The overall theme of this editorial is that Peak Oil would result in boom, at least in the short term, for the Middle East. The editorial would seem to hint at the possibility of curtailing oil production, in order to maximize the life of the reserves and in order to maximize the price per barrel. From the editorial: "Oil prices would soar, challenging economic growth in consumer countries but protecting oil producing countries from the impact of falling revenues (as production falls)."
AME Info fn--Middle East Finance and Economy: Peak-oil theory and its development implications
Denying the idea that Middle East oilfields are getting old and might soon go into decline has become an article of faith in local oil circles. But re-reading the controversial main text of the peak-oil theorists should perhaps be required by regional economic planners.
Saudi Arabia: Saturday, May 27 - 2006
The most controversial book of the decade concerning the Middle East is not to do with religion or terrorism. It is Matthew Simmons book 'Twilight in the Desert: the coming Saudi Oil Shock and the World Economy'.
However, like most controversial tomes its message has been so distorted and taken out of context that important points are overlooked. So what is the thesis that Houston-based investment banker Mr. Simmons propounds?
In a nutshell, he has examined over 200 professional papers covering more than five decades of Saudi oil production and concludes that this great natural resource will not last forever. He can not give a precise date for when oil production will peak but points to numerous examples around the world of major oilfields and a pattern of peaking production followed by decline.
Oil price hike
But in his conclusion Mr. Simmons outlines a likely scenario that would follow such a change in production output. Oil prices would soar, challenging economic growth in consumer countries but protecting oil producing countries from the impact of falling revenues.
He believes that this would provide oil producers will a last chance to diversify their economies. But oil would not run out. Indeed, the higher price would switch the focus of production to smaller fields and make secondary and tertiary extraction programs viable. Gas production would also increase.
Therefore, any notion that the peak oil theory means a financial disaster for the Middle East and an end to energy production is actually refuted in the controversial book that caused all the fuss in the first place. Clearly the main problem of peak-oil would be for the consumer nations faced with a sudden escalation of oil prices and an energy crisis of major proportions.
Data transparency
Mr. Simmons main demand is that oil producer countries publish all of the data available on their oil fields and face up to reality rather than being concerned to maintain a facade that can only make the eventual impact of the decline of oil production that much stronger. Besides, if the opponents of peak-oil are correct then greater transparency of data will support their case, and this controversial theory can be finally dismissed.
If Mr. Simmons is right and there is little additional oil and gas to be found in the Middle East and the present oil and gas fields are in a state of advanced maturity, then the implications for development are profound.
For the rapid transformation to integrated economies with strong service industries within a globalized economy is the only future economic scenario that will support a rapidly growing population base. Fortunately this is the economic policy being pursued by most Middle East countries at the moment but it could be fine tuned if more data was made available about oil production and the outlook.
Data transparency
Mr. Simmons main demand is that oil producer countries publish all of the data available on their oil fields and face up to reality rather than being concerned to maintain a facade that can only make the eventual impact of the decline of oil production that much stronger. Besides, if the opponents of peak-oil are correct then greater transparency of data will support their case, and this controversial theory can be finally dismissed.
Huh? Especially the last sentence. This is logically seriously unsound. Maybe I'm missing something. So somebody will have to explain it to me.
Controversy suggests a second side to the story. What opponent would fall for this bait? An extremely stupid one.
C'mon, hang yourself. Go on. Here's the rope.
For the record, I started re-reading my beautifully underlined, highlighted, and noted copy of 'Twilight.' I'm doing chapter 13 tonight. It is actually much scarier the second time around.
I've got some questions for Mr. Simmons. Can you forward them, Westexas?
Suppose you are an oil exporting country. It't your only serious source of income. Do you want the west to have accurate numbers about the oil that is out there?
Now what is the west going to do with these numbers?
Let's make a list:
Develop alternative energy sources
Increase tax to reduce demand
Sync between main oil users to avoid price bidding wars
Develop fuel efficient technology
Etc, etc.
Now why on earth would you want that?
If I was an oil exporting country I would like the west to be as indecisiveness as possible for as long as possible so I could get the maximum amount of good ol' US $ for my oil. And when it's over, it's over and we all go back home.
To summarize: There is not going to be a reliable data initiative thing.
Yes, yes, yes, but all this is the case ONLY if you are lying about your reserves. If you have plenty of oil, if you have as much oil as the EIA says you have, then you would wish this data to be made public. You would want the world to know that there is nothing to worry about.
The fact that they do not allow transparency tells me that they have something to hide.
I don't think so. Suppose now you have a lot of oil, and the price is 70 US$ because people are scared there isn't enough oil to go around. reliable numbers will only lower the price.
Why would anyone want to trade oil for dollars? It is ridiculous for any oil exporter to maintain a trade surplus where they have to accumulate promises. Dollars can be used a medium of exchange, but oil in the ground is the best savings account. We may have had the ability 30 years ago to make a major impact with alternative energy not anymore. Simmons may want data because info is his business, but I feel this data is practically useless. It's going to be a constant battle riding the depletion curve. It is unlikely we will manage to get ahead of the curve for any long period of time. The oil exporters should be more worried about their internal consumption than exporting false data. Oil exporters have to survive on the difference of thier own depletion curve and their own consumption. There is no doubt oil's relative value will increase. Saudi Arabia will more power to influence prices than ever before.
[...]
The supply of uranium has already reached its peak, in 1981. There are 440 nuclear reactors worldwide,
and the world produces just over half the uranium ore these plants consume each year.
