« EPA: Total US Greenhouse Gas Emissions Rose 0.8% in 2005; Transportation Up 1.6% | Main | Air Liquide Acquires Lurgi »
Survey: World Oil Reserves Are Not Being Fully Replaced
17 April 2007
 |
| Top 10 holders of oil reserves, according to the survey. Click to enlarge. |
The world is currently producing more oil annually than it is replacing with new reserves, according to a new survey of global liquids reserves published by Energy Intelligence, a data and information provider for the global energy industry.
In contrast to the gradual rise in global oil reserves that has been reported annually in most surveys based on public sources, the new assessment shows that the trend in worldwide liquids reserves is actually one of stagnation and modest decline.
The Petroleum Intelligence Weekly (PIW) Reserves Survey shows global oil reserves declining by almost 13 billion barrels, or 0.9%, over the last two years to 1.459 trillion bbl at the end of 2006 on a “proved plus probably basis.” Global oil reserves are liquid hydrocarbons, natural gas liquids, tar sands and crude oil, that are economically recoverable at current prices.
Other surveys of public data show a world total of proved reserves in the range of 1.2 trillion to 1.3 trillion bbl. The PIW survey uses a somewhat broader definition of reserves than the other surveys based on public sources and it applies that definition consistently and systematically across all countries, fully accounting for production declines and new additions.
The main reason for the poor performance in growing reserves is a lack of additions to reserves from new discoveries, which account for 20% or less of additions in the last few years. The high oil prices and sharply increased upstream spending budgets of most oil companies have not yet provided any significant improvement in global additions to reserves, but more time may be needed, according to the publisher.
For 2006, the big increases in reserves were led by Brazil and Kazakhstan. Among the top 20, only eight countries saw increases last year, while the rest were flat or in decline.
The PIW survey also confirms earlier suspicions about the overstatement of reserves by Kuwait and some other OPEC producers. At the same time, the survey also indicates that reserves in Russia and some other non-OPEC countries are much higher than is generally reported.
Energy Intelligence has been a core information provider for the global energy industry for more than 50 years, and publishes Petroleum Intelligence Weekly, The Oil Daily, Natural Gas Week, World Gas Intelligence and Energy Compass.
April 17, 2007 in Oil | Permalink | Comments (37) | TrackBack (0)
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/22062/17789674
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Survey: World Oil Reserves Are Not Being Fully Replaced:
Comments
"The Stone Age didn’t end for lack of stone, and the oil age will end long before the world runs out of oil.", Sheik Ahmed Zaki Yamani. He was the Saudi oil minister during the 1970's.
It's perhaps useful to highlight the difference between proven (i.e. economically recoverable) and ultimate (i.e. technically recoverable) oil reserves. The difference between the two lies in estimates of future oil prices and drilling technology. Investors tend to be on the ultra-conservative end of this spectrum.
The real driver for the end of the oil age will be prices rising beyond what consumer nations are prepared to pay. The main reason for the current low rate of new exploration and production is not geology nor technology - it is politics. Most of the nationalized oil industries have under-invested in new capacity for fear of turning the boom into yet another bust. Western oil majors no longer enjoy predictable investment environments in places like Russia, Venezuela or Bolivia. Iraq still has vast amounts of easily produced oil but the war there means capacity remains at a fraction of its potential.
The amount of natural gas currently being squandered world-wide (vented, flared, lost due to leaky pipelines) is roughly equivalent to the total consumed by Germany and France put together. This energy could and would be used if the economies in the 10 or so countries responsible for most of the flaring were opened up to Western investment. If nothing else, it could be used to smelt aluminum for use in car bodies.
The Nabucco pipeline project that was to deliver Qatari and Iranian gas to Central Europe is on indefinite hold, as is another linking Iran, Pakistan and India and a third between Central Asia and Pakistan. Again, the reasons are politics and/or war. LNG and GTL are ways around the problem, but they are both less efficient and more expensive than pipelines would be.
