Peak Oil

The IEA published their annual World Outlook report back in November. I haven't been paying attention to the topic because it's too damn depressing, but after years of denying any limits to production, they quietly announced "Oh yeah... um... we peaked in 2006." How did their cheif economist put it?

Quote :

"The age of cheap oil is over," said Fatih Birol, IEA chief economist.

"If the consuming nations do not make major efforts to slow down the oil demand growth, we will see higher oil prices," Birol said, "which we think is not good news for the economies of the consuming nations."

Awesome.

Quote :

Sec. of Interior Salazar revisits oil shale rules
By SHEILA V KUMAR - Feb 16, 2011
By The Associated Press

DENVER (AP) — The Obama administration has proposed revising rules and regulations for oil shale development on public land in the Rockies, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar said Tuesday.

Salazar made his announcement while government officials filed a proposed settlement of two lawsuits by 13 conservation groups over the Bush-era plan to open nearly 2 million acres of public land in Wyoming, Colorado and Utah to the commercial development of oil shale and tar sands.

Several conservation groups sued in 2009, claiming the Bush administration didn't adequately review potential environmental impacts before proceeding with a development plan and rules and regulations.

The proposed settlement filed in federal court in Denver would give the Bureau of Land Management more discretion when awarding oil shale leases and would remove the 5 percent royalty rates approved by the Bush administration for mining oil shale on public land. The lawsuits by environmentalists challenged the rate as too low.

A moot point. Conventional oil is, and always will be, our only energy source that gives us such a return on energy invested. As the highlighted report shows, unconventional production makes up a small amount of our use and has no ability of ever actually being a replacement fuel, even by their own projections (which are matched by several decades of data of actual unconventional production). No administration has suggested otherwise, and neither does your article (the four paragraphs you decided to share, anyway). Oil shale itself is so energy intensive Canada was considering building a nuclear reactor for theirs. As oil prices go up, unconventional supplies will as well, since they are all so hilariously energy intensive. The end result is still high oil prices; an inability to meet demand.

When I read about oil prices increasing, my first thought is that prices aren't rising fast enough. As oil prices rise, other more sustainable ways to power cars will become economically viable. For the kind of commute that I make, an electric car would make perfect sense. Unfortunately, because Indiana refuses to mandate that utilities generate a portion of their power sustainably, Hoosiers are still forced to consume electricity that is produced with coal burning generators. However, all the windmills being built along I-65 give me hope that sometime in the future, we will elect leaders who understand that the environment is more important than fossil fuel interests.

Yeah, they'll become economically viable. But that means they'll be expensive, too, just slightly cheaper than oil. And we'll be attempting a switch while oil prices are rising, food prices are rising, and governments are broke. It's still not a rosey picture.

sparks wrote:

When I read about oil prices increasing, my first thought is that prices aren't rising fast enough.

Yeah. Well I respectfully disagree with that sentiment. In case you haven't noticed, this country is trying to regain its footing after a really bad recession. Hoping for higher gas prices at this point is pretty damned myopic. Higher gas prices cause a drain on the economy, and disproportionately impact the poorest among us.

sparks wrote:

As oil prices rise, other more sustainable ways to power cars will become economically viable.

While true, as Heretic pointed out, this means that all sources of energy will become more expensive.

sparks wrote:

For the kind of commute that I make, an electric car would make perfect sense.

That's great... for you. But it might not "make perfect sense" for many other working Americans.

sparks wrote:

Unfortunately, because Indiana refuses to mandate that utilities generate a portion of their power sustainably, Hoosiers are still forced to consume electricity that is produced with coal burning generators.

What's your position on nuclear power? Do you consider that "sustainable?." If NIPSCO had been able to build the Bailey reactor, Northwest Indiana wouldn't be relying so heavily on coal, would it?

Disclaimer - I was very much involved in the fight against the Bailey Nuclear plant.

sparks wrote:

However, all the windmills being built along I-65 give me hope that sometime in the future, we will elect leaders who understand that the environment is more important than fossil fuel interests.

Don't get me wrong. I'm all for alternative energy and moving away from fossil fuels. But keep in mind that it's going to cost hundreds of billions of dollars to update our national electrical grid to really make the widespread use of alternative energy economically viable. There is no "silver bullet" that's going to change that, and cheering on higher gasoline prices just seems counterproductive to me. If the nation's economy was booming, I might feel differently about it, but that's not the case, is it?

sparks wrote:

When I read about oil prices increasing, my first thought is that prices aren't rising fast enough.

:titanic:

[quote="Heretic"]The IEA published their annual World Outlook report back in November. I haven't been paying attention to the topic because it's too damn depressing, but after years of denying any limits to production, they quietly announced "Oh yeah... um... we peaked in 2006." How did their cheif economist put it?

Quote :

"The age of cheap oil is over," said Fatih Birol, IEA chief economist.

That is why it is called a non-renewable resource... It will only get worse over time. One day there will be major wars over for what is left in the Earth.

chuckmo48 wrote:

It will only get worse over time. One day there will be major wars over for what is left in the Earth.[/color]

I'm not so sure we will. We're not in danger of "running out". We'll have oil for a while, we just won't have the extraction rates necessary to keep up with demand. We certainly won't have enough for economic development, let alone funding another oversea war.

Scorpion wrote:

sparks wrote:

When I read about oil prices increasing, my first thought is that prices aren't rising fast enough.

Yeah. Well I respectfully disagree with that sentiment. In case you haven't noticed, this country is trying to regain its footing after a really bad recession. Hoping for higher gas prices at this point is pretty damned myopic. Higher gas prices cause a drain on the economy, and disproportionately impact the poorest among us.

sparks wrote:

As oil prices rise, other more sustainable ways to power cars will become economically viable.

While true, as Heretic pointed out, this means that all sources of energy will become more expensive.

sparks wrote:

For the kind of commute that I make, an electric car would make perfect sense.

That's great... for you. But it might not "make perfect sense" for many other working Americans.

sparks wrote:

Unfortunately, because Indiana refuses to mandate that utilities generate a portion of their power sustainably, Hoosiers are still forced to consume electricity that is produced with coal burning generators.

What's your position on nuclear power? Do you consider that "sustainable?." If NIPSCO had been able to build the Bailey reactor, Northwest Indiana wouldn't be relying so heavily on coal, would it?

Disclaimer - I was very much involved in the fight against the Bailey Nuclear plant.

sparks wrote:

However, all the windmills being built along I-65 give me hope that sometime in the future, we will elect leaders who understand that the environment is more important than fossil fuel interests.

Don't get me wrong. I'm all for alternative energy and moving away from fossil fuels. But keep in mind that it's going to cost hundreds of billions of dollars to update our national electrical grid to really make the widespread use of alternative energy economically viable. There is no "silver bullet" that's going to change that, and cheering on higher gasoline prices just seems counterproductive to me. If the nation's economy was booming, I might feel differently about it, but that's not the case, is it?

Higher oil prices are inevitable. Rising demand and declining supply will continue to push oil prices higher. The only thing that is uncertain is how quickly we will implement strategies to lessen our addiction to oil. Since our leaders are unwilling to implement carbon taxes which could reduce consumption and fund investment in sustainable energy, I believe the second best option are higher oil prices which make sustainable energy an option. As far as my thoughts on nuclear power, I believe that nuclear power is preferable to burning coal to generate power, but that thorium powered nuclear generators will replace uranium as the fuel source. Both China and India are investing heavily in thorium technology will the US lags decades behind in nuclear power developement.