At present, the gap is filled by using the plutonium from dismantled cold war nuclear weapon stockpiles.
But this source is drying up and will end by 2013, so the industry is trying to find and develop new uranium
mines, mainly in Canada, Australia and Kazakhstan. However, those under development will fill only half
the current gap, not to mention new demand from the 28 nuclear plants under construction worldwide,
added to China's plan to build 30 new plants by 2020. As a result, about a quarter of nuclear power plants
could be forced to shut down within a decade because of a lack of fuel.
Developing a uranium mine is expensive and complex since the material is hazardous - it takes about 15
years from discovery to production. Therefore, even if a massive effort were now launched to find and
develop new mines, there will still be an eight-year gap after 2013. China is already scrambling to corner
contracts for uranium ore, and uranium prices have soared by 400% over the past six years.
While the element uranium is commonly available, concentrated uranium ore suitable for energy is limited.
Uranium ore is rock containing uranium mineralisation in concentrations that can be mined economically.
The main argument used by the nuclear industry for downplaying this crisis is that, if necessary, thorium can
be used instead of uranium as reactor fuel, and thorium is abundant. However, the US, Russia, Germany, In
dia, and Japan have all studied thorium reactors for 30 years, yet no commercial thorium reactor has ever
been constructed. Another idea is to reuse uranium in "fast breeder" reactors. This is feasible, but such
reactors are more complex, more costly and more dangerous, which is why the US halted their use in
the 1970s and the UK abandoned the idea in 1994. There is, at present, no serious large-scale attempt to
convert to either thorium or breeder reactors anywhere in the world, making widespread closures of
traditional uranium fuelled reactors within a decade a real possibility.
Meanwhile, as demand rises and supplies fail to keep up, a 10-fold increase in the price of uranium over the
next few years is not impossible.
[...]
The imminent uranium shortage has been admitted by the World Nuclear Association, which provided a
chart of the unfolding crisis on its website in July. But while the nuclear industry is comfortable with
debating the safety of nuclear reactors it will not discuss the uranium supply shortfall.
Philip Dewhurst, chairman of the Nuclear Industry Association, has said it is necessary to examine
replacing those nuclear generators that are due to be closed "whether the uranium supply is plentiful
or not". But, as uranium hoarding begins, a major shortage could arise sooner than 2013...
Re Peak Uranium I'm dubious about the claimed 1981 peak because about that time the Olympic Dam deposit was discovered which near doubled world reserves. I will admit that the industry spin has echoes of peak oil denial http://www.uic.com.au/WNA-UraniumSustainability.pdf
and it guess it will get back to EROEI with low grade reserves. It also looks like fast breeder reactors are not yet reliable. Even if there is just half a century of reserves that could be the lifeline for the world to sort out issues like GW and sustainable population. Several decades of nuclear could provide low CO2 baseload power to underpin irregular sources, hydrogenation of poor quality liquid fuels and electrification of transport (PHEVs, light rail etc). The big mistake would be to exploit uranium thinking something else will replace it. Like I said, it's a lifeline and a one-off.
The greatest potential fuel source is spent reactor fuel. The enrichment is lower than when first inserted, but still much higher than natural uranium. In many cases, take out the fission byproducts (everything below Uranium) and just stick it back in with some new uranium nearby (perhaps enriched a bit higher). Plutonium, Americanium, Neptunium are all fissile.
Not going to happen in US, but I bet China would do it if need be. And offer to take troublesome nuclear waste off of others' hands.
There were a long series of posts on the Energy Resources forum (somewhere between 1-3 years ago) arguing that U could be extracted from the ocean by suspending nets. I don't remember any specifics but I think the nets were supposed to be treated to "attract" the U - but don't hold me to this :-) In any case, the arguement was that there was unlimited U that could be extracted.
Some of the new fast breeder reactors seem to be much safer than earlier designs, and would solve the fuel shortage problem for at least 1000 years. I'm particularly interested in the lead-cooled reactors. Good information page about these new reactor designs:
Actually this "dubious" claim would make some sense -- after a big reserve is discovered, further exploration is shut down (why bother?), so subsequently reserve numbers would "fall" from that high vantage point. This is how "crisis mongers" operate.
WHY NUCLEAR POWER CANNOT BE A MAJOR ENERGY SOURCE
by David Fleming, April 2006
It takes a lot of fossil energy to mine uranium, and then to extract and prepare the right isotope for use in a nuclear reactor. It takes even more fossil energy to build the reactor, and, when its life is over, to decommission it and look after its radioactive waste.
As a result, with current technology, there is only a limited amount of uranium ore in the world that is rich enough to allow more energy to be produced by the whole nuclear process than the process itself consumes. This amount of ore might be enough to supply the world's total current electricity demand for about six years.
Moreover, because of the amount of fossil fuel and fluorine used in the enrichment process, significant quantities of greenhouse gases are released. As a result, nuclear energy is by no means a 'climate-friendly' technology.
One of the most striking points is the profitability and EROEI of conventional nuclear power is dependent on never properly disposing of wastes or decommissioning and disassembling power plants. In light of that, the continuing inaction on a permanent disposal site in the U.S. is a lot more understandable.
There is also an audio recording of the author presenting his thesis. The research that the article is based on is available here.
I keep seeing fluorine mentioned as a limit in a nuclear reactor program. Its not that rare an element, 18th in order of abundance in the earths crust at 0.029% above nickel and way above copper and zinc.