Posted by: Rafael Seidl | Apr 17, 2007 4:29:12 AM
Politics are certainly preventing the oil supply from expanding as much as it could expand (in the Middle East and in Russia) but I am not convinced it is the chief explanation as Rafael think it is. If we take a look at the graph of global oil production it is apparent that it increases almost every year. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Crude_NGPL_IEAtotal_1960-2004.png In yr 2006 the production reached 84,58 million b/d. Only at two times in this 40 year history of oil production did it decrease, namely, in the 1st and the 2nd oil crisis where production was deliberately decreased by OPEC in order to boost oil prices. Now take a look at the historical graph of oil prices http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Oil_Prices_1861_2006.jpg. This graph shows that the oil price increased during the first and the second oil crisis and that it has increased in similar magnitude from 1999 to the present. At all other times the oil price is decreasing or flat. The truly new issue to note about the oil price increase from 1999 to 2006 is that it happens in spite of increased oil supply. This has never happened before. The reason that the price increases from about $20 to $65 in this period is that the demand increases faster than the supply increases. The world economy now appears to grow at almost 5% pro anno and oil production cannot expand equally fast. At 4 to 5% economic growth the world economy will double by 2027. This is almost certain to happen but I have little faith in believing that oil production will double also from its present level to about 170 million barrels per day in 2027. Instead, a wild guess is that oil will continue to rise by about $10 per barrel every year from now until it reaches about $120 per barrel in 2012. At $120 per barrel cellulose ethanol can be competitively produced even with today’s immature production technology for this feedstock. Consequently it will be able to ramp up global production to levels that prevent further increases in crude oil. There is plenty of cellulose available for this production. For instance, the biomass on the planet is estimated at 1877 billion tons which is reproduced every 11 years. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biomass For comparison the annual crude oil production in 2006 was about 5 billion tons. I also hope that lithium batteries will make it possible to get around without liquid fuel but at the current price of about $1600 per kWh for the relevant ones (A123 or Altair) these batteries can’t even compete with $120 a barrel.
Rafael you are right that politics is a mayor problem that limits production of crude oil in Russia and the Middle East (but that is hardly a new issue). My point is that politics is not the most important issue but rather the rapid growth in demand from a booming world economy.
Posted by: Henrik | Apr 17, 2007 7:30:53 AM
Without geopolitics oil prices would be under $25/barrel. Western oil companies can find and extract oil much more efficiently and cleanly than the NOCs (Pemex, PDVSA, Gazprom, etc). But the political and cultural situation isn't likely to change, even in my children's lifetimes.
Posted by: JamesEE | Apr 17, 2007 8:04:05 AM
"At 4 to 5% economic growth the world economy will double by 2027. This is almost certain to happen... "
I think that may be a bit optimistic. There are bound to be some kind of economic disruptions in between. Even if all else remain flat, the rising cost of energy as a result of demands from growth will most likely cause certain global and economic sectors to suffer.
I think we have not felt any significant effects from rising fuel costs because that expense used to be a small part of our budgets. We have all adopted and adjusted our habits and in most part, we are able to absorb the increased expense and still enjoy the status quo. But once the percentage spent on energy passes a the threshold, I think a economic contraction would likely happen.
When will this happen? I don't know, but I just can't imagine that the world can support a continuous up trend in energy prices and still be able to keep steady growth globally.
Posted by: Charles S | Apr 17, 2007 8:50:27 AM
This has been true since the early 80s. Oil production will peak for political reasons as much as geological ones, if not moreso.
Posted by: Cervus | Apr 17, 2007 9:35:17 AM
Charles S:
World economy grew by 3.14X between 1950 and 1975, by 2.18X between 1975 and 2000 and will certainly grow by at least 2.0X betweem 2000 and 2025. New 'green' economy factors, + increased growth rate in China, India, South America etc may help it grow at the rate of 2.5X (for the current quarter century).
Will future eonomic growth = energy consumption growth? Most probably so.
Will future economic growth = Oil consumption growth? No, because alternative energies will progressively replace OIL.
Posted by: Harvey D. | Apr 17, 2007 9:37:09 AM
two words: peak oil
Posted by: Ben | Apr 17, 2007 9:40:41 AM
Henrik appears to believe that humans can harvest on the order of 170 billion tons of biomass per year from existing sources on an indefinite basis. Do I have to point out that such an assumption is dangerously naïve?
