http://www.clusterstock.com/2008/7/ready-f...don-professor?D
From LSE apprently.
Full Version: Oil To Be $500 Soon
I'm sure it will get to that price within my lifetime.
Time to sell my jet ski I guess?
Time to sell my jet ski I guess?
I have just followed the link to the article, and it just illustrates how many mainstream economists just have not got a clue.
Peak oil will not impact on prices for a long while yet, even if peak oil has been reached (which is far from certain). You can find a fuller discussion on this subject here.
You will note that oil prices have fallen since the original post on this thread. Well, they will keep falling (or rather the trend will continue down, as there is always the possibility of volatility on the way down). The prediction in the linked article is about $60 in 2 years time.
Peak oil will not impact on prices for a long while yet, even if peak oil has been reached (which is far from certain). You can find a fuller discussion on this subject here.
You will note that oil prices have fallen since the original post on this thread. Well, they will keep falling (or rather the trend will continue down, as there is always the possibility of volatility on the way down). The prediction in the linked article is about $60 in 2 years time.
I think new technology and the peoples desire to change from oil based power
will be the crucial factor
the latest designed solar panels due on market in 3 yrs could make the majority of homes net exporters back onto the grid
oil/gas is expensive,environment damaging, unhealthy and unsustainable
and lets face it the oil Co's and producers have us by the baws
solar wind wave hydro geothermal, we need to adapt and quickly
will be the crucial factor
the latest designed solar panels due on market in 3 yrs could make the majority of homes net exporters back onto the grid
oil/gas is expensive,environment damaging, unhealthy and unsustainable
and lets face it the oil Co's and producers have us by the baws
solar wind wave hydro geothermal, we need to adapt and quickly
no amount of demand increases prices unless there is money available to pay for the price
Oil is not running out as such.
Instead a world wide credit binge has enabled people to demand more and more luxury.
In reality instead of oil based transport clothes heat home furnishing etc etc etc there are other alternative which by now must be looking attractively priced or simply preferable? Eg wearing a woolie instead of paying 10 times the price for heating every god damned room in the house! And how about walking or riding a bike?? :-) Meaning fewer gym visits and fewer high energy crap exercise products need to be made. And so forth. And people could eat less!!!
People have iether lost economic sense or they benefit from ramping prices.
Oil is not running out as such.
Instead a world wide credit binge has enabled people to demand more and more luxury.
In reality instead of oil based transport clothes heat home furnishing etc etc etc there are other alternative which by now must be looking attractively priced or simply preferable? Eg wearing a woolie instead of paying 10 times the price for heating every god damned room in the house! And how about walking or riding a bike?? :-) Meaning fewer gym visits and fewer high energy crap exercise products need to be made. And so forth. And people could eat less!!!
People have iether lost economic sense or they benefit from ramping prices.
[quote name='Cynicus' date='Jul 27 2008, 12:57 AM' post='1232553']
I have just followed the link to the article, and it just illustrates how many mainstream economists just have not got a clue.
Peak oil will not impact on prices for a long while yet, even if peak oil has been reached (which is far from certain). You can find a fuller discussion on this subject here.
You will note that oil prices have fallen since the original post on this thread. Well, they will keep falling (or rather the trend will continue down, as there is always the possibility of volatility on the way down). The prediction in the linked article is about $60 in 2 years time.
From the link...
Regardless of the peak there is still enough easily accessible oil to last the world for decades on current consumption levels.
Sorry but that shows a complete lack of understanding of peak oil. By definition, after the peak production declines so current production levels are NOT maintained. Google Hubberts peak for a clearer picture of what's coming.
I have just followed the link to the article, and it just illustrates how many mainstream economists just have not got a clue.
Peak oil will not impact on prices for a long while yet, even if peak oil has been reached (which is far from certain). You can find a fuller discussion on this subject here.
You will note that oil prices have fallen since the original post on this thread. Well, they will keep falling (or rather the trend will continue down, as there is always the possibility of volatility on the way down). The prediction in the linked article is about $60 in 2 years time.
From the link...
Regardless of the peak there is still enough easily accessible oil to last the world for decades on current consumption levels.
Sorry but that shows a complete lack of understanding of peak oil. By definition, after the peak production declines so current production levels are NOT maintained. Google Hubberts peak for a clearer picture of what's coming.