Does any body know if it is recycled after use to make Uranium Hexafluoride for enrichment and if not is there are fundamental reason it could not be?
One of the most striking points is the profitability and EROEI of conventional nuclear power is dependent on never properly disposing of wastes or decommissioning and disassembling power plants. In light of that, the continuing inaction on a permanent disposal site in the U.S. is a lot more understandable.
Our determination to keep Iran from developing nuclear processing also becomes a little more understandable. If we succeed, their uranium stays available to the world market and we might get to purloin the plutonium produced in their reactors and reactors in other nations that might turn to them for reprocessing.
Which leads me to wonder if J.Edgar's real adgenda was to gain for the ruling class all there is to know about the mafia's methods. So that they might apply them on a larger scale.
There are days when I think that Canada made the correct choice to go with heavy-water reactors.
While there are some problems with the aging CANDU reactors, I understand that the newest designs address those problems and have a number of advantages in terms of fuel flexibility.
In addition to achieving a significantly higher total burn-up, it appears they can run on everything from unenriched uranium to MOX to "spent" light-water fuel to properly-seeded thorium.
CANDUs (peonounced "can do") has always been my favorite reactor. Quite safe and no downtime to refuel. And yes, it can run on our waste fuel without any processing (other than getting it to physically fit inside the rods, but CANDUs can be engineering to take waste fuel rods from most reactors directly.
The following exchange is from a stale Greenspan Thread, but I think it is worthy of further discussion. Sorry for loss of formatting.
Engineer Poet on Friday June 09, 2006 at 8:58 PM CST
> I really think that a large scale transition to plug-in hybrids would require a massive investment in new power plant construction.
That's a common thought, and it's wrong. The average electric consumption of the USA is roughly 450 GW, while the average power delivered to the wheels of gasoline-powered vehicles in the USA may well be under 100 GW. Maybe 80 GW of that can be replaced by electricity. A lot of that 80 GW might be obtained by just running existing powerplants at full power instead of turning them down at night.
[ Parent | Reply to This ]
AlanfromBigEasy on Friday June 09, 2006 at 10:00 PM CST
And where will we get the natural gas to run said power plants 24 hours/day instead of just "peaking" them ? Without a major gain in efficiency (see my electrified transportation concepts), we are, at best, delaying a problem for a generation. I am ambilavent about EVs and plug-in hybrids as anything more than a supplemental "solution". Great to have a diesel/hybrid with plug-in plumbers truck, postal van (most postal workers whsould be walking in dense neighborhoods), UPS delivery truck, etc.
Engineer Poet on Saturday June 10, 2006 at 6:14 AM CST
Natural gas is going away, so it'll be coal, solar, wind, nuclear, (micro-)hydro, etc. Using vehicular demand to level the load curve plays to the strengths of coal and nuclear in particular.
If we shift today's demand to electricity over 15 years, we'd need 5.33 GW/year of additional average generation. That could be done with 16 GW of wind at 1/3 capacity factor. We're already installing better than 15% of that, so ramping up to that rate looks quite feasible.
AlanfromBigEasy on Saturday June 10, 2006 at 7:04 AM CST
I suspect that we are going to have a crunch in electricity generation. From memory, 2004 was an extraordinary (record ?) year for new power plant commissioning, and 94.5% was NG or dual fuel (oil or NG).
NG has been the dominant fuel choice for a dozen years for new power plants and a significant factor before that. Unwinding that will be difficult.
Wind has the great advantage of a short lead time, even shorter than NG. Coal is a half dozen years and nuclear a good decade+.
Given that utilities will not "count on" new EV demand until just before (say 1 to 2 years) it appears, they will not build the capacity in advance. (OTOH, if Union Pacific comes to them and says that they are going to electrify the following rail lines on this schedule, and expect this range of freight, they WILL build in advance, if any new plants are needed). Likewise for Urban Rail.
Since NG is the peak fuel almost everywhere in the US, my conclusion is that a majority of EV & plug in Hybrid demand will be meet by additional NG demand for the next 15+ years, in a period of significant NG shortfalls,
EV and plug in Hybrid demand will be so large that it will distort electricity demand and NG demand. OTOH, additional Urban Rail, if we are HIGHLY successful, will double current transportation demand for electricity; 0.19%* of the total. And electrifying our freight railroads may increase electricity demand by slightly over 1% of total US electricity demand.
A side note, wind is justified economically by the NG fuel that it displaces. Not by the coal or uranium that it displaces. But wind is low almost everywhere in summer. NG takes up the slack then. I do not see this changing in 15 years unfortunately. Perhaps twenty or twenty-five as we head deep into post-peak oil.
Given the risks associated with EVs and plug-in hybrids, I see them as a "side" solution. The "not preferred" solution (similar to using more coal for power generation).
A massive building campaign for Urban Rail and electrifying our freight railroads should be pushed HARD and no public subsidies for EVs/plug in hybrids past the earliest days of infancy. They will create another set of problems.
* Urban Rail is SO efficient that 0.19% of US electricity runs the 8,000 subways cars of NYC, PATH, Amtrak's Northeast corridor with all the commuter trains on it, the Long Island Railroad (millions/day), DC Metro, Chicago, Boston, Philadelphia, and every other Urban Rail system in the country.
I think any rail plan leaves gaps for electric vehicles, especially neighborhood electric vehicles (NEVs) to fill.
