Interesting issue to consider in this debate: fossil fuels are subsidized at a rate more than 4 times that of “green” energy sources. While it does call into question the non-viability of wind, solar, et al, the more important question would be in what ways will our economies (local, national and global) have to adapt when the subsidies at pulled out from under them. Because if an energy source must be that heavily subsidized, it is clearly not sustainable.
Why do you think nothing is being done, and why this singular focus on nuclear power? New solar and wind installations are every year reaching new records. In 2013 wind and solar was almost 40% of all new energy in the USA. New US solar installation was 4.2 GW. How many nuclear power plants is that? All the new cheap shale gas is probably going to delay it a bit, but the transmission away from fossil fuels is already in full swing. More nuclear would be nice, but not particularly needed.
And, if you read the cite, you will see that the vast majority of these subsidies come in countries that are politically… “challenged”, to put it nicely, in one shape or other.
And the only way you can argue that fuel subsidies amount to 3.5% of US GDP is to literally take everything from road construction to differing tax rates among states* and the kitchen sink and add them in.
This is, in fact, one of the ways they define subsidy. For example, in the UK gas has a VAT of 5% but other products have a VAT of 20%. This article claims that this 15% difference is a subsidy, and adds that to the UK totals. Therefore, with the US having over 50 differing districts (the Feds and the states and DC all impose gasoline taxes), I can only assume they did the same: Compared NY States .50/gallon tax (the highest in the country), declared that .50/gal to be the standard, and therefore called all rates below that “subsidies.” You do that, it’s easy to see how you can say 3.5% of the US economy is dedicated to subsidizing the oil industry. Whether or not this approach is intellectually honest… well, I leave it for the reader to decide.
:rolleyes:
A better analysis of the same data can be found here: http://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/2011/11/23/iea-review-shows-many-developing-countries-subsidize-fossil-fuel-consumption-creating-artificially-lower-prices/
*That’s another 1/2 of Saudi production that we gain year-over-year.
Certainly.
In the 1970s and 1980s, businessmen routinely used helicopters to travel from suburbs of Los Angeles and New York City into their offices. Johnny Carson, as one example, often had a helicopter take him from his home in Malibu to the Tonight Show studios in Burbank to avoid the lengthy commute in traffic
The Pan Am building (now Met Life) in Midtown Manhattan used to have a heliport on their roof until the 1977 accident there that killed five people.That was for a 7-10 minute flight to JFK Airport.
We can switch nuclear at any time.
We choose not for social, rather than economic, reasons.
The US currently produces 20% of its electricity using nuclear power.France produces almost 80% of theirs.If fossil fuels were in danger of becoming scarce (if we don’t include methane hydrates under the ocean which will probably last mankind an additional 50-100 years at current usage rates) then pivoting towards nuclear while expensive (itself an artificial constraint, not a real one) would be the most effective method of resolving any possible energy crises in the future.
Outside of transportation and petrochemicals , oil can be replaced by nuclear, tidal and hydroelectric. Even natural gas and coal-based synthetic petroleum can be utilized to bridge the gap between any slowing oil production and the beginning of alternative energy sources.
“Better analysis”? No, a different analysis. In the first place, it never really says what it claims to say (I mean, how can you say that subsidies at the production end do not percolate to consumer prices). In the second place, the source is so ridiculously biased that it is almost impossible to take anything they say seriously.
Shale oil will last for only a few years, and all unconventional sources have low energy returns.
Meanwhile, the global economy needs high energy returns, and given a growing global middle class, even higher.
According to the articles I shared earlier, the EIA acknowledges that shale oil will last for only a few years, and that’s assuming that producers absorb increasing capital expenditures. The same applies to crude oil producers. See the lecture shared earlier for details.
Also, crude oil production is expected to drop. Meanwhile, oil demand has to keep rising, likely even faster given a growing global middle class. Details on that were shared earlier.
How will unconventional sources meet a decline in crude oil production and an increase in demand? The IEA concludes that given current conditions, we will need the equivalent of one Saudi Arabia every seven years. Given a growing global middle class, one every three to four years.
