Mr K

I dont know how far the Solar can go, but definitely Wind is going higher and higher.

http://www.star-telegram.com/448/story/135851.html
4,000 MW wind farm is coming in Texas which is an Oil-State.

Day is not far off, when the renewable will take a bigger pie.

If oil companies raise prices for profit they risk causing the addicts to switch to alternatives and thus they will lose profits in the long run.

Solar is limited by the expense of making solar panels, all hopes on 3rd generation printable CIGS solar panels to reduce prices by 1/5-1/10 making solar more then just competitive but grossly profitable for the installer.

Wind is already profitable at todays energy prices, but space is limited for most landowners. helical-vertical microwind turbines like Quiet Revolution and Turby could provide windturbines even in the middle of a city.

Nuclear has much to offer: Particle bed reactors are melt-down proof, 55% efficient and use fuel in silicon carbide coconuts so tough that there is no need for a containment dome and once spent all that needed is to bury the nuts somewhere. Only problem is people's irrational fear of nuclear power despite the fact that coal has pumped up more radioactive material (thorium and uranium in coal ash) and cause far more damage world wide to public and environmental health.

Great link Max. If they build this 4000MW park it would produce enough electricity to match the annual power production from two large 1000MW nuclear power plants. I assume that they will use the largest 5MW turbines (600 feet high) with a 40% capacity factor on shore average wind location. It is the first time I hear about such a large wind park but why not. The bigger the more efficient. They could build it in the middle of a (corn) field that is how it is done in Germany and Denmark.

Henrik

The Texas Windfarm is likely to use 2.5 MW turbines.
Yes the 5 MW turbines from Repower, Germany is the highest is the World and they have started mass producing it.
http://www.repower5m.com/index_flash_uk.htm

The Worlds 1st modern wind turbine designed by that Danish Carpentar had 20 KW capacity and todays turbines have around 2,000 KW (2 MW) a 100 fold increase.

Wind gives a lot of hope.

http://money.cnn.com/2007/06/13/news/international/bc.usa.economy.greenspan.mexico.reut/index.htm?postversion=2007061315

Decline in Mexico's oil output hits mainstream US media for the 1st time.

Darwin,

Thanks for quoting me out of context. I take it as a compliment that you couldn't address my point head on but had to distort it to be able to sling 'BS'.

I specifically referenced *economic* viability. While it matters little to you what the business case looks like, only those who are busy spending money that is not their own can afford to ignore it in planning society-wide imlementation.
That does mean government bodies can ignore the business case, but the results are always fraught with unintended consequences. Every dollar we redirect toward a non-economically optimal solution could provide food for starving children, medicine in 3rd world countries, equipment for peacekeepers, support for the arts, funding for education, or the impetus to keep the economy moving so we can do better tomorrow.

Max Reid,

I regularly pump diesel produced from the canadian oil-sands extracts into my family vehicle. While diesel is a little more expensive in my state (MN) than nearby states, that is due to the state biodiesel mandate rather than the origin of the crude. Whether the crude costs $0.02 or $30 for the oil supplier to extract is immaterial to the refinery which pays a market price of >$50 bbl. And though all oil suppliers would love an extraction cost of $0.02 /bbl, they make sufficient money with $30/bbl extraction costs to be planning major expansion of the oil sands efforts.

This discussion only emphasizes my point: Oil sands and heavy crude are economically more viable than wind, solar, or collection of ruminant's gaseous excretions.
These unconventional resources will - with an increase in the price of crude - take up the slack of the mismatch in the oil supply and demand.

Political issues (ANWR, Iran, Nigeria, Russina and Venezuelan nationalization) are a far bigger threat to the viability of oil than 'peak oil'. The only way for there to be a peak in oil production without a price increase that drives development of unconventional resources is for the demand to drop sharply and permanently.

I see only 2 ways there coupld be a sharp and permanent decline in oil demand:
1. widespread civil disorder (e.g. envision the problems of the former Yugoslavia taking place in the US and China)
2. development of a less expensive transportable and dense alternative energy source. (Remember - coal is already less expensive - transportability and energy density are the keys to oil's value.)

Harvey

Oil sands are not an entirely new source discovered just this year. Canada has been producing oil from sands for the last 5 years or more.

It did increase Canada's oil production, but was not sufficient enough to feed the World's demand and thats why we saw just 0.7 % increase in Oil consumption last year.

Venezuela is another country with Oilsands, but their overall Oil production declined last year.