----------------
----------------------------
I have to admit the poster has a point
. The definition of peak oil is as he says. In my post have conflated the idea of peak oil with reserves and the ability to extract the reserves, which was lazy. This is what I say in my post:
However, the people arguing that we have reached peak oil point to the lack of new reserves being found, and that we are now using oil faster than it is being found. As such the doomsters are conflating these two ideas. e.g. here
I would suggest a quick visit to the economist magazine here (I hope that it is not a subscribers only article)
This is a quote from the article, but you really need to read it all.
The real argument over peak oil lies in the when.... I was lazy in using the term peak oil, and I should have written something like this:
'Let’s assume for the moment that the doomsters are right, and that we have reached the point at which there are not enough new reserves being found such that reserves overall are in decline. Would this explain the recent spike in oil prices?
The first point to make is that reaching the point at which reserves are not being found at a rate to maintain the current overall reserve levels is a long way away from running out of oil. Regardless of the peak in the levels of reserves there is still enough easily accessible oil to last the world for decades on current consumption levels. As such, why would reaching such a peak in reserves, and technology to extract reserves, cause a spike in prices now.'
With a clarification of terminology, I would argue that peak oil is a long way off, but even if we have reached the peak in discovery of reserves, then this would not impact on oil prices yet. As the economist article points out, we can use a fatter straw to suck out the oil for a while yet.
P.S. Thanks for the perfectly fair criticism.
QUOTE
Sorry but that shows a complete lack of understanding of peak oil. By definition, after the peak production declines so current production levels are NOT maintained. Google Hubberts peak for a clearer picture of what's coming.
----------------------------
I have to admit the poster has a point
. The definition of peak oil is as he says. In my post have conflated the idea of peak oil with reserves and the ability to extract the reserves, which was lazy. This is what I say in my post:QUOTE
Let’s assume for the moment that the doomsters are right, and that we have reached peak oil. Would this explain the recent spike in oil prices?
The first point to make is that reaching peak oil is a long way away from running out of oil. Regardless of the peak there is still enough easily accessible oil to last the world for decades on current consumption levels. As such, why would reaching a peak cause a spike in prices now
The first point to make is that reaching peak oil is a long way away from running out of oil. Regardless of the peak there is still enough easily accessible oil to last the world for decades on current consumption levels. As such, why would reaching a peak cause a spike in prices now
However, the people arguing that we have reached peak oil point to the lack of new reserves being found, and that we are now using oil faster than it is being found. As such the doomsters are conflating these two ideas. e.g. here
I would suggest a quick visit to the economist magazine here (I hope that it is not a subscribers only article)
This is a quote from the article, but you really need to read it all.
QUOTE
'This is a more serious critique than the one about Hubbert's peak, because it cuts to the heart of what will make or break the oil majors. But Mr de Margerie challenges both strands of petro-pessimism: “The peak will come, but we can keep the plateau for a long time with technology.” So who is right?
First, consider the idea that technology could be a mixed blessing. It is true that in some fields the majors have recently found that investments in the latest technologies pushed up output and led to faster depletion. Critics argue that these technologies merely act as fatter straws, helping to suck out more liquid but ultimately emptying the glass faster too.
Roger Anderson of Columbia University has looked for this alleged “faster depletion effect” in over 40 oil and gas fields, using the latest innovations, and found no evidence for it. “The more prevalent problem”, he says, “is not that there is faster depletion, it is that oil companies desperate to get the black gold into the bank are ignoring modern asset-management techniques.” He points to firms using advanced “4D” seismic production technologies but failing to tie production of oil and gas to the market and price conditions prevailing at the time'
First, consider the idea that technology could be a mixed blessing. It is true that in some fields the majors have recently found that investments in the latest technologies pushed up output and led to faster depletion. Critics argue that these technologies merely act as fatter straws, helping to suck out more liquid but ultimately emptying the glass faster too.
Roger Anderson of Columbia University has looked for this alleged “faster depletion effect” in over 40 oil and gas fields, using the latest innovations, and found no evidence for it. “The more prevalent problem”, he says, “is not that there is faster depletion, it is that oil companies desperate to get the black gold into the bank are ignoring modern asset-management techniques.” He points to firms using advanced “4D” seismic production technologies but failing to tie production of oil and gas to the market and price conditions prevailing at the time'
The real argument over peak oil lies in the when.... I was lazy in using the term peak oil, and I should have written something like this:
'Let’s assume for the moment that the doomsters are right, and that we have reached the point at which there are not enough new reserves being found such that reserves overall are in decline. Would this explain the recent spike in oil prices?
