GeologyRocks

I've just realised I hit gypsum on that one!!!!!

Gus

Congrats on the gypsum status, Gus!

Peak oil is, of course, a topic of current interest. As we've discussed on other posts on this forum (can't for the life of me remember where!) peak oil is very difficult to predict. You need to know two things:
1) Oil consumption rates
2) How much oil is left

Neither is known. However, you can draw a graph of oil consumption and have a guess:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:ASPO_2004.png

You can see the US has already gone past it's peak, as has Europe, Russia. The Middle East holds most of the world's oil and basically when that hits the peak, the world will.

Unfortunately, we won't know if it hits the peak until after the event (and probably 5 years or so afterwards).

This brings us to the implications:

Any peak will result in high oil prices as supply will outstrip demand. This will (hopefully) make alternatives to oil more cost effective and we can use them instead. I doubt there will be any "events" that will occur due to hitting the peak (or, more accurately realising we've gone past the peak), just a slow, steady rise in prices and more oil alternative products coming on the market.

Just my £0.02 worth

Jon

How do we know how much oil is left? There are new discoveries still being made and the Middle East is in such a state of turmoil that production has been erratic in recent years. Is this all just some sort of political conspiracy to make us pay higher fuel prices and panic us into adopting alternative energy resources which may not be cost-effective? Are we being told the truth? Are all politicians really aliens in disguise?

Gus

We don't know how much oil is left - that's the problem. Each country is obliged to publish its reserves. Unfortunately the OPEC countries have a rule that says they can produce more if they have more reserves. This led to some countries increasing their reserves (whether legitimately or not).

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4681935.stm

However, there have been no vast discoveries in recent times. The Arctic looks like being the biggest recent one.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4354036.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4356014.stm

It doesn't help that the countries with the biggest reserves are secretive. As a recent example of the turmoil produced when reserves are downgraded, look at the fuss caused when Shell downgraded its own reserves - their stock went down a fair bit and oil prices went up a bit.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4636899.stm

I suspect politicians are aliens - evil ones! :twisted

Jon

You must have read the works of that paragon of sense, David Eyke. About the politicians being lizards in disguise. I suppose there might be some truth in it - Maggie Thatcher without her makeup must have been a sight.

But back to the thread. I really hope that the oil reserves in Antarctica aren't touched. The last great wilderness and all that, but there's a certain feeling of inevitability about it.

Gus

forgive me if I'm being naive but I thought that everyone had signed a treaty (or something) to say that they couldn't touch Antarctica?

~Jenny~

A treaty was signed, and is still in force. 44 countries have signed it, and the part concerning minerals and oil prevents any of the signatories from exploiting reserves from the date of signature ( I think 1991) to at least 2041... the treaty lasts indefinnately, but can be changed at conferences after the initial 50 years, or something like that...

More info at the British Antarctic Survey website:
http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/About_Antarctica/Treaty/

I think this article nicely sums up one partiular problem with running out of oil:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4425030.stm

Namely that of not producing enough electricity, most of which is now generated with gas or oil. Apparently the UK isn't doing too well at finding alternatives.

Jon

I don't think a lot of the alternatives are particularly viable at the moment. When you look at the cost-effectiveness of wind farms, for example, they really don't come out looking too good. Plus you've got the objectors. Down here in Cornwall the mere mention of the words "wind farm" is liable to release a torrent of abuse, bad for the tourist trade, bird-killers, cows don't yield so much milk, etc.
I saw an article recently, but I can't think where, about "bobbers", which are cylinders that are connected to a grid but move independently of each other on waves, the motion driving a geared shaft. The article said they would be cost-effective by being cheap to install.
I used to be anti nuclear power but now I'm not so sure. However, the daft proposal about disposing of the waste at subduction zones seems, well, daft.

Gus

wind power and solar energy just don't create enough energy for the space they take up. Hydroelectric power is good, but that would mean building a bagillion dams to get the amount of power required. not good for ecosystems or cost.

I don't really know what alternatives we would have besides nuclear, and that has the obvious risks (though I believe if we could curb human error, the risk is very very small). Let's just hope we find something in the coming decades, huh?