On the other hand, Wind energy increased 25 % in the last few years and at this rate, may contribute significantly to Worlds energy in the coming years.

Infact if Oil prices shoot above $70 / barrel or heat waves hit major countries like US, China, expect Wind to increase at 30 - 40 % range.

Peak oil does not mean the end of oil, it means the end of CHEAP oil, oil sands for example could take up the slack there are huge reserves of the stuff, but its only profitable at high oil prices.

http://article.wn.com/view/2007/06/06/Oilsands_output_soars_as_conventional_declines/?template=cheetah-article%2Fdisplayarticle.txt

Seems Oilsands in Alberta, Canada are already pumping 1.25 mil barrels/day which is like 1.4 % of the World's Oil.

Anyone know what %age of oil produced is
Heavy, Medium & Light.

This is a good interview with Texas oil-industry icon T. Boone Pickens. He also says that peak oil is a reality and he should know if any.
http://www.bizjournals.com/houston/stories/2007/06/11/story5.html?page=1&b=1181534400^1474028 He predicts $80 per barrel by year end in 2007. I think that sounds reasonable (maybe $5 too high) but this market is highly volatile so you never know exactly. Give it plus minus $15.

Another less good article is from Independent about peak oil becoming a reality within 4 years. The independent is too doomsday oriented in my opinion for instance they believe that a oil price of $100 per barrel will seriously hurt the world economy. That is nonsense when you consider that the increase the past 5 years in oil from $25 to $65 did absolutely nothing to slow down global economic growth. In my opinion the world economy will still be rolling ahead at $120 per barrel if it takes a few years (4-5) to get there. If it goes higher growth will slow down. Fortunately, at $120 a barrel you will be able to mass produce cellulose ethanol using current 2007 technology. This will prevent oil from going any higher than $120 per barrel. Off cause we need things to happen gradually like the oil price increase the past 5 years. If most of the Middle East breaks down in one or two years from now we will see oil above $120 and that will be bad for the world economy. That is unfortunately not entirely unthinkable with the current development.

Independent link http://news.independent.co.uk/sci_tech/article2656034.ece

The more the Oil price increases, the more the coal-fired plants will come along with Nuclear and Nat-gas and Wind and reduce the Oil consumption.

Already in 2006 Oil consumption increased only 0.7% compared to 1.5% in 2005. At $80/barrel, oil consumption will decrease sending warnings to OPEC countries.

Many countries like Britain, Indonesia, Mexico may be using for Oil for power generation and they already be moving those plants to other fuels.

Harvey, so your idea is to use oil sands, and any other fossil fuel possible to make up decline sweet crude, hence ramping those up exponentially as they have more and more decline to make up for?

OK, then what? Keep us using %100 pertroleum products until they are flat out gone? OK, that leaves us 10 years in the future with NO energy, due to a total lack of foresight. Sorry, you got it all wrong. Wind energy is completely viable already, despite a lack of the political support the oil industry gets. If it were not for political backing of the oil industry, they'd be the unviable energy source. (Military security of supplies, political ties to aid in legal defense and policy making, tax breaks despite record profits to spur new development, which at best can help slow the supply decline). Ever heard of foresight? Or do you not have children to think about?

Michel:

Here is an article from this month's Economist about the "Petrodollar Puzzle", where all the Mideast oil money goes:

http://www.economist.com/finance/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9308178&CFID=7046924&CFTOKEN=20459809

Darwin:

Your arguments are comical to the point of absurd...

1) Wind power receives a federal tax credit in the U.S. that makes it economically viable with fossil sources on a kilowatt hour bassis... do your research before saying Wind gets a lack of political support in this country...

2) Please tell me how can wind replace oil as a transportation feedstock?.. Until PHEV's or EV's become the de facto mode of auto transportation, we'll be stuck with ICE-powered cars for a long, long time...

3) How will we run out of energy in 10 years if we keep using 100% petroleum products? Did you even bother to look at the BP Statistical review or do you spend your spare time coming up with curse words out of other people's names?

Allright, by no political support, I was wrong.
I should have said effectively no support when compared to the massive amounts of money we spend to ensure our oil supply. Sorry about that.

Please, show me the actual dollars spent by the government on wind energy, then show me the actual amount spent on oil security in the middle east, tax breaks given for oil companies, and any other money spent supporting the fossil fuel infrastructures.