The first point to make is that reaching the point at which reserves are not being found at a rate to maintain the current overall reserve levels is a long way away from running out of oil. Regardless of the peak in the levels of reserves there is still enough easily accessible oil to last the world for decades on current consumption levels. As such, why would reaching such a peak in reserves, and technology to extract reserves, cause a spike in prices now.'
With a clarification of terminology, I would argue that peak oil is a long way off, but even if we have reached the peak in discovery of reserves, then this would not impact on oil prices yet. As the economist article points out, we can use a fatter straw to suck out the oil for a while yet.
P.S. Thanks for the perfectly fair criticism.
QUOTE (Cynicus @ Jul 30 2008, 05:43 AM) 
----------------
----------------------------
I have to admit the poster has a point . The definition of peak oil is as he says. In my post have conflated the idea of peak oil with reserves and the ability to extract the reserves, which was lazy. This is what I say in my post:
However, the people arguing that we have reached peak oil point to the lack of new reserves being found, and that we are now using oil faster than it is being found. As such the doomsters are conflating these two ideas. e.g. here
I would suggest a quick visit to the economist magazine here (I hope that it is not a subscribers only article)
This is a quote from the article, but you really need to read it all.
The real argument over peak oil lies in the when.... I was lazy in using the term peak oil, and I should have written something like this:
'Let’s assume for the moment that the doomsters are right, and that we have reached the point at which there are not enough new reserves being found such that reserves overall are in decline. Would this explain the recent spike in oil prices?
The first point to make is that reaching the point at which reserves are not being found at a rate to maintain the current overall reserve levels is a long way away from running out of oil. Regardless of the peak in the levels of reserves there is still enough easily accessible oil to last the world for decades on current consumption levels. As such, why would reaching such a peak in reserves, and technology to extract reserves, cause a spike in prices now.'
With a clarification of terminology, I would argue that peak oil is a long way off, but even if we have reached the peak in discovery of reserves, then this would not impact on oil prices yet. As the economist article points out, we can use a fatter straw to suck out the oil for a while yet.
P.S. Thanks for the perfectly fair criticism.
----------------------------
I have to admit the poster has a point
. The definition of peak oil is as he says. In my post have conflated the idea of peak oil with reserves and the ability to extract the reserves, which was lazy. This is what I say in my post:However, the people arguing that we have reached peak oil point to the lack of new reserves being found, and that we are now using oil faster than it is being found. As such the doomsters are conflating these two ideas. e.g. here
I would suggest a quick visit to the economist magazine here (I hope that it is not a subscribers only article)
This is a quote from the article, but you really need to read it all.
The real argument over peak oil lies in the when.... I was lazy in using the term peak oil, and I should have written something like this:
'Let’s assume for the moment that the doomsters are right, and that we have reached the point at which there are not enough new reserves being found such that reserves overall are in decline. Would this explain the recent spike in oil prices?
The first point to make is that reaching the point at which reserves are not being found at a rate to maintain the current overall reserve levels is a long way away from running out of oil. Regardless of the peak in the levels of reserves there is still enough easily accessible oil to last the world for decades on current consumption levels. As such, why would reaching such a peak in reserves, and technology to extract reserves, cause a spike in prices now.'
With a clarification of terminology, I would argue that peak oil is a long way off, but even if we have reached the peak in discovery of reserves, then this would not impact on oil prices yet. As the economist article points out, we can use a fatter straw to suck out the oil for a while yet.
P.S. Thanks for the perfectly fair criticism.
Hi Cynicus
And thank-you for the gracious acknowledgement. Quite a refreshing change to the more normal volley of abuse that many posters feel the need to dish out in response to criticism!
The peak in oilfied and reserve discovery happened in the 60's. If there is one single graph worth keeping in mind wrt oil discovery and production it's this one;
http://www.daveseslbiofuel.com/pix/gap.jpg
However, the argument as to whether production will peak or plateau is a difficult one without knowing OPEC's hand. There's no doubt the saudis have been voluntarily restraining production for decades (whether they now are is more debatable) and this behaviour does lend itself more to plateau than peak. Given the size and importance of saudi reserves such behaviour could easily manifest in a global plateau for at least a few more years.
