Oil at $95, inventories down!

[Issue313]

Oil held above the $95 level at the end of morning trade in London on Thursday after crude prices hit a nominal record above $96 a barrel in after-hours trading on Wednesday following a sharp drop in US inventories that left them at their lowest level in two years.

The US department of energy reported that crude oil inventories fell 3.9m to 312.7m in the week ending last Friday. That is the lowest level since October 2005, when the US oil industry was recovering from the impact of hurricanes Rita and Katrina.

The tight state of global energy markets was underlined by data from Japan where oil inventories also fell last week to 97.9m barrels, the lowest since early 2006 and 16 per cent below last year’s level.

The International Energy Agency, the energy watchdog of the west, has warned that declines in crude oil stocks show the market needs more supplies.

Oil’s rally came a day after Goldman Sachs, Wall Street’s most bullish investment bank on crude, recommended investors take profits and this helped drag prices down by more than $3 a barrel on Tuesday, the largest one-day fall this year.

-Financial Times

[gforce]

yep it's certainly worrying. And no mention that supplies of oil have been flat for almost 3 years while demand continues to soar :( I have a feeling this is (maybe) the highest we will see this year unless something else serious comes along. But it won't take much for oil to go over the big 100! OPEC's stories of 'the world doesn't need more oil' is just getting tiresome, we all know they can't raise production.

What is weird is that for years people have asociated $100 oil with economic crashes and all that doomer stuff but now were almost there, petrol is at £1 litre and no ones really doing anything (although thats not to say problems are forming in the background).

Anyone also noticed it seems that every time oil breaks a new record they come back with the same
'well inflation adjusted it's still not as high as in 1970/80's'. We always seem to be a few $ short even if the inflation adjusted price goes up $5 in a week. No wonder they don't use it in calculating inflation rates:D, the company directors/people would have a heart attack.

It's like riding a rollercoaster, i get that feeling were right at the top of the first fall just starting to lean over the edge, getting that aweful feeling in your stomach and a glimpse of what is to come.

[Dark_Magneto]

I have a feeling this is (maybe) the highest we will see this year unless something else serious comes along.

Which is not saying much, since there's only 2 months left.

Bitches don't know 'bout that Peak Oil.

[loadedbeat]

Bitches don't know 'bout that Peak Oil.

Too true, but I found out from you in fact, back in 2005. Between then and now, I've learned how to grow about 15 types of vege.

[RevolutionNov7th]

I expect they'll start exploring Antarctica soon, with the current fragile treaty system shot to shit and a couple of wars started when they do find oil (and they will; Antarctica's fucking huge).

Probably the first to kick off will be Argentina invading the Falklands again, now that the UK can't actually defend it.

[boozehound420]

Oil is pegged to the US dollar. So the declining US dollar, I mean peso, would be having an effect. My economically uneducated mind would say, with the less buying power of the US dollar the Oil prices would go up.

[Dark_Magneto]

That, and OPEC wants to (and already has in some places) switch to the Euro, effectively rendering the dollar a worthless piece of shit.

[Real.PUA]

Except for the fact that you need dollars to buy stuff in the largest economy in the world.

[Dark_Magneto]

Which doesn't mean much to the rest of the world since America is a consumer nation and outsourced most if it's production to China a long time ago.

The Petrodollar reserve standard is what has kept foreign demand for our currency. Now with it being devalued to shit due to overprinting and low interest, both thanks to the Fed, investors have been wisely dumping their dollars. Brazil and Argentena have dumped it in favor of the Real. Other countries are dumping their dollar assets, and China has been recently discussing peospects of "diversifying it's assets", aka. dumping the dollar. OPEC already leaked that they know the dollar is shit and want to dump it as well.

Add all that up, and it looks some bad for the USD. Which probably explains why there's been moves to dump it ourselves, merge into a North American Union, and get a new currency, the Amero, in which to repeat the process again.

[irresponsible activist]

find alternative source.

[gforce]

find alternative source.

of oil? there is none that provides the sheer usefulness, energy content and large scale availability that oil (and other fossil fuels) have given us.

[Dark_Magneto]

find alternative source.

I think MonteQuest (http://peakoil.com/fortopic30897.html) summed up this sentiment rather well.

Say you found bag of money or won the lottery.

What would you do?

A prudent and wise person would invest the money and set his lifestyle to meet the income from his investments. Sure, he might spend some to enhance his current lifestyle, but only an fool would squander it like there was no tomorrow and that the money would never end.

The fool would spend it maintaining an unsustainable lifestyle until he was down to a few bucks, then spend the few remaining dollars either on more lottery tickets or some pie-in-the-sky investment, hoping for a quick return or another windfall.

Rather than realize his lifestyle was unsustainable, he instead tries to find ways to continue it, robbing Peter to pay Paul, loans, robbery, etc.

Expecting some other energy resource to provide energy on the same scale and level of concentration as petroleum, just because we happen to want one, is a little like responding to one huge lottery win by assuming that when that money starts running out, another equally large win can be had for the cost of a few more tickets. This is close enough to today’s consumer psychology that it’s easy to imagine somebody in this position pouring all the money he has left into lottery tickets, and throwing away his chances of avoiding bankruptcy because the only solution he can imagine is winning the lottery again.

A prudent society would have invested in renewable sustainable systems long ago.

So, here we are in overshoot. We are living beyond our means. We spent our “bag of money” on toys and a phantom lifestyle that we don’t want to give up. We are insistent that giving up our toys, our lifestyle and our huge family is not an option. We won’t cut up the credit cards, nor powerdown our lifestyle, and we don't want to go back to work.

We want a fix. We want something that keeps this phantom going...at all costs.

[Real.PUA]

The sun provides 120,000 TW per year of energy that hits the earths surface. We use about 13TW currently. 28% of the earths surface is land. That means we would need only 3.8% of the land covered with solar panels at a mere 1% efficiency to completely power our society. 0.38% at 10% efficiency.

[Dark_Magneto]

There's all the energy we'll ever need in antimatter. The sun puts out like 12 pounds of the stuff per year - far beyond the energy we're using or the energy we'll need for the forseeable future.