Posted by: Reality Czech | Apr 17, 2007 9:55:47 AM
Reality Czech,
No, but even a fraction of that potential biomass would take out a signifigent fraction of oil use.
Posted by: Ben | Apr 17, 2007 10:10:22 AM
If we peak at 100 million barrels a day of worldwide production and the worldwide demand over the next 20 years becomes 150 million barrels a day, then prices will go up and shortages will become more common. I think that this pattern of future events is probable. If this becomes a realistic outlook of future conditions, then coordination, planning and execution become essential. This may be stating the obvious, but all I have heard so far is talk and I have seen very little action on the part of world leaders.
Posted by: SJC | Apr 17, 2007 10:24:19 AM
Reality Czech where do you get the 170 billion tons of biomass number from? I certainly didn’t writhe it.
Posted by: Henrik | Apr 17, 2007 11:06:50 AM
Henrik -
you are quite right to point out that we are currently in the unusual situation of decent economic growth rates not just in virtually all OECD countries but very rapid growth in China, Eastern Europe, India, Brazil, Turkey and many other places. As Charles S. points out, it would be atypical for this to continue indefinitely. Someone somewhere is going to suffer an economic downturn and that may prove contagious.
My point was simply that the currently high price of oil is a function of the slow growth in supply capacity relative to structural growth in demand. With little excess capacity to fall back on, traders are placing a high premium on the political risks. Fears of a physical supply crunch appear to be unfounded.
Posted by: Rafael Seidl | Apr 17, 2007 12:01:40 PM
Rafael,
The technology is and has been available for some time to use the waste gases from petroleum platforms, installations, refineries... anywhere gas is blown off or flared. (I.E.WASTED) If land based wells were as efficient as offshore platforms, you would see the adoption of more of these "waste gas" turbines pumping out electricity, just as they do in offshore installations.
Several companies make APUs that use the waste gases. Check out this compact unit seen at many petro sites.
http://www.capstoneturbine.com/prodsol/solutions/rroilandgas.asp
BTW the Fischer-Tropf process can also be used to use waste gases in GTL plants. Collection systems is the problem there. Though I believe in dense production areas such as Qatar and Saudia are on that road already.
Rikiki Weisbrich
Round Rock, TX
Posted by: Rikiki Weisbrich | Apr 17, 2007 12:58:27 PM
Don't forget US politics. Oil and gas drilling are prohibited or prohibitive in much of the US. For example, the Arctic national wildlife refuge (14 billion barrels?), off the coast, and some places in the Rockies.
Posted by: Chuck123 | Apr 17, 2007 2:28:58 PM
There's also a huge shortage of drilling rigs right now, and that influences how quickly new oil exploration and production wells can be completed. This is why peak oil is going to be so damned hard to predict. And it'll surprise everybody, including the experts.
Posted by: Cervus | Apr 17, 2007 4:07:43 PM
There are so many "experts" is the area of peak oil, one of them has to be right.
Posted by: Neil | Apr 17, 2007 4:46:44 PM
Henrick - "At $120 per barrel cellulose ethanol can be competitively produced even with today’s immature production technology for this feedstock."
But that is assuming that the production cost for cellulostic ethanol remains at the present level. With 120/barrel oil this will double or triple the cost of ethanol as gathering and transporting the feedstock will be 3 or 4 times more expensive as will all other costs associated with producing ethanol.
From Robert Rapier's blog:
http://i-r-squared.blogspot.com/2007/04/tdp-when-hype-meets-reality.html
"And then he makes the mistake that so many others repeatedly make:
If the price of oil keeps rising, he said, so will profits.
This is the same mistake that proponents of tar sands, GTL, oil shale, cellulosic ethanol, and many others have run into. They believe that oil prices will rise, and yet their costs will magically remain where they were. In fact, what happens is that as oil prices rise, all the costs associated with these various projects rise. That’s why oil shale has been imminent for 100 years. That’s why ExxonMobil is scrapping GTL plans. And that’s why tar sands costs have skyrocketed. A poster at The Oil Drum has referred to this trend as The Law of Receding Horizons."
