It’s not an issue of developing their own systems but energy returns and quantity.
And there are no “incredible leaps” in terms of solar technology. That’s because what’s often cited is nameplate power, which gives a return of 18. Actual return is 6 because wiring, inverters, the infrastructure needed to develop large systems, etc., are not considered. That’s why the Spanish example is critical because it refers to large systems being used for several years, and in an area that receives lots of sunlight.
And that’s for a country that has invested significant amounts of money on such systems. Should we fantasize about most of the world having similar funds?
What makes matters even worse is that energy quantity is not even considered, nor the ability of solar to scale up to meet energy requirements of a global capitalist economy.
I explained that last point numerous times in previous posts. How many responses did I get concerning that? Try zero.
When you order something, you have to pay for it. You also have to pay for all of the other components needed for the systems. You even have to pay for the infrastructure needed to distribute electricity. And you have to pay a lot more just for such systems to scale up to levels that oil and others may allow.
Oil prices have to go up to justify the transition. Coincidentally, when they go up, the cost for mining, petrochemicals, manufacturing, and shipping also go up.
It’s not so much being poor as what’s needed not to be poor that matters. And it’s not so much money as the energy and material resources that matter more.
In order to alleviate poverty, the world has to not only maintain but go beyond average economic growth the past three decades. As I explained many times in what was called “schtick” (and the reason why I am ignoring XT), the IEA reported that to do so will require the equivalent of one Saudi Arabia in new oil every seven years. If that new oil is unconventional, then even more will be needed. To meet a growing global middle class, even more. And not just oil but fresh water, uranium, iron ore, copper, phosphorus, and more. And not just for driving cars and operating appliances but mining materials to make them, manufacturing, mechanized agriculture, and shipping. And not just consumer goods but infrastructure.
Just think of the extensive material resources and energy needed to maintain middle class standards in developed countries, and assume that the same will be needed for the bulk of the global population to alleviate poverty, and we’re looking at at least an additional earth.
Money? That’s not a problem. We can create that easily, as much of it consists of numbers in hard drives. Currently the world economy has over a quadrillion dollars (notional value) in unregulated derivatives, many times larger than the value of physical assets worldwide.
This point is important because that’s the driver of the current economy, which is capitalist. That means we need more and more resources to back up increasing amounts of credit so that we can generate more credit to acquire more resources…get the picture?
And we’re expecting solar energy to scale up to maintain the basis of industrial civilization, where competition and financial speculation is the norm?
Why not look at the energy and material cost to obtain them? Second, why only India and China? Why not the global economy? Third, compare that to expected energy and even material resource needs (don’t forget petrochemicals) needed by the same to maintain growth.
You have to consider the point that that’s the same IEA that argued in 2005 that peak oil will not take place for many decades and then acknowledged in 2010 that conventional production peaked in 2005.
More important, why not look at the requirements needed for a full transition? I explained that many times in my previous posts. Until now, no responses on those points.
About the first few sentences, that’s my point.
From what I know, shale oil technology has been around for decades. Shale oil was employed because conventional production barely went up, and prices went beyond $50. That’s why rig counts are dropping: prices have to go up in order to stabilize production.
Finally, according to the EIA, shale oil is expected to peak in only a few years, with natural gas taking over.
Given that, it is very obvious that peak oil has taken place: high production costs, high marginal costs, high capex, resorting to shale, and now referring to other sources of energy as fossil fuel energy returns start dropping.
The main reason why the IEA is concerned is because oil supply is not doing fine. That’s why they expect total oil and gas production to go up by only 9 pct during the next two decades. That can only happen if conventional production flatlines permanently, and that’s possible if producers go for URR at all cost. That’s a fantasy in a capitalist economy that operates in the opposite direction.
Oil demand is weakening because another global financial crisis is expected. That’s why QE started unwinding last year, followed by 22 commodity indices (not just oil) crashing.
Don’t you remember what happened the last time oil prices crashed, especially to indicators like the Baltic Dry Index? How have those six years of “recovery” fared so far?
