the U.S. about five years from now, but took the top position earlier because the global recession hit the U.S. more severely, slowing American industrial activity and energy use.

China's economic rise has required enormous amounts of energy—especially since much of the past decade's growth was fueled not by consumer demand, as in the U.S., but from energy-intense heavy industry and infrastructure building.
China's growing energy demands will present new challenges to U.S. foreign policy, as well as to international efforts to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases linked to climate change. China National Petroleum Co., the country's biggest oil company, is pushing forward with oil and gas projects in Iran, despite U.S. efforts to enforce sanctions against the Tehran government.

Beijing has refused to agree to cap its overall growth in its consumption of fossil fuels, or reduce its emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.

China's growth has transformed global energy markets and sustained higher prices for everything from oil to uranium and other natural resources that the country has been consuming. Once, China was a major exporter of both oil and coal.

China's rapidly expanding need for energy promises to have major geopolitical implications as it hunts for ways to satisfy its needs. Already, China's rising imports have changed global geopolitics. Chinese oil and coal companies have been looking overseas in their quest to secure energy supplies, pitching the Chinese flag in places like Sudan, which Western companies had largely abandoned under international pressure.

Voracious energy demand also helps explain why China—which gets most of its electricity from coal, the most polluting of fossil fuels—passed the U.S. in 2007 as the world's largest emitter of carbon-dioxide emissions and other greenhouse gases.

In the past, being the world's biggest consumer of fossil fuels went hand in hand with being its dominant economy.

Before China joined the WTO, most international prognosticators, including the IEA, predicted energy demand would increase at an annual rate of 3% to 4% from 2000 to 2010. Demand wound up growing four times faster than they predicted.
Link -
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703720504575376712353150310.html#p...
=========

One of the problems with an ETS style tax in Australia &/or the USA etc, is that unless the tax is sufficiently large, as to severely hurt the Publics disposable income and therefore curtail their economic activity and therefore drastically bring down the economy, it will be consigned to being only maginally effective (locally), in respect of GHG emissions and in fact, be used primarily as a tax raising avenue.

However, Globally, a much greater impact will be felt in GHG emissions, from the likes of China, India & others, who would continue to surge ahead with their Economic/Industrial reforms, thus resulting in huge GHG increases, via Coal power stations & increased middle class activity.

Regrettably, this is NOT SUSTAINABLE and tipping points, will be tripped!

Back to top

IP Logged

perceptions_now

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 11694
Perth WA
Gender: male

Re: The Peak Energy Debate
Reply #61 - Jul 22^nd, 2010 at 1:34pm

FACTBOX-Oil reserves: declining - but how fast?

(Reuters) - A declaration by Venezuela last week
that it hopes soon to overtake Saudi Arabia as the country with
the biggest oil reserves has stoked debate on how much oil and
gas the world really has left. OPEC said last week its proven crude oil reserves rose 4 percent in 2009 to 1.06 trillion barrels, led by an increase in Venezuela.
BP estimated last month total global oil reserves were over 1.33 trillion barrels -- equivalent to more than 40 years of consumption at current rates..
But many industry analysts have cast doubt on these figures, saying estimates may be inflated for a variety of reasons.
Link -
http://af.reuters.com/article/commoditiesNews/idAFLDE6681JK20100721
==========
So, given what are most likely inflated figures of 1.33 TRILLION BARRELS OF CURRENT, GLOBAL OIL RESERVES, which in the usual jargon will last over 40 years at current consumption rates, does anyone know how long it is likely to last, in real life, in the real world???

Back to top

« Last Edit: Jul 22^nd, 2010 at 1:43pm by perceptions_now »

IP Logged

perceptions_now

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 11694
Perth WA
Gender: male

Re: The Peak Energy Debate
Reply #62 - Jul 23^rd, 2010 at 8:42pm

North Sea Oil’s New Boom

I’ve been hearing dark mutterings about the imminent ‘end of North Sea oil’ all my life, with the dramatic impact that would have for the UK economy. North Sea oil was a diminishing resource that would be “gone by the end of the century” experts constantly assured back in the 1970s. But the rigs just kept right on drilling and producing into the new century – and the experts just kept right on being confounded. And it looks like they are to be confounded yet again as a new North Sea boom is set to boost oil reserves – and the UK’s economy.
And the hits just keep on coming
Bizarrely, as the oil giant BP – and its share price – flounders, the British oil and gas sector is experiencing a new boom, in the North Sea and beyond (see Falkland Islands link below), the newfound confidence being best exemplified in a string of drilling successes for British independents like Dana Petroleum. Dana has recently announced discoveries in the North Sea, Egypt and Morocco, sending its share price on a steady upward tack.

