<When they said that Matt Simmons had connections . . . . . The Oil Drum Midweek Open Thread>

62 comments on And the world gets 4mbpd from these guys

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

| Show without comments | PDF version

tom deplume on October 27, 2005 - 4:34pm Permalink | Subthread | Comments top
After reading about the decayed oil infrastructure in Iraq (or Irak to those in Turkey) the following questions came to mind: Do the Gulf countries have any steel mills? Can they manufacture any pipes? Do they have any heavy duty truck factories? Can they manufacture pumps, valves, or the associated electronics? I've heard that not a single citizen of any of those countries knows how to manufacture light bulbs. They have spent the last 30-50 years handing out doctorates in Islamic Studies which make up 75% of all Phds in Saudiland. We have the resources to manufacture our (meaning the industrialized nations) way out of the need for petroleum. They don't.
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Engineer-Poet on October 27, 2005 - 5:08pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Exactly.  The USA uses about 40 quads of petroleum products every year, 43% as gasoline and another 21.6% as distillate fuel oil (total 64.7%).  That's roughly equal to our imports.  We have the potential to transfer this to other sources of energy and even skim much of it off other processes via cogeneration.  If we did that, the value of oil would fall.  The cheaper and more efficient our alternatives, the less oil would be worth and the more the price would fall.

The entire Middle East would be a desert again if oil fell to $15/barrel.  The indigenes can't eat it, wear it or build houses out of it, they can only exchange it for things.  If the world decided that oil was more trouble than it was worth, it would be worse than a return to camels; the population in e.g. Saudi Arabia has grown so far beyond sustainability that there would have to be a large exodus or people would starve.

It wouldn't be nice, but it would certainly change their attitude.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Devin on October 27, 2005 - 7:05pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Wait, what? Because our economy is extremely oil-dependent, we'll be able to take the upper hand in this conflict? That's a new one on me.

Remind me again how we're going to get oil down to $15 a barrel?

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Engineer-Poet on October 27, 2005 - 11:29pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Because our economy is extremely oil-dependent, we'll be able to take the upper hand in this conflict?
That's not exactly what I said, and a long way from what I meant.  On the other hand, the low efficiency of use of petroleum in cars and light trucks (less so in large trucks) leaves a lot of low-hanging fruit.
Remind me again how we're going to get oil down to $15 a barrel?
We may not be able to, because other consumers would keep it bid above that price even if our consumption fell to zero.  But a serious decline in oil demand caused by greater efficiency and substitution of other energy sources would limit the price it could command while simultaneously limiting the amount that it was economical to pump.  The damage to the income of the oil dictatorships would be devastating.
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Devin on October 28, 2005 - 6:42pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Efficiency doesn't lead to less consumption. Jevon's Paradox.

And $15 a barrel is insane. I suspect we'll see $15 a gallon before that ever happens...

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Stuart Staniford on October 27, 2005 - 7:15pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Mmm. If the alternatives were competitive with oil at $15/bbl, we'd be doing them already.
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Engineer-Poet on October 27, 2005 - 11:21pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
They might not be now, but the cost of wind, solar and batteries are coming down rapidly.  The cost of oil isn't going to go down very fast even if the expensive oil gets left in the ground.

As for how competitive alternatives are, wind power is currently about 4.5¢/kWh.  If gasoline is 126,000 BTU/gallon and car engines are 20% efficient, each gallon yields about 7.4 kWh at the crankshaft; the equivalent cost of wind power is about 33¢/gallon.  That's a smidge more than the cost of raw crude at $15/bbl, and you're not going to see pollution or carbon taxes on wind.  And wind power is getting cheaper as turbines get better.

All the cost of the alternatives is in the details:  batteries, transmission, DSM, charging connections we don't have yet.  This stuff isn't together yet; we don't have the economies of scale.  But they'll build with time, if we have enough time.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Gloomy on October 28, 2005 - 2:44pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
The usual objection is that to get wind power you must invest a lot of oil, coal, gas and other non-renewables and so will be with the newly needed infrastructure you talked about (which would be the bigger problem I guess). It might turn out that wind power is 4.5c now because the wind turbines were built when oil was 10$ per barrel (and in addition I know that in Germany it is being heavily subsidized).

Do you have reliable estimates about wind power EROEI?

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Engineer-Poet on October 28, 2005 - 4:53pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Do you have reliable estimates about wind power EROEI?
On the order of 40:1 to 80:1.  At least some of those estimates are for 1.5 MW turbines; there is now a 5 megawatt turbine in testing in Germany, and some speculate that we won't hit the optimum size until we get to 10 MW.  Each increment in size puts the turbine higher and into stronger, steadier winds; this makes each square meter of disc more productive.