Maybe we should try to reduce the amount of electricity we use by buying loads of candles. The only problem is that burning paraffin wax contributes to global warming by releasing CO2. Beeswax is more environmentally friendly, so we should encourage the use of that. So there you have it: if you want to do your bit to combat climate change keep bees. You don't see that slogan around much do you?

Gus

Perhaps when you're thinking of large scale solar farms it wouldn't work, but on a smaller scale it might. For example, fitting solar panels to your roof. It's not like you're using that space for any other purpose and if everyone had these it would considerably reduce the amount of electrcity needed from other sources.

I think the main reason people don't have solar panels etc. is because of the initial cost of getting them installed. Maybe the government should be offering reduced costs for installation of solar panels (as they do for insulation)

I'm seriously considering getting some installed myself, the intial cost eventually will be covered by the amount I save in electricity bills, and I also think that it will make my house more 'sellable' (imagine telling a prospective buyer that they'll have lower elctricity bills than another similar house down the street!)

Of course, there may be a major flaw in my idea that I've not spotted, but if there is, please feel free to point it out!

~Jenny~

There is no major flaw - apart from the start up costs. The government did have a grant scheme for small-scale electricity projects (they could cover up to 50% of the cost), but these have been discontinued. They are being replaced in the next year of so, but I think they are only being granted on new developments. Solar panels in this country are generally used to heat water, rather than generate electricity - but even in doing that, they save money for the owner.

Does anyone know how much maintenance is on having your own solar panels?

You could also have your very own wind turbine:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/4373148.stm

This distributed way of generating electricity looks very promising - I think the main drawback is cost.

Jon

What I've heard is that it takes about 10 to 15 years to break even with both solar panels and wind turbines. That's not including maintenance costs.

Gus

So no point in having installing them until you're in your final house that you intend to be in for 20 years+ then. I can see why they are not very popular...

Jon

Exactly. You've hit the nail on the head. Why waste money on installation when somebody else is going to reap the benefits. I suppose you could always take your wind turbine with you, but then you've got the installation costs again...
No wonder there's not that many takers.

Gus

Full of wind

but would having solar panels or a wind turbine actually add value to your house, if it was done tastefully (you know what people are like about the 'look' of their house) then the idea of cheaper energy bills could increse the sale price if you did decide to move on...

~Jenny~

But will it really add the £1000's you spent installing them? Adding value on a house is really a "fashion" thing, as I see it anyway.

I think the only way to get something like this off the ground would be for the governemnt to mak eit mandatory for every new house to have solar panels and a turbine and then give substantial grants to home owners to add them to existing property. Oh, and relax planning laws on having them installed...

Jon

Agreed. It would also make people less sceptical about the government's commitment to various environmental issues. But as far as improving the value of a house is concerned, I'm not so sure a wind turbine in the back yard has the desired effect. I suppose it provides something to attach an extra washing line to. I can imagine the solar panels being more of a selling point. Maybe we should all have methane digestors so that we can cut down on pollution and create more energy at the same time. Then when someone comes to look at the house we can say "that lump in the ground you can see from the heated conservatory is our very own s*** pit." Bound to impress the punters.

Gus

Wind energy has had a bit of a boost today:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/11/14/britain_wind_power/

Hopefully, we can get these turbines built beofre the oil runs out...

Jon

So, just as we always thought. Britain is windier than elsewhere in Europe. Shame most of it comes from Westminster...

Gus

I think, if fusion is not invented in the near future, many more small and large scale renewable energy projects will become commonplace but not be due to government grants or global warming fears. As oil supply starts to drop its price will increase and renewable supplies will become the cheaper option.
Change will happen when peoples wallets start to empty.

Hello James! And welcome. Do I know you? You're only a few miles from me and it's a small county... Why don't you introduce yourself in the introductions section.

Cheers

Gus

Every time I watch a TV programme about houses they always rant on about ugly double glazing not being in keeping with the house (although they never moan about the inside toilet), rip it all out and put wood framed single panes in.

