Countering Those Anti-Peak Oil Types 48 comments
an article to
-
Font Size:
-
Print
- TweetThis
Good piece by Matt Simmons in the current Foreign Policy attacking the current spate of pieces authored by peak oil foes:
In my view, while Yergin, Lynch, Morse, and Jaffe, are articulate in their theories, none seem to have any strong sense of the brutally grim reality of today's oil markets. The facts speak for themselves: Oil flows have peaked, technology is now mature, the people running the industry are far too old, and few top-notch graduates are interested in embarking on a career in such a volatile field.
Even oil's much-touted 150th anniversary is a myth. You can read about an oil flame burning next to Babylon in the Old Testament. This was oil flaring from Kirkuk, which later became the first super-giant oilfield found in the Middle East in the late 1920s.
Oil has been a miracle resource for ages but has never been well understood. For more than a century, myths about oil kept the real facts buried in a fog of bad information. Until the world's oil producers allow third-party audits of the flow rates of the world's largest oil fields, which they have so far been reluctant to do, it is impossible to know just how dire a situation we are in. I believe that such an audit would prove peak oil, but it is certainly irresponsible to make optimistic projections without hard data.
More here.
Related Articles
|
-
The Seeking Alpha 100
See allThe top 100 stock
market authors
selected for publication
Seeking Alpha 100 » -
Fastest Climbers
Authors with the largestSee all
increase in followers
in the last 7 days
Fastest Climbers » -
Top Commenters
Top commenters,See all
as ranked by their peers
Top Commenters » -
Top Instabloggers
The 100 most active
Instabloggers.-
1
David Fry
-
2
TraderMark
-
3
Don Dion
-
4
Cliff Wachtel
-
5
Mike Havrilla
Top Instabloggers » -
1
-
Top StockTalkers
TopSee all
StockTalkers.
Top StockTalkers »
On what data do you base your remarks?
Mine are based on the IEA reports, which indicate that the rate of decline in existing fields is larger than previously thought, and that a level of investment is needed to even maintain existing output that is just nopt happening.
Here is the report:
www.iea.org/Textbase/n...
The rate of decline in existing fields:
'We estimate that the average production-weighted observed decline rate worldwide
is currently 6.7% for fields that have passed their production peak. In our Reference
Scenario, this rate increases to 8.6% in 2030. The current figure is derived from our
analysis of production at 800 fields, including all 54 super-giants (holding more than 5
billion barrels) in production today. '
On the limits of conservation:
'All of the projected increase in world oil demand comes
from non-OECD countries (over four-fifths from China, India and the Middle East);'
In the West we may reasonably seek to hold demand constant, there is no way that demand will remain constant in these economies as they develop.
Conservation never has stabilised or reduced demand, it has just made it rise at a slower rate.
The investment required:
'The Reference Scenario projections call for cumulative investment of over
$26 trillion (in year-2007 dollars) in 2007-2030, over $4 trillion more than posited
in WEO-2007.'
How much of that is just to replace existing resources?:
'Just over half of projected global energy investment
in 2007-2030 goes simply to maintain the current level of supply capacity: much of the
world’s current infrastructure for supplying oil, gas, coal and electricity will need to
be replaced by 2030.'
This investment is not happening - current oil prices do not support it.
High enough oil prices to support it lead to economic collapse.
'
Hi Davewmart,
Please show where you get nukes at 1.5k/kw installed? Recently here in Fla they were priced at $8k/kw, 2.3Gwt at $17B Progress Energy, before the normal price overruns.
The French in Finland is installing theirs at $7.6k/kw, No?
Nor do I understand your comments about back up of RE. There already is fossil fuel generation to back RE up. Even if it wasn't, E storage is only $1k/10kwhr using lead batteries in home sizes as is the below. I assume big energy can beat them.,
So for wind 2kw at $1k/kw for the generator, $1k for batteries and $.5k for inverter only comes to $3.5k for a base load system. Compare that to $8k/kw for nukes it takes 10 yrs to build and it's fuel, running cost is far more.
Solar CSP is only $3k/kw plus 9kw of heat as a bonus, For $100/kw heat can be stored or wood pellets or any other fuel used to make it power on demand.