But I find the argument that technology will keep us on a plateau harder to buy simply because that's not the lesson from history. Plenty of technology was used in the US lower 48, North Sea , Mexico and elsewhere but without preventing a peak - instead you get a slight bulge on the downslope. Whether depletion is ultimately accelerated following use of EOR (horizontal drilling for example) probably depends on the field type. Cantarell is a textbook example of how EOR has led to very dramatic decline rates. The PO armageddon scenario is if KSA, specifically Ghawar, goes into this sort of decline as a consequence of EOR having been used. No-one outside KSA will know until the view in the rearview mirro becomes clearer.
Rgds
um
IMHO there is plenty of oil left. The problem is that we've used most of the good, easily refinable stuff that's easy to turn into petrol, jet fuel etc.
The stuff that remains is in dangerous countries, in the middle of nowhere, in small fields, full of impurities, or the wrong type of oil. So while there is plenty of oil left, it will cost loads to extract and refine.
Yes there are alternative technologies to oil, but nothing significant seems to be on the medium term horizon.
The stuff that remains is in dangerous countries, in the middle of nowhere, in small fields, full of impurities, or the wrong type of oil. So while there is plenty of oil left, it will cost loads to extract and refine.
Yes there are alternative technologies to oil, but nothing significant seems to be on the medium term horizon.
Will be interesting to see what Russia's action in Georgia and US battlegroup sailing towards Iran will have on oil prices after todays $ related selloff.
Apparently a lot of Europe's gas is piped through Georgia, could be bad news for UK domestic gas prices this winter.
Apparently a lot of Europe's gas is piped through Georgia, could be bad news for UK domestic gas prices this winter.
QUOTE (Cynicus @ Jul 27 2008, 12:57 AM)
I have just followed the link to the article, and it just illustrates how many mainstream economists just have not got a clue.
Peak oil will not impact on prices for a long while yet, even if peak oil has been reached (which is far from certain). You can find a fuller discussion on this subject here.
You will note that oil prices have fallen since the original post on this thread. Well, they will keep falling (or rather the trend will continue down, as there is always the possibility of volatility on the way down). The prediction in the linked article is about $60 in 2 years time.
Peak oil will not impact on prices for a long while yet, even if peak oil has been reached (which is far from certain). You can find a fuller discussion on this subject here.
You will note that oil prices have fallen since the original post on this thread. Well, they will keep falling (or rather the trend will continue down, as there is always the possibility of volatility on the way down). The prediction in the linked article is about $60 in 2 years time.
World oil production has been on something of a plateau since 2005 despite record prices - that strongly suggests peak oil. And I would be very surprised if oil fell to as low as $60 bbl because that would represent a below cost price for fields coming on stream.
QUOTE (1929crash @ Aug 10 2008, 12:08 PM)
World oil production has been on something of a plateau since 2005 despite record prices - that strongly suggests peak oil. And I would be very surprised if oil fell to as low as $60 bbl because that would represent a below cost price for fields coming on stream.
You may want to take a look at the Telegraph article here - unless OPEC restrict supply, then there is a real possibility of a drop to $60. However, the article does not suggest that. I am just reasserting my original prediction....though I have been wrong about the speed of the decline in price. Having said that, I think the decline in price from here on will be less dramatic, more bumpy,and that the price fall will be tempered when the $US goes back into decline.
The interesting thing is that so many people kept on insisting that the price would remain so high. I have yet to see an explanation that makes sense to me. Perhaps OPEC will move to restrict supply, but there are no structural reasons for prices to remain so high. For OPEC, they will have to ask about the consequences of restricting supply in light of the current state of the world economy, and I would guess that they will not act upon restricting supply in the current circumstances (though I emphasise that this is a guess - people are not always rational).
I do think oil prices will rise again, but not until the current troubles in the world economy have stabilised, and the emerging economies replace the drop in /dropping demand from the OECD countries. My guess is that the price will start to rise again in about 3-4 years time (OPEC foolishness notwithstanding).
QUOTE (Cynicus @ Sep 4 2008, 02:24 AM)
You may want to take a look at the Telegraph article here - unless OPEC restrict supply, then there is a real possibility of a drop to $60. However, the article does not suggest that. I am just reasserting my original prediction....though I have been wrong about the speed of the decline in price. Having said that, I think the decline in price from here on will be less dramatic, more bumpy,and that the price fall will be tempered when the $US goes back into decline.