Posted by: Ender | Apr 17, 2007 5:49:03 PM
I am a little curious of how we are treating the planet. Is the planet shrinking with all this oil reserve being sucked out of the ground and replaced by water. There are very little oil well gushers any more. The oil in turn converted into gases entering the atmosphere must being heading out into space. So, we are experiencing loses here of the earths products. Will we bear dire consequences for this later. Is the oil in the ground acting as an insulation in keeping the earth heat sealed inside. Hard to tell. I know the water we used to bring up out of wells 700 - 1000 feet deep in Saudi Arabia was about 40 degrees C temp. Is the inner earth going to cool quicker because it is dissipating heat out into the outer crust, seas, etc. Why are Governments wasting time in not collectively looking into new technology for operating machinery, transport, etc, and working towards habitating other planets and the problems that overpopulation of this one will create in years to come. There are many issues, but we need to be thinking beyond our time on the planet and for the following generations also. All this stupidity and fighting needs to stop and serious cooperation begin among all..
Posted by: Hamid Al Drees | Apr 17, 2007 6:04:02 PM
In simple terms what happemed to the oi; industry is exactly the same as with the electricpower industry. Things piled up tomake siting new units far too combersome and supid so both industries coasted knowing that the sure way to clear away stupid regs and clogged gov regs was to let the bleep hit the fan.
In both cases it worked rather well.
Sad fact is humans simplr dometimes need to be kicked in the privates dropped off a roof and beaten to a pulp o make then shut up and get thier act togther.
The bad thing is in the end what it will realy tke is a good old fasioned doomfall to realy cut the stupidity factor we face these days... and mother nature combined with our tender care will provide that.. a few billion doses.
Posted by: wintermane | Apr 17, 2007 6:12:08 PM
Ender: Oil sands production prices haven't really changed (except down). When they first started in the oil sands they could only make a profit at 30$/bbl. Last I checked they can make money at 15$/bbl. The expenses you are hearing about are the costs of starting new operations. That is a result of everyone and their dog all trying to get into the the tar sands at the same time. You should see what's happened to prices in Fort MacMurray.
Posted by: Neil | Apr 17, 2007 10:59:26 PM
Hamid;
Don't worry about gases going out in Space, they can't. Gravity is there. only some light gases like hydrogen or helium can escape.
And, about Shrinking Earth, well it is true that we're taking stuff out of earth but look at the scale, a number in billions or trillions is just a fraction for Earth.
Posted by: Mridul Kashatria | Apr 18, 2007 2:40:09 AM
Ender you have a point in saying that increasing crude oil prices increases the cost of producing ethanol using the present technology. However, you are grossly exaggerating when saying “With 120/barrel oil this will double or triple the cost of ethanol as gathering and transporting the feedstock will be 3 or 4 times more expensive as will all other costs associated with producing ethanol.” Firstly, you are exaggerating because doubling of crude oil from $60 to $120 can at most increase transportation cost by 100%. In fact, the cost of diesel and gasoline will only increase by some 80% when doubling the crude oil price because the fabrication of these fuels are associated with other costs that stay the same regardless of the price of crude oil. 80% is far less than the 300% to 400% that you suggest for transportation costs. Secondly, you are grossly wrong when saying that transportation cost is a dominant cost in the fabrication of ethanol. In fact, the US department of agriculture made an analysis saying that, I quote “Every 1 Btu of petroleum fuel used to produce ethanol generates 13.2 Btus, thereby greatly enhancing U.S. energy security.” In other words, the cost of transportation full for ethanol production is very low. In fact, the reason that the corn farmers and ethanol factories use fossil diesel is more due to the fact that this is the traditional fuel of choice. You will see in a few years (2-4 years) the majority of these farmers and ethanol facilities will be running on bio diesel made as a by-product from corn ethanol and other sources.
The major cost involved in ethanol production is the cost of 1) feedstock, 2) production energy, 3) capital costs, 4) industrial enzymes, 5) labour, and yes 6) transportation energy. Of these 6 factors the first 2 are the most important.
