 | Wave/Geothermal - Energy Return on Investment (EROI) (Part 6 of 6) | The Oil Drum | DrumBeat: May 15, 2008 |  |
78 comments on Peak Oil Media: Our President on Energy, Kunstler on Glenn Beck last night, and GWB Does Dr. Evil
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
| Show without comments | PDF version
78 comments on Peak Oil Media: Our President on Energy, Kunstler on Glenn Beck last night, and GWB Does Dr. Evil
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
| Show without comments | PDF version
Search The Oil Drum with Google
Support The Oil Drum
Recently on TOD:World
TOD:Campfire
TOD:Europe
- Unique Times -- and the Future
- Peak Gold, Easier to Model than Peak Oil? - Part I
- Carbon Capture and Storage
TOD:Canada
- In this house, we obey the laws of thermodynamics!
- The Round-Up: October 24, 2008
- Compressed Air Energy Storage - How viable is it?
TOD:Australia/NZ
- The Bullroarer - Friday 27th November 2009
- International Energy Agency calls 'Peak' on OECD Oil Demand
- Australian Senate: Peak Oil motion defeated 31:6
TOD:Net Energy
Blogroll
Energy Sites
- The Coming Global Oil Crisis
- Die Off
- Dry Dipstick
- Energy Bulletin
- From the Wilderness
- Life After the Oil Crash
- Peak Oil Crisis
- Peak Oil News and Message Boards
- Powerswitch
- Rigzone
- Matthew Simmons
- Wolf at the Door
Environment & Sustainability Sites
- The Daily Green
- EcoGeek
- Eco Street
- Green Car Congress
- Green Options
- green.alltop.com
- Gristmill
- RealClimate
- Sustainablog
- Treehugger
- WorldChanging
Blogs
- Casaubon's Book
- Cleantech Blog
- Clusterf
k Nation (Jim Kunstler) - The Cost of Energy
- David Strahan
- Early Warning
- The Energy Blog
- European Tribune
- GraphOilology
- Health After Oil
- jeffvail.net
- Mobjectivist
- Peak Energy (Australia)
- Peak Energy (USA)
- R-Squared
- Resource Insights
Finance & Economics Blogs
- The Big Picture
- Calculated Risk
- The Crash Course
- Ecological Economics
- Econbrowser
- Environmental Economics
- Infectious Greed
- The Mess That Greenspan Made
- Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis
Organizations
Peak Oil Primers
Beware email scams!
Beware email scams claiming to be from this site. We do not have any job openings. If anyone contacts you about a job at The Oil Drum, do not reply to them, and definitely do not give them any personal information or send them money. Read more here.
“A third of humanity doesn't want to ride bikes anymore; that has profound geopolitical implications.”
—Anne Korin, the co-director of the Institute for the Analysis of Global Security (May 1, 2005)
User login
Contact
- Content: editors at theoildrum dot com
- Tech support: support at theoildrum dot com
Personnel
- Editors: Nate Hagens, Gail the Actuary, Prof. Goose
- DrumBeat Editor: Leanan
- Contributors: ace, Engineer-Poet, Heading Out, jeffvail, JoulesBurn, Sam Foucher, Robert Rapier
- TOD:Campfire: Glenn, Jason Bradford
- TOD:Europe: Chris Vernon, Euan Mearns, Francois Cellier, Jerome a Paris, Luís de Sousa, Rembrandt, Rune Likvern, Ugo Bardi
- TOD:Canada: benk, Libelle
- TOD:ANZ: Big Gav, Phil Hart, aeldric
- Emeritus: Stuart Staniford
- Technician: Super G
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.
GAIA Host Collective
If you mention peak oil to people, they (primarily men) will frequently say something like "oh, there's plenty of oil, we just have to drill for it" (and they really look to US protected areas as many many Saudi Arabias). And at some point you are gonna get something about needing more refineries since the fact that a US refinery hasn't been built since 1976 really resonates with them (they ignore or are unaware of all the refinery expansion that has taken place). But they not only blame high gas prices on lack of refineries, but also high oil prices. They are usually so emotional that I usually don't point out that by the laws of supply and demand, any lack of refining capacity would lower demand for oil to be refined, and thus lower oil prices, not raise them.
Ah...ah...ah...Steven, you may not have noticed that ahm ah..ah...what they call a lame duck and even when ah...ah...was ah...hawk, I didn't do squat to formulate a comprehensive energy policy. We just ah...ah...need more supply.
Don't you worry though. Once Arlen Specter finishes investigating whether the New England Patriots videotaped football signals, he and the rest of Congress will get to work on a comprehensive energy policy, then solve the Iraq issue, then Social Security, then global warming, then health insurance, then....
Isn't it obvious at this point that Iraq is an energy policy. It goes along with getting more.
Exactly right. Imagine for an instant that Saddam remained in power, with $120/barrel Bush would have no choice but negotiates and make concessions in order for Iraq to increase production! no way!
Ok, so he's a rational "perpetuate the growth paradigm" kind of Dr. Evil-doer...
Come now... We could have repositioned Saddam as a good guy. It would have taken Rush and few pinheads to help, but they could have done it. Maybe Saddam could have pretended to water-board a few Qaeda guys for us or something.
We could have had the oil. The Iranians could have been thoroughly annoyed. The Israelis thoroughly pleased. We could have saved a mountain of bucks...
And GWB would have had the last laugh... since he would have out-Cheneyed Cheney by turning Saddam.
It would have been masterful realpolitik.
But no... we had to do it the hard way.
Maybe you should have been Secretary of State (or VP) 8 years ago and things would have worked out much better. That plan actually makes sense.
Of course, a lot of people who have made rather a lot of money out of the Iraq exercise wouldn't be so well off if it had been done that way, something I've often felt isn't a coincidence...
