The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Oil no longer the dressing for the '3,000 mile Caesar salad' > Comments

Oil no longer the dressing for the '3,000 mile Caesar salad' : Comments

By Russ Grayson, published 7/11/2005

Russ Grayson argues small communities need investment and innovation to avoid the impact of declining oil stocks.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. All
We will be in the grip of Oil reliance for the forseeable future.

The technology has already been created for engines fulled using all sorts of renewable sources, water was one. These inventions are quickly snapped up and put to ground until there is a real dire need for change, or there is money to be made (but not at the expense of the oil industry).

We have nothing to worry about. The foundation is already there to build on. It will be an extremely efficient changeover process.
Posted by Realist, Monday, 7 November 2005 11:28:40 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
REALIST (7.11) writes that "The technology has already been created for engines fulled using all sorts of renewable sources... These inventions are quickly snapped up and put to ground".

I have heard this too but have never seen the allegation substantiated and I wonder whether it is true. Perhaps it is in a number of cases, however as a rumour or belief it seems to have persisted down the years. It suggests a conspiracy by economic interests and it would be good to have factual substantiation.
Posted by pacific-edge, Monday, 7 November 2005 11:57:08 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I agree,

I am not bold enough to make claims without solid evidence.

A 'person' invented a water powered engine. That is all he can tell me due to NDA's etc, but he did this in Taiwan and is very, very wealthy now.

No crap. No hear say. You can understand though why we are never going to hear about it. He will not discuss it with anyone, and i bet the purchaser is not going to (3 guesses who it would be, but i do not know this either).

Google it and see the very limited info, but this has happenned and i am sure he would not be the only one. He went to one trade show, that was it, he was snapped up.

That is why we do not need to worry, money being the motivating factor will ensure that products will emerge when profits are down for oil giants and the financial NEED has emerged.
Posted by Realist, Monday, 7 November 2005 12:18:07 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
A localisation trend would be a kind of back swing against globalisation. Apart from reduced energy use in commuting and food distribution, other advantages include water re-use and community care of children and the aged. It also makes smaller targets for terrorists. The problem is whether such communities could generate enough spare cash to buy big ticket items such as new private cars. What is certain is that there won't be enough energy by today's middle class expectations. How big and how fast the change will be is hard to predict.
Posted by Taswegian, Monday, 7 November 2005 12:24:03 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Of course at some point oil production will peak then decline, and that point may be in the next few decades. But the concept of "peak oil" as a critical watershed sounds like more environmental scaremongering than an aid to rational debate. You say that Tim Wintons warns “Decline will follow the peaking of oil extraction.” That's not a warning, by definition anything declines from a peak.

Tim also says that “The economy will not grow if the energy supply does not.” This is nonsense - we live in an increasingly knowledge-intensive economy, where energy is a declining element in production. Look how much growth occurs in electronics and electronic media, with low energy intensity and virtually cost-free distribution in some cases, e.g. via the internet.

By all means, promote local community action. But do it through good information on likely trends and the merits of alternative responses, not through scaremongering. And given the uncertainties in predicting such variables as the success in global oil exploration and the uptake of nuclear power, we should focus on increasing our capacity to respond positively to changing circumstances, whatever they are, than planning around a single (and in this case probably not very well thought-out) scenario.
Posted by Faustino, Monday, 7 November 2005 1:03:02 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
When it comes to "grow you own fuel" such as biodiesel, then I might be a little sceptical, as I have seen the considerable amount of damage that agriculture has done to natural bushland.

The energy that can be used from "fuel" crops would also have to be weighed against the energy consumed in actually producing that fuel.

Crops that can be used to produce fuels such as biodiesel or ethanol will still require land, irrigation water, suitable climate, freedom from pest and disease, fuel to run farm equipment, and also fertilizers.

Nearly all crops require nitrogen fertilizer, but the Harbor process for producing ammonia fetilizer consumes considerable amounts of energy in itself, and it may be more energy efficient to simply run cars on natural gas, rather than biodiesel or ethanol.

