that would be 0.2% actually

In addition to this number being insignificant, Asebius' asertion is almost certainly incorrect given their was a discussion about the previous "new peak" in which it was determined the C+C included production for tar sands.

Why would that have magically changed? If it has, let us know.

Cheers

Nigeria and Iraq have not fully developed their oil fields.

It appears that with recent offshore discoveries in Ghana that they may have multi-billion barrel potential. More oil fields were being discovered in Angola. Namibia has not been fully explored.

Canada has hundreds of years worth of reserves at current rates of production.

Venezuela has a vast heavy oil frontier and large conventional natural gas reserves near the Trinidad border.

In time more nations will enter the decline phase and the declines will eventually show up as declining world production in spite of new frontier oil deposits and increasing production elsewhere.

There are challenges for peoples with limited resources to limit their birth rates and increase productivity in order for all things to become possible.

I am aware of the Export Land Model. Oil exporting nations were experiencing rising family incomes and more cars were being purchased taking away from a nation's ability to export oil. That was known before the ELM model was published. Lowering of exports available for sea transport has contributed to the rise in oil prices. There is also a problem with some nations subsidizing gas prices as with Venezuela, Iran, and Saudi Arabia. The consumers were not encouraged to reduce gasoline consumption as gas prices remained the same. In China there was a price cap on gasoline. The last I read it was only about $2.90 a gallon. The Chinese were able to afford more gasoline consumption with their rising incomes. Canada has a five billion dollar trade surplus compared to the United States' massive trade deficits. Part of the reason was attributed to the fact that Canada exported oil and natural gas.

Rising oil prices may cause fuel conservation measures in homes and industry.

Hundreds of acres of soybean fields production (biodiesel) might be needed to displace a one barrel/day oil flow. There is not enough energy in biomass. Ethanol production should not be subsidized or mandatory, and only allowed when the price of ethanol is lower than the price of gasoline with realization that ethanol only gets 80% of the fuel efficiency of gasoline and it was rusting gas tanks. The EROIE of ethanol was very low according to a Cornell study so as to make it a culprit in consuming excessive natural gas, diesel burned in farm tractors, and natural gas based nitrogen fertilizer. Fertilizer prices have increased at a double digit rate.

More hydroelectric projects in Alaska might support electric based industry there. Nitrogen fertilizer may be made from electricity although natural gas is currently being used in most cases. Some of the first aluminum production in the world was produced near the Niagra Falls hydroelectric facilities. In lieu of large scale nuclear or hydroelectric power generation projects the price of electricity might rise as coal demand was rising with mine, rail, and port facilities limited.

Geology is the proximate cause of most (though admittedly not all) "above ground factors." See "Geopolitical Feedback Loops in Resource and Oil Depletion"

Ron;
You might have seen some numbers on this.. Is anyone following how much oil (gas/diesel) is being used now and historically in the production of oil? IE, just a direct 'net energy' evaluation? I see ref's by Rapier and others on the onetime 100:1 Eroei, and the presumed ~7-10:1 of today, etc.. but I wondered if there is an actual 'Barrels used' count somewhere?

I would suppose this is going to be as challenging a figure to chase down as any detailed production numbers from KSA, but I thought I'd ask. I'd think it would be a very good way to show Non-industry folk one of the clear trends in Petroleum production. Particularly in 'other liquids'.. but even in crude prod.

Thanks,
Bob

I personally believe most of the peaking and high prices we've seen are from political issues, but the net result is the same regardless. Iraq has been stuck ~2 mbpd, even though it can produce many times that, but it doensn't matter what the theoretical production capacity is for a country if your drills and pipelines are blowing up as fast as you can replace them.

The countries (I'll likely forget some) are Russia (kicking out foreign oil companies), Mexico (debating whether they will work with foreign companies), Nigeria (piplines keep getting blown up/worker kidnapped), Iraq (see Nigeria), and Venezuala (limited investment, kicked out foreign companies). All could produce more if they wanted to, but it's really only Mexico where there are reasonable prospects where this could change, and even then very little, so geology is for a great extent irrelant in these countries, all of whom have significant reserves.

I'm afraid that your analysis fails the quick "smell" test.

Either take a deeper breath, or read the fine print. The PV was based on just PV area, and based on actual cells from GE. The solar thermal was based on total land area for a plant, based on an actual plant.

Better luck next time...

If you read past the first paragraph, you would have seen the basis of each calculation - and the fact that they were not equivalent.