Peak oil isn’t one of those problems, and this is a zombie thread? You just acknowledged the opposite in your previous paragraph. In fact, every point you’ve shared is either an explanation of or a solution to a problem that isn’t supposed to exist.
All of these things are becoming more elegant and efficient. This is a good place to mention microgrids:
The infrastructure to develop large systems isn’t considered because, if I can continue with the India example, we are going to be installing small systems. A rural area that is getting reliable electricity for the first time probably won’t demand terribly much. The ability to keep the lights on at night will mostly mean people working more, a second order effect, never mind, I’ve made my point.
You are chained to the notion that all commercial activity has to be fossil-fuel based. Mining, for instance, is going to be powered by renewables because that is where power will come from. I’m sure I’ve mentioned SunPower’s Salvador merchant solar plant in Chile, which, until the weather turned bad, was providing power to mine copper:
It may not seem like much, but as more and more of the world is powered by renewables, more and more tasks will be fueled from those sources. That, I believe, is what will bring about peak oil: demand destruction. Oil will get usurped because renewables will be cheaper in the long run.
Resource extraction is going to be powered by renewable electricity. This Earth contains scads of the kinds of resources needed for projects like wind and solar. Iron? Lots. Copper? Abundant. Silicon? Are you kidding me? There are plenty more resources required by modern society, but I think you are being alarmist about their scarcity or difficulty of extraction.
In the long run, resources will be procured from the Moon, Mars (there’s your other planet), and the asteroid belt (literally a gold mine). Fetching resources from these places will mean permanent settlements off-planet. It sounds almost mad to point these things out, but it is actually sober progress long-term. You can refer to how miserable Earth’s poorest corners will probably remain; both scenarios will unfold simultaneously.
So you see I’ve addressed these? The price of the components are falling. The centralized distribution model of electrification is itself becoming outdated. Why oil “won’t allow” renewable systems to scale up is beyond me- I cited the IEA claiming solar would supply 50% of all energy needs by 2060.
Oil prices don’t really have to go up to justify the transition- they’re too high already. Yes, they’ve crashed, but renewables aren’t going anywhere. Also, mining, manufacturing and shipping only price in synch with oil for as long as those are chained to oil-based power production. They won’t be forever. Petrochemicals, well, ya got me there.
That’s why India is such a fantastic example. Take a look at India’s solar resource. Nearly the whole country absorbs 4.5-6 kwh/day. Compare to America’s- not bad, but India is a veritable solar gold mine. Parts of the Middle East are even better, if the place is ever stable.
I’m going to need a cite that we need an additional Earth. I’ve already pointed out where to find one, though.
Don’t worry about XT’s talk. He will of course be condescending because he has been a precious engineer. He’s half comedian you know, sometimes it comes off wrong, and engineers can be kinda awkward. But he is rather articulate, even if you don’t agree with him. Sometimes rejected ideas can be the most thought provoking, you should forgive him that.
As for alleviating poverty, well, I think everyone wants that but there will be only so much progress. The poor can do the most to alleviate their poverty. Sometimes they just don’t have the resources. It’ll be great if some entity helps them out, but they are just as likely to think it more worthwhile to spend resources mining the asteroid belt.
Derivatives are an abstraction. Money isn’t entirely unhinged from a normal concept of value.
Right, sooner or later all the credit will be just paper when we run out of resources. Except that we inhabit a literally infinite universe, we won’t really run out of resources if we don’t give up. Really.
The IEA expects solar to supply 50% of all energy needs by 2060.
Energy =! oil. That’s the foundational flaw in your view. Energy is going to come from sources other than oil.
Right, ROI. This may be a good time to say something nice about Spain’s solar systems. A lot of them are concentrated solar systems- a giant cement tower surrounded by mirrors which focus sunlight onto a spot on the top that gets so hot salt melts, a medium which can transfer heat to boil steam all night long until the sun comes up the next day. This method of power generation hasn’t kept up with panels in conventional accounting methods, but it is worth noting that the biggest expense in projects like these- the towers- are rather permanent. They may stand for 100 years or more. So, it might take 20 years for such a system to pay for itself, but after that it may be a trivial matter to maintain the mirrors and generate cheap power from then on.