The interesting thing is that so many people kept on insisting that the price would remain so high. I have yet to see an explanation that makes sense to me. Perhaps OPEC will move to restrict supply, but there are no structural reasons for prices to remain so high. For OPEC, they will have to ask about the consequences of restricting supply in light of the current state of the world economy, and I would guess that they will not act upon restricting supply in the current circumstances (though I emphasise that this is a guess - people are not always rational).
I do think oil prices will rise again, but not until the current troubles in the world economy have stabilised, and the emerging economies replace the drop in /dropping demand from the OECD countries. My guess is that the price will start to rise again in about 3-4 years time (OPEC foolishness notwithstanding).
The interesting thing is that so many people kept on insisting that the price would remain so high. I have yet to see an explanation that makes sense to me. Perhaps OPEC will move to restrict supply, but there are no structural reasons for prices to remain so high. For OPEC, they will have to ask about the consequences of restricting supply in light of the current state of the world economy, and I would guess that they will not act upon restricting supply in the current circumstances (though I emphasise that this is a guess - people are not always rational).
I do think oil prices will rise again, but not until the current troubles in the world economy have stabilised, and the emerging economies replace the drop in /dropping demand from the OECD countries. My guess is that the price will start to rise again in about 3-4 years time (OPEC foolishness notwithstanding).
Sounds like a pretty good money making scheme going on here.
First you use all the money in the universe to ramp it up and then you do the opposite and no doubt buy back in and ramp it all the way up again.
An 8 year old could do if unrestrained.
When i was a child when it was cold outside you put more clothes on and when it was cold inside you put more clothes on.
You also appreciated the seasons and did not say much about the weather.
But now you have to emmigrate to the sun and spend quite a bit of money on having a warm house so you can be in 'luxury' having few clothes on.
And people born later with no conception of earlier days imagine that oil is going to run out soon and can therefore be played with to enable vast fortunes to be made.
QUOTE (Cynicus @ Sep 4 2008, 02:24 AM)
You may want to take a look at the Telegraph article here - unless OPEC restrict supply, then there is a real possibility of a drop to $60. However, the article does not suggest that. I am just reasserting my original prediction....though I have been wrong about the speed of the decline in price. Having said that, I think the decline in price from here on will be less dramatic, more bumpy,and that the price fall will be tempered when the $US goes back into decline.
The interesting thing is that so many people kept on insisting that the price would remain so high. I have yet to see an explanation that makes sense to me. Perhaps OPEC will move to restrict supply, but there are no structural reasons for prices to remain so high. For OPEC, they will have to ask about the consequences of restricting supply in light of the current state of the world economy, and I would guess that they will not act upon restricting supply in the current circumstances (though I emphasise that this is a guess - people are not always rational).
I do think oil prices will rise again, but not until the current troubles in the world economy have stabilised, and the emerging economies replace the drop in /dropping demand from the OECD countries. My guess is that the price will start to rise again in about 3-4 years time (OPEC foolishness notwithstanding).
The interesting thing is that so many people kept on insisting that the price would remain so high. I have yet to see an explanation that makes sense to me. Perhaps OPEC will move to restrict supply, but there are no structural reasons for prices to remain so high. For OPEC, they will have to ask about the consequences of restricting supply in light of the current state of the world economy, and I would guess that they will not act upon restricting supply in the current circumstances (though I emphasise that this is a guess - people are not always rational).
I do think oil prices will rise again, but not until the current troubles in the world economy have stabilised, and the emerging economies replace the drop in /dropping demand from the OECD countries. My guess is that the price will start to rise again in about 3-4 years time (OPEC foolishness notwithstanding).
The marginal cost of new oil is $90 bbl so I hate to think what a significant drop in price would do to supply.
Nothing will bring down prices today except a tipping point in perception. Getting off our asses and doing something to increase out petro supplies would be an improvement. Letting Cuba drill the Gulf is about par for the course. Any speculation in petroleum markets is justified by our record of ignorance in defining a cogent energy policy. try to see the clip here .... then you well see what i mean...
