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 > Social instability and the price of energy > Comments

Social instability and the price of energy : Comments

By Julie Bishop, published 17/1/2013

The Arab oil states run on cheap oil and disruption of these supplies could herald social unrest.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. All
Julie Bishop,

You make some very important points.

I'd add these related points.

Distorting energy markets is bad policy in the long term. The Australian Government has committed taxpayers and consumers to $30 billion in subsidies for renewable energy. That is very bad policy.

Solar power generates just 0.2% of Australia's electricity and wind generates 3%. They avoid about half as mush CO2 emissions as claimed by their advocates. that is next to nothing. And there is no realistic prospect that they will ever be economically viable.

These sorts of picking winner policies are seriously damaging Australia's economy.

Meanwhile we ban nuclear power and put so many constraints on it that we cannot have the benefits of it. Our interference in the energy market is irrational and seriously damaging our economy. It will get much worse if the CO2 tax and ETS are not repealed as they escalate in cost over time.

Here are some benefits the world could have by electrification with low cost nuclear power:

• Avoid increasing the cost of energy - avoid taxes and regulations (e.g. ETS)
• Avoid the compliance cost of carbon tax and ETS schemes (http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=13578 )
• Avoid cost premium caused by partial participation in such schemes (http://skepticalscience.com//news.php?f=nordhaus-sets-the-record-straight-climate-mitigation-saves-money#82373 )
• Avoid the inevitable and ongoing domestic political interference, international cheating and dragging the chain.

• Faster GDP growth due to lower energy prices
• People rise out of poverty faster
• Reduce population growth rate and lower the peak population
• Reduce toxic pollution and black carbon (avoiding millions of fatalities per year)
• Reduce the transporting of coal and gas – less ships, trains and gas pipelines.
• Greater energy security.
Posted by Peter Lang, Thursday, 17 January 2013 10:21:42 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
What is the natural cost of energy, and what should you charge yourself for what you own?
When oil costs just a dollar a barrel to recover from very large, very shallow wells, and about that much again to turn into diesel or petrol, utilising fractional distillation; and when the remaining sulphur laden sludge can be sold on international markets, for a $100.00 a barrel; what should you charge yourself for what you own?
What price gouging multinationals charge us, with govt connivance or submission?
Or the actual out of pocket expenses related to getting out of the ground, refined and transported to the bowers, or the family home, in the case of gas?
And if international markets choose to subsidise that local distribution, the affected Arab populations are hardly likely to complain?
That said Julie, the rest of the world could, as you infer, come to a virtual stand still, if ever these supplies were to be cut of from dependant economies! Therefore, we ought to be taking steps now, while we still can, to give ourselves complete energy independence!
Always providing, our, or should that read, your political masters will allow it?
I mean, why are we importing around 80% of our oil needs, while we lock away potentially massive reserves to our immediate north; and, why are the opposition so strangely silent on this issue, all while complaining about oil rich Arabs not paying enough for their own oil?
With the greatest respect, your priorities seem all wrong Julie!?
Rhrosty.
Posted by Rhrosty, Thursday, 17 January 2013 10:48:33 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
Rhosty you are right.There are 4 big oil cartels that just do as they please.There is no oil shortage just shortage of competition.

I'd say we have lots of oil left untouched here to keep prices high and money flowing out of the country.

China will soon be the biggest oil user.African Countries love China because they are providing them with both infrastructure and employment.I think China will use the cheap Africian labour to keep its manufactured goods low while letting a middle class expand at home.This will enable China to expand domestic consumption.

Obama is sending troops to 35 African countries this year under the pretense of containing Al Qaeda.In reality they are trying to contain China.Obama has delayed his attack on Iran because the rise of China particularly in Africa.

Some say the US will do their usual dirty tricks of puting in corrupt dictators in Africa so they will default in loans made to them by China.

It will be interesting year if we can all stop this insane march by the West to war with China/Russia.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/
Posted by Arjay, Thursday, 17 January 2013 12:11:11 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
Dear Julie,

Good article, thanks.

I think the most significant part of your summation is the observation that “Energy markets have diversified, particularly on the back of the shale gas and oil revolution in the US,”

The energy markets are diversifying but the growth area is in fossil fuels. The great green renewables dream has failed to deliver against industrial needs; it shrank them which was what it was always intended to do.