But just because it's there, that says nothing for overcoming financial, logistical, and physical problems with trying to access the resource, much less adapt it to existing infrastructure, the time it takes to accomplish that, and how severely progress will impeded with costs rampantly rising across the board as the resources necessary for their construction become increasingly scarce and the cost to implement increases.

[Real.PUA]

The antimatter doesn't hit the earths surface (where we need the energy), 120,000TW/year of solar does. This is such a huge amount that only 0.38% of land would be needed (at a meager 10% efficiency) to power all of humanity. I am pretty sure all of humanity can sacrifice 0.38% of land (doesn't even have to be undeveloped land, you can put the panels on rooftops).

Even though an increase in the price of oil may increase the cost to manufacture solar panels it only provides further economic incentive to produce the panels (hence the huge boom in investments). But in spite of the increase in cost of the energy and raw materials used to produce the panels, the cost of solar energy per watt has been coming down, quite rapidly and quite consistently. Look at the cost per watt of solar 5 years ago and today, now look at the prices of commodities and energy. You will conclude that your logic is horrendously flawed.

[Dark_Magneto]

Even though an increase in the price of oil may increase...

Correction: WILL increase.

...the cost to manufacture solar panels it only provides further economic incentive to produce the panels (hence the huge boom in investments).

Which brings us back to the question. How are we supposed ot have a solar economy when R&D for the resource that we need to be leaving behind is orders of magnitude greater?

But in spite of the increase in cost of the energy and raw materials used to produce the panels, the cost of solar energy per watt has been coming down, quite rapidly and quite consistently.

As of lately, yeah. However, prices are still relatively low. We haven't even experienced any major decline or disruption in supply yet since we're still within close prioximity to the tip of the oil production peak.

Look at the cost per watt of solar 5 years ago and today, now look at the prices of commodities and energy.

And a simple piece of mirror costs $4 a square foot.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but we haven't had any major economic dislocations, hyperinflation, or energy famines within the last 5 years.

These are problems that will define the coming years.

A solar panel takes years before it adds energy to the system (net energy principle). A good flowing oil rig can repay for the energy invested into building it practically overnight. Societies run on net energy.

With that said, how much solar will we have to have for how many years before we even start to get a positive gain from them?

You will conclude that your logic is horrendously flawed.

What is flawed is taking an example brought on during an era of cheap and abundant energy with a robust economy and extrapolating that into a future where those conditions are inapplicable.

The last thing people standing in the gas lines with their gasoline powered automobiles that are 10 years old on average are going to be worrying about are solar panels.

At any rate, the Hirsch Report (http://www.netl.doe.gov/publications/others/pdf/Oil_Peaking_NETL.pdf) said it best. Solar isn't going to save us, mitigation will take decades, and there are no quick fixes. Considering that we're already at the peak, chaotic disruption scenarios are inevitable.


Oil Peaking Could Cost the U.S. Economy Dearly

Over the past century the development of the U.S. economy and lifestyle has been fundamentally shaped by the availability of abundant, low-cost oil. Oil scarcity and several-fold oil price increases due to world oil production peaking could have dramatic impacts. The decade after the onset of world oil peaking may resemble the period after the 1973-74 oil embargo, and the economic loss to the United States could be measured on a trillion-dollar scale. Aggressive, appropriately timed fuel efficiency and substitute fuel
production could provide substantial mitigation.

Oil Peaking Presents a Unique Challenge

The world has never faced a problem like this. Without massive mitigation more than a decade before the fact, the problem will be pervasive and will not be temporary. Previous energy transitions (wood to coal and coal to oil) were gradual and evolutionary; oil peaking will be abrupt and revolutionary.

The Problem is Liquid Fuels

Under business-as-usual conditions, world oil demand will continue to grow, increasing approximately two percent per year for the next few decades. This growth will be driven primarily by the transportation sector.
The economic and physical lifetimes of existing transportation equipment are measured on decade time-scales. Since turnover rates are low, rapid changeover in transportation end-use equipment is inherently impossible. Oil peaking represents a liquid fuels problem, not an “energy crisis” in the sense that term has been used. Motor vehicles, aircraft, trains, and ships simply have no ready alternative to liquid fuels. Non-hydrocarbon-based energy sources, such as solar, wind, photovoltaics, nuclear power, geothermal, fusion, etc. produce electricity, not liquid fuels, so their widespread use in transportation is at best decades away. Accordingly, mitigation of declining world oil production must be narrowly focused.

Mitigation Efforts Will Require Substantial Time

Mitigation will require an intense effort over decades. This inescapable conclusion is based on the time required to replace vast numbers of liquid fuel consuming vehicles and the time required to build a substantial number of substitute fuel production facilities. Our scenarios analysis shows:

• Waiting until world oil production peaks before taking crash program action would leave the world with a significant liquid fuel deficit for more than two decades.

• Initiating a mitigation crash program 10 years before world oil peaking helps considerably but still leaves a liquid fuels shortfall roughly a decade after the time that oil would have peaked.

• Initiating a mitigation crash program 20 years before peaking appears to offer the possibility of avoiding a world liquid fuels shortfall for the forecast period.

The obvious conclusion from this analysis is that with adequate, timely mitigation, the economic costs to the world can be minimized. If mitigation were to be too little, too late, world supply/demand balance will be achieved through massive demand destruction (shortages), which would translate to significant economic hardship.

There will be no quick fixes. Even crash programs will require more than a decade to yield substantial relief.

[Real.PUA]

Correction: WILL increase.

Until the manufacturing plants that make solar panels are powered by their own panels.

Which brings us back to the question. How are we supposed ot have a solar economy when R&D for the resource that we need to be leaving behind is orders of magnitude greater?

$533 million in 2005, $1.8 billion in 2006 and $2.6 billion for the first three quarters of 2007. Just in US venture capital. Total worldwide was $94.5 billion this year. These numbers are for renewables in general, but solar takes the biggest slice.

As of lately, yeah. However, prices are still relatively low. We haven't even experienced any major decline or disruption in supply yet since we're still within close prioximity to the tip of the oil production peak.