Of course our government, in their wisdom, are now having a big "let's go nuclear" drive. I'm not quite sure how I feel about this. I used to be very anti, but now I'm wavering, so I suppose I'll go for it soon. I visited Oldbury-on-Severn power station recently but only for the birdwatching and a free cup of coffee. Whilst there I watched a presentation on how wonderful nuclear power was, how safe, and how easy it was to dispose of the waste - simple: just let someone in the future deal with it. At least they didn't advocate dumping it in subduction zones, which is something I read recently.

Gus

Well, there's not much point worrying about 10,000 years in the future if we've been wiped out by global warming in the next 100. Maybe people will be genetically engineered to be impervious to radiation by then, or we could have robots to drill down into the mantle and take it with them.

Does it not make you wonder though, in the current climate why we do not have laws that state all new houses should have solar panels built in to them? surely by making part of all new houses power systems more environmental, the costs would lessen and they would be incorparated into the new design?

We've had all sorts of grants and incentives in the past, but the amounts keep fluctuating or the grants dry up altogether. Unfortunately governments tend to spout a load of rhetoric in order to appease environmentalists or industry without having the means or will to back up their statements.

Just happened across this site and found this thread. Intertesting to see people discussing peak oil and alternative energy.

To give you some background, until recently I worked for a major service company in the oil and gas sector (no names but they like to broadcast themselves as the 'worlds leading supplier of oil and gas data'). To be fair this company does maintain the leading database of world oil and gas reserves figures. I should know, I spent 18 months working on that very data. This is the same data that is supplied to the USGS and the likes of Colin Campbell et al (interesting to note that many commentators are using the same data and getting differing stats.).

Anyway to cut to the chase I know from experience that much of the data in the database is incomplete (as others here have pointed out) but I also know how a large proportion of the existing data is generated... because I had the pleasure of making a lot of it up! Yes any of you that have had to generate probabilistic or deterministic reserves figures will know already that it is not an exact science but as long as you follow the guidelines laid down by SEC you should be OK! Where you have no data though and the reserves are deposited in any of the many countries that couldnt give a flying fig for SEC protocol you have real problems.... that is where I would come into the equation. I would make nice models and generate pretty graphs so that I could convince myself (and occassionally my bosses) that I had some 'realistic' figures. As I spent a large proportion of my time trying to balance the various reserves databases (made up numbers become problematic when a field moves into production and produces more reserves than someone once guessed at or is shut down having only produced a fraction of the quoted reserves figures) it was quickly apparent that guessing isnt really that helpful!

The data used in peak oil calculations is for conventional hydrocarbon deposits and it is interesting to note that Shell are attempting to buy into a large proportion of the huge oil sands deposits in Canada. You might think that at $70/barrel those deposits are becoming increasingly attractive (and they are) but you might also say that they are trying to pull a quick one on their shareholders as they can simply convert the oil sands volumes into barrels of oil equivalent in their glossy brochures and it will look as if they are replacing reserves and the directors all get juicy bonuses! Would Shell do that though... I'll leave it for you to decide!

My 2p on the alternative energy sources goes like this. We are all so quick to talk about cost when we should be thinking about value. Legislators should force the companies building the millions of new homes in this country to install photovoltaic/wind turbine technologies (give em a tax break if necessary but they are making a killing anyway) and bit by bit the economies of scale will drive the costs down. Home owners will appreciate very quickly the savings they make on a monthly/annual basis (no one really considers longer term cost... if they did no one would buy a new car!). Also the NIMBY crowd will be screaming for wind turbines if they cant get any electricity to power up the TV....

So cost or value.... are we simply interested in balancing our own accounts before we shuffle off this mortal coil or are we interested in the continued generation of heat and energy to give our children and our childrens children the same kinds of opportunities in life that we have enjoyed?

Just some rambling thoughts.

Geobird,

Some interesting and far from rambling thoughts.

I think that the NIMBY crowd will be screaming for all sorts of things when the TV goes perfut ... wind turbines, nuclear power (with all the implications of radiactive waste disposal), even in-seam coal gasification.