Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Sign in to follow this  
Losing Faith

Peak Oil

Recommended Posts

http://today.reuters.com/business/newsarti...0&imageid=∩=

"We have entered the post-oil era," he said. "I want to draw all the consequences of this and give a real impulse to energy savings and to the use of renewable energies."

i don't get it. the new french prem is happy enough to 'come out':) about all this... why such avoidance here and in the US?

i almost wish i was a french man living in france.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well everytime I turn on the TV there's a story about oil so I think we are gradually being told (mind you the TV is always on Bloomsberg, CNBC, BBC News 24 and CNN so perhaps I'm not that typical.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well everytime I turn on the TV there's a story about oil so I think we are gradually being told (mind you the TV is always on Bloomsberg, CNBC, BBC News 24 and CNN so perhaps I'm not that typical.

I have to admit that I'm actually quite surprised at how quickly things are turning now... not just this, but the mainstream acceptance of a stalled housing market, faltering economy and everything that goes with it.

perhaps this has a lot to do with the recent hurricanes exposing something of a weeping sore at the heart of our fool's paradise, but I also reckon that people always secretly knew it was all a bit too good to be wholly true... and there is a nagging part of even the most bullish person that suspects one day they will be caught with their trousers down

the speed of the vindication is also a bit alarming as the fall we have all been calling for some months/years now looks like it could be a sickening plunge that will cause our collective stomachs to fly 18 inches up our chests thereby bringing our lunches back into the open

I'm now getting nervous about how right I was!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have to admit that I'm actually quite surprised at how quickly things are turning now... not just this, but the mainstream acceptance of a stalled housing market, faltering economy and everything that goes with it.

perhaps this has a lot to do with the recent hurricanes exposing something of a weeping sore at the heart of our fool's paradise, but I also reckon that people always secretly knew it was all a bit too good to be wholly true... and there is a nagging part of even the most bullish person that suspects one day they will be caught with their trousers down

the speed of the vindication is also a bit alarming as the fall we have all been calling for some months/years now looks like it could be a sickening plunge that will cause our collective stomachs to fly 18 inches up our chests thereby bringing our lunches back into the open

I'm now getting nervous about how right I was!

I think part of the reason it's all suddenly happened is that oil can be used as the excuse by the government for the problems they know are coming. It's an easy get-out for them so it looks like they've used it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Bart of Darkness
I almost wish i was a french man living in france.

Dear god, has it come to this?

;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I think in the coming months Peak Oil will go to the back burner.

Peak Oil is the supply side of the oil story, whereas from now on we will be focusing on the demand side which has artificially propped up by low interest rates, high government spending and of course taking out equity from real estate since 2000.

A new study just came out from no lesser person than Mr. Greenspan himself, telling us that about 8% of disposable houshold income from the US is coming from mortgages. That is about 6% of US GDP. That creates a hell of a lot of demand for oil in the US and in China. That will go soon.

http://www.federalreserve.gov/pubs/feds/20...1/200541pap.pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
i don't get it. the new french prem is happy enough to 'come out':) about all this... why such avoidance here and in the US?

French electicity is almost wholly engerated by nuclear power, so france is better in insulated than most.

Just as an a-side I caught the end of DIY SOS last night. They had done up a city farm in Bath. One of the closing statement went something like, "and we've put solar panels on the roof so your power is be virtually free as well."

Looks like energy is real moving up the agenda!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They should have said

"We've spent £10K putting solar panels on your roof, thus saving you about £250 worth of electricity a year. Of course, if we'd put the £10K in the bank for you you'd be getting £5K in interest, but hey, you're not bothered either way"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

£10k would give you about £400 interest at the moment. Better than your assumed £250 of electricity, but you will have to source your numbers to make a case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have to admit that I'm actually quite surprised at how quickly things are turning now... not just this, but the mainstream acceptance of a stalled housing market, faltering economy and everything that goes with it.

perhaps this has a lot to do with the recent hurricanes exposing something of a weeping sore at the heart of our fool's paradise, but I also reckon that people always secretly knew it was all a bit too good to be wholly true... and there is a nagging part of even the most bullish person that suspects one day they will be caught with their trousers down

the speed of the vindication is also a bit alarming as the fall we have all been calling for some months/years now looks like it could be a sickening plunge that will cause our collective stomachs to fly 18 inches up our chests thereby bringing our lunches back into the open

I'm now getting nervous about how right I was!

i would like to agree... but i can't.

the difference is the french prem is clearly making the case for a permanent decline of oil supply whereas our beloved chancetaker of the exchequer is demanding the saudis pump more of their infinite spare capacity. he's just not getting it... or he is make believing for a greater purpose.