The price of oil has quadrupled in the last 5 years, commodities have shot through the roof, and you make sure to point that out have every opportunity. Why haven't these huge increases in costs led to an increase in the cost of solar energy?

And a simple piece of mirror costs $4 a square foot.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but we haven't had any major economic dislocations, hyperinflation, or energy famines within the last 5 years.

These are problems that will define the coming years.

Why would a famine change the cost of a solar panel? I am sensing some circular logic here... your famine depends on solar panels being expensive, which apparently depends on a famine.

A solar panel takes years before it adds energy to the system (net energy principle). A good flowing oil rig can repay for the energy invested into building it practically overnight. Societies run on net energy.

Nanosolar.com. The energy pay back is less than a month. You need to update your data. This is just the beginning of what solar has to offer.

With that said, how much solar will we have to have for how many years before we even start to get a positive gain from them?

A month for the panels that are going to be produced in 2008, the next gens will be even better. And of course, the price/watt of these panels are finally getting close to the cost of electricity from the grid. Once we pass that mark is when you'll see solar really take off.

What is flawed is taking an example brought on during an era of cheap and abundant energy with a robust economy and extrapolating that into a future where those conditions are inapplicable.

You thinking is flawed, as I pointed out. The era is not what is important, what is important is the variables in question (cost of energy and materials). Cost of oil quadrupled yet cost of solar improved by leaps and bounds, cost of commodities sky rocketed yet solar got cheaper.

Once solar gets cheaper than the grid (which is practically is already), you can use the solar to build more solar. Which will in turn make solar even cheaper. At this point the manufacturing will no longer be directly dependent on the cost of non-solar energy.

The last thing people standing in the gas lines are going to be worrying about are solar panels.

That's because they'll already have them installed in their home and businesses.

[Real.PUA]

Show me where in the hirsch report that they cover solar energy, because I havent found it.

[Dark_Magneto]

Until the manufacturing plants that make solar panels are powered by their own panels.

Unless they get to a point where they're not purchasing any energy and are producing in excess of the energy that they use locally on top of what the miners and distributors for their raw materials are getting shipped to them, then they aren't adding anything energy-wise to the system.

$533 million in 2005, $1.8 billion in 2006 and $2.6 billion for the first three quarters of 2007. Just in US venture capital. Total worldwide was $94.5 billion this year. These numbers are for renewables in general, but solar takes the biggest slice.

Still has a long road ahead of it, considering energy consumption is in the trillions of dollars.

The price of oil has quadrupled in the last 5 years, commodities have shot through the roof, and you make sure to point that out have every opportunity. Why haven't these huge increases in costs led to an increase in the cost of solar energy?

Well it's led to an increase in the costs of the raw materials that make up the panels. Mining companies are getting hit by the extra fuel expenses, plus several key mining sectors are experiencing declines in the amount they're able to mine due to the whole peak and decline concept (all natural resources follow this trend), so prices for everything from metals to a kilo of silicon or whatever material you're using are up all across the board since the cost of oil controls the cost of every other commodity by extension.

However, the cost of solar energy itself per kw/h is reduicng due to some pretty significant gains in solar panel efficiency. I recently read that a solar panel has been made that is around 40% efficient (http://www.renewableenergyaccess.com/rea/news/story?id=46765). That's around 10% better than the previous models. Now this panel could cost as much as, or even be slightly more than the older panels, but since it is able to produce more electricity, when you factor it out, it makes the end product cost less.

So solar is a great method of renewable electrical production, to be sure. It's still expected to retain a small percentage of world energy for the forseeable future, but it's a step in the right direction.

Why would a famine change the cost of a solar panel?

Price of fuel goes up, cost to the mining companies go up, price of raw materials go up to reflect the new increase in operating costs, price of both their products increase to reflect this new rise in cost. Simple economics.

Unless someone is going to eat an increase in operating expenses (which means a reduction in profit, which no profit-minded investor is going to do because they have a fiduciary responsibility to their shareholders to increase profits and if they do anything to jeopardize profits for any given quarter then it's grounds for their termination), then prices are going up.

I am sensing some circular logic here... your famine depends on solar panels being expensive, which apparently depends on a famine.

No, it depends on a decrease in our primary energy sources - oil particularly. The average vehicle on the road is 10 years old and they all run on petroleum distillates. That's going to take quite some time to change in any significant capacity.

Nanosolar.com. The energy pay back is less than a month.

I went and checked, and they claim less than two months, which is impressive.

You need to update your data.

Duly noted. I wasn't aware of nanosolar.

This is just the beginning of what solar has to offer.

There's obviously a limit as to how much energy we can get from these things. Nothing has perfect efficiency. Thermodynamic laws and such.

You thinking is flawed, as I pointed out. The era is not what is important, what is important is the variables in question (cost of energy and materials). Cost of oil quadrupled yet cost of solar improved by leaps and bounds, cost of commodities sky rocketed yet solar got cheaper.

While solar will play a significant role in long-term electrical generation prospects, it isn't going to help us in any significant way with our current petroleum distillate problem (gas, diesel, jet fuel, bunker C, etc.). The world consumes over 82 million barrels of oil a day. Even if there was zero growth, that would still take a long time to even get half of that replaced with its equivalent in renewable alternatives.

Once solar gets cheaper than the grid (which is practically is already), you can use the solar to build more solar.

You need heavy mining equipment to dredge up the materials that are used in the manufacturing of these panels. That equipment runs oil-based fuel.

Hopefully you're beginning to get a glimpse of the scope and magnitude of replacing the world's premier energy systems by now.

Everything comes back to oil.

Show me where in the hirsch report that they cover solar energy, because I havent found it.

I quoted it.


The Problem is Liquid Fuels

Motor vehicles, aircraft, trains, and ships simply have no ready alternative to liquid fuels. Non-hydrocarbon-based energy sources, such as solar, wind, photovoltaics, nuclear power, geothermal, fusion, etc. produce electricity, not liquid fuels, so their widespread use in transportation is at best decades away.

[Real.PUA]

Unless they get to a point where they're not purchasing any energy and are producing in excess of the energy that they use locally on top of what the miners and distributors for their raw materials are getting shipped to them, then they aren't adding anything energy-wise to the system.

The panels themselves add to the grid and come with 25 year warrantees. If it takes two months to reach the energy pay back, and they last 25 years, that means each panel can make 149 equivalent panels.

Still has a long road ahead of it, considering energy consumption is in the trillions of dollars.

This is just the venture capital, once all these companies start churning out products and making profits they will grow much faster.


Well it's led to an increase in the costs of the raw materials that make up the panels. Mining companies are getting hit by the extra fuel expenses, plus several key mining sectors are experiencing declines in the amount they're able to mine due to the whole peak and decline concept (all natural resources follow this trend), so prices for everything from metals to a kilo of silicon or whatever material you're using are up all across the board since the cost of oil controls the cost of every other commodity by extension.

However, the cost of solar energy itself per kw/h is reduicng due to some pretty significant gains in solar panel efficiency. I recently read that a solar panel has been made that is around 40% efficient (http://www.renewableenergyaccess.com/rea/news/story?id=46765). That's around 10% better than the previous models. Now this panel could cost as much as, or even be slightly more than the older panels, but since it is able to produce more electricity, when you factor it out, it makes the end product cost less.

And the advances with thin film greatly reduced the amount of raw materials used per panel and greatly increased the efficiency of use of the raw materials. The cost/watt trend will continue as technology continues to advance.

So solar is a great method of renewable electrical production, to be sure. It's still expected to retain a small percentage of world energy for the forseeable future, but it's a step in the right direction.

Expected by whom? Not by all the venture capitalists out there. It will gain in percentage as the economics will dictates. When it becomes cheaper than fossil fuels it will begin to grow that much faster.

Price of fuel goes up, cost to the mining companies go up, price of raw materials go up to reflect the new increase in operating costs, price of both their products increase to reflect this new rise in cost. Simple economics.

That already happened yet the cost per watt went down dramatically. I guess that was just due to simple science.

Unless someone is going to eat an increase in operating expenses (which means a reduction in profit, which no profit-minded investor is going to do because they have a fiduciary responsibility to their shareholders to increase profits and if they do anything to jeopardize profits for any given quarter then it's grounds for their termination), then prices are going up.

This has nothing to do with the famine you brought up.

No, it depends on a decrease in our primary energy sources - oil particularly. The average vehicle on the road is 10 years old and they all run on petroleum distillates. That's going to take quite some time to change in any significant capacity.

Thankfully that decrease will be offset by a much more abundant energy source, solar. That's why your famine depends on expensive solar. Economics will dictate what people drive, if gas is expensive they will car pool more... or even buy new cars.

There's obviously a limit as to how much energy we can get from these things. Nothing has perfect efficiency. Thermodynamic laws and such.

We dont need perfect efficiency as the sun gives us 9000 times more energy that we need, plus solar need only make up for the decline in fossil fuels.

While solar will play a significant role in long-term electrical generation prospects, it isn't going to help us in any significant way with our current petroleum distillate problem (gas, diesel, jet fuel, bunker C, etc.). The world consumes over 82 million barrels of oil a day. Even if there was zero growth, that would still take a long time to even get half of that replaced with its equivalent in renewable alternatives.

Only need to make up for the decline.



You need heavy mining equipment to dredge up the materials that are used in the manufacturing of these panels. That equipment runs oil-based fuel.

Oil based fuel is currently the cheapest. These machines could run on oil independent fuel if they wanted to.

Hopefully you're beginning to get a glimpse of the scope and magnitude of replacing the world's premier energy systems by now.

Everything comes back to oil.

Oil is just energy, the sun gives us way more energy than oil ever could. We could synthesize oil de novo if we really wanted. It wouldn't be an efficient use of energy but it could be done. Methanol is a combustible liquid fuel they could be synthesized in an entirely solar power factory.

I quoted it.

Is that it? The authors didn't even consider using electricity to make new liquid fuels. Hardly a thorough report. I wouldn't count that as a credible source unless they actually have data to back up their claims.

Biofuels (another way to harness solar energy) may also play a role in the liquid department.

[gforce]

The antimatter doesn't hit the earths surface (where we need the energy), 120,000TW/year of solar does. This is such a huge amount that only 0.38% of land would be needed (at a meager 10% efficiency) to power all of humanity. I am pretty sure all of humanity can sacrifice 0.38% of land (doesn't even have to be undeveloped land, you can put the panels on rooftops).

Hang on just think about what you say first. You say that to supply enough energy for the whole world we would need for just 0.38% of land to be covered in solar panels, this doesn't sound alot but wait the world is a big place. Now obviously we wouldn't need the whole world so lets just say 25 % comes from solar so only 0.095 % of theland surface area is required.

So the worlds land surface area is 150,000,000 sq km

150,000,000 sq km/100 *0.095 = 142500 sq km of solar panels.

To put that into context that is having a solid solar panel 400km accross by 350 km accross or an entire solar panel larger than the whole of England and this is just for 25% of current global energy consumption, we still have growth to consider.

Now im all for people buying solar panels but we have to be realistic about the amount of energy we generate from them.

[Real.PUA]

I am not sure what you think is unrealistic. We wont be making one giant solar panel...there will be lots of smaller ones. Just putting it on roof tops might cover 30-40% of the area of a city.

[gforce]

I am not sure what you think is unrealistic. We wont be making one giant solar panel...there will be lots of smaller ones. Just putting it on roof tops might cover 30-40% of the area of a city.

Obviously it wouldn't be one solar panel (that was just to demonstrate the sheer size of such an endevour) but this means it would take up much more area.

Just think about the size of that solar panel, even if it's spread over the entire world its so many more thousands if not millions of times bigger than what we have installed so far and thats been in decades of development.

Ok so say we cover every rooftop and 30% of the entire urban land area is solar panels. That means we need effectively the area of all the cities with this fitted in to be same size as the entire country of Poland, about 320,000km sq! To give you an idea London has an area of 1600sq km so we would need 200 cities the size of london covered with 30% of solar panels. Just think about that sheer scale!! One of the largest (i think 2nd) solar PV systems in the world coveres an area of 0.6km sq so we would need only 900 of these to cover the 30% of London. And then only another 179100 ones of these to cover the rest of Poland.

