<The Oil Drum Meets Philly Regional PlanningThe Oil DrumAntarctic Melting>

150 comments on Friday open thread

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

PaulusP on March 3, 2006 - 11:05am Permalink | Subthread | Comments top
As this is an open thread, and I'm usually asleep when the interesting discussions are typed, I'll rewrite this question posted previously(any responses will not be answered this day):

It is obvious we are at Peak. I'm eager to learn how long the world will be able to maintain the bumpy plateau of peak production? Any suggestions anyone? Stuart?

That's because to me timing is of utmost importance.

Since reading TOD I've been eager to answer Bob Shaw, in Phoenix, Arizona: Individually, yes, people are smarter than yeast. More brains enabling them to alter circumstances. Collectively I'm affraid they are not.

Thanks to you all.

Paulus from Holland

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Luis de Sousa on March 3, 2006 - 12:52pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Hi Paulus. I don't think anyone can answer that, it can only be made by a field-by-field analysis, with data that no one has (at least here at TOD).

But there is something you have to realise, economic impact is felt as soon as demand shots up above suply. So when you're on a plateau you're not coping with demand and prices will rise, like now. The moment production will decline prices will already be higher, they will just climb faster.

My best guess (using that 8% decline for major oil fields) is that during 2007 Saudi Arabi and FSU won't be able to fill the gap to the decline in the rest of the World - and that's it.

If Iran cuts production, or if like prof. Bahktiari says the decline rates are much higher than what we might think a decline will probaly be felt still this year.

And demand is projected to go beyond 87 MBD by the end of the year...

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Luis de Sousa on March 3, 2006 - 12:54pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
By the way, there are more folk from Europe discussing here at TOD (like me), so don't hesitate to post at day time.
0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
jokuhl on March 3, 2006 - 3:26pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
"Bumpy Plateau" - Sounds like a new Oxymoron

I don't pretend to guess at the economics, but here's one thought on renewables. If we're getting both Peak Oil, and Global Climate Change at the same time, then I'd say we ought to prepare for some more great (ie, REALLY great, TOO great) opportunities in wind energy.  Of course, weather events 'might' be heavier, but would almost certainly be less predictable, too.  You'd need equipment that could protect itself during excessive conditions.

There's a Finnish site www.windside.com with a Vertical-Axis windmill that seems to be better suited for really heavy weather..

 The wind crowd seems down on Verticals for their efficiency, but if you get cheaper engineering (lower towers, reduced Gyroscopic stresses) and more durability, the numbers might be better.  Also takes better advantage of smaller winds and quick directional changes, as it doesn't lose time aiming into a new source..

(And did Bush really say Nuclear was a Renewable today?  Maybe it was a replay of an older speech, but I don't know if that is funnier than their calling it 'Clean'.. the fuel-waste that can poison us for more millenia than we've had agriculture)

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
AlanfromBigEasy on March 4, 2006 - 12:35pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
The market started several decades ago with a WIDE variety of models of wind turbines.  The Danish model WT, "3 blade, up wind, horizontal" is the CLEAR economic winner.

IMO, other types of WTs may one day fill certain niches (sites on islands, sites with low wind conditions or gusty, high wind conditions), but if we ever get 50% of our electricity from wind, well over 90% of the WTs will be the Danish model.

Perhaps non-engineering reasons affected the development of the Danish model over all others, but I think that was a minor and not a major force in the evolution of wind turbines.  After all, the other models got LOTS of Gov't R&D put into their approaches, the Danes did not. The market forced the evolution of Danish WTs simply because they worked and the next larger size worked a bit better..

The Danes (and their copies) work today and make money.  The others do not, yet.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Magnus Redin on March 5, 2006 - 10:55am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
A perhaps significant ammount of research into Danish style wind turbines were made in Sweden. After the referendum that decided to abolish nuclear power sometimes in the future after building a lot more of it (not a joke) it was decided to spend a lot of money on energy research since it was part of the debate and the decision. So a few MW size wind turbines were built and research done at a high cost.

Then the Danes found knowledge where it could be found and subsidized building of wind turbines that then grew in the local subsidized competition. Since other countriels also started to subsidize wind power it grew into a large export industry for the Danes.

Subsidizing of wind power started later in Sweden and it was smaller. It now depends of forcing everybody to buy a percentage of "green" power. Myself I do not like it, I bought 100% nuclear power when I got a chance to make a microscopic statement with my power bill, I find this "green" to be as good as the "greens green".

The ammount of money spent on different kinds of energy research in Sweden following the peak ;) in the local nuclear power debate is about the same as the cost of a full scale nuclear reactor. A little of it has yielded practical results that are being used, its very hard to figure out how usefull it has been. The debate and research has probably led to more energy efficient building code, better energy efficiency in some industries and a lot more biomass heating  then would have been strictly short term economical. But I am only guessing based on how I view things.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
RussFag on March 3, 2006 - 9:19pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
>It is obvious we are at Peak.

That is not so obvious. You need at least 4-5 years of flat or declining production to confirm Peak Oil is here.

>how long the world will be able to maintain the bumpy plateau of peak production?

IMO many many many years. The consequences will be 1) permanent process of reallocation of leftover oil resources: less on individual transportation, more on mass transit and chemical production 2) more oil substitutes will come 3)  more technical inventions in auto industry etc. (you name it)
In sum: new stage of technological revolution.

I joked in other thread about removal of Dutch guys to Antarctica after Holland will be drowned. Don't take offence. I like Dutch guys :)  

Andrei, 3500 km to Moscow.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.