all the recent stories in the paper are just blaming the prices on temporary disruptions (katrina, rita and their favorite: terrorism)

yeah, you read between the lines and see how narrow the supply - demand gap really is.. if any daylight at all! but how many people have the education, time and inclination to read between the lines.

television is just mass idle gossip laced with blatant VI propaganda / advertising.

there is no smoke without fire of course, but finding the fire can take all to much effort on your part.

good luck to the french pm, he deserves real sympathy for his cause.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
They should have said

"We've spent £10K putting solar panels on your roof, thus saving you about £250 worth of electricity a year. Of course, if we'd put the £10K in the bank for you you'd be getting £5K in interest, but hey, you're not bothered either way"

Don't bother fluke, you would expect someone in the oil industry to pooh-pooh renewable energy. He's a VI.

£10k would give you about £400 interest at the moment.

Don't forget tax, especially if you're a higher-rate taxpayer.And electricity and gas prices are soaring:

http://www.myfinances.co.uk/household/util...36;15040560.htm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Don't bother fluke, you would expect someone in the oil industry to pooh-pooh renewable energy. He's a VI.

Solar PV arrays cost about £500 per square meter, the cells are about 10% efficient (by area) so that you need about 10 square meters per 1kW of peak installed power (kWp), hence a cost of about £5 per Wp. But note that actual output from a typical UK based PV site is about 750 kWh annually per 1kWp installed, i.e. average power generation is about 1/12 of the nominal rated peak.

Edited by spline

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
losingfaith - mocking smileys -

i believe this. i dont think all the researchers will sit on thumbs in the dark. there will be money to gain. there is no way we will just simply run dry and then go nuts fighting.

i just dont for for the peak oil stuff. granted its going to run out, but we will develop solar fully. until then we will just get more efficient and less polluting with a gradual changeover/hybrid.

working in partnership with all nations, no matter what creed, colour or gender......

Edited by right_freds_dead

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
They should have said

"We've spent £10K putting solar panels on your roof, thus saving you about £250 worth of electricity a year. Of course, if we'd put the £10K in the bank for you you'd be getting £5K in interest, but hey, you're not bothered either way"

It's worth noting that the installation wasn't solar panels, but rather solar water heating.

I assume this is rather more efficient than solar panels.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Peak oil is a con.

i take this from matt savinars article:

In addition to lowering their investments in oil exploration and refinery expansion, oil companies have been merging as though the industry is living on borrowed time:

December 1998: BP and Amoco merge;

April 1999: BP-Amoco and Arco agree to merge;

December 1999: Exxon and Mobil merge;

October 2000: Chevron and Texaco agree to merge;

November 2001: Phillips and Conoco agree to merge;

September 2002: Shell acquires Penzoil-Quaker State;

February 2003: Frontier Oil and Holly agree to merge;

March 2004: Marathon acquires 40% of Ashland;

April 2004: Westport Resources acquires Kerr-McGee;

July 2004: Analysts suggest BP and Shell merge;

April 2005: Chevron-Texaco and Unocal merge;

June 2005: Royal Dutch and Shell merge;

July 2005: China begins trying to acquire Unocal

While many people believe talk of a global oil shortage is simply a conspiracy by "Big Oil" to drive up the prices and create "artificial scarcity," the rash of mergers listed above tells a different story. Mergers and acquisitions are the corporate world's version of cannibalism. When any industry begins to contract/collapse, the larger and more powerful companies will cannibalize/seize the assets of the smaller, weaker companies.

(Note: for recent examples of this phenomenon outside the oil industry, see the airline and automobile industries.)

i believe this. i dont think all the researchers will sit on thumbs in the dark. there will be money to gain. there is no way we will just simply run dry and then go nuts fighting.

i just dont for for the peak oil stuff. granted its going to run out, but we will develop solar fully. until then we will just get more efficient and less polluting with a gradual changeover/hybrid.

working in partnership with all nations, no matter what creed, colour or gender......

i am sorry but i feel matt savinar has put this one to bed also:

"What About Green Alternatives like

Solar, Wind, Wave, and Geothermal?"

Solar and wind power suffer from four fundamental physical shortcomings that prevent them from ever being able to replace more than a tiny fraction of the energy we get from oil: lack of energy density, inappropriateness as transportation fuels, energy intermittency, and inability to scale.

I. Lack of Energy Density/Inability to Scale:

Few people realize how much energy is concentrated in even a small amount of oil or gas. A barrel of oil contains the energy-equivalent of almost 25,000 hours of human labor. A single gallon of gasoline contains the energy-equivalent of 500 hours of human labor. Most people are stunned to find this out, even after confirming the accuracy of the numbers for themselves, but it makes sense when you think about it. It only takes one gallon of gasoline to propel a three ton SUV 10 miles in 10 minutes. How long would it take you to push a three ton SUV 10 miles?