So please tell me how nukes can beat these?
Jerry Dycus
On Sep 08 12:30 PM Davewmart wrote:
> jerrydd,
> As for the environmental hazards of oil sands, you might want to
> check out the article I have linked. I am persuaded that the damage
> done is exaggerated, unlike in mountain top removal for coal mining,
> which is horrendous.
>
> Some of the latest methods of extracting oil from the sands do a
> tiny fraction of the damage that strip mining for it does, anyway.
>
> I agree with you that it is better to use other means of providing
> heat than burning natural gas, and advocate nuclear for the purpose.
>
>
> Whilst I think that renewables have a big part to play, and have
> mentioned previously that conservation especially weatherisation
> is the most cost effective measure neither can do the job on their
> own.
> I really don't understand your claim that nuclear costs 2-4 times
> as much as nuclear.
> Even if you look at the rated power instead of the actual power output
> and ignore all the ancillary costs of back-up, building vast transmission
> systems etc I still can't come out with anything remotely like the
> figure you suggest.
> The costs of nuclear power for a Westinghouse reactor is around $1500/kwh
> installed.
> If it is greatly more in the US, it is simply because of gross inefficiencies
> in the regulation and construction rather than inherent to the technology,
> so with a sensible regulatory system around $4kwh installed should
> be tops
> However, it is not my intention or purpose to make a case against
> renewables, as I am quite happy to see them greatly expanded.
> I just think we need to use all our options in the tight spot we
> are in, and and that the cheapest way to provide baseload is via
> nuclear power.
> France gets almost all it's electricity cheaply and safely from nuclear
> power.
> In practise the US rips apart mountains and burns coal, with a bit
> of help around the edges from hydro and wind power, which is an excellent
> resource in parts of the US.
> Anyway, jerry, we have chatted before amicably about our different
> assessments.
> I was just curious to know which bits of what I posted others disagreed
> with.
> They are perfectly entitled to have different opinions to me! :-)
I would be interested in seeing details of how to go about any of those projects, links to supplier's websites etc. Do you perhaps have a blog or website with any of that info, or would you be interested in posting such info here in an article or on the instablog?
Or maybe you wouldn't mind sending it to me via email @
jerrydd.justjeff@xoxy.net
If you prefer to do so anonymously, you could use one of the free anonymous sites:
www.sendanonymousemail.../
trashmail.net/
Sorry to ask in this thread, but I didn't know how else to do so. Thanks for your consideration.
Hi Jeff and All,
I for 25 yrs lived off grid on my cruising sailboat. For a living I built wind and tidal generators and installed PV for liveaboard boats and homes. I am a boat designer and builder though my health has slowed building them now.
My present home is in a old oak forest so neither solar or wind works. So I conserve by being eff. My transport, home energy costs are only $22-45/month electric bill in Fla.
I got tired of the high costs and complications of cars so I built my own EV's and now custom build them.
For home made or to buy cost effective wind generators google magnets4less, axial flux wind generators for long lasting ones at the prices I quote. I have no connection to them.
For EV's yahoo EV Clubs, EV Racing and follow the links to whatever your pleasure is.
The key to cost effective EV's is lightweight, aero which needs less energy so needs a smaller battery pack, motor, etc. Many convert cars like VW Karmen Ghia's, MR2's, Saturns, etc.
But by far better is a custom built for EV design where you need far less costly EV drive for longer range. You can easily get 100 mile range on a small lead battery pack costing $1k that can go 80 mph this way. Sadly the only way to get these is build your own or have them custom built.
You can find me on some of the many EV or 3wheel yahoogroups mostly doing 3wh EV car's with 2 wheels in front under another name if you are interested in them.
Facts are one can live well on far less energy, money if one studies, thinks and does.
Jerry Dycus
On Sep 09 11:23 AM JeffDB wrote:
> jerrydd, If I remember correctly, you've stated that you have installed
> solar &/or wind systems for your home & maybe even converted
> a vehicle to plug-in hybrid status. (Sorry if I'm getting you mixed
> up with someone else or conflating posts from a couple of people
> on here.)
>
> I would be interested in seeing details of how to go about any of
> those projects, links to supplier's websites etc. Do you perhaps
> have a blog or website with any of that info, or would you be interested
> in posting such info here in an article or on the instablog?