... actually it is odd to see them in tension. I think you can build US electric rail as fast as possible, and still need something (other than old SUVs) to take up the slack.
I may need one in my advanced years ! And GEMs were showing up in my neighborhood before Katrina.
However, I can see medium range commuting by plug-in hybrids and better battery versions of the EV-1 being the "Next Big Thing" after ethanol. *MASSIVE* gov't subsidies as technology saves the day !
Smaller cars would be a step up in efficiency, and EVs/plug-in hybrids will likely require smaller cars (1st & 2nd generation but not 3rd) and, perhaps a 2:1 gain in efficiency. (GEMs at 24 mph max speed, perhaps 4:1 or 6:1).
Please note that Engineer Poet did not even consider reducing the energy demands of transportation, but just switching the power source.
An analysis done of US cities with large urban rail sysems vs. those with none have shown that the cities with Urban rail use 0.2 gallons per pax-mile of transportation. About 200 gallons/capita/year.
The gasoline savings are not just from modal substitution (people abandon their 5 mpg Hummer+s and take the train) but changes in urban form to more energy efficient living patterns.
I could support some subsidies in their infancy BUT not as the main thrust. Converting our existing living patterns and urban form from gasoline to electric will only delay the issue a generation IMHO.
Better to start on a reworking (carrot of better quality living, stick of oil prices) our urban areas via TOD.
OTOH, farmers going to town will likely need a plug-in hybrid. And plumbers, postal vans, etc.
I am looking not one step ahead, but several steps. Peak Oil is not a single event, but a process that will stretch over decades. Better to start the work towards a sustainable society for 2040 & 2060 today than in 2020. And we can quite possibly have problems in 2015 & 2020 if the only major adaptation we make in the near future is plug-in hybrids & EVs.
A massive switch to commuting via plug-in hybrids & EVs and changing little else will lead us into another trap, IMHO.
An analysis done of US cities with large urban rail sysems vs. those with none have shown that the cities with Urban rail use 0.2 gallons LESS per pax-mile of MASS transportation. About 200 gallons/capita/year SAVED.
I think honestly, when I consider both the possible growth curve (slow), and the forces shaping next-gen product design (they ain't gonna be SUVs), I can answer your statement:
However, I can see medium range commuting by plug-in hybrids and better battery versions of the EV-1 being the "Next Big Thing" after ethanol. MASSIVE gov't subsidies as technology saves the day !
Two hypothetical alternatives (a thought experiment),
Case A: Miami builds out their Urban Rail plans, Denver theirs, Los Angeles builds their "Wish List" (already costed out roughly) of 25 miles of subway and 130 miles of Light rail and goes on from there. Same in city after city. Perhaps $250 billion (2006 dollars) spent in capital investment from 1-2007 to 12-2019. Vehicle fleet responds to market forces as gasoline climbs from $3/gallon to $10 (2006 $) WITHOUT gov't subsidy. Urban development also follows market forces and builds almost exclusively close to Urban Rail
Case B: Urban Rail is built at today's slow pace. BUT the gov't gives MASSIVE subsidies to buy plug-in hybrids & EVs. Perhaps $250 billion in all. Urban development follows market forces as gasoline rises from $3 to $10/gallon (2006 $).
I submit that Case A would not just use less, but MUCH less oil and natural gas before 2020 and that this difference would grow in 2025, 2030. The cars "bought" with gov't subsidies will wear out in 15 years. The Urban rail vehicles in 30 years and the rest (tracks, stations, etc.) a century or more.
There are no technological risks with Case A, there are with Case B. Auto fatalities & injuries would be higher with Case B.
I would add in all this that urban real estate companies and large urban employers should be advocating for urban rail improvement to sustain their futures.
Add to Case A government mandated fuel economy standards MUCH higer than what we have now. This does not cost the government much, but will move things along more quickly than the invisibe hand (which is presently engaged elsewhere over at the trough of public money).
Keep trying Alan, but don't forget that the automobile is the reason why we exist. It's why we work, it's the object of our dreams, it's expression of our social status. We've built our entire society around it, and we already threw away those train things once in order to acheive it.
It's so damn frustrating, we could be doing this now!
Thailand to build three new light rail lines in capital city 06/06/2006 22:13:55
Thailand has approved a $US 4.4 billion project to build three new light rail lines in Bangkok, with bidding expected to begin at the end of the month.
A government spokesman says the government believes the projects are critical to Thailand's economic development in terms of investment and competitiveness.
Bangkok already has three light rail lines.
The expansion is the first step in Thai Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra's $US 44 billion dollar scheme to improve highways and public transport around the country.
Economists believe the scheme is essential to improving Thailand's competitiveness and boosting foreign investment.
ABC Asia Pacific TV / Radio Australia
Please note: Their idea of "Light Rail" is closer to "Metro" or "subway" than to our idea of Light Rail. A matter of nomenclature.
Actually yhe three new announced lines are an extension of the existing lines. In the last 6 years Thailand has implemented two overhead light rail lines (a single project) and an extensive single line subway.
From a ridership and quality of life standpoint, they have been a fantastic boost for the city. I haven't looked caefully enough at the number to know how the fare economically.
The automobile is not only 'the reason why we exist,' it is the reason that thousands are dying every month for that existence, making it the object of someone else's nightmares. Better them than us, right?
'It's expression of our social status' - if you pay any attention to that idea. Two wheels better than four, as some of us might say. (And for those who like to point out the dangers - I never have to worry about being burned alive trapped in a metal cage while riding.)