If more countries begin to "grow their own" fuels, it could also produce something similar to an oil shortage, (with associated monopolies, price hikes etc) , in that there becomes a fertilizer shortage, as apparently most of the world's supply of certain fertilizers such as phosphate are only available from a few countries at present. see http://www.fertilizer.org/ifa/statistics/indicators/ind_reserves.asp
Posted by Timkins, Monday, 7 November 2005 1:09:00 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I've been trying to find some info on the "oil peak". One extreme seems to be put by energy forecaster Peter Odell in "Why carbon fuels will dominate the 21stC ..." (2004). Odell suggests an oil peak in 2050, a gas peak in 2090. The editor of Energy Bulletin calls this "strangely optimistic." Other commentators seem to think that Odell is over-optimistic and uses flawed assumptions, but tend to stress the complexities and uncertainties in such forecasts rather than attempting a forecast themselves. I can't see anything to support an oil peak as early as 2010 as suggested by Tim Winton.

This reinforces my view that we need to develop our capacity to cope with change - which is the essence of species survival - rather than plan for any particular scenario or one aspect of cahnge.
Posted by Faustino, Monday, 7 November 2005 2:46:59 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Marion King Hubbert, an American petro-geologist predicted in the 1950s that the US would experience "peak oil" in 1970; he was correct to the year. This does not mean that the US ran out of oil then, rather that its own supplies could not meet it own demands, from then on. America's self-sufficiency in oil has been declining ever since - hence its interest in Arctic oil-drilling and (illegal and immoral military intervention) attempts at "stabilizing" the Middle-East (read the Iraq war). The mathematics are difficult and problematical, but the world's "peak oil" will probably be between 2005 and 2015; it is possible and even probable that the recent price rises in fuel were the first warning of the arrival of this phenomenon. There really is a lot out there on the Internet about this - chase it up, and already many books; I've read at least 5. It is not as new an issue as the original article suggests. So guys, get on yer bikes (or catch a bus or a train)!
Posted by Doug, Monday, 7 November 2005 8:01:47 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Faustino,

Are you sure about your estimate of a 2090 peak from Peter Odell ? Even the most optimistic (sometimes called cornucopian) predictions generally put the peak in the 2030-2050 range...

The more pessimistic predictions (from various retired oil geologists, who are the most likely to know what is going on) range from 2005 (Deffeyes), 2010 (Colin Campbell - ASPO - http://www.peakoil.net) and 2015 (Laherrere).

The Hirsch Report (done at SAIC and commissioned by the US Department of Energy) is probably the most authoritative report on the range of estimates and needed actions to mitgate the decline in available oil supplies :

http://www.energybulletin.net/9768.html

Another good one to read is "The Countdown for the Peak of Oil Production has Begun – but what are the Views of the Most Important International Energy Agencies" by Zittel et al :

http://www.energybulletin.net/2544.html
Posted by biggav, Monday, 7 November 2005 8:08:34 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Faustino - also, your statement dismissing the concept that "The economy will not grow if the energy supply does not" might seem to be true intuitively but there isn't any evidence to support it I'm afraid.

The Oil Drum has done a number of posts looking at the relationship in the US between GDP growth and oil consumption (which do support the quoted statement, even though the US is a de-industrialising country that has exported a lot of energy intensive industries) - check out this and the list of links at the bottom of the post :

http://www.theoildrum.com/story/2005/10/24/18124/885
Posted by biggav, Monday, 7 November 2005 8:15:33 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I don't believe its all gloom and doom. Already the first WA farms
have grown their own canola oil and powered all their vehicles with
it, using just a small % of their land. Nitrogen is less of an issue too, if legumes are included in rotations. Perhaps it would help a little if the govt didn't rush out and try to tax these people as their first reaction....

Next we have the potential of oil from algae, using brackish water, which is huge. But investment won't happen until energy prices stay high for a while. Only 6 or so years ago, oil was worth 10$ a barrel. In Australia we also have the potential to use huge natural gas reserves to power vehicles.

I believe that future energy will simply be more diversified then at present. Some oil, some home grown of various sorts, some gas, some coal, some wind, some solar, some more efficient use, etc. etc.

