Registered Members Login:
Forgotten Your Details? Click Here To Recover +
Welcome To The ShareCafe Community - Talk Shares And Take Stock With Smart Investors - New Here? Click To Register >

12 Pages (Click to Jump) V   1 2 3 4 > »    
Reply to this topic

Oil Supply/ Peak oil not till 2025
post Posted: Jan 10 2014, 12:55 PM
  Quote Post

Posts: 431
Thanks: 36

The U.S. could surpass Russia and Saudi Arabia as the world’s top oil producer by 2015 due to booming output from shale. It is expected to produce large scale shale gas production by the 2020s to boost the UK’s energy security. I believe oil could stay below $100 level in 2014 and it could go down to around $80 dollar Pb.

My ideas are not a recommendation to either buy or sell any security, commodity or currency. Please do your own research prior to making any investment decisions.

post Posted: Dec 7 2013, 01:56 PM
  Quote Post

Posts: 2,893
Thanks: 3324


View changed in 2006 on this, Whilst bullish on oil, supply issues and well aware cheap oil was GONE. The peak oil theory went out the window for various reasons.

Updated view, with USA declaring tar sands open, now CSG and more recently shale oil and gas, the peak oil equation well beyond 2025 and if asked 2050 and beyond.

Shale gas and oil the reason. Not cheap, not energy cheap either, so price of oil will remain bid as developing these deposits costly, likely base is $65- and as it approaches and if it ever goes through there, lower as it did in GFC 1, the traditional oil fields over time less and less and more of the new types of hydrocarbon energy takes over and drilling deep onshore, fracking and then refineries for Kerogen oil which is what oil shale produces not cheap.

But the addition of likely 20,000- trillion shale gas deposits and 200 billion barrels of shale oil add another lease of life to the peak oil timeline.

As I mention at the end of this messy PDF which is a work in progress, mainly about AUD and currencies and other things, it does go into the likely 2020-30 expansions Australia will see in this field and with 1,000 trillion cubic feet of gas we will be a very large LNG exporter for many many years.

Anyhow here is the PDF just to update this view ....

Attached File  Long_term_Currency_views_Oil_views_and_trade_views_2013.pdf ( 206.1K ) Number of downloads: 67

All views expressed are my own opinions. While I take every care when posting no guarantee to the absolute veracity of the postings is given or implied. Please do your own reseach and consult a professional investment advisor before investing.
post Posted: Jun 19 2008, 04:04 PM
  Quote Post

Posts: 2,893
Thanks: 3324

Well we all are different I suppose.

I kind of look at oil now and scratch my head.

One ton of coal contains about 3.94 barrels of energy in it so when we have one form trading at US$135- and the other at US$25.50 per barrel energy equiv I of course have to favor the long term outlook of one over the other.

Suppose the uranium guys might say the same a single lb of uranium produces 13 times as much energy .... with uranium its the up front cost of a nuclear reactor and then the back end cost as yet to be solved of storing it for 100,000 years.

Oh well ...

did see another one of those gosh sorts of things which leads me to believe more in the alterantives as time goes on. One big problem has been batteries for cars whatever. Lead acid not really suitible for cars adn Lithium perfect due to light wieght but lithium has a big flaw ... after 5 years whether the batter is chaged or not ... if you sit a lithium battery in a cupboard for 5 years ... its kaput. It along with a number of cycles of rechaarging it can go thru ... about 500 ... also has this other limitation. A commercial lead acid battery with very thick plates can go about 2,000 cycles ....

Anyhow ... it seems they have come up with a new battery and results confirmed at two universities ... a lithium one which can hold 10 times the current batteries and the lithium ones not I thought were impressive ... but wait it gets better instead of after 500 recharges the thing is stuffed or after 5 years the batter needs replacing it appears not only does the new batter hold 10 times the old amount of power it ... can be recharged between 5,000 and 8,000 times and ... lasts 15-20 years.

As i said before I started this deabte the implications of these quantum leaps forward from record to 8 track casette to cassette to cd to IPod and MP3 players ... amazing stuff the last 30 years. A normal audio CD holds 25 tracks max ... and MP3 Cd same thing but different format holds 140 or so tracks about 8 hours worth.

This whilst some time from commercial production ... its not science fiction. Cars with ranges of 200km ... on one charge ... I now see after looking at Chrysler and their expected model where they got the 1,000 km range from .... these new batteries.

Thats not the only similar one by the way ....