QUOTE (pastelGIRL @ Sep 26 2008, 08:01 AM)
Nothing will bring down prices today except a tipping point in perception. Getting off our asses and doing something to increase out petro supplies would be an improvement. Letting Cuba drill the Gulf is about par for the course. Any speculation in petroleum markets is justified by our record of ignorance in defining a cogent energy policy. try to see the clip here .... then you well see what i mean...
The arguments about the cost of new oil does not alter the reality that most oil is still very easy and cheap to extract. That is why it was so cheap, right up to the point where demand exceeded supply. With demand falling, oil could in principle return to the prices of a couple of years ago. However, I am sticking with my guesstimate of $60 per barrel, though I suggested orignially that this would take two years. I now think that this will be the price in about 12 months. Why not fall lower than $60? I think that demand from emerging economies will start to rebalance drop in demand from the OECD economies, at about that level, though perhaps now I must consider a maximum low of $50 in light of the speed of the economic collapse in the OECD (is a maximimum low an acceptable expression - apologies if not).
QUOTE (Cynicus @ Jul 27 2008, 12:57 AM)
I have just followed the link to the article, and it just illustrates how many mainstream economists just have not got a clue.
Peak oil will not impact on prices for a long while yet, even if peak oil has been reached (which is far from certain). You can find a fuller discussion on this subject here.
You will note that oil prices have fallen since the original post on this thread. Well, they will keep falling (or rather the trend will continue down, as there is always the possibility of volatility on the way down). The prediction in the linked article is about $60 in 2 years time.
Peak oil will not impact on prices for a long while yet, even if peak oil has been reached (which is far from certain). You can find a fuller discussion on this subject here.
You will note that oil prices have fallen since the original post on this thread. Well, they will keep falling (or rather the trend will continue down, as there is always the possibility of volatility on the way down). The prediction in the linked article is about $60 in 2 years time.
Is there anyway for me to bet specifically against this prediction?
QUOTE (Cptkernow @ Oct 1 2008, 08:44 PM)
Is there anyway for me to bet specifically against this prediction?
I think oil as an industry is a busted flush.
The next car I buy will be electric, powered indirectly by HEP and nuclear, as my electricity is imported from France. I could buy an electric car now but prefer to wait 2 or 3 years for a cheaper mainstream model, perhaps Mitsubishi. These will do up to 85 miles on a charge which will be fine for my purposes.
I recognise my needs are atypical and most people will need a much larger range than 85 miles. So it might take 5 years or so to refine electric cars to meet the needs of a longer range. The other option is for fast charging stations.
My point is that the technology has now hit a tipping point where buying electric is a sensible choice for many. Reduced oil demand from the few pioneers will send shudders through the oil industry. Smaller countries will ban the sale of new non-electric cars.
$30 oil in the medium term, never to recover.
QUOTE (ophelia @ Oct 4 2008, 07:46 AM)
I think oil as an industry is a busted flush.
The next car I buy will be electric, powered indirectly by HEP and nuclear, as my electricity is imported from France. I could buy an electric car now but prefer to wait 2 or 3 years for a cheaper mainstream model, perhaps Mitsubishi. These will do up to 85 miles on a charge which will be fine for my purposes.
I recognise my needs are atypical and most people will need a much larger range than 85 miles. So it might take 5 years or so to refine electric cars to meet the needs of a longer range. The other option is for fast charging stations.
My point is that the technology has now hit a tipping point where buying electric is a sensible choice for many. Reduced oil demand from the few pioneers will send shudders through the oil industry. Smaller countries will ban the sale of new non-electric cars.
$30 oil in the medium term, never to recover.
The next car I buy will be electric, powered indirectly by HEP and nuclear, as my electricity is imported from France. I could buy an electric car now but prefer to wait 2 or 3 years for a cheaper mainstream model, perhaps Mitsubishi. These will do up to 85 miles on a charge which will be fine for my purposes.
I recognise my needs are atypical and most people will need a much larger range than 85 miles. So it might take 5 years or so to refine electric cars to meet the needs of a longer range. The other option is for fast charging stations.
My point is that the technology has now hit a tipping point where buying electric is a sensible choice for many. Reduced oil demand from the few pioneers will send shudders through the oil industry. Smaller countries will ban the sale of new non-electric cars.
$30 oil in the medium term, never to recover.
The range issue is a relatively easy one to solve in a practical way. Have an electric car for local use and hire a petrol / diesel when you need to go further afield. Schemes like street car would facilitate this.