>
> Or maybe you wouldn't mind sending it to me via email @
>
> jerrydd.justjeff@xoxy.net
>
> If you prefer to do so anonymously, you could use one of the free
> anonymous sites:
>
> www.sendanonymousemail.../
>
> trashmail.net/
>
> Sorry to ask in this thread, but I didn't know how else to do so.
> Thanks for your consideration.
The issue with peak whale blubber, however, is that oil replaced whale blubber before peak whale blubber would have been possible, if such things are possible.
Peak oil may or may not be a problem. The problem is that we won't know it's a problem until it's a problem!
On Sep 08 03:50 PM cyclingscholar wrote:
> Heh....whenever you are confronted with facts, the well is poisoned?
> My simple point: we become more efficient every year, and so peak
> oil is irelevant, just like peak whale blubber was irrelevant. Your
> carping about manufacturing is irrelevant was well; the question
> is how much GDP do we get per BTU....not how that GDP is produced.
> Our use of energy in transportation, industrial and commercial heat,
> residential heat, and agriculture is markedly more efficient than
> in the 1970s.
>
>
> OOPS! There I go poisoning the well again.
>
Oil companies are hedging and positioning themselves for the inevitable. And that is why we will likely see a hybrid oil/gas/ethanol fuel in widespread use as we transition away from oil. A hybrid fuel (85% biomass, non-food grade ethanol) can use the current infrastructure (distribution, vehicles, etc) and this is happening now. There is already 10% ethanol in most gas and this is the most likely scenario.
On Sep 08 08:24 AM bartpr wrote:
> peak oil is here. make no mistake. why would bp commit to finding
> oil in the gulf that is 35000 ft down from the well hed to suface.
> is it becuse they like the challenge and have nothing beeter to do.
> no, its because they have no choice. the easy stuff has been used.
> Good point. And further, why is BP investing in VRNM Biomass fuel
> enzyme technology? And why are other oil companies investing in
> algae to oils technology? And othe hybrid fuels.
>
> Oil companies are hedging and positioning themselves for the inevitable.
> And that is why we will likely see a hybrid oil/gas/ethanol fuel
> in widespread use as we transition away from oil. A hybrid fuel
> (85% biomass, non-food grade ethanol) can use the current infrastructure
> (distribution, vehicles, etc) and this is happening now. There is
> already 10% ethanol in most gas and this is the most likely scenario.
>
The problem, as I understand it, is that the biofuels are much more expensive than gas or diesel, ie. $35 / gallon when not subsidized, and that massive quantities of land would be required.
Why else would BP invest in a company like VRNM? That is a rhetorical question.
Don't worry though your precius Oil will be ok (I am long oil myself) Oil will stil fetch a high price for a long time to come...THE POINT is this (and very few people are getting it) this is not a matter of either/or, the smart money is on both sides, Oil and alternatives because (as with most things in life) we reacted too late, we're going on a diet after we have already been diagnosed with diabetes and heart disease...we won't be quitting oil cold turkey, it will be a long time coming.
On Sep 09 01:33 PM JeffDB wrote:
> On Sep 09 01:25 PM akapital wrote:
The analogous/comparable point is also apt because whaling was not stopped for the reason of extinction or high prices but rather because another source was "found."
On Sep 09 12:52 PM goldbug101 wrote:
> You are spot on with the efficiency argument.
>
> The issue with peak whale blubber, however, is that oil replaced
> whale blubber before peak whale blubber would have been possible,
> if such things are possible.
>
> Peak oil may or may not be a problem. The problem is that we won't
> know it's a problem until it's a problem!
> Ah ha, the "problem" as you "understand it" is not correct. Biofuels can be produced closer to $3.50 without subsidies >
I was basing my reluctant scepticism on a couple of articles I had read earlier on The Oil Drum by Robert Rapier, who claims to have been an early proponent of algal bio-diesel, in reviewing a book by current proponent, Professor Mark Edwards (1), and then Prof. Edwards' reply to that review (2).
1. www.theoildrum.com/nod...
2. www.theoildrum.com/nod...