If wind power was an organism that multiplied using the energy it captures, it would double itself itself between 2-4 times per year.  If the average was 2.5 times per year, we would go from 14.2 billion kWh/year in 2004 to 454 billion kWh in 2006 and have all US electric demand met by wind power sometime in early 2008.

US electric demand averages about 450 GW; there is about 1.2 terawatts (2.67 times as much) of potential wind power in the continental US.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Gloomy on October 29, 2005 - 1:20pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
For the sake of discussion - we will also need something to level the power up like hydrogen electrolysis/fuel cell facilities or (preferably for me) enormous flyweight systems. Consider the capital cost of building the wind farms plus building the electrical highway system plus the energy storage system and we get to why we don't do that (and unfortunately probably will not until we've burnt almost all fossil).
Mind that even in Germany now they are reevaluating nuclear because renewables are just not possible to scale up that fast.
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Engineer-Poet on October 29, 2005 - 1:54pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Wind power works best with good DSM, which means loads which can be adjusted in real time.  Here's a short list off the top of my head:
  • Electric water heaters.
  • Chargers for GO-HEV or electric cars.
  • Ice-storage air conditioners.
  • Zinc regeneration (by electrolysis) for zinc-air fuel cells.
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Gloomy on October 30, 2005 - 10:26pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
That sound more complex than neccessary and I'm not even sure it would work. There would have to be a central system that controls both the production and the loads and makes sure they match. And it also leaves open the question what happens if the automous loads exceed the current production plus the potential stored power.

Another question - is 1.2 TW the net capacity or the installed capacity of the wind power potential in US? Wind turbines typically utilise on average 15-20% of their installed power.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Engineer-Poet on October 31, 2005 - 2:03am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
There would have to be a central system that controls both the production and the loads and makes sure they match.
There's already a central system which controls production (has to be); adjusting loads instead of generation would be even faster, and probably have a much lower cost.  Check the white papers at acpropulsion.com for some results of experiments on this.
And it also leaves open the question what happens if the automous loads exceed the current production plus the potential stored power.
I have no idea what that's supposed to mean.
is 1.2 TW the net capacity or the installed capacity of the wind power potential in US?
Or that.  1.2 TW is the potential (average) capacity; typical capacity factor for a wind turbine in a good area is about 0.3, so peak would be about 4 TW if it was all cranking at once (very unlikely).
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Gloomy on October 31, 2005 - 11:52am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
"And it also leaves open the question what happens if the autonomous loads exceed the current production plus the potential stored power."

Meaning you can not control all the loads everywhere - e.g. you can not start/stop factories, hospitals, schools etc. on request. Imagine a hot sunny week during summer, most of US area is within an anticyclone (low winds) - how long will it hold? From what I've read even Denmark now is realizing the necessity to include the wind power generation within a larger grid.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Engineer-Poet on October 31, 2005 - 3:28pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Meaning you can not control all the loads everywhere - e.g. you can not start/stop factories, hospitals, schools etc. on request.
When did you ever need to?  (A great many loads inside factories, schools and hospitals can be modulated, or modified to provide the desired service while throttling power demand per the needs of the utility; the facility reaps benefits as a better price on power).
Imagine a hot sunny week during summer, most of US area is within an anticyclone (low winds) - how long will it hold?
Now imagine every house sitting on ten or more tons of ice in an insulated tank, frozen when wind power was available.  A/C power demand can be trimmed down to fans and pumps without affecting climate control.  The equipment is paid for by buying power when the wind is blowing strong and it's cheap.
From what I've read even Denmark now is realizing the necessity to include the wind power generation within a larger grid.
That's so obvious it goes without saying.  It still doesn't explain why people would ignore great, big, juicy opportunities for cost-savings via DSM.
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
plasticgolem on October 28, 2005 - 6:34am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
"I've heard that not a single citizen of any of those countries knows how to manufacture light bulbs."

That source would need to be checked. Iran now has its first self-bult satellite in space. If they can build medium-range ballistic missiles, their own fighter jets (which are although decades-old technology), guided weapons, and supposedly nuclear weapons I guess they will be able to build a light bulb - or take care of oil infrastructure at 1970s level which is what they are mostly still using. Iran also manufactures cars (and will start building for Mercedes soon).
The notion that all people in Gulf Countries only do "Islamic Studies" is quaint but untrue, Iran  has focused heavily on engineering and that is precisely one of the reasons why they are seen as "dangerous".

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
TI on October 28, 2005 - 7:31am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
That's right. Iran is an industrializing country. It is the only ME country that has some coal, too. They have an ambitious 5 year development plan. They really need the nuclear power - they don't like to produce electricity with oil - neither does the US.

