Its time to buy Posted January 2, 2008 Share Posted January 2, 2008 Anyone see it this afternoon? They had a bit about peak gas supply in the UK, though they actually did say "peak". What they were seeing is that the the gas rigs were being replaced by gas storage tanks, because there is no more gas in the ground. In future we will be importing gas many thousands of miles away from Quatar by expensive-specially designed container ships which freeze the gas, that will probably use a fair bit of enrergy... One thing that the BBC didnt say if this means higher gas prices - All the energy required to ship the gas half way around the world in special ships, and then stored in high tech containers in sub zero conditions on the mainland. I would take that as a small yes then... And to top it off - I can't see Quatar and the middle east benifiting from this trade from our "service" economy. One to think about. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cells Posted January 2, 2008 Share Posted January 2, 2008 gas is almost always delivered by pipes, its very very easy to deliver gas from long distance via pipes and the chepest method of tranporting anything per kg is pipes! will energy get more expensive? Probably, but it will be more to do with china/india getting richer and hence competing with us for energy peak oil, gas ect is pretty much ******** though. it is scare mongering, should be renamed "energy gets more expensive" whereas "peak oil" conjurs images of fuel shortgages and people not being able to light their homes ect ect Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kurt Barlow Posted January 2, 2008 Share Posted January 2, 2008 Anyone see it this afternoon?They had a bit about peak gas supply in the UK, though they actually did say "peak". What they were seeing is that the the gas rigs were being replaced by gas storage tanks, because there is no more gas in the ground. In future we will be importing gas many thousands of miles away from Quatar by expensive-specially designed container ships which freeze the gas, that will probably use a fair bit of enrergy... One thing that the BBC didnt say if this means higher gas prices - All the energy required to ship the gas half way around the world in special ships, and then stored in high tech containers in sub zero conditions on the mainland. I would take that as a small yes then... And to top it off - I can't see Quatar and the middle east benifiting from this trade from our "service" economy. One to think about. Peak basically means that 50% of an available resource has been exploited. It stands to reason that the first half of the resource exploited is the easy half - ie the low hanging fruit. The other 50% will be more difficult and costly to exploit and therefore likely to be more expensive unless a substitute is found. In the case of gas yes we have passed both the resource and production peaks having pi$$ed much of it up the wall in the 1990's. Prices will continue to rise as we have to import more gas via pipeline which is limited or by LNG tankers which is very expensive and limited not least by the number of tankers available world wide. I said last year on one of these threads that gas would at least double in price in the next 5 years. The 17% increase we will see this month seems consistent with that prediction Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kurt Barlow Posted January 2, 2008 Share Posted January 2, 2008 gas is almost always delivered by pipes, its very very easy to deliver gas from long distance via pipes and the chepest method of tranporting anything per kg is pipes!will energy get more expensive? Probably, but it will be more to do with china/india getting richer and hence competing with us for energy peak oil, gas ect is pretty much ******** though. it is scare mongering, should be renamed "energy gets more expensive" whereas "peak oil" conjurs images of fuel shortgages and people not being able to light their homes ect ect If peak oil / gas whatever is ******** are you of the opinion that the availability of these commodities is infinite? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blue Peter Posted January 2, 2008 Share Posted January 2, 2008 A useful article on European gas. One specifically on the UK gas outlook is promised later this month: http://europe.theoildrum.com/node/3401 All in all, natural gas may become quite a problem in the years ahead. Peter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kurt Barlow Posted January 2, 2008 Share Posted January 2, 2008 A useful article on European gas. One specifically on the UK gas outlook is promised later this month:http://europe.theoildrum.com/node/3401 All in all, natural gas may become quite a problem in the years ahead. Peter. THe biggest problem is that when one talks about peak / diminishing supplies of gas the answer from the ostrich brigade is - just use more coal (er where from???), nuclear (wheres all this extra uranium coming from?????). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cells Posted January 2, 2008 Share Posted January 2, 2008 If peak oil / gas whatever is ******** are you of the opinion that the availability of these commodities is infinite? oil/gas/coal is FINITE, but energy is near enough infinite! the mass in a meter cube of water can be theoriticlly turned into 3000 giga watts for a year. or enough to power the world current consumption of all energy for more than 3 years. so energy is near enough infinite supply ALWAYS meets demand, the price changes accordingly. peak oil/coal/gas is just saying (more expensive oil/coal/gas). We have already had almost all forms of energy increase in price by 4x (ie oil going from $25pb in 2000 to $100pb now) once oil gets to a certain price, competing technologys that are renewable become COMERCIALLY viable. dont worry about peak energy (ie energy getting more expensive). you will ALWAYS be able to fill your tank and the lights WILL NOT go out. it will just cost you more to do those things! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