Most people drastically overstimate the density and scalability of solar, wind, and other renewables. Some examples should help illustrate the limited capacity of these energy sources as compared to fossil fuels:

1.According to author Paul Driessen, it would take all of

1.California's 13,000 wind turbines to generate as much

1.electricity as a single 555-megawatt natural gas fired

1.power plant.

1.According to the European Wind Energy Association's

3.Wind Force 12 report issued in May of 2004, the

3.United States has 6,361 megawatts of installed wind

3.energy. This means that if every wind turbine in the

3.United States was spinning at peak capacity, all at the

3.exact same time, their combined electrical output

3.would equal that of six coal fired power plants. Since 3.wind turbines typically operate at about 30% of their 3.rated capacity, the combined output of every wind

3.turbine in the US is actually equal to less than two

3.coal fired power plants.

1.To replace the amount of energy produced by a single

6.offshore drilling platform that pumps only 12,000

6.barrels of oil per day we would need to build 706 Vesta

6."V82" wind turbines.

1.

1.The numbers for solar are ever poorer. For instance,

1.on 191 of his book The End of Oil: On the Edge of a

1.Perilous New World, author Paul Roberts writes:

" . . . if you add up all the solar photovoltaic cells now

running worldwide (2004), the combined output -

around 2,000 megawatts - barely rivals the output of

two coal-fired power plants."

2.Robert's calculation assumes the solar cells are

2.operating at 100% of their capacity. In the real world, 2.the average solar cell operates at about 20% of its

2.rated capacity. This means that the combined output

2.of all the solar cells in the world is equal to less than

2.40% of the output of a single coal fired power plant.

2.According to ExxonMobil, the amount of energy

4.distributed by a single gas station in a single day is

4.equivalent to the amount of energy that would be

4.produced by four Manhattan sized city blocks of solar

4.equipment.

4.

4.With 17,000 gas stations just in the United States,

4.you don't need to be a mathematician to realize that 4.solar power is incapable of meeting our urgent need for 4.a new energy source that - like oil - is dense,

4.affordable, and transportable.

3.According to Dr. David Goodstien, professor of physics 5.at Cal Tech University, it would take close to 220,000 5.square kilometers of solar panels to power the global

5.economy via solar power. This may sound like a

5.marginally manageable number until you realize that

5.the total acreage covered by solar panels in the entire 5.world right now is a paltry 10 square kilometers.

4.According a recent MSNBC article entitled, "Solar

7.Power City Offers 20 Years of Lessons:"

By industry estimates, up to 20,000 solar electricity

units and 100,000 heaters have been installed in the

United States — diminutive numbers compared to the

country’s 70 million single-family houses.

This means that even if the number of American

households equipped with solar electricity is increased

by a factor of 100, less than two million American

households will be equipped with solar electric

7.systems. Assuming we are even capable of scaling the

7.use of household solar electric systems by that huge a

7. factor, we must ask ourselves two questions:

A.What do the other 68 million households do?

AA. What about the millions of companies, nations,

and industries around the world on which we in

the industrialized world are dependent?

B.Since it is oil, not electricity, that is our primary

transportation fuel (providing the base for over

90% of all transportation fuel) what good will

this do us when it comes to keeping our global

network of cars,trucks, airplanes, and boats

going?

II. Energy Intermittancy:

Unlike an oil pump, which can pump all day and all night under most weather conditions, or coal fired/natural gas fired power plants which can also operate 24/7, wind turbines and solar cells

only produce energy at certain times or under certain conditions. This may not be that big of a deal if you simply want to power your household appliances or a small scale, decentralized economy, but if you want to run an industrial economy that relies on airports, airplanes, 18-wheel trucks, millions of miles of highways, huge skyscrapers, 24/7 availability of fuel, etc., an intermittent source of energy will not suffice.

Consequently, in order to produce energy during times when the wind is no blowing or the sun is not shining, large scale solar/wind farms must be backed up by things like . . . oil pumps or natural gas/coal fired powered plants.

III. Inappropriateness as Transportation Fuels:

Approximately 2/3 of our oil supply is used for transportation. Over ninety percent of our transportation fuel comes from petroleum fuels (gasoline, diesel, jet-fuel). Thus, even if you ignore the challenges cataglouged above, there is still the problem of how to use the electricity generated by the solar cells or wind turbines to run fleets of food delivery trucks, oceanliners, airplanes, etc. . .

