This is a mobile optimized page that loads fast, if you want to load the real page, click this text.

What does Lloyds think is happening?

Jump to new

basilio

Joined
30 June 2008
Posts
15,583
Reactions
7,461
There are a couple of big themes that run through environmentalists and organizations that look at the big picture.

The first is the concept of Peak Oil - examining evidence that suggests our supplies of cheap oil based energy are facing imminent decline and the impact this will have on a civilization totally dependent of cheap, unlimited energy.

The second theme is how we are changing the earths climate as a result of our excessive use of fossil fuels and the impact this will have on our society and again our entire civilization.

The latest organization to weigh into this debate is the insurance giant Lloyds. There is an excellent overview of the document on the Energy Bulletin website. I'v attached the introduction.

The question is ; Has Lloyds simply got it completely and totally wrong or do we as a community finally wake up and seriously tackle the issues that will make or break our lives within the next 5 years. (And they certainly won't be kind to our investment choices..)

http://www.energybulletin.net/53100
 
"Energy infrastructure will be increasingly vulnerable..."

That is probably the main point. I left out all the stuff about climate change and fossil fuel, because that's not the fundamental problem.

The fundamental problem is two fold. Firstly mostly people are prone to resist change until it's forced upon them and secondly, the 'system' has created a network dependant system for all our energy sources. The Fossil fuel barrons are in no small part responsible, for lobbying governments to protect their investments and stifle alternative competition.

But, despite the control barons, the technology is there to convert everything we operate to alternative sources such as solar and nuclear. Solar for example only needs a relatively bit longer time at previous high oil prices before the economics for wide spread solar and solar electric products in particular for home and car, will be very much more affordable.

Not to mention the possibility of commercially available and smaller nuclear power cells, possibly to run trains and busses for example. Who knows, maybe even a conversion back to prop planes, nuclear powered of course.

This will tend to break the reliance the governments are putting on physical networks for electricity, gas and oil and give people much more freedom in a similar way that mobile phones have freed up the dependancy on physical interconnecting networks.

Sure it will seem like a major issue for the laggers in the paragym shift, but we'll get over it, like we got over the transition from the horse and buggy to steam then to Oil.
 
Whiskers,

like we got over the transition from the horse and buggy to steam then to Oil.
Click to expand...

Don't you think the transition will be a little different?? After all, we did not run out of horse and buggies, in the transfer to steam and oil, we will run out of easy, cheap oil on the way to whatever.

brty
 
brty said:
Whiskers,



Don't you think the transition will be a little different?? After all, we did not run out of horse and buggies, in the transfer to steam and oil, we will run out of easy, cheap oil on the way to whatever.

brty
Click to expand...

Yes it will be a little different because of my second point above.

The oil Barons have corrupted governments and the system a bit to try to make us all dependant on them... tending to stifle the natural progression of technology to alternatitive and the next generation of energy sources.

We will definately run out of very cheap oil by the time alternatitive energy sources get a fair go from governments, but I think there will still be a lot of oil there to be found in areas that have been off limits to exploration or too deep in the ocean... and just when Obama started talking about opening up more coastal areas to oil explortion, guess what...

Inevitable, recurring incidents like the Exxon Valdez, recent local Chinese freighter grounding and spill off Queensland and the BP Gulf of Mexico spill will only strengthen public resolve to break the oil cartell's hold and promote, or rather let the alternatives get an unstopable head of steam.
 

Crikey! I can't see the technology being there to give me an electrical car which can travel 800km and then recharge its batteries for another 800km within a few minutes, not any time soon. I find it even more difficult to imagine electrical trucks being remotely possible in the next 50-100 years. Electrical ships are beyond dream status. If you are desperate enough to be talking about nuclear-powered trains and buses driving all over the place, crap, please, PLEASE leave us with oil! Buses and trains commonly crash, they are very accessible to terrorists (even if you can't make bombs out of the nuclear material, I don't like the idea of terrorists having easy access to something they can use to completely and effectively permanently contaminate reservoirs, etc etc etc etc etc.....). The idea of nuclear-powered aeroplanes flying around is frightening to put it very mildly!

Nuclear energy may be appropriate for domestic and industrial electricity production (it's a touchy one and not without its own issues), and wind, solar, etc are good for that application too, but oil isn't all that widely used for electricity production anyway. Try convincing the Chinese to convert to solar or wind rather than coal!