It has also failed to deliver any upside such as energy security, any vibrant or sustainable renewables industries, no green jobs and the emissions trading markets have collapsed.

Many nations now have no choice but to recognize that new and diversified fossil fuels are a direct threat to any nations that ignore this, if your competitor has access to more and cheaper fuel options, you are at a competitive disadvantage. Moreover, if you are slow off the mark there is no possibility of catching up on a non- linear growth curve.

The industrial impact that Germany, the UK and the USA will have as they shift to Shale, Gas and in the case of Germany Coal, will be profound as they compete based upon cheaper energy rather than greener energy.

Your second summation point, “but any disruption to oil supplies from the GCC would send shockwaves through the world economy”. Yes I agree if you are looking at the next two years. This realignment of energy markets will be rapid because of the desperation of industrialized nations to drive themselves out of austerity, debt and low industrial productivity and to compete with Asia.

It is now time for the Gulf States to spin their heads. They were not comfortable with green energy, naturally. They thought it would end with a return to fossil fuels, theirs. Sadly, within the next five years the market will shift to someone else’s fossil fuels and not theirs.

Their “benign dictatorships” will suffer the same pressures as the “military” and “clerical” dictatorships in the region; they might need to rethink their foreign policy.

The market is speaking very loud
Posted by spindoc, Friday, 18 January 2013 12:07:27 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 a pleasant surprise, to find a politician prepared to talk about
energy, oil and its costs.
The Egyptian revolution was directly connected to the government
reducing the subsidy on petrol & food using the money from oil exports.
However when their production peaked in 2000 and they became an
importer of oil they just did not have the money to subsidise.
The first demonstrations were about the price of food.

What has to be realised is that the cheap oil has almost all gone.
It used to be that oil was about $10 to $20 a barrel to get it out of
the ground, now however new oil is around $90 a barrel which is why
we are paying $117 (yesterday) a barrel.
As decline of old oil continues, the mix of old and new will become
more expensive.

The situation in the Middle East is that the rising wealth and the
increased number of men in their 20s has caused a large increase in
their useage of oil so subsequently there is less available for export.
This know as the "Export Land Model".
It shows that available oil for export declines much more rapidly than
the production decline.

Spindoc said;
The industrial impact that Germany, the UK and the USA will have as they shift to Shale,

Won't happen. Shale oil is a giant Ponzi scheme.
The problem with shale is the decline rate.
40% to 60% per year. That tied to outputs like 500 to 1000 barrels a
day means that drilling has to be continuous, and financiers are now
baulking at putting up more money.
This is why the rig count has fallen from about 2400 two years ago to
about 1400, last I read.
Last report I read was that the Bakken output has started to decline.

Some shale gas wells have decline rates of 80% a year.
That is what put Chesapeak into trouble and BHP got out quick
Posted by Bazz, Sunday, 20 January 2013 4:04:12 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
Arjay said;
I'd say we have lots of oil left untouched here to keep prices high
and money flowing out of the country.

You are right there is plenty of oil, it is just that you cannot
afford to buy it. You saw what happened in 2008 when oil reached
$147 a barrel for WTI, the cheapest oil anywhere.
How much of that plenty oil will come from very deep offshore wells ?
How much from the Arctic and will you be able to afford it ?

The opposition needs to take up the cudgels on oil supply.
We know the Gillard government is not interested as they tried to hide
the BITRE report, and since it escaped have tried to poo hoo it.

So here is a great election issue;
The governments disregard of of our energy supply problem.
Posted by Bazz, Sunday, 20 January 2013 4:10:47 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
Oh, here is a relevant matter.
I had a test drive of a fully electric car yesterday.
Absolutely brilliant car. Mind you it gave me a fright when I got out
onto the road and accelerated, talk about neck snapping !
Dead quiet, smooth as silk acceleration, 4 door hatchback with plenty
of room for five. No starting just switch forward on and it moves off
when you take you foot off the brake. Bit disconcerting different
routine when getting underway.

All sorts of great features, phone network accessibility etc etc.

Still even the demo model was $17,000 dearer than new ones in the US
at $45,000.
So the great Aussie ripoff is still running.
Posted by Bazz, Sunday, 20 January 2013 4:30:03 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
Bazz,

Some good points but I think you might have missed my point about diversification since you didn’t include the rest of my sentence.

