Peak Oil (was "petroleum geologist explains US war policy")
- Thread starter Bernie_Gunther
- Start date
elbows
Well-Known Member
Yes, I always thought there could be some truth to that stuff (not watched that video though so not sure what their take on it is yet), although I couldnt be sure. Certainly the timing would fit, as Saddam was making noises & possibly doing something (Ive forgotten) about using the Euro for oil trade. And Iran seemed to be threatening the same sort of thing. I expect the USA would have a pile of woe on its hands if its currency wasnt the main one used for such trade and ceased to be the main reserve currency of the world. Seems inevitable that they will eventually lose their grip on that stuff but the timescale is important, they might survive it if it happens slowly enough.
Although I expressed some doubt about the traditional oil war stuff being the only factors in the timing of the Iraq war, I would guess it was still a very large factor. And perhaps the window of opportunity to finish Saddam was closing, maybe they had to do it whilst the price of oil was still quite low and before supply-demand balance got too tight.
Still too much guesswork to be too certain of these things, same story with Iran now, hard to predict how this will pan out.
Current contribution of renewables to current primary energy supply: 1%
Current contribution of hydrocarbon to current primary energy supply: 55%
Number of 'Defence' budgets US can presently afford: 0
free spirit
more tea vicar?
where are you sourcing those figures from?
2007 EIA figures...
Total world primary energy consumption 495.2 quadrillion BTU
Total world renewable energy production 48.8 quadrillion BTU
which would mean renewables were supplying 9-10% of total world primary energy consumption in 2007, so presumably significantly more 3 years later given the phenomenal growth rate seen by virtually all renewables sectors other than largescale hydro in much of the world, but particularly the US, China & Europe in the last 3 years.
ok, so it's still over 1/5th less than fossil fuels, but it's an order of magnitude better than the picture your figures painted.
kyser_soze
Hawking's Angry Eyebrow
Quick ? regarding energy use (and putting aside the non-energy uses for petroleum)...if the UK adopted as many energy saving/efficieny measures as possible, how much less energy would we be using?
Also, how much corn would have to be grown to replace the oil used in kerosene for planes, and in manufacturing where using a corn oil substitute (or other bio-oil source)?
Also, how much corn would have to be grown to replace the oil used in kerosene for planes, and in manufacturing where using a corn oil substitute (or other bio-oil source)?
elbows
Well-Known Member
No simple answers to those questions. Its very easy to say that we waste a lot, much harder to come up with concrete numbers for what could be saved. One reason for this is that one way to save a lot of energy is to price people out of using it, either by increasing the cost to buy it or decreasing the amount of money they have in their pockets to spend. The economic woe has saved a lot of energy, but at what price? Electric cars could be way more efficient than combustion engines, but how quickly will people be able to afford them, how fast will the infrastructure develop, and how are we going to generate the electricity?
As for planes, as far as I know you cant just replace the kerosene. The aviation biofuels are only suitable for adding to the mix, eg 5 or 10% of the fuel can be replaced with a substitute, but if you try to replace it all then the plane wont fly. Im not very knowledgable on this though so may have got something wrong.
As for planes, as far as I know you cant just replace the kerosene. The aviation biofuels are only suitable for adding to the mix, eg 5 or 10% of the fuel can be replaced with a substitute, but if you try to replace it all then the plane wont fly. Im not very knowledgable on this though so may have got something wrong.
elbows
Well-Known Member
One further example on the energy saving front: We could save really vast amounts of energy if our housing stock was rebuilt to need virtually no heating. Its possible, but can we afford it, how quickly will it happen, etc? Considering that so far we have done very little on this front, and that despite tightening of the building regulations most of the plans are of the more modest 'insulate existing homes properly', its hard to imagine it happening properly at all.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
Yes, we can afford it, but it requires long-term planning. Politicians in the UK are really bad at that.
As for aviation, I would have thought that it would be reasonable to continue to use fossil fuels for planes if all cars could be converted to hydrogen cells.
As for aviation, I would have thought that it would be reasonable to continue to use fossil fuels for planes if all cars could be converted to hydrogen cells.
elbows
Well-Known Member
It doesnt look like hydrogen cells are going to make it into this round of change, normal batteries & electric vehicles seem to be whats on offer in the years ahead. A conversion to 'a hydrogen economy' was a lofty plan that was around in the 70's and was envisioned to happen in the 80's. It didnt happen then and I see no sure signs that it will happen this time either.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
Something like that will have to happen once the oil starts running out – that's the point isn't it: as long as oil was cheap there was not sufficient incentive to change.
kyser_soze
Hawking's Angry Eyebrow
http://www.smartplanet.com/business...plane-takes-first-flight-on-100-biofuel/2035/
So it can be done. It's just expensive.
elbows
Well-Known Member
Interesting stuff. Algae is certainly one to watch, if they can ever get it to scale up at a reasonable price then it very well may be one of the big solutions that enable us to have a decent future.