Rebrand Sadam? Like the Nazi, er, I mean, German Scientists who build our space program? Where's an Edward Bernaise when you need him?
Jon.
George Bush has a "B&B" energy policy:
Bomb Iraq to grab their oil ...
... and when that doesn't work ...
Beg the Saudis, stupid sword dance, etc...
Come on...
Solve Iraq, you solve energy.
Solve energy, and you solve Social Security AND health insurance (Since BOTH depend on an ever growing economy)
Solve energy and you can say screw it to global warming.
(But global warming will solve our Nat Gas problem since we won't have to heat our homes in the winter anymore)
Then, it'll be mining coal for another few hundred years to power our A/C year round... Not to mention power our battery powered cars, tractors and semis...
See, Shrubya Bush got 'er all planned out.
That's why the Crawford Ranch is off grid, self supporting, and well isolated from the rest of us folk... Yeee Haw!
And I read in Portland Magazine (not online) that the Bushes can expect a credit on their electric bill because of the wind turbine installation at Kennebunk estate.
Maine just passed an "Energy Corridor" bill allowing persons (they really mean corporations) to use emminent domain to acquire infrastructure. Perhaps People's Power should take over the windmill and the whole estate from those bastards. Sort of like those palaces in Iraq.
cfm in Gray, ME
The Kennedys will get the same credit in Massachusetts. And Al Gore is selling carbon credits on his mansion. I think he is growing trees in his basement. And how many jets does John Travolta own? I sure get tired of the elites telling me how to live.
why is everyone crying about the gov't? why not start your own damn energy policy? it's not that hard. you can already see that at $125 barrel people are already starting.
exactly John. Personal plans are far more useful for conservation. The governemtn policy is all about how do we increase supply. Western government s are ideologically tied to free market economics so don't expec them to do anything useful. Markets and the profit motive will determine energy policy.
There is plenty of oil: oil from the oil sands in Canada exceeds that of Saudi Arabia; the oil from shale in Wyoming exceeds that of Saudi Arabia. And if that isn't enough, there's more coal in the US than we know what to do with, and yes, you can make gasoline from coal. It's not a question of "is there enough oil?" The question is how much do we want to spend (apparently Congress is happy with $126 oil, since Reid/Pelosi have offered no solution) and whether we have the right policies / programs (right now the environmentalists are running the programs -- which is fine with me, as long as everyone understands the associated costs and quit complaining).
There is plenty of oil:
And plenty of sunlight hits the planet, more in a week than man uses in a year I believe is the stat.
oil from the oil sands the oil from shale
Amazingly a baked potato with butter has more energy than shale.
http://www.energybulletin.net/11779.html
So - what is your point?
The question is one of rate. Production of crude oil from oil sands and oil shale will not ramp up to 74 Mb/d. There is not enough available water to convert them to synthetic crude oil. Because the EROEI is low, probably less than 1 for oil shale, one must have a large energy source to process them. The production of oil shale contaminating the Colorado River ruining a large fraction of the water supply of 5 states is not functional. Synfuel from coal also has difficulty ramping up to the level needed, is not sustainable and pollutes. You do not seem to care if we destroy our habitable environment for the sake of desperately maintaining an unsustainable lifestyle. We need to aim for renewable, sustainable and environmentally friendly to give us the best longterm chance.
Much as I would love for oil shale to save us I have to agree with this assessment.
Given the energy required to process the shale is very high, the energy return is very low.
If we compare the net loss in energy from input source to output source
e.g. renewables or nuke produce electricity to process the oil shale, wasting energy in the process, then transporting the syncrude then refining it then burning it in a gasoline engine I bet we're at a huge energy loss compared to simply putting the electricity directly to use either in electrified rail or running electric vehicles.
A paradigm shift to electric transportation is in order rather than trying to keep the ICE running.
We need TRANSPORT not Internal Combustion Engines.
I'd agree with your preferences, but it does not seem outside of the bounds of possibility that nuclear, or better, microwave technology will in the next few years allow substantial production.
The microwave technology is the method of choice, as it doesn't use and pollute the vast amounts of water other methods do, and uses less energy to extract the oil.
While amicrowave technology might "allow substantial production" the quantity and quality will have to be accounted for. I will be vastly surprised if the volume exceeds 2 million B/D, and that will most likely be heavy oil. With the impact of ELM-theory, in a few years, that will be totally insufficient, even when coupled with our conventional production. Perhaps it will be enough for the government to protect us from terrorists, whereever they might think those terrorists are, but not enough to enable BAU, as we now know it.
Does anyone have any info on the gravity of the oil trapped in the shale?
It's ironic that the cheerleaders for expanded tar/shale production want to add to GHGs that will dry up the sources of water the process is dependent on in the first place.
Rapier says tar sands could be fueled by the very oil they produce in the first place. He means just a portion of course, but the temptation is there to reduce this to its absurd conclusion. The idea of Syncrude existing simply to produce fuel to process more tar to create more fuel to process tar is very Dickensian, in the Philip K Dick sense that is.
Far out: Al Fin Energy: Peak Oil: Meet the Raytheon Oil Shale Microwave
That one passed under my radar, pardon the EM pun. Some links therein and I notice hits on previous TOD articles as well. Author has a dim view of us, too:
You'll get yours, zitfarm!
You can use the 1976 date against them in a debate. If no refineries have been built since 1976, then why hasnt oil been steadily increasing in price since then? Why is there not a good solid correlation between gas prices and refinery spare capacity? It's only been exploding for about 5 years. You have to look at what's been happening over the last 5 years. What is different.
The iraq war.
Massive deficit spending.
Massive increases in the money supply.
Peak oil.
Try to get people to choose from these choices as a cause for high oil prices. They are all closely linked.