Can unconventional production meet that demand? According to the IEA, at best all oil and gas sources will increase total production by only 9 pct during the next two decades. Meanwhile, global oil demand has to increase by 2 pct a year to ensure economic growth. More details in the report shared earlier.
FWIW, global oil production per capita (which is more logical) peaked back in 1979.
Also, we need to look at production rate instead of reserves. According to the EIA, shale oil production will peak after only a few years. At the same time, it will have to meet increasing global demand plus an eventual decline in crude oil production.
To recap, global oil demand has to go up by up to 2 pct per annum to maintain economic growth, or the equivalent of one Saudi Arabia every seven years. To meet a growing global middle class plus make up for a decline in crude oil production, we will need one every three to four years.
In relation to that,
“Oil glut forecaster Maugeri admits duff maths”
In many ways, we can consider this issue resolved if crude oil production rises to around 100 Mb/d and oil prices drop to less than $30 a barrel.
Not only that, but vehicles (and many other products) involve a manufacturing and shipping process that is significantly dependent on oil, both for energy and for petrochemicals.
According to one article shared earlier, it will take decades to make the transition to minimizing fossil fuel use, if not incredible levels of cooperation and coordination between countries, not to mention crude oil producers going for maximum depletion rates. More details are given in the IEA report, but I think the gist is that to ensure economic growth oil demand has to keep rising by around 2 pct a year. However, all oil and gas production will rise by only 9 pct during the next two decades (and that’s assuming that crude oil production flat lines indefinitely).
The slack (around 70 pct of annual oil demand increase) has to be replaced by renewable energy.
The problem is that in a global capitalist system, efficiency leads to more consumption, not less. Whatever is saved due to combinations of efficiency and demand destruction are consumed elsewhere. More details can be seen in the peak demand article I shared earlier.
That’s why according to the IEA, in order to continue economic growth, oil demand has to keep rising. The reason is obvious: the rest of the world wants more oil and other resources, especially due to a growing global middle class. (See article shared earlier.)
How much new oil will be needed? According to the IEA, around one Saudi Arabia every seven years. To meet a growing global middle class plus production issues with crude oil, one every three to four years.
Very good point. In fact, may components needed for nuclear energy, renewable energy, etc., require oil for the manufacturing and shipping process. And not just components but even infrastructure needed to deliver energy and the finished goods that will use electricity.
Also, the U.S. needs lots of energy, and with a return of around 40 (according to the EROI article shared earlier). It has less than 5 pct of the world’s population but needs up to a quarter of world oil production to maintain living standards.
For the world to do the same, we will need several earths. And as it is, there is a growing global middle class in BRIC and emerging markets that is increasing resource and energy consumption.
I would also look at energy returns and energy quantity:
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/3786
That is, given the chart, combinations of energy sources might be able to meet middle class needs of only the U.S. and a few other countries. It will likely not meet the needs of a growing global middle class.
The catch is that a global capitalist system requires ever-increasing resource and energy demands met, i.e., an expanding market supplied with increasing production to guarantee increasing profits.
According to the IEA, crude oil production peaked in 2005.
If one looks at oil production per capita (which is more logical, as oil production is needed by a growing population), then various sources show that that peaked back in 1979:
Meanwhile, as the lecture earlier showed, capital expenditures are growing because we are now resorting to shale oil and new oil is becoming more difficult to extract. If any, that’s the best evidence that we are seeing peak oil.
Very likely, with oil prices triple than what they should be, the only thing that is keeping more effects of peak oil in check are high oil prices coupled with high food prices, in turn leading to a weak economy while governments proclaim “recovery” every year.
:dubious: What “should” oil prices be?
I picked up a copy, and I think both of you may be interested in checking out the latest issue of Foreign Affairs, which focuses on shale. They claim that the costs and efficiencies of fracking are dropping very rapidly, and they claim that global shale reserves exceed the total global conventional reserves of 1.5 trillion bbl.
Now, I realize reserves are not production, but the gist is that by no means is shale oil going to run out anytime soon. Consider that in the context of your Oil Drum article on EROI
The trends didn’t hold. We’ve replaced ALL of our reserves with shale discoveries, the advent of horizontal drilling disrupts the trend in falling EROI (even if it still isn’t especially great for fracking), and, as your article points out, solar IS the EROI exception.