'We've built our entire society around it' - and you all likely get to watch what you built coming down around you. Let's just say the trend lines in terms of liquid fossil fuels are not encouraging for those thinking in such long time spans as a decade or two. And remember, 20 years is considered the thinktank minimum for a lucky crash priority program, with lots of pain and problems - and guess whose primate's face is the poster child in charge of getting it up and running until his replacement (well, maybe we can ask Dick to be in charge of finding that replacement, hmmm?) sometime in later January, 2008.
Case B does even less. Which was the point of the hypothectical. Not as a complete "solution".
If Robert Rapier is right, then maybe, just maybe an enhanced Case A (add electrified railroads, much higher CAFE standards, electric trolley buses. easier bicycling, plus somewhat higher gas taxes phased in) will do all that is needed for the next 20 years. (Assuming a less than robust economy).
If Westexas is right; OOPS !
MUCH higher gas taxes (mostly rebated)! Massive wind turbine program to reduce power plant demand for NG, then using compressed NG for fleet use (some private cars as well perhaps). EVs and plug-in hybrids should sell well w/o subsidy. And, if we are lucky, just a severe recession (10% to 12% unemployment really saves energy ! 22% even more !)
That is, if we start with the new Congress in January 2007 for either RR or Westexas scenario !
We know that industry and government are lining up on ethanol.
In face of that,
However, I can see medium range commuting by plug-in hybrids and better battery versions of the EV-1 being the "Next Big Thing" after ethanol. MASSIVE gov't subsidies as technology saves the day !
you are suggesting that the danger is not that ethanol pattern itself, but that one potential silver bb (electric cars) might (hypothetically and in the future) win mindshare over another silver bb (electric trains) ... seems kind of out there.
And now we are reduced to further hypothetical, when ethanol SUVs are gone, and every city in America is planning "Case A" or "Case B" in rail transit.
That seems further out there. I think, to rein this back to the practical and the here and now, that train advocates (more power to them) can push as hard as they can everywhere, and we will still see cars on the streets and roads of America.
If those cars are electrics and not ethanol SUVs ... as I said before "we should be so lucky."
I've read umpteen posts/threads about tax and rebate schemes. And, this seems as good a place as any to address a basic question I have.
Why does anyone think this will work? It's as though the people who propose this believe that people won't realize they will get most of the money back at some point. Now, if this "rebate" was going to come years down the road, perhaps. But, as I read it, ancillary taxes will be reduced so that their take-home pay goes up and this, mostly, covers the added taxes. How is this going to change behaviour?
The overall theme of this editorial is that Peak Oil would result in boom, at least in the short term, for the Middle East. The editorial would seem to hint at the possibility of curtailing oil production, in order to maximize the life of the reserves and in order to maximize the price per barrel. From the editorial: "Oil prices would soar, challenging economic growth in consumer countries but protecting oil producing countries from the impact of falling revenues (as production falls)."
http://www.ameinfo.com/87093.html
AME Info fn--Middle East Finance and Economy:
Peak-oil theory and its development implications
Denying the idea that Middle East oilfields are getting old and might soon go into decline has become an article of faith in local oil circles. But re-reading the controversial main text of the peak-oil theorists should perhaps be required by regional economic planners.
Saudi Arabia: Saturday, May 27 - 2006
The most controversial book of the decade concerning the Middle East is not to do with religion or terrorism. It is Matthew Simmons book 'Twilight in the Desert: the coming Saudi Oil Shock and the World Economy'.
However, like most controversial tomes its message has been so distorted and taken out of context that important points are overlooked. So what is the thesis that Houston-based investment banker Mr. Simmons propounds?
In a nutshell, he has examined over 200 professional papers covering more than five decades of Saudi oil production and concludes that this great natural resource will not last forever. He can not give a precise date for when oil production will peak but points to numerous examples around the world of major oilfields and a pattern of peaking production followed by decline.
Oil price hike
But in his conclusion Mr. Simmons outlines a likely scenario that would follow such a change in production output. Oil prices would soar, challenging economic growth in consumer countries but protecting oil producing countries from the impact of falling revenues.
He believes that this would provide oil producers will a last chance to diversify their economies. But oil would not run out. Indeed, the higher price would switch the focus of production to smaller fields and make secondary and tertiary extraction programs viable. Gas production would also increase.
Therefore, any notion that the peak oil theory means a financial disaster for the Middle East and an end to energy production is actually refuted in the controversial book that caused all the fuss in the first place. Clearly the main problem of peak-oil would be for the consumer nations faced with a sudden escalation of oil prices and an energy crisis of major proportions.
Data transparency
Mr. Simmons main demand is that oil producer countries publish all of the data available on their oil fields and face up to reality rather than being concerned to maintain a facade that can only make the eventual impact of the decline of oil production that much stronger. Besides, if the opponents of peak-oil are correct then greater transparency of data will support their case, and this controversial theory can be finally dismissed.
If Mr. Simmons is right and there is little additional oil and gas to be found in the Middle East and the present oil and gas fields are in a state of advanced maturity, then the implications for development are profound.
For the rapid transformation to integrated economies with strong service industries within a globalized economy is the only future economic scenario that will support a rapidly growing population base. Fortunately this is the economic policy being pursued by most Middle East countries at the moment but it could be fine tuned if more data was made available about oil production and the outlook.
Huh? Especially the last sentence. This is logically seriously unsound. Maybe I'm missing something. So somebody will have to explain it to me.