huw Posted January 2, 2008 Share Posted January 2, 2008 peak oil, gas ect is pretty much ******** though.it is scare mongering, should be renamed "energy gets more expensive" whereas "peak oil" conjurs images of fuel shortgages and people not being able to light their homes ect ect Of course there will be shortages, rising prices = demand destruction, that's how the market balances supply and demand. Demand destruction means that people who could previously afford energy, will be forced to do without. It's already happening, just not here (yet). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cells Posted January 2, 2008 Share Posted January 2, 2008 THe biggest problem is that when one talks about peak / diminishing supplies of gas the answer from the ostrich brigade is - just use more coal (er where from???), nuclear (wheres all this extra uranium coming from?????). there are tones and tones and tones of eranium to be mined, even if we where to run out of uranium in 10 years we now have breeder reactors. those reactors produce their own fuel so no worries from nuclear. another simple and effective technology is solar concentrators. there are a few around the world producing cheap electricity. we can produce massive amounts of electricity with solar concentrators easily (if oil prices stay at $100pb for a long time or increase expect to see more and more solar concentrators built) there are also GOOD TRUE renewable resources still around, ie hydroelectric (dams). Iceland is currently producing a MASSIVE dam for cheap electricity, im sure a LOT more can be added. then you have advanced pyysics, such as the ITER project, if sucsussfull will produce lots and lots of energy from fusion like the sun anyway, just ask yourself. if we reach peak energy tomorrow, the price of oil/gas/coal will go up by 400% in 10 years. Will this be a massive disaster that humanity cant recover from? to help you out, we have already had 400% increase in price in under a decade dont worry about peak oil scams Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TTID Posted January 2, 2008 Share Posted January 2, 2008 gas is almost always delivered by pipes, its very very easy to deliver gas from long distance via pipes and the chepest method of tranporting anything per kg is pipes! Depends how long the pipe needs to be. Beyond a certain distance, it's uneconomical to build the pipeline in the first place. It's also much more costly to continually protect, both from natural and human threats. That's why we don't get our middle east oil in pipes, or our middle east gas: http://www.dragonlng.co.uk/ http://www.southhooklng.co.uk/ http://www.nationalgrid.com/uk/grainlng Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cells Posted January 2, 2008 Share Posted January 2, 2008 Of course there will be shortages, rising prices = demand destruction, that's how the market balances supply and demand. Demand destruction means that people who could previously afford energy, will be forced to do without. It's already happening, just not here (yet). its more likely that people will just use less energy rather than use none at all. a good example is cars. My dads last car was 15 years old and did about 25-30 miles to the gallon. His new one gets over 60mpg. and even newer cars get over 80mpg on the motorway! electricity is more expensive so people leave their lights/tvs/ect on less. but there will come a point, when energy is so expensive that alternatives become commericilly viable. i dont know what that point is, but lets say $250. At that point solar concentrators/ solar cells/ wind/ ect will become viable and the free market will build them. there will be a limit to the price of energy. we might even be at it now. but someone looking to invest £10billion in solar concentrators or cells cant bet that oil will stay at $100 for ever. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cells Posted January 2, 2008 Share Posted January 2, 2008 Depends how long the pipe needs to be. Beyond a certain distance, it's uneconomical to build the pipeline in the first place. It's also much more costly to continually protect, both from natural and human threats.That's why we don't get our middle east oil in pipes, or our middle east gas: http://www.dragonlng.co.uk/ http://www.southhooklng.co.uk/ http://www.nationalgrid.com/uk/grainlng oil is somewhat different, large ships can transport oil very cheaply but gas is hard to transport in any other method than pipes Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