Somebody mentioned farming causing damage to land. Modern farming methods are far superior these days, with no- till etc. On the other hand, if you want to go back to hunter-gathering, city people would simply starve....
Posted by Yabby, Monday, 7 November 2005 9:39:12 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
People, Lets not just concentrate on Oil. A Hydrocarbon economy is more than just the transport uses, but the petrochemical where all the derivatives are produced. Poly ethylene plastic (plastic milk cartoons, glad wrap), Poly Propylene (MCG seats) Vinyl Chlorides etc are all dervided from hydrocarbon streams associated with oil.

There are options around for energy fluids for transport, but plastics are probably not as easily replaced and/or thinking is not taking place on the effects of a shortage or replacement materials.
Posted by The Big Fish, Monday, 7 November 2005 9:50:21 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I don't think people realise that the stated recoverable oil reserves is far from a definitive figure. The Energy Information Administration (an arm of the US Department of Energy that collates information to do with Energy) states that world energy consumption will increase by 54 percent by 2025. The EIA analysis is based on the assumption that the world's oil resource base is substantial and that it will not peak before 2037.

But where do they expect this increase in demand to be supplied from? Obviously it is OPEC - they have approxiamately 75% of the recoverable oil in the world. The problem is though that since August of 2004, OPEC began communicating that its members had little excess pumping capacity.

Not only that, but more importantly OPEC are liars. The EIA and companies like BP, Shell etc all produce reports on oil reserves that show that the member states of OPEC have considerable recoverable oil assets. The latest report from BP states that OPEC members have a combined 891 billion barrels of oil. Unfortunately that figure is vastly overstated. The troubling thing is that that number is treated as fact - this is where the increase in the world's oil supply is going to come from.

In the 1980's OPEC changed their export oil policy to one where the production quota was based upon the respective countries oil assets. This of course encouraged members to overstate their oil supplies so that they could export more. Have a look at this graph: http://img90.imageshack.us/my.php?image=oilreserves4gf.jpg

Does something look a little fishy?

Should we - the global community, just put our faith in a cartel like OPEC when the ramifications are so dire?
Posted by Knightrider, Tuesday, 8 November 2005 2:05:55 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
What Winton and Grayson have neglected to point out is that the "known reserves" of oil have been in the order of 30 years supply for all of the past century. New ones were discovered and known ones became more viable with new technology as old ones were depleted. And, frankly, a spillover crowd at Byron is nothing more than evidence of a large number of people who are still lost in the last "oil shock".

We havn't even tickled the known reserves of shale oil and, local problems aside, these latest energy price rises have turned that once marginal resource into a very profitable one. The price increases also improve the viability of other energy resources like "hot rock" and wood for co-generation.

But it seems anxiety is God or nature's gift to the capable. It preoccupies the minds of the mediocre, leaving them transfixed and inactive, and out of the way of those who might actually solve a problem. It is a metaphor for Byron really, concentrating the idle and the vacuous in a place where they can only distract themselves.
Posted by Perseus, Wednesday, 9 November 2005 4:18:15 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Perseus - there are lots of people besides a few Byron Bay residents talking about the problem of peak oil - including plenty of investment bankers, oil industry people and military analysts. You are right about some people still being stuck in the 1970's oil shock (which was a politically and economically driven one rather than the physical suuply crunch we are now approaching) - unfortunately they are the people in denial about what is happening...

Shale oil is a Chimera - as the old saying from the 70's goes - shale oil is the energy source of the future - and it always will be. Pretty much every shale oil plant ever built has shut down once they realised the difficulties posed by the process (see the Queensland experience for the local example). The only company still trying is Shell - if you do some research into their process you'll find it is less than inspiring as something for the world to rely on.