[Dark_Magneto]

Expected by whom?

The EIA (http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/archive/ieo00/hydro.html).

http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/archive/ieo00/images/figure_72.jpg

Thankfully that decrease will be offset by a much more abundant energy source, solar. That's why your famine depends on expensive solar. Economics will dictate what people drive, if gas is expensive they will car pool more... or even buy new cars.

The average vehicle on the road is 10 years old. Even if we had a vehicle that ran on a renewable source of energy available to consumers right now at an affordable price, it would still be quite some time before it ever made a significant impact in transportation.

Only need to make up for the decline.

Assuming zero growth. If we deal with growth in energy demands, which is the rule and not the exception, which is required to not have an economic recession - then there's going to have to be some accounting for energy demand increase as well.

These machines could run on oil independent fuel if they wanted to.

It's what the machines are designed to run on. In order to operate them on some other kind of fuel, they have to be redesigned to accomodate it.

That's also aside for the need for a production and distribution network to supply this alternate liquid fuel, meaning we'll need something like this:

http://images.pennnet.com/mapsearch/all_pipe.jpg

Methanol is a combustible liquid fuel they could be synthesized in an entirely solar power factory.

It has to be able to produce the energy equivalent of 20 million barrels in liquid fuel that works with existing infrastructure.

Is that it? The authors didn't even consider using electricity to make new liquid fuels. Hardly a thorough report. I wouldn't count that as a credible source unless they actually have data to back up their claims.

Check out the report yourself (http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/archive/ieo00/preface.html).

Bear in mind that this is an optimistic report that relies on favorable conditions that might not be the case.

For instance:

"In the long term, OPEC production cutbacks are expected to be relaxed, and prices are projected to rise gradually through 2020 as the oil resource base is expanded."

That's not going as planned. World oil consumption is exceeding production capacity and the deficit is being filled with above-ground stocks. OPEC production is declining at alarming rates.

Biofuels (another way to harness solar energy) may also play a role in the liquid department.

Increased biofuel production is increasing demand for the resource it's supposed to be an alternative to (http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/5/21/145537/916).

This is because biofuels can be more accurately thought of as derivatives of oil, not alternatives to it.

Our agriculture is awash in petrodependency on a multitude of levels. It's bad enough that we're already at a point where land for biofuels are cutting into land for human and livestock foods. Add that with the fact that biofuels often break even on the EROEI scale at best, and I don't see them as being part of a mass-scale solution.

The only reason they're being produced like they are now is because the government is subsidizing them on a mass level in an attempt to look like they're doing something, making them slightly cheaper than petrol. As petrol increases, so does the price of the biofuels. If the subsidies were removed, they would cost more than gasoline.

[Real.PUA]

The EIA (http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/archive/ieo00/hydro.html).

http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/archive/ieo00/images/figure_72.jpg

Since when did they become a credible source? They don't expect peak oil until 2016, they also think oil prices should be coming down, so obviously any predictions on alternatives are going to be underestimated from a purely economic sense.

The average vehicle on the road is 10 years old. Even if we had a vehicle that ran on a renewable source of energy available to consumers right now at an affordable price, it would still be quite some time before it ever made a significant impact in transportation.

That because the economics gives people no reason to get a new car if the one they are driving now works fine. If the one they are driving is more expensive to fuel than a newer car, then they will upgrade much faster. You seem to think people would rather wait in line for super expensive gas than buy a new electric (or other fuel efficient) car.

Assuming zero growth. If we deal with growth in energy demands, which is the rule and not the exception, which is required to not have an economic recession - then there's going to have to be some accounting for energy demand increase as well.

Energy consumption is becoming a lesser percentage of US gdp every year, so with each year energy becomes that much less important economically. Which means we could have some economic growth and maintain a constant energy use, but of course there will always be demand for cheaper energy so we expect the solar energy market to grow. But I still agree with your point that increases in demand should be accounted for.

It's what the machines are designed to run on. In order to operate them on some other kind of fuel, they have to be redesigned to accomodate it.

Minor redesigns depending on the specific fuel. If it's biodiesel, then hardly any redesign.

That's also aside for the need for a production and distribution network to supply this alternate liquid fuel, meaning we'll need something like this:

http://images.pennnet.com/mapsearch/all_pipe.jpg

Are you claiming all those pipelines are solely for heavy mining equipment?



It has to be able to produce the energy equivalent of 20 million barrels in liquid fuel that works with existing infrastructure.

Or just make up for the decline minus increases in efficiency + increases in demand.


Check out the report yourself (http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/archive/ieo00/preface.html).


That's not the Hirsch report. I want to see where in the Hirsch report that they analyze solar and replacement liquid fuels in depth.

Increased biofuel production is increasing demand for the resource it's supposed to be an alternative to (http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/5/21/145537/916).

This is because biofuels can be more accurately thought of as derivatives of oil, not alternatives to it.

Our agriculture is awash in petrodependency on a multitude of levels. It's bad enough that we're already at a point where land for biofuels are cutting into land for human and livestock foods. Add that with the fact that biofuels often break even on the EROEI scale at best, and I don't see them as being part of a mass-scale solution.

These are gen 1 biofuels. Corn ethanol is probably the worst example... Sugar cane and palm oil have much higher net energy gain. Gen2 biofuels are going to be much more efficient (think cellulosic ethanol and biodiesel).

The only reason they're being produced like they are now is because the government is subsidizing them on a mass level in an attempt to look like they're doing something, making them slightly cheaper than petrol. As petrol increases, so does the price of the biofuels. If the subsidies were removed, they would cost more than gasoline.

And like solar energy, the cost per watt of biofuel is going to constantly decrease as the technology improves.

[gforce]

That because the economics gives people no reason to get a new car if the one they are driving now works fine. If the one they are driving is more expensive to fuel than a newer car, then they will upgrade much faster. You seem to think people would rather wait in line for super expensive gas than buy a new electric (or other fuel efficient) car.

