This particular chapter takes a more detailed look at the various oil demand projections by comparing each organisation’s take on the main economic forces that shape their final numbers. Despite the huge uncertainty, there is near universal agreement on some of these forces. But opinion is divided on the biggest question of all – will supply be able to meet demand.
This chapter looks at the recent history of the many organisations that make energy demand forecasts. Their track record has a lot to be desired but understanding the huge uncertainties involved highlights just how easy they are to get wrong.
This chapter attempts to cover the last 150 years of oil consumption with the aim of discovering the main economic forces that have helped shape how and where oil is used today. By understanding these forces we can begin to understand how future oil demand will unfold.
This chapter attempts to explain why oil depletion is not simply a problem of “will we run out” but rather a more complicated supply and demand problem concerning energy security. The size of the tap is more important than the size of the tank.
This is the first chapter in an in depth, multi part, info-graphic based series that attempts to explain all the ins and outs of peak oil, why it is inevitable and what is likely to happen in the coming years. It is intended to be much like a book with separate, complimentary chapters that help properly educate people on all the ideas and issues surrounding the topic so that whoever watches will have a good enough understanding to be able to make some sensible decisions/comments. The emphasis is on “properly educate”, I want to help create a definitive guide that people can turn to when they want to learn about this incredibly important issue.
This particular chapter attempts to explain why oil is the lifeblood of today’s modern economy and how any major fluctuations in oil price can expose the many inherent weaknesses in this globalised system that feeds, clothes and houses us.
A great little 6 min video by Peter Sinclair for The Yale Forum on Climate Change & The Media contains most of the important visualisations of how the extent of Arctic sea ice has declined over the last 30 years, reaching the lowest volume since records began in September of 2012.
In one of the better talks about climate destabilisation I have seen, David Roberts of Grist.org talks about the main causes and effects surrounding the topic. He covers the various scenarios of temperature rise in particular the really dangerous possibility the many positive feedback loops the earth’s climate system has will cause irreversible temperature rise that cause such profound change that will make much of the planet uninhabitable or in his words “you go outside and die of hotness”.
He ends on the note that global carbon emissions need to peak within the next 5-10 years and rapidly decline every year thereafter. Every year we wait will just mean that it costs us more. Addressing this challenge will be the next generations job for the rest of their lives. Indeed.
There is also a remixed version with some video and music mixed in. The video bits were good but I found the music a little distracting on occasion. Up to you which you would like to watch, same basic content. Click here to watch the remixed version
Climate Change, Climate Destabilisation, Climate Science, fossil fuel, Global WarmingThis 105 minute informal talk with a panel of about 10 members of the US Energy Security Council which includes many former heads of the military, US Senate, oil industry and governmental bodies most of which have “honorable” before their names (Ex CIA Boss James Woolsey, Senator and Professor Gary Hart and Alan Greenspan to name a few).
While this is not a new subject, this event attempted to frame the debate as there being a monopoly in one of the most profoundly important sectors in our economy and that monopoly is a great weakness which leave us all exposed if we do not do something about it. I am of course talking about oil being the only real source of energy for all the cars, trucks and airplanes currently operating in the world today. This council argues that the principle role of government is to create markets and have them work. A monopoly is an example of a market not working. In this regard they argue that they are not being anti-oil but rather pro choice or pro fuel choices.
The decades of inaction on developing a proper energy policy has meant that the US has developed one by default. That is: “We do have an energy policy. We rely on a single fuel. We buy it from a cartel controlled by people who don’t like us very much. And every five years we go to war to maintain that privilege”. The council members are deeply worried about the effects that an inevitable oil price shock will have on the US economy and the people within it as history has shown these price spikes help trigger recessions (I will assume they are also concerned about the rest of the world but as they are talking to an American audience we’ll let it slide).
Talk covers a range of issues, such as:
Perhaps the most important point is that all cars built today should be flex fuel vehicles. It only costs $100 to add in a sensor chip that detects the fuel on board and makes small changes to the fuel injection and spark plug timing to enable the engine to burn whatever mixture of ethanol or petrol/gasoline is in the tank. $100 buys flexibility for the fleet of the future and may in the long run save us billions, potentially trillions of dollars. This has happened successfully in Brazil and should be an easy mandate to pass by governments in the rest of the world. Key word should.
The same goes for developing a sensible policy on energy.
Biofuels, Conventional oil, Crude Oil, fossil fuel, Gasoline, Geo-politics, Oil, Transport, United States, VideoI finished reading Paul Gilding’s book The Great Disruption earlier today and I believe it is the most important book I have read since Tim Flannery’s The Weather Makers and would heartily recommend both. In the absence of the book I have found a video of a 30 min talk Paul gave to the World Affairs Council (with another 35 mins of Q&A). Or you can view the abridged 16 min version at the bottom.
The main ideas of the book are that the environmental movement has failed to cause a cultural change that will enable us to take pre-emptive action and avoid the serious impacts of climate change and resource depletion. Despite decades of effort, the world is still in denial. But when looking at human psychology and serious world events this is not actually surprising. As Paul argues – we are slow, but not stupid. The obvious prior example is World War II. Hitler and the stirring of Germany was not a new idea when war was declared in 1939. Prior to that there was much denial about the real threat of Germany, most notably the political policy of appeasement. But once war was declared things changed remarkably quickly and policies and achievements that seemed impossible before all of a sudden happened. Paul believes we are in much the same situation and it will take a great deal of climate pain for the world to wake up from its state of denial. Once this happens the world will go to war decarbonising our economies and it will happen at a pace that seems incomprehensible now. Paul argues that this will happen because there is no other choice. This is the key problem now, there is a choice.
But the story doesn’t end there. Paul argues that the climate problem is not the base problem, but the symptom of a much larger issue – the worldwide pursuit of endless economic growth on a finite planet. The economic model on which we base our societies is flawed and at some point needs to change to a steady state economy. Again this is not a new idea, it was acknowledged my many of the fathers of economics. But listening to politicians of today, the mantra of growth is so firmly embedded in our attitudes that it will take many years of failed growth for the idea that we have reached our planetary limits to sink in. While the transition will likely be unpleasant, the destination of an economy that has limits on the resources it uses and the pollution it produces is a positive one. It will mean a redistribution of wealth and a more equitable society. Despite the commonly held view that more money equals happiness (true only if it pulls you out of poverty), research shows that more equitable societies are much healthier societies. It could mean that advances in productivity translates into less time working.
One can argue that the book has a slightly optimistic outcome, one where we are successful in meeting the climate challenge. We could fail, just a few different decisions taken in WWII might of resulted in the citizens of the UK saluting the Fatherland. It does gloss over the difficulties to come. But (again as Paul touches on) if we are to be successful in meeting the upcoming challenges we will have to be outwardly positive and optimistic even if we sometimes inwardly doubt ourselves. It is equally incorrect to assume that society will just collapse without a fight and we are often pessimistic of what we can achieve when we really put our minds to it.
Where the truth lies I don’t know, but this book has articulated many of the feelings I have on where the world is at. You can argue about the details but the underlying ideas in the book are spot on. It is an important book as it has helped me come to the realisation that those of us not in denial need to spend less time fighting those that are (as the evidence will become overwhelming) and more time preparing for the great disruption.
I urge you to buy the book The Great Disruption. The link goes to amazon so you have the most amount of reviews to read, but please try and buy from your local bookstore (unless you have a kindle/ipad).
China, Climate Change, Climate Destabilisation, Climate Science, Economics, Economy, environment, fossil fuel, GDP, Global Warming, Growth, Paul Gilding, population, Renewables, sustainability, VideoJohn Curtis, Professor of Geochemistry and Director of the Potential Gas Agency at the Colorado School of Mines, looks at the US shale gas industry from a holistic level right down to the molecular level. He covers the different formations found throughout the States with the size of the potential resources in the ground. He then talks about the differences in make up of the shales which affect how easily this can be extracted with the relatively new hydraulic fracturing techniques. A key point of his talk is that the different shale formations cannot be treated the same and production is not uniform, even within the same formation. A lot of the molecular science is still unknown but early research has shown that studying the carbon isotopes (carbon atoms with differing numbers of neutrons) can be an indicator of how productive a gas well might be. A good talk to watch this as there are many things he covers along the way which help fill in the gaps of how the shale gas industry works and what the potential of it is in the future.
