Al Gore Energy Usage Rises

[quote]100meters wrote:

Hmmm…it seems you aren’t getting that demand is exponentially outpacing supply. The Saudis can’t pump any more. The amount we we would produce is a drop in that bigger bucket 15 years from now. So because it won’t be cheap or abundant when it happens, we kind of need to focus really,really,really hard on the alternatives. So when McCain’s solution finally happens in 2030 we’ll still need a solution.[/quote]

Well, Demand can only escalate so much before the supply simply stops allowing it to. As prices get to be too high, people will stop driving as much(and/or lose their jobs as a result), companies will stop expanding as much(and/or lay people off) and the economy will take a serious blow.

I don’t think it will be doomsday, more like serious growing pains as we transition from the oil-based economy to something more scalable and long-term.

[quote]flyboy51v wrote:

Solar doesn’t cut it. I have customers that build components for those huge solar dishes out by Twenty-Nine Palms. Even the Stirling Engines are very expensive and their plans for filling the desert with those things won’t supply but a fraction of just California’s needs.
[/quote]

Solar is expensive compared to Oil and Coal, as Oil and Coal become more expensive, Solar becomes a viable option. By the time we are forced to extracting oil from oil shale, Solar will likely be no more expensive(and could conceivably be cheaper).

Solar is not quite there yet, and unfortunately, there have not been too many developments in many years. Solar needs to be more efficient per acre, and it needs to be cheaper to produce(or the cost of oil has to become comparable in price) before it will be a viable replacement. Additionally, before it can be widely adopted, the issue of storing solar power through night time needs to be address as well. Although I don’t think being fully solar powered is ideal, or something to strive for.

However, in the long term, it is one of the most logical power sources to invest in. Given the fact that the Sun hits us with more energy in an hour than we could consume in 100s of years. It presently takes many years before a solar installation pays off its initial energy investment(somewhere between 5-15 depending on size, type). But once it has done so, long term, it becomes a very cheap source of energy.

[quote]Malevolence wrote:
Oil Shale is not cost-effective to produce. We have little to no real infrastructure for it, because it requires additional processing to obtain usable oil(let alone usable fuel). Additionally, we do not even have a solid idea of how much of the estimated trillions of tons(which is not synonymous with barrels of crude, btw) are even available to us.

I think that we will turn to extracting oil shale, but I think it will be a bad decision, that will do little to nothing to alleviate prices, and only serve to dig the hole we are in deeper.

The oil crisis we are facing is not about running out of oil, there is enough oil to last a long time, the problem, however, is that it becomes increasingly expensive to obtain it. We end up having to pay more to get less, and that is a very dangerous economic outlook for an economy that was cheap oil.

Also, Oil lasting 100 years is pathetic. Just because you’ll be too old or too dead to care by then doesn’t excuse letting your progeny suffer because you were too shortsighted to try an alleviate this inevitable issue.

Banking on a scientific breakthrough that will, click, save us all, is even more irresponsible. Even though increasing financial, political and social pressures could conceivably bring about new innovations in the field of producing cheap power, blindly assuming it will happen does no one any good.

[/quote]

These arguments do get ridiculous.

The positions seem to be stop drilling now at all costs because we’re going to run out in a hundred years. Or, as you attributed to me … let’s keep on with the oil for 100 years and don’t develop ANY new technologies until we’re 6 months from running out.

How about some common sense instead. Why not use the oil we have AND the other technologies AND invest in some smart new technologies beyond solar and nuclear …

My guess is that we can’t even imagine the energy technology we will be utilizing 100 years from now. 100 years ago we were horse and buggy.

Interesting … I just looked up some data on oil shale. According to what I found oil shale extraction is profitable at a per barrel price of between $70 and $95. Obviously at $135 today it looks pretty good.

Here’s what I read in Investor’s Business Daily last week on the US oil shale reserves …

But oil prices keep rising and technology keeps advancing. These oil sand deposits cover about 54,000 square miles and contain about 1.7 trillion barrels of crude.

Oil is trapped in the shale in the Bakken Formation, straddling western North Dakota and Montana. The oil is trapped in a thin layer of dense rock nearly two miles beneath the surface.

Leigh Price, a scientist with the U.S. geological survey, authored a study before his death in 2000 estimating that the entire formation, which extends into Saskatchewan and Manitoba, may hold up to 500 billion barrels of recoverable oil.

The technology to retrieve it is sophisticated. It is not sitting in large underground reservoirs.

The oil is trapped in microscopic pores of rock and companies must force pressurized fluid and sand into the earth to break the pores in the rock and recover the oil. The extraction technology and production process also is not cheap.

According to the Institute for Energy Research, “The United States has 2 trillion barrels of oil shale. This is more than 7 times the amount of crude oil reserves found in Saudi Arabia, and is enough to meet current U.S. demand for over 250 years.”

Out west we may have what could be called a “Persia on the Plains.”
A Rand Corporation study says the Green River Formation, which covers parts of Colorado, Utah and Wyoming, has the largest known oil shale deposits in the world, holding from 1.5 to 1.8 trillion barrels of crude.

[quote]flyboy51v wrote:

These arguments do get ridiculous.

The positions seem to be stop drilling now at all costs because we’re going to run out in a hundred years. Or, as you attributed to me … let’s keep on with the oil for 100 years and don’t develop ANY new technologies until we’re 6 months from running out.
[/quote]

That was not my position, argument, or my point.

[quote]100meters wrote:
flyboy51v wrote:
Mick28 wrote:
beebuddy wrote:
The funny thing is that there can really be no argument that dependence on finite sources of energy is really stupid in the long run.