As for powered by Nuclear / HEP - their isn't enough scaleability to displace our declining gas production let alone displace energy requirements for personal transport on a BAU model.
QUOTE (The Colour @ Jul 11 2008, 01:05 PM)
I don't agree. The only way I can see Oil To Be $500 SOON would be the the US to have massive drop in the value of the $. If anything world oil prices are likely to drop imo.
QUOTE (ophelia @ Oct 4 2008, 07:46 AM)
I think oil as an industry is a busted flush.
The next car I buy will be electric, powered indirectly by HEP and nuclear, as my electricity is imported from France. I could buy an electric car now but prefer to wait 2 or 3 years for a cheaper mainstream model, perhaps Mitsubishi. These will do up to 85 miles on a charge which will be fine for my purposes.
I recognise my needs are atypical and most people will need a much larger range than 85 miles. So it might take 5 years or so to refine electric cars to meet the needs of a longer range. The other option is for fast charging stations.
My point is that the technology has now hit a tipping point where buying electric is a sensible choice for many. Reduced oil demand from the few pioneers will send shudders through the oil industry. Smaller countries will ban the sale of new non-electric cars.
$30 oil in the medium term, never to recover.
The next car I buy will be electric, powered indirectly by HEP and nuclear, as my electricity is imported from France. I could buy an electric car now but prefer to wait 2 or 3 years for a cheaper mainstream model, perhaps Mitsubishi. These will do up to 85 miles on a charge which will be fine for my purposes.
I recognise my needs are atypical and most people will need a much larger range than 85 miles. So it might take 5 years or so to refine electric cars to meet the needs of a longer range. The other option is for fast charging stations.
My point is that the technology has now hit a tipping point where buying electric is a sensible choice for many. Reduced oil demand from the few pioneers will send shudders through the oil industry. Smaller countries will ban the sale of new non-electric cars.
$30 oil in the medium term, never to recover.
You seem to be labouring under the misapprehension that oil is only used for energy. It is also used and is esential for the production of petrochemcials, absolutely vital for most things these days from plastics to computers to drug manufacture. So take comfort in your illusions if you like, but without oil the world would be unrecognisable.
As for energy, there is simply nothing in the universe that can compare with it in terms of what is known as energy density. Nothing. A barrel of oil - 159 litres - provides 25,000 man hours of work. Even at summer 2008 prics it's almost free energy. And as for your car, how do you suppose the electricity to power it will be generated?
QUOTE (ophelia @ Oct 4 2008, 07:46 AM)
I think oil as an industry is a busted flush.
The next car I buy will be electric, powered indirectly by HEP and nuclear, as my electricity is imported from France. I could buy an electric car now but prefer to wait 2 or 3 years for a cheaper mainstream model, perhaps Mitsubishi. These will do up to 85 miles on a charge which will be fine for my purposes.
I recognise my needs are atypical and most people will need a much larger range than 85 miles. So it might take 5 years or so to refine electric cars to meet the needs of a longer range. The other option is for fast charging stations.
My point is that the technology has now hit a tipping point where buying electric is a sensible choice for many. Reduced oil demand from the few pioneers will send shudders through the oil industry. Smaller countries will ban the sale of new non-electric cars.
$30 oil in the medium term, never to recover.
The next car I buy will be electric, powered indirectly by HEP and nuclear, as my electricity is imported from France. I could buy an electric car now but prefer to wait 2 or 3 years for a cheaper mainstream model, perhaps Mitsubishi. These will do up to 85 miles on a charge which will be fine for my purposes.
I recognise my needs are atypical and most people will need a much larger range than 85 miles. So it might take 5 years or so to refine electric cars to meet the needs of a longer range. The other option is for fast charging stations.
My point is that the technology has now hit a tipping point where buying electric is a sensible choice for many. Reduced oil demand from the few pioneers will send shudders through the oil industry. Smaller countries will ban the sale of new non-electric cars.
$30 oil in the medium term, never to recover.
You may be interested in the upcoming Audi A1 due to launch in 2010. My understanding is that it will have both battery drive and a petrol engine, re-generative breakingm, stop/Start, CO2 emissions of just 99gms and the twin-clutch DSG semi-auto gearbox, range of around 60 miles on battery only if required, and up to 75mpg.
Best of both worlds. Hopefully! Hiring a car is simply not cost-effective unless you use one very rarely. A £10k car bought new, kept for only 10 years costs just £83 a month to own. It is the fuel, maintenance, tax and insurance which can be expensive, not so much the car.
