The Forum > Article Comments > Cheap and abundant energy is on hand > Comments
Cheap and abundant energy is on hand : Comments
By Matt Ridley, published 9/5/2011Fossil fuel isn't running out. Thanks to new technology an abundant new source is on hand.
- Pages:
-
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Page 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
-
- All
Posted by Geoff of Perth, Monday, 9 May 2011 3:19:54 PM
| |
Natural Gas will be no more than a transition fuel.
The quantities that are available are being looked at through glasses coloured by the level of present demand. Crank it up to replace oil and the supply will be drained rather quickly. AS oil prices rise it will force various industries using oil based fuels to switch to CNG. This will allow those of us using small amounts of petrol and diesel to continue. The cost of outfitting the US service stations and supplying them has been calculated and has found that there is not enough finance available to do the job. With world coal due to peak around 2025 or a bit earlier LNG for electricity generation may preclude its use for widespread vehicle use. I suspect that CNG will only be used by freight transport where absolutely necessary. Perhaps CNG depots will be setup halfway between major cities to supply trucks. However in those circumstances long distance road transport is likely to be banned. In any case if what Matt suggests is to come about then export LNG to China, Japan and the US will have to be banned. Certainly films like Gasland raise very serious questions but may well be surmountable. Posted by Bazz, Monday, 9 May 2011 3:20:59 PM
| |
The report refered to in the article can be found here:
http://www.thegwpf.org/images/stories/gwpf-reports/Shale-Gas_4_May_11.pdf You really should read it all before the knee-jerk decision that Mr Ridley doesn't have a clue. If you work through many of the concerns raised in other posts are addressed eg: * Gas isn't a substitute for oil? Well yes it is or it can be without to much effort and with current technology. *Infastructure would need to be built to get it to market? Well yes and no, but its not the problem the unititiated would believe. * Polluted ground water? No evidence and not really possible. * Burning faucets? Nup, green hype. OK, so the idea that this can be a saviour for industrial society for the next 50-100 yrs(or until the greens learn to love nuclear!!) may be exaggerated. But no one knows. So let's try it and see. There is no harm trying, the environmental effects are minimal and think of all the fun we can have if it turns out to be dud and all those evil capitalists do their dough. And if its not a dud then we can whine about what a pack of rich bastards those evil capitalists are and they should be paying more tax to those who missed the boat. Posted by mhaze, Monday, 9 May 2011 4:37:40 PM
| |
Geoff of Perth
If the IEA wants to rant about peak oil then it is welcome to waste its time that way as any other. All it proves is that the IEA has flipped. Any date picked for peak oil would be highly contentious, and probably wrong, no matter who is making the statement.. in any case, all it really refers to is the peak for easy lift oil. The original peak oil forecasts were never meant to cover alternates, or the deep sea reservoirs, or be used to forecast the end of oil as such. As for trying to put any peak on coal or gas, in the light of recent developments, forget it.. Posted by Curmudgeon, Monday, 9 May 2011 5:02:13 PM
| |
On Line Opinion has been a trail blazer on a number of issues over the years. We were the first mainstream site to open the debate on global warming and not treat skeptics as lunatics. We subsequently started publishing articles on China and India as the future of the world long before the other media were interested.
We've been vindicated on all three. Peak oil is another theme that we have run with. It's been obvious for quite a long time that oil was going to be in short supply at some time around now. Well obvious to us, at least. The IEA and the MSM have only just come on board. But peak oil isn't the same thing as peak fossil fuel. Matt Ridley's article is one that I sought out and which is one that is amongst the most important we have ever published. Until recently I thought that lack of exploitable hydrocarbons would preempt the climate change arguments. What I'm seeing now suggests that I was wrong. But that doesn't mean I am right. I'm hoping that this thread will start to throw up serious evidence on the effects that shale and coal seam gas will have. I'm interested in hard evidence about what this new source of energy will do, and how significant it really is. Posted by GrahamY, Monday, 9 May 2011 7:51:49 PM
| |
Candide
>> " Proved reserves are estimated quantities that analysis of geologic and engineering data demonstrates with reasonable certainty are recoverable under existing economic and operating conditions." << http://www.eia.doe.gov/international/reserves.html Gas reserves are most definitely increasing. Posted by PaulL, Monday, 9 May 2011 7:52:37 PM
|
Oil (energy) is what drives an economy, look at any of the recessions or depressions in the last 50 years and you will see a direct correlation between increasing oil/per barrel prices and recession/depression. We are heading for another much bigger and deeper recession and correlating depression in the the US and Europe. This time the existing debt held by nations will be the killer crunch no one is talking about. Don't be fooled by those who think technology will save us....it's not all roses, oil drives our lifestyles and you will need to get used to a much more local, simple lifestyle. Don't believe me, look at what's happening to the US and European middle classes, you have been warned!