In April, Dana announced a find of approximately 130 billion cubic feet of gas in its Platypus prospect in the southern North Sea. In May, the company’s skyrocketing confidence saw it enter into an agreement to buy out PetroCanada Netherlands, boosting its own North Sea holdings from 36 to 54 fields, including 15 new fields. In June Dana announced a new North Sea oilfield discovery at West Rinnes before announcing two more for its North Africa holdings, one in Egypt, one in Morocco.

Almost inevitably, Dana’s ‘string of hits’ has attracted attention from the bigger oil companies. In July, amidst interest from China’s large national oil companies, a takeover bid was formally issued by the Korea National Oil Corporation, sending Dana’s share price spiralling up another 17 percent.

Elsewhere in the North Sea, the large Catcher prospect, held between British independents Encore Oil, Premier Oil, Wintershall and Agora Oil and Gas, represents a section of rich formation. Catcher is estimated to hold 150-300 million barrels – worth around £1 billion/$1.4 billion in terms of boosting UK Government coffers. Encore Oil’s further tests at Catcher suggest that figure too could be “very significantly” increased in the future.

Extrapolating the North Sea Experience
More significantly, there is no reason to doubt that the North Sea story of renewed viability and new, if more difficult to extract, prospects can be replicated in other parts of the world. And it makes a nonsense of peak oil theories that predict steep and imminent decline for global oil reserves.

A resurgent UK North Sea oil industry has real implications for panicky peak oil assessments. Not only does it offer a hard lesson in the impact of “above the ground” economic factors on extraction, it offers a major case study that could be extrapolated across the globe.
Link -
http://www.energytribune.com/articles.cfm/4747/North-Sea-Oils-New-Boom-
===========
So, there is a new BOOM, all is well with the North Sea, the UK & world Oil production?

Well according to the EIA figures, which usually paint a slight rosy picture, the major countries involved in the North Sea, which are the UK & Norway, are now around 50% & 35% down on their Peak production, which goes back to around 2000 and production is continuing to decline.
http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/cfapps/ipdbproject/iedindex3.cfm?tid=5&pid=53&aid=1&cid...

The so called huge find (the Catcher prospect", is only equivalent to other small finds of the last 10-20 years and nothing like the earlier finds of the 60's & 70's.

To put it into perspective, this new find is about 2 days Global supply.

Unyet, if you listen to this author & others, these sort of new fields will "save the world".

Back to top

IP Logged

perceptions_now

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 11694
Perth WA
Gender: male

Re: The Peak Energy Debate
Reply #63 - Jul 24^th, 2010 at 11:34pm

Peak Oil 2012 - Economic Collapse, Cities abandoned and Starvation inevitable as Oil runs out

Department of Energy and Oil producers predict a Peaking of Oil Production between 2011 and 2015.

10% decline in Oil production by 2015 is foreseen in DOE report and oil supply deficit in 2015 equal to output of Saudi Arabia.

By 2027, Oil production will only be able to supply 50% of World's needs unless new Oil projects fill the void.

This is highly unlikely as Offshore drilling loses its appeal after the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. A World wide Economic collapse due to inadequate cheap energy is the result.

You may not like or agree with the theme, but you should be aware of the scenario!

Back to top

IP Logged

perceptions_now

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 11694
Perth WA
Gender: male

Re: The Peak Energy Debate
Reply #64 - Jul 25^th, 2010 at 3:05pm

Oilwatch Monthly July 2010

Latest Developments:

1) Conventional crude production - Latest figures from the Energy Information Administration (EIA) show that crude oil production including lease condensates decreased by 100,000 b/d from March to April 2010, resulting in total production of crude oil including lease condensates of 73.52 million b/d.