When oil runs out we'll see just how viable the alternatives are, because we'll have no choice but to use them. If you think the alternatives are equally satisfying, rejoice in the knowledge that oil won't last much longer anyway, so you'll get your conversion soon enough whether anyone else likes it or not. I think we're going to find the results not to be too pretty, and I'm not looking forward to living in a world without oil, unfortunately.
 
If there was plenty of conventional crude oil still around then:

1. We wouldn't be mining tar sands and trying to cook some sludge out of it, burning energy equivalent to one third of the resultant oil in the process and completely trashing the surrounding environment.

2. BP wouldn't have bothered drilling in very deep water in the Gulf of Mexico. No, they'd just drill somewhere much easier if they had the choice.

3. Shell wouldn't be bothered with a massive investment to turn natural gas into oil.

4. Nobody would really care what happens in the Middle East. We'd just use other oil fields instead.

5. Oil was by far the cheapest means of space heating and running factory boilers in the 1960's and wasn't far behind coal for electricity generation. Now it is far more expensive than coal or gas in either application, suggesting that it has become relatively more scarce over the past 40 years.

All the evidence I see, does point towards increasing scarcity of oil relative to demand. Price is up, we're going to increasingly extreme lengths to extract the stuff, and we're avoiding using it wherever possible.

If there was plenty of the stuff, then wouldn't we just drill some holes on shore here in Australia (or in UK, USA etc) rather than fighting wars, shipping the stuff half way around the world, spilling it in the water and so on?
 
Here's a "small" compilation combining a couple of internet lists of a few of the items we surround ourselves with on a daily basis that are produced from or dependent upon viably cheap oil/petroleum..


Should be a piece of cake to find plentiful, cheap, non-oil alternatives, eh?
 
Here's a "small" compilation combining a couple of internet lists of a few of the items we surround ourselves with on a daily basis that are produced from or dependent upon viably cheap oil/petroleum..
Click to expand...

You don't really want to think about it too much do you?
 
basilio said:
You don't really want to think about it too much do you?
Click to expand...

Not really, but we probably should be. When oil runs out, the world is going to change, and not just a little bit, and it's not going to be fun, to put it very lightly. The fact that we don't want to think about it is going to make things much worse when it happens, because we're going to be ridiculously unprepared, and everyone is going to be saying "Gee, why were we all too stupid to be thinking about this 10 years ago... actually, why weren't we planning for this for the last two generations?"
 
In generations to come they will be saying "I can't believe they just burnt it all!"
 
derty said:
In generations to come they will be saying "I can't believe they just burnt it all!"
Click to expand...

Yeh, and the shame is that we could/can power all our vehicles without oil as fuel. (Still needed for lube etc)

Then we could just use the oil to produce everything else it produces and work on finding alternatives for that, although if we stopped using it in vehicles current reserves would last a lot longer
 

Very logical post, and makes absolute sense Smurf,

So what do you see as the ultimate oil substitution, surely it has to come from some type of renewable source if we are learning anything at all..
 
prawn_86 said:
Yet we still use it to fuel our cars etc.... The oil lobbyists must be doing their job
Click to expand...

What alternative would you suggest? Which alternatives are the oil lobbyists managing to quash? If I stood up and said I had invented an engine which ran on something cheaper, functional and more environmentally friendly than oil, don't you think I might patent it and make myself a bazillionaire?

The only two possible options I can think of...

1) Using solar or wind to produce electricity to electrolyse water into hydrogen and oxygen which could then be compressed and used to fuel cars. But all those energy transformations are going to be expensive, inefficient, and the result would be hazardous and bulky, not to mention the cost of the car itself would be extremely expensive (estimates average over half a million Australian dollars to build one, which wouldn't work all that well, and the fuel would be nastily expensive).

This research into this option is largely being abandoned because it's not feasible.

2) Electrical cars which store their fuel as chemical potential in batteries. If you don't mind spending hours to recharge your fuel cells, and only being able to store enough charge to travel about 100km, then maybe electrical cars could work. I dare say that many of us would be reluctant to give up the ability to refuel in under five minutes and then drive the best part of 1,000km.