“Spindoc said;
The industrial impact that Germany, the UK and the USA will have as they shift to Shale,”

The bit you missed was “Gas and in the case of Germany Coal” I’m definitely not suggesting that shale explorations will “replace” anything, only that it has now become part of the diversification of the energy mix.

Germany is spooling down it’s nuclear but is burning more coal. The new build program is for 20 new coal fired power stations. Germany’s profile is coal - 47.3% (within this, lignite - 24.5% and hard coal - 22.8%). They import most of their hard coal but burn lignite from the former East Germany. Coal use has been growing at 2.3% p. a since 2007.

The UK on the other hand has a new build program of 30 gas fired power stations with 10 to be in service by 2019. The USA will supplement its energy mix with shale products and will simply export more coal and oil.

It’s the diversification and supplementing that have already changed the global energy paradigm, this does not imply, nor do I think Julie Bishop is implying, that shale products will “replace” any significant consumption, but it has already changed the market.

The changed dynamic of the global energy markets are already impacting Gulf States and Julie is spot on, they have spoon fed their people on oil revenue subsidies when they should have spoon fed their non oil economy. Now they face higher costs and lower revenues just like the rest of the world.

P.S, that electric car you drove? It doesn’t happen to plug into the coal fired electricity grid by any chance?
Posted by spindoc, Monday, 21 January 2013 8:45:52 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
Understood Spindoc.
There are signs that shale is already peaking in the US, and that will
certainly be the case if the rig count continues to fall.
I notice also that the pipeline people are refusing to connect the
shale fields to the pipeline networks and are sending shale oil by
rail which is a lot more expensive. see;

http://www.resilience.org/stories/2013-01-15/crude-by-rail-does-it-really-make-sense

Some forecasts are for shale fields to be finished in the next three years.
I must try and find the site for rig counts, that should tell everything.

Re the car, well, the mine to battery to wheels efficiency is better
than the well to refinery to ic engine to wheels.
Posted by Bazz, Monday, 21 January 2013 12:39:29 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
Peter Lang

Years ago I participated in a feasibility study that came to the conclusion that installing wind power in an area of 10 000 square km in Bass strait would produce electricity enough for the whole of Australia and still leave a substantial amount to be exported to Asian countries. We did another study after Fukushima that came to the conclusion that wave power using a sophisticated new technology could replace all nuclear reactors in Japan.

So there is certainly no need to even think about nuclear power, and if the next meltdown will happen in a densely populated area it will be the end of nuclear anyway.

Nuclear power is the most expensive of all, and a study from an Austrian University had the result that considering all costs of nuclear power one kilowatt hour would have a price of more than 20 dollars. Yes, dollars not cents. You can read about the study here:

http://www.anschober.at/politik/presse/1372/die-erste-oesterreichische-studie-ueber-die-milliardensubventionen-der-atomenergie-bringt-neue-hebel-fuer-die-oesterreichische-antiatom-politik

No one would be ready to pay that price, and that is why people happily USE nuclear electricity today, and leave the paying to future generations. Nuclear waste has to be locked away and secured for centuries, and your grand-grand-grand … children won’t be to happy to pay for the electricity you used today, hundreds of year before they were born. Their responsibility to take care and pay for your waste is not negotiable. That means using the advantages today is stealing from our children, grandchildren and so on for centuries. They will for sure wish that we ended in hell.
continued ...
Posted by Günter, Wednesday, 23 January 2013 1:31:51 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
continued ...

Germany has that problem already. 40 years ago people enjoyed cheap electricity from nuclear power plants and just threw the waste into an abandoned salt mine. About what politicians lied at that time like they still do today when they open their mouth.

Now most of those people who used the electricity are already dead, and it is left to the German tax payer to try to clean up the mess. Radioactiv water is leaking from the mine now, the house values in that area are at zero now, and no one knows, what to do. But all have to pay.

Read more in English here:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com.au/news/2010/07/photogalleries/100708-radioactive-nuclear-waste-science-salt-mine-dump-pictures-asse-ii-germany/

That was an article from 2010. In the meantime documents have surfaced that prove that the politicians decades ago have lied even more and that they have even put highly radioactive waste into the mine.

Not only is nuclear the most expensive, it is also contempt for mankind.
Posted by Günter, Wednesday, 23 January 2013 1:32:24 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
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. All

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