Controversy suggests a second side to the story. What opponent would fall for this bait? An extremely stupid one.
C'mon, hang yourself. Go on. Here's the rope.
For the record, I started re-reading my beautifully underlined, highlighted, and noted copy of 'Twilight.' I'm doing chapter 13 tonight. It is actually much scarier the second time around.
I've got some questions for Mr. Simmons. Can you forward them, Westexas?
Just e-mail me, and I can send you his e-mail address, or you can get his mailing address off their website.
Suppose you are an oil exporting country. It't your only serious source of income. Do you want the west to have accurate numbers about the oil that is out there?
Now what is the west going to do with these numbers?
Let's make a list:
- Develop alternative energy sources
- Increase tax to reduce demand
- Sync between main oil users to avoid price bidding wars
- Develop fuel efficient technology
- Etc, etc.
Now why on earth would you want that?If I was an oil exporting country I would like the west to be as indecisiveness as possible for as long as possible so I could get the maximum amount of good ol' US $ for my oil. And when it's over, it's over and we all go back home.
To summarize: There is not going to be a reliable data initiative thing.
The fact that they do not allow transparency tells me that they have something to hide.
Why would you do that?
Peak Uranium
From: On the road to ruin
by Michael Meacher
[...]
The supply of uranium has already reached its peak, in 1981. There are 440 nuclear reactors worldwide,
and the world produces just over half the uranium ore these plants consume each year.
At present, the gap is filled by using the plutonium from dismantled cold war nuclear weapon stockpiles.
But this source is drying up and will end by 2013, so the industry is trying to find and develop new uranium
mines, mainly in Canada, Australia and Kazakhstan. However, those under development will fill only half
the current gap, not to mention new demand from the 28 nuclear plants under construction worldwide,
added to China's plan to build 30 new plants by 2020. As a result, about a quarter of nuclear power plants
could be forced to shut down within a decade because of a lack of fuel.
Developing a uranium mine is expensive and complex since the material is hazardous - it takes about 15
years from discovery to production. Therefore, even if a massive effort were now launched to find and
develop new mines, there will still be an eight-year gap after 2013. China is already scrambling to corner
contracts for uranium ore, and uranium prices have soared by 400% over the past six years.
While the element uranium is commonly available, concentrated uranium ore suitable for energy is limited.
Uranium ore is rock containing uranium mineralisation in concentrations that can be mined economically.
The main argument used by the nuclear industry for downplaying this crisis is that, if necessary, thorium can
be used instead of uranium as reactor fuel, and thorium is abundant. However, the US, Russia, Germany, In
dia, and Japan have all studied thorium reactors for 30 years, yet no commercial thorium reactor has ever
been constructed. Another idea is to reuse uranium in "fast breeder" reactors. This is feasible, but such
reactors are more complex, more costly and more dangerous, which is why the US halted their use in
the 1970s and the UK abandoned the idea in 1994. There is, at present, no serious large-scale attempt to
convert to either thorium or breeder reactors anywhere in the world, making widespread closures of
traditional uranium fuelled reactors within a decade a real possibility.
Meanwhile, as demand rises and supplies fail to keep up, a 10-fold increase in the price of uranium over the
next few years is not impossible.
[...]
The imminent uranium shortage has been admitted by the World Nuclear Association, which provided a
chart of the unfolding crisis on its website in July. But while the nuclear industry is comfortable with
debating the safety of nuclear reactors it will not discuss the uranium supply shortfall.
Philip Dewhurst, chairman of the Nuclear Industry Association, has said it is necessary to examine
replacing those nuclear generators that are due to be closed "whether the uranium supply is plentiful
or not". But, as uranium hoarding begins, a major shortage could arise sooner than 2013...
http://www.epolitix.com/EN/MPWebsites/Michael+Meacher/40303555-df13-4f07-aa3e-467305d89ae5.htm
and (with links to charts)
http://world-nuclear.org/sym/2003/connor.htm
such as demand forecasts from 2003 (probably revised upward since)
http://www.uic.com.au/WNA-UraniumSustainability.pdf
and it guess it will get back to EROEI with low grade reserves. It also looks like fast breeder reactors are not yet reliable. Even if there is just half a century of reserves that could be the lifeline for the world to sort out issues like GW and sustainable population. Several decades of nuclear could provide low CO2 baseload power to underpin irregular sources, hydrogenation of poor quality liquid fuels and electrification of transport (PHEVs, light rail etc). The big mistake would be to exploit uranium thinking something else will replace it. Like I said, it's a lifeline and a one-off.
Not going to happen in US, but I bet China would do it if need be. And offer to take troublesome nuclear waste off of others' hands.
http://www.uic.com.au/nip77.htm
One of the most striking points is the profitability and EROEI of conventional nuclear power is dependent on never properly disposing of wastes or decommissioning and disassembling power plants. In light of that, the continuing inaction on a permanent disposal site in the U.S. is a lot more understandable.
There is also an audio recording of the author presenting his thesis. The research that the article is based on is available here.
Does any body know if it is recycled after use to make Uranium Hexafluoride for enrichment and if not is there are fundamental reason it could not be?
Our determination to keep Iran from developing nuclear processing also becomes a little more understandable. If we succeed, their uranium stays available to the world market and we might get to purloin the plutonium produced in their reactors and reactors in other nations that might turn to them for reprocessing.