All solar systems are like this in a way. Somebody has to pay for them up front, and the payoff comes in the future, sometimes years away. Far too many capitalists are not this patient, you are right, but in the end the long term approach is going to yield the long-term results. But a bank putting up money to pay for one of these things isn’t really a sign of a disease of the whole system. A worthwhile long-term asset is put into the world, and the bank, understanding the long-term approach, cuts itself in on the long-term results. In the abstract there is a hard physical limit to growth, but again, this Earth yet contains vast, untapped resources, and they can be acquired via renewable power.
Others have noted that you are hung up on this. So what? The result is that peak oil is decades away, and not immanent. Who cares if it is ‘conventional’ oil or shale oil? Some shale oil is easy to get; some conventional oil is very expensive to extract. If you accept that money is not unmoored from real value, cost is a good way to gauge whether or not it is worth it to extract oil. At $60/barrel, most consumers are plenty satisfied, and I will be surprised to see oil back at $100/barrel in the next decade due to pent-up supply.
Well, I am talking about a timeframe that extends out to 2060. The whole world has turned completely upside-down in less time. A global renewable energy transition isn’t absurd to consider by this horizon, especially considering that it will generally be the cost-effective choice.
Not really. Horizontal drilling is what’s new. Shale oil was employed because suddenly they could. It goes nuts with oil prices over $100/barrel, but there are vast deposits (the Bakken covers ~25,000 square miles IIRC) with ‘sweet spots’ that can produce for the same or less than ‘conventional’ sources.
Supply and demand. The oil market is being driven by demand, which is slack compared to the potential supply. That’s why oil costs $60 right now and not $100. Your version of Peak Oil requires that the oil market be driven by a supply crunch, which isn’t the case.
Show me a cite, I’ll read it.
None of those amounts to Peak Oil, only a permanent drop in global oil production does. And look, it really hasn’t happened.
I don’t know what URR means. I don’t think an increase of 9% in production of oil and gas over the next two decades is alarming, because it is driven by slack demand growth. It isn’t as alarming as you claim that historical trends in oil and gas consumption won’t hold- it is actually a good thing (unless you are some huge oil/gas investor I guess).
Show me a cite for your point about commodities. Aren’t cheap commodities a good thing, a sign of abundance? As for the next financial crisis, yah, probably eventually, but can you add some color to this point?
I think the crash in oil prices were a symptom of other things. I didn’t really follow the Baltic Index closely, then or now, please elaborate. As for the recovery, well, my investments grew nicely, I bought a new car last year and am buying a townhouse right now. My new girlfriend is smashingly hot, most importantly in the psycho-spiritual sense, but she also exudes puh-LENTY of ‘conventional’ hotness. I’d say the recovery is going pretty good from my POV.
What problem isn’t supposed to exist? What is your frame of reference such that you can name the thing that should not be?
Same old, same old. The thesis can be boiled down to a few simple axioms:
The global economy is directly tied to consumption of energy. More energy in==better economy. Less energy in==crashing economy.
Which means, if the price of energy goes up, the price of everything goes up. If energy prices jump 10%, that means tomorrow a loaf of bread is going to jump 10%.
Energy==oil, or in ralfy’s case ‘conventional oil’. Even though there are other sources of energy, if oil costs more then it costs more to install solar panels. If the cost of oil production rises, the cost of alternative energy production rises in lockstep. If the cost of oil rises, the cost of coal rises, because you need oil to run the bulldozers and dump trucks.
And so if oil prices are low nobody will invest in alternative energy because it costs more than oil, and if oil prices are high nobody will invest in alternative energy because now that energy costs even more. And in this case “alternative energy” also includes “coal”, I guess.
Our economy is therefore utterly and inevitably dependent not just on energy, but on cheap energy. If oil prices double, that means the global economy halves because the price of everything depends on the price of oil and now everything costs twice as much.
There is no technological solution to this. You can’t insulate your house better and cut the cost of heating, because that’s technology. You can’t drive an econobox instead of a Hummer, because that’s technology. You can’t eat tofu instead of kobe beef, because that’s technology. You can’t turn off the lights when you leave the house, because that’s technology.
