Peak Oil and the political response

gbh

If I were in government now or sitting around a government cabinet table, my first priority would be weaning this country off fossil fuel and onto renewable energy. It would be my first priority.

And the first steps I would take is

1. get all those redundant sugar farmers to grow biofuel crops on their land

2. remove the vrt completely on energy efficient cars and double that on cars over two litres

3. speed up the building of windfarms and don't allow planning permission to be held up for them

4. Start building immediately and encourage as much of the private sector to get involved in building renewable energy projects

5. The same tax concessions should be given to renewable energy construction projects as are given to oil exploration companies

6. All state owned vehicles should be changed over to biofuels

There are plenty other things that could be done if the government applied itself, and not just for short term election gains.

meepins

Do you know anything about biofuels or are you just spouting off?
It requires more energy to be ploughed into these crops to grow than you get out of them as a fuel source.

Moriarty

silverharp wrote:

-The last major oil discovery was the North Sea in the 70’s / 80s, Hubbards peak suggests that you hit a peak in discoveries 30 odd years before you have a peak in production again the North Sea is an example, US production follows this logic as well

Does the recent discovery of ~10 billion barrels not count?

meepins

thats like a piss in the ocean considering the amount is burned through a year globally.

mike65

10 million barrels is 5 days of North Sea Oil.

edit that link should say 10 billion which is more useful!

Mike.

silverharp

that field in Mexico is still an "if", they announced huge fields in the Stans over the past couple of years but they have all turned out to be smaller then expected , and considering world daily consumption is 84mbd that buys us less then 100 days. I remember CJ promising that he'd land oil in Ireland....

bonkey

silverharp wrote:

considering world daily consumption is 84mbd that buys us less then 100 days.

The entire demand/supply arguments on which peak oil arguments are fundamentally based, which talk about the falloff in existing production and the increase in global demand not being offset by new fields and/or improvements in extraction technology.

Why is this line of reasoning applied to explain why peak oil is imminent, but when new fields are (potentially) discovered, the argument shifts to "only X days worth of oil" rather than saying "well, yes, if this field produces Y barrels a day, and has the estimated reserves, it would offset peak-oil estimates by Z time"

It buys us less than 100 days if all other oil production in the world were to cease, and this were to be fully exploitable all at once. This scenario would completely invalidate all accepted methods of calculating peak-oil, as it would imply that we can continue producing until suddenly everything falls away in virtually no time. In other words, it implicitly equates "peak oil" with "no more oil".

jc

Elmo

It requires more energy to be ploughed into these crops to grow than you get out of them as a fuel source.

Current Rape Seed Oil Production

World
Area 264,254km2
46,255,508 tons

that is 175km2 per ton in the world currently. Thats not to mention other crops that could be used to produce fuel.

average crops of rapeseed produce oil at an average rate of 1,029 Litres per 0.1km2. (or one hectare = 100m2?)
:. currently the world CAN produce 2,719,173,660 litres.

Please note my calculations could be wrong and am willing to except that those calculations are wrong.

I have taken my figures from wikipedia.org

The government could remove VRT from Hybrid BioVehicals and VAT from BioFuel. To get people to accept biofuels. It would be a viable source of income from many farmers and the spin of industry.

1 barrel = 158.99litres
20,033,504 barrels used in the US = 3,185,126,800.96 litres
1,722,419 barrels used in the UK = 273,847,396.81 litres

A factory in scotland has been opened which can produce 50million litres of BioFuel a year.

Certainly increasing the production of Rapeseed oil would HELP with reducing our dependance on Oil.

meepins

You haven't addressed the point.
edit* Talk of Biofuels reminds of a South Park clip I saw the other day.It's a commentary on this fledgling industry of envoirnmentally concious products like hybrid cars and whatnot :

http://www.spikedhumor.com/articles/21339/South_Park_Hybrid_Song.html

Elmo

85litres per hectare of Rape Seed is used on farm in the US to produce the fuel. How much fuel is used to work a oil station of the coast or an oil rig on land?

I have no idea how much flue it takes to produce the final product of Rape Seed oil or Petrol.

Someone else can look that up.

I amn't defending the idea of Rapeseed Oil I am just looking up information on it so that I can make an informed opinion.

SeanW

Biodiesel creation makes more energy than is used during its creation. Ethanol does so too, but (esp using corn) the energy gain is rather small.

Look at Wikipedia's Biodiesel article under Efficiency and Economic arguments, for all the data.

You might be surprised to learn that petro-fuels cost more energy to make than the motorist gets out of it. I guess the energy take from all the drilling, transportation, refining etc, takes it's toll.

meepins

http://www.energybulletin.net/5062.html

at the bottom of that article it acknowlegdes the recent study showing differing figures and goes on to say it can be difficult to account for all the energy inputs for the fuel.

silverharp

Bonkey - I was just illustrating that 10bn barrels is a drop in the ocean, the North Sea was in the 60-90bn range, the North Sea was the last major discovery.

You mentioned depletion, The 84mbd that we currently pump today will be 60-64mbd in about 10 years, so Q1- where are the replacements and Q2 where are the additional oil reserves to meet growing demand.

oscarBravo

Firespinner wrote:

Air fuel is the worst, crudest fuel ever there is little danger of this running out.