2) Total liquid fuels production - In June 2010 world production of all liquid fuels decreased by 250,000 b/d from May according to the latest fgures of the International Energy Agency (IEA), resulting in total world liquid fuels production of 86.15 million b/d. Liquids production for May 2010 was revised upwards in the IEA Oil Market Report of July from 86.31 to 86.4 million b/d. Average global liquid fuels production in 2009 was 84.94 versus 86.6 and 85.32 million b/d in 2008 and 2007.

3) World oil production capacity - Total oil production capacity in June 2010 decreased by 80,000 b/d from May 2010, from 90.0 to 89.94 million b/d. World production capacity is measured here as the sum of world liquids production excluding biofuels plus total OPEC spare capacity excluding Iraq, Venezuela and Nigeria.

4) OPEC Production - Total liquid fuels production in OPEC countries decreased by 60,000 b/d from May to June 2010 to a level of 33.97 million b/d. Liquids production for May 2010 was revised downwards in the IEA Oil Market Report of July from 34.23 to 34.03 million b/d. Average liquid fuels production in 2009 was 33.7 million b/d, versus 36.09 and 35.02 million b/d in 2008 and 2007 respectively. All time high production of OPEC liquid fuels stands at 36.4 million b/d reached in July 2008.

Total crude oil production excluding lease condensates of the OPEC cartel decreased by 60,000 b/d to a level of 28.89 million b/d, from May to June 2010, according to the latest available estimate of the IEA. Average crude oil production in 2009 was 28.7 million b/d, versus 31.43 and 30.37 million b/d in 2008 and 2007 respectively.

OPEC natural gas liquids remained stable from May to June 2010 at a level of 5.08 million b/d. Average OPEC natural gas liquids production in 2009 was 4.67 million b/d, versus 4.47 and 4.55 million b/d in 2008 and 2007 respectively.

5) Non-OPEC Production - Total liquid fuels production excluding biofuels in Non-OPEC countries decreased by 190,000 b/d from May to June 2010, resulting in a production level of 50.38 million b/d according to the International Energy Agency. Liquids production for May2010 was revised upwards in the IEA Oil Market Report of July from 50.05 to 50.57 million b/d. Average liquid fuels production in 2009 was 49.67 million b/d, versus 49.32 and 49.34 million b/d in 2008 and 2007 respectively.

Total Non-OPEC crude oil production including lease condensates decreased by 73,000 b/d to a level of 42.48 million b/d, from March to April 2010, according to the latest available estimate of the EIA. Crude oil production for March 2010 was revised upwards in the EIA International Petroleum Monthly of July from 42.34 to 42.55 million b/d. Average crude oil production in 2009 was 41.61 million b/d, versus 41.32 and 41.80 million b/d in 2008 and 2007 respectively.

8) Chinese liquids demand - Oil consumption in China decreased by 24,000 b/d from April to May 2010, resulting in a consumption level of 9.12 million b/d according to JODI statistics. Average oil consumption in China in 2009 was 8.05 million b/d, versus 6.92 and 7.29 million b/d in 2008 and 2007 respectively.

==========
As can be seen, Production effectively Peaked in 2005 and has not subsequently kept pace with Demand, nor Population Growth!

Whilst Consumption has resummed its upward path, after taking a short dip for the GFCin 2008.

Back to top

IP Logged

perceptions_now

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 11694
Perth WA
Gender: male

Re: The Peak Energy Debate
Reply #65 - Jul 26^th, 2010 at 12:11am

It's time to end the excessive subsidies for corn ethanol

WHEN WASHINGTON starts handing out cash, it can be hard to stop. See, for example, the decades of subsidies the government has showered on the corn ethanol industry. The fuel was supposed to free America from its dependence on foreign oil and produce fewer carbon emissions in the process. It's doing some of the former and little of the latter. But corn ethanol certainly doesn't need the level of taxpayer support it's been getting. Lawmakers are considering whether to renew these expensive subsidies; they shouldn't.

The feds give companies that combine corn ethanol with gasoline a 45-cent tax subsidy for every gallon of corn ethanol added to gasoline. That's on top of a tariff on imported sugar cane ethanol from Brazil and federal mandates requiring that steadily increasing amounts of these biofuels be produced. The Congressional Budget Office this month estimated that, all told, the costs to taxpayers of replacing a gallon of gasoline with one of corn ethanol add up to $1.78.