clv101 Posted January 2, 2008 Share Posted January 2, 2008 (edited) peak oil, gas ect is pretty much ******** though.it is scare mongering, should be renamed "energy gets more expensive"... supply ALWAYS meets demand, the price changes accordingly. Really, what are you talking about? Energy gets more expensive? Why is that? What does it mean? It means someone, somewhere has been out bid. The price has increased so someone has been forced to do with less or go without. Supply ALWAYS meets demand? No, it's the other way around. Demand always meets supply. Peak oil is totally "real". The supply of oil will peak then decline. The precise timing is unimportant but compelling evidence suggests the peak will occur before 2012. Where oil is global, gas is regional. North America and Europe are two separate regions and both face critical gas shortages in the decade ahead. The Oil Drum article on European gas provides a good review of the situation. Edited January 2, 2008 by clv101 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kurt Barlow Posted January 2, 2008 Share Posted January 2, 2008 there are tones and tones and tones of eranium to be mined, even if we where to run out of uranium in 10 years we now have breeder reactors. those reactors produce their own fuel so no worries from nuclear.another simple and effective technology is solar concentrators. there are a few around the world producing cheap electricity. we can produce massive amounts of electricity with solar concentrators easily (if oil prices stay at $100pb for a long time or increase expect to see more and more solar concentrators built) there are also GOOD TRUE renewable resources still around, ie hydroelectric (dams). Iceland is currently producing a MASSIVE dam for cheap electricity, im sure a LOT more can be added. then you have advanced pyysics, such as the ITER project, if sucsussfull will produce lots and lots of energy from fusion like the sun anyway, just ask yourself. if we reach peak energy tomorrow, the price of oil/gas/coal will go up by 400% in 10 years. Will this be a massive disaster that humanity cant recover from? to help you out, we have already had 400% increase in price in under a decade dont worry about peak oil scams Current uranium reserves are estimated to be about 75 years worth at current levels of consumption (7% of primary energy). Sure - more will be found but uranium exploration and development of mines have gestation periods of many years as does the construction of nuclear power stations. Start doing the maths and anyone can see that nuclear in its present form cannot replace fossil fuels at the current level of usage. Fast Breeder reactors may offer a partial solution but a number of unresolved issues remain not least proliferation of weapons grade plutonium. Cost is another issue and yet to be resolved. Its no coincidence that the nuclear industry went down the enriched uranium rather than FBR route. Agreed - CSP is a potential solution for sunny countries. Whether I in cloudy northern europe would want to be bootstrapped into a link with CSP in Algeria is another matter. Fusion - well we are not even anywhere near a energy return on energy invested let alone one which would make fusion viable so economic fusion remains an entirely speculative gamble at this point in time. Peak oil / gas isnt a scam - its a wake up call Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursus Helvetica Posted January 2, 2008 Share Posted January 2, 2008 dont worry about peak energy (ie energy getting more expensive). you will ALWAYS be able to fill your tank and the lights WILL NOT go out. it will just cost you more to do those things! If you cannot afford to fill your tank, you will not be able to fill your tank! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kurt Barlow Posted January 2, 2008 Share Posted January 2, 2008 its more likely that people will just use less energy rather than use none at all.a good example is cars. My dads last car was 15 years old and did about 25-30 miles to the gallon. His new one gets over 60mpg. and even newer cars get over 80mpg on the motorway! electricity is more expensive so people leave their lights/tvs/ect on less. but there will come a point, when energy is so expensive that alternatives become commericilly viable. i dont know what that point is, but lets say $250. At that point solar concentrators/ solar cells/ wind/ ect will become viable and the free market will build them. there will be a limit to the price of energy. we might even be at it now. but someone looking to invest £10billion in solar concentrators or cells cant bet that oil will stay at $100 for ever. I am a big proponent of renewables. However there is a potential energy bottleneck which arises because the cost of renewables is not unrelated to fossil fuels. For example you need carbon to produce high grade silicon. You need allot of energy to produce mirrors for CSP. You need heavy fuel oil / diesel to power cranes and ships to put in offshore wind turbines. The other thing about renewables is that the energy costs are all front end loaded. Once installed they usually require no further fuel in any significant amounts. If the cost of energy rises significantly this makes the production of renewables more expensive. The finite supply / availability of energy will dictate the rate at which you can produce new equipment. I have seen posts on here regarding the 'solar economy' and its exponential growth. This would work if the silicon, labour, factories were free and all the energy produced by the solar panels could be put back into producing more panels. In the world of real economics, resources this isn't going to happen. What Im trying to say is that whilst energy is still relatively cheap we need to put aside some of it to start the process of building the post peak infrastructure. Look to nature for examples of this - a squirrel in times of plenty stashes away acorns for the future. Alternatively he could take the classic economists approach and assume in the middle of winter that because he 'demands acorns' the market will supply acorns Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cells Posted January 2, 2008 Share Posted January 2, 2008 No, it's the other way around. Demand always meets supply. sorry thats what i ment, demand meets supply, price changes accordingly Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