E. Swanson

Aside from some of the other assumptions above, I would have to recommend a longer sniff towards PV angles of incidence, which are not as sensitive as you have predicted. According to this chart (PDF, page 12 >> http://www.greenwatts.com/Docs/HardwareBuydownAgreement.pdf ) and other presentations I've attended, PV modules are not nearly as dependent on being perpendicular to the Sun as is often thought.

According to the linked graph, a panel is still generating some 90% of it's nominal output when it is 50 degrees off angle (east/west) to the Sun.

I don't see how you've presumed to knock down his points with this sniffing..

Bob

Non-OPEC has been on a plateau for four years and is showing signs of weakening. The current spike is an OPEC spike pure and simple.

The current "spike" is simply OPEC going back to their pre-quota-cuts production level of late 2005. Check the EIA's data and see for yourself.

Regardless of whether you look at oil supply or fixate on C+C, OPEC supply was lower in 2007 than 2006 than 2005, and non-OPEC supply was higher each year. Dec-Feb08 has reversed that OPEC slide but not the non-OPEC gain, leading to a situation where the difference between current production levels and those in the second half of 2005 are 2/3 due to growth in non-OPEC supply.

That doesn't mean the situation will continue, of course; I'm just pointing out that the OPEC "spike" is nothing more than them restoring production levels, meaning the recent plateau was, to some extent, due to an OPEC spike downwards.

That being said, non-OPEC growth has clearly slowed. Its monthly supply data from Jan05 to Feb08 shows average annual growth of 0.25MB/d (best linear fit), or about 0.5%, which is pretty weak growth.

But Robert, if you would recall, I kept harping on BATTERIES! You ignore batteries!

That's because it would be stupid to use them to store solar. Pumped storage is a much more economical and mature solution.

Harping on about batteries is pointless, at least for bulk power storage.

Robert, average C+C production for 2008 could very easily prove to be lower than 2005.

"Could very easily prove to be lower" is quite a move from your previous position, which I think boiled down to "No way in Hell."

I read your article on Ssolar power replacing gasoline. Really Robert, don't you think it was rather skimpy? You calculated that it would take over 3 million acres of solar panels.... Well hell. No problem, just manufactur 3 million acres of solar panels. That's real easy to SAY. Building them, installing them, servicing them, and the infrastructure would be the main thing.

Ron, do you understand what a thought experiment is? The purpose was to frame the problem. If I had found that the required area is greater than a large fraction of the total area of the U.S. (as is the case if you do the exercise for biofuels), that would have doomed the idea from the start. You had complained that nobody had ever done a calculation like this, and up until I did it I had no idea what kind of electrical capacity we were even talking about. So, it suited my stated purpose, and based on the number of comments and e-mails I have gotten over it, a lot of people found it a useful starting point.

But Robert, if you would recall, I kept harping on BATTERIES! You ignore batteries!

I didn't ignore batteries. I addressed the issue of storage in the essay you say you read. You clearly misunderstand the purpose - stated explicitly - of what I was doing. This wasn't done to prove that we can replace cars with electricity. It was done to get an idea of the scale of such an operation - not to solve the technical problems in one fell swoop. You might as well complain that I didn't come up with a cure for cancer, or solve world hunger. That wasn't the intent.

You say convert it to hydrogen, then burn that hydrogen to generate electricity. Really now! Are you serious?

If you have excess energy of any kind - wind, solar, nuclear - then such a scheme is certainly not out of the realm of discussion for storage. For instance, here's another thought experiment. Assume you have an infinite amount of electricity, but it is available for only a short period of time each day. I presume you will agree that under those parameters the hydrogen scheme is quite workable. In the real world, we don't have infinite electricity, but the sun does give us the potential for a huge amount. Would you rather I just throw up my hands as you have and concede that we are doomed? I prefer to keep trying, but sometimes you give the impression that you would be happy if we all assumed your outlook.

And cost? You completely ignored the cost issue. What would this scheme cost? Can the average Joe afford any of this?

Cost was addressed in a previous essay that was linked to, and I have mentioned it here as well (in fact, I think I mentioned it before in response to you). It is several trillion dollars. Again, I think you need to read the stated purpose of the calculation. It is for understanding those kinds of parameters. You have to understand what you are up against before you can begin to address it.

Well, that was one reason I was saying an electrical fleet is impossible. Thanks for conceding my point.

Ron, you don't concede a point you never disputed, and I have consistently said that liquid fuels would be needed for certain transportation applications. It might be more appropriate to say "Thanks for agreeing with me."

Thanks,

I thought perhaps you had done something with the eia numbers?