 | President Bush Questions Saudi Ability to Raise Oil Supply: The ISEOF/TOD Press Release | The Oil Drum | DrumBeat: January 19, 2008 |  |
User login
Personnel
Editors
Contributors
Peak Oil Primers
Archives
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
- August 2006
- July 2006
- June 2006
- May 2006
- April 2006
- March 2006
Vital Trivia
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.
GAIA Host Collective
I wrote about the Piebalgs reply at the time. The thing that grated was that he didn’t answer the question. Lucas had asked:
“When does the Commission anticipate that peak production will occur?”
“What is its strategy for responding to the challenges posed by peak oil?”.
The reply:
“The Commission is certainly aware of the concerns by certain analysts that the point of oil peak production is likely to occur sooner than suggested.”
“The Commission is thus reflecting on a policy framework which should lead to a sustainable and highly efficient long-term energy profile of the European Union.”
So he didn’t answer the when or the what. What does "sooner than suggested" mean? As Luís points out though, things have changed. The rhetoric is that of reduced fossil fuel reliance - for energy security as much as the more “traditional” climate change justification.
Good to hear that leadership is waking up, in spite of the best efforts of Yergin and Lynch. The real test will be what near term changes in policy will be taken.
And he referred to the problem as security of fossil fuel supply, so that also includes natural gas, though not explicitly addressed in the quotes above.
Interestingly enough, building heat energy is within the grasp of the EU, just requiring a recognition of seasonal borehole energy storage of solar energy, in pronounced overabundance in solar thermal collectors during spring, fall, and especially summer. Indeed, most people with solar hot water heaters don't know what to do with all the excess heat during the summer, so either the valuable energy is bled off through an overtemp valve, or installers put in undersized systems that have inadequate winter performance.
Note that an entire neighborhood is being heated by season solar energy storage in boreholes in Canada near Calgary.
Your link to the Canadian village seems to be corrupted. At least, it does not work on my computer.
Here's the link to the solar heated Canadian village, Drake's Landing.
Col. Drake started this oil thing in Pennsylvania a century and a half ago. Now Drake's Landing using solar heat all winter long, and my efforts...
Best Hopes for the Drakes,
Alan Drake :-)
Storage of solar thermal energy can save a lot of fossil energy over time. A heat pump system could be designed in U.S. homes to store thermal energy during the summer and use that heat during the winter. The heat pump runs more efficiently during the summer and winter saving natural gas and electricity. Using solar thermal collectors, absorption cooling and a fluid source heat pump, most U.S. homes could save a significant amount of money and save a lot of fossil energy every year.
The Drake's Landing solar thermal system would use less energy then the heat pump system for general operation,
Heat pumps still use about 1/4 to 1/6 of the energy to move the energy, but when we reach a point where the grids are extremely expensive, and/or are down more then they are operating, the heat pump system turns into a loss of money, as it would use too much aucillary power to operate.
Or, let's not use ANY external energy to heat and cool. Still have to find a solution for your lights, water and cooking, but that should be simple enough...
http://www.enertia.com/
The problem with these homes? They don't fit into the budget of about 99% of the planet. I do believe people are going to be stealing the concept, though, if the company doesn't make it more readily available.
Brilliant design, all said. My question is whether you can get similar results with logs, natural or hewn?
Cheers
I have heard that argument before, but if your heat store gets down to 80F in February, you do not have much heating without a heat pump. Lots of people live where they have all electric homes and use heat pumps for heating and cooling. The heat pump is more efficient working with 60F fluid than 100F air when cooling. It is also more efficient using 80F fluid for heating than using 30F air. If you have PV panels offsetting the electricity usage, you can do quite well. Solar absorption cooling can take care of a lot of the cooling in many parts of the country and can offset a lot of compression cooling costs during the day. A systems approach needs to provide benefits in more places than Alberta or Phoenix.
We'll know for sure soon but it looks like a 15% of all energy from renewables by 2020 target will be set for the UK.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7195420.stm
I'd love to watch him squirm when someone ask: "So, now that the Commission has had two years to REFLECT on a policy FRAMEWORK, what does the PROFILE look like?"
What should have been asked as a follow-up back then: "Commissioner, I want to believe you are an intelligent person who is capable of this position. Is this your personal or professional view? Because if it is your professional view, I suggest you look for another profession."
No one answers the difficult questions because they are not pressed to do so. What I would give to be an investigative reporter for an independent news agency with big BALLS.
Chris - no doubt you are well aware of the reasons Piebalgs, like practically all politicians, does not speak clearly on PO,
but for the interest of those that aren't, I'd point to the investor confidence issue.
If peak oil supply into EU economies was authoritatively stated as being 5 years hence,
then why would anyone continue investing in the vital major projects that would not pay off in less than ten years under normal conditions,
and may not ever pay off under post-PO conditions of terminal decline ?
And if that investor confidence is so caused to collapse, then the decline has begun earlier than might have been achieved.
Yet in not speaking out plainly, Piebalgs et al fail to achieve the vital preparations for post-peak society.
The dilemma has seriously pointy horns on it.
Regards,
Backstop