Both seemed to think that the cost for biodiesel is and will remain significantly higher than probably near term prices on conventional oil, though Prof. Edwards felt that uses for the byproducts could help offset that disadvantage.
But if it really can be produced for $3.50, that would be a godsend for the world.
> and further more have you considered how much gas/oil would be if it were not subsidized!? >
Actually, I haven't seen any good discussions on that. Do you have any good info to share on that topic?
> Why else would BP invest in a company like VRNM? That is a rhetorical question. >
But a legitimate one. There are at least a couple of plausible answers, however. Two that come to mind would be 1. Because oil prices will go up high enough to make them economically viable. 2. Because of political pressure, political correctness, etc. I believe there was quite a bit of shareholder pushing for renewable energy research on Exxon at shareholder meetings and I would imagine similar pressure is exerted elsewhere. I saw a recent article claiming that Exxon's acquiescence looked good but was a minuscule first step at best in the grand scheme of things.
> Don't worry though your precius Oil will be ok (I am long oil myself) Oil will stil fetch a high price for a long time to come...THE POINT is this (and very few people are getting it) this is not a matter of either/or, the smart money is on both sides, Oil and alternatives because (as with most things in life) we reacted too late, we're going on a diet after we have already been diagnosed with diabetes and heart disease...we won't be quitting oil cold turkey, it will be a long time coming. >
I have a couple of small investments in oil companies, but would be very happy if viable alternatives came along to tank them. The downside to the scenario I'm expecting dwarfs any little upside there might be from owning those stocks.
But, I do agree with your analogy. I'm a big fan of letting the free market handle things, but in some situations, such as this one, I'm afraid it will not react nearly fast enough to avert some major reallocations that will be needed.
the latest cost estimates in China run at $1565/kwh:
nextbigfuture.com/2008...
Although this is an estimate it should be noted that both Westinghouse and CANDU have built on time and to cost in many areas of the world.
The same reference gives US costs:
'Another indication of financing costs is given by Georgia Power, which said in mid 2008 that twin 1100 MWe AP1000 reactors would cost $9.6 billion if they could be financed progressively by ratepayers, or $14 billion if not. This gives $4363 or $6360 per kilowatt including all other owners costs.'
Some of the extra costs are due to higher labour costs etc and are inevitable, but many are due to truly batty and ineffective regulation, the lack of a series build, the fact that this would be the first of a kind for a long time so that expertise has to be accumulated and so on.
It is also necessary to use crazy accounting to make nuclear look like a bad deal - the recent bids in Ontario are a good example:
bravenewclimate.com/20.../
Note that after all the fun and games, that still works out to a levelised cost of $0.05/kwh - cheaper than anything but natural gas and coal, which if it had to pay for the pollutants and control them to the same standard as the nuclear industry would be hopelessly uneconomic.
For more information on nuclear costs and comparisons with wind, which is by far the cheapest renewable, are here:
www.theoildrum.com/nod...
This allows for capacity, which the figures you quote do not, but does not allow for the costs of linking to the grid, which are very large due to the dispersed nature of wind.
It also does not allow for back up, which in practise is gas fired generation, as in Europe wind can be still for a week in midwinter, and winds are low in Texas in the summer when cooling needs are high.
Without writing a dissertation on it, the problems of solar power relate to annual variation, so you have low solar incidence in mid-winter for months at a time, even as far south as the Mohave, whose latitude is similar to Cairo, incidence figures at 1.6 here:
www.powerfromthesun.ne...
I don't really study renewables in the US, as I have determined as far as I am concerned that whatever may be the case elsewhere, renewables are wholly impractical in the UK:
www.withouthotair.com/
In the US land based wind resources are much better, and can certainly supplement existing powers sources, but check out people like EON, who actually have to run the German grid, for the practical problems and costs of using a high proportion of renewables.
Solar in the South-west of the US can also usefully provide peak power, and in some isolated communities may be a pretty cheap option, mainly because the US regulatory authorities charge a flat rate of about $50million for authorising nuclear plants, so making small, cheap designs uneconomic.
As a general power source though, assuming that America is now incapable of organising itself to allow the build of nuclear power at reasonable cost, by far the cheapest way of getting power would be to buy off-the-shelf reactors from Russia or China, at a cost of, say, $2,000/kwh installed, as both are now designing and setting up the production lines for mass produced power.
