Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

anonguest

The Age Of Oil Is Coming To An End

Recommended Posts

I wasn't really sure whether this should have gone on the main forum (with this being an economics-ish sort of topic) or here - and kind of ties in with my recent Peak Oil thread......

Apparently, according to Bloomberg, we can all start to sleep easier now that the Yanks are seriously shaking off their way of life as a gas guzzling nation.

I can't quite put my finger on it but it seems that more than a fair bit of this presentation doesn't really get to the bottom of the 'whys' of many of the quoted circumstances (e.g plunging price of oil and no pick up in consumption of it, etc) - and thus it doesn't really deserve a high score out of 10.

That said, as a quickfire and easy to digest presentation on a complex subject matter, it makes a reasonable effort?

I often feel that these sorts of, necessarily highly summarised, presentations covering complex subject matters tend to fit the old Mark Twain quote....."There are lies, damned lies and there are statistics".

http://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2014-america-shakes-off-oil-addiction/?utm_content=buffer81b38&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Those graphs are suggesting to me that something is wrong with the way GDP is calculated post Lehman. :)

That was actually one of my thoughts about just one of the various factoids quoted in the presentation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wasn't really sure whether this should have gone on the main forum (with this being an economics-ish sort of topic) or here - and kind of ties in with my recent Peak Oil thread......

Apparently, according to Bloomberg, we can all start to sleep easier now that the Yanks are seriously shaking off their way of life as a gas guzzling nation.

I can't quite put my finger on it but it seems that more than a fair bit of this presentation doesn't really get to the bottom of the 'whys' of many of the quoted circumstances (e.g plunging price of oil and no pick up in consumption of it, etc) - and thus it doesn't really deserve a high score out of 10.

That said, as a quickfire and easy to digest presentation on a complex subject matter, it makes a reasonable effort?

I often feel that these sorts of, necessarily highly summarised, presentations covering complex subject matters tend to fit the old Mark Twain quote....."There are lies, damned lies and there are statistics".

http://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2014-america-shakes-off-oil-addiction/?utm_content=buffer81b38&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

The hemogeny of oil is gradually being eroded by efficiency, massive improvements in battery storage technology, greater use of public transport, falling cost of renewables especially solar.

In other news - Wind supplies 9.3% of the UK's electricity in 2014. I can remember when various expert posters on here were confident wind would never supply more that a couple of percent of UK electricity or if it did we would all die.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In other news, my electricity bill reaches new highs.

It's not yet market efficient to cut out fossil fuels.

Not yet, but we are not that far away from not needing to subsidise solar - and it still being worthwhile to install.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The hemogeny of oil is gradually being eroded by efficiency, massive improvements in battery storage technology, greater use of public transport, falling cost of renewables especially solar.

In other news - Wind supplies 9.3% of the UK's electricity in 2014. I can remember when various expert posters on here were confident wind would never supply more that a couple of percent of UK electricity or if it did we would all die.

That may well be the case 'over here' but I have been under the impression that the average mpg of the U.S vehicle fleet hasn't made any great improvement in the last decade, compared with what has been seen here in Europe ?? i.e they still love their gas guzzlers/large cars over smaller cars?

and the recent decline in consumption is, very simply, down to the declining U.S economy and the resulting decreasing disposable income that Joe Sixpack has?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.iflscience.com/technology/china-develops-worlds-first-hydrogen-powered-tram

The newly designed vehicle will also help slash energy running costs as one tank will last for around 100 kilometers (62 miles), and it only takes three minutes to refuel.

Hydrogen is only a carrier, I believe, but still makes trams more efficient. No need for catenaries.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hydrogen is only a carrier, I believe, but still makes trams more efficient. No need for catenaries.

Most hydrogen is produced by partial combustion of natural gas. Just burning the gas would seem to make more sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The hemogeny of oil is gradually being eroded by efficiency, massive improvements in battery storage technology, greater use of public transport, falling cost of renewables especially solar.

In other news - Wind supplies 9.3% of the UK's electricity in 2014. I can remember when various expert posters on here were confident wind would never supply more that a couple of percent of UK electricity or if it did we would all die.