Worst, crudest fuel ever? Jet-A1 is basically kerosene. What makes kerosene particularly "bad" or "crude"?

Akrasia

The Biodiesel argument is slightly missing the point here.
Those who oppose it suggest that it is energy inefficient, i dispute their figures, but the real point is, do they reduce our dependence on foreign oil? and Do they reduce our C02 emmisions? All of the resources suggest that Pure plant oil reduces Greenhouse emmissions by anywhere between 80% and 120% (there may be a net carbon sink effect as not all the CO2 absorbed the plant during the growth of the crop is released through burning)
Pure Plant Oil is biodegradable and does not pose a pollution risk.

As long as we produce more Oil than we need to use to produce it, it doesn't matter how energy inefficient it is to produce (and i am not suggesting that it is energy inefficient) , not really, because the energy it takes to produce the energy we need, will be from a clean and renewable source. And locally produced fuels have to save a huge amount compared with the costs of transporting and refining petrodiesel.

There is no argument to say that we shouldn't attempt to maximise our production and consumption of bioDiesel as a way of reducing our reliance on Petrochemicals. If we still have a shortfall in production at the end, that is not to say that the efforts were wasted. The sooner we move on this the better.

bonkey

silverharp wrote:

Bonkey - I was just illustrating that 10bn barrels is a drop in the ocean,

And I was just illustrating that you used a disengenuous (and possibly invalid) argument to do so.

The worst thing to do to support a cause is (in my opinion) to support it with weak, misleading or invalid arguments.

This is also why I have such an issue with the 2-3 year timeframe for Peak Oil. It may indeed be accurate, but if it is then - to be quite honest - its already too late and there's nothing to do. On the other hand, if the crunch is in a slightly longer, potentially-manageable timeframe, the 2-3 year argument is perhaps the worst enemy out there. That timeframe will pass, the crunch won't have come, and those saying "Ah...ok...maybe 2008 was too pessimistic, but we're definitely screwed by 2015" begin to somewhat resemble those guys walking around with "The End is Nigh" sandwich-boards.

You mentioned depletion, The 84mbd that we currently pump today will be 60-64mbd in about 10 years, so Q1- where are the replacements and Q2 where are the additional oil reserves to meet growing demand.

Here we go again with misleading arguments

You've been supporting an argument that says in 2-3 years, supply will fall short by a couple of percent, prices will jump 5 to 10 times their current levels, the world economy will fall apart terribly, and we're all screwed. Now you're asking me what my answer to a 10-year problem is!!! My answer is - as it has been from the start - that I'm far from convinced that 2-3 years is accurate, and believe that the timeframe to the crunch-point is probably longer. The 10-year issue you highlight....when will the falloff start? When will supply exceed demand? When will the crunch come? After the crunch...do you seriously believe world demand will remain unchanged, despite the failed economies etc. that you put credence behind?

These questions, therefore, make little sense when taken alongside the insistence that the timeframe to our "failure point" is far shorter.

In answer to them, however...

Firstly, I'm not suggesting there is a simple solution to these 10-year shortfalls but rather that these longer-term problems are what we need to be looking at rather than crying out that we're all doomed probably by 2008 , and certainly before 2010.

Secondly, those shortfalls are based on a number of assumptions. One key assumption is that the technology being used in the various locations will not significantly change. I may be mistaken, but my understanding was that Saudi fields used about the most basic tech possible, and that even some fields which have been abandoned as "dry" could be revived in rather short order, using more efficient tech which would enable us to again push back that crunch-point a bit.

Lets not forget also how quickly the natural gas market is growing. Again, not a permanent (nor even long-term) solution, but one that offers the facility to again delay the crunch.

There's any number of other factors, each of which will have a small influence. Advocates of the near-term crunch look at each one individually and conclude that on its own its not going to save anything....but not once have I seen them actually take all the factors together and show how its still not enough...Maybe they have done so - I'm just saying that I haven't seen it. On the flip-side, anyone seriously suggesting the crunch is not 2-3 years away has never supplied just one reason as the panacea to our problems. Instead, they have supplied a myriad of small gains which can allow us to slowly push the crunch-point further away, and - as we do so - to lessen the impact of it when it finally arrives.

I believe firmly that the oil-centric economy is ending. However, what will replace it in the short-to-medium term (assuming the end isn't too close) will by a hybrid economy. Oil will still play a major - but decreasing - part. Coal will (unfortunately) stage somewhat of a revival. Natural gas will grow from strength to strength. Nuclear - whether we like it or not - will once again become a chosen technology. Renewables and non-thermal solutions will also figure into things. (I'm not going to stick my neck out and make predictions about fusion.)

The question is not whether or not a crunch is coming. Its when and in what manner. Closing our eyes to it is bad, no question. Claims about how Nigh the End is are just as bad (if not worse) unless they are correct. If they are correct....as you seem to believe is the case....then its already too late, so oen must ask what purpose they serve (other than to allow some people to go "I told you so" in a couple of years). If they are not correct, and the end is further away, then the only purpose they serve is to add credence to the arguments of those who would defend the (unmaintanable) status quo.