I hope this is helpful. At minimum perhaps when considering costs you would compare costs allowing for capacity factors, as without them the figures are deeply misleading.
Rgds,
'Equally, the cheap & abundant energy supplies that enabled our population & economic explosion over the last 200 years, is now in permanent decline, having effectively Peaked in 2005. '
Not really. Energy supplies should not be confused with oil supplies, which are certainly in decline and will cause a problem in transitioning away from them.
We already know how to produce power cheaply by using nuclear power - France gets most of it's electricity this way.
So far no-one has bothered to greatly improve fuel burn, as uranium has been so cheap, but there are numerous designs out there which will vastly improve efficiency.
My personal favourite is the liquid fluoride thorium reactor, which was demoed successfully in the mid 60's and can't go bang, as it is a low pressure but high temperature design, so that pressure does not build up to an explosive force, and as soon as any part of it was exposed to the atmosphere it would freeze solid, with the reaction stopping and the hole plugged by the newly solidified matter.
Since it is inherently safe, you don't need much of the engineering that makes present nuclear plants expensive.
Total fuel needed? Around 1 ton of plentiful thorium to power a 1GW reactor for a year, enough for around 1 million people.
Waste? It can burn the waste from the weapons program and previous waste, and itself produces around 170kgs of waste material per year, after allowing the initial 1 ton to cool and extracting valuable products from it.
That 170kgs will itself cool to emit no more radioactivity than the ores it came from within 300years.
The program was killed as it upset too many applecarts, including the weapons industry as it is lousy at making weapons grade materials, but all that is needed is modest development spending, not any new technology or breakthroughs at all.
We may indeed suffer an energy crisis, but only through stupidity, not a result of fundamental physical shortages.
Hi Davewmart,
I'm talking US. Georgia's numbers are the typical low ball numbers given before the real ones are. Same happened in Fla but when they had to put real numbers down, it was $8k/kw. Financing costs must be included as they are not surprisingly, costs.
In Finland it is now $7.6k/kw. So I don't see your numbers as real world, just marketing fantasies. Mine are real world. Plus they are likely to rise 50-100% as they historically do.
China's costs are not viable as they are subsidized in many ways. Again I'm talking US, European free market . If you want to use Russian, Chinese nukes feel free but not me.
Please show where Westinghouse, CANDU have been done on time, budget?
Regulation has proved necessary as several US plants would have melted down and were caught just short of disaster. Now finally nuke companies have figured out they make more money by doing right with more up time.
I can't say for all RE but I have proved home size RE is very cost effective with under $10k for 50 yrs of energy, even making money on it from excess energy sales. And as for capacity factors I have included storage for 24/7 in homes sizes that is still under $3.5k/kw either wind or solar/biomass CSP. Winter solar in most places can be fixed by using larger collectors in CSP or co-fired by biomass. And the waste heat bonus in winter makes it very worth it. pays for it, no?
In my experience tidal/river kinetic power is far lower at $1-2k/kw and base load. Rivers are fairly constant and tidal can be placed in various sites so they produce steady power as tides happen at different time at different places.
I find it hard to believe UK can't do home wind cost effectively. And you have tidal power in the North sea enough to power the UK if your, our idiot engineers will design decent generators. I did it 3 decades ago and it works great.
I also find it hard to believe you can't grow energy like hemp, willows, other biomass cost effectively. None so blind as those who will not see. In most places well thought out RE is the low cost energy source.
On Sep 10 05:09 AM Davewmart wrote:
> Jerrydd,
> the latest cost estimates in China run at $1565/kwh:
> nextbigfuture.com/2008...
>
> Although this is an estimate it should be noted that both Westinghouse
> and CANDU have built on time and to cost in many areas of the world.
>
> The same reference gives US costs:
> 'Another indication of financing costs is given by Georgia Power,
> which said in mid 2008 that twin 1100 MWe AP1000 reactors would cost
> $9.6 billion if they could be financed progressively by ratepayers,
> or $14 billion if not. This gives $4363 or $6360 per kilowatt including
> all other owners costs.'