Which leads me to wonder if J.Edgar's real adgenda was to gain for the ruling class all there is to know about the mafia's methods. So that they might apply them on a larger scale.
Engineer Poet on Friday June 09, 2006 at 8:58 PM CST
> I really think that a large scale transition to plug-in hybrids would require a massive investment in new power plant construction.
That's a common thought, and it's wrong. The average electric consumption of the USA is roughly 450 GW, while the average power delivered to the wheels of gasoline-powered vehicles in the USA may well be under 100 GW. Maybe 80 GW of that can be replaced by electricity. A lot of that 80 GW might be obtained by just running existing powerplants at full power instead of turning them down at night.
[ Parent | Reply to This ]
AlanfromBigEasy on Friday June 09, 2006 at 10:00 PM CST
And where will we get the natural gas to run said power plants 24 hours/day instead of just "peaking" them ? Without a major gain in efficiency (see my electrified transportation concepts), we are, at best, delaying a problem for a generation. I am ambilavent about EVs and plug-in hybrids as anything more than a supplemental "solution". Great to have a diesel/hybrid with plug-in plumbers truck, postal van (most postal workers whsould be walking in dense neighborhoods), UPS delivery truck, etc.
Engineer Poet on Saturday June 10, 2006 at 6:14 AM CST
Natural gas is going away, so it'll be coal, solar, wind, nuclear, (micro-)hydro, etc. Using vehicular demand to level the load curve plays to the strengths of coal and nuclear in particular.
If we shift today's demand to electricity over 15 years, we'd need 5.33 GW/year of additional average generation. That could be done with 16 GW of wind at 1/3 capacity factor. We're already installing better than 15% of that, so ramping up to that rate looks quite feasible.
AlanfromBigEasy on Saturday June 10, 2006 at 7:04 AM CST
I suspect that we are going to have a crunch in electricity generation. From memory, 2004 was an extraordinary (record ?) year for new power plant commissioning, and 94.5% was NG or dual fuel (oil or NG).
NG has been the dominant fuel choice for a dozen years for new power plants and a significant factor before that. Unwinding that will be difficult.
Wind has the great advantage of a short lead time, even shorter than NG. Coal is a half dozen years and nuclear a good decade+.
Given that utilities will not "count on" new EV demand until just before (say 1 to 2 years) it appears, they will not build the capacity in advance. (OTOH, if Union Pacific comes to them and says that they are going to electrify the following rail lines on this schedule, and expect this range of freight, they WILL build in advance, if any new plants are needed). Likewise for Urban Rail.
Since NG is the peak fuel almost everywhere in the US, my conclusion is that a majority of EV & plug in Hybrid demand will be meet by additional NG demand for the next 15+ years, in a period of significant NG shortfalls,
EV and plug in Hybrid demand will be so large that it will distort electricity demand and NG demand. OTOH, additional Urban Rail, if we are HIGHLY successful, will double current transportation demand for electricity; 0.19%* of the total. And electrifying our freight railroads may increase electricity demand by slightly over 1% of total US electricity demand.
A side note, wind is justified economically by the NG fuel that it displaces. Not by the coal or uranium that it displaces. But wind is low almost everywhere in summer. NG takes up the slack then. I do not see this changing in 15 years unfortunately. Perhaps twenty or twenty-five as we head deep into post-peak oil.
Given the risks associated with EVs and plug-in hybrids, I see them as a "side" solution. The "not preferred" solution (similar to using more coal for power generation).
A massive building campaign for Urban Rail and electrifying our freight railroads should be pushed HARD and no public subsidies for EVs/plug in hybrids past the earliest days of infancy. They will create another set of problems.
* Urban Rail is SO efficient that 0.19% of US electricity runs the 8,000 subways cars of NYC, PATH, Amtrak's Northeast corridor with all the commuter trains on it, the Long Island Railroad (millions/day), DC Metro, Chicago, Boston, Philadelphia, and every other Urban Rail system in the country.
... actually it is odd to see them in tension. I think you can build US electric rail as fast as possible, and still need something (other than old SUVs) to take up the slack.
I have nothing much against "neighborhood EVs" like GEM
http://www.gemcar.com/
I may need one in my advanced years ! And GEMs were showing up in my neighborhood before Katrina.
However, I can see medium range commuting by plug-in hybrids and better battery versions of the EV-1 being the "Next Big Thing" after ethanol. *MASSIVE* gov't subsidies as technology saves the day !
Smaller cars would be a step up in efficiency, and EVs/plug-in hybrids will likely require smaller cars (1st & 2nd generation but not 3rd) and, perhaps a 2:1 gain in efficiency. (GEMs at 24 mph max speed, perhaps 4:1 or 6:1).
Please note that Engineer Poet did not even consider reducing the energy demands of transportation, but just switching the power source.
An analysis done of US cities with large urban rail sysems vs. those with none have shown that the cities with Urban rail use 0.2 gallons per pax-mile of transportation. About 200 gallons/capita/year.
The gasoline savings are not just from modal substitution (people abandon their 5 mpg Hummer+s and take the train) but changes in urban form to more energy efficient living patterns.
I could support some subsidies in their infancy BUT not as the main thrust. Converting our existing living patterns and urban form from gasoline to electric will only delay the issue a generation IMHO.
Better to start on a reworking (carrot of better quality living, stick of oil prices) our urban areas via TOD.
OTOH, farmers going to town will likely need a plug-in hybrid. And plumbers, postal vans, etc.