How about the environmental benefits? The CBO calculates that it costs a huge $750 to reduce annual carbon dioxide emissions by one ton using corn ethanol. And that figure relies on assumptions extremely favorable to the industry.

Not only are these subsidies expensive, but they are redundant. Since Congress has mandated that the industry furnish a steadily increasing number of gallons of ethanol every year, the stimulative effects of the tax incentives on corn ethanol production will continue to diminish. Numbers from the Food and Agricultural Policy Research Institute at the University of Missouri, on which the CBO relies, show that over the next 10 years, corn ethanol production will still increase -- just not quite as quickly -- if Congress allows the subsidies to lapse this year and leaves the mandate in place.

At this point, the question should not be whether to allow corn ethanol's tax incentives and trade protections to expire. The debate should be about why corn ethanol deserves any federal protection at all. There are certainly more effective ways to reduce oil consumption and greenhouse emissions.
Link -
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/23/AR2010072304345....
============
The EROEI (Energy Return On Energy Invested) in respect of Ethanol means that it costs more to make it, than we get back when it is used!

If Oil Production was going to make a come back, then Ethanol would not still be in production. In any event, I suggest in the not too distant future, Ethanol may be put on the backburner, so to speak and both the USA & Europe may cease pushing its barrow, because its EROEI makes it un-viable.

Finally, the subsidies paid here and elsewhere in the Energy industry, does not fit well with the industry and its GHG emissions!

Back to top

IP Logged

perceptions_now

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 11694
Perth WA
Gender: male

Re: The Peak Energy Debate
Reply #66 - Jul 28^th, 2010 at 1:31pm

Saudi Arabia, Russia and Oil Production

In a recent interview on the Keiser Report:

I found myself casually mentioning that Russia had now surpassed Saudi Arabia to become the number one oil producer in the world. This is not an event that happened last month, either. The leap forward emerged as far back as 18 months ago, in October of 2008. It seems in Russia, big things often unfold in October.

As subscribers to Gregor.us Monthly know, I like to break up the world of global oil production into four parts. There is OPEC, anchored by Saudi Arabia. And then there’s Non-OPEC, anchored by its top producer, Russia. With the most recent EIA data out for April crude oil production, I made up charts for Saudi Arabia, and Russia, and thought it might be instructive to pose a few questions. First, let’s take a look at Russia

As I have discussed previously, without Russia the world of Non-OPEC supply would have fallen down into a hole shortly after 2003. Indeed, without Russia Non-OPEC production (Non-OPEC ex-Russia) would have fallen every year from 2004 through the present day.

What’s been a surprise is that Russia has been able to sustain its current ~9.5 mbpd for over four years now. A number of analysts are reasonably confident that Russian oil production has now entered a plateau. Now let’s look at Saudi Arabia

As we look at the chart of Saudi Arabia crude oil production, I like to consider the following propositions:

1. This is a chart of the central bank of oil, with lots of spare capacity, that works to dampen oil price increases.
2. This is a chart of the central bank of oil, with lots of spare capacity, that works to perfect oil price increases.

3. This is a chart of what had once been the central bank of oil, as it transitions to a secondary role.
4. This is a chart of an oil producer doing its best, within technical and geological limits, to maximize its profit.
Regardless of which we choose among these possibilities (or others), it’s clear that Saudi Arabia has been a very different kind of oil producer than Russia, in the past ten years. I would encourage readers to think about, in particular, the period starting in late 2005 through late 2007 when against a backdrop of steadily increasing prices Saudi Arabia production fell by nearly a million barrels per day. Per the interview mentioned above, with the Keiser Report, we might also want to consider the decision to develop fields such as Khurais. | see: Khurais Update: Got Seawater?