I think a far bigger driving force is the prestige of owning a big/nice/new car every few years. Even though petrol prices are at record prices people are still buying 'cool' cars not fuel efficient ones.


so with each year energy becomes that much less important economically

Energy is critical to the economy. With out it there is no economy. An increase in energy caused the industrial revolution and a decrease will cause the opposite. Blair made the same mistake in 2000 when he described us as leaving an era where the driving force of the economy was not energy but information. A few months later fuel blockades at only a few major refineries bought Britain to a standstill.

[Real.PUA]

I think a far bigger driving force is the prestige of owning a big/nice/new car every few years. Even though petrol prices are at record prices people are still buying 'cool' cars not fuel efficient ones.

DM was pointing out that the average car on the road is 10 years old.


Energy is critical to the economy. With out it there is no economy. An increase in energy caused the industrial revolution and a decrease will cause the opposite. Blair made the same mistake in 2000 when he described us as leaving an era where the driving force of the economy was not energy but information. A few months later fuel blockades at only a few major refineries bought Britain to a standstill.

But with each year energy becomes less and less important as a percentage of GDP. That means you can have economic growth without energy growth.

[gforce]

DM was pointing out that the average car on the road is 10 years old.

My comment was in regard to your comment of:

"If the one they are driving is more expensive to fuel than a newer car, then they will upgrade much faster. You seem to think people would rather wait in line for super expensive gas than buy a new electric (or other fuel efficient) car."

People are very unwilling to change habits.

But with each year energy becomes less and less important as a percentage of GDP. That means you can have economic growth without energy growth.

Now what your saying is that because energy is getting cheaper in relation to what it used to be (which was true until a few years ago) meaning the percentage of the GDP 'spent on' energy reduces. Or that the growth in GDP outstrips that of the growth of energy consumption.

Just think about what you do everyday which doesn't require some sort of fossil fuel imput. I can't think of anything that i have done today, even walking uses energy derived from industrial agriculture. More energy means more economic activity and less means less.

Now you could have economic growth with stagnant energy (thats without reductions) supplies but only if the systems to increase efficiency were carefully planned and implemented on a large scale. But this would only work for a few years. There can only be a certain amount of efficiency making in any economy because you will be removing business from companies. Eg: carpooling could decrease car sales, meaning factories close hence people loose jobs so they spend less so shops make less money and so on... . And remember because efficiency abides by the law of diminishing returns every step to increase efficiency will become harder and harder to sustain.

[nshanin]

And remember because efficiency abides by the law of diminishing returns every step to increase efficiency will become harder and harder to sustain.

Au contraire:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_singularity

Even if the next step takes more energy and does more ecological harm than the last, society will find a solution for that too. And it won't be remarkable at all.

[Dark_Magneto]

http://www.grumer.org/lj_images/razors.gif

By 2015 the number of blades in disposable razors will be infinite and we will have achieved the Schick singularity (http://agrumer.livejournal.com/414194.html).

http://img136.imageshack.us/img136/8859/snapshot20071213131850hl9.jpg

[gforce]

http://www.grumer.org/lj_images/razors.gif

By 2015 the number of blades in disposable razors will be infinite and we will have achieved the Schick singularity (http://agrumer.livejournal.com/414194.html).

http://img136.imageshack.us/img136/8859/snapshot20071213131850hl9.jpg

saving that for future reference :D

[Dark_Magneto]

I have a thick stubble right now.

I won't be able to cut through it with half-assed attempts.

"Reason" won't work.

I'll get stuck in the hair with "reason" alone.

By trying to remove it, you have to use another force.

If I had to call it something, It'd be the "force of technology".

The hair is defenseless when things happen as a result of innovation.

That hair will fall with the help of technology.

I will cut it with...

http://img265.imageshack.us/img265/2489/snapshot20071213131850ti4.jpg

...in 2015.

[Chainhit]

people who think they are leet by arguing that technological singularty will not happen = retarded

[Dark_Magneto]

People that ignore science & physics and extrapolate short-term trends out indefinitely despite no justification for doing so outside their desire to entertain sci-fi fantasies = retarded.

[Real.PUA]

Moores law is just a coincidence. :rolleyes:

[nshanin]

Moores law is just a coincidence. :rolleyes:

And why not? It does have a limit.

[Real.PUA]

How fast will the fastest CPU be?

[Dark_Magneto]

That depends on several factors, like when we stop making faster processors/processors capable of going faster. If yellowstone exploded and wiped us out, then that'd be like irght now. If not, then we're gonna hit some barrier. You can only push an electron down a pipe so fast.

Hell, if we're going to think on infinite extrapolation terms, since we keep making faster and faster crafts to beat the land speed record, then it stands to reason that we'll make a craft that is capable of approaching infinite speed.

[Real.PUA]

How fast was the fastest land vehicle 30 years ago?

[nshanin]

How fast was the fastest land vehicle 30 years ago?

tinyurl.com/2xji7t8 (www.justfuckinggoogleit.com)

It is a known fact that one cannot travel faster than the speed of light (to say nothing about traveling at infinity). It is also a known fact that you can't stuff an electron into a space smaller than an electron. There are laws and then there are conjectures. The singularity is a conjecture. Are you willing to put more faith into it than into the laws of physics (and logic for that matter)?

[Real.PUA]

tinyurl.com/2xji7t8 (http://www.justfuckinggoogleit.com)

It is a known fact that one cannot travel faster than the speed of light (to say nothing about traveling at infinity). It is also a known fact that you can't stuff an electron into a space smaller than an electron. There are laws and then there are conjectures. The singularity is a conjecture. Are you willing to put more faith into it than into the laws of physics (and logic for that matter)?

The analogy to the land speed record doesn't make sense when you look at the numbers or even the underlying technology.

Regardless, since when did an exponential increase in computing power (in terms of cost/performance) require fitting an electron into a space smaller than an electron? There obviously is a limit to the amount of information that a quantity matter can process per unit time, but there is no reason to believe we are anywhere close to that value. The "singularity" doesn't require cars that travel faster than the speed of light.