1) Corn or sugar used as a feedstock will increase in price as we have seen already with corn going from about $2,1 a bushel to $3,7 a bushel. The US corn ethanol production will triple in as little as 4 to 5 years from now and that will drive corn prices further up. However, I doubt you will see corn above $6 a bushel even with crude oil at $120. The increasing price of sugar and corn will make cellulose very attractive as a feedstock because it will be comparatively inexpensive and it is so plentiful that dramatically increased demand will have little impact on the long term price of cellulose. Globally it should not be a problem to harvest about 15 billion tons of cellulose a year. One ton of corn produces 400 kg of ethanol. If this conversion rate can be maintained for cellulose 15 billion tons of cellulose could yield 6 billion tons of ethanol enough to replace all crude oil produced in 2006. Such a cellulose harvest is realistic on a global scale because I repeat that the planet contains more than 1000 billion tons of biomass that regenerates in about every 11 years.
2) The production energy (not transportation energy) in today’s corn ethanol fabrication is due to use of electricity and natural gas mostly for heating purposes. Today a few ethanol producers have begun to use electricity generated by wind turbines. This will change dramatically and in 10 to 15 years all ethanol producers will use wind turbine electricity because it will be the least costly form of electricity available. Many are still unaware that the global wind power industry have managed to reduce the cost of wind power from 37,5 c /kWh in 1986 to 7,5 c/ kWh in 2006 at the average wind location. This trend is very likely to continue the next two decades so that the cost of wind power drops to c 1,5 / kWh in 2026 for the average wind location. This will be accomplished through further increases in turbine size and through mass production. In 10 years from now only hydro electricity will still be able to compete with electricity produced from wind mills.
The future of transportation looks pretty bright with plenty of alternatives to using fossil fuels and the increasing price of crude oil has triggered this metamorphosis. Indeed, the prophecy by Sheik Ahmed Zaki Yamani that "The Stone Age didn’t end for lack of stone, and the oil age will end long before the world runs out of oil." finally seems to come through.
Posted by: Henrik | Apr 18, 2007 2:56:37 AM
I saw an article in the NY Times yesterday in the business section that showed some projects in cellulose ethanol and how they have been working on it since the late 90s and have nothing working on a large scale yet. They just mentioned the enzyme/fermentation/distillation methods and nothing on gasification nor pyrolysis. They did talk about one company that had something working and ran out of money. If this was true, this should not happen. We need all viable ideas to make it into production.
Posted by: SJC | Apr 18, 2007 8:57:47 AM
This is weird. For an important energy source like Oil, different groups are giving different pictures.
This chart puts Kuwait at 9th place with half their stated reserves. Is that official.
Some independent group like EIA should step in. But they too were talking about oil consumption hitting 115 million barrels / day by 2020 timeline without stating where it will come.
With all these vagaries, the price at the pump is the BEST JUDGE.
Posted by: Max Reid | Apr 18, 2007 1:50:30 PM
Fact is everyone is hidding thier true oil reserves. For one thing many places face complete anarchy when oil production runs low. For anouther its already well known that many in power just plan to queeze the dregs then cut and run leaving the masses to rot.
Also many in power only have stayed alive by bribing terrorist orgs. This falls apart as the money stream ends so they contain info on WHEN it will happen hoping to run and hide when the bleep hits the fan.
Finaly few in power want the masses to know when say africa or centra;am will be cut off from oil as other areas outbid them for whats left.
Keeping people calm tends to be an obession.
Posted by: wintermane | Apr 18, 2007 3:42:37 PM
Henrick - "Such a cellulose harvest is realistic on a global scale because I repeat that the planet contains more than 1000 billion tons of biomass that regenerates in about every 11 years."
Yes that might be true however there is no way every single ton of that could be used. Like anything the size of the resource is not the important factor. The measure is the URR. The realistic URR of biomass would be a third of this figure in line with most natural resources like oil where only about 30% of the resource is recoverable no matter what technology you use. Also the environmental damage that producing biomass and removing it on this scale from the eco-system would be massive.
The thing that you are also neglecting is that oil is present in all the costs that you mention, not just transportation which is the point that I am making. Fossil fuels are used to create the feedstock, build the capital works, produce and transport the enzymes, and feed and transport the labour. All of these costs will rise with rising oil prices not just the transportation costs. Assuming that we could replace all the fossil fuels in the whole chain of ethanol production then the energy return would then be so close to 1 that you really need to question why bother?