Their own timescales arent very optimistic:
Thats not enough even if they manage pure, when leaving the word blended in its not much of a goal at all!
It would likely be enough to meet our needs in 2030 if we manage to stop using oil for almost everything else. But Im still pretty sure that its 'our needs' that will end up changing the most, 10% of their fleet might be a lot less than it is presently because I really struggle to imagine there being as many flights in 2030 as there are today.
spacemonkey
I Love Noodles
Yep. The round trip efficiency of hydrogen production and use are extremely poor. It would only makes sense in a world with abundant clean energy (fusion etc...).
I read something recently about the UK's 'house price casino' and the dire energy efficiency of most UK housing. Box-builders have been cobbling together the cheapest, nastiest (and energy inefficient) houses they can get away with for the past 30 years and punters have been paying absolutely insane prices for this shit.
The energy and resources required to rebuild or refit our housing stock to an acceptable standard will likely be unavailable and / or unaffordable, as the ponzi / petroleum / casino economy continues to unravel.
I'll post a link if I come across the article again.
ferrelhadley
There is no love between us anymore.
Corn ethanol is barely getting a positive energy return on investment, you are basically getting about as much energy out as the energy you put in to grow it. Sugar cane ethanol is a whole other kettle of fish though. But the other problem is that ethanol is a lot less energy dense than kerosene so you have to carry more for less power, that means a big drag on weight and aerodynamics.
The US Navy is planning to run a carrier battle group on renewables pretty soon.
Algae fuel already being tested on F18s
Link
I keep seeing the new chief Oceanographer all over the place making speaches about climate change and national security. Guess when you have 50 years of under the ice patrols, convincing yourself that something is amiss in the Arctic aint too hard.
Backatcha Bandit
is not taking your calls
No argument here. Check out my favourite sankey diagram for UK energy: (pdf p3)I sometimes use it to terrify rooms of hippies by inviting them to play 'spot the renewables'.
Of course, that beautiful diagram doesn't cover food/fertiliser... I'll let Manning explain that:
Corn derived ethanol is as much of a joke as hydrogen. Techno-cornucopian fantasies embedded within the 'infinite growth' paradigm only serve to delay appropriate action.
We need new narratives, new stories.
gosub
~#
I sometimes use it to terrify rooms of hippies by inviting them to play 'spot the renewables'.
Of course, that beautiful diagram doesn't cover food/fertiliser... I'll let Manning explain that:
Corn derived ethanol is as much of a joke as hydrogen. Techno-cornucopian fantasies embedded within the 'infinite growth' paradigm only serve to delay appropriate action.
We need new narratives, new stories.
http://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/Thorium-A-Cheap-Clean-and-Safe-Alternative-to-Uranium.html
ferrelhadley
There is no love between us anymore.
kyser_soze
Hawking's Angry Eyebrow
I'mn sure mr Rubbia knows hois stuff, but I find his use of comic sans to be...offputting and credibility-decreasing
ferrelhadley
There is no love between us anymore.
ferrelhadley
There is no love between us anymore.
Russian energy minister warns without massive investment Russian oil production will drop by 20% by 2020 and states the country only has 25% of its extractable endowment left.
Hmm could be game playing for a bigger cut of the pie or could be a real concern. Russia, ofcourse, peaked back in the 80s.
Hmm could be game playing for a bigger cut of the pie or could be a real concern. Russia, ofcourse, peaked back in the 80s.
Backatcha Bandit
is not taking your calls
Same story, same paradigm.
-
House of Lords debate (Tuesday 2nd Nov): 'Future Energy Policy' still up on iplayer, in case anyone feels their life was destined to be 3 hours longer than necessary...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00vtp7h.html
Which reminds me... I haven't seen (doesn't mean there isn't) any mention here of the 'All Party Parliamentary Group on Peak Oil' - they have a website:
http://appgopo.org.uk/
A few interesting presentations have appeared recently, e.g. 'Food Security After Peak Oil' and a talk given by Antony Froggatt and Glada Lahn, who wrote that Chatham House/Lloyds report that was being discussed here back in July.
I'd like to see this Government create a 'Department for Optimism regarding Oil and Money', but that's because I thought of the acronym first, something they clearly didn't do with 'APPGOPO'.
gosub
~#
we are alot closer to peak uranium than peak thorium and impacts on what to do with existing nuclear waste, make them pebble reactors impacts on distribution of nuclear material. Granted is not infinite but would help on extending a curve with chaos beneath it.That debate is on hansard also
Backatcha Bandit
is not taking your calls
I don't doubt that, gosub.