Technology has been advancing for millions of years and there is no question that is has been advancing at an exponential rate. That makes Moore's law an example, not some coincidence. I believe that technology will continue to advance because there are reasons that technology advances. I will let you think about what those reasons might be.

[Dark_Magneto]

Moore's law is an observation that the number of transistors that can be inexpensively placed on a circuit doubles every 2 years.

A transistor is made of material and therefore has some mass, however small. If we extrapolate this trend out endlessly (increasing number of transistors on a circuit) then it's easy to calculate that in just a few short centuries the mass of the transistors would exceed the estimated mass of the universe.

We can laugh at that. We know it could never happen. It would actually collapse into a black hole before it ever got close, and before it ever got close to that, a point of marginal gain would be achieved.

The universe is finite, therefore it follows that any subset of the system be finite as well. Nothing will ever continue on an exponential growth curve endlessly as it's physically impossible to do so.

On April 13, 2005, Gordon Moore himself stated in an interview that the law cannot be sustained indefinitely:

"It can't continue forever. The nature of exponentials is that you push them out and eventually disaster happens. In terms of size [of transistor] you can see that we're approaching the size of atoms which is a fundamental barrier..."

[Real.PUA]

Don't over analyze Moore's law too much, just think of it in terms of cost/performance. It's just an example of a trend that has been around for millions of years, that trend being the advancement of technology.

Like I said the "singularity" doesn't require cars that travel faster than the speed of light, so why would it require an infinite universe?

[yoda_me07]

hello al gore.

did they already explore all of alaska for oil

[gforce]

Interestingly enough year on year production for Saudi Arabia showed a 5.15% drop in oil production in 2007 compared to 2006(which was down 1.5% from 2005).

Certainly is worrying but im still annoyed as to why this isn't front page news.

[Dark_Magneto]

Because you're not supposed to know about peak oil until the rolling blackouts/supply systems collapsing/bare grocery store shelves.

[gforce]

Because you're not supposed to know about peak oil until the rolling blackouts/supply systems collapsing/bare grocery store shelves.

Im thought that was because lack of investment, those greedy chinese/indians and pesky muslim terrorists :p

[Dark_Magneto]

Yeah, it's not like production of a critical naural resource could ever peak and decline like the production of all resources inevitably do or anything.

That would be bad.

We can't have that, now, can we?

[Real.PUA]

It's not like we learned about it in elementary school either.

[nshanin]

It's not like we learned about it in elementary school either.

And it's not like there's a virtual scientific consensus on it either.

[Real.PUA]

Good point. That lack of scientific consensus might explain why kids haven't been taught about the end of fossil fuels for the last 40 years.

[Dark_Magneto]

You talking about a scientific concensus on peak oil?

There is a scientific concensus on the fact that natural resources follow a bell-shaped curve. a decade ago or so, there was very little concensus as to when exactly the peak in world oil production would be, but now there is a growing concensus with most estimates forecasting by or before 2030.

Over time with more and more oil exporters ceasing exports and becoming net importers along with declines in the major producing fields that underpin world oil production, the latter estimates are being shown increasingly inconsistent with reality. It's obvious to anyone without an agenda that the peak is not decades away as some optimists like CERA (who have a horrible track record and make excellent conrary indicators (http://home.entouch.net/dmd/cera.htm)) would suggest. We're looking at peak oil like right now. Peak liquids isn't too far off either.

[gforce]

The fact that the media presents stuff wrongly aswell, noting the above article they always seem to use CERA for sources for some reason:(.
Anyway they always say 'Expers say oil will not run out soon'. Yes we know that but the important thing is the peak and decline. There is probably still 1/2 of all the oil ever made still in the ground. It's just it's hard to get, in small pockets and poor quality.

[nshanin]

The fact that the media presents stuff wrongly aswell, noting the above article they always seem to use CERA for sources for some reason:(.
Anyway they always say 'Expers say oil will not run out soon'. Yes we know that but the important thing is the peak and decline. There is probably still 1/2 of all the oil ever made still in the ground. It's just it's hard to get, in small pockets and poor quality.

It's the concept that matters; by the time we reach just after peak oil, any increase in production won't make that much of a difference since we would have likely moved on to other fuels. It really just spurs the wrong mindset by saying "there will always be oil in the ground".

[gforce]

It's the concept that matters; by the time we reach just after peak oil, any increase in production won't make that much of a difference since we would have likely moved on to other fuels. It really just spurs the wrong mindset by saying "there will always be oil in the ground".

So you don't believe in a peak/plateau with in a decade? Because it would take at least that, probably much longer(15-20 years) to get any results from a sort of 'Manhattan project' style alternative programme.

[nshanin]

So you don't believe in a peak/plateau with in a decade? Because it would take at least that, probably much longer(15-20 years) to get any results from a sort of 'Manhattan project' style alternative programme.

Read my post again.

[Dark_Magneto]

...we would have likely moved on to other fuels.

Like what?

What other energy source which can move around a quarter of a billion autos is there that we've been willfully neglecting all the way until now?

[gforce]

Read my post again.

I was referring to the fact you said we would have moved onto other fuels, there is no way that we can ramp up and replace a decline rate of even 2-3% with renewables and alternatives with in the next few years where as it might be possible if we had a decade +

[Real.PUA]

Like what?

What other energy source which can move around a quarter of a billion autos is there that we've been willfully neglecting all the way until now?

Cellulosic ethanol among other biofuels.

*awaits unrelated rant about corn ethanol*

[Dark_Magneto]

The Cellulosic Ethanol Delusion (http://www.eroei.com/articles/2007-articles/the-cellulosic-ethanol-delusion/)

[Real.PUA]

That's a half assed article. It ignores many technologies, lacks references, and makes sweeping generalizations. Not very insightful at all.

Gasification isn't even mentioned, yet is quite promising.
http://www.wired.com/cars/energy/news/2008/01/ethanol23

An energy efficiency of 770% is pretty good, especially considering this is new and can only get better.

[nshanin]

I was referring to the fact you said we would have moved onto other fuels, there is no way that we can ramp up and replace a decline rate of even 2-3% with renewables and alternatives with in the next few years where as it might be possible if we had a decade +

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4715332.stm

And by many accounts, we do have a decade, and with Brazilian employment the way it is, who knows how much export capacity they'll have.