clv101 Posted January 2, 2008 Share Posted January 2, 2008 Current uranium reserves are estimated to be about 75 years worth at current levels of consumption (7% of primary energy). Sure - more will be found but uranium exploration and development of mines have gestation periods of many years as does the construction of nuclear power stations. Start doing the maths and anyone can see that nuclear in its present form cannot replace fossil fuels at the current level of usage. There's a new article on nuclear published today: New Nuclear Reactors For The UK: Is This Really A Good Idea?...not when you take into account the uranium-peak, the energy return on energy invested in the nuclear life-cycle, and the prospect of much of the legacy of nuclear waste being abandoned for ever. One critical issue is the supply of uranium in the short term: At present, annual demand for uranium is running at about 65,000 tonnes. Some 25,000 tonnes of this comes from sources other than mining, and it will be largely exhausted by 2013. 10,000 tonnes is derived from military uranium, the highly-enriched uranium used in Russia’s stockpile of nuclear weapons left over from the Cold War. Russia’s contract to supply the United States with fuel from this source ends in 2013, and it will not be renewed. Indeed, by that time, Russia’s store of military uranium will itself be running low. Most of the remaining 15,000 tonnes comes from “secondary supplies” – that is, from stockpiles of uranium which were built up when supplies were abundant and comparatively cheap in the 1970s. This, source, too, is getting low, and by the middle of the next decade it will be doing little or nothing to fill the gap between demand and the annual 40,000 tonnes of mined uranium supply. The supply of mined uranium is stuck at that level, and it now looks likely to decline. Of the dozen nations which are significant sources of uranium, only Kazakhstan shows a useful rate of growth – enough for the time being to compensate for a general decline among the smaller producers. But the industry’s hopes of being able to increase its uranium output depend now on two big developments: Cigar Lake in Canada and Olympic Dam in Australia. Continues... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
corevalue Posted January 2, 2008 Share Posted January 2, 2008 there are tones and tones and tones of eranium to be mined, even if we where to run out of uranium in 10 years we now have breeder reactors. those reactors produce their own fuel so no worries from nuclear.another simple and effective technology is solar concentrators. there are a few around the world producing cheap electricity. we can produce massive amounts of electricity with solar concentrators easily (if oil prices stay at $100pb for a long time or increase expect to see more and more solar concentrators built) there are also GOOD TRUE renewable resources still around, ie hydroelectric (dams). Iceland is currently producing a MASSIVE dam for cheap electricity, im sure a LOT more can be added. then you have advanced pyysics, such as the ITER project, if sucsussfull will produce lots and lots of energy from fusion like the sun anyway, just ask yourself. if we reach peak energy tomorrow, the price of oil/gas/coal will go up by 400% in 10 years. Will this be a massive disaster that humanity cant recover from? to help you out, we have already had 400% increase in price in under a decade dont worry about peak oil scams The significance of peak oil is that there is no practical alternative to it's use as transport fuel, apart from rail and ships. A secondary issue is the use of oil as feedstock for the chemical industry. Expect the price of anything made with plastics to rise. Expect the price of everything else to rise as the cost of shipping goes up. Expect air travel to slump. Expect cement manufacture to slow dramatically (another massive user of fossil fuels). Expect there to be severe economic hits from that. The significance of peak gas, apart from the use in the UK as domestic heating fuel, is electrical generation (Thatcher's "dash for gas"), and it's use as the feedstock for fertiliser. There is already a signficant supply problem with fertiliers, look here: http://www.farmersguardian.com/story.asp?s...storycode=14704 Fission reactors are well understood, but they take a long time to build, especially through the planning process, and the waste disposal problems are always an issue; fusion, is never here. It's been never here since the 50's. There is no practical fusion reactor in the next 25 years. Solar, yes, but not on the scale you talk about. Will the government feel happy about getting the UK's electricity from Muslem countries in N. Africa (assuming we can build the electrical links)? At least the government has woken up to the fact we are looking into an energy supply abyss, and anounced the massive increase in off-shore wind resource, but I am a bit skeptical about the idea that we can build and commission that many turbines. Even then, it's only 17% of our CURRENT electrical consumption WHEN the turbines have enough wind. If you want to invest, try candlemakers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cells Posted January 2, 2008 Share Posted January 2, 2008 If you cannot afford to fill your tank, you will not be able to fill your tank! you will drive less or not drive at all, thats hardly the end of the world is it! you might walk more, cycle more, take public transport more. Or you might decide its stupid to drive to work in a car all by yourself and decide to share a trip with 3-4 others "peak oil" is scare mongering, it makes people think of nations fighting nuclear wars, it makes people think of cold winter without electricity just change the name to "energy gets more expensive" and nearly all the problems are gone after all energy prices have risen by 400% in the last 7 years, i havent really changed my energy useage habbits. its barely affected me. im sure thats true for the majority of people in this country. peak oil will mean we use energy more efficently, use less where possible, and in time invest in COMMERCIALLY VIABLE renewables. not wind farms that dont produce jack shite because there aint no wind where the goverment wants them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
clv101 Posted January 2, 2008 Share Posted January 2, 2008 sorry thats what i ment, demand meets supply, price changes accordingly With the result of people going without - that's the reason the price increases, to clear the market through allocation via the price mechanism to those most willing/able to pay. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cells Posted January 2, 2008 Share Posted January 2, 2008 The significance of peak oil is that there is no practical alternative to it's use as transport fuel we use oil in power stations, we use oil in lots of places where it can be offset by nuclear or renewables. if we offset oil in those locations, then we can use the oil saved in cars ect but at the moment, cars so so inefficent. average in this country is some 35mpg, newest cars do 75-85mpg! most cars transport 1 person, no one really shares. people drive shit, and waste energy. if cars drive themselves in the future that alone will save about 20% lots of things anyway i gotta go Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
clv101 Posted January 2, 2008 Share Posted January 2, 2008 "peak oil" is scare mongering, it makes people think of nations fighting nuclear wars, it makes people think of cold winter without electricityjust change the name to "energy gets more expensive" and nearly all the problems are gone "peak oil" may conjure up those images in your head - but don't assume everyone's brains are wired like yours. That isn't what peak oil means to me. Peak oil and expensive energy are critically different things. Peak Oil = less oil Expensive Oil = can also mean more oil (as we've seen this decade) The problem for an economy is not expensive oil - the UK still only spends around 5% of GDP on oil, big deal. The problem comes when the economy is forced to make to will less oil. Historically oil consumption has been closely correlated to economic activity. Maybe this correlation can be broken? If so it is unlikely to be smooth. The key point is not the cost, it's the amount of net energy available to an economy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drminky Posted January 2, 2008 Share Posted January 2, 2008 Getting off the inevitable peak oil debate for a second, one should appreciate the huge significance to everyone in the UK of what has happened in 2007. Because what has happened is that from last year, because of the decline in output from the North Sea oil/gas fields, the UK has switched over from a net oil exporter to a net oil importer. What does that mean for us, besides the geopolitical ramifications of becoming more dependent on Russia etc to keep warm in winter? -The pound is a sitting duck waiting to get blasted out of the water.. Oh, and you can thank Thatcher largely for deliberately overpumping and dumping the north sea all through the 80s at bargain basement prices, effectively laying economic seige to the USSR, which was hugely dependent on oil revenue at the time.. short-termism at its very best.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
huw Posted January 2, 2008 Share Posted January 2, 2008 We make things more efficient but we use up the gains (and then some) by doing more stuff. The previous generation had worse light bulbs and thirstier cars than we have today, but I bet we use more electricity and petrol than our parents, and they used more in turn than our grandparents. Sure, we can reverse this trend (and not just because of peak oil but because otherwise we face gridlock) but what are the knock-on effects in a growth-dependent economy? For example: Decoupling Traffic Growth from Economic Growth – Is this Plausible for the UK? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.