Some past gleanings from the Bioenergy List
Bioenergy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/
"Oil Production -- According to the oil map on page 56, May 2000
Popular Science, world oil production will be down to half of what
it is now by 2015. From there it just keeps going down until by 2050
production is down to 15% of present levels. More optimistic
forecasts merely shift the time scale by a few years. Our own oil is
nearly gone."
-- Kermit Schlansker
"How many billions of barrels could be brought to the surface in the
US if oil prices were at $75 per bbl?"
-- Kevin Chisholm
"... excellent point. We tried to stabilize the price of Gold for
years. Now its >200$ and mines are viable that weren't at $35/oz.
Plus, many commercial processes that used Gold have found
substitutes or ways to use less Gold. Gold-plated contacts are
alloyed with Nickel to extend and strengthen the microlayer of Gold.
Companies have arisen to reclaim Gold off e-scrap. Now, the analogy
is obvious. If Gold were held at $35, then none of these measures
would be existent. In the same way, tech-progress in energy has been
halted due to cheap oil. I have no doubt whatsoever that inventors
can come up with a way to make oil at $20-50 per barrel. So let the
price rise. I hope oil goes to $200 per barrel."
-- JB
"US Department of State, "Energy Resources of the World", p. 71 -
all known petroleum reserves would be exhausted in 25 years. Date of
publication? 1949."
-- N
Yes, quite. Funny, that. An article I wrote in 1980 counted I think
six previous such revisions following an oil "crisis". Doesn't
include coal - there's still LOTS of coal. Good oil is easily
produced from poor-quality coal (SASOL, eg). Then there's this:
Earth Has More Oil Than Previously Estimated
RESTON, Virginia, March 24, 2000 (ENS) - The latest U.S. Geological
Survey (USGS) assessment of the world's oil and gas reserves
estimates there is about 20 percent more undiscovered oil than
previously believed. The agency also reports a slight decrease in
estimates of undiscovered natural gas. The USGS World Petroleum
Assessment 2000 estimates the volume of oil and gas, outside the
U.S., that may be added to the world's reserves in the next 30
years. "There is still an abundance of oil and gas in the world,"
said Thomas Ahlbrandt, USGS World Petroleum Assessment project
chief. "Since oil became a major energy source about 100 years ago,
about 539 billion barrels of oil have been produced outside of the
U.S. We now estimate the total amount of future technically
recoverable oil, outside the U.S., to be about 2120 billion barrels."
The assessment indicates that there is more oil and gas in the
Middle East and in the offshore areas of western Africa and eastern
South America than previously reported. There is less oil and gas in
Canada and Mexico, and lower volumes of natural gas in the Former
Soviet Union. The USGS World Petroleum Assessment 2000 is the first
report to provide a rigorous geologic foundation for estimating
undiscovered energy resources. The results have implications for
energy prices, policy, security and the global resource balance.
"These assessments provide a snapshot of current information about
the location and abundance of undiscovered oil and gas resources at
a point in history," said Gene Whitney, USGS Energy Team chief
scientist.
http://ens.lycos.com/ens/mar2000/2000L-03-24-09.html
Which also keeps happening, somehow. Regarding this USGS study,
Joshua Tickell said: "As of '97, we had extracted 807 billion
barrels of oil and 995 billion barrels of extractable oil remained
in the earth's crust. We're consuming 24 billion barrels a year with
an annual consumption increase of 2%. Here's the key: there is
another trillion barrels of oil buried under rock sediment and in
other virtually inaccessible areas. The cost to extract it will
equate in 2000 dollars to over $5 a gallon for gasoline at US pumps.
The marginal utility of gasoline (the point at which the demand for
gasoline begins to decline) is $3 a gallon. Who's going to extract
oil they can't sell? The end of oil is not about geology, it's about
profit margins."
So, cut-off at $3. But Europeans pay about $4 or more, others pay a
lot more. So that's a relative figure, not an absolute one. Anyway
it's utility that matters, not price. Some
cars now get 80 mpg, some more than that - that $5 a gallon at the pump might
take you further than your $1.70 or whatever does now, maybe twice
as far. If the gas costs twice as much but it takes you twice as
far, who'll even notice? So no cut-off at $3.
As for the vast amounts of oil under the rocks and the shale and so
on, shortly after Joshua wrote that some scientists announced
promising new techniques for getting the oil out of the shale at
economic prices. "Virtually inaccessible" is another movable feast,
as is "extractable".