Based on the totality of information over the past ten years, I think one can get much closer to reality in Saudi Arabia’s production profile than many presume, given the country’s secrecy. I would also remark that the untested assumption that Saudi Arabia has ~3-to-4 mbpd spare production capacity is one of those slippery and large concepts that can easily lose its shape, in the wrong hands. What do you think?
Link -
http://seekingalpha.com/article/216593-saudi-arabia-russia-and-oil-production?so...
==========
It seems that -
1) Russian Production has plateaued & is about to Peak, before going into Decline.
2) Saudi Arabia is still the unknown factor, but I suspect they may also have Peaked.
3) Non OPEC Production, without Russia has been in decline for some years.
4) The video is worth a look, bear in mind that Gregor McDonald doesn't come on until about the 14 minute mark.

Also, of interest, is the following chart of US Energy Costs, as a percentage of US GDP 1999-2008, which rose substantially and is contributing to the decline of the US & Global Economy!

Back to top

IP Logged

perceptions_now

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 11694
Perth WA
Gender: male

Re: The Peak Energy Debate
Reply #67 - Jul 28^th, 2010 at 8:15pm

Peak Oil - Solution to Global Warming

Global warming is not going to be a problem. Why do I think that? Because Lord Monckton has debunked anthropomorphic global warming? Because of the Climategate scandal? No. It's much simpler than that.

We'll run out of oil long before we get to any climate crisis.

Many experts believe we are reaching or have reached “peak oil” production on this planet. That's the point at which the glass starts looking half empty rather than half full and last half becomes harder and harder to drink amongst the ice cubes. As we empty the wells, the remaining reserves become harder to extract, are less refined making extraction more expensive. The cost of oil after peak oil can only go up and can never come back down.

Chris Martenson presents a crash course in "Peak Oil"

Ok, so we'll all have to drive Priuses, put solar panels on the roof and recycle a bit harder? No, it's worse than that...a lot worse. Look around you. Just about everything you see created by the hand of modern man is derived from oil or was produced using oil as an energy source or was gotten to you using oil fuelled transport. Everything. The plastic in your laptop, the coffee you're drinking, the rubber tyres on the road you're driving on, all of it comes to you because of oil.

Now imagine the cost of everything going up, and up and up. How do you afford to drive to work to pay for it? How does fruit & veg from the countryside get to my local supermarket without turning into a luxury item? How much will my cup of Columbian coffee be?

Energy now becomes as valuable as blood. Welcome to the road warrior world of Mad Max.

We are facing no less than the complete collapse of civilisation. That's it. Game over. We will return to a pre-oil horse & cart medieval world and whoever still has access to energy will rule the world.

We are like bugs on a petrie dish. We have fed on oil as a serendipitous growth medium, growing our population and consumption off the chart. However, once the oil is exhausted, the colony will die and the world population will revert to more sustainable levels, many estimate that to be about 1 billion people. We have splurged on cheap energy for the last 100 years like a hobo who has found a $50 bill on the pavement and has spent it at the boozer in one night.

When will this all happen? We don't have to wait until the last drop of oil comes out of the last well. We only have to get to the point when it takes more energy to extract the oil than it produces. This point may be decades away, it may be imminent, within months. Commentators vary on the timetable, but they agree that collapse is inevitable. If we don't see it ourselves, our children certainly will.

Is it any surprise that there is now a race on to secure the middle east oil reserves, at any cost, by any means, using any pretence? Is it that hard to imagine that the Bush administration could stage 9/11 as a false flag operation to create a justification for the invasion and occupation of Iraq? Is it any surprise that governments everywhere are investing in an New World Order Orwellian control grid to control the people as things spin out of control? It's going to get ugly.

Australia faces a federal election next month. Who's taking peak oil seriously as an issue? Yes, candidates talk about sustainability for the reasons of climate change, but not because of peak oil. Our pollies don't dare mention it because we the people don't ask the question. It's
the elephant in the lounge room. In fact, Tony Abbott in 2008 didn't even know what peak oil was. (Can't find any comment at all from Julia about peak oil.)

Tony Abbott "What's Peak Oil?"

Mike Ruppert is author of "Crossing the Rubicon". This is essential reading to understand how peak oil is fuelling the current geo-political/NWO agenda. Also watch his movie "Collapse" if you can find it. It's themost disturbing movie I've seen after "Endgame" by Alex Jones.

Here is advice from Ruppert as to how to prepare for Peak Oil - get out of debt now and think locally. You won't be going anywhere quick.

