1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

End of the Age of Oil

Discussion in 'Speaker's Corner' started by LabR@t, Nov 10, 2009.

  1. NeilFawcett

    Capodecina

    Joined: Nov 15, 2003

    Posts: 13,282

    Location: Marlow

    ...and then less impetuous to be careful and look for alternative... and then we're back to square one again...

    We want the transition period off oil to be as long as possible. So ideally we need plenty of supply, but ever harder to get, and ever more expensive to supply. If that trend could slowly play out over 40-50 years... perfect!

    If we get a sudden 'adjustment' over a couple of years, it will be horrid!
     
  2. clv101

    Sgarrista

    Joined: Oct 18, 2002

    Posts: 9,894

    Location: Bristol

    It is ridiculous, it's hype, a bubble. This is all about tight oil - it doesn't flow, the depletion rates are crazy (like 90% within two years). What this means is the extraction rates are primarily a function of the previous couple of year's drilling. Compare this to conventional oil where extraction rates are primarily a function of cumulative drilling to date. There are a finite number of drilling rigs, there's a finite amount of capital (especial when returns are so short lived). The economics of tight/shale oil and gas are looking like a classic bubble, I would not be at all surprised to see US tight/shale oil peak this year for this reason.
     
  3. joeyjojo

    Soldato

    Joined: Dec 2, 2005

    Posts: 5,519

    Location: Herts

    I missed the Sunday Politics the other day, but it looks like Andrew Neil showed his true colours:

    "The climate change policy discussion I wish Andrew Neil would have on BBC"

    Looks like a pretty good blog actually.
     
  4. PlacidCasual

    Soldato

    Joined: May 13, 2003

    Posts: 6,015

    All nice stuff arguing over the number of angels that can tap dance on a pin head, but no one is really asking if we want to follow this policy and explaining the massive costs it entails.

    Much like immigration the bods that make up the civil service and professional political class have decided it is "good" and are pursuing the policy with cursory explanations but are utterly avoiding explaining the cost that must be born.

    This policy is costing jobs and is a brake on the economy, if people are willing to accept that when it is explained to them all well and good, but current practice is to mislead the public into thinking the greed of one part of society is responsible for costs. The damage we are inflicting on our economy may be for nought if significant technical breakthroughs are not made and developing nations don't join us in implementing them.
     
  5. Amp34

    Caporegime

    Joined: Jul 25, 2005

    Posts: 28,710

    Location: Canada

    Not really, what you're actually doing with tight/shale oil and gas (shale gas has the same decline rates) is turning that part of the oil industry into a regular business after the initial proving up of a play/basin. You move from high risk high reward business that is conventional oil and gas to low risk low reward, much like most normal industries (services, manufacturing, grocery shops).
     
  6. StriderX

    Capodecina

    Joined: Mar 18, 2008

    Posts: 21,539

    I wonder what effect the Fracking process large scale will have on the American Climate?

    A climate i might add is in a process of irritation.
     
  7. Amp34

    Caporegime

    Joined: Jul 25, 2005

    Posts: 28,710

    Location: Canada

    Currently the US is the only county to reduce their emissions below the Kyoto commitments, almost entirely due to them using gas rather than coal in their power plants. At least that's what is being suggested, some are suggesting that's actually incorrect, but then they appear to think gasland is a factual programme so...

    The use of gas as part of a varied generating system with large amounts of renewable energy would be ideal IMO, at least until fusion becomes commercial!
     
  8. clv101

    Sgarrista

    Joined: Oct 18, 2002

    Posts: 9,894

    Location: Bristol

    What does this mean? US doesn't have any Kyoto commitments as they never ratified. In any case, their emissions are significantly up on 1990 today. Their proposed target was 6% reduction relative to the 1990 and according to this they are actually up 11% (page 25).

    There are many countries that have reduced below the Kyoto commitments. UK for one (committed -12.5%, actual -19%), also Finland, France, Greece, Norway, Bulgaria, Croatia... basically all of the former Soviet union including Russia.
     
  9. Amp34

    Caporegime

    Joined: Jul 25, 2005

    Posts: 28,710

    Location: Canada

    However they have dropped significantly in the last 5 years.... Mainly due to shale gas.

    Shale gas is not the enemy nor is it infinite, however it can be used in conjunction with renewables to help reduce emissions significantly until a new cleaner tech comes along (for example fusion) or we have better renewable storage solutions.
     
  10. alx

    Soldato

    Joined: Aug 10, 2003

    Posts: 6,003

    Location: Dubai, UAE

    "Dwindling resource" isn't really a great phrase to use in this instance seeing as we've never had so much proven oil/gas reserves.
     