[gforce]

So your proposing we cut down the entire Brazilian rainforest just so we can satisfy a small fraction of our liquid fuels. You have to ask the question do you want to feed the world? Or fuel to the world? there just is not enough land to do both.

Brazil has roughly 5000 miles ^2 of land devoted to ethanol production that produces around 300kbd. To say replace 20% of world consumption we would need 667000 sq miles to grow 20,000,000 mbd. Thats an area roughly the size of Mexico, and considering the world only has 7 million sq miles, that's a lot.

Now factor in poor energy content (only 70% that of petrol), high inputs in terms of fertilisers, harvesting etc.. (meaning Low EROEI), soil erosion(once the trees are removed Amazonian soil erodes very quickly), aquifer depletion, the fact that sugar cane is only grown in tropical climes so that 700,000 miles sq has to be located in the tropics and rising demand from the rapidly developing economy of Brazil will swallow up much of that new production. And you say the great export capacity yet even with all this hype over Brazil they still only produce 1/6 of their total oil consumption from Ethanol so they still have a hell of a long way to go before they can think of being a net exporter.

Then you have the fact that you are cutting down a huge swathe of Rainforest which by any stretch of the imagination is not an amazing thing to do to the environment.

Were going to try everything to retain the 'status quo' which apparently is non-negotiable.

[gforce]

just seen this article
http://www.aspo-usa.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=312&Itemid=91

ASPO-USA (Association for the Study of Peak Oil & Gas) have laid down a bet to the almighty(:p) CERA (Cambridge Energy Research Associates). They are betting 100k that CERA's prediction of 107mbd in 2017 will be wrong. I wonder if they will accept as if they don't then it will show us they know they are wrong, if they do accept ASPO gets $100k in 10 years, although that will be pretty much worthless in 10 years the way the dollars going.

[wolfy_9005]

^ since when does the world only have 7 million sq. miles? or you mean sugar cane or whatever were talkin about now?

[gforce]

^ since when does the world only have 7 million sq. miles? or you mean sugar cane or whatever were talkin about now?

it's more than all the land currently used for growing crops plus a little (2 million square miles) more taken from pasture land. Bearing in mind that's not all prime farming land as well.

[Moridin]

OMFG people are stupid, I hardly made it through one page before I just started getting more and more pissed.... ITS NOT ALWAYS ABOUT OIL AS A FUEL (ex Gas)... I mean come on people you do realize that most polymers (PLASTIC) is petroleum based. And what is everything made out of these days.... PLASTIC

[Real.PUA]

Biofuels are good for that too.

[Mr. McBee III]

Switchgrass...

All America need to solve its ethanol woes...

[Dark_Magneto]

You can either feed the world or fuel the world. There isn't enough land for both.

[Real.PUA]

You can either feed the world or fuel the world. There isn't enough land for both.

Wrong. There is plenty of land for both food and biofuel....Plus solar and all the other forms of energy we will be using.

[Dark_Magneto]

Nobody has yet shown that such a thing is possible while there are plenty of sound arguments to the contrary. Until such a time comes, they're operating on an elaborate network of assumptions all the way up and well into the point of implementation.

And you know what they say about assumptions.

[gforce]

Incidentally NYMEX crude is now at $107 How high is it going to go? $110 this week or even higher? And this is meant to be a low demand season. This year is going to hurt.

[Real.PUA]

Nobody has yet shown that such a thing is possible while there are plenty of sound arguments to the contrary. Until such a time comes, they're operating on an elaborate network of assumptions all the way up and well into the point of implementation.

And you know what they say about assumptions.

Sure, it's possible... For example, it's occurring right now. The world is both fed and fueled. You are the one making assumptions and you are basically a member of a cult as well. A doom cult.

[stupid noob]

*sings the doom song*

[Dark_Magneto]

Sure, it's possible... For example, it's occurring right now. The world is both fed and fueled.

Nearly entirely on fossil fuels, of which are unsustainable and becoming increasingly scarce/problematic and the best sustainable alternatives available can only replace a mere fraction of the energy we're getting from.

You are the one making assumptions and you are basically a member of a cult as well. A doom cult.

That can't be true. I didn't receive a card, much less a member packet. Also, I haven't started having the dreams yet, so the awakening of Cthulhu is not yet imminent.

Since when did being skeptical about extraordinary claims severely lacking in evidence equate with joining a doomsday cult? I see so many people talking about these combinations of alternatives that only provide a sliver of net energy at best and claiming that they are going to sustain our energy consumption. Nevermind the fact that nobody making these claims has done the math, since if they had they wouldn't me making the claims.

[PirateJoe]

I think dark_magneto is forgetting one thing: regardless of how well he crafts his arguments on the internet, the only thing that matters is real life.

We WILL reach peak oil in the next couple of decades. I don't think anyone is denying that. We're going to have to find an alternate source of energy sooner or later.

So, we can poo-poo all talks of even attempting alternative energies such as solar (btw, we could put those things out in the ocean, no need to take up land to do it), thereby GUARANTEEING that we don't have an economically viable alternative energy source in the coming years, or we can realize that anything to get us of the dependency of oil is a good thing.

But then again sitting around waiting for the end of the world as we know it is a pretty good policy too, right?

[Dark_Magneto]

Or we could use what works while massively downsizing by orders of magnitude our energy consumption that cannot and will not be sustained instead of this bullshit we have now that tries to preserve the inherent unsustainability of car culture and massive growth.

Since it looks like the peak for oil was in 2005, with peak liquids soon to follow, even if we got started on this right now by making mass transit electric rail infrastructure, it would still be a drop in the bucket.

The bottom line is that there are no supply-side solutions. Since that is the only path we are willing to take, we're going to experience classic and well-understood consequences consistent with what happens when you have too large of a population of a species consuming too many vital resources.

People usually don't like that parallel since animal species don't have the ability to make adequate preparations in anticipation of oncoming scarcity, but there is little difference between consuming blindly and not making the appropriate reforms in consumption and consuming knowingly while not making the appropriate reforms in consumption.