The claim is that the battery, a Lithium-ion (Li-ion) type called Nanosafe being developed by a company called Altairnano, is able to provide a useful operating range of 250 miles, a full recharge time of 10 minutes, and a useful life of 12-20 years through 15,000 charge/discharge cycles.


Oh well back in my hole till they get around to producing these things .... and then selling them to the public.

All views expressed are my own opinions. While I take every care when posting no guarantee to the absolute veracity of the postings is given or implied. Please do your own reseach and consult a professional investment advisor before investing.
post Posted: Jun 19 2008, 03:07 PM
  Quote Post

Posts: 41

In reply to: kahuna1 on Thursday 19/06/08 11:22am

"One thing I know for sure makes the world go around is money and economics and suggesting it doesn't is ... well quite a different view to my own the one you have.

Money is nothing but a proxy for energy. Energy makes the world go around. Capitalism provides the framework for humanity to use exponentially more energy to further civilization.

Obviously after peak energy the capitalist system will either fail or be modified to deal with the new realities and probably be based on a more energy based zero growth system once we reach equilibrium.

Money is nothing but a few electrons moving around the banking system or some paper that can be burned to provide a bit of heat.

post Posted: Jun 19 2008, 11:22 AM
  Quote Post

Posts: 2,893
Thanks: 3324

QUOTE (jimbob @ Thursday 19/06/08 10:43am)

Well said Jimbob...

Having watched the total energy equation and gone from a peak oil and peak energy person to somethign else your views are about whre my own were in 2002.

Total equation I suspect at US$20- per barrel was doomed ... no likely alterantives and I suppose the amazing thing of the last 50 years with a population explosion going from 3 billion to 6.4 billion is that the price of oil sat for so long ... so low.

I am not an economist .... but pretty pragmatic with my apprach to these things.

Transition to a lesser dependance on fossil fuels is and will be painful. Part of the cost was an economic one and making power ... in all forms more expensive ... making competing types cheaper in comparison even without improvements in technology.

People who are waiting for technology to create energy to solve the energy crisis will never understand the problem

One thing I know for sure makes the world go around is money and economics and suggesting it doesn't is ... well quite a different view to my own the one you have.

Economics of generating one KW of energy for coal vs solar or wind at 2001 prices we were talking a waste of time ... the price overall of energy and how we viewed it had to be changed to make any hope of alternatives viable or Kyoto even to have a chance. When I sdid the sums in 2002 at US$25- per ton coal its was miles away so too a US$20- per barrel ...

Even at US$50- didnt work for a ton of coal or a barrel of oil ... the magic number with no changes needed to technology is around US$200- per barrel for oil or per ton of coal.

Since we are well on the way to both and as time goes on ... the efficieency seems to be going ahead in leaps and bounds bringing down the KW per hr cost of some ... the goal posts keep moving.

In 2002 Europe set a target of 20% of energy created by renewable energy ... by the year 2020. Europe is a very large place ... it appears by 2020 the number is likely to be 23 or 24% ....

times change and if one holds onto an old dogma that at US$50- nothign worked or would replace the dependance on oil ....

I see in the USA a true alternative 100% electric car has been released ... cheap .. US$20k ... range only about 200 km but covers a lot of users and ... top speed 110km and hour.

Also as I flick thru the green stuff I see a company has come up with a new way to apply solar panels to their backing and the old process was labor intensive and needed to be conducted in a vacum ... the new process ... 33% the costs ... now I add some of the new structures and power breakthroughs with likely a lower cost for silicon as time goes on and gee one way or another the slashing of the economics of solar is going to happen.

Of course if your dead set on your view on things I cant and will never try and change your view on things but did find these links interesting either way.

This more on the size ... 1 gw vs a really big plant at 300kw ... and thats just one machine.

Oh the car I mentioned ....

California based company Green Vehicles recently began selling an affordable $20,000 electric car called the Triac. The small but efficient 3-wheeled car has a range of 120 miles and can travel up to 70mph on the highway. Charging the lithium-ion batteries that power the 20kw electric motor takes about 6 hours, and there is an optional capacity boost battery pack available that extends the range by 20% (why not include it with the car?). The Triac comes in 8 different color combinations and is available from the dealership in San Jose. See the company website for more details.

Interesting site ....

I tend to think the total mix will change and was surprised to find my main gripe with prius being a car that costs $20- k more and saves even at these prices a mere 10 k in fuel a bit of a waste ... so to see a car ... costing in total 20k with at least a reasonable economy and range and speed was a surprise to say the least. We are getting there.

Chevy has on on the blocks pure electric due for 2012 production with ... zero to 100 km in 5 secs about the speed of a Ferrari and 1,000 km range so projecting things may stay the same I find quite intersting.

Each car removed to electric ... 12 barrels of oil demand destroyed forever .... so it will not be quick but its happening ...

Oh well thanks for the chat

Oh their web site the car maker ....

Liked the non toy ones the thing actually has a top speed of 80 mph ... and the work one also looks interesting ....

All views expressed are my own opinions. While I take every care when posting no guarantee to the absolute veracity of the postings is given or implied. Please do your own reseach and consult a professional investment advisor before investing.
post Posted: Jun 19 2008, 10:43 AM
  Quote Post

Posts: 41

In reply to: kahuna1 on Thursday 19/06/08 08:43am

LOL, yes GB is an alien....

There are some very simple facts here and yet remarkably few people are able to grasp them...

People that talk about total resources in the ground and not rates of extraction will never understand the problem

People who do not understand the power of the exponential function and the area under the curve will never understand the problem

People who talk about economics and cost and not net energy analysis will never understand the problem

People who do not understand the basic laws of thermodynamics will never understand the problem

People who talk about years left of a commodity by dividing known resource by current rates of extraction will never understand the problem

People who are waiting for technology to create energy to solve the energy crisis will never understand the problem

For these people are economists and others who have no concept of actual energy flows, they do not understand that to do work you need a flow of energy per unit time and that you must convert one type of energy to another...

They do not understand the difference between 1 million barrels per day of non conventional crude and 1 million barrels of crude from Iraq in terms of net energy available to the human race.

They do not understand about peak coal energy, and that at the lower grades of coal when there are only lower grades of oil it will actually take more energy to transport and deliver the coal that you get from burning it.

They see any limits to growth as a horror to be avoided, without understanding that we have already saturated the biosphere with record numbers of species becoming extinct, accelerating climate change, people starving in many 3rd world countries because there is not enough food, where in reality our current consumer society is only a very transcient creation brought about by abundant free energy which has been used in a few short decades, fossil fuel energy which in reality is solar energy collected over many millions of years and used up in decades.

Most peak oilers do not believe that the world in ending, just that our society needs to trasition from an unstable system of exponential growth which will only ever lead to collapse to one that is stable, with zero or linear growth and from a consumer based society where 99% of goods are wasted to one where everything is conserved. Humans have very short life spans and have a tendancy to think just because its been a particular way in the past so too the same in the future.

No, the days of economists and market solutions and exponential growth are coming to an end. The transition to a stable zero growth society will be bumpy but ultimately there is no other option.


post Posted: Jun 19 2008, 08:43 AM
  Quote Post

Posts: 2,893
Thanks: 3324

QUOTE (jimbob @ Thursday 19/06/08 12:19am)

Jimbob ...

If your going to cut and paste please provide the link.

Having read this paper when published it was produced on the basis of a coal price of US$25- and i thought it idiotic even when they produced it.

It rules out underground mining for the correct assumption that at US$25- per ton it was not economic and since 90% of bloody reserves I suspect of the open cut variety have been discovered and are well identified and in production or close to it.

At US$100- per ton as is the case today ... in 2008 as opposed to 2003 numbers as used by the paper you cut and pasted .... the economics and likely long term scenario is that all underground deposits at some stage are mined.

This US$100- per ton is just for thermal coal .....

Coking coal as I am sure you know is US$300- per ton this year.

If your going to cut and paste a paper that suggests the mining of underground coal is not going to happen when the price is 4 times one assumption and 6 times the other ... its pretty pointless the whole discussion.

There are a group that are the peak oil organization and predict the end of the earth and others who still believe the world is flat. I am not a member of the flat earth society.

This cut and paste has about as relevance on the topic as the uranium debate when the price was US$15- per lb and below the cost of production.

Producing a paper skewed to presume they do not develop underground reserves is one side of the discussion.

Only time will tell ... and logic tells me ... just like when oil was US$20- a barrel ... a lot of deposits were uneconomic to produce ... even tar sands ....

Coal and thermal coal prices are well over 3 times their 2002/3 prices and if you use the low price on one end of your assumptions and the worst case on the other ... as these hysterical types usually do .... one ends up with rubbish.

Rubbish in and you get rubbish out of any model and skew one side and skew the other I can produce a model that says we run out of oil next week.

Last good example was the Uranium debacle and the Early 2007 fiasco and they let these types out of the box and we saw due to a single event the price double short term and people with models which assumed zero new production ever but a zillion new reactors built and coming on line in very short order and ignored the fact that the worlds aging nuclear reactors would never be retired ....

If you use a model and ignore 300 reactors are going to be retired in the next 20 years and then presume every talked about new one will be built on time and since the energy demand is still there you DOUBLE the number and then skew the production to show things will never ever get better ... the end result is that you end up with a load of crap.

Each part of the Uranium model was wrong and skewed to make the argument for the Uranium lobby bodies own view. No never retired 40 year old reactors .... no new production ever .... them pointing towards the know Uranium reserves and going look only 40 years worth.

Well what happened ... Uranium and these type of reports reached a frenzy .... Uranium peaked at US$130- per lb. Now 18 months later there has been zero explosion in demand and zero explosion of net ... NET new reactors .... the ones retired vs the new ones built has added only very small to the total demand equation. the price being taken to US$130- per lb saw over 800 Uranium companies searching for the metal and of these 750 of them were new ... over 200 economic deposits to date have been identified .... the thought about reserves at US$15- were and are vastly different to the case presented at the peak of the mania .... vastly and at 75,000 tons total annual demand a year it doesn't take much to topple the presented demand picture over.

Silex since I went into it last post the third generation enrichment process for uranium ... if it works it removes 99.99% of the useful Isotope from the uranium increasing the efficiency of the process about 10% and when they come on line ... 2012 and on wards let alone nothing can compete with them on a price basis ... being able to do the same thing for 30% the price .... if you produced oil and you had a new process that meant one barrel was now able to produce 110% of a barrel it basically speaks for itself the total demand picture.

Oh and last of all the official reserves of the worlds largest Uranium deposit ... included in their argument and all their arguments ... this coal one as well is only the PROVEN not the probable or possible. And proven reserves are normally only those currently in production and not including both these other two categories in any realistic look at reserves of anything is stupid. Olympic dam reserves as presented by the peak energy guys ... end of world guys are just over 200,000 tons of contained Uranium at Olympic dam. In reality latest number after BHP spending now nearly 2 years with 17 drilling rigs trying to define the size of the deposit is that the number is over 1.5 million tons of contained Uranium.
Thats 6 times the number they chose to include in their models.

I am sure you can come up with numerous more cut and pastes to refute any rational look at the likely real outcome. Internet is a wonderful place ... if you believe George W Bush is an alien you can come up with a site that presents you with irrefutable evidence on the surface that he is.

Whoops I was wrong the contained Uranium as of last BHP release is 2,000 KT or 2 million tons of the stuff so one uses a model with a mere 200,000 tons vs a reality 10 times the size of 2,000,0000 tons you might get some idea of how I view your cut and paste on the coal industry.

Page 40 ...

Same authors and same poor quality of results for coal as was the case in uranium. If you use a price 25% of the current price and use a set of skewed assumptions that it will only include the deposits now under production and taking the price 4 times what it was will have no impact on future production ... boy oh boy ....

Rubbish in equals rubbish out.

Tee hee ... George W bush is really an alien .. i have the proof

On U tube ... over his shoulder ...

Tee hee

By 1989 over 3 million 'Greys' are occupying these deep multi-level underground complexes. Level 7 at Dulce is called "Nightmare Hall". They have welched on their agreement on abducting humans; today over 25 million
citizens have been abducted and implanted, a literal army awaiting orders to march! (Whitley Strieber has written best selling on his personal experience as have many others). For this reason other nations were informed. Within 5
months the communist monolith Russia was dismantled to unite with the U.S. and it's technology to fight the invasion. The Hubble Space Telescope was created to keep a watchful eye on the invasion fleet; Star Wars technology has been developed to hopefully stop them in outer space before they can get to the earth.

Today, the government is on the horns of a dilemma. Too may sources are releasing alien information. The public could get angry at continued secrecy. So MJ-12 plans soon to make an "Official" announcement, under
controlled conditions, probably Area 51. Network TV will be called to meet the staged 'landing' of the aliens, these being the Greys. They will come bearing gifts, technology that supposedly will heal Cancer and AIDS, retard
aging, etc. They will tell us they are 'saviors of humanity' who have come to defend the earth against an invasion of man-eating aliens called Reptoids.

This story is a LIE, they already work for the Reptoids! Their plan is to unify the world into a One-world Government, a 'New World Order' with the argument that only this can defeat the invasion by Reptoids. This is a trap to enslave the world's population. Control will be accomplished through the money system, a universal currency controlled by certain international bankers, who for years have been lackeys of the aliens, who seized upon their greed and lust for wealth and power as a means to bring about their evil plan to control the earth. (This also being the scenario predicted in the Bible's 'Book of Revelation' wherein only those who accept the Mark of the Beast (the aliens being the 'Beast' and the 'Mark' being some sort of laser tattoo or Credit Card they will use, which will allow people to buy and sell goods). Those who do not accept this 'Mark' must live outside the money system and survive somehow on their own, through barter etc.

I suspect the coal cut and paste was written by the aliens and why not borrow their fusion generators ... we all know they work I saw back to the future 2 ... Mr Fusion where you put in an empty soft drink can and an old banana peel and you have the 2.31 gigawatt's to power the flux capacitor and travel thru time.

I am sorry you may think I am being harsh here... but I look at lot of the things presented as facts to be no such thing. If the price of one thing rises the likely production is going to change. If you choose not to include any known coal deposits but unlikely to be mined since they are underground and un economic at US$25- when the price is US$25- the difference between what is economic and what is not is quite startling.

I am sure many more factoids can and will be produced to refute any and all of the above.

Simple thing is if anyone can find a site that even comes close to showing the currently released Uranium reserves of BHP and they have said this is not the final number they are still ... 2 years later drilling 24 hours a day still trying to define the full extent of the size ... the best and fairest picture of the uranium sites has its reserves at 780 million tons contained where the peak uranium boys have 156,000 tons and another the 186,000 tons proven ... yet its likely its what ? I did provide the link.


make your own mind up .... as per normal cant prove what has as yet not happened.
I do believe of course there is a future for nuclear in the mix as we go forward and if BHP chose to produce 20,000 tons of Uranium per annum ... or 25% of the global needs its only got 100 years of likely reserves since its not the final number it may be 10-15 % higher but of course the demand will likely change and grow the electricity demadn is growing globally at 2.5-3% and expected to peak at 100% from where we are now in 2050 ish ... so I do concede there is a problem longer term ... but 2025 ... coal .... uh huh.

One day they reach the holy grail ... for me I suspect the solar side is the closes and pre 2020 they hit the doubling of output coupled with a halving of price a 4 fold change in economics.

may be they discover fusion ... or cold fusion .... but the closest pratical to the whole equation I favor at this stage solar on the economics side. Make the panels half the price and double the output and then we are cooking.

Good luck

Is George Bush an Alien?

Yes, the aliens sent him to Earth to start wars and raise gas prices and to generally make life miserable for average folks.
I'm sure the aliens are proud.

All views expressed are my own opinions. While I take every care when posting no guarantee to the absolute veracity of the postings is given or implied. Please do your own reseach and consult a professional investment advisor before investing.
post Posted: Jun 19 2008, 01:18 AM
  Quote Post

Posts: 1,165
Thanks: 160

Could start to see some significant demand destruction? Would expect OPEC to cut back though if this happens globally. Also doubt that people will continue to conserve if the price of fuel drops.

Sydney - Wednesday - June 18: (RWE Aust Business News) -
Australian businesses and consumers are driving less and adopting more
fuel efficient practices in response to high petrol and diesel prices,
according to an economist.
Oil imports plunged 28 per cent in May on a year earlier, the
biggest annual decline in over four years.
"Oil imports have been slowing for six months but the size of the
May decline shows that Australians are dramatically changing their
attitudes and behaviours," CommSec chief equities economist Craig James
"No doubt less trips are being made in the car, more people are
walking to the shops and using public transport and transport operators
are making sure they fill gaps in loads to make less trips."
Merchandise imports rose by 4 per cent in original terms to $18.2
billion in May. In seasonally adjusted terms the ABS estimated that
imports rose by 7 per cent in the month.
The actual volume (litres) of petroleum imported in May was 28.0
per cent lower than a year ago,the biggest annual decline in over four
years. In annual terms, imports of petroleum have been trending sideways
since 2000 after rising strongly in the late 1990s.

