Peak Oil -- And What Do We Do Now?
Debate on "Peak Oil" and choosing a new Global Paradigm
This group's purpose is to debate the “peak oil” phenomenon and its inevitable aftermath, and how we can help shape a post -petroleum future. This is a global phenomenon and this is a global group. Peak oil is the point in time at which the maximum global petroleum production rate is reached. After this point in time, the rate of production begins a termi ...learn more
GROUP DETAILS
Created: Sep 25, 2007
Updated: Nov 24, 2009
Membership: Open
Semi-Private
Topic: Business minded People - Please weigh in.
Posts (1 - 13 of 13)
Sort by: Ascending | Descending
Login to Post a Reply.
|
|
In 2006 the world consumed almost thirty two billion barrels of oil. By 2030, the projected need is going to be sixty percent more. While there are many alternatives, and we will with out a doubt be using a combination of them all some time soon, there does not seem to be a way to avoid serious repercussions and possibly global economic collapse.
Hydrogen does not apply because not only is it only an energy carrier, requiring existing sources of energy to produce, the technology is far in the future, prohibitively expensive and difficult to transport. Ethanol is a net energy looser (and an environmental disaster) and only exists due to government subsidies, also, to fuel only America’s current fleet of cars (over twenty millions barrels per day) would require more than all the farmland in the US. Maybe switch grass will be in limited use, but again, scalability seems limited. Wind comprises less then 1% of our energy use (in the US) and its scalability is greatly limited (not that many places are windy enough) Solar (perhaps the best option) is underdeveloped and even if there were significant funding for it, it seems like it would take decades to scale up to any significant level (plus a whole lot of political will). Tidal- limited do to distance and the economics of transmission lines. Nuclear- Uranium is not a limitless resource either, and it’s extremely expensive and dangerous, without any real (yucca sucks) answer to long term storage issues. And, although I dislike oil, what will people realistically do without it? The image of 1.5 billion Chinese ripping apart their environment for firewood and fuel is a bit terrifying. Not too mention all the other places on the earth that will have to deal with the increased burden of the energy hungry masses. |
|
|
okay - well with that nice summary, i will reiterate that this is still simple. why not consider multiple energy platforms and solutions for each, regionally. stop driving and take the train (electric), build smaller towns, ride your bike and get over it, etc. My question is - why are the business people get in on this as an economic opportunity rather than the current hysteria of inevitable collapse? Can't we just be creative about our solutions (emphasis on "s")?
|
|
During the 11th hour premiere, Paul related a tale about business leaders and perhaps a changing mindset toward a more responsible set of business practices. I'm likely glossing over it, but as I understood it, his daughter Iona came back from a conference with top business leaders and was noticeably surprised by how these leaders were not there to deflect blame and make excuses, but instead to approach her thoughtfully and ask "how can we help? what can we do?". That shift in mindset toward embracing our issues rather than deflecting it is perhaps one more sign for optimism.
Given that positive statement, the business leaders of these oil corporations have an entrenched interest in doing all they can to keep the status quo. That doesn't mean hamstringing us to fossil fuels - but it does mean that if we do switch to hydrogen or fuel cells or even solar energy, they are the ones controlling the distribution of these resources and maintain their financial prowess in the industry. So to answer your question - they are certainly seeing this as an economic opportunity. The amount of money Chevron and Texaco and Exxon pour into top academic institutions to fund research into alternative energy sources is AMAZING. Not only are they getting some of the brightest minds in the world on this, but they get absolute rights to any and all findings. And they will likely find some source to transition us onto after our fossil fuel reserves dwindle, but it won't be dirt cheap. If anything, the leaders will be pressed by their shareholders to price it to provide similar profit margins. |
|
|
As long as the oil flows, there is no economic drive to create change. Furthermore, where will this money come from. Suburbia was not built in a day, it was a generational investment. All the post-war wealth was plowed into a way of life that was not designed around public transportation and cannot easily adapt to it. If peak oil is right around the corner, this change should have been started in the 70's.
Politically, change won't happen till oil is at least 150 a barrel, and by then it will be to late. California is proposing to build a high speed rail line between SF and LA, this one line is going to cost over 25 billion, and take almost a decade to get running. http://www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/plan/default.asp thats just the cost of one line. what would it cost to transform a whole country? this seems to me to be more than just a business issue. This is a societal issue that will require serious policy change. |
|
|
I question their commitment to finding alternatives, I have seen BP's solar research center out there by Davis. It's a joke, they have a small little building with a few solar panels that have no chance of even powering their own building, let alone the grid. The large oil companies won't stand behind most alternatives because they can't make as much money on them. Once you have the panels, solar energy is free, that's a problem when it comes to raising share values. The spew a lot of propaganda, but when it comes down to it, they will ride the oil train till the very end.
|
|
|
NIco, point taken. You say the problem cannot be solved by business alone. maybe. I'm not a complete libertarian, but I do see private entities accomplishing the tasks they set out to do, albeit not always in a good way. so, my point is that the energy question can be addressed somewhat if the business world steps up the way they have in other industries. get laws passed in their favor, let gov't money pay for the research (like the drug industry), externalize and reap the profits all the while creating a sustainable future for us all.
|
|
|
Nico, it's a question of whether they are looking into alternatives - the amount of money poured into research to fund grad students is TREMENDOUS. These grad students and professors have no vested interest in derailing their own research to intentionally stunt the development of alternatives. What happens, however, is that these companies own the rights to this research and they will take their sweet time bringing it to public release. They may hold onto it for as many years as they need, until they've exhausted the most profitable fossil fuel products, and then I would expect them to start making these alternatives available for mass consumption.