Link -
http://wakeupaussie.blogspot.com/2010/07/peak-oil-solution-to-global-warming.htm...
===========
A couple of abservations -
1) Chris Martenson knows his stuff, on Peak Oil, but if you like what you hear & see in this video, he has 20 more on many issues, which also make a lot of sense!

2) Tony Abbott, obviously has zero idea of what is happening & what is likely to happen!
He is a WORRY!!!

3) Mike Ruppert is a mixture of theatre and a lot of poosible/likely futures that many would rather not hear!

Back to top

IP Logged

BobH

Full Member

Offline

Posts: 174

Re: The Peak Energy Debate
Reply #68 - Jul 29^th, 2010 at 6:26pm

I don't think there is anything to worry about. Everybody just needs to calm down. When oil does become scarce, it will become more expensive. Scarcity obviously drives up price. So when energy companies realise oil is becoming too expensive, to the point where it might no longer be profitable, they will voluntarily switch to other sources of energy. It doesn't need to be forced. When you force it, that's when you run into trouble. I think we need to decide what will be our next major source of energy by letting the market compete over it. Let oil run and let energy companies invest in other sources of energy until one, like solar or nuclear or geo-thermal, triumphs over the others. That's the only smart way to transform the energy sector.

Back to top

IP Logged

perceptions_now

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 11694
Perth WA
Gender: male

Re: The Peak Energy Debate
Reply #69 - Jul 29^th, 2010 at 10:31pm

BobH wrote on Jul 29^th, 2010 at 6:26pm:

I don't think there is anything to worry about. Everybody just needs to calm down. When oil does become scarce, it will become more expensive. Scarcity obviously drives up price. So when energy companies realise oil is becoming too expensive, to the point where it might no longer be profitable, they will voluntarily switch to other sources of energy. It doesn't need to be forced. When you force it, that's when you run into trouble. I think we need to decide what will be our next major source of energy by letting the market compete over it. Let oil run and let energy companies invest in other sources of energy until one, like solar or nuclear or geo-thermal, triumphs over the others. That's the only smart way to transform the energy sector.

Bob, no offense, but it would seem your knowledge of Peak Energy, is a little less than that displayed by Tony Abbott, in the video previously placed on here & he is a worry.

You don't realise that -
1) The transition off Oil, to other Energy sources, would take about 30-40 years, if well managed and if there were other suitable Energy sources to transition to, which there are not.
And perhaps, 10 years, with absolute Manhattan Style project urgency!
2) It does need to be forced, the "free market" will not shift itself, it will need to be dragged, kicking & screaming, over the dying bodies of all of the self interest groups, including the Oil & Coal industries, for starters!
3) This is not a horse race, with 4 to 5 good favourites, all competing for a glittering prize. There are no choices here, we will struggle to get enough of the various Energy types & other essential Resources, for humanity to see out another century!
4) There is a lot more involved than a simple switch over of base load electricity, to Solar, Wind or Geo-thermal.

I gather you are a candidate or helper for the LDP, if so, do yourself & them a favour, do some research!

Back to top

IP Logged

BobH

Full Member

Offline

Posts: 174

Re: The Peak Energy Debate
Reply #70 - Jul 29^th, 2010 at 11:18pm

perceptions_now wrote on Jul 29^th, 2010 at 10:31pm:

BobH wrote on Jul 29^th, 2010 at 6:26pm:

I don't think there is anything to worry about. Everybody just needs to calm down. When oil does become scarce, it will become more expensive. Scarcity obviously drives up price. So when energy companies realise oil is becoming too expensive, to the point where it might no longer be profitable, they will voluntarily switch to other sources of energy. It doesn't need to be forced. When you force it, that's when you run into trouble. I think we need to decide what will be our next major source of energy by letting the market compete over it. Let oil run and let energy companies invest in other sources of energy until one, like solar or nuclear or geo-thermal, triumphs over the others. That's the only smart way to transform the energy sector.

Bob, no offense, but it would seem your knowledge of Peak Energy, is a little less than that displayed by Tony Abbott, in the video previously placed on here & he is a worry.

You don't realise that -
1) The transition off Oil, to other Energy sources, would take about 30-40 years, if well managed and if there were other suitable Energy sources to transition to, which there are not.
And perhaps, 10 years, with absolute Manhattan Style project urgency!
2) It does need to be forced, the "free market" will not shift itself, it will need to be dragged, kicking & screaming, over the dying bodies of all of the self interest groups, including the Oil & Coal industries, for starters!
3) This is not a horse race, with 4 to 5 good favourites, all competing for a glittering prize. There are no choices here, we will struggle to get enough of the various Energy types & other essential Resources, for humanity to see out another century!
4) There is a lot more involved than a simple switch over of base load electricity, to Solar, Wind or Geo-thermal.

I gather you are a candidate or helper for the LDP, if so, do yourself & them a favour, do some research!

Why is the market incapable of moving off oil? We used to use whale oil to light our homes but then the market figured out that wouldn't last, so they put a lot of money into finding a new energy source and figured out you could refine crude oil into kerosene. But it was very expensive. So some smart businessmen who wanted to make money, spent money on trying to figure out cheaper ways of refining kerosene so you could sell it to the common man. In the process they figured out you could make more from crude oil than kerosene. They developed vaseline, asphalt and eventually gasoline. Before they new what to do with it, crude oil was waste. But out of economic self-interest, it was transformed into a resource.

See, you don't need central energy management. All you need to do is deregulate the market, and the free market will more in the right direction. Smart businessmen have always found ways to make money. What makes you think they can't do it again? When oil is no longer profitable, what makes you think rich oil companies will be stupid enough not to invest money into finding alternatives? How's they get rich in the first place? How'd they find oil in the first place? Think about it.

Back to top

IP Logged

Equitist

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 9632
NSW

Re: The Peak Energy Debate
Reply #71 - Jul 29^th, 2010 at 11:33pm

BobH wrote on Jul 29^th, 2010 at 6:26pm:

I don't think there is anything to worry about. Everybody just needs to calm down. When oil does become scarce, it will become more expensive. Scarcity obviously drives up price. So when energy companies realise oil is becoming too expensive, to the point where it might no longer be profitable, they will voluntarily switch to other sources of energy. It doesn't need to be forced. When you force it, that's when you run into trouble. I think we need to decide what will be our next major source of energy by letting the market compete over it. Let oil run and let energy companies invest in other sources of energy until one, like solar or nuclear or geo-thermal, triumphs over the others. That's the only smart way to transform the energy sector.

Thing is, energy is but one use for oil - and it's probably not the most useful one for humanity either!

Right now, we seem to have a reckless race to extract and burn as much as possible in the shortest possible time...

Burnt oil cannot be recycled...

Environmental degradation issues notwithstanding, once oil has been combusted, humanity has lost its utility forever...

Back to top

Lamenting the shift in the Australian psyche, away from the egalitarian ideal of the fair-go - and the rise of short-sighted pollies, who worship the 'Growth Fairy' and seek to divide and conquer!

IP Logged

perceptions_now

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 11694
Perth WA
Gender: male

Re: The Peak Energy Debate
Reply #72 - Jul 30^th, 2010 at 12:20am

BobH wrote on Jul 29^th, 2010 at 11:18pm:

perceptions_now wrote on Jul 29^th, 2010 at 10:31pm:

BobH wrote on Jul 29^th, 2010 at 6:26pm:

I don't think there is anything to worry about. Everybody just needs to calm down. When oil does become scarce, it will become more expensive. Scarcity obviously drives up price. So when energy companies realise oil is becoming too expensive, to the point where it might no longer be profitable, they will voluntarily switch to other sources of energy. It doesn't need to be forced. When you force it, that's when you run into trouble. I think we need to decide what will be our next major source of energy by letting the market compete over it. Let oil run and let energy companies invest in other sources of energy until one, like solar or nuclear or geo-thermal, triumphs over the others. That's the only smart way to transform the energy sector.

Bob, no offense, but it would seem your knowledge of Peak Energy, is a little less than that displayed by Tony Abbott, in the video previously placed on here & he is a worry.

