news.com.au doesn't believe oil will burst, the economists and companies quoted believes it will. I'd hardly call that bursting anyway.. considering oil was once upon a time $US10, and now $US130, a correction to $US80 or $US90 would be nothing unusual for an oil correction.We have all heard the doom and gloom of the peak oil reports, or have we?
I'm quite interested in the whole idea, not only because its relevant now, but the alarms about it signalled 2-4-6 years ago by many experts is now coming to light in very real terms. If you have filled up your car recently you will know what i mean.
News.com.au believes that the oil bubble will burst and go as low as 80/90 dollars a barrel, of course news.com doesnt give any proof for their claims and the general lack of journalism seen on the site is nothing short of criminal.
http://www.news.com.au/business/story/0,23636,23754398-462,00.html
On the other side, http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/ gives an overview of what to expect backed up by real world figures and proper sourcing which is, a little scary. The point driven home is that we are producing oil at a declining rate and that world demand is becoming alot higher than supply.
Crude Impact is a good flim on the subject most of it is on youtube. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rqdw7yhEpIk
Its an interesting topic to discuss, many believe its not going to affect us that much, they say it just means a heavier price at the fuel pumps. Unfortunately its not that simple...
Don't worry about two centuries. The one I usually mention is that half the oil ever used (worldwide) has been used since Kylie Minogue launched her singing career.Also I'm amazed at how mankind has used oil - which took millions of years to form - in just 2 centuries!
Bottom line? No way are we going to grow ourselves out of this one via biofuels. We'd need to completely starve all of NSW and Victoria just to replace oil in Tasmania. And of course Tassie doesn't exactly use that much oil anyway with its short travelling distances and predominantly hydro power supply.
.
Agreed there. Just as long as nobody's expecting biofuels to become the dominant part of that mix.however biofuels will play a part in the future energy mix, especially biofuels from waste from flour mills, sugar mills and saw mills.
There surely is more oil except it is in deeper waters and pristine wilderness. The Russians are probably sitting on a massive supply too.
.
To play the devil's advocate here - what do we actually need oil for? It's mostly cars and transport. Do we have the means to halve fuel economy in most vehicles, in effect halving our oil requirements? I'd argue yes.
Yes, you can already buy a small car that uses 6L/100km, yet people still continue to buy, or use vehicles that use 10L/100km or more. Simply due to ego in many cases "small cars are unsafe", "I need something big to carry 2 children", "I need a big 4WD as it's all we can fit in", "I need to be able to travel 200km/hr", "I like a v8". Many of these things are both illogical, and probably not needed if people really sat down and changed their habits and mindset.
I can already see in 10 years time rows and rows of large 4WD, v8's and the like ready to be crushed, as simply nobody can afford to drive them. I wouldn't like to be selling many of the larger cars sold today even in 5 years time if petrol was say $3-5/L. Purchased $50k off a showroom floor today, worth how much in 5 years time? $5000?
I am sure for food, etc transport with trucks there are some new models with quite efficient engines as well, even though most of the trucks on our roads are probably based on quite old technology. It's simply a matter of the transport companies demanding more fuel efficient models.
The biggest challenge here is changing people's mindsets, and the high upfront cost of change. This will happen I think, but it will take time. In some ways the high cost of fuel presently is a good push in that direction.
Oil is less required for energy generation - there is enough coal in Australia for apparently hundreds of years supply. And CSG is quite feasible. Or nuclear energy is another option.
We are lucky we have so many options here in Australia if we so put on the front to go with them. It's only humanity itself that gets in the way.
Transport and cars are only a small part of the equation.
"Because petrochemicals are key components to much more than just the gas in your car. As of the year 2002, approximately 10 calories of fossil fuels are required to produce every 1 calorie of food eaten in the US. "
And transport of the food is the main cause behind that example you gave of there being 10calories of oil used for every 1 calorie eaten.
In the United States, 400 gallons of oil equivalents are expended annually to feed each American (as of data provided in 1994).7 Agricultural energy consumption is broken down as follows:
· 31% for the manufacture of inorganic fertilizer
· 19% for the operation of field machinery
· 16% for transportation
· 13% for irrigation
· 08% for raising livestock (not including livestock feed)
· 05% for crop drying
· 05% for pesticide production
· 08% miscellaneous8
Energy costs for packaging, refrigeration, transportation to retail outlets, and household cooking are not considered in these figures.
To give the reader an idea of the energy intensiveness of modern agriculture, production of one kilogram of nitrogen for fertilizer requires the energy equivalent of from 1.4 to 1.8 liters of diesel fuel. This is not considering the natural gas feedstock.9 According to The Fertilizer Institute (http://www.tfi.org), in the year from June 30 2001 until June 30 2002 the United States used 12,009,300 short tons of nitrogen fertilizer.10 Using the low figure of 1.4 liters diesel equivalent per kilogram of nitrogen, this equates to the energy content of 15.3 billion liters of diesel fuel, or 96.2 million barrels.
How many banks got caught on the good side of sub prime? Not too many!
Which bank performed outstandingly? Goldman Sachs
Which bank is predicting an oil spike to $200+ per barrel? Goldman Sachs
djayness said:Transport and cars are only a small part of the equation.
"Because petrochemicals are key components to much more than just the gas in your car. As of the year 2002, approximately 10 calories of fossil fuels are required to produce every 1 calorie of food eaten in the US. Source The size of this ratio stems from the fact that every step of modern food production is fossil fuel and petrochemical powered:
Not quite ....
QUOTE]
does those figures calculate the transport of the whole supply chain or just the fininshed product,.... Because you would have to transport more than you would think,
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?