I am looking not one step ahead, but several steps. Peak Oil is not a single event, but a process that will stretch over decades. Better to start the work towards a sustainable society for 2040 & 2060 today than in 2020. And we can quite possibly have problems in 2015 & 2020 if the only major adaptation we make in the near future is plug-in hybrids & EVs.
A massive switch to commuting via plug-in hybrids & EVs and changing little else will lead us into another trap, IMHO.
An analysis done of US cities with large urban rail sysems vs. those with none have shown that the cities with Urban rail use 0.2 gallons LESS per pax-mile of MASS transportation. About 200 gallons/capita/year SAVED.
with, "we should be so lucky."
Case A: Miami builds out their Urban Rail plans, Denver theirs, Los Angeles builds their "Wish List" (already costed out roughly) of 25 miles of subway and 130 miles of Light rail and goes on from there. Same in city after city. Perhaps $250 billion (2006 dollars) spent in capital investment from 1-2007 to 12-2019. Vehicle fleet responds to market forces as gasoline climbs from $3/gallon to $10 (2006 $) WITHOUT gov't subsidy. Urban development also follows market forces and builds almost exclusively close to Urban Rail
Case B: Urban Rail is built at today's slow pace. BUT the gov't gives MASSIVE subsidies to buy plug-in hybrids & EVs. Perhaps $250 billion in all. Urban development follows market forces as gasoline rises from $3 to $10/gallon (2006 $).
I submit that Case A would not just use less, but MUCH less oil and natural gas before 2020 and that this difference would grow in 2025, 2030. The cars "bought" with gov't subsidies will wear out in 15 years. The Urban rail vehicles in 30 years and the rest (tracks, stations, etc.) a century or more.
There are no technological risks with Case A, there are with Case B. Auto fatalities & injuries would be higher with Case B.
I would add in all this that urban real estate companies and large urban employers should be advocating for urban rail improvement to sustain their futures.
Keep trying Alan, but don't forget that the automobile is the reason why we exist. It's why we work, it's the object of our dreams, it's expression of our social status. We've built our entire society around it, and we already threw away those train things once in order to acheive it.
It's so damn frustrating, we could be doing this now!
Thailand has approved a $US 4.4 billion project to build three new light rail lines in Bangkok, with bidding expected to begin at the end of the month.
A government spokesman says the government believes the projects are critical to Thailand's economic development in terms of investment and competitiveness.
Bangkok already has three light rail lines.
The expansion is the first step in Thai Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra's $US 44 billion dollar scheme to improve highways and public transport around the country.
Economists believe the scheme is essential to improving Thailand's competitiveness and boosting foreign investment.
ABC Asia Pacific TV / Radio Australia
Please note: Their idea of "Light Rail" is closer to "Metro" or "subway" than to our idea of Light Rail. A matter of nomenclature.
From a ridership and quality of life standpoint, they have been a fantastic boost for the city. I haven't looked caefully enough at the number to know how the fare economically.
The automobile is not only 'the reason why we exist,' it is the reason that thousands are dying every month for that existence, making it the object of someone else's nightmares. Better them than us, right?
'It's expression of our social status' - if you pay any attention to that idea. Two wheels better than four, as some of us might say. (And for those who like to point out the dangers - I never have to worry about being burned alive trapped in a metal cage while riding.)
'We've built our entire society around it' - and you all likely get to watch what you built coming down around you. Let's just say the trend lines in terms of liquid fossil fuels are not encouraging for those thinking in such long time spans as a decade or two. And remember, 20 years is considered the thinktank minimum for a lucky crash priority program, with lots of pain and problems - and guess whose primate's face is the poster child in charge of getting it up and running until his replacement (well, maybe we can ask Dick to be in charge of finding that replacement, hmmm?) sometime in later January, 2008.
If Robert Rapier is right, then maybe, just maybe an enhanced Case A (add electrified railroads, much higher CAFE standards, electric trolley buses. easier bicycling, plus somewhat higher gas taxes phased in) will do all that is needed for the next 20 years. (Assuming a less than robust economy).
If Westexas is right; OOPS !
MUCH higher gas taxes (mostly rebated)! Massive wind turbine program to reduce power plant demand for NG, then using compressed NG for fleet use (some private cars as well perhaps). EVs and plug-in hybrids should sell well w/o subsidy. And, if we are lucky, just a severe recession (10% to 12% unemployment really saves energy ! 22% even more !)
That is, if we start with the new Congress in January 2007 for either RR or Westexas scenario !
In face of that,
you are suggesting that the danger is not that ethanol pattern itself, but that one potential silver bb (electric cars) might (hypothetically and in the future) win mindshare over another silver bb (electric trains) ... seems kind of out there.
And now we are reduced to further hypothetical, when ethanol SUVs are gone, and every city in America is planning "Case A" or "Case B" in rail transit.
That seems further out there. I think, to rein this back to the practical and the here and now, that train advocates (more power to them) can push as hard as they can everywhere, and we will still see cars on the streets and roads of America.
If those cars are electrics and not ethanol SUVs ... as I said before "we should be so lucky."
I've read umpteen posts/threads about tax and rebate schemes. And, this seems as good a place as any to address a basic question I have.
Why does anyone think this will work? It's as though the people who propose this believe that people won't realize they will get most of the money back at some point. Now, if this "rebate" was going to come years down the road, perhaps. But, as I read it, ancillary taxes will be reduced so that their take-home pay goes up and this, mostly, covers the added taxes. How is this going to change behaviour?