But if they are correct...and if its what you believe...then surely you should see that your questions about a 10-year timeframe are irrelevant.

jc

silverharp

Bonkey - never said we are all doomed, but when serious oil men like Colin Campbell and Matt Simmons come to the conculsion that the peak is nearer then we think, then I'm prepared to listen, you can write them off and say that they only want to sell books or whatever, but if their numbers crunch the way they do then they can't add 10 years just so gov. will act. The basic fact is that the Irish gov won't act in advance so the argument is mute. If peak oil happens in 10 years time then not much will have changed here in any event.

you wrote
Secondly, those shortfalls are based on a number of assumptions. One key assumption is that the technology being used in the various locations will not significantly change. I may be mistaken, but my understanding was that Saudi fields used about the most basic tech possible, and that even some fields which have been abandoned as "dry" could be revived in rather short order, using more efficient tech which would enable us to again push back that crunch-point a bit.

I say - yes you are mistaken, the Saudi's have beeing using the most advanced techniques on their Garwar field and others, lateral drilling, water pumping etc. A good picture to have in your head is a chessboard, there tends to be one king field maybe one or 2 queen fields, a few princes and a bunch of pawns, that's it, reviving a couple of small field is not going to change the overall picture. If you do a bit of research you will see that they are spending 50 to 60 bn on off shore drilling and are signing long term contracts to lease every bit of oil equipment that they can get their hands on. This indicates that there is little to go back to on land. Yes they will find more oil on land, but they have found the "elephent fields" it has not happened anywhere that a new elephent field has been found in the region of existing fields. It maybe worth listening to the prog below, there maybe a transcript as well

http://www.financialsense.com/Experts/2005/Simmons.html


You wrote
There's any number of other factors, each of which will have a small influence. Advocates of the near-term crunch look at each one individually and conclude that on its own its not going to save anything....but not once have I seen them actually take all the factors together and show how its still not enough...Maybe they have done so - I'm just saying that I haven't seen it.

I say - On the supply side anything I've read will layout the various types oil supply rolling forward, they will include unconventional oil, oil not in current production (10% per C Campbell) and and est of yet to be discovered oil. if oil has yet to be found it will take 7 to 10 years to bring on line.
On the demand side it will always go up bar an economic recession. China and India alone dictate and effeciency gains in the west will be wiped out, China is building a city the size of London every year. OPEC now awash with $ and a growing population will be investing heavily in new infrastructue, the world population is growing at 500m every 10 years.

What will the peak be like who knows, like relativity, it depends where you are standing, are we wasting 20mbd per on frivilous activities, absolutely, but GDP is GDP whether it's running hospitals or running Vagas

MeatProduct

I've stopped getting excited by peak oil in the past few months mainly because it does nothing for me of late . It's not so much a contraversy anymore, it will happen in my life time so I might as well get ready now. I'll be building my house this year and, once built, it will be almost entirely independant of oil. I can do this because I'll be vastly reducing the amount of appliances in the house compared to what I am used to. If I had seen myself talking like this 2 years ago I would have laughed, it seems so drastic .

It would be very difficult to maintain my current lifestyle independantly of oil, impossible for me actually because the cost to do so would be unrealistic. We all need to look at our own lives and decide what we can live without in order to reduce our dependance. The life of luxury that oil provides has made us quite complacent and secure. There's no point in pointing at the government, if they do something then great if they don't then that's fine. We don't need the government to make changes to our lives anyway.

It would be nice to know when this would happen but I think it's too difficult to predict. However, the price at the pump is up at 114.9c near where I am for unleaded and I haven't heard anyone complaining like when it jumped to that region last year. It's like it's been accepted because it went up slowly.

My point is to do it yourself. Discussion is great for sharing ideas and practical solutions but talking about when and who or what is going to save us is a bit wasteful (like our current oil usage).

EDIT: Fixed spelling

silverharp

Meat Product. I agree entirely, nice one for being able to build in good energy efficiency. Without boring everyone, I’ve paid my mortgage off and won’t be trying to trade up, I switched jobs last year and only went for one that I can cycle to if I can’t drive, it’s 5 miles away and I cycle about twice a week now, 2 years ago I started switching my investments around to hedge as best as I can, otherwise that’s about it, I’m getting on with life. Either way Ireland is a good place to be

MeatProduct

silverharp wrote:

Meat Product. I agree entirely, nice one for being able to build in good energy efficiency. Without boring everyone, I’ve paid my mortgage off and won’t be trying to trade up, I switched jobs last year and only went for one that I can cycle to if I can’t drive, it’s 5 miles away and I cycle about twice a week now, 2 years ago I started switching my investments around to hedge as best as I can, otherwise that’s about it, I’m getting on with life. Either way Ireland is a good place to be

Well I could take a page out of your book there SilverLeaf and start cycling to work. I've absolutely no excuse. You know what, I'm going to change that

Ireland is certainly a good place since it's an island and the "mad max" effect won't hit us too bad

Now I haven't researched this at all but a friend told me that the government is starting to give incentives to energy efficient homes, did anyone hear about that?

Nick