>
> Some of the extra costs are due to higher labour costs etc and are
> inevitable, but many are due to truly batty and ineffective regulation,
> the lack of a series build, the fact that this would be the first
> of a kind for a long time so that expertise has to be accumulated
> and so on.
> It is also necessary to use crazy accounting to make nuclear look
> like a bad deal - the recent bids in Ontario are a good example:
>
> bravenewclimate.com/20.../
>
> Note that after all the fun and games, that still works out to a
> levelised cost of $0.05/kwh - cheaper than anything but natural gas
> and coal, which if it had to pay for the pollutants and control them
> to the same standard as the nuclear industry would be hopelessly
> uneconomic.
> For more information on nuclear costs and comparisons with wind,
> which is by far the cheapest renewable, are here:
> www.theoildrum.com/nod...
> This allows for capacity, which the figures you quote do not, but
> does not allow for the costs of linking to the grid, which are very
> large due to the dispersed nature of wind.
> It also does not allow for back up, which in practise is gas fired
> generation, as in Europe wind can be still for a week in midwinter,
> and winds are low in Texas in the summer when cooling needs are high.
>
> Without writing a dissertation on it, the problems of solar power
> relate to annual variation, so you have low solar incidence in mid-winter
> for months at a time, even as far south as the Mohave, whose latitude
> is similar to Cairo, incidence figures at 1.6 here:
> www.powerfromthesun.ne...
>
> I don't really study renewables in the US, as I have determined as
> far as I am concerned that whatever may be the case elsewhere, renewables
> are wholly impractical in the UK:
> www.withouthotair.com/
>
> In the US land based wind resources are much better, and can certainly
> supplement existing powers sources, but check out people like EON,
> who actually have to run the German grid, for the practical problems
> and costs of using a high proportion of renewables.
> Solar in the South-west of the US can also usefully provide peak
> power, and in some isolated communities may be a pretty cheap option,
> mainly because the US regulatory authorities charge a flat rate of
> about $50million for authorising nuclear plants, so making small,
> cheap designs uneconomic.
>
> As a general power source though, assuming that America is now incapable
> of organising itself to allow the build of nuclear power at reasonable
> cost, by far the cheapest way of getting power would be to buy off-the-shelf
> reactors from Russia or China, at a cost of, say, $2,000/kwh installed,
> as both are now designing and setting up the production lines for
> mass produced power.
>
> I hope this is helpful. At minimum perhaps when considering costs
> you would compare costs allowing for capacity factors, as without
> them the figures are deeply misleading.
> Rgds,
pepei.pennnet.com/disp.../
I have now spent some time providing documentation for the arguments I have made.
Perhaps you would similarly support your own statements.
You say:
'China's costs are not viable as they are subsidized in many ways'
Evidence, sources, amounts?
And:
'Again I'm talking US, European free market . If you want to use Russian, Chinese nukes feel free but not me.'
that nuclear power can be built so cheaply there indicates that costs in the US are inflated, and the technology is not inherently expensive.
And also, if we can buy a source of carbon low power more cheaply than we can make it, and reduce the costs of everything else we make in this way, why not?
Please provide sources for all your cost figures for renewables, including where they can be bought for that cost and what assumptions you are making and any Government subsidies.
Since you were originally just quoting figures for installed capacity as though it were output then considerable verification is needed.
I found Magnets 4 less: www.magnet4less.com/ but not much luck with Yahoo groups on EVs yet. I did find some other EV groups, however.
I'd love to try something like that, but I'd probably want some turnkey kit type thing rather than trying to learn everything and build it from scratch using trial and error. Actually, I'd prefer someone else to do it for me, but that would probably put it way out of the cost effectiveness range.
I have 4 kids and was thinking of trying to convert a 6 passenger 2nd vehicle. Your ultra light models wouldn't work for that usage, but I had been wondering whether converting something like a Mazda 5 mini-minivan to a plug-in hybrid might work. ie. a 15 - 20 mile all electric range with an on-board generator (6 to 8 hp?) to power it for longer distances if needed.
Maybe the lead carbon batteries seekingalpha.com/artic... might work for such an application and be a lot cheaper than Li-ion.