I agree with that to an extent. But it doesn't really show the full picture.

The ramp up in the use of oil in the developing countries is to a degree being offset by less use in the developed countries. This is technology driven. Nanotech is at the forefront of this. The ability to create materials engineered at the nano level has two impacts on energy usage. The first is in generation and storage. Stuff like better and cheaper solar cells. The second is to modify energy consumption. This is done via methods such as LED lighting and lighter materials for vehicles.

This is why there won't be an oil shock, but a gradual decrease in usage as devices become more and more efficient. The fact that this is being done across multiple different technologies means there will be no step change in oil usage, just a gradual transition.

Nature provides us with some targets. For example, things like spider silk and the human brain, which consumes only 20W of power, yet has significant processing capability (different to that of a PC of course).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Must admit the improvement in efficiency of solar has surprised me.

But I put most of the lack of fuel use down to people not being able to afford to drive. One of the charts showed an increase in public transport use. But would some of those people actually prefer to drive? (My answer would be yes)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Must admit the improvement in efficiency of solar has surprised me.

But I put most of the lack of fuel use down to people not being able to afford to drive. One of the charts showed an increase in public transport use. But would some of those people actually prefer to drive? (My answer would be yes)

I recall various trials with PHEV where 20-30km electric range basically means electric propulsion accounts for approx 70% of overall travel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Must admit the improvement in efficiency of solar has surprised me.

But I put most of the lack of fuel use down to people not being able to afford to drive. One of the charts showed an increase in public transport use. But would some of those people actually prefer to drive? (My answer would be yes)

It's a question of the tech catching up. I have PVs now but that's because of the government subsidy (so I see it as getting my taxes back) but when I can buy an electric car that will comfortably do 120 miles a day, costs less than £15k, and will last without major cost for five years then I'll buy one of those too.

But oil, that great cheap, easily extracted (for now) source of portable energy will be around and vitally important for many many years yet. Not least because of the humungous government revenue from it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a question of the tech catching up. I have PVs now but that's because of the government subsidy (so I see it as getting my taxes back) but when I can buy an electric car that will comfortably do 120 miles a day, costs less than £15k, and will last without major cost for five years then I'll buy one of those too.

But oil, that great cheap, easily extracted (for now) source of portable energy will be around and vitally important for many many years yet. Not least because of the humungous government revenue from it.

All good, and broadly agreeable, points.

I wonder IF any serious and detailed analysis has been done as to both the total cost of production, in terms of energy consumed, to produce the latest pure electric cars (from the high end luxury Tesla type affairs to the lowlier types intended for every day driving for plebs).......as well as the projected (because they aint been around long enough to get hard data) financial costs of keeping and running an electric vehicle for, say, 5+ years and doing average annual mileage.

How do these cost figures compare to pure petrol engine cars? IF more than IC engine cars will an electric car, in terms of total energy used, always cost more than a IC engine car?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Then I'll stick with my conventional car, at present I'm finding oil extraction less objectionable than the means of electricity generation and supply, and if electric car technology gets to that stage (I'd want a bit more than 120 miles anyway) the demand for generation will increase.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a leap forward. Aluminium is very reactive and is an ideal material for a battery, if only one could stop it forming an oxide layer.

http://newsdaily.com/2015/04/new-aluminum-battery-for-smartphones-can-be-charged-in-a-minute

Researchers have long tried but failed to develop a battery made of aluminum, a lightweight and relatively inexpensive metal that has high charging capacity.

A team lead by chemistry professor Hongjie Dai at Stanford University in California made a breakthrough by accidentally discovering that graphite made a good partner to aluminum, Stanford said in a statement.


Read more at http://newsdaily.com/2015/04/new-aluminum-battery-for-smartphones-can-be-charged-in-a-minute/#VE41rpPpGwFYyU5K.99

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a leap forward. Aluminium is very reactive and is an ideal material for a battery, if only one could stop it forming an oxide layer.

http://newsdaily.com/2015/04/new-aluminum-battery-for-smartphones-can-be-charged-in-a-minute

they describe aluminium as 'relatively inexpensive'? I thought it required lots of energy/electricity to produce? making it only viable via supplies of hydroelectric electricity?

OK, so I see from a quick check, the price is 'only' approx. £1200 a tonne. Cheaper than copper, nickel, etc

BUT IF a technology came along that yielded a viable Aluminium based battery how much increase in supply would be needed? could it be achieved? and how would the price respond (rise?) as a result?

P.S tried to do a quick price check via the BBC News/Business webpage. There used to be a 'Market Data' panel there - with info on currencies, commodities, bourses, etc. Now, I note, it is reduced to just stockmarket index info only. More dumbing down for the masses. :-(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

they describe aluminium as 'relatively inexpensive'? I thought it required lots of energy/electricity to produce? making it only viable via supplies of hydroelectric electricity?

OK, so I see from a quick check, the price is 'only' approx. £1200 a tonne. Cheaper than copper, nickel, etc

BUT IF a technology came along that yielded a viable Aluminium based battery how much increase in supply would be needed? could it be achieved? and how would the price respond (rise?) as a result?

P.S tried to do a quick price check via the BBC News/Business webpage. There used to be a 'Market Data' panel there - with info on currencies, commodities, bourses, etc. Now, I note, it is reduced to just stockmarket index info only. More dumbing down for the masses. :-(

The importance of efficient battery technology is energy storage, not energy generation.

Coupled with cheap energy generation (e.g. wind power) the ability to deliver power cheaply when it is wanted, rather than when it is generated, is significant.

And in a roundabout way this could mean that the energy costs of producing aluminium (which can be high) can be offset by the benefit of the technological breakthrough of the battery itself. It sounds like these batteries could be robust and endure many charging cycles.

I don't see that the concerns about their low voltage compared with Lithium batteries are justified either. Just put 2 batteries in series to double the voltage. That may require some electronics to manage the charging, but that is the case with Lithium already.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

they describe aluminium as 'relatively inexpensive'? I thought it required lots of energy/electricity to produce? making it only viable via supplies of hydroelectric electricity?

OK, so I see from a quick check, the price is 'only' approx. £1200 a tonne. Cheaper than copper, nickel, etc

BUT IF a technology came along that yielded a viable Aluminium based battery how much increase in supply would be needed? could it be achieved? and how would the price respond (rise?) as a result?

P.S tried to do a quick price check via the BBC News/Business webpage. There used to be a 'Market Data' panel there - with info on currencies, commodities, bourses, etc. Now, I note, it is reduced to just stockmarket index info only. More dumbing down for the masses. :-(

Aluminium is the most common metallic element so there is no fundamental shortage. The amount needed for batteries for vehicles would be a very small percentage especially given that most it at the end of the batteries life can be recycled.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

they describe aluminium as 'relatively inexpensive'? I thought it required lots of energy/electricity to produce? making it only viable via supplies of hydroelectric electricity?

OK, so I see from a quick check, the price is 'only' approx. £1200 a tonne. Cheaper than copper, nickel, etc

BUT IF a technology came along that yielded a viable Aluminium based battery how much increase in supply would be needed? could it be achieved? and how would the price respond (rise?) as a result?

P.S tried to do a quick price check via the BBC News/Business webpage. There used to be a 'Market Data' panel there - with info on currencies, commodities, bourses, etc. Now, I note, it is reduced to just stockmarket index info only. More dumbing down for the masses. :-(

All still there, commodities at:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business/market_data/commodities/default.stm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Aluminium is cheap - compared to rare earth metals.

And more importantly, no amount of Chinese economic warfare is going to monopolise aluminium production.

If the aluminium battery is for real, it could be a game changer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Must admit the improvement in efficiency of solar has surprised me.

Really? I thought the exact opposite..

That's not a dig by the way.. I have actually been surprised by how little the efficiency has improved over the past decade considering the amount of money injected into research. Unless you mean how cheap they've become which is slightly different.

I'm still waiting for cost effective multi junction cells.. but they're going to have to get away from Gallium Arsenide if they want to do that.

Once they crack it I'll move to solar and go "off-grid" :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   101 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

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.