post Posted: Jun 19 2008, 01:14 AM
  Quote Post

Posts: 41

In reply to: kahuna1 on Thursday 19/06/08 12:01am



Explicit net energy analysis of photovoltaic (PV) energy appears to be nearly non-existent. However several studies report the time required for “energy pay back,” and if we know the lifetime of the module or system, an EROI of sorts can be calculated. A typical life-cycle analysis is from Battisti and Carrado (2005) for a reference system (of) a multi-crystalline silicon (mc-Si) PV system, grid connected and retrofitted on a tilted roof in Rome. The assumed efficiency of the cells is 10.7 percent and the materials required are 12.6 kg/m2, with a mean output of 0.106 kW/ m2. No storage device was included. For this they estimate the energy costs associated with producing silicon in the form required as well as the structural aluminum, steel, glass and so on required, including the energy required to transport, install and eventually landfill the materials. Their results are typical: “All the analyzed configurations are characterized by environmental pay back times one order of magnitude lower than their expected life time (3–4 years vs. 15–30 years).” From this I calculate an EROI of 3.75:1 to 10:1, which is similar to other estimates I have heard, although I have also heard estimates that vary from 1:1 to perhaps 20:1, with much higher ratios “projected.” The following table lists a similarly calculated EROI based on life-cycle analyses for a range of systems, from commercially available to theoretical:

However, these values are not static. As research and development continues, it is likely that the EROI for some of the systems mentioned above will change. Another factor affecting EROI trends is material flow into the industry. PV production employs the use of many metals attractive to a number of high-tech industries. For example, some 76 percent of the energy required to generate the silicon module is that which is required to make the raw silicon. These and other authors indicate that at this time the principle source of silicon for the photovoltaic industry is scraps from the computer chip industry. If the industry is to expand greatly other dedicated sources of silicon must be generated, with presently unknown effects on the energy cost.
Finally, there is the affect of intermittent energy from the sun and also energy storage issues. As sunlight is not constant 2 sites might be necessary to keep a constant flow of electricity to society in one area. This is thought to lower EROI by at least as much as ½. The energy cost of electrical storage in the form of a battery is also an issue which would lower the expected EROI of a PV system. At present lead-acid batteries are typically used for photovoltaic systems, but other storage systems include pumped storage (i.e. pumping water up hill for later generation of electricity), compressed air and flywheels. Many of these systems are quite promising, but would require considerable development.

The Future

Given that presently despite the enormous growth of PV energy the annual increment of oil, gas or coal is usually greater than the total of all photovoltaic production of energy, the increase in capacity needed for photovoltaic energy to make a large difference is enormous. A particular concern is whether there would be material shortages with a very large and rapid growth. For example, gallium arsenide is currently more or less the material of choice for a doping material to apply to silicon. Curiously, or not so curiously, this material has the same absorbance spectra as chlorophyll. A glance at the periodic table shows this element to be under aluminum, and the principal source is aluminum mining and purification. But if the industry were to increase by a factor of ten other sources would have to be utilized, and, presumably, its cost would increase dramatically. Likewise if we were to attempt to replace liquid fuels with electricity an enormously greater amount of copper would be needed. The price of copper is already escalating sharply under pressure from the construction industry of China and it is not clear what a greatly increased demand might do. Similar issues would apply to the many other elements that might be needed to obtain higher efficiencies in the industry.

Currently, Cadmium-telluride (CdTe) and Copper-indium-gallium-diselenide (CIGS) PV modules are thought to have the highest potential for low cost electricity. However, beyond the year 2020, each is expected to suffer material restraints (Andersson 2001). Indium and Tellurium are recovered as byproducts of copper and zinc respectively, of which we may run out of this century. Ultimately, PV production may be constrained by available stock of materials and/or by the rate at which materials are recovered; and possibly by competition for metals for other end uses."

post Posted: Jun 19 2008, 12:38 AM
  Quote Post

Posts: 41

In reply to: ian_whitchurch on Thursday 19/06/08 12:02am

Of course EROEI is a useful concept, like the recent boom and bust of ethanol production from corn in the states, it barely reaches positive energy, not at all like its sister program from sugar cane... probably has an EROEI of 1.5, is that a useful allocation of resources

Do people stop and think to count the huge fossil fuel inputs needed to grow the grains, that it takes 10 calories of fossil fuel energy to make 1 calorie of food energy.

After PEAK ENERGY where is the human race meant to turn its scarce resources to, it will look to EROEI analysis to determine that...

Unfortunately technology does not create ENERGY and once over fossil fuel peak, every input to create renewable energy sources will take many years before given back a net return and by that stage net energy has reduced further...

Currently it takes 9 years to return the energy to create a solar panel for an expected lifespan of 30 years, what is that going to become when there are no more cheap fossil fuel inputs..?? Again we will turn to EROEI analysis

Attached File(s)
Attached File  energy.jpg ( 127.13K ) Number of downloads: 0



12 Pages (Click to Jump) V   1 2 3 4 > » 

Back To Top Of Page
Reply to this topic

You agree through the use of ShareCafe, that you understand and accept the TERMS OF USE.