One thing is true, though - it has nothing to do with lack of funding. Scientific research is a slow and tedious process, with long periods of stagnant growth followed by an explosive breakthrough that completely changes the industry. There is plenty of money out there to fund research, though there could always be more, of course. I would say the problem is a Marxian one, if anything - who controls the means of production? Even if the companies have a better solution at hand, why would they, in the best interests of the corporation and their own livelihoods, give up their multi-million dollar profits so easily? |
|
|
Oops, I meant to say "Nico, it's NOT a question of whether they are looking hard into alternatives..."
|
|
|
we all know that Standard Oil killed Tesla's perpetual motion drive, I have a distinct lack of trust in these corporations.
www.steorn.com maybe the Irish have resurrected it. |
|
|
Honore, I believe you said it. the research is there, the money is there to fund it, but the means to productions and rights to production are there but in the wrong hands. The alternatives are not scarce but rather the will to transition (for reasons stated) is what those in power positions lack.
|
|
I have to question the logic of those who control the means of production though. I understand how much of the research on alt. energy is done for the bottom line of profit.
I think we have to sometimes step back and question our availability of resources more seriously. For example, why does the US spend more than half its national budget on the military, when more of this money can be devoted to alternative energy projects that could sincerely and seriously pick up the pace that we need? The longer we wait for big business to wait on extinguishing the supply of oil, the quicker the world is going to go in chaos from peak oil. Also, Big Oil might have little concern for what goes on in other countries and their supply of oil. The stress that will be placed on these areas could be devastating as there could be wars and conflicts stemmed from the scarcity of oil and other resources. The consequences following these conflicts will probably reach everyone and affect our ability to address our ecosystem and other things. Governments are already anticipating Peak Oil by claiming oil fields. For example, the Carter Doctrine in the eighties set the stage for maintaining a US presence in the Middle East to secure oil fields. China is increasing their military force and has investments in Sudan despite the genocide in Darfur. Is this really the best way to react to peak oil? To fuel the never-ending lifestyle of unchecked oil consumption? My point is, if we want to seriously address Peak Oil (isnt this what this discussion is about?) we can't just rely on the rule of business. As Nick said, I believe we need a policy change. We also need a more cooperative pool of researchers and governments working together instead of many individual businesses competing for the most investments or funding. |
|
I want to take issue with Nico's earlier characterization of energy potentials.
Solar energy has huge potential, just look at where silicon valley venture capital is going. There are technologies just on the horizon that will reduce solar PV panels to grid parity prices, amorphous silicon, cadmium tellurium, nanotechnology, and printing technology. But, what I want to talk about here is technology that is ready to roll out the door right now that will make solar reach grid parity. Solar Thermal. Solar thermal power plants work by using mirrors to concentrate sunlight on tubes or a tower which heats water, the steam from which is used to run a simple generator. Check out the fantastic info coming out about it: http://abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/10/02/2048420.htm?section=world One argument against solar is that it can only meet peak loads and not base loads. But this solar thermal technology can store hot water for up to twelve hours, and use to to still run the generators. Given this storage capacity, solar thermal can provide all energy needs as energy demand correlates with solar availability. Wind has the potential to power quite a bit of our energy as well, but not the whole thing. The sun provides enough energy in one hour to power us for a entire year. So I disagree with characterizing an energy source's potential by its current capacity. Energy prices are going to change when we have carbon taxes, this will also vastly increase renewable infiltration. Even with current technology (and subsidies), solar panels yield an 11% ARR over a twenty years. This is the historic average of the stock market. This also assumes that energy rates will only raise at their 40 year historic 5% per year, which is a bit rosy. So, this is just good business sense. We need to strategically invest now in offsetting costs later. But, this brings us right back to the prisoners dilemma. Which brings us to the psychological underpinnings of economic models. Which I don't want to spend to much time, given that I already have a degree in econ, so I'll just some up my thoughts on that in one word: bollocks |
You do not have access to post to this record
1 to 13 of 13 Posts
As I understand it, in the case that a resource is running out I have two choices. One, find out ways to get more of that resource and two, search for a replacement. The marketing may become tricky, in that I want people to use both of my resources (if they demand a user switch) in the mean time. However, this seems minor because people are slow to change and my business can ebb and flow as do people. Why fight for something that has such tension when you could be a bastion of new markets, niche markets full of opportunity and promise?
So, for all you businessey people, please tell me what I have missed in my economics as related to resources. thanks. and it is a pleasure to meet all of you.