But I've heard all kinds of figures for conversions and it sounds like they're way expensive - ie. $20,000 additional cost over and above the vehicle cost. That would make it very hard to be cost effective unless gas prices really shot through the roof.
But hey, if one could really get a good reliable, long lasting home system for ~ $12,000 or so that would also recharge EVs costing another $10,000 or so above their gasoline counter parts that might be economically viable. It's something I'll continue to keep an eye on.
Thanks again.
On Sep 09 11:54 AM jerrydd wrote:
As far as subsidies for oil, I don't have any literature per se and in any case I think historically the bulk of the subsidies have come in a variety of covert forms (e.g. various wars fought in the persian gulf for the last 20 years).
Interesting conjecture on the BP and Exxon Investments. I agree, it's a hedge against high oil. I would think the preferred alt investment from an oil company is going to be a liquid fuel that can be mixed and distributed along with existing fuel (gas, oil, diesel) infrastructure and I believe that both algae and biomass (both food and non-food grade) ethanol can be. I am only a proponent of the non-food grade type for the reasons you and others have pointed out (land and water uses).
Yes, following that analogy further, both the Food Industry and Drug/Pharma are feeding off eachother. One causes the disease and the other cures it. You can have your cake and eat it to. I think things will initially be the same with our fuel conversion....shades of green...gotta walk before we can run...
Again, thanks for the thoughtful dialogue.
On Sep 09 06:30 PM JeffDB wrote:
> On Sep 09 05:38 PM akapital wrote:
Here's hoping we can come through with a reasonably good transition from our current dependency upon oil to our next-gen fuel(s). Biofuels may well play a large role in that transition.
On Sep 10 01:28 PM akapital wrote:
Hi Jeff,
Any lightweight vehicle can be converted easily to a 40-60 mile EV. A VW van would be good and under $6k. For a hybrid and 20 mile plug in battery you'd need a 15-20hp generator.
Older Volvo's would make a good 6 passenger EV or hybrid, light and strong.
CL batteries so far are vaporware and Lithium would be less expensive.
The EVDL list is by far the best EV list with the best EV tech in the world of people who build, drive them every day.
Contact freedomev for more info.
Davewmart, I've given my sources many times. Look up in my posts.
If nukes cost less in other places their RE will too so it balances out.
With all the low tech countries doing nukes now expect a meltdown soon and see how it does then. But you need to compared apples to apples in similar countries or you become off.
But please invest in nukes and see what your
investment does. It will takes yrs to gain anything then will be little until a meltdown, then drop. No thanks for me. I'll build my own RE at well under $1k/kw.
My last post here. See you guys on another article.
On Sep 10 11:23 AM JeffDB wrote:
> Thanks Jerry.
>
> I found Magnets 4 less: www.magnet4less.com/ but not much
> luck with Yahoo groups on EVs yet. I did find some other EV groups,
> however.
>
> I'd love to try something like that, but I'd probably want some turnkey
> kit type thing rather than trying to learn everything and build it
> from scratch using trial and error. Actually, I'd prefer someone
> else to do it for me, but that would probably put it way out of the
> cost effectiveness range.
>
> I have 4 kids and was thinking of trying to convert a 6 passenger
> 2nd vehicle. Your ultra light models wouldn't work for that usage,
> but I had been wondering whether converting something like a Mazda
> 5 mini-minivan to a plug-in hybrid might work. ie. a 15 - 20 mile
> all electric range with an on-board generator (6 to 8 hp?) to power
> it for longer distances if needed.
>
> Maybe the lead carbon batteries seekingalpha.com/artic...
> might work for such an application and be a lot cheaper than Li-ion.
>
>
> But I've heard all kinds of figures for conversions and it sounds
> like they're way expensive - ie. $20,000 additional cost over and
> above the vehicle cost. That would make it very hard to be cost
> effective unless gas prices really shot through the roof.
>
> But hey, if one could really get a good reliable, long lasting home
> system for ~ $12,000 or so that would also recharge EVs costing another
> $10,000 or so above their gasoline counter parts that might be economically
> viable. It's something I'll continue to keep an eye on.
>
> Thanks again.
>
> On Sep 09 11:54 AM jerrydd wrote:
> We can and will find more oil - we may have to look harder and deeper
We who? Are you in the oil business?