Perhaps households could have an auxiliary electrical vehicle for the shopping and picking up the kids, which might slow the consumption of oil a little, but at best it will simply slow things down... a little bit. Further into the future (when oil is going to be running out anyway), maybe the technology will be good enough to allow cars to travel 200-300km on an overnight charge, which would satisfy a large percentage of people (though all those batteries are going to be expensive, and not entirely environmentally friendly, and they'll wear out and need replacing fairly often). Even so, all your planes, buses, trucks, ships etc, will still need to run on oil.

I really don't see our use of oil as something the oil industry is forcing on us, it's just our only option... which is scarey.
 
I really do not think it is our only option for vehicle fuel.

Current electric cars can drive for a few hundred k's on an overnight charge already. If everyone had this it would dramatically reduce feul consumption. I admit that the products mined for these batteries are not the best, but we are only talking about use of oil here.

Im not an engineer so don't know about hydrogen potential, but think it could be used or tweaked.

Politicians could also be much more active. Only public transport allowed in CBDs. Safe, cheap and frequent public transport. etc etc

Heaps of options, no-one is willing to step out the comfort zone however. Perhaps when oil hits a few hundred dollars a barrel...
 

Yep that would help. A nice big oil shock. Once it becomes a real pain in the ar$e for 'working families' across the world you might see some thinking on it. And even some market pressures helping Tech change.
 
Watt the?

recharging an electric car in a few minutes is a possibility if you think outside the box.

Instead of sucking up juice into your battery why can't they have interchangable batteries sold at battery stations? Just like the gas cylinders for the barbie.

As for distances per 'charge' or battery, that would increase as the technology developed as it did with combustion engines. Motorsport really drove most of the developments we have in todays cars so it would be fair to say the equivalent sport would happen with elektro cars.

Time to volt up!
 
Dunger said:
Watt the?
Click to expand...

Hehe


Battery exchange is a possibility I suppose. Not an easy one as these batteries would be massive, much too heavy for people to lift, but I suppose we already have the technology to very easily make robots which could interchange them. Battery quality would be a big issue, as these things would wear out and need replacing. Realistically, everyone would want to charge at home when they had a good battery and go to the exchange when their battery was almost worn out. Perhaps there could be some method of checking the quality of the batteries. Gas cylinder exchange is a reasonable option because no one (few people) would bother fussing over a cheap little cylinder, and if they get one with an extra ding, who cares? But these batteries are going to cost far more than a trivial amount. If your $20,000 battery is replaced with one which is nearly expired you're going to be pretty pissed.

I think you hit the nail on the head when you said future technology may solve the problems. Capacity, weight, etc will improve, but we don't know how much, or how long it will take. Let's hope the improvements are good enough and come soon enough.
 
Battery exchange stations appear to be part of the Better Place business model, according to their website.
 
There is no realistic solution to trying to live the way we do now with less and less oil. And in fact even if by some miracle we had a never ending supply of oil (and we weren't cooking the planet with CO2 emissions) ------- our civilizations would still collapse.

The overarching fact is that we are currently overusing the whole set of renewable and non renewable resources that are necessary to live.

We are rapidly overfishing our oceans. The worlds soils are depleting at very rapid rates. We are running out of phosphorus which is a key element of soil fertility. The huge underground water reserves which are feeding India, America and other countries are disappearing. And don't start to think about the various minerals we mine and use which are also finite.

The point of all this is that if we want to have a sustainable future we need as a human species to take a very deep breath and a clear eyed look at the resources the world currently has and how we can live within these limits. Perhaps an ecological budget - much like a financial one only fundamentally more critical.

Unfortunately nature doesn't do bail outs.

When the bright boys at Llloyds get back next year I reckon they will also start to recognize the other limits to growth. Our problem as a western economy is that we are addicted to an ever increasing use of resources to keep up the never ending growth model.

Just. Can't. Work...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Electricity investments
Replies
8
Views
467
Smurf1976
Armaments in Australia
Replies
12
Views
902
moXJO
M
18.6 Year Property/Sharemarket Cycle …
Replies
2
Views
933
Rosscoe62
January 2025 DDD
5 6 7
Replies
126
Views
8K
ducati916
August 2024 DDD
2 3 4
Replies
75
Views
19K
ducati916
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more...