[QUOTE=IEA]
According to IEA analysis, under extreme assumptions solar energy could provide up to one-third of the world’s final energy demand after 2060. Solar Energy Perspectives outlines a bold ‘what if’ scenario for reaching this ambitious target. A number of assumptions are made to see what might be possible in terms of solar deployment, while keeping affordability in sight. These include policy makers successfully reducing greenhouse gas emissions beyond the current international targets, and electricity-driven technologies fostering significant energy efficiency improvements and displacing fossil fuels in many uses in buildings, industry and transportation. While a broad range of aggressive policies will be needed, this target is achievable.
[/QUOTE]
Here is the full report. I haven’t read it all, but I believe the claim is that under an optimistic scenario solar could supply about half of electricity needs in 2065 and that this would equate to about one-third of total energy demand.
Again, don’t focus on the value of energy in terms of money. Focus on energy returns that are ensured vs. what’s needed to maintain industrial civilization.
Nameplate power is 18 and EPBT is around 30, but observed return is 6. Industrial civilization needs 15, and even more as more join the middle class.
And we haven’t looked at energy quantity yet, or the fact that what affects oil will also affect the materials needed to make panels and other components.
Exactly. Industrial civilization requires large systems, and one built on capitalism even better.
It’s not just a notion but a fact. The problem is that you are confusing reality with visions of the future.
I already explained that it will take decades for a full transition to take place, but during the same time for that same global capitalist system to keep growing even more fossil fuels will be needed. And not just that but even fresh water, phosphates, iron ore, copper, and many more.
Again, you’re confusing your visions of the future with reality. Stick to reality: incredibly heavy loads involved in 60 pct of mining and almost all of container shipping requires engines running on various type of diesel or bunker oil.
Plenty more? Not even close. In general, we’ve already exceeded biocapacity, and that’s for a global population that has barely reached an ecological footprint that will meet basic needs. And that’s a population that will continue growing while resources decrease due to environmental damage and depletion.
More details in the thread that looks at latest findings on “Limits to Growth” forecasts.
First, argue that it’s a “zombie” thread and that the problem hasn’t taken place or will never take place or will be solved. Next, accidentally acknowledge that it’s not a “zombie” thread by throwing in “game changers” like solar. If that doesn’t work, go back to the first argument and refer to abundant resources. And if those two don’t work, refer to space exploration.
I’m tempted not to bother with the rest of your post.
Here’s the basis of that argument: the IEA argues that total oil and gas production will keep rising by 9 pct during the next two decades because conventional production will flatline indefinitely. This will allow the global economy to replace at least 70 pct of oil demand increase with renewable energy, which in turn will solve the problem of peak oil and global warming.
The problem is that in order for conventional production to flatline oil producers will have to go for URRs at all costs. That will mean extensive regulation of the industry plus coordination between economies. How is this possible when the same economies have been doing the opposite the past three decades?
Worse, during the same three decades economic growth, the basis of that same industrial civilization, was made possible through a 1-2 pct annual increase in oil consumption. That’s why the same IEA argues that we will need the equivalent of one Saudi Arabia in new oil every seven years to maintain growth.
If more of that oil is unconventional, then we will need more.
If the same oil will be used to manufacture components for renewable energy during the lengthy transition period, even more.
And if the same industrial civilization rests on a global capitalist system that involves competition, even more.
Given the fact that I’ve stated these points in the past and that I have to do so again shows that I received zero responses from them, and I think you will ignore them again. That’s why I feel that I am wasting my time responding to you.
You’re not countering my arguments. What you just said proves that peak oil is not a “zombie” topic.
Did you know that India’s coal consumption is also rising, and that in general its resource consumption is also increasing due to an emerging global middle class?
And it’s part of BRIC and over forty emerging markets that combined have a substantial population. To meet their resource and energy needs we will need much, mure more than what’s available on the planet.
I give forum members more than enough time to address my arguments. When they refuse to do so, then I am forced to add them to my ignore list.
I am seeing the same things in my replies to you.
You are moving from the point that this is a “zombie” issue to solar power to an abundance of resources to asteroid mining.