Iraq was fairly industrialized before the war and the Baath government policy was to use more of the oil as a raw material for petrochemical industry, use natural gas for making fertilizers etc. Even Saudi-Arabia has far-reaching plans to make the country a petrochemical hub. Nobody really wants to be only a crude exporter. But this may be a problem for those who only want to by unrefined crude.

Industrializing means increasing the domestic fuel consumption so less will be left for exports. Think about Nigeria: the population is over 100 million and they should use all of their oil themselves. The population of OPEC is about 550 million. If they used as much oil per capita as the US they would use all they produce...  

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
plasticgolem on October 28, 2005 - 3:00pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Well yes, increasing consumption in industrializing producer countries is definitely a factor. not so long ago China and Indonesia did not need to import oil. Iran is already consuming something like 1.5 mbpd of 4+mbpd and has enjoyed robust economic growth around 4-5% for some time. If Iranian oil production does not increase vastly this meanstheir own consumption is going to cut ever more rapidly into the export fraction.
Unless of course, some event should occur that removes the industry in Iran, but keeps the oil production (which is mostly sitting in Khuzestan, right next to iraq, and a site of some ethnic unrest) intact.
Like a bombing campaign against Iranian infrastructure that is alleged to be used for WMD development, then extending to all infrastructure that keeps the regime afloat,  and  accompanied by a seizure of Khuzestan province by foreign forces. Not that anyone could be planning such a heinous crime...
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
TI on October 28, 2005 - 4:30pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
You are right to the point, Plastic. That's why the Iranians need nuclear power. They need to have some crude left to export to earn currency and they need economic development. The US itself is an example of a country shifting from exporting oil to importing it.
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Ilan on October 30, 2005 - 7:31am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
"They really need the nuclear power - they don't like to produce electricity with oil - neither does the US."

Really?
I thought that Iran also possessed huge natural gas reserves.

Would it not make sense to utilize as much natural gas as possible for domestic use (i.e. electricity generation and manufacturing) before even considering the nuclear option?

I understand that a similar program is occuring within Saudi Arabia, to replace as much domestic oil consumption with natural gas to maximize export earnings.

Also, wouldn't the development of nuclear power be far more costly and can only produce electricity, whereas natural gas  is far more useful in the way it can be utilized?

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Gloomy on October 30, 2005 - 10:07pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
The most effective use of NG is for heating.
If I can propose to let a different view - if I am producer of oil and NG and see that BOTH of them will be scarce (and very profitable along the way) in the near future, I would also consider every alternative, and the best one available is nuclear. I think that it is cinism that the only country that has used nuclear weapons ever accuses much weaker countries without any proof.
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Vintermann on October 31, 2005 - 5:29am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
When it comes to nuclear weapons, it doesn't really matter which part is the weak one. I'd trust the Iranian government as far as I could throw it.
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Gloomy on October 31, 2005 - 11:19am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
This type of thinking reminds me of the good ol' days when everyone in my country lost sleep because of the "American threat" and how USA supposedly intended to use nuclear weapons against us. Now you could laugh at it but it was quite real.

The truth about nuclear weapons is that if any country is crazy enough to decide to use them it could as well blow up a dirty radioactive bomb on its territory and just wait for the whole world to become depopulated.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
TI on October 31, 2005 - 4:39am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Iran has recently made agreements to develop its natural gas resources for exports to China, India and elsewhere. Europe and the US are also very interested.

And check EIA: "Currently, natural gas accounts for nearly half of Iran's total energy consumption, and the government plans billions of dollars worth of further investment in coming years to increase this share." Yes, they are using NG.

Iranian oil production cannot increase significantly in the future and domestic oil consumption is growing. They need NG for maintaining exports income in the longer run. That is why nuclear energy is important.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Gloomy on October 31, 2005 - 12:09pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
I'd like to note here that developing countries like Iran, China, India are the first that jump on the nuclear train and the first who will benefit from it in the energy scarce future.

We have become so short-sighted and conservative during our years of prosperity and this will cost us a lot - including the world dominance.

A quote form Wikipedia:
By 2050, China plans to deploy as much as 300 gigawatts of reactors. If PBMRs are successful, there may be a substantial number of reactors deployed. This may be the largest planned nuclear power deployment in history.

By 2050 there will be no oil neither NG even according to the most optimistic projections. Some people are capable of looking ahead.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
wkwillis on October 30, 2005 - 4:21am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
I wonder if the people of Iraq know as little about us as we know about them? They probably believe we still live in log cabins and fight red indians while ambushing the redcoats.
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
TI on October 30, 2005 - 4:44am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
No, the Iraqis are fed with the American TV. Many university professors have had advanced studies in Europe, usually in Britain. Iraq was not a closed society before the war. It was not a socialist country like Soviet Union or something.
Comments can no longer be added to this story.

62 comments on And the world gets 4mbpd from these guys

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

| Show without comments | PDF version