Corn it is a reasonably compact energy source compared to cellulose so the transport cost are fairly low, this is the same for sugar and other present feedstocks. When you start talking general biomass then this is a much more difficult proposition to transport and store ready to convert. It is no good gathering a thousand tons of biomass just to have it rot away because it cannot be used fast enough. There are non-trivial problems to solve surrounding the transport and storage of extremely large volumes of raw biomass even before unproven cellulostic ethanol production becomes mature technology.
"The production energy (not transportation energy) in today’s corn ethanol fabrication is due to use of electricity and natural gas mostly for heating purposes. Today a few ethanol producers have begun to use electricity generated by wind turbines. This will change dramatically and in 10 to 15 years all ethanol producers will use wind turbine electricity because it will be the least costly form of electricity available."
With this I have the same question as I do for hydrogen fuel cells and that is why bother. Wind farms generate a very high quality fuel called electricity. This can be reticulated, with the present distribution system, at very low cost and can power electric cars with off the shelf technology. Ethanol cannot be stored really easily and if it was the only fuel available would require large modifications to the fuel distribution network.
Again why do this:
Wind farm -> electricity -> ethanol plant + feedstock -> ethanol -> heat engine (lose 80%) -> drive car
when you can do this:
Wind Farm -> electricity -> charge batteries(lose 10%) -> electric motor (lose 10%) -> drive car
Why bother with the ethanol part at all? The only reason I can see for ethanol is a desperate attempt to keep the present car fleet intact with all the surrounding industries no matter what the cost.
Posted by: Ender | Apr 18, 2007 5:26:26 PM
Wind -> Ethanol is not good thing, but the waste heat from thermal power plants can be use to make Ethanol.
But Wind -> Electricity -> Vehicles is good.
We need both and all other sources of energy as more countries need more energy.
Since Year 2000, Wind, Biomass, Solar has all grown by 25-30 % / year and soon they may all cross 1% share of World energy consumption.
Posted by: Max Reid | Apr 19, 2007 8:34:01 AM
"Why bother at all?"
No one wants to hear it, but we will absolutely need this ethanol (and biodeisel). Just not for our cars.
Long haul trucking, trains, airplanes, or even home heating is NOT viable with electricity. They need a more compact energy source that doesn't weigh as much as batteries. Private transportation in 10 years will be moving to a combination of electric and mass transit. But trucks, trains, planes, tractors, and home heating will be heading towards biofuel.
It is far better to produce the biofuel infrastructure NOW while we have the oil resources to build with, then it is trying to build the infrastructure when the shi-ites hit the fan and there is NO oil to produce said infrastructure. I really don't care how they sell it, it needs to be done for future energy security. In fact, I predict ethanol and biodeisel will continue to be mixed with dino fuels in a higher and higher percentage until it is clear that route is not feasable. This will be about the same time we realize that Natural gas has peaked and viola! you have bio fuel ready to heat homes and haul freight. But Joe public will be walking, biking, or taking mass trasit. Unless you're wealthy and can afford an electric car.
Posted by: darwin | Apr 19, 2007 8:42:18 AM
Darwin: I agree with most of your points but would question two of your statements. Home heating and cooling can be done efficiently (400%) with electricity if you use a ground heat pump. As for trains, I just spent a summer tootling around Europe on electric trains. We're going to have to move more freight by rail and use bio-diesel for the rest of the trucks.
Posted by: Neil | Apr 19, 2007 9:35:16 AM
Ender we bother with ethanol because it makes economic sense right now whereas electric cars do not. Corn ethanol in the US is now produced at an annual capacity of 5850 million gallons at $2.1 per gallon. Very competitive compared to gasoline at almost $3 per gallon. Ethanol already runs what amounts to several millions of highway capable cars which are in contrast to the zero highway capable electric cars that are available to US citizens today. In four years from now we will be lucky if we have more than 25000 highway capable electric cars on the road and they will be very expensive compared to ICE driven cars. In four years from now annual ethanol production will be at 15000 million gallons. As a cheap and fast way to become independent of oil imports for transportation ethanol is a prime candidate.
In 10 years from now maybe EVs will start to become really interesting if they can produce those batteries in large quantities at reasonable cost. But 10 years is a long time to wait and I fear that there is a large chance that it will get really ugly in a few years in the Middle East (in 2 years when the US withdraw from Iraq) so ethanol appears to be the best way to keep going as usual in the US no matter what happens abroad. It is foolish and careless to rely on others when it comes to basic food and energy.