It is as if you are swinging wildly, hoping to hit the mark.
Much of money consists of numbers in hard drives, and it’s part of a larger credit system.
Actually, it’s been mostly numbers for a long time.
Likely given reasons explained earlier, and will not sustain industrial civilization.
Actually, it’s energy for heavy equipment and container ships + petrochemicals used for tens of thousands of applications = oil. The same will take place even during the transition process.
I’m not referring to payback time.
Energy, not money. See my previous posts for details.
Decades way? Try ten years ago for conventional production and since 1979 for per capital global production.
Shale oil? According to the EIA, it will peak after a few years.
You don’t even know the basics of this issue.
This might help:
The rest of your paragraph doesn’t counter my arguments.
Again, this does not counter my arguments. Worse, it contradicts your claim that peak oil is a “zombie” thread.
Did demand plummet?
Did conventional production ramp up during the last six years that oil prices tripled?
So much for supply and demand.
Read the EIA 2014 report. I remember posting this before.
Peak oil is not about a permanent drop in global oil production.
As I said earlier, you don’t even know the basics of this issue.
I think you need to study the matter further.
Didn’t I post this before together with Berman’s article?
I think you should. Also, you<> the world.
You argue that this is a zombie thread, which implies that peak oil hasn’t happened.
Before that, you argue that shale oil is abundant, which contradicts the claim that it’s a zombie thread. Why else would we use shale oil?
At the same time, you argue that solar power will save us, which implies that shale oil isn’t enough.
After that, you argue that asteroid mining will save us, which implies that shale oil and solar power isn’t enough.
Now, you end up talking about yourself.
Given that, I don’t see why I should waste more time addressing your posts, which is why I am also adding your account to my ignore list.
To give anecdotal evidence, I was involved with horizontal drilling projects over 20 years ago.
What is new is the extent of this horizontal drilling currently being used.
Also horizontal drilling is used to represent anything that is not vertical so even a well that only reaches 45 degrees deviation may be considered horizontal
20 years ago, horizontal drilling was only a small fraction. Now it represents a significant portion of drilling and the wells are going much further horizontal than ever before.
In some cases we are talking about horizontal legs in excess of several miles (although not that common)
I don’t have much time right now, so I just one to say one thing until later. “Zombie thread” means the topic has been dormant for some time with no replies. This SDMB thread is 10 years old, and nobody has posted to it for months. To post to it after a length of time is to revive a “zombie thread”- it was dead, now it’s back. My point is that you shouldn’t expect people to refer to your previous posts in this case- the thread of the conversation has been lost after so much time.
And, uh, peak oil hasn’t happened. Global production continues to increase, it has not peaked.
It’s an artificial distinction that ralfy boy has tried to make. But no, oil production hasn’t dropped and in fact has risen steadily (I couldn’t find an easy to read chart that shows production in 2014, but it’s up as well, as is production thus far this year). As has been pointed out, the reason why US oil production has been temporarily mothballed or ramped down at least is due to a glut, not due to depletion.
The thing is, the Peak Oil™ folks new schtick is to change the goal posts and say, well, you know, it’s CONVENTIONAL oil that’s peaked, and ‘unconventional’ oil is all that’s keeping it afloat. This is a false argument and really shows that even the Peak Oilers are starting to catch on that the end really isn’t nigh (or neigh, since they can only keep beating the dead horse so long).
As explained earlier, the bad news is that unconventional production has lower energy returns, as seen in higher marginal costs and capex (hence, as Kopits shows, higher amounts of money spent for lower increases in production each time). This explains why the EIA forecasts that shale oil production will peak after only a few years.
In addition, if conventional production continues to drop and negates any increase in unconventional production, then total oil and gas production peaks and starts dropping. Because of that, increasing energy returns becomes critical: unconventional production must meet expected demand plus a decrease in conventional production.
That’s why extensive regulation and coordination between countries now becomes critical: the only way to make sure that conventional production flatlines is for producers to go for maximum depletion rates of ultimately recoverable resources even at a loss. Otherwise, that global economy falls apart.
