And the world gets 4mbpd from these guys
Posted by Stuart Staniford on October 27, 2005 - 12:55pm
Topic: Policy/Politics
Tags: gas prices, hubbert peak, iran, oil prices, peak oil [list all tags]
And next door to Iraq, we have this train-wreck waiting to happen:
Addressing a conference in Tehran on Wednesday, entitled "The World Without Zionism", Ahmadinejad said, "To those who doubt, to those who ask is it possible, or those who do not believe, I say accomplishment of a world without America and Israel is both possible and feasible."
To a cheering audience that at several points erupted with chants of "death to Israel, death to America, death to England", Ahmadinejad continued, "Once, his eminency Imam [Ruhollah] Khomeini - leader of the 1979 Islamic revolution], stated that the illegal regime of the Pahlavis must go, and it happened. Then he said the Soviet empire would disappear, and it happened. He also said that this evil man Saddam [Hussein] must be punished, and we see that he is under trial in his country. His eminency also said that the occupation regime of Qods [Jerusalem, or Israel] must be wiped off from the map of the world, and with the help of the Almighty, we shall soon experience a world without America and Zionism, notwithstanding those who doubt."
I guess that I have a different perspective having lived there and elsewhere. Stuart calls Iran a "train wreck waiting to happen". I call it the Iranian people exercising their free will and responding to American threats to their sovereignty. It wasn't the Iranians who started this little squabble - we did.
Oh, nevermind.
Knuckleheads. All of 'em.
It looks like the world economy is going to crash. From what? It just depends on what happens first.
Can't be sure of anything already - only sure that the music band will keep playng the same repertoire until the end.
I also think the Iranians are clearly very good at playing chess.
I don't see this as an empty threat. But what can we do about it? It seems we're at the limit of our abilities in Iraq.
I read that some folks in the defense department are saying, "The war in Iraq is over, and Iran won."
Iran is looming dark on our horizon. My fear is that our gov't will be hell bent on a nuclear option for Iran without the availability of troop numbers. We're spread very thin. Hold on tight, this rides gonna be bumpy.
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.
Remind me again how we're going to get oil down to $15 a barrel?
And $15 a barrel is insane. I suspect we'll see $15 a gallon before that ever happens...
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.
Do you have reliable estimates about wind power EROEI?
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.
Mind that even in Germany now they are reevaluating nuclear because renewables are just not possible to scale up that fast.
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.
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.
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".
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...
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...
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
Not so broadly covered is the coming Iranian oil bourse, its valuation of crude in euros and a big "up yours" to the greedy, overconsumptive american public.
If anyone can give good reason why the neocon army isn't planning a sandy vacation in sunny Iran, I'd love to hear it. I'd like to call this mission "Operation Supply Destruction"
G.W. is already rehearsing the war speech, he just can't seem to get past that dang word "nuc-u-ler"
Both sides know it and just play this macho game to get support for covert actions against each other. Cold War on a smaller scale.
To me, it seemed more of a statement about the shaky foundation upon which the US sits and a prediction that that foundation would soon begin to crumble. He might have a point (especially when the Iranian oil bourse is taken into account).
Ignore the rhetoric on both sides and focus on the deeds.