Thanks Movingpast for the link.

If man made wind power and solar electicity structures can be described as "zero emission" then so can nuclear. Although I see "zero" as a lazy oversimplification.

They each have their place in Australia's post Labor energy future.

Pete

Curmudgeon,
I agree that the oil debate has moved far past the items mentioned. If there was a peak oil 101 course, all of these concepts would be covered in the first few classes. I guess that is the point, despite this, the AERA does not mention or consider them and I can think of a number of reasons why, none of which paint the Government in a very good light.

1. I assume you are talking about the discoveries off Brazil and some in the Gulf of Mexico. When these are reported in the media, there is much fanfare, but if you look at the raw numbers, compared to the quantities of oil discovered in the 1960s and 1970s, these finds are small fry. The IEA suggests we need four new Saudi Arabia's over the next decade or so to offset depletion/meet rising demand. Iraq might be one of these, but I have seen no forecast that would suggest that Central Asia, Brazil, Angola etc will come anywhere near making up the rest.

2. The IEA has consistently said there has been insufficient investment, not helped by the GFC. However if I was an OPEC nation, who derived the majority of my wealth from oil, I would wan't that oil to last as long as possible so producing it as quickly as possible doesn't make sense. Indeed the King of Saudi Arabia has publicly stated that this is the approach that Saudi Arabia is taking. However there are signs that Ghawar (world's largest oil field) is tiring, such as CO2 injection project and an increased number of wells to maintain production levels. This is a function of depletion not investment.

3. What previous forecasts? By whom

Cameron;
I will read the report with interest.
The failure of the report to consider net energy and other factors
may well be deliberate. It would seem to continue a consistent attitude
of government to the subject. The government never denies the overall
problem, but it just never addresses it. If unavoidable it just
changes the subject.
It also seems to be a bipartisan policy.

Curmudgeon;
OPEC is not that solid a group that they can all decide to slow down
investment. It can be seen in their cheating on each other by ramping
their production above quota. To keep some for their camel riding
grandchildren seems a more likely reason.

The real puzzle is the attitude of not just our government but almost
all governments. The UK in particular is in determined denial,
although there seems to be cracks appearing in the UK public service.

The governments have so much invested in political policy that even
the thought of decline in globalisation will strike terror into their hearts.
Yet, the implication of a decline in oil production and rising price
for bunker oil rings the bell of doom for globalisation.

Anyone really interested in this subject I would suggest the book
written by Jeff Rubin "Your World is About to Get a Whole Lot Smaller".
Search on Utbe for some of his talks on the subject. He is a Canadian economist.

Cameron-Bazz
sorry fellas, I didn't make myself clear before.. the peak oil concept died some time back. There is a good rule of thumb to adopt if you want to know when we are passed the peak. When they start seriously exploiting the shale oil deposits in Queensland, then you'll know cheap oil is running out, but that won't mean the end of oil.
At no point have any of the serious peak oil forecasters ever said that oil would run out. They were talking about the end of easy-lift oil.
As for the pre-salt stuff true they are smaller that the mega fields, although collectively they add up to quite a bit, but that is to miss the point. The point is that these fields are being exploited when they are more expensive than the OPEC fields, because the OPEC countries aren't investing in facilities like they should, for the previously mentioned reasons (yes, that is what they have been doing). And because those fields were not forecast. No-one expected them a few years back.
But while the non-OPEC oil industry has been looking deep under water, the OPEC countries have not bothered to look for new fields at all. It seesm they just don't need to.
So the expensive oil is being exploited and the cheap oil isn't.. wierd but there it is. There may well be price shocks to come, because of this disconnect, but not through any peak oil concept. Time to chuck the concept over and take a good look at the oil industry.
The forecast I'm thinking of in particular is Simmons?? Twilight in the Desert. Often cited by Peak oilers.

I dont understand people who are concerned about both peak oil and climate change. Peak Oil will solve climate change.

A few hundred years ago it looked like the increasing use of horses would result in London being covered by 10 metres of horse manure. I think technologies will adapt to post- fossil fuel conditions.

Ah yes Dig Dog, we will adapt.
The way that science and technology will help is to enable us to breed
up the number of horses we will need quickly enough !

Hirsch said we need 20 years to make an organised transition to a new
energy regime. We would have considerable economic problems with very
high unemployment if we started only 10 years before peak.
If we wait till it happens then we will really be in the manure.

So make sure you have stock of shovels.