Peak oil may show up this time....
Today's post: Wednesday, 6-23-2010
We need an 80% reduction in fossil fuel use by 2050 to avoid the worst global warming effects. And, practically speaking, we need to also double our electricity generation and double the useful work done per unit of electricity & other energy sources as well during that same time to have a decent economy.
At some point, the oil that we’ve been using to power much of our economy will begin to run low enough that our world economy will shrink due to lack of supply or excessive costs or both.
And, once the demand for oil picks up again with the apparent economic recovery or supply begins to plateau or drop, the prices will again go back up. That will cause more hard times economically unless we have enough alternative sources of energy to turn to.
Further, it’s extremely clear that the most supported and economically beneficial solution to add energy that does not use oil nor burn fossil fuels to release more CO2 into air that already has too much is to build massive amounts of new renewable energy production, particularly those that generate electricity & to dramatically increase energy efficiency and reduce the amount of energy that is now wasted.
And, of those, the more important long range solution is to build massive amounts of new renewable energy generation.
Today’s post:
There are three key reasons to suspect that peak oil may be showing up soon.
1. The people who are in a position to know the real reserves of oil in the key countries in the Middle East are the scientists and other energy experts in Kuwait.
Earlier this year they published saying their current estimate is that peak oil will happen in 2014. That’s now less than 4 years from now.
After that, no matter how much the price is bid up, each year there will be less oil and the price will rise in two ways.
As more countries develop economically and population rises, in the near term there will be more demand for oil. So with greater demand and slightly reducing supplies, prices will go up. Before the recent credit crash added to it and caused global economic slowing, our economy had been slowing from this rising demand impacting our current prices since oil was not becoming more available that fast.
Once peak oil hits, that will return even if the recovery from the global recession is weak. And, the price run up of oil will be greater if the recovery has been better.
Second, there are ways of getting more oil but which are not in use now because they cost more than the oil is now selling for. Once peak oil hits and the effects begin, this will initially slow the increase in prices due to the small increase in oil this will make available. But, it will also increase the cost of the oil itself which will then be passed along to the users after that.
2. Despite the recession, both economic growth in developing countries and growth in population worldwide will continue. That will gradually increase the demand for energy for transport which is now provided mostly by oil.
3. Despite some promising beginnings, electric cars; plug in hybrids; truly widespread increases in energy efficiency, electricity from solar photovoltaic, solar thermal, and wind, will not yet be ready for prime time for us to switch to fast enough to compensate for the slowing effect of peak oil. Nor do we yet have cost or energy efficient production of biofuels in real quantity.
This means that if we fail to dramatically accelerate those alternatives to oil, within the next 5 to 10 years, we will have serious slowing of the economy due to very steep increases in the cost of oil.
My hope is that the efforts now being made to get the United States congress to pass helpful legislation work well enough to get us moving fast enough to minimize the impact -- by both dramatically increasing the rate at which we are building these alternatives and by slightly increasing the costs of gasoline and diesel now to help fund that and to incentivized people to choose those alternatives.
The concept is a bit like the shock absorbing cans of water now on some freeways so that cars that are about to run into large concrete bridge supports will have significant but survivable crashes instead of the almost always fatal results of the crashes 20 times worse from running into the bridge supports without that initial slowing.
Certainly causing expensive cosmetic damage to your car if it runs into the shock absorbing cans of water is no fun to experience. But when you survive unhurt, you can overcome the problem. Conversely, without those shock absorbing cans of water, if you collide directly with the concrete bridge supports, you are dead and the game is lost.
Do we slow the use of oil now by making gasoline 25 to 75 cents a gallon more expensive and go to fairly decent supplies of $6 to $8 dollars a gallon gasoline later because there are beginning to be large scale alternatives available?
Or, do we decide we can’t afford to do that just now and then get to experience gasoline costing twice that much, $12 to $16 dollars a gallon or more -- and only half as much is available?
Will our now functioning economy and food delivery systems survive that hit? They might not.
That to me is the key question.
It’s why I think the people are fools who argue for permanently postponing California’s AB32 or for not supporting a National energy bill that gradually limits the use of carbon fuels with some near term cost increases involved.
Unfortunately, a recent poll found that the majority of Americans have heard we need to switch away from oil but also are unwilling to support paying a bit more now for gasoline to speed up that process.
Ultimately, unless those Americans and their representatives learn WHY we are in desperate trouble unless we do just that, we may not act fast enough to dodge the disastrous effects of peak oil once it arrives.