  11. NeilFawcett

    Capodecina

    Joined: Nov 15, 2003

    Posts: 13,282

    Location: Marlow

    a) I'd question that statement if only because some of the proposed reserves are unproven (IMHO) and at best may be difficult (expensive) to extract.
    b) We're also using more and more of it every day, and therefore putting more and more strain on supply, and therefore risking hitting "peak oil". And when we hit that, things could get messy.

    Personally I hope there's plenty of the stuff left, but it slowly and surely gets more and more expensive to supply and therefore more expensive for the consumer. This way we have plenty of time to wean our selves off of it to alternatives.
     
  12. Enigma_exe

    Gangster

    Joined: Nov 18, 2011

    Posts: 108

    Location: England

    It'll be interesting to see how much investment the alternatives will get though, now there's more oil in the US and the current fracking movement.
     
  13. Deus Ex

    Hitman

    Joined: Aug 22, 2013

    Posts: 931

    Location: North East

    Shale, who would have guessed, looks like the carbon fuel economy has a stay of execution...
     
  14. Glaucus

    Man of Honour

    Joined: Mar 11, 2004

    Posts: 76,645

    Anyne with common sense. Doomsayers and half the people in this thread don't think technology is advancing, let alone accelerating which is what is actually happening.
    Solar has allready hit polarity for sunny places and will soon hit polarity for most places. Let alone any off the other renewables, fusion etc.
    Or we could use coal, huge huge supplies.

    Should listen to this. Population is likely to peak at just over 9billion as we get richer women are having less children.

    http://player.fm/series/science-fantastic-with-michio-kaku/energy-population-water-fossil-fuels
     
  15. joeyjojo

    Soldato

    Joined: Dec 2, 2005

    Posts: 5,519

    Location: Herts

  16. altus

    Gangster

    Joined: Oct 17, 2005

    Posts: 397

    Polarity... when its dark or cloudy does that matter?
    When renewables don't need tax payers money they will be maybe worth considering.
    To accuse people here of being luddites is quite frankly ridiculous, extracting energy from the earth is at the cutting edge of technology.

    Fossil fuels will be king for a lot longer than you want them to be.

    "Should listen to this. Population is likely to peak at just over 9billion as we get richer women are having less children."

    Was that supposed to scare people into agreeing with you? :confused:
     
  17. Glaucus

    Man of Honour

    Joined: Mar 11, 2004

    Posts: 76,645

    What, no your meant too listen to it and perhaps consider a different side that you have thought about before. Why on earth would that statement frighten anyone.

    You do know it rid can be balanced, Germany is doing a very good job, with huge amounts of solar and wind and there's huge reserch into national grid storage.
    Solar does not need tax breaks for many parts of the world it has allready reach grid parity.

    Did I say fossil fuels weren't cutting edge? :confused: I don't think so. It's just funny how people think we have hit the peak of fossils fuel technology despite every year deeper weeks, fracking etc. showing the extraction and technology is not staying still.

    Where did I say anything about a time line. All in all a very confusing response.
     
  18. PlacidCasual

    Soldato

    Joined: May 13, 2003

    Posts: 6,015

    Germany is making most of it's conventional plant uneconomic and then buying cheap nuclear electricity off France at night. They have knackered the commercial basis of their own power fleet and have outsourced overnight generation in quite a hypocritical fashion given their own nuclear stance.

    Solar power supply is out of phase with demand and whilst we have no credible mass storage technology it is a burdensome cost that makes energy prices higher than they need be. No-one seems to care about the energy poverty issue in their chase for the most expensive solution to the percieved CO2 issue. We could easily reduce gas and electricity costs by quite some margin if we chose the best engineering solution as opposed to that dictated by misplaced politicians and lobbyists.
     
  19. joeyjojo

    Soldato

    Joined: Dec 2, 2005

    Posts: 5,519

    Location: Herts

    This is where your opinion has crept in, which is at odds with 97-99% of climate scientists. Read some of the guardian blogger I keep mentioning, he's very good.
     
  20. PlacidCasual

    Soldato

    Joined: May 13, 2003

    Posts: 6,015

    You cannot possibly infer solely from that comment whether I am opposed to CO2 reduction or not.

    If I wanted to reduce CO2 it would involve 50-60% nuclear of 2 or 3 designs to supply the necessary flexibility. It would have significant high efficiency gas for load control and 2 or 3 2000 MW high efficiency coal stations with little or no emissions control as strategic reserve running on annualised load factors of 20%. It would include no wind or solar or large scale biomass. The only pseudo biomass would be energy from waste in high efficiency fluidised beds. Apart from the capacity payments for the large coal strategic coal I would imagine long term contracts could provide price stability and use a thermal merit approach to control the balancing requirements.

    That would be an engineers solution instead or the half arsed crap that passes for policy when the lobbyists and politicians have pandered to every ill conceived prejudice.