What I do doubt, however, is whether we have the capability (read 'energy') to build out such capacity whilst simultaneously rebuilding the distribution infrastructure, replacing the transport fleet and tackling food security, soil erosion, water depletion, etc, etc...
That is to say, I don't see it as a 'technical' issue as much as a 'path dependence' issue - we are where we are as a result of decisions made in the past... 10,000 years ago, even.
When you talk of extending the curve, I'm assuming you're envisioning the exponential and inexorable upward trend in - well, everything (including energy consumption, especially 'complexity').
Hence I say it's the same story: Science and technology (dressed in a cape woven from 'infinitely growing energy') swoop in to save us from the threat of our own dependence on science, technology and infinitely growing energy.
If, on the other hand, you're picturing more of a gentle levelling-out sort of 'bridging fuel' curve, something that holds off the inevitable total systemic collapse that a mere disruption to the growth of energy availability will precipitate while we sort ourselves out, I'd disagree.
I cannot recall an example of an exponentially growing complex system which, when faced with a constraint on it's primary inputs (energy) does anything other than collapse catastrophically.
Such systems don't just decide to stop growing and gracefully decline to a sustainable, steady state.
What I do doubt, however, is whether we have the capability (read 'energy') to build out such capacity whilst simultaneously rebuilding the distribution infrastructure, replacing the transport fleet and tackling food security, soil erosion, water depletion, etc, etc...
That is to say, I don't see it as a 'technical' issue as much as a 'path dependence' issue - we are where we are as a result of decisions made in the past... 10,000 years ago, even.
When you talk of extending the curve, I'm assuming you're envisioning the exponential and inexorable upward trend in - well, everything (including energy consumption, especially 'complexity').
Hence I say it's the same story: Science and technology (dressed in a cape woven from 'infinitely growing energy') swoop in to save us from the threat of our own dependence on science, technology and infinitely growing energy.
If, on the other hand, you're picturing more of a gentle levelling-out sort of 'bridging fuel' curve, something that holds off the inevitable total systemic collapse that a mere disruption to the growth of energy availability will precipitate while we sort ourselves out, I'd disagree.
I cannot recall an example of an exponentially growing complex system which, when faced with a constraint on it's primary inputs (energy) does anything other than collapse catastrophically.
Such systems don't just decide to stop growing and gracefully decline to a sustainable, steady state.
I watched a documentary on BBC 4 last night about energy production in the UK. One of the examples it showed was the national centre for alternative energy near Machynelleth. Couldn't we all survive with some electronics if we switched to a kind of 'The Good Life' model?
I think it was will self who said in the documentary that the seats of power in this country isn't westminster or the MOD its the physical power stations. There was a hefty bit in the doc about nuclear power and how in the 50's people thought it would be unlimited power, too cheap to meter, that we would be able to have exponentially rising living standards and synthesise food using electricity etc...That seemed to kind of fall through along the way. There was a lot about nuclear stations being weapons factories etc...
I suppose it is easier just to plug in, use gas and electric and not really think about it (apart from finding the cash to pay your bill). I suppose if you are talking about 'The Good Life' style developments you are talking massive social upheaval that goes against the grain of a lot of people. A kind of mutualist society.
hmmm
I suppose it is easier just to plug in, use gas and electric and not really think about it (apart from finding the cash to pay your bill). I suppose if you are talking about 'The Good Life' style developments you are talking massive social upheaval that goes against the grain of a lot of people. A kind of mutualist society.
hmmm
Backatcha Bandit
is not taking your calls
I'm guessing that you watched the 3rd part of the "Secret Life of the National Grid" (discussed here)
What I'd really hoped people might take away from this programme is a sense of the extent to which we have come to utterly depend on the grid in almost every aspect of our lives.
Please, take a few minutes to let James Burke explain - it will probably save us both a fair bit of typing:
In the 32 years since the series ('Connections') from which this clip is taken, we have become a lot more dependent.
I'm trying to break it to you gently, but in all seriousness, if we continue to allow ourselves to imagine that we can suddenly make a switch to renewable energy and maintain any semblance of 'business as usual', the end result will be... well, that we envy the dead.
What I'd really hoped people might take away from this programme is a sense of the extent to which we have come to utterly depend on the grid in almost every aspect of our lives.
Please, take a few minutes to let James Burke explain - it will probably save us both a fair bit of typing:
In the 32 years since the series ('Connections') from which this clip is taken, we have become a lot more dependent.
I'm trying to break it to you gently, but in all seriousness, if we continue to allow ourselves to imagine that we can suddenly make a switch to renewable energy and maintain any semblance of 'business as usual', the end result will be... well, that we envy the dead.
Similar threads
- Poll