Over the next few weeks and months, we will see how it goes. But if it goes badly -- and it might, may God be merciful on us. We will need it.
Showing posts with label Peak oil in 2014. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Peak oil in 2014. Show all posts
Wednesday, June 23, 2010
Wednesday, April 28, 2010
Our economy needs clean energy bills NOT partisan politics....
Today's post: Wednesday, 4-28-2010
We need an 80% reduction in fossil fuel use by 2050 to avoid the worst global warming effects. And, practically speaking, we need to also double our electricity generation and double the useful work done per unit of electricity & other energy sources as well during that same time to have a decent economy.
At some point, the oil that we’ve been using to power much of our economy will begin to run low enough that our world economy will shrink due to lack of supply or excessive costs or both.
And, once the demand for oil picks up again with the apparent economic recovery or supply begins to plateau or drop, the prices will again go back up. That will cause more hard times economically unless we have enough alternative sources of energy to turn to.
Further, it’s extremely clear that the most supported and economically beneficial solution to add energy that does not use oil nor burn fossil fuels to release more CO2 into air that already has too much is to build massive amounts of new renewable energy production, particularly those that generate electricity & to dramatically increase energy efficiency and reduce the amount of energy that is now wasted.
And, of those, the more important long range solution is to build massive amounts of new renewable energy generation.
Today’s post:
There was a chance that the bill originally sponsored by John Kerry and Lindsey Graham would do some very positive things to advance more clean energy and somewhat reduce pollution causing sources. Virtually no one liked all of it. But it had enough positive things that it had bipartisan support and support from utility companies and some other industry groups.
Now Senator Graham has withdrawn his support.
It seems he finds the narrow partisan bickering about immigration policy more important than supporting the future economy of the United States.
He has indicated that he understands China is making progress in clean energy whether the United States does or not and how important it is for the United States to be competitive with them.
To me, that makes his withdrawing support for the bill he helped form completely irresponsible.
Will his decision that partisan bickering is more important make us competitive in clean energy? No.
Ironically it may help solve the immigration problem by making our economy so bad no immigrants will want to come here!
I had thought that Senator Graham understood things like the likely coming of peak oil in 2014, just four years from now, as predicted by Kuwaiti scientists about 6 weeks ago. (They have their readings on the main supplies of oil in the Middle East -- which gives their prediction considerable credibility as they have inside information.)
It seems I overestimated both his knowledge of the situation and his ethics.
Will dumping the good things his bill would have accomplished postpone peak oil or the horrible damage to our economy if we don’t deal with it delay the arrival of peak oil.
Unfortunately, it will speed it up instead.
I just hope some of the more useful parts of his bill can now be passed separately.
Today's post: Wednesday, 4-28-2010
We need an 80% reduction in fossil fuel use by 2050 to avoid the worst global warming effects. And, practically speaking, we need to also double our electricity generation and double the useful work done per unit of electricity & other energy sources as well during that same time to have a decent economy.
At some point, the oil that we’ve been using to power much of our economy will begin to run low enough that our world economy will shrink due to lack of supply or excessive costs or both.
And, once the demand for oil picks up again with the apparent economic recovery or supply begins to plateau or drop, the prices will again go back up. That will cause more hard times economically unless we have enough alternative sources of energy to turn to.
Further, it’s extremely clear that the most supported and economically beneficial solution to add energy that does not use oil nor burn fossil fuels to release more CO2 into air that already has too much is to build massive amounts of new renewable energy production, particularly those that generate electricity & to dramatically increase energy efficiency and reduce the amount of energy that is now wasted.
And, of those, the more important long range solution is to build massive amounts of new renewable energy generation.
Today’s post:
There was a chance that the bill originally sponsored by John Kerry and Lindsey Graham would do some very positive things to advance more clean energy and somewhat reduce pollution causing sources. Virtually no one liked all of it. But it had enough positive things that it had bipartisan support and support from utility companies and some other industry groups.
Now Senator Graham has withdrawn his support.
It seems he finds the narrow partisan bickering about immigration policy more important than supporting the future economy of the United States.
He has indicated that he understands China is making progress in clean energy whether the United States does or not and how important it is for the United States to be competitive with them.
To me, that makes his withdrawing support for the bill he helped form completely irresponsible.
Will his decision that partisan bickering is more important make us competitive in clean energy? No.
Ironically it may help solve the immigration problem by making our economy so bad no immigrants will want to come here!
I had thought that Senator Graham understood things like the likely coming of peak oil in 2014, just four years from now, as predicted by Kuwaiti scientists about 6 weeks ago. (They have their readings on the main supplies of oil in the Middle East -- which gives their prediction considerable credibility as they have inside information.)
It seems I overestimated both his knowledge of the situation and his ethics.
Will dumping the good things his bill would have accomplished postpone peak oil or the horrible damage to our economy if we don’t deal with it delay the arrival of peak oil.
Unfortunately, it will speed it up instead.
I just hope some of the more useful parts of his bill can now be passed separately.
Wednesday, March 17, 2010
Here comes peak oil ready or not!....
Today's post: Wednesday, 3-17-2010
We need an 80% reduction in fossil fuel use by 2050 to avoid the worst global warming effects. And, practically speaking, we need to also double our electricity generation and double the useful work done per unit of electricity & other energy sources as well during that same time to have a decent economy.
At some point, the oil that we’ve been using to power much of our economy will begin to run low enough that our world economy will shrink due to lack of supply or excessive costs or both.
And, once the demand for oil picks up again with the apparent economic recovery or supply begins to plateau or drop, the prices will again go back up. That will cause more hard times economically unless we have enough alternative sources of energy to turn to.
Further, it’s extremely clear that the most supported and economically beneficial solution to add energy that does not use oil nor burn fossil fuels to release more CO2 into air that already has too much is to build massive amounts of new renewable energy production, particularly those that generate electricity & to dramatically increase energy efficiency and reduce the amount of energy that is now wasted.
And, of those, the more important long range solution is to build massive amounts of new renewable energy generation.
Today’s post:
Here in California, I once campaigned for a man called Steve Poizner who made a convincing case he understood the need for sources of energy for our economy other than oil. That was my main motivation for supporting him.
It seems I massively overestimated how smart he was, how ethical he was, and how much he really understood about the energy crisis and its very likely dire consequences for our economy if it’s not handled well.
He AND Meg Whitman are now the Republican candidates for Governor of California.
Under the Republican Governor here, Arnold Schwarzenegger, California has almost done the right thing on energy; and he personally helped the state pioneer some of those programs.
Now both Steve Poizner, who I had THOUGHT understood the energy situation -- AND Meg Whitman recently debated and BOTH said they would postpone those same programs until the economy improves.
Given the news I’m posting on today, neither one is well informed enough on this issue to be QUALIFIED to be Governor of California.
Here’s why.
When peak oil hits, if we have done too little to:
add decent amounts of electricity from clean or cleaner sources,
put many all electric and plug-in hybrids on the road,
and set up many programs to provide interim fuels from sources other than petroleum,
massive run ups in fuel and transport costs will return and rapidly get so bad, the economy will be horrible and might even be worse than that!
Do you see evidence will be ready for this in 5 or 6 years? We’re getting there. But achieving this adequately is more like 10 or 20 years out from what I’ve seen.
Oops! We may need to be ready in 5 or 6 years anyway!
Recently, a source that’s well informed and knowledgeable on oil reserves and real demand for oil says that we can expect peak oil in 2014.
That’s soon! That’s just 4 years off!
Given that, there is NO acceptable excuse for postponing ANY programs that can help us deal with that -- NONE whatever.
Needless to say, as a moderate Republican, I wish Arnold was running again. But since he is not, it looks now like I’ll be campaigning for the Democrat, Jerry Brown.
If peak oil does arrive in 2014, it looks to me as if we will need all the help we can get to avoid a REALLY BAD economy.
Here’s that story.:
“Oil Production to Peak in 2014, Scientists Predict by Jeremy Hsu LiveScience Contributor LiveScience.com Friday, 3-12-2010
Predicting the end of oil has proven tricky and often controversial, but Kuwaiti scientists now say that global oil production will peak in 2014.
Their work represents an updated version of the famous Hubbert model, which correctly predicted in 1956 that U.S. oil reserves would peak within 20 years. Many researchers have since tried using the model to predict when worldwide oil production might peak.
Some have said production already peaked. One earlier model by Swedish researchers suggested that oil would peak sometime between 2008 and 2018. And other researchers have argued there are decades to go before oil production goes into irreversible decline. The only thing they all agree on: Oil is a finite and very valuable resource.
The issue's profile was raised today with a new report projecting increased demand. After peaking above $130 a barrel in mid-2008, crude oil prices dipped to below $40 in early 2009 as global demand tanked amid the recession. Prices have been rising ever since and are above $80 now. Today, the International Energy Agency said it expects demand to resume the sort of growth that was common in recent years. Much of that growth has involved the modernizing economies of China and India.
Updated model The scientists from Kuwait University and the Kuwait Oil Company adopted a newer approach by including many Hubbert production cycles, or bell-shaped curves showing the rise and fall of a non-recyclable resource. Earlier models typically assumed just one production cycle, despite the fact that most oil-producing nations have historically experienced more of a rollercoaster ride in production.
Such production cycles reflect the influence of new technological innovations in the oil industry, government regulations, economic conditions and political events. The factors include the discovery of new oil deposits, the recent economic recession and the rise of renewable energy.
Take Mexico as just one example. The nation that has long represented a top oil exporter has experienced plummeting oil production, and might even begin importing oil within the decade, the New York Times reports. Its troubles have arisen from a lack of technology to explore more inaccessible oil deposits, and a conundrum stemming from a 1938 law that banned foreign oil companies.
Caltech physicist David Goodstein has argued for a practical approach that focuses on preparing for the end of oil, regardless of when it happens. He noted that the latest prediction seems to represent a serious, thoughtful estimate.
"Of course there are large uncertainties in estimates of this kind, but this one is as good as any I've seen," Goodstein told LiveScience.
Some oil companies and consultancy firms such as Cambridge Energy Research Associates have speculated that oil will peak sometime after 2020, but a number of oil geologists and executives predict it will happen much sooner. “
“The Kuwaiti study created its world model for peak oil based on 47 individual models for each major oil-producing nation. It also took a separate look at the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC), which includes nations that control about 35 percent of the world's oil reserves.
More complications may still change the ultimate end date for peak oil. OPEC's latest projection suggests that world oil demand will grow by 900,000 barrels per day in 2010, according to an Associated Press story this week. That follows a period of low oil demand during the height of the worldwide recession in 2009.
For now, Kuwaiti scientists say that the world continues to consume its oil reserves at a rate of about 2.1 percent each year. They plan to continue including new data that can refine the model as time goes by.”
My sincere and strong hope is that the energy bill sponsored by Senators Kerry, Lieberman, and Graham is passed and signed into law.
If peak oil will arrive that soon, we will need every part of each of that bill’s programs to survive the economic hit of Peak Oil.
We will badly need the new renewable energy it proposes.
We will badly need the new electricity produced by nuclear power that it proposes.
And, though I wish it were otherwise, we not only need to include the additional oil drilling in the United States it proposes to get the votes to get the bill passed,
we may well need the oil itself to help stave off disaster for our economy due to the rapid run ups in cost and drop off in supply from sources outside the United States.
Today's post: Wednesday, 3-17-2010
We need an 80% reduction in fossil fuel use by 2050 to avoid the worst global warming effects. And, practically speaking, we need to also double our electricity generation and double the useful work done per unit of electricity & other energy sources as well during that same time to have a decent economy.
At some point, the oil that we’ve been using to power much of our economy will begin to run low enough that our world economy will shrink due to lack of supply or excessive costs or both.
And, once the demand for oil picks up again with the apparent economic recovery or supply begins to plateau or drop, the prices will again go back up. That will cause more hard times economically unless we have enough alternative sources of energy to turn to.
Further, it’s extremely clear that the most supported and economically beneficial solution to add energy that does not use oil nor burn fossil fuels to release more CO2 into air that already has too much is to build massive amounts of new renewable energy production, particularly those that generate electricity & to dramatically increase energy efficiency and reduce the amount of energy that is now wasted.
And, of those, the more important long range solution is to build massive amounts of new renewable energy generation.
Today’s post:
Here in California, I once campaigned for a man called Steve Poizner who made a convincing case he understood the need for sources of energy for our economy other than oil. That was my main motivation for supporting him.
It seems I massively overestimated how smart he was, how ethical he was, and how much he really understood about the energy crisis and its very likely dire consequences for our economy if it’s not handled well.
He AND Meg Whitman are now the Republican candidates for Governor of California.
Under the Republican Governor here, Arnold Schwarzenegger, California has almost done the right thing on energy; and he personally helped the state pioneer some of those programs.
Now both Steve Poizner, who I had THOUGHT understood the energy situation -- AND Meg Whitman recently debated and BOTH said they would postpone those same programs until the economy improves.
Given the news I’m posting on today, neither one is well informed enough on this issue to be QUALIFIED to be Governor of California.
Here’s why.
When peak oil hits, if we have done too little to:
add decent amounts of electricity from clean or cleaner sources,
put many all electric and plug-in hybrids on the road,
and set up many programs to provide interim fuels from sources other than petroleum,
massive run ups in fuel and transport costs will return and rapidly get so bad, the economy will be horrible and might even be worse than that!
Do you see evidence will be ready for this in 5 or 6 years? We’re getting there. But achieving this adequately is more like 10 or 20 years out from what I’ve seen.
Oops! We may need to be ready in 5 or 6 years anyway!
Recently, a source that’s well informed and knowledgeable on oil reserves and real demand for oil says that we can expect peak oil in 2014.
That’s soon! That’s just 4 years off!
Given that, there is NO acceptable excuse for postponing ANY programs that can help us deal with that -- NONE whatever.
Needless to say, as a moderate Republican, I wish Arnold was running again. But since he is not, it looks now like I’ll be campaigning for the Democrat, Jerry Brown.
If peak oil does arrive in 2014, it looks to me as if we will need all the help we can get to avoid a REALLY BAD economy.
Here’s that story.:
“Oil Production to Peak in 2014, Scientists Predict by Jeremy Hsu LiveScience Contributor LiveScience.com Friday, 3-12-2010
Predicting the end of oil has proven tricky and often controversial, but Kuwaiti scientists now say that global oil production will peak in 2014.
Their work represents an updated version of the famous Hubbert model, which correctly predicted in 1956 that U.S. oil reserves would peak within 20 years. Many researchers have since tried using the model to predict when worldwide oil production might peak.
Some have said production already peaked. One earlier model by Swedish researchers suggested that oil would peak sometime between 2008 and 2018. And other researchers have argued there are decades to go before oil production goes into irreversible decline. The only thing they all agree on: Oil is a finite and very valuable resource.
The issue's profile was raised today with a new report projecting increased demand. After peaking above $130 a barrel in mid-2008, crude oil prices dipped to below $40 in early 2009 as global demand tanked amid the recession. Prices have been rising ever since and are above $80 now. Today, the International Energy Agency said it expects demand to resume the sort of growth that was common in recent years. Much of that growth has involved the modernizing economies of China and India.
Updated model The scientists from Kuwait University and the Kuwait Oil Company adopted a newer approach by including many Hubbert production cycles, or bell-shaped curves showing the rise and fall of a non-recyclable resource. Earlier models typically assumed just one production cycle, despite the fact that most oil-producing nations have historically experienced more of a rollercoaster ride in production.
Such production cycles reflect the influence of new technological innovations in the oil industry, government regulations, economic conditions and political events. The factors include the discovery of new oil deposits, the recent economic recession and the rise of renewable energy.
Take Mexico as just one example. The nation that has long represented a top oil exporter has experienced plummeting oil production, and might even begin importing oil within the decade, the New York Times reports. Its troubles have arisen from a lack of technology to explore more inaccessible oil deposits, and a conundrum stemming from a 1938 law that banned foreign oil companies.
Caltech physicist David Goodstein has argued for a practical approach that focuses on preparing for the end of oil, regardless of when it happens. He noted that the latest prediction seems to represent a serious, thoughtful estimate.
"Of course there are large uncertainties in estimates of this kind, but this one is as good as any I've seen," Goodstein told LiveScience.
Some oil companies and consultancy firms such as Cambridge Energy Research Associates have speculated that oil will peak sometime after 2020, but a number of oil geologists and executives predict it will happen much sooner. “
“The Kuwaiti study created its world model for peak oil based on 47 individual models for each major oil-producing nation. It also took a separate look at the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC), which includes nations that control about 35 percent of the world's oil reserves.
More complications may still change the ultimate end date for peak oil. OPEC's latest projection suggests that world oil demand will grow by 900,000 barrels per day in 2010, according to an Associated Press story this week. That follows a period of low oil demand during the height of the worldwide recession in 2009.
For now, Kuwaiti scientists say that the world continues to consume its oil reserves at a rate of about 2.1 percent each year. They plan to continue including new data that can refine the model as time goes by.”
My sincere and strong hope is that the energy bill sponsored by Senators Kerry, Lieberman, and Graham is passed and signed into law.
If peak oil will arrive that soon, we will need every part of each of that bill’s programs to survive the economic hit of Peak Oil.
We will badly need the new renewable energy it proposes.
We will badly need the new electricity produced by nuclear power that it proposes.
And, though I wish it were otherwise, we not only need to include the additional oil drilling in the United States it proposes to get the votes to get the bill passed,
we may well need the oil itself to help stave off disaster for our economy due to the rapid run ups in cost and drop off in supply from sources outside the United States.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)