Unfortunately, solar and wind cannot be used as industrial-scale transportation fuels unless they are used to crack hydrogen from water via electrolysis. Hydrogen produced via electrolysis is great for small scale, village level, and/or experimental projects. However, in order to power a significant portion of the global industrial economy on it, we would need the following:

1.Hundreds of trillions of dollars to construct fleets of

hydrogen powered cars, trucks, boats, and airplanes.

2.Hundreds, if not thousands, of oil-powered factories to

accomplish number one.

3.The construction of a ridiculously expensive global

refueling and maintenance network for number one.

4.Mind-boggingly huge amounts of platinum, silver, and

copper, and other raw materials that have already

entered permanent states of scarcity.

IV. Painfully Low Starting Point:

Finally, most people new to this issue drastically overestimate the amount of energy we will be able to realistically derive from these sources inside of the next 5-25 years. If the examples in Part I didn't convince you that solar and wind are incapable of replacing oil and gas on more than a small scale/supplemental level, consider the following, easily verifiable facts:

In 2003, the US consumed 98 quadrillion BTU's of energy. A whopping .171 quadrillion came from solar and wind combined. Do the math (.171/98) and you will see that a total of less then one-sixth of one percent of our energy appetite was satisfied with solar and wind combined. Thus, just to derive a paltry 2-3 percent of our current energy needs from solar and wind, we would need to double the percentage of our energy supply derived from solar/wind, then double it again, then double it again, and then double it yet again.

Unfortunately, the odds of us upscaling our use of solar and wind to the point where they provide even just 2-3 percent of our total energy supply are about the same as the odds of Michael Moore and Dick Cheney teaming up to win a 5K relay race. Despite jaw-dropping levels of growth in these industries, coupled with practically miraculous drops in price per kilowatt hour (95% drop in two decades), along with increased interest from the public in alternative energies, the percentage of our total energy supply derived from solar and wind is projected to grow by only 10 percent per year.

Since we are starting with only one-sixth of one percent of our energy coming from solar and wind, a growth rate of 10 percent per year isn't going to do much to soften a national economic meltdown. Twenty-five years from now, we will be lucky if solar and wind account for one percent of our total energy supply.

While other alternative energy sources, such as wave and geothermal power, are fantastic sources of energy in and of themselves, they are incapable of replacing more than a fraction of our petroleum usage for the same reasons as solar and wind: they are nowhere near as energy dense as petroleum and they are inappropriate as transportation fuels. In addition, they are also limited by geography - wave power is only technically viable in coastal locations. Only a handful of nations, such as Iceland, have access to enough geothermal power to make up for much of their petroleum consumption.

This is by no means reason not to invest in these alternatives. We simply have to be realistic about what they can and can't do. On a household or village scale, they are certainly worthy investments. But to hope/expect they are going to power more than a small fraction of our forty-five trillion dollar per year (and growing) global industrial economy is woefully unrealistic.

On a related note, even if solar, wind, and other green alternatives could replace oil, we still wouldn't escape the evil clutches of so called "Big Oil." The biggest maker of solar panels is British Petroleum with Shell not too far behind. Similarly, the second biggest maker of wind turbines is General Electric, who obtained their wind turbine business from that stalwart of corporate social responsibility, Enron. As these examples illustrate, the notion that "Big Oil is scared of the immerging renewable energy market!" is silly. "Big Oil" already owns the renewable energy market.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
we worry not about the sheer quantity of resources, but about their convenience and cost

Well, obviously; there's no point having abundant resources, but them being so expensive to access that only Bill Gates can afford to use them.

When we develop [iNSERT TECHNO-WORSHIPPER'S OUTLANDISH FANTASY HERE], Earth will be able to support a civilization far larger and wealthier than any yet seen, yet suffer less harm than we inflict today.

The same claims were made for nuclear power; look where that got us. There are still millions starving in the Third World, and now we have nuclear proliferation to contend with (hello, Iran).

Buildings can be made so energy-efficient and so good at using the solar energy falling on them that most are net energy producers.

Yes; we have known this for 30 years: SO WHY ISN'T IT HAPPENING? Why is the UK housing stock still the most energy-inefficient in Europe? Why does only 0.11% of the UK housing stock have any kind of solar panels whatsoever?

http://www.jrf.org.uk/knowledge/findings/housing/H211.asp

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well I think in the coming months Peak Oil will go to the back burner.

Peak Oil is the supply side of the oil story, whereas from now on we will be focusing on the demand side which has artificially propped up by low interest rates, high government spending and of course taking out equity from real estate since 2000.