The price of oil can only go up in the medium to long term. There is some evidence to suggest peak oil is now, output has not increased since 2005 by more than a fraction of a percent. The only way is up, thats what all the speculation was about that boosted the price recently.
Internal combustion Engined cars are grossly inefficient and simply replacing the wheel drive bit with an electric motor and a little storage massively boost efficiency. In fact its probably more environmentally friendly to run an electric car on a petrol generator while electricity is produced with fossil fuels. This also makes the range 3 or 4 times more than a petrol car of the same power/tank. The Prius for example is mostly electrically assisted, small electric motor, small battery and big engine. Swop that around and you can achieve 100mpg.
Also less environmentally relevent, but electricity is not taxed like a fuel! so even with an inefficient electric car it is massively cheaper than petrol.
Finally I will also say that we need to promote electric motor driven cars to help develop the technology (eg battery life) and availability, as grid power is replaced with renewable or fusion or whatever your plug in electric vehicle will become more environmental without you doing anything. Also electric drive could be made modular, so you can drop in a generator if you are going a long distance, or if fuel is a problem in the future you can drop in a steam power generator, Mr Fusion or vacuum energy capture device.
Internal combustion Engined cars are grossly inefficient and simply replacing the wheel drive bit with an electric motor and a little storage massively boost efficiency. In fact its probably more environmentally friendly to run an electric car on a petrol generator while electricity is produced with fossil fuels. This also makes the range 3 or 4 times more than a petrol car of the same power/tank. The Prius for example is mostly electrically assisted, small electric motor, small battery and big engine. Swop that around and you can achieve 100mpg.
Also less environmentally relevent, but electricity is not taxed like a fuel! so even with an inefficient electric car it is massively cheaper than petrol.
Finally I will also say that we need to promote electric motor driven cars to help develop the technology (eg battery life) and availability, as grid power is replaced with renewable or fusion or whatever your plug in electric vehicle will become more environmental without you doing anything. Also electric drive could be made modular, so you can drop in a generator if you are going a long distance, or if fuel is a problem in the future you can drop in a steam power generator, Mr Fusion or vacuum energy capture device.
QUOTE (Red Kharma @ Oct 11 2008, 04:19 PM)
You may be interested in the upcoming Audi A1 due to launch in 2010. My understanding is that it will have both battery drive and a petrol engine, re-generative breakingm, stop/Start, CO2 emissions of just 99gms and the twin-clutch DSG semi-auto gearbox, range of around 60 miles on battery only if required, and up to 75mpg.
Best of both worlds. Hopefully! Hiring a car is simply not cost-effective unless you use one very rarely. A £10k car bought new, kept for only 10 years costs just £83 a month to own. It is the fuel, maintenance, tax and insurance which can be expensive, not so much the car.
Best of both worlds. Hopefully! Hiring a car is simply not cost-effective unless you use one very rarely. A £10k car bought new, kept for only 10 years costs just £83 a month to own. It is the fuel, maintenance, tax and insurance which can be expensive, not so much the car.
Sounds good. With a 60 mile battery range most commuting could be done without using the engine. Recharge batteries overnight using cheap leccy.
In the US - some bods have been fitting out prius's with an additional battery pack for this purpose
QUOTE (Kurt Barlow @ Oct 21 2008, 04:34 PM)
Sounds good. With a 60 mile battery range most commuting could be done without using the engine. Recharge batteries overnight using cheap leccy.
In the US - some bods have been fitting out prius's with an additional battery pack for this purpose
In the US - some bods have been fitting out prius's with an additional battery pack for this purpose
are you sure that he didn't mean $50 - predicting the crash!
QUOTE (1929crash @ Sep 7 2008, 09:10 PM)
The marginal cost of new oil is $90 bbl so I hate to think what a significant drop in price would do to supply.
Bingo! The juniors working the unconventional plays like the Bakken oil shale and the Athabasca tar sands are already being squeezed by $70 oil and their inability to raise capital. If OPEC follows through and cuts output as well that adds upward pressure on price. then its a race between declining demand as we drop further into recession and declining output as to where price goes from here. The inability to finance is really worrying. Could lead to a positive feedback loop pointing in the direction of down. Everything gets worse because everythings getting worse.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.