As for hot rock and the like - sure, these can be handy ways to supplement the electricity supply, but they won't replace liquid fuels...
Posted by biggav, Wednesday, 9 November 2005 9:09:44 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
There is much comment that peak oil is imminent. Which is probably a good thing, if peak oil doesn't get us, climate change will. The best things we can do are consider our alternatives. The only reason we use oil for fuel is because it's transportable. The internal combustion engine, for all its complexity is hopelessly outclassed by most electric engines. How can we transport energy? Let me count the ways; batteries, hydrogen, compressed air, a wound-up spring... There are so many once you start looking, its only because people found a huge market for their oil, that cars became so popular. So lets go back and do it again properly. I'd love to see a car run off compressed air being plugged into a windmill..
Posted by hazel, Wednesday, 9 November 2005 9:18:59 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Correction, Biggav, the shale oil plants closed down with oil at $25-$30 a barrel. And there is nothing like a doubling of price to open new doors to solutions. "Peak oil" discussions are a cliche, taking place every decade or two since 1905.

Check out www.bioenergyaustralia.org.au for the state of play in that field.
Posted by Perseus, Thursday, 10 November 2005 9:46:43 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"The only reason we use oil for fuel is because it's transportable. "

Hazel,

WRONG!!

It's all about big business.

I can remember my Father who worked for Esso and was close to the Managing Director-an American, telling me 45 years ago that Standard Oil USA (Esso) bought patents from people who had invented ways to NOT use oil to power a car, Standard Oil then put these patents in the bottom draw and then simply "forgot" about them.

As a number of comments have already shown that there do exist viable alternatives, it is all about the "money interests" getting behind these proven ways of powering a vehicle. Toyota has already put their money where their mouth is on this issue.
Posted by Pachelbel, Thursday, 10 November 2005 11:33:56 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi all can*you*cope*hereians,
I was at that overflowing meeting.
It was packed with every activist and freak you could imagine.
Yes lefty*overs from the 70s, but freshies from the 90s too.
Thanks Big Gav for sanity.
Can some of you in denial like Faustian and Perseus try reading some years of background from the near perfect Energybulletin.net? And Gavs site? Eternal optimism is not a survival trait.

Please also read thermodynamics theory basics, ERoEI principles. (Energy Returned on Energy Invested)

Then try believing this is all going to continue.
As for the internet being sustainable.
Are you kidding?
The power and plastic comes from from somewhere. The embodied energy is awsome.
Please get real.

Or do you need a REALLY reliable source?
Perhaps now Oprah says its a happening thing its a happening thing.?

Yabby should we grow yabbies in retrofitted suburban swimming pools?
Retrofit SUV (suddenly useless vehicles) for portable 100KVA hospital generators, still mobile on the front wheels?
We have lotsa probs to solve quickly.
coping with rapid change is the biggest.
Solar parabolic tracking Stirling to linear electric alternators have currently 2x efficiency of photovoltaics, and ERoEI of 30+.
Oil has ERoEI of 8 and falling. was 40.
Tar sands and shale are at 1.5....Barely marginal
a 5 metre dish could supply the current greedy lifestyle energy to which we seem addicted. Trouble is it would be local. not greed*grid distributed, and cost about the same as a new SUV...
LOL
teraniafossil.
PS 1kw of sunlight falls per sq.metre
0.71% of this drives wind waves and currents...viz all other sustainables
0.023% is photosynthesised into high energy organic molecules. Piddling.
The energy in 24 hours of sunlight exceeds all the energy in all the oil past and future. Awsome. Our 900mm dish boils a coffee in 180 seconds. Theoretical is 144s, were working on it.
Share you rwisdom
Posted by teraniafossil, Friday, 11 November 2005 8:46:40 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Perseus - Just because shale oil wasn't viable at $30 per barrel of oil doesn't mean it suddenly becomes viable at $60 per barrel (or any other price for that matter).

There are a number of fundamental problems with the shale oil extraction processes - both physical limitations (in terms of available water to process the stuff where it is found and the waste disposal problem afterwards) and the fact that the low EROEI makes it a dubious proposition at best anyway.

Some background for you to ponder :

http://peakenergy.blogspot.com/2005/08/question-of-shale.html
http://www.peakoil.ie/newsletters/677

And as another example of someone who is concerned about Peak Oil - Prince Charles gave a speech on the topic a few days ago - its not just lefties and oil industry scaremongers who want people to recognise this issue:

http://www.energybulletin.net/10671.html
Posted by biggav, Friday, 11 November 2005 6:00:06 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy