Green Car Congress: Global Energy Consumption Rises as Supplies Lag; Coal Still the Fastest Growing Fuel in the World

« Dust-Up Between BP and Russian Investors Threatens TNK-BP Joint Venture | Main | BLM and USDA Issue Draft Plan Environmental Impact Statement for Large-Scale Geothermal Energy Development »

Global Energy Consumption Rises as Supplies Lag; Coal Still the Fastest Growing Fuel in the World

18 June 2008

Global consumption of energy, in million tonnes of oil equivalent. Click to enlarge.

According to the just-published BP Statistical Review of World Energy 2008, the ongoing strength of world economic growth last year, despite financial market turmoil which began in August, continued to support global energy consumption. Although growth in primary energy consumption slowed in 2007 compared to 2006, at 2.4% it was still above the 10-year average for the fifth consecutive year.

Coal remained the fastest-growing fuel, but oil consumption grew slowly. Oil is still the world’s leading fuel, but has lost global market share for six consecutive years, while coal has gained market share for six years.

The defining feature of global energy markets remains high and volatile prices, reflecting a tight balance of supply and demand. This has put issues such as energy security and alternative energies at the forefront of the political agenda worldwide.

—Tony Hayward, BP CEO

The oil price has been on an upward path for more than six years, which according to BP’s data series going back to 1861, is the longest period of rising prices on record.

Dated Brent crude oil averaged $72.39 per barrel in 2007, an increase of 11%. Prices rose steadily throughout the year, from a low of just over $50 in mid-January to above $96 by year-end. Temporary bottlenecks caused the USA benchmark WTI to trade at a discount to Brent for the first time since 1979. Discounts for heavy, sour crudes remained high reflecting constraints on upgrading capacity in refining.

Global oil consumption grew by 1.1% in 2007, or 1 million barrels per day (bpd), slightly below the 10-year average, according to the Review, while global oil production fell by 0.2%, or 130,000 bpd, the first decline since 2002.

Consumption in the oil exporting regions of the Middle East, South and Central America, and Africa accounted for two-thirds of the world’s growth. The Asia-Pacific region grew by 2.3%, even though growth in China and Japan was below average, with strong growth in a number of emerging economies. OECD consumption fell by 0.9%, or nearly 400,000 bpd.

OPEC production dropped by 350,000 bpd due to the cumulative impact of production cuts implemented in November 2006 and February 2007. Increased output in Angola and Iraq, and growing supply of condensates/NGLs, partially offset larger cuts in other OPEC countries.

Oil production growth outside OPEC remained weak, rising by just over 200,000 bpd in 2007; OECD output fell for a fifth consecutive year. FSU (Former Soviet Union) output rose by nearly 500,000 bpd, with Azerbaijan and Russia each growing by more than 200,000 bpd.

Proved oil reserves were essentially flat in 2007—at 1.24 trillion barrels—and are sufficient to meet current production for more than 41 years, according to BP. However, the 2006 world total was revised up by 31 billion barrels upon receipt of more complete information.

World natural gas consumption grew by an above-average 3.1% in 2007, although only North America, Asia-Pacific, and Africa recorded above average regional growth. The USA accounted for nearly half of the world’s gas consumption growth, driven by cold winter weather and strong demand for gas in power generation. Chinese consumption grew by 19.9% and accounted for the second-largest increment to global gas consumption. EU consumption declined by 1.6%—the second consecutive decline-in face of warm winter weather.

Gas production rose by 2.4% in 2007. The USA accounted for the largest increment to supply, growing by 4.3%, the strongest growth since 1984. EU production declined by 6.4%, with UK output falling by 9.5%, the world’s largest volumetric decline for a second consecutive year. A small decline in Russian production was more than offset by strong growth elsewhere in the FSU. China and Qatar recorded the second- and third-largest increments to production, increasing by 18.4% and 17.9% respectively.

LNG shipments rose by 7.3%, supported by continued growth in shipments from Qatar and Nigeria. USA LNG receipts rose by one-third as a large price premium to European spot markets resulted in the diversion of cargoes to the USA.

Other highlights of the Review include:

Coal was the fastest growing fuel in the world for the fourth consecutive year. Global consumption rose by 4.5%. Consumption growth was widespread, with growth in every region except the Middle East exceeding the 10-year average. Chinese coal consumption rose by 7.9%, the weakest growth since 2002, but more than two-thirds of global growth. Indian consumption rose by 6.6%, and OECD consumption rose by 1.3%, both above average figures.
Nuclear power output fell by 2%, the steepest decline on record. However, more than 90% of this decline was accounted for by Germany and Japan—which saw the world’s largest nuclear power plant closed following an earthquake. Hydroelectric generation increased by 1.7%, slightly below the 10-year average. Increased capacity in China and Brazil was partially offset by drought-related declines in the USA and Southern Europe.
Renewable energy remains a small share of total global energy use, but most renewable sources experienced rapid growth in 2007. Ethanol output rose by 27.8%. Global capacity for wind and solar electricity generation grew broadly in line with historical averages of 28.5% and 37%, respectively.

Resources

BP Statistical Review of World Energy 2008

June 18, 2008 in Market Background, Natural Gas, Oil | Permalink | Comments (102) | TrackBack (0)

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/22062/30290344

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Global Energy Consumption Rises as Supplies Lag; Coal Still the Fastest Growing Fuel in the World:

Comments

I got curious and looked into the report. I noticed a consistent difference between production and consumption, the latter being consistently higher than the former.

Can somebody explain to me how this is possible?

Posted by: Anne | Jun 18, 2008 5:44:41 AM

Anne:

Very good question. Somebody must have used their accumulated reserves/stocks. A differential of about 1.13 million barrel/day is equivalent to only 412 million barrels for the whole year.

One thing is about certain, the world will use more and more energy unless we are hit with a serious economic recession and much more efficient vehicles and HVAC are massively introduced.

However, as many very large nations like China, India, Brazil, Russia etc raise thieir living standards, they will do like USA, Canada, Australia, EU etc and consume much more energy.

The only way to reduce the negative impacts would be to switch to much cleaner electrical energy and progressively phase out oil, coal and ICE vehicles.

Posted by: HarveyD | Jun 18, 2008 7:05:26 AM

@ Anne ~> Can somebody explain to me how this is possible?
We have lots of oil in storage, not just the strategic reserves. Overproduction in past years was stored. as Harvey pointed out, some of this stored oil gets used when there is a production shortfall. What we see now is a production decline, and a dip into all the stored oil.

We know this flat and now falling world oil production level is due to "peak oil" and that future oil production will never increase.

Where I was a bit surprised was seeing the claim that "Coal was the fastest growing fuel in the world for the fourth consecutive year. Global consumption rose by 4.5%."

Obviously this coal claim referred to total growth capacity, because "renewable sources experienced rapid growth in 2007. Ethanol output rose by 27.8%. Global capacity for wind and solar electricity generation grew broadly in line with historical averages of 28.5% and 37%, respectively."

I think that the renewable sources are now large enough in total capacity to deserve a place on that graph. Renewable energies are the fastest growing energy source by percentage growth.

Posted by: | Jun 18, 2008 7:08:42 AM

We know this flat and now falling world oil production level is due to "peak oil" and that future oil production will never increase.

Where I was a bit surprised was seeing the claim that "Coal was the fastest growing fuel in the world for the fourth consecutive year. Global consumption rose by 4.5%."

I think that the renewable sources are now large enough in total capacity to deserve a place on that graph. Renewable energies are the fastest growing energy source by percentage growth.

Posted by: | Jun 18, 2008 7:09:55 AM

We know this flat and now falling world oil production level is due to "peak oil" and that future oil production will never increase.

Where I was a bit surprised was seeing the claim that "Coal was the fastest growing fuel in the world for the fourth consecutive year. Global consumption rose by 4.5%."

I think that the renewable sources are now large enough in total capacity to deserve a place on that graph. Renewable energies are the fastest growing energy source by percentage growth.

Posted by: | Jun 18, 2008 7:10:24 AM

The difference between consumption and production is only 1.3%. All statistics are damaged by uncertainty and errors. I think this is the main explanation and then perhaps inventories.

Good to see OECD was able to reduce consumption of oil by 400.000 per day despite having a fine economic growth. That was caused by oil going up just 11% in price in from 2006 to 2007. Expect a much bigger drop in OECD oil consumption this year when oil prices are on track to increase from averaged $72.39 per barrel in 2007 to perhaps an average of $130 for 2008.

Sad to realize that wind and solar are still so small that it isn’t worth mapping it. Wind is 1.6% of global electricity production ultimo this year. This is probably 0.5% of global energy consumption. However, wind will contribute almost 11% of all new electricity installed in 2008. Growing at 30% it will not take long to do all new electricity needed to sustain continued economic global growth.

Posted by: Henrik | Jun 18, 2008 7:35:00 AM

We know this flat and now falling world oil production level is due to "peak oil" and that future oil production will never increase.

We "know" no such thing.

The whole "peak oil" theory depends on two assumptions - technology remaining constant, and no new sources of oil being tapped.

Obviously, both of these assumptions are wrong. Oil production technology constantly advances...that's why the Bakken field has been upgraded from 151 million barrels recoverable to 3+ billion barrels. There will almost certainly be future upgrades to that number. Offshore drilling technology also improves continuously, which is why Brazil's recent discoveries of large quantities of offshore oil are so promising. Twenty years ago that oil would have been unrecoverable.

Likewise, new oil fields are poised to be tapped. As prices continue to rise, there will be increasing pressure for the U.S. to drop its silly bans on offshore and ANWR drilling. The estimates are that there's nearly 100 billion barrels of oil off the U.S. coast; that's roughly the amount of oil in all of Iran or Kuwait. Let's not forget that Iraq is continuing to increase production (they're past their pre-war highs even now), Brazil will soon produce much more, and so on.

Even places like Mexico, with its incompetent state oil company, are starting to look at ways to get assistance from competent private-sector companies. If and when this occurs, even currently-declining fields such as Cantarell will likely increase production.

Peak oilers are no different than the religious cultists who "know" when Jesus will return. "He's coming Friday! No, wait, my calculations were off...it's next Friday! Er, no, *now* I got it..."

Posted by: Matthew | Jun 18, 2008 7:59:07 AM

Something that is worth observing is that while global oil production is growing at about 0% the oil consumption in the oil exporting countries is growing fast. This means the available exportable oil is dropping fast. This is new. Previously exportable global oil was increasing. This must be very important at explaining why oil suddenly starts to raise so fast in price as we have seen it since primo 2007. Since higher oil prices means more growth and therefore more consumption in the oil exporting countries we should not see any ease in oil prices unless importantly more oil is produced. Those who could produce more are not going to now that they have realized how much more they are able to make in this industry. The Russians said recently that oil would go to $250. If Russia decreases their oil production with 1 million bpd this is where it will go and they will still make more money in total.

Posted by: Henrik | Jun 18, 2008 8:09:48 AM

“Where I was a bit surprised was seeing the claim that "Coal was the fastest growing fuel in the world …”

Anyone who is surprised by this fact demonstrates a lack critical thinking and being clueless. If you plotted renewable energy on the same graph it would be bout the same magnitude as nuclear but that would be misleading.

First, compare apples to apples and oranges to oranges. Second, insignificant sources of energy should not be compared to important sources.

When considering renewable energy for electric power, there is a category called “renewable energy other” that excludes biomass and hydro generated electricity. That is because wind and solar do not produce enough electricity to discuss except in blogs like this.

So why is a ‘free’ energy source not main stream? So far, wind and solar for electricity generation has proven to not be sustainable. Will the current generation of equipment still be operating in 10 years? Will new capacity be able to put in service fast enough to keep up with demand?

The apparent answer is that wind and solar will be smaller market share compared to fossil each year until the billions who want to live a lifestyle that includes electricity have their needs met.

Posted by: Kit P. | Jun 18, 2008 8:25:08 AM

@Kit P.
The market share of wind and solar in global energy is not decreasing. It is of cause increasing as long as their growth rates are higher than the growth rates of other energy forms. This is elementary math.

Posted by: Henrik | Jun 18, 2008 8:42:47 AM

Hardly. Solar and wind are the most abundant energy resoruces on the planet - how many watts fall on the earth every second? Every minute? Every hour? Every day?

Modern energy needs can be completely met with solar, wind and biofuels, regardless of what the fossil fuel lobby spokespeople say.

Posted by: Ike Solem | Jun 18, 2008 9:27:37 AM

Mattew, "Peak Oil" only depends on oil being a finite resource. It is, therefore there will be a peak. The timing of the peak is what is in question.

Posted by: Tripp | Jun 18, 2008 9:28:47 AM

If total demand increased 100 units of electricity with wind being 1% and doubling. Wind output would increase to 2 units or 2% of the market. In this example Henrik would be correct.

However, if demand increased 1000 units with 998 units coming from fossil, then wind would have a smaller market share. In this example Henrik would be incorrect.

However, in either case ghg is increasing. Either by 98 units or 998 units.

There are also some places like China and South Africa where more coal would have been used to meet demand. Demand was limited by supply.

Posted by: Kit P | Jun 18, 2008 9:38:38 AM

Mattew, "Peak Oil" only depends on oil being a finite resource. It is, therefore there will be a peak. The timing of the peak is what is in question.

It is true that there will be a peak, yes. But it cannot be said that the peak is now, because the oil fields that are being exploited now are not the sum total of all the oil fields on the planet; there are yet many hundreds of billions of barrels of oil that can be added to reserves. So for the purposes of peak oil calculations, reserves cannot yet be treated as finite.

But I agree that a peak in oil production will someday come...but for that matter, Jesus will probably show up again as well.

Posted by: Matthew | Jun 18, 2008 9:55:27 AM

official productions figures a bit low? OPEC countries often cheat on their official production quotas and pump more than they say they do.

Posted by: Hybrid Fan | Jun 18, 2008 10:12:36 AM

Ike, you seem to have a problem with English verb tenses. There is a big difference between ‘is’ and ‘can be’ but as an engineer in the electricity generating industry I strong disagree with claims that the needs of society can be met with wind and solar.

Again, for the slow learners. Fossil fuel use IS increasing faster than our ability to convert renewable energy to a useful form. This IS why BP and others spend so much time collecting such statistics. If ‘renewable energy other’ was an important statistic and fossil fuels were becoming less important, then we could all just stop worrying about running out of fossil fuels and AGW.

Posted by: Kit P. | Jun 18, 2008 10:27:58 AM

Posted by: Kit P. | Jun 18, 2008 10:27:59 AM

Matthew,

You do not understand Peak Oil theory.

Simply put, the theory states not that oil will run out soon, but that as all the "easy" oil is extracted, the cost (political, social and economic) of extracting and processing the "harder" oil will continue to rise until reliance on extracted petroleum as a primary energy source for transportation and large scale energy generation will become diseconomic.

That is exactly what is happening, and your examples *prove* the point. The recent Petrobras discoveries and the massive oil sands expansion in Canada are welcome discoveries, but the Petrobras oil is *250 KM* offshore, below 2-3000 meters of water, and under *6700* meters of earth, with per-well costs far, far above $100m. http://www.greencarcongress.com/2008/05/petrobras-annou.html

And the oil sands cost $50-80/BBL to extract a funny stew that costs much, much more to refine.

So now the global average cost of extraction and refining is climbing rapidly, and still can't keep up with demand.

That is proof of true Peak Oil theory in action. There is no need to panic; it is a good idea to see if we can find our own Petrobras oil offshore. But it is time to acknowledge the rise in cost to something around $80-100 is now permanent, and it could be double that two years years. Really, the steady rise in price over the last five years points inevitably in that direction.

You then plan accordingly, and invest hundreds of billions to change your transportation and energy infrastructure to prepare for the new modern world (instead of, say, $500-800B on a pointless military adventure in the Middle East). Or put your head in the sand. Your choice.

Posted by: Dollared | Jun 18, 2008 10:28:08 AM

Don’t guess or be misinformed by troll or green propaganda; Get the best info available. For example, listen to T. Boone Pickens himself about oil production and consumption and Wind.

This is a CSPAN video broadcast.

Senate Broadcast

Witnesses

Panel 1
The Honorable Harry Reid - Member, U.S. Senate

Panel 2
The Honorable Kevin Kolevar, United States Department of Energy
Mr. T. Boone Pickens, BP Capital
Mr. Rich Halvey, Western Governors' Association
Mr. Bryce Freeman, Wyoming Infrastructure Authority

Panel 3
The Honorable Gary Hanson, South Dakota Public Utilities Commission
Mr. Stephen Wright, Bonneville Power Administration
Mr. Will Kaul, Great River Energy
Mr. Don Furman - , Representing American Wind Energy Association)

Posted by: Axil | Jun 18, 2008 10:45:16 AM

No, I think I understand 'Peak Oil' theory quite well. In short, it states that oil production can rise up until the point that 50% or so of reserves have been produced, then falls off. This was the basis for Hubbert's (accurate) forecast that peak oil production would occur in the U.S. around 1970 or so.

The notion that reliance on oil after that point will become uneconomic is more a consequence of peak oil, rather than a part of it. And even then, it assumes that something else is available to shift consumption to - and right now, there isn't.

So even though prices are rising, we're still using oil - meaning that there's still great value in procuring new oil. So a new well in the ocean costs $100 million or more? Who cares, when the oil below is worth half a trillion dollars? For this reason alone, oil production will continue to expand to meet demand. There will eventually be a limit to technology and reserves both, but at this time there's no reason to think we're at that point.

What will happen is that as new technologies become available (and we're close to that on several fronts), demand will shift away from oil to other energy sources. At that point we'll have reached a demand peak (we don't need any more oil) rather than the supply peak (we can't produce any more oil) that the original anonymous commenter suggested we are already at.

Posted by: Matthew | Jun 18, 2008 11:09:56 AM

"Peak Oil" only depends on oil being a finite resource. It is..."

You guys ever heard of "abiotic" oil?? Take a look at Barbara Loller's study published in Nature:

Nature 444, E18 (14 December 2006) " Geochemistry: Biosignatures and abiotic constraints on early life"

There is reason to consider we may never see oil "peak" unless artificially manipulated. The point is an oil industry in its waning years will try to distract our focus on alternatives. All the more reason to NOT elevate oil pricing by taxation at this stage. Incentivize alternative energy use by lowering cost of entry via tax credits, rebates, refunds, etc. The goal is a transition to alternatives - the path is NOT punitive but incentive.

Posted by: gr | Jun 18, 2008 11:21:21 AM

Thanks for the clarifications. I see two main explanation:
- using reserves
- statistical errors

I downloaded the spreadsheet from the BP site, and compared the numbers prior to 1990. It seems it is more the first reason, as oil production exceeded demand up until 1981. From that year on, it is the reverse.

But what when these reserves are empty? More spiking oil prices?

B.t.w. this week I saw some Iraqi oil ministry bigwig (perhaps the minister himself, I didn't pay attention to that) declare that oil is produced at a higher rate than the market can absorb, and that there is no shortage and that current oil prices are caused by speculation. Does this data prove him wrong?

Posted by: Anne | Jun 18, 2008 11:34:18 AM

Kit P:

Your math is incorrect. When coal grows by 4.5%, and renewables by 30%, they increase market share, no matter how small the current market share is.

----------------------------------------------

It is true that the absolute growth in coal is larger than renewables. However, it is not unthinkable to expect that the growth rate of renewables will remain at 30% for quite some time. That means roughly a doubling every 3 years. Then inevitably the day will arrive that the absolute growth in renewables exceeds that of fossil fuels.

Posted by: | Jun 18, 2008 11:45:04 AM

Pickens must be getting senile. He has just bought a whole bunch of wind turbines from GE and all he needs is congress to change some laws so he can build a transmission lines to get the electricity from where the wind is to where the demand is.

It is stupidly such as this that is the reason fossil fuels are use is growing so fast. Pickens will fail. The rule of law in the US will not be abandoned so that some rich AH can make money. For some unknown reasons think that due process goes away just because someone claims they a being altruistic.

Posted by: Kit P | Jun 18, 2008 11:51:51 AM

John McCain and Bush proposed wide spread oil drilling yesterday. The plain fact is that America has only 3% of world's oil reserve, so oil drilling can never reduce gasoline price, but increase Bush's oil fortunes.

What we need are not some tired old plays from Oil lobby's play-books, but some real change. Wind, Solar, Tidal, and PHEVs.

Posted by: | Jun 18, 2008 11:52:18 AM

Denial is futile.

Oil, NG and Coal will all run out before the end of this century.

Alternative liquid fuels, sun and wind energy (and more nuclear) will progressively replace fossil fuels.

The world will adapt and be better off for it.

Posted by: HarveyD | Jun 18, 2008 12:07:05 PM

Anne: "It seems it is more the first reason, as oil production exceeded demand up until 1981. From that year on, it is the reverse."

So how could demand exceed production for 27 years, and only in the last 5 have there been an increase in price, and the last one with a mega-increase?

Surely the speculators are not that clueless?

"B.t.w. this week I saw some Iraqi oil ministry bigwig (perhaps the minister himself, I didn't pay attention to that) declare that oil is produced at a higher rate than the market can absorb, and that there is no shortage and that current oil prices are caused by speculation. Does this data prove him wrong?"

Or does the Iraqi Oil Ministry prove BP wrong?

Another theory is that BP is just cooking the numbers to make the high prices they are getting look "reasonable" to the public. Feed the PeakOilers with the doom they so desperately crave; milk them all for every last penny they have. BP gets hyper-rich, and their customers are happy as hell. Win-win!

Posted by: | Jun 18, 2008 12:17:08 PM

@anon:

Another theory is that BP is just cooking the numbers [...] Feed the PeakOilers with the doom they so desperately crave

Then BP must have been doing this since 1981. Where were your 'PeakOilers' in 1981? Seems an inplausible theory to me.

Posted by: | Jun 18, 2008 12:38:22 PM

@Kit P:

all he needs is congress to change some laws so he can build a transmission lines to get the electricity from where the wind is to where the demand is.

It is stupidly such as this that is the reason fossil fuels are use is growing so fast.

Is my interpretation correct that you suggest it is stupid to transport power from where it is available to where the demand is?

Posted by: Anne | Jun 18, 2008 12:41:25 PM

With regard to Peak Oil, it doesn't matter what your opinion is whether it will happen, or when it will happen.
What matters is how much it will cost to buy a gallon of gas.
Even if there is plenty of oil out there, if the people have to decide between buying gas and buying food, that is a paradigm shift, and we need to focus on alternatives.

Solar is coming down in price quickly, and should be comparable in price to grid electricity in four years, according to one Solar Cell Company I talked to. Wind is also a strong candidate.

Hydroelectricity is already suffering in the west due to reduced rainfall and environmental concerns on the coast due to impacts on fish populations.

In the US, coal and nuclear power plants are also starting to be more difficult to put into production, and natural gas prices are leaving few options for electricity generators but to raise electricity rates.

You don't have to pick your favorite energy source and run with it. The market will decide the winners, and right now Oil, Coal and natural gas are losing favor... just look at the annual % increase in market share.

The transportation market is being forced into providing electricity or electric assisted cars (even fuel cells will require large amounts of electricity to make the hydrogen until other sources are more plentiful and cost effective).

My bet is on a strong but gradual shift to electricity generation for most of the energy needs in the US for the foreseeable future, whether it is wind, solar, or otherwise. There is simply not enough Gas, Oil or Coal in the world at an affordable price (including environmental cost) that can supply the world's future energy needs.

Posted by: JROJAI | Jun 18, 2008 12:56:45 PM

Solar is coming down in price quickly, and should be comparable in price to grid electricity in four years, according to one Solar Cell Company I talked to. Wind is also a strong candidate.

Hydroelectricity is already suffering in the west due to reduced rainfall and environmental concerns on the coast due to impacts on fish populations.

Posted by: JROJAI | Jun 18, 2008 12:57:47 PM

I am afraid you don't understand "peal oil" correctly

you say : peak oil is true only if "thechnology remains constant and new reserves are untapped"

That is absolutely wrong.

Look at the curve of oil production in US it has been steadily decreasing during 40 years, despite :
- alaska being tapped after the peak in 1971
- technology being constantly improved (EOR etc.., average recovery increse from 25 to 32% between 70 and today, still production is declining)

Please do you reserach before asserting things that are not supported by facts,

you have to understand that once the bulk of the production has peaked you can not offset the peak by improving the technology of extraction or by adding secondary untapped field, it only slows down the decrease, and this is perfectly described by peak oil theory. The very last of peak oil is that we will rather have a plateau of production rather than a sharp peak.

Posted by: Matthew | Jun 18, 2008 12:58:03 PM

@ Kit P

Effective renewable energy means a smart regional, or even better, national smart grid. State and local power regulation must make way for regional or national power transmission regulation.

Just like the interstate highway system preempted local and state roads to make our trucking industry possible, so to will a nationwide electric power grid make a secure, reliable, and efficient power distribution system possible.

Furthermore, just like the interstate petroleum and gas pipeline system makes current fossil fuel energy distribution possible so to the smart grid.

Just like eminent domain was used for the highway system, it should be used for the national smart electric grid.

Pickens must be getting senile

No, Pickens is one of the smartest energy entrepreneurs around and he is backing a winner. His success in the business bears witness to his smarts.

The rule of law in the US will not be abandoned…

Conflicting and self-serving local and state electrical power transmission regulation must make way for consistent and coherent regional electrical power regulation.

For some unknown reasons think that due process goes away just because someone claims they a being altruistic.

Due process is defined or modified by the congress. If oil men bend congress to their benefit why can’t environmental friendly wind men do it too.

Kit P I don’t understand why you are against American energy progress. Is it just the sight of the wind mill on the land that annoys you? And you like the sight of coal fired generation plants and the strip mines that you like so much better?

This question is beyond me.

Posted by: Axil | Jun 18, 2008 1:01:00 PM

The KitP troll has certainly stirred the pot today.

Posted by: Neil | Jun 18, 2008 1:07:32 PM

We see oil use going up faster than oil production. This is because old oil fields are decreasing production faster than new ones can be found and tapped. The easy oil is gone, and the more difficult to get oil is our best supply. If this isn't "peak oil" then just what is it? (It really is peak oil no matter what a few oil shills claim).
Oil will continue to increase in cost.

Wind energy is now cost competitive with oil, and decreasing in cost. Other renewable energy sources are also becoming competitive.

The switch in power generation to wind and renewable energy is rather obvious for the end user, but also obviously seriously discouraged by Oil interests who stand to make huge profits from rising oil prices.

Renewable energy is only 1% to 2% of world energy, but growing fast. If the same exponential rate of growth is continued, then in 20 years renewable sources will be producing as much energy as the world consumes now.
It is probable that their growth rate will actually be far quicker.

As for Kit P claiming that T Boon Pickens will not get transmission lines ... he already has got a power transmission route from his wind farm into Dallas, and plans to transport water as well as power. Oil shills say anything to promote an oil reliance without checking their facts.

Posted by: | Jun 18, 2008 1:17:58 PM

That is absolutely wrong.

OK, let me try a different way to help you see the folly of the peak oilers.

If you accept the figures here, the United States currently produces a bit less than five million barrels/day of oil out of its 21 billion barrels of proved reserves.

The estimates are that there is five times this amount of recoverable oil in the offshore areas that are currently prohibited to oil exploration. Do you believe that it is somehow impossible, at $140/bbl, to produce at least as much oil as we are producing today from five times the reserve base?

Posted by: Matthew | Jun 18, 2008 1:19:21 PM

@Anne

The stupidity is ordering wind turbines before you have the transmission lines to send the electricity to market. The need for improving our transmission system has been know for years. It is a collision between common sense and the legal system.

Project development takes years of quite ground work. Pickens testifying before congress is just so much grandstanding. The main point is that we can not develop renewable energy projects fast enough. This does not mean we should not build them as fast as we can, just that Picken will fail unless his goal is to buy manufacturing capacity and resell it.

Posted by: Kit P | Jun 18, 2008 1:48:33 PM

@ Axil

I did not make the rules. However, I do agree with much of what you stated. If you check the 2005 Energy Bill you will find much of your shopping list has been accomplished.

I am certainly for progress, maybe just not your version. Go ahead and declare solar panels and wind mills environmental friendly. If you try to put those things in the wrong place, you will be spending lots of time in court. Folks like Axil somehow think the right place is somewhere else.

Growing trees on a reclaimed strip mine sure is a much better environmental choice than putting wind turbines there.

Posted by: Kit P | Jun 18, 2008 2:05:14 PM

Speaking of large OPEC countries, Iran has been leasing supertankers to store their heavy and sour crude production instead of releasing it onto the market. This also takes tankers out of circulation. Venezuela is reportedly doing something similar. Apparently, refineries that are have equipment to handle heavy and sour crude are maxed out. Any shipments will go into storage or worse, sit onboard ships at port. So they withhold tens of millions of barrels of oil and tanker capacity to store it to prop up the price of heavier grades of crude.

Posted by: allen_xl_z | Jun 18, 2008 2:08:12 PM

For those who don't believe in “peak oil” I suggest some remedial homework. Please begin with ...
http://www.fossil.energy.gov/programs/reserves/npr/publications/npr_strategic_significancev1.pdf

See figure 7 showing the USA peaking oil production in mid 70's and the world peak being reached just after 2000, a situation I was not expecting till about 2012.

Note that the study presented is done by the oil industry which is why their proposed solution is to exploit tar sands and cause huge pollution in the American and Canadian West, but fails to even consider renewable resources.

Peak oil is real, and is now. pretending we will ever be able to ramp up production to fully meet world demand again is unrealistic. Our energy supples should be turned to other sources if we expect a future with available power.

Posted by: John Taylor | Jun 18, 2008 2:09:31 PM

Matthew,

You still don't get it. Peak Oil does not say to ignore the oil off our shores (or similar amounts in oil shale in the Rockies). It just says that the cost of extraction keeps rising, just as you say, and the rate of extraction does not keep up with population growth and growth in per-capita consumption.

So go ahead and open up our offshore fields. (of course, you're also ignoring the millions and millions of square miles that have been leased off the US, are fully exploitable and never have been explored because XOM, Chevron, etc. don't want to invest the risk capital).

You're right, now that oil is $140/BBL someone ought to be opening them both the pre-leased territories and the new territories. But it doesn't change the trend. Too many cars, too many people, and the supply of cheap, easy oil is declining. And Peak Oil explains that quite well.

Posted by: dollared | Jun 18, 2008 2:42:17 PM

Actually, more renewable energy than nuclear energy is generated:
http://www.ren21.net/pdf/RE2007_Global_Status_Report.pdf

Wind, Geothermal, Ethanol, Biodiesel, Wood and Solar Hot Water is ignored in the BP report.

Posted by: | Jun 18, 2008 2:57:50 PM

Matthew

you have been burning up the keyboard on this one. I'd like to add a few more facts. World oil discoveries peaked in the 1960's and have been declining ever since. World production is reliant on production from a few super giant fields and some of these are entering rapid decline, such as Mexico's Cantarell field.

You can keep saying that there are massive fields to be discovered till you're blue in the face but that doesn't make it correct. Oil formation is dependent on very specific geological conditions and pretty much all the most prospective regions in the world have already been thoroughly explored. Economics might drive exploration but it can't change geology.

The reserves figures quoted by BP are a best guess. Many OPEC countries don't allow an external audit of their reserves and have a vested interest in making them higher so they can pump more oil. Kuwait have been caught out overstating their reserves in the past.

Is the CEO of Chevron wrong when he says that the "era of easy oil is over"? Other oil execs have come out with similar comments. It seems that many Americans find it difficult to cope with the concept of peak oil. It must be because it is a threat to the happy motoring wonderland 'enjoyed' for the last fifty years.

Posted by: critta | Jun 18, 2008 2:58:53 PM

Where exactly is the millions and millions, I think I heard 69 million from a Senator yesterday. I keep hearing this quote, anyone got a map they can point it out. Not that I can't believe it, I'm just haveing a hard time buying EOM or Chevron not taking advantage of what they have. Yes the oil companies are making an outragous amount of money right now. However, $4 gas is not in thier best interest, even the Saudi's picked up on that fact.

Posted by: Joseph | Jun 18, 2008 3:00:32 PM

Kit P and Axil,

Boone Pickens is not the only one to have a problem delivering energy from generating point to demand.

The bipartisan doofi in charge in California, including the Governator, had a lot of renewbles built in the desert; and then failed in getting the transmissions lines built or even auhtorized, to bring teh power out to coastal cities like LA and San Diego. And these doofi possess Emminent Domain power. proving that...

Stupidity is where you find it.

It is amazing how little mathematics the true believers understand. If I use 100 units of coal and increase by 3.3% per year, then next year my base will be 103.3 units of coal.

If I make 0.5% units of solar/wind and increase by 33% per year, I will have 0.665% after a year.

So the coal grows by 3.3 units; the "fast growing" renewables increase 0.165 units.

I lose ground in absolute terms. I am growing faster, and even may be "closing the gap" but its not fast in closing.

"In the long run we'll all be dead".

Posted by: stas Peterson | Jun 18, 2008 3:28:18 PM

@Kit P

If you try to put those things in the wrong place, you will be spending lots of time in court. Folks like Axil somehow think the right place is somewhere else.

Wind mills and solar are built on any land with the owner’s permission, predominantly with the owners permission using a sue proof legally air tight lease agreement. There is absolutely no time spent in court after that agreement.

The land owner gets a payment based on the productivity of the wind mill.

If you drive through the country side and see these wind mills and don’t like what you see then that’s too bad. You cannot sue the land owner. He can do what he wants with his own land. I am sorry for you in that respect. Poor Kit P doesn’t like the view.

Electrical transmission lines are another story. There, eminent domain comes into play. Obstructionists may use the courts to block the improvement of the grid. I think that is un-American. Is that what you want to do to slow down the mills like many have done to slow down the nukes?

If you check the 2005 Energy Bill you will find much of your shopping list has been accomplished.

I don’t think that the 2005 Energy Bill was effective in fostering the development of a national smart grid.

Go ahead and declare solar panels and wind mills environmental friendly

I do. If you don’t; I would be interested in that argument.

Growing trees on a reclaimed strip mine sure is a much better environmental choice than putting wind turbines there.

I agree with you here. Reclaimed strip mines are usually flat. The best place to put a wind mill is on a ridge.

Posted by: Axil | Jun 18, 2008 4:00:15 PM

@Axil,

I am not against renewable energy, just idiots. One of the root causes of failure of renewable energy projects is that the US educates too many lawyers and not enough engineers. Yes, wind mills can be erected on private property if you follow all the regulations and can afford the attorney fees to prove it.

I have no trouble listing the environmental benefits of the shade trees around my house. I can also list the numerous environmental benefits of anaerobic digesters processing dairy farm manure in a semi climate. However, I defy Axil or anyone else for that matter to list one way in which they are environmentally friendly. Do wind mills provide habitat for endangered species? Do wind mills or solar panels make the air cleaner by some kind of magical air filtration property?

The only benefit of wind and solar is that every MWe produced offsets a MWe of electricity made with imported LNG. That is very good economically for the US. I would rather pay US workers to build and maintain renewable energy projects than back roll some banana republic dictator with no regard for human rights.

Axil is correct that 2005 Energy Bill did not create a national grid. It was intended to make it easier to build transmission lines and enforce grid reliability standards. Time will tell if court challenges are rejected. However, anything a new law enacts will face the same lengthy legal battle.

Posted by: Kit P. | Jun 18, 2008 4:51:15 PM

@stan s Peterson

T. Boone Pickens is the St. Thomas Aquinas of the Gaian nouveaux religion. He gravely sinned in his youth as an oil man, but converted in later life to wind power. This is why the environmentalists respect his pronouncements so highly, in fact, considering them as church doctrine.

Having said that, we are all excited to hear this prophesy: he expects that 20% of all national electrical generation can be produced by renewables by 2018 instead of 2030 if the smart grid is there to support it.

Halleluiah, halleluiah to God on high, let his will be done. Let not the demon stand against our God (-:

Stan will you stand against T. Boone Pickens?

Posted by: Axil | Jun 18, 2008 4:52:01 PM

Sure, easy oil is over. Now it's going to be harder...so? It means nothing. Peak oil as an eventuality is possible albeit improbable, but it certainly isn't happening now.

Seems peak oil is a lot like global warming, in that no amount of reason or logic can convince the true believers that it just ain't so. Even when oil production continues to rise over the next few years people will continue to insist "peak oil is here!", just like people continue to insist that global warming is here even as the long-predicted cooling starts to take hold.

Posted by: Matthew | Jun 18, 2008 4:59:15 PM

@ KitP, Anne, Mathew, et al

Whether or not technology can reduce the cost of hard-to-tap-and-refine oil faster than demand for it will grow is an open question. We need not answer the are-we-at-peak-oil question to evaluate BP's report, anyway.

Whether or not renewable energy production can grow in absolute terms faster than non-renewable energy may also be an open question, but there are several large trends at work that suggest renewable energy will overtake nonrenewable, and eventually suppress nonrenewalble production.
1. China is building 80+ gigawatts of hydroelectric (lots of elevation drop from Himalayas) (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydroelectric). Sure it's vulnerable to earthquakes...and refineries are vulnerable to hurricanes. They need it. They will do it.

2. The price of solar thermal, photovoltaic, and wind are all coming down. The cost of fossil fuels are going up.

3. While there are many renewable energy schemes that will surely fail, this is not proof that renewable energy as a class will not scale. It is actually healthy that so many avenues are being explored that we can predict the majority will not bear fruit. This broad innovation and shake out process increases the likelihood of one or several approaches becoming a huge success.

4. While it is challenging for an immature industry such as photovoltaic of solar thermal to be more cost-effective than a mature industry such as coal-electric or gasoline, the potential financial rewards of providing a scalable renewable alternative have risen so much that the deep pockets needed to persevere and leapfrog today's low-cost energy providers have finally arrived.

5. The support infrastructure to carry electricity from point of production (the Mojave) to point of consumption (everywhere else) will come. We built an 800-mile oil pipeline across Alaska. A few billion dollars worth of high voltage wires is just table stakes, compared to the Trillions of dollars that can charged for the power.

Posted by: Healthy Breaze | Jun 18, 2008 5:14:23 PM

critta: 'Is the CEO of Chevron wrong when he says that the "era of easy oil is over"?'

Doesn't it strikes you that the CEO of Chevron will almost certainly be biasing his comments to maximize profit, not oil?

Posted by: | Jun 18, 2008 5:34:13 PM

@ Matthew

"...even currently-declining fields such as Cantarell will likely increase production."

Matthew,
Cantarell has been over-exploited with nitrogen injection, it will be "dry" by 2012 !!

Posted by: Jorge | Jun 18, 2008 5:54:11 PM

Closing the Enron Loophole will reduce the price of oil between 25% to 50%. That is, if it is passed and signed by the President.

Reference:

http://www.consortiumnews.com/2008/051908a.html

excerpt:

The “Enron loophole” also has become part of the debate over the soaring price of oil. Last week, a study sponsored by Sen. Carl Levin, D-Michigan, concluded that speculative futures markets were partly to blame for the surge in oil prices that have pushed gas at the pump toward $4 a gallon.
At a May 15 news conference, Levin said the skyrocketing price of oil is “not the result of supply and demand. Speculators have taken over most of the futures market."
However, the 673-page farm bill, containing the regulatory provisions on electronic energy trading, still faces obstacles amid overall concerns about the bill’s largesse to farmers at a time of rising food prices.
President George W. Bush has vowed to veto the bill, although it cleared the House and Senate by margins wide enough for an override, assuming Republicans don’t rally behind Bush and McCain, their current and future standard bearers

Also see The June 3rd Broadcast of the senate Commerce Committee

The hearing will examine energy market manipulation and federal enforcement regimes. The hearing will also consider the current state of the oil and gas markets and their impact on consumers, as well as solicit testimony and discussion as to the key factors the Federal Trade Commission should incorporate into its upcoming rulemaking on its new responsibility to prevent manipulation in the wholesale oil and petroleum distillate markets.
This is a CSPAN video broadcast.

Senate Broadcast

Witnesses

Opening Remarks

Panel 1

Mr. Gerry Ramm
President, Inland Oil Company
on behalf of the Petroleum Marketers Association of America

Mr. George Soros
Chairman
Soros Fund Management

Mr. Michael Greenberger
Professor
University of Maryland School of Law

Mr. Mark N. Cooper
Director of Research
Consumer Federation of America

Ms. Lee Ann Watson
Deputy Director, Division of Investigation
Office of Enforcement, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Posted by: Axil | Jun 18, 2008 6:09:54 PM

Matthew

Again you need to do your research on peak oil, you really don't get it. You start from the idea : it is wrong, then assume you understand it (when you don't) and then dismiss the facts. So the discussion is going nowhere.

here is an excellent link (probably the more documented report on peak oil you can find) read it and then you can talk about it.

to understand the peak oil you have to understand a bit the geology limits and the problem of EROI, as well as the statistics. But basically the non conventional oil cannot compensate the decline of the conventional oil because of the difficulties to extract them, then overwhole production will go down when conventional peak, period.

But really I think you missed the whole thing

http://www.energywatchgroup.org/fileadmin/global/pdf/EWG_Oilreport_10-2007.pdf

Posted by: Treehugger | Jun 18, 2008 6:29:21 PM

Check out this Interactive US Energy Footprint Chart, an interactive United States Energy Consumption Footprint chart, illustrating Greenest States and more. This site has all sorts of stats on individual State energy consumptions, demographics and State energy offices - drill down to your local city.

http://www.eredux.com/states/

Posted by: Fred | Jun 18, 2008 8:08:59 PM

The Enron Loophole has been replaced by the The London-Dubai loophole by the Bush Administation.

The London-Dubai loophole

Excerpt:

One huge problem area: A growing share of the business of trading U.S. contracts for crude oil futures on U.S. soil is conducted on U.S. computer terminals that are operated by foreign-owned exchanges that are not required to conform to U.S. regulations. This is known as the "London-Dubai loophole." Although ICE is based in Atlanta, it is considered by the CFTC to be a U.K. entity, and thus falls under the regulatory supervision of the Financial Services Authority of the U.K. But since ICE therefore does not have to report the positions that U.S.-based traders are taking on U.S.-delivered contracts of, for example, West Texas Intermediate sweet light crude, the exchange has a competitive advantage over regulated U.S. exchanges such as the New York Mercantile Exchange (NYMEX). In response, observed Greenberger, NYMEX has scrambled to set up its own joint venture with the Dubai Mercantile Exchange (DME), so that it too can get a piece of that action. The joint venture, amazingly, is considered to be under the regulatory authority of Dubai.

This oil scam is very complicated and takes much effort to understand but I know GCC members can do it. By the way, Big Money will scam bio-energy the same way they scam the oil market.

Posted by: Axil | Jun 18, 2008 8:38:53 PM

An interesting peak oil debate, complete with accusations that the other side doesn't understand the issues, but what I'm seeing is optimists debating pessimists over how the future will work out ... you're probably all wrong ;)

Posted by: Neil | Jun 18, 2008 8:51:09 PM

Matthew

Here is a link about the potentiol of offshore drilling on US coast: the conclusions are very clear: "the impact on the oil price would be insignificant"

http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/otheranalysis/ongr.html

Neil,

it is no about optimism versus pessimism, it is about facts. It is irrating to see people, who don't understand the problem of peak oil, asserting that it is bullshit.

Oil production in US as been declining between 1971 and now (37 years) (down 50%) despite :
-alaska oil.
- increase of recovering ratio from 25 to 32% in the same period.
- constant upgrade of the technology.

So far King Hubbert was right, like it or not, but some people still dismiss it, and I am pretty sure that 10 years after that we will have passed world peak oil, there will be people who won't still believe in peak oil.

150 years after Darwin proposed the idea of the evolution of species, and despite all the evidence we have, there is still people who say it is wrong.

New discoveries have dramatically decreased these 40 past years. We have discovered only 100 billions barrels this past 10 years when USGS projection were 300 billions of discovery. Call it pessimism if you wish, it is just a fact that happen to be in line with the trend of discoveries these 40 past years.

Humans have an incredible capacity to take things for granted....that is optimism yes,

Posted by: Treehugger | Jun 18, 2008 9:21:23 PM

Price breakdown of OPEC oil at $120/barrel oil as follows:

$40 production cost

$40 OPEC markup

$40 Index speculation price premium

Posted by: Axil | Jun 18, 2008 10:12:41 PM

Ok Treehugger: Here's the pessimism test ... do you think that King Hubbert correctly predicted the shape of the back half of the curve for global production? i.e. bell curve.

Posted by: Neil | Jun 18, 2008 10:21:47 PM

@ Axil,

The production cost of oil is not $40. Saudis can pump light sweet crude for $3-$4 per barrel. Canadian tar sand has a production cost 10-15x that. That's why nobody messed with tar sands when oil was $50/barrel.

Yes, speculation is creating an oil bubble. Yes, refineries add a lot more per gallon to the price of gas than they did a few years ago.

Posted by: Healthy Breaze | Jun 18, 2008 10:43:07 PM

Neil

No he didn't, but he predicted the peak accurately when everybody was laughing at him, including the boss of USGS (who was finally fired afater 71), to predict the declining rate is lot more difficult than to predict the peak, and it is true that the rate of decline is as important (if not more important) than the peak itself, slow decline give you the possibility to reduce your dependence by developping alternative, too fast then the all economy is affected and you don't have the room to developpe the alternative, you are trapped in a depressive spiral, this might happen if our politicians keep ignoring the problem.

the fact that extraction cost is well below the trading cost is futile, price is dictated by supply and demand. period, if you don't have excess capacity you can't control the price, and that is exactly what's happening right now. The only way for the oil to go down is destruction of demand since we can not increase the production.

Posted by: Treehugger | Jun 18, 2008 11:09:12 PM

Thanks, I'll put you in the mildly pessimistic camp (based on your absolute belief that peak has already passed). At least you're not a power-down doomer (they give me a swift pain). Personally I'm hoping we can stave off peak for a couple more years. By then many of the alternatives will be ready for prime time.

Posted by: Neil | Jun 18, 2008 11:36:48 PM

@Stan Peterson:

It is amazing how little mathematics the true believers understand. If I use 100 units of coal and increase by 3.3% per year, then next year my base will be 103.3 units of coal.

If I make 0.5% units of solar/wind and increase by 33% per year, I will have 0.665% after a year.

So the coal grows by 3.3 units; the "fast growing" renewables increase 0.165 units.

I have expanded your calculation to a period that is a little longer than 1 year:

year coal wind/solar
0 100 0.5
1 103.3 0.67
2 106.7 0.88
3 110.2 1.2
4 113.9 1.6
5 117.6 2.1
6 121.5 2.8
7 125.5 3.7
8 129.7 4.9
9 133.9 6.5
10 138.4 8.7
11 142.9 11.5
12 147.6 15.3
13 152.5 20.4

You can see that after 13 years, the absolute growth in solar/wind is larger than that of coal.

Of course, this is wishful thinking. There is no guarantee that the 33% growth will be maintained in the future. Nor that the growth in coal will be limited to 3.3%. This example is merely to illustrate that as long as the growth percentage of energy source x is higher than that of energy source y, it will overtake the latter sooner or later. No matter how insignificant energy source x is today. You just have to look further into the future than 1 year.

Question 1: Am I correct in concluding from your argument that you are of the opinion that it is sensible to invest in other forms of energy if and only if the absolute growth is higher from year 1?

Question 2: Do you understand the difference between absolute growth and relative growth?

Posted by: Anne | Jun 19, 2008 3:45:48 AM

@Kit P:

Thanks for the clarification on the Pickens wind farm thing. Well I guess he knows what he is doing an must be very confident that permission for his powerline will be granted.

-------------------------------------------------------

I have never seen this argument before. Its interesting, but fails to convince me.

I think that you can improve the environment in two ways:
1. By doing something good
2. By stopping to do something bad

Planting trees falls in category 1. Reducing emissions of toxic substances falls in category 2.

Neither of these categories is inherently superior to the other. However I think that nature is very well capable of doing the category 1 things without our help. You suggest that wind turbines fall in to category 1, but of course they do not. They are clearly in category 2, along with your anaerobic digesters.

Posted by: Anne | Jun 19, 2008 4:14:02 AM

Neil

thanks for you fair comment, you are right I am middly pessimistic (but what does that mean) especially when I see how irresponsible are our politics today. I am not an absolute believer that we have already passed peak, I am more in favor of a quasi-plateau theory. I think we have reached a plateau which will last between 5 and 15years (so fall after 2020 at best), but keep in mind : the longer the plateau the sharper the decline when it starts.

Posted by: Treehugger | Jun 19, 2008 8:39:09 AM

@Anne

You have the theory right, now look at execution. Each act must be considered independently. Done properly shade trees and anaerobic digesters fall in both your category 1 and 2. Nature acts randomly and is often the largest source of pollution. By studying nature and using organizing principles, we can plant trees to reduce solar gain on my house and organize bacteria to produce compost and distribute it where it is needed to reduce wind erosion.

Now the best way to stop something bad is not to build solar and wind. Stop doing the bad thing. Regulating power plants works to reduce pollution. I am very impressed with the improvements over the last 20 years for how coal is being mined and used to generate electricity. I stopped being anti-coal about 15 years ago.

While I have always been an advocate of renewable energy, I am very disappointed in the performance of the wind and solar industry who appear to me more interest in selling pretty stuff that becomes junk than making electricity.

Looking at the table that Anne provided in response, it does not look like an increasing failure rate with time is taken into account. At some point, equipment needs to be replaced.

This is a problem with all generating equipment. Insulation breaks down and smoke comes out instead of electricity. Pipes erode and corrode and steam comes out. This is hard on utility workers. Good utilities replace equipment before it fails, it do not need to make up lame excuses for killing workers.

For wind and solar to be sustainable Anne your children will have to learn to put on climbing gear to mitigate the risk of falling to their death. Or maybe tend ocean systems to get wave energy. The electricity generating industry has a very good safety record while accomplishing hazardous tasks.

The point I want to leave with is that those who are the most confident about the prospects of renewable energy are the ones most unlikely to either work in the industry or accept renewable energy projects around them. I am confident that is can be done but folks like Pickens will fail and give the industry a black eye.

Posted by: Kit P | Jun 19, 2008 8:57:39 AM

Treehugger:

A struggling plateau seems pretty likely to me as well. If the plateau lasts long enough then I suspect that the tail will plummet, not only because of geology, but because the cost of EVs and renewables will have become more economical than ICE vehicles and dino juice. At that point there will be a mad stampede. (how many film cameras are sold these days?)

Posted by: Neil | Jun 19, 2008 9:40:13 AM

@Kit P

I think I see your point.

The bearings in wind mills tend to demonstrate a disconcerting, and highly inefficient, tendency to wear out in relatively short order.

You can imagine what a nightmare it must be to have to bring a windmill generator down from a height of 80 meters, repair it, and then put it back up again; it’s a very costly affair. The nightmare and cost of repair is even worse for off-shore wind mills.

The problem with windmill reliability stems from the stray currents released at the point where the constantly changing voltage generated by windmills—which is a function of wind speed—is switched at high frequency to synthesize a steady 60 Hz. In a nutshell, the stray currents flow through the windmill’s bearings and destroy them.

Fortunately, the problem is recognized and work is underway now to eliminate these stay currents. Kit P will improvement in wind mill reliability change your attitude toward wind mills?

I have long been an advocate of compressed air wind mills in the off-shore environment. Stray currents could be eliminated that way. Furthermore, undersea storage of the compressed air can provide power storage for off peak generation.

Posted by: Axil | Jun 19, 2008 10:36:19 AM

Some here have said Pickens is stupid for building a wind farm THEN hoping the government steps in to build transmission lines for him. I'd like to correct that misconception.

Pickens said " I am building my own transmission line, which will ultimately travel 250 miles in Texas from the top of the Panhandle to near the Dallas/Fort Worth area, and I will have to pay for this transmission line myself. Not very many wind developers are in a position to do this.

I expect to sell my power in the Texas ERCOT market where prices are set by competition among power generators. As a result, I will not be able to simply increase the price of my power to cover transmission; instead, my profits will be reduced by my transmission line costs. This is a penalty that I am willing to pay in order to get my electricity to market first, but it is not a burden that most developers can bear. It requires scale and financial capacity. That is how I came to build the world’s largest wind farm. It is the only way to pay for the transmission capacity as a private line, and it is only feasible within Texas. If you want to do it on a national scale, where the transmission line distances will be much longer, and utility regulations are different, Congress must act."

So he's building his own transmission line, at his own cost, to get the power to the local market. All he wants the government to do is help the OTHER GUYS do the same on a national scale.

Posted by: ai_vin | Jun 19, 2008 10:54:05 AM

Neil, if the plateau last until 2020 (50% probability) and if the technology progress fast enough (50% probability) in the meantime, then we could be ok but that is only 25% probability... that would be foolish to bet only on this

Posted by: Treehugger | Jun 19, 2008 12:11:43 PM

@Axil

Like I keep saying, we should be building wind up as fast as possible in the US. Even a small contribution is important. However, it will be decades before we have to worry about what to do with excess renewable energy capacity.

@ai vin

Yes, I read what Pickens said. That is why I think he will fail. His chances are better in Texas than California. Since I do not live in Texas, I am only somewhat familiar with what they are doing there. Thanks to Governor Bush, Texas is now a leader in renewable energy. California must archive consensus and debate the issue and have become the icon of say one thing and do another.

If someone from Texas would like to comment on his chances of success, I would be interested. Since Texas is still part of the US, Pickens still must follow environment regulations. Has Pickens established a route, obtained an approved EIS, issued contracts and so forth? No, that means he is 10-15 years away. The only advantages not being in multiple states, is not dealing with multiple state agencies subject to multiple whims.

Posted by: Kit P | Jun 19, 2008 12:22:46 PM

Kit P:

Where to begin? I disagree with you on almost every point you make.

Each act must be considered independently

Why? In general that is a bad strategy. Successrate will increase if you consider the context and take mutual influences into account.

Explain to me how your anaerobic digester falls into category 1 if it only prevents pollution due to an excessive amount of menure. The trees around your house are indeed a perfect example that is both in category 1 and 2.

Nature acts randomly and is often the largest source of pollution

So what? What do you intend to do about it? Nature is a given. We suffer from it and it feeds us.

Regulating power plants works to reduce pollution

Then explain to me why more coal being burnt every year? No, forget it, I know the answer already. The increase in efficiency is smaller than the growth of demand. And once we reach the theoretical 100% efficiency (impossible of course, but just suppose), then what? Demand will continue to grow. Reading between the lines I must conclude that you eiher dismiss AGW and do not consider CO2 a form of pollution or that you expect a miracle cure to come along. Like carbon capture and storage. Pity that the technology for that is even more speculative than wind/solar.

Looking at the table that Anne provided in response...

Please take the time of reading my posts before commenting. This table contained fictive numbers only to explain why a larger relative growth over time will inevitably lead to a larger absolute growth. The table was about math, not renewables vs. coal. I am sorry you missed that point.

At some point, equipment needs to be replaced

Thanks for saying that. I really never could have thought of that myself. And of course coal plants have eternal life and run themselves unattended for up to half a century.

it do not need to make up lame excuses for killing workers

I am not aware of this being a structural problem in the wind/solar industry. Do you have any hard data?

For wind and solar to be sustainable Anne your children will have to learn to put on climbing gear to mitigate the risk of falling to their death

Thanks for being so concerned about my kids, Kit. (They are fine and right now playing MySims on their DS, but I digress) We have all the technology, procedures and safety regulations for working at altitudes in place. But what if my son wants to become a window cleaner, then what?

The electricity generating industry has a very good safety record while accomplishing hazardous tasks.

Name me one good reason why the solar/wind industry can not copy that success.

--------------------------------------
From my point of view you are really scraping the bottom of the barrel and fail to bring up any solid arguments against wind/solar. Probably because there are none.

Posted by: Anne | Jun 19, 2008 1:07:15 PM

Axil,

Enercon wind turbines have no gearing, large bearings and very little wear.
The use a frequency converter instead:
www.enercon.de/en/_home.htm
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enercon

On other wind turbines they also have a variety of options to reduce the burden on the mechanical components:
www.windpower.org/en/tour/wtrb/electric.htm

Dewind uses a variable gearing:
www.ecopower.pt/pdfs/eolica/http___www.renewable-energy-world.com_articles_.pdf

In general, modern wind turbines are very reliable and can even deal with the environment on freezing mountains with gusty winds:
www.ch-forschung.ch/index.php?artid=83

After all, aircrafts eventually became reliable as well.

Posted by: | Jun 19, 2008 1:46:04 PM

@Anne

I am not trying to make a case against anything. I am for everything that will ensure consumers like you and your children have the choice of an adequate energy supply. I want every child on the planet to be able to have clean water and electricity.

Anne has not made a case for wind or solar. I can assume from the hostility and sarcasm that Anne is concerned about AGW. However, Anne is not concerned enough to develop a critical thinking process. Wind and solar are not very good ways to make electricity and therefore is not displacing any coal generation.

Wind and solar is not reducing pollution in the US because we generally have very clean air except in few major cities that has too many cars.

Posted by: Kit P | Jun 19, 2008 7:54:32 PM

Hey Kit, when you get totally beaten up by a girl .. lie.
Good plan sucker.

Snicker.

@ Anne, you sound like an intelligent girl who did her homework.

Posted by: J T | Jun 19, 2008 8:06:48 PM

JT: LMAO
Nice work Anne

Posted by: Neil | Jun 19, 2008 11:07:44 PM

Anne,
wind power is so good that, for ground based turbines, the price has increased 74% in the last 3 years -due to high demand-.

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2008/05/wind-turbine-costs-increased-offshore-power.php

Regarding solar energy, I think the technology shown in the next link is very good; take a look:

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2006/10/solar_systems_t.html

Regards.

Posted by: Jorge | Jun 20, 2008 7:05:48 AM

I dunno about anyone else, but all this back-and-forth debating makes me wanna hop in the SUV and burn up about a half-tank of gas driving just to relax.

While I waste 10 gallons driving aimlessly this afternoon, will someone plant a tree for me to offset my added carbon footprint?

Thanks, Al Gore and I really do appreaciate it!

Nate H.

Posted by: Nate H. | Jun 20, 2008 8:44:05 AM

In the discussion on Picken's wind farm, I am suprised to see that no one mentioned that he is building a water pipeline along with his transmission line.

Water lines have uber rights under recent Texas law and it will give him a green light for his transmission. It will also permit him to move the aquifer water to Dallas for sale. The law as I understand it, almost grants a priori emminent domain to a private individual for a water line and that electric transmission lines can, without further adjudication, follow water right of ways.

Pickens may be many things but stupid is not one of them.

Bill

Posted by: Bill Young | Jun 21, 2008 3:40:15 AM

Mathew...

Peak is half way of production, not reserves. Reserves are always murky...production data speaks volumes. Is production up? A little tick here or there, but basically a plateau since 2004. Why can't production go up to meet demand? Look for the answers and you'll find them, but don't look for reserves...all Syncrude (or Shell...etc) has to do is lease some land, do an estimate and suddenly their reserves go up.
Peak is always about flow...

Posted by: stuck in shizuoka | Jun 22, 2008 12:04:37 AM

Healthy Breaze,
Thank you for your itemized list of points. Well done.

Anne,
Thank you for giving the "boys" a deserved lesson in math. I've gotten tired of reading arrogant statements about how others do not understand math, when it is they that do not understand non-linear math. You are correct. Exponential growth will allow wind and solar to make larger contributions sooner than most realize.
http://thefraserdomain.typepad.com/energy/2007/12/fyi-solar-cell.html “Solar Cell Production Jumps 50 Percent in 2007” - December 2007
“jumped to 3,800 megawatts worldwide in 2007” “Growing by an impressive average of 48 percent each year since 2002”
“world’s fastest-growing energy source” Good plot of PV production growth from 1975 to 2007. mds
2017 @ 48% per year = 3.8 x 50.4 = 191.6 GW per year PV production in 10 years
2021 @ 48% per year = 3.8 x 241.9 = 919.2 GW per year PV production in 14 years
Even if 37% for solar is correct, vice 48% used at the link given, you're looking at a phenomenal growth rate.
Solar production will accelerate in the next few years for at least two reasons: (a) the production of raw silicon is catching up with PV cell production, (b) high volume CIGS is coming on line. (Nanosolar claims to have a 1 GW per production machine ready to go.)
Don't worry too much about Kit P. He makes a good point once in a while, but is clearly biased against wind and solar. Think he had bad experiences with these in his more idealistic younger years and still holds it against them. Old and in the way. When wind and solar are providing 20% of USA power, easily within the next 20 years barring major recession, then Kit P might reconsider his views... or not.

Those of you beating up on Mathew should take it easy. "peak oil" is an abhorrently non-specific term. The Exxon exec is correct. We at the end of "easy" oil. There is plenty of fossil fuels available we can still use. Venezuela (primarily) and Columbia have 3 Saudia Arabias worth of heavy crude. Albert, Canada has 2 Saudi Arabias worth of tar sands. The USA has 3 Saudia Arabias of coal shale. China, Australia, USA, S. Africa, and India(?) all have huge coal deposits and are all investing in coal-to-liquids (CTL) for fuel production. Coal is far more plentiful in the earth than oil.
Too expensive to produce? Well, use Healthy Breaze's numbers for tar sands and just multiply them out:
$4 x 10 = $40 and $4 x 15 = $60. So $40 to $60 dollars per barrel to produce, vice $130 something on the market. Gee, no wonder they're investing 10's of billions in Canadian tar sands production. Their production methods and economics are improving rapidly as well. You can bet Venezuelan heavy crude is not any more expensive to produce. Oil shale may be, which is why there isn't much activity yet.
Why is oil so expensive? We're transitioning to these different sources. They are more expensive to produce. During the transition supply is having trouble keeping up with demand. Will supply keep up with demand afterward? I don't know. A lot of people in India and China want to live like people in the USA.
Sorry guys, lots of oil left. Don't get me wrong. This is not the best way to go. The fossil fuels are there though.
Fortunately, advancements in batteries, electric vehicles, wind, and solar have moved far enough. Economies of large scale production are now starting to appear and will be accomplished before the price of fuel can come down significantly. At that point, it will be too late for fossil fuels to ever displace them.
The USA should assist this process with production tax subsidies equal to, or greater than, those for fossil fuels. Not so this transition happens. It will anyway. So it happens faster and so we benefit from having more of these industries in the USA, i.e. more market share of these new industries.

Solution to current oil for transport problem:
Extended-Range Electric Vehicles (E-REVs)
{same as Serial-PHEVs}
Battery Electric Vehicles (BEVs)

Plentiful Sources for clean electricity:
Solar, Nuclear, Wind, Waves(eg OPT & OPD), Geothermal, Conservation, and BioFuel from algae, grasses, wood waste, or jatropha. Since we still have so much coal, we need to try to clean up what we have. CCS needs much more work.
{I don't include tidal power because I've not seen a device shown to withstand impact of a mid-depth, water-logged log. Coming from the NW, you need to do this to last 20 or 30 years.}

Posted by: | Jun 22, 2008 12:58:06 PM

The category called ‘renewable energy other’ is not growing. It is stagnating. If BP plotted ‘renewable energy other’ with total energy production it would show up as just a line of varying thickness.

There are physical reasons for this. The source of energy called ‘renewable energy other’ is not a very good way of providing energy for industrial society. Some loons think it is sustainable but that is because they have not been endowed with higher levels of math skills or complex problems solving skills.

Periodically in our society someone declare ‘renewable energy other’ good because it is not nuke or coal or oil. These loons get government to mandated development. What do we learn? Ugly junk that is broken ‘renewable energy other’ is not good. Society cancels that mandate.

Using simple differential equations, we can predict when the development phase ‘looks’ exponential and when it will stagnate because the die off is equal to the rate of production.

I am biased toward ‘renewable energy other’ because I am an idealist. However, one can also be practical and not count thier chickens before they hatch.

Posted by: Kit P | Jun 23, 2008 2:02:46 PM

I am really enjoying this blog! All in all, the debate is very stimulating and civil, with very little ranting.

I am clearly not as knowledgeable about the energy industry as the other folks posting here, but I am fascinated by it.

My question is: what is your opinion of the potential for cleaner coal use? Seems to me that coal gasification, for example, has enormous potential. Still a finite fossil fuel, for sure, but peak coal is way in the future and coal certainly buys us time to develop other renewable energy sources....

There is a widespread bias against using coal, but can't we can learn to use it in ways that have less impact on the environment? Of course the MINING of it has a great environmental impact on the local level as well, but that probably is not the greatest concern to the poor people who actually live in places like Appalachia where local economies are dependent on coal mining.

Rich.

Posted by: rich | Jun 28, 2008 7:06:52 AM

One other clean use of coal -- it can be used easily to produce methanol, which can be burned in flex-fuel vehicles as M85. The only thing I'm not sure of is whether or not M85 can be burned in cars built for E85 -- some accounts I have read say yes, others say no.

If in fact M85 can be burned in today's flex-fuel vehicles, imagine the possibilities! Until cellulosic ethanol takes off, we can easily and cheaply make M85 using our vast coal reserves, then transition to biofuels (cellulosic E85 or M85 produced from biomass instead of coal) when biofuels are commercially available.

It might also solve the problem that E85 is difficult to transport from the corn belt to the east coast, whereas coal is plentiful in the east, so those of us who live in the east could get E85 from a source which is closer to the point of use.

Does anybody have any more information about whether or not M85 can be burned in flex-fuel cars, or whether or not ethanol/methanol blends can be used?

Posted by: rich | Jun 29, 2008 7:08:19 AM

CORRECTION:

In the third paragraph, I meant to say "get M85 from a source which is closer to the point of use".

Posted by: rich | Jun 29, 2008 7:12:35 AM

Plus, how about E20? A study out of Minnesota showed that E20 can be safely used in conventional gasoline burning vehicles without modification. I wonder if M20 could be used the same way? If so, then fuel stations could offer an option of either E20/M20 for existing conventional cars OR E85/M85 for flex-fuel cars.

Posted by: rich | Jun 29, 2008 7:26:12 AM

Rich,
Why use ethanol at all when you can produce biodiesel and biogasoline from wood scraps(cellulosic), grasses (cellulosic), jatropha beans, and algae?

Posted by: mds | Jun 29, 2008 7:26:38 PM

Is it stagnant Kit P?

http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/story?id=52397 “Investment in Renewable Energy Reaches $100 Billion” - May 2008
“High oil prices and an array of government incentives are leading to soaring rates of investment in renewable energy”
“ ‘The finance community has been investing at levels that imply disruptive change is now inevitable in the energy sector’ "
“ ‘report puts full stop to the idea of renewable energy being a fringe interest of environmentalists. It is now a mainstream commercial interest to investors and bankers alike.’ "

Kit P said:
"Using simple differential equations, we can predict when the development phase ‘looks’ exponential and when it will stagnate because the die off is equal to the rate of production."
It is not mathmatically possible for the growth rate to stagnate when the die off is equal to the rate of production. Not when the production rate is increasing at an exponential rate. BTW It looks exponential because it IS exponential. How can you not get that?
On the "die off rate": Your telling me that companies like Nanosolar, Heliovolt, First Solar, and Evergreen Solar will all fail because their products won't last? Amazing, they must all be dense or something. Nuclear plants never die though, right? ...and they don't leave a mess to clean up when they do, right? Little biased and unfair here maybe?

Kit P said:
"I am biased toward ‘renewable energy other’ because I am an idealist."
No way. You hack on solar and wind every chance you get. If you actually think you're biased toward them then you're missing a few logic circuits. BTW The eggs have hatched and they were alligator eggs. Some day soon you will realize they've been biting at your heals. Maybe when the gators are full grown and make a meal out of you.

Posted by: mds | Jun 29, 2008 7:43:27 PM

Many solar photovoltaic (PV) panels come with 20 to 30 year garantees. They do not die at that point, but their electricity generation level may be reduced by 10% or 20%. The garantee will be some thing like: 85% or better of original conversion efficiency after 25 years. Most of these are silicon based, like Evergreen Solar.
First Solar is producing CdTe based PV panels. Nanosolar and HelioVolt are producing CIGS based PV panels. CdTe and CIGS are, if anything, even more stable than silicon based PV. They may not last the 60 years of some nuclear plants, but thats ok because they are increasingly the cheaper option, even with a 20 to 30 year life. 20 to 30 years is about how long most composite roofs last anyway. Why say PV won't last when it will? Are you just trying to muddy the waters? ...or does this just come from the same unfounded bias, based on PV panels of the 1970s? Some of those ARE still working.

Posted by: mds | Jun 29, 2008 8:07:02 PM

That is a truly depressing chart. The absolutely worst energy alternative is growing the fastest. I guess it is the chinese that are building their coal power plants. Every plant they build now, will be burning coal 24/7 for the next 20 years, at least. We're on the highway to CO2 hell, WiiHoO!

Posted by: Eirik | Jun 30, 2008 12:01:07 PM

@Rich

You do not mention where you live. Have you visited the Power River Basin or West Virginia lately? Both are beautiful areas and major coal producing regions. Not like the cesspools of our major cities especially in California.

I used to be very anti-coal but I respect the progress that has been made in cleaning up their act. I have worked in the renewable energy industry developing projects. I think it is great that we are not building renewable energy projects as fast as we can.

However, folks like mds get confused between marketing claims and producing electricity. When plotting electricity generation, ‘renewable energy other’ and nuclear are stagnate in the US.

Everyplace I look, fossil fuel is growing to meet the demand. Sorry but Erik has correctly identified the trends on the graph.

Posted by: Kit P | Jul 1, 2008 3:40:53 PM

test

Posted by: mds | Jul 3, 2008 8:16:37 PM

Obviously, the graph above shows coal use is growing. What it does not show is the greater acceleration in growth rate exhibited by solar and wind. Solar will bypass coal, like a Porsche doing 1 mph accelerates to pass a model T doing 50 mph. Wind is likely to do the same. Try plotting the rate of increase in growth for each of these power sources, including solar and wind, if you want to see where market share will shift to in the future.

This is not wishful thinking on my part. Solar and wind production have been accelerating for a long time now. It's all in a correct interpretation of the numbers. We're at a tipping point. The source of our electricity has started to shift.

Solar and wind are now competitive with grid electricity in some areas. (Japan, Hawaii, LA California for solar PV.) The cost of solar and wind will continue to drop with increasing economies of scale and new technological innovations. Coal does not have this. The only question with coal is if it will become MORE expensive in the future due to new CO2 emission restrictions. Solar and wind will clearly cost LESS in the future.

Still think you'll get there faster in that model T old timers? Oh well, paradigms often die hard.

Posted by: | Jul 3, 2008 8:33:44 PM

If you say "stagnant", relative to "'renewable energy other'", often enough does that make it true?

SOLAR:

1 GWatt (Wp) per year CIGS production machine built:
http://www.nanosolar.com/blog3/#post-33
(Greater than 14% conversion efficiency.)

Panels sold profitably at less than $0.99 per Watt (Wp):
http://www.nanosolar.com/blog3/#post-23

Showa Shell Sekiyu (an oil company) to build 1 GWatt (Wp) per year CIS production plant:
http://www.japancorp.net/Article.Asp?Art_ID=18902

Total world production was only 3.8 GWatt (Wp) in 2007!
Now we're already seeing 1 GWatt (Wp) per year for each plant, or even for each production machine!

Stagnant? More like staggeringly high rate of growth!

Posted by: mds | Jul 3, 2008 8:34:30 PM

WIND:

"Pickens Wind Farm to Get Underway" (T Boone Pickens is an oil man) "$10 billion wind farm, the world's largest, that will eventually generate 4,000 megawatts of electricity":
http://thefraserdomain.typepad.com/energy/2008/04/pickens-wind-fa.html
http://thefraserdomain.typepad.com/energy/2008/05/pickens-mesa-po.html

"Worlds Largest, $1.8 Billion, 500 MW, Wind Farm to be Built off the Coast of UK":
http://thefraserdomain.typepad.com/energy/2008/05/worlds-largest.html

Stagnant? Not from where I'm sitting!

Posted by: mds | Jul 3, 2008 8:34:57 PM

Coal will continue to grow while it's cheaper in price. Money talks. The price of solar and wind will continue to drop, continue to grow at double digit rates, and will soon begin taking a larger energy market share. It is likely solar will be cheaper than coal in the not-to-distant future. Solar PV can be used to generate power closer to the point of use, so additional power lines and line maintenance costs are not required as they are for coal. (Travis Bradford puts the cost of utility transmission lines at roughly half the cost of our delivery electricity.)

So this graph is misleading when trying to predict where our energy will be coming from in 20 years.
Don't just look at velocity.
Consider acceleration as well ...dummies.

Posted by: mds | Jul 3, 2008 8:35:20 PM

Very good reading, but all these numbers only prove one thing. Figures don't lie, however, liars do figure. I read in this list that there are 100 billion undiscovered barrels on the outer continental shelf. Where does this number come from? Is it the 5% probability number from a USGS estimate? I have seen the numbers of 40 billion barrels "technically recoverable" undiscovered crude in areas that are not off limits for exploration and drilling, and only another 19 billion gallons in the off limits areas. "Economically recoverable" oil could be less than half that amount. I also recently heard that last year oil companies spent $8 Billion dollars to find oil valued at $4 billion dollars. Could that explain why there is no rush to explore for the 40 billion barrels?

I would suggest that everyone read the 2005 Hirsch report before dismissing "peak oil". We will not know until a year after it happens, that we have reached peak oil, and then we will be 20 years behind in taking reasonable corrective action. Another thing. Saying you have 80 billion barrels of oil in the ground doesn't make it so. Of course we all know that Hugo Chavez wouldn't lie, would he?

Posted by: Don Strickland | Aug 2, 2008 5:50:30 PM

Demand equals supply to define the market price. When black markets are encouraged for political reasons (such as gasoline having an artificially low price in Iraq), shortages will always exist, lines will always form. Our military's short-sighted price-fixing policy perpetuates absurdly inept 'nationalized' oil companies like Pemex in Mexico and does a disservice to the people of Iraq by denying them market reality. If gas is 20 cents a gallon, the whole country can run on portable generators and to heck with electrical infrastructure. The problem is that gas isn't really 20 cents a gallon and when that realization dawns, Iraq will find itself covered up with all the portable generators on the planet on top of a stone age civilization. It's like lighting the oil on fire and roasting weenies.

Posted by: B Nicholson | Sep 10, 2008 3:16:06 AM

Peak oil needs to take into consideration equivalent liquid fuels. Oil sand and shale oils. Biodiesel, ethanol, methanol,compressed natural gas etc. They will all be competitors in the marketplace. They will suppress crude oil prices. So will wind, solar, geothermal etc. Crude oil will slowly decline over many decades.

Posted by: Ronald Wagner | Oct 18, 2008 8:02:00 AM

Posted by: Ronald Wagner | Oct 18, 2008 8:02:41 AM

Why do the True Believers continue to think that wind and solar are pollution free?

They are not. It is just that they are so small and insignificant a source, that the pollution associated with each of them has been generally unrecognized to date.

Solar alters the Albedo,and also produces lots of local "thermal pollution" and that can have devastating Global Warming and "climate change" effects. Effects hundreds of times as severe as GHGs, if ever used on a wide scale, both on a local, regional and even global basis. But solar is inefficient and will always be too costly to use except in certain extreme circumstances. Costs have been dropping for 60 years, and are always four or five years from achieving cost equality. Therefore we cannot discontinue the wasteful governemntal subsidies. Its pity that the four or five years never seems ot arrive. Thank fully we won't see the detrimental effects of wide scale solar implementation, becasue little will be built.

Like solar, wind is also a pollution source, but that is now starting to be recognized, documented, and reported. Wind is very intermittent and destabilizing of electrical grids. It does not demand-follow and so other stable energy sources must be created in addition. After about one fith or generation is intermittent like wind, engineers are unable to maintin stable elctrical gris systems, and they frequently oscillate in blackouts. To over come the problem the wind power must be connected to more stable non intermittent base-load generation systems, or simply turned. Did you know that the efe3ctive utilizatiosn of wind energy si now about 3% of installed nameplate rated capacity. It is.

After you achieved 20% of grid generation with intermittent (wind generation), you have to construct four times as much conventional power as any wind investment, to achieve any benefit at all from your wind investment. Ask T Boone Pickens as he loses bundles of money with wind-genrators that are shut-in.

Wind is also funneled by geography into areas usually far from demand so it mandates extensive and land consuming power lines from source to demand. It also must consume large tracts of land for the wind farms themselves. Some now report the substantial death of raptors and other birds. Others report the disruption of electrical radio and television reception equipement, near windfarms. Yet others report the aural pollution of the low sound frequencies disrupt both human and animal lifecycles, producing amny detrimental medical symptoms. Science articles are reporting the decline in animal numbers near windfarms. The disruptionand cosnuymption oflarge land tracts for little energy gains is a severe misuse of the land.

The worst pollution effect is altering the Earth's natural attempt to equalize temperatures via wind has not been recognized yet, because the effect is small. It will become more evident as windpower is employed more massively. Just like cities produce a "heat island effect", windfarms will produce similar effects downwind of the farms.

Posted by: stas peterson | Nov 20, 2008 1:44:30 PM