Then there are the revelations, previously posted to the list
several times, that the real cost of US oil is about $100 a barrel,
once you include all the hidden subsidies, the cost of defending (?)
the Middle East supplies, and so on. How about shifting some of
those wasted bucks towards more positive ends, like conservation
measures and renewable energy? Various studies have shown that
investments in both conservation and renewables can pay off
handsomely, boosting the economy and creating many jobs - unlike
hidden subsidies for oil. Unlike, too, Mr Bush's energy plans:
http://enn.com/news/wire-stories/2002/01/01232002/reu_46215.asp
"Bush energy plan said to help industry, not public": WASHINGTON,
January 23, 2002, Reuters - The Bush administration's energy plan
will make the U.S. economy more dependent on oil and was designed to
help Enron and oil companies, not the American public, a Democratic
senator said Tuesday. [more]
Anyway, all the perils and pitfalls of prediction aside, the whole
matter of future oil supplies is intensely political, whoever's
projections they might be there's immense pressure to nudge them
this way or that.
Whatever the case, virtually everyone outside the US, including the
OECD, agrees that US oil is way too cheap. And virtually everyone
outside the OECD would agree that the rich countries simply have to
change their ways. Look at these figures:
USA
Per Capita Energy Consumption: 355.9 million Btu
Per Capita Carbon Emissions: 5.5 metric tons of carbon
Number of People per Motor Vehicle: 1.3
France
Per Capita Energy Consumption: 173.5 million Btu
Per Capita Carbon Emissions: 1.8 metric tons of carbon
Number of People per Motor Vehicle: 1.9
Japan
Per Capita Energy Consumption: 171.6 million Btu
Per Capita Carbon Emissions: 2.4 metric tons of carbon
Number of People per Motor Vehicle: 1.8
Australia
Per Capita Energy Consumption: 249.8 million Btu
Per Capita Carbon Emissions: 4.9 metric tons of carbon
Number of People per Motor Vehicle: 1.7
India
Per Capita Energy Consumption: 12.3 million Btu
Per Capita Carbon Emissions: 0.25 metric tons of carbon
Number of People per Motor Vehicle: 142.9
Sudan
Per Capita Energy Consumption: 2.3 million Btu
Per Capita Carbon Emissions: 0.04 metric tons of carbon
Number of People per Motor Vehicle: 100
Nepal
Per Capita Energy Consumption: 2.3 million Btu
Per Capita Carbon Emissions: 0.04 metric tons of carbon
Number of People per Motor Vehicle: N/A
On a per capita basis, the US uses 5.4 times more than its fair
share of the world's energy, France 2.8 times its share, Japan 2.7
times its share, Australia 3.8 times its share.
India uses one-fifth of its fair share, Sudan less than one-fifth
its share, Nepal less than one-fifth its share.
The average American uses twice as much energy as the average
European or Japanese and 155 times as much as the average Nepalese.
Do we really think things can go on like this? They can't, and they won't.
I reckon we're clever little monkeys - often too clever for our own
good maybe, but clever enough anyway, and this problem isn't beyond
us. It might indeed seem to be beyond our (?) governments, our
institutions, our (heh!) corporations, but it isn't beyond us
ordinary humans.
Fifteen years ago the environment and environment issues just didn't
matter a damn. Everyone conceded that, yes, the environment's
important, of course it is, but in the real world we have to be
practical... Now it's a matter of gigabucks - politicians,
economists, corporations, governments that don't pay heed to
environment issues pay the consequences. Environmental
cost-accounting is firmly on the table and won't go away -
externalising the costs as of yore becomes more and more difficult.
The precautionary principle is here to stay and steadily gathers
strength. In 1985 few predicters predicted this would happen.
The alleged end of oil is decades away, it's hard to see what
consumer perceptions will be like then, as well as mpg. Or what
teeth things like the Kyoto Protocol will have grown. The kids have
turned into environmentalists, though who knows what they'll be like
when they're adults. More and more people hate cars. This site is
full of ammunition for people who hate cars:
http://www.rco.on.ca/factsheet/fs_b02.html
In the end, soil is far more important than oil - now we mine soil
fertility in the same way we mine oil, thus turning it into an
all-too-finite resource. Unlike oil though, soil can and should be
husbanded, not mined: it then still has finite limitations, but
we're far from reaching them. Healthy soil can produce a huge amount
of energy, indefinitely, without depletion, as long as there's a sun
to shine on green leaves. Add solar power, wind, and human ingenuity
and the only real problem left is the lack of political will. That's
our business, eh? We ordinary humans can see to that.
Best
Keith Addison
Journey to Forever
_______________________________________________
Biofuel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel
Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable):
http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/