You don't realise that -
1) The transition off Oil, to other Energy sources, would take about 30-40 years, if well managed and if there were other suitable Energy sources to transition to, which there are not.
And perhaps, 10 years, with absolute Manhattan Style project urgency!
2) It does need to be forced, the "free market" will not shift itself, it will need to be dragged, kicking & screaming, over the dying bodies of all of the self interest groups, including the Oil & Coal industries, for starters!
3) This is not a horse race, with 4 to 5 good favourites, all competing for a glittering prize. There are no choices here, we will struggle to get enough of the various Energy types & other essential Resources, for humanity to see out another century!
4) There is a lot more involved than a simple switch over of base load electricity, to Solar, Wind or Geo-thermal.

I gather you are a candidate or helper for the LDP, if so, do yourself & them a favour, do some research!

Why is the market incapable of moving off oil? We used to use whale oil to light our homes but then the market figured out that wouldn't last, so they put a lot of money into finding a new energy source and figured out you could refine crude oil into kerosene. But it was very expensive. So some smart businessmen who wanted to make money, spent money on trying to figure out cheaper ways of refining kerosene so you could sell it to the common man. In the process they figured out you could make more from crude oil than kerosene. They developed vaseline, asphalt and eventually gasoline. Before they new what to do with it, crude oil was waste. But out of economic self-interest, it was transformed into a resource.

See, you don't need central energy management. All you need to do is deregulate the market, and the free market will more in the right direction. Smart businessmen have always found ways to make money. What makes you think they can't do it again? When oil is no longer profitable, what makes you think rich oil companies will be stupid enough not to invest money into finding alternatives? How's they get rich in the first place? How'd they find oil in the first place? Think about it.

Time for bed Bob, I'll get back to you.

That said, I think you need to do some work, you have a few ideals, but they are outdated, I'm afraid.

Think about this, we simplying don't have the Energy sources for 7-9 Billion people, NO MATTER HOW SMART YOU MAY THINK BUSINESS IS OR HOW GOOD THE FREE ENTERPRISE SYSTEM OR HOW GOOD THE CURRENT POLITICAL SYSTEM, IT SIMPLY WON'T WORK IN THIS NEW PARADIGM!

Back to top

IP Logged

BobH Full Member Offline Posts: 174	Re: The Peak Energy Debate Reply #73 - Jul 30^th, 2010 at 12:27am perceptions_now wrote on Jul 30^th, 2010 at 12:20am: Think about this, we simplying don't have the Energy sources for 7-9 Billion people Think about this, crude oil was waste before we refined it into kerosene and gasoline. Nothing is a resource until you know how to use it.
Back to top	IP Logged

perceptions_now

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 11694
Perth WA
Gender: male

Re: The Peak Energy Debate
Reply #74 - Jul 30^th, 2010 at 12:12pm

BobH wrote on Jul 30^th, 2010 at 12:27am:

perceptions_now wrote on Jul 30^th, 2010 at 12:20am:

Think about this, we simplying don't have the Energy sources for 7-9 Billion people

Think about this, crude oil was waste before we refined it into kerosene and gasoline. Nothing is a resource until you know how to use it.

So Bob, thinking cap on, what are the next Energy sources, for 7-9 Billion people, once Oil & Coal run out, within 40-60 years?

Not that we have to wait that long to see some of the consequences, because when it becomes apparent that we are on the after-slope of Peak Energy, various consequences will start to flow.

And, even if there is some well hidden new sources, how do we take a transition that should take 30-40 years and convert that into say 5 years, as we are already past the Peak and the next 2-5 years will see the consequences start to kick in.

Even with the urgency of a Manhattan style project, it would still take at least 10 years to transition from the current Energy sources, to the new ones, if there were any!

Btw, don't look to Wood, Whale Oil, Kerosene, Oil, Coal, Gas or Nuclear, as they are already been spoken for.

Solar, Wind & Thermal can have some input, but will not fill the breach left by the above Energy sources and there are many products derived from fossil fuels, which will NOT transition accross to these Energy sources.

Finally, there are some things that the "Private Sector" is good at and some where it is not.

This Paradigm change will not come naturally to the private sector, but they may be able to help, if they are given all of the information and they are enlisted to help be part of the solution, not part of the problem.

And finally, countries such as china, India & many others will have to temper their desires , whislt OZ, the USA & Europe will also have to reduce expectations, if the final outcomes are to see the survival of the human species.

Back to top

IP Logged