BP statistics are quite biased for obvious reasons. Explain to me how every major oil field we have been getting our oil from is in decline with no large new fileds found to replace them, and consumption continues to increase worldwide, yet we'll still have plenty of fuel in 10 years? Is China to going to happily let the US get the oil it wants and then take the leftovers, or will they outbid us with the money we keep sending over there?

An interesting article in CNNFN
http://money.cnn.com/2007/06/15/markets/oil.reut/index.htm?postversion=2007061516

Read this line
"The hydrocracker uses hydrogen to make more motor fuels out of a barrel of oil. "

So where does the Hydrogen come from,
certainly not from Coal, as it contains just Carbon
Oil - nah - its just expensive
Nat-gas - may be.

Earlier I read an article that Hydrocarbons with Carbon atoms between
2-4 goes to Propane (LPG)
5-8 goes to Octane (Gasolene)
9-12 goes to Kerosene (Jet-fuel)
13-18 goes to Cetane (Diesel)
19 or more - towards Fuel-Oil and other fuels.

so heavier the Crude, it will yield only Diesel, which means for Gasolene,
they have to add more and more Hydrogen in the coming years.

Get ready to pay or consider Hybrids, Diesels, Ethanol, etc.

US military budget is around $450 billion / annum.

Even if 1 / 6 of this goes to protect the middle-east and their oil interests, then its $75 billion.

Divide $75 billion / 200 gallons of Gasolene/Diesel sold and it works out to $0.375 or 37.5 cents / gallon.

Thats the subsidy given to oil. Remove that subsidy and see, people will simply give up their gas-guzzlers.

And then there is $40 billion home-land security which is meant to protect us from Arab terrorists who get their money from Oil. Calculate and see who gets more subsidies.

Max,

Hydrogen can be produced from coal or any other hydrocarbon or carbonaceous fuel using partial oxidation and steam reforming. These are the same processes used to produce it from natural gas today. Natural gas is easier to handle (read as: lower cost of capital) so it is preferred, but many other fuels could be used. (Coal, tar, tires, charcoal, burnt toast...)

Gentlemen,

I have met earnest "Peakists" who say the demise of easy petroleum will cause the world to end, and plunge into a global depression, precipitating a world famine and massive human die off.

Or don't you read your own "Peakist" literature?

They say this, as any other source of kilowatts is somehow tainted and not equal to the mystic properties of a KW produced by Oil.

Peakist theory is inoffensive; it merely says that half of the oil extractable at some quality-price-point will have been mined. As the basis for political nonsense it is dangerous. That Peak leaves an equivalent period of time at similar usage patters (i.e since 1860's) or around 150 years until it "runs out". Certainly not a single decade. But price will force substitution; it always has, and it continues to do so. for example, PHEVs will come because gasoline or diesel can't compete with 75 cent a gallon electrical equivalent.

Oil demand is more likely to collapse rather than increase much more, when usage as a prime mover for transport ends its technological monopoly.

I don't really give a ruddy damn where the KWs are sourced, for our civilization. Be it from polluting coal, inefficient and polluting wind, & solar, or less polluting Fission or eventually clean Fusion.

It will come from someplace. All I was saying is that expecting minuscule sources like Wind to grow to the skies is not realistic. Especially as these sources are not economically nor technologically competitive without massive financial or regulatory subsidies. their deleterious and polluting side effects are only now being recognized.

Complaining that some greedy political hack (Chavez, Putin, Fox, Amahdinejhad, or the Sheiks of Araby, take your pick), has raided his piggbank is not proof of anything. Because some political hack is not investing in his raided "nationalized " oil company, so its production is trending downward, is NOT proof that the "Peak", whatever that is, has arrived.

It may only indicate a proliferation of piggybank raiding hacks; and there certainly do appear to be lots of candidates these day stealing in the name of "the people".

Stan

Are you saying that if the World hits peak oil today, it will take another 150 years to run out.

In the beginning of last century, there were around 10,000 vehicles and by the end of the century it slowly grew to around 750 million vehicles, but this century began with 750 million vehicles and by the end, there may be more than 4-5 billion vehicles, at this rate of usage, all Oil may runout in few decades.

In the last 3 years, average oil prices have increased from around $25 - $65/barrel, imagine where it will be in the next 3 years.

No wonder the share of Truck based SUV's in overall vehicle market have declined from around 20 % in 2000 to 12 % today.

Read this article
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2007/06/shell_withdraws.html#more

Shell has withdrawn application for a Sandsoil venture.
Seems sands have more sand less oil.

After all there are more greener pastures like Wind.