A new study just came out from no lesser person than Mr. Greenspan himself, telling us that about 8% of disposable houshold income from the US is coming from mortgages. That is about 6% of US GDP. That creates a hell of a lot of demand for oil in the US and in China. That will go soon.

http://www.federalreserve.gov/pubs/feds/20...1/200541pap.pdf

i would like to agree... but i can't.

the difference is the french prem is clearly making the case for a permanent decline of oil supply whereas our beloved chancetaker of the exchequer is demanding the saudis pump more of their infinite spare capacity. he's just not getting it... or he is make believing for a greater purpose.

all the recent stories in the paper are just blaming the prices on temporary disruptions (katrina, rita and their favorite: terrorism)

yeah, you read between the lines and see how narrow the supply - demand gap really is.. if any daylight at all! but how many people have the education, time and inclination to read between the lines.

television is just mass idle gossip laced with blatant VI propaganda / advertising.

there is no smoke without fire of course, but finding the fire can take all to much effort on your part.

good luck to the french pm, he deserves real sympathy for his cause.

renewable energy is waiting in the wings until theyve squeezed as many pennies from you on burn energy. once its gone we will move on. no worries here. well, financial worries maybe.
Peak oil is a con.

Glad I'm not alone Guys and gils. The above posts high light the contary view i take.

The wealth and power is with a few, and they are best served in current times. When Pek oil and energy is the bane of the mass media like housing hpi was previously well I that says it all.

My vew is that the masss media is the biggest part of the brainwashing of the public so that we accept the world and serve the wealthy and powerfull.

The mass media, collectively defined by Joan Didion as “that handful of insiders that invent year in and year out, the narrative of public life.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
My vew is that the masss media is the biggest part of the brainwashing of the public so that we accept the world and serve the wealthy and powerfull.

The mass media, collectively defined by Joan Didion as “that handful of insiders that invent year in and year out, the narrative of public life.”

Quite right of course, but they beat self-serving state propaganda.

So far as the techno-optimists are concerned, I am sure they are right that there is somewhere a reasonable alternative to cheap abundant oil, the problem is that it is not widely available at present. It is not even known.

Imagine you are on the Titanic. It hits the iceberg. There has been a "peak in lifeboat availability" and now you suddenly need an alternative to readily available lifeboats. Well, human ingenuity is infinite. On a ship the size of the Titanic it would not be hard to devise suitable floatation devices for the 1,500 left on the ship. You could rip up the decking and make more boats. But ONLY if you have TIME.

It's the time element that will settle this. I like the way George Monbiot made this point. It all depends on governments taking the right action decades in advance or the people themselves understanding their predicament. Not very encouraging.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In a previous posting Losing Faith stated that a barrel of oil contained the energy equivalent of 25,000 man-hours’ of energy. This is a gross exaggeration, as I shall show.

The calorific content of crude oil is around 42 MJ/kg.

A barrel of oil contains 35 Imp gallons (159 litres), and oil has a specific gravity of about 0.75. So a barrel will contain about 120kg of oil.

Calorific content = 120 x 42MJ = about 5,000 MJ.

However, to convert oil into mechanical energy one must use an engine coupled to a mechanism of some sort through either a gear box or a hydraulic system. The overall efficiency of energy conversion will be about 20%, so the mechanical work content in a barrel of oil may be estimated at:

5,000 MJ x 0.20 = 1,000 MJ

What is the energy content of a man-hour of labour? I estimate that a reasonably fit adult male can sustain a continuous output of 75 W, based on the energy required for cycling at 12-15 mph. So a man hour’s labour is:

75 x 3,600 = 270,000 J or 0.27 MJ.

Thus the number of man hours’ equivalent work in a barrel of oil is:

1,000/0.27 = 3,700 hours.

Although one may make different assumptions about how much work a man can do, a realistic figure is not going to vary much around 4,000 hours.

I suspect even this is rather a specious calculation though, because living creatures are far more effective at using work than any machine now known. For instance, a dolphin uses only one seventh the energy to swim as compared to an equivalent man-made rigid submersible. Likewise I suspect that a group of men digging a canal or towing a cart will use their energy far more effectively than a digger or a truck. I’d take a guess than a barrel of oil is equivalent to about 1,000 hours of human work.

That is still a very large number of man hours though. At a typical labour rate, including overheads of £30/hour that makes £30,000 in a barrel of oil costing "as much as" £40. So oil is actually still very cheap. The problem is we waste the gift.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
£10k would give you about £400 interest at the moment. Better than your assumed £250 of electricity, but you will have to source your numbers to make a case.

Er ! 10k yields £400 interest, which banks this ? my one about .015 % pa (before tax)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 301 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.