I see there is some encouraging research being undertake to generate fuel from algi.(not sure of the spelling)

Eithe way, I am confident we will invent/discover an affordable energy replacement for oil.

My concerns though are as always, jobs!

Algae is well and truly underway. Airoplanes have been flying on the stuff. The Simpson desert is an ideal growing area, for quick turnover.
Algae are around 75% vegetable oil. To much oil around for it to be fair dinkum yet.

Hi Bazz,

I have followed up your links and they are either out of date or are proselytizing peak oil.

The research I provided is current as at June 2013.

Like I said, if you are predisposed to a particular answer, that’s what you will get. If you have some issues with current research you have two choices, accept it or challenge it by providing something more current. Stop looking back fondly on what you thought was once real.

rehctub,

I’m with you on jobs because it is the only thing that creates wealth and security.

When the developed world stops penalizing fossil fuel research or conversely, stops funding eye wateringly expensive renewables, industry will thrive to provide more jobs. Some renewables will eventually be market ready without subsidies, but not in the short term.

Methane hydrates has potential, some research indicates up to 15 times more methane than shale, but like shale it’s not all recoverable but still vast.

The peak oilers are struggling to come to terms with the vast reserves of non-conventional fossil fuels, they are fast becoming the Luddites of the planet and can only do what they do best, kill jobs, damage economies, increase energy costs and slug industrial productivity.

The world is made poorer by those who are driven by green ideology. Whilst so many in our society are struggling to work and trying to add value, the ideologues destroy value and contribute nothing.

http://theenergycollective.com/jessejenkins/198761/japan-taps-methane-hydrates-pondering-explosive-implications

Bazz, spindoc,

Her's an article which examines the economic impact of the idea of "peak oil".

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/earth-insight/2013/jul/23/peak-oil-bbc-shale-fracking-economy-recession

"Since 2005, though the price of oil has increased, production has still plateaued, suggesting that "supply is no longer able to match demand." This "inelastic supply of oil" creates a "price-production buffer against increasing economic growth." As global demand for oil increases, driven largely by emerging markets, this "leads to an increase in the price of oil." But this in turn means that "more unconventional resources become economically viable for development", leading to an increase in oil production.

However, the "potential for recession increases", because the whole cycle was set in motion by "an increase in the price of oil." As a seeming glut in unconventional production permits a nominal relaxation in prices, economic demand ramps up, once again pushing up oil prices as the economy hits the supply ceiling, reigniting the process. The result is an undulating production plateau correlating with higher but more volatile oil prices, as well as a prolonged recession punctuated by small cycles of 'recovery' and contraction.

"This feedback induces a drag on the economy," write the Eos authors, "and consistent economic growth is difficult against this price-production buffer." What does the future hold in this context? Rather than booming growth underpinned by fracking, they conclude:

"A 4% growth in GDP would require an annual increase in oil supply of 3%, and that would amount to an increase in oil production of 17 mb/d over the next 5 years. Because production of conventional oil appears stuck on a plateau of 75 mb/d, it is likely that economic growth may be difficult unless there is a transformation away from the historical relationship between energy use and economic growth."

Compare all this to the BBC's claim that the Eos paper describes peak oil as "a myth."

To the contrary, the paper suggests peak oil is alive and well - but that until we face up to the historic link between GDP growth and our over-dependence on cheap fossil fuels, we face the prospect of unrelenting economic strangulation."

This will be my last comment in this thread as it has echos of AGW.

1. The year of the largest discovery of oil was 1963.
2. The year that consumption exceeded discovery was 1983.
3. Production stopped rising in 2005.

That is all there is to it really, all the rest of the in channel noise
is just that as the wishful thinking never takes into account the scale
of the demand and consumption.

Poirot,

I’m impressed. I never knew that eco-economists at the Guardian were still commanding the tides to go back.

Like I said to Bazz, interrogate a closed source you get a closed answer and end up with a closed mind.

Just wondering if you or Bazz followed the link to the current research? Did you have any comment on this? Do you want to challenge it? Do you have anything more current or more comprehensive? Do you want to debate it? Do you have any questions? Have you thought of comparing what your eco-economist has to say with the current research? Are you beginning to wonder why Nafeez Ahmed’s opinions are at odds with the current research and the BBC? Do you think that Nafeez and the Guardian have form?

Just wondering but it does seem a bit lazy to grab links to media opinion when real research is available.

I guess that’s what closed minds do?