Posted by: Henrik | Apr 19, 2007 9:52:55 AM
Geothermal heat pumps will be used IN COMBINATION with either elecric heat or biofuel.
I live in MN, and while I am planning on installing a geothermal pump, it will only reduce my heating bill in half. It cannot provide enough heat in 10 below weather. It will be great in spring and fall for buffering the outside swings, but in the heart of winter, it's not enough. We'll need hybrid furnaces, and biofuel can fit that without SEVERLY taxing the current electric infrastructure (as electric heating would).
As for rail, Europe has a much higher human density. The stretched of farmland between cities with the electric infrastructure is much less. To send electric trains accross the US would require massive electric infrastructure, whereas a biodeisel train is ready to go today. Of course, mass transit rail in the cities should, will, and is developing on an electric infrastructure.
Posted by: darwin | Apr 19, 2007 10:14:38 AM
I know I'm way off topic here, but why would your heat pump not work in less than than -10? If it were an air based heat pump I could see why. For cold climates can't you simply install a larger (and deeper) infrastructure of pipes? If you use it as AC in the summer then you can put the heat right back in the ground. I live in Vancouver, they work all year here.
Posted by: Neil | Apr 19, 2007 11:14:36 AM
Most people don't have enough acreage to install a heat pump that big, to the point that it can keep a house warm in 10 below (F NOT C) weather. A heat pump will still work, but would need to be supplemented.
The heat loss to the outside at that temp. gradient is too much to overcome with a standard residential (liquid)heat pump.
Vancouver has those warm ocean currents going by, making it quite a bit more moderate than MN. I've seen it as cold as 30 degrees below F. Which would compare to the interior of Canada, but not Vancouver. Are people in the interior of Canada using stand alone heat pumps? I'd be very suprised (and excited) if they were.
Posted by: darwood | Apr 19, 2007 12:15:05 PM
Darwin/Darwood I talked with these people: http://www.bryantgeo.com/
and they say there is no problem with MN (I've heard of them being used in Edmonton) ... not cheap to install, but cheap to run. It will work as AC in the summer.
The temperature restrictions you were referring to belong to the air source heat pumps. If property size is a problem then you can (at a cost) bring in a small drilling rig and install the system vertically. (Maybe you'll hit a super giant while you're at it.)
Posted by: Neil | Apr 19, 2007 2:05:46 PM
To prep for low oil supply you need to do a few things NOW.
1 Get off heating oil. Its going to shrink in supply rapidly and soar in cost.
2 If you live in cold climes.. superinsulate NOW.Replace all windows with much better ones and try to enclose all areas with alot of windows in an enckised and insualtrf porch.
3 Think about moving if you cant afforf drastic upgrades. You dont need to move far just to a better smallrt home you can then upgrade with the extra money left over from the big home.
We moved to a smallrt far more insulated home ssome years back and it realy helps.
Posted by: wintermane | Apr 19, 2007 4:31:16 PM
I DID just move. Been here 1 year and have spent $11,000 on new windows and added 8 inches of insulation throughout.
No urban homes in MN use heating oil, they all use natural gas. Remote rural homes use propane, but some still use heating oil.
I'm still going to need to reduce my Nat gas usage though. Even with the improvements I've made, My Nat. gas bill peaks out in midwinter at about 350$.
A heat pump and solar and/or on demand water heater is in my future, but I can't afford the massive cost right now.
Posted by: darwood | Apr 20, 2007 8:29:38 AM
Dont forget to both milk grants and zero interest loans alot of orgs give out for such things.
How thick are your walls and roof? What r value?
Iknow a ftiend of mine finaly went full tilt a few years back and retrofittrf in 3 foot thick insualted walls ans roof and insualted his slab even down to 10 feet to isolate his concrete pad and theearth below it from the much cikder ground outside. As I remember he wound up needing only candles and a brist run on a treadmill and the occasional cooked meal to heat his home... but then he wasnt exact sane either...
Posted by: wintermane | Apr 20, 2007 2:04:43 PM