How much oil will be needed? According to the IEA, at least the equivalent of one Saudi Arabia in new oil (I think that refers to light and medium oil, not heavy-sour or unconventional) will be needed in every seven years to maintain global economic growth of around 2-4 pct per annum. If unconventional production is employed, then more will be needed because the former has low energy returns.
If the same global economy is capitalist and dependent on competition (which means it needs a growing global middle class with expanding consumer markets plus a current middle class and a financial elite dependent on the same) plus wants to transition to renewable energy (which means an energy trap ensues, as some of the oil and material resources will have to be set aside to manufacture renewable energy components and other requirements), then even more will be required.
For the same reason, it is highly unlikely that there will be regulation, coordination between economies, and producers extracting at all costs and at a loss.
I fully agree with your premise, however this shale oil and other unconventional production may last a little longer than originally anticipated as I there may be more shale gas than originally thought. I would not be surprised if this shale gas boom goes on for 20 or 30 years
Now whether all this shale gas is economical and politically able to produce is another question that is unanswered (or I don’t have any clue, only a guess)
This seems inconsistent to me. Oil rigs are shutting down to avoid operating at a loss, because oil prices have dropped dramatically, because of the oil glut. The really good shale plays are producing tons of oil, and making a huge profit at ~$60/bbl.
Indeed, and the EIA states that: shale oil will peak soon, and natural gas will take over.
The problem is that what affects shale oil may also affect shale gas. That is, low energy returns, high capital expenditures, and high production costs require high prices.
The global economy weakens when prices are too high. What complicates matters is that more credit has to created to deal with that, and that in turn contributes to more financial crashes. With crashes, prices drop, and production is affected. Meanwhile, more oil and gas use take their toll on the environment and affect the climate.
[QUOTE=ralfy]
Indeed, and the EIA states that: shale oil will peak soon, and natural gas will take over.
[/QUOTE]
Soon being 2021+ of course. And if you actually read their reports over the last decade they change over time, going from optimistic to pessimistic to very optimistic today. Ralfy seems to like to cherry pick the times when they say (or he thinks they say) what he wants to hear to make is narrative work, and ignore when they don’t. Currently they are pretty upbeat, predicting 25+ years of good solid production for most of the top tier tight oil production facilities.
Same old mantra. This is the new way that Peak Oil™ is being packaged. Go back to his previous posts to see interesting and stunning details where it’s all laid out all the way back to his first post!
Yes, oil and gas take their toll and this is certainly an issue that must be addressed. But Peak Oil™ isn’t going to happen, and frankly if you REALLY think it will then the issues of global climate change will be self correcting, since if we run out of economically feasible oil and gas and if Peak Oil™ predictions of massive gloom and doom are correct then in X number of years (X being the variable for when we ACTUALLY GET TO THIS RIDICULOUS PREDICTION THAT WE HAVE BEEN SEEING FOR DECADES NOW) there won’t be enough of us left to keep the trend of ever increasing CO2 going.
Did you listen to the freaking video in the article you linked too? The very first question was about whether discovery was down because there isn’t anything to find or because, due to the continued glut on the market investment for exploration is down. What do you suppose the answer was?
Seriously, you revived this thread to do a drive by link to this???
I assumed he had come back to agree he had been massively wrong in the past, and posted the link to back up his new understanding. Glad you finally came around to understanding the situation Ralfy
.
So because of the oil glut, oil producers aren’t working very hard to open up new development. And this is a disaster, because since we’ve got too much oil this means we’ll produce less oil in the future, which means less oil, and less oil is a world economic disaster.
See, it doesn’t matter if production is going up or down, prices are going up or down, exploration is going up or down, consumption is going up or down. It’s all bad news and will lead to global economic collapse.
Clearly. One has but to slog back through myriad drive by links and previous unsupported assertions by you, as well as several times where you did a drive by link and made an assertion that was contradicted by your own link…such as this time. But I’m sure in some convoluted way this article backs up your arguments (whatever they actually are)…
Did you listen to the freaking video in the article you linked too? The very first question was about whether discovery was down because there isn’t anything to find or because, due to the continued glut on the market investment for exploration is down. What do you suppose the answer was?