Why?

Yea … why? Ultimately ALL energy sources are finite (even the sun will run out of fuel eventually). So what matters is HOW long. There are literally trillions of barrels of oil in the ground that we know of. Undoubtedly a lot more is yet to be found. So when you have an abundant, powerful, and relatively cheap form of energy readily available the really stupid thing is to adopt a scarce, or weak or relatively expensive alternative.

I say do it all … why not … but this obsession with getting rid of our best source of energy immediately is … well … stupid.

And I still think Al Gore should stop using toilet paper … like Sheryl Crow and Larry David’s wife … whatever her name is …

Hmmm…it seems you aren’t getting that demand is exponentially outpacing supply. … [/quote]

Blah blah blah. Do you realize demand in the US is actually dropping? Supply is also increasing with the various improved extraction processes. And you don’t know what exponential means.

[quote]Malevolence wrote:
Oil Shale is not cost-effective to produce. …

[/quote]

Yes it is, especially when oil trades at $ 130/bbl. Oil shale, tar sands and the like were not worth it when light sweet crude was trading @ $ 20/bbl but now the are well worth it.

[quote]Malevolence wrote:
flyboy51v wrote:

These arguments do get ridiculous.

The positions seem to be stop drilling now at all costs because we’re going to run out in a hundred years. Or, as you attributed to me … let’s keep on with the oil for 100 years and don’t develop ANY new technologies until we’re 6 months from running out.

That was not my position, argument, or my point. [/quote]

I didn’t say that WAS your position or your argument or your point.

What i said was that the two arguments people are generally making get pushed to ridiculous extremes. And you proceeded to take my argument … push it to the extreme exactly as I said.

You said my position was pathetic and assumed I wanted to do nothing but pump oil for 100 years until we run out with no alternatives and that I didn’t care because I’d be dead by then anyway!

No … that’s NOT what I want to do.

Solar is great let’s develop it. But it’s not likely to be enough. Nuclear is great, let’s develop it … but it too can’t do everything. Let’s continue to invest billions in new development for something entirely new … I’m all for it.

But let’s also continue to use the abundant, cheap, proven, reliable, current source of energy that we have … OIL. People in these threads keep hysterically insisting that we are running out without even any knowledge of the actual facts.

And why stop developing our own supplies, make ourselves dependent on supplies from faraway/volatile regions and keep pumping billions of dollars into the hands of dictators?

My other point was that the history of technology and innovation is very tough to try and predict and manage.

Sure we can have government programs to encourage innovation but it’s very likely that while we’re developing hydrogen cells or something that an entirely different technology will spring up that none of us could possibly have predicted.

100 years ago we relied on horses. The reason we are flying around in jets today isn’t because we all sat around in 1900 and said we’re going to need something different in 100 years we better get on it or we’re telling our progeny to fuck off …

I

No, I did not say your position was pathetic. I said that 100 years worth of oil is a pathetic amount of oil.

The fact that you seem to be ignoring is that Oil is no longer going to be a cheap resource. By the time we are forced into using Oil shale, and I say forced because the economic, logistical, pragmatic, environmental and even somewhat moral aspects of extracting shale and converting it into usable crude are drastically more involved and costly than what we have developed this economy around. Ask yourself this.

You must understand the volatility of an oil based economy? have you not seen how heavily gas prices have increased and we’re not even remotely close to running out, or even significantly running short on production capabilities.

But it doesn’t take running out or lowered production, or even increased demand to send a shockwave through the entire oil based economy. All it takes is a little bit of fear mixed with a little bit of uncertainty, and suddenly we’re paying twice as much in gas every time we fill up our tanks.

Additionally, my position is not that we should stop exploring, extracting and domesticated our oil production. I think that’s absurd. However, the vocal proponents of doing so, have a disturbingly short-sighted mentality that seems to start and end with “oh, someone will make it better, someone that is not me, yeah, they’ll figure it out.” And it will take a lot more than passing the responsibilities(and blames) around.

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Malevolence wrote:
Oil Shale is not cost-effective to produce. …

Yes it is, especially when oil trades at $ 130/bbl. Oil shale, tar sands and the like were not worth it when light sweet crude was trading @ $ 20/bbl but now the are well worth it.
[/quote]

Oil Shale is estimated to be within $ 60-90/bbl, but we know very little about it, which is part of the problem, we do know that it requires tremendous energy and resources to extract and convert into usable crude, and that the ultimate price for Oil Shale will be influenced by the price of conventional crude. Given that, and the fact that a large part of our current oil debate has more to do with increased demand than dwindling supply, the actual market price of the stuff could just as easily shoot above $100/bbl. But, at this stage, throwing numbers around is mostly meaningless, because no one really knows, and those that stand to benefit from the product need to market it for people to actually go for it.

Regardless, it does not refute my point that even with oil shale production, we will be at(or nearing) the end of CHEAP oil. Although we may temporarily attain cheaper oil than we have now, it is unlikely to be significant in the long term.

But again, I am no opposed to extracting oil shale, because quite simply, we need oil to run this economy, and we need to do what we can to keep the supply lines intact, however, given all that we have seen in recent years, we also need to take the steps necessary to diversify our economy as much as possible, and the mentality of “we’ll just find more oil”, isn’t going to cut it.

Well of course his home uses more energy. it is a manufacturing center…

for things like carbon credits and hysteria.

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
100meters wrote:
flyboy51v wrote:
Mick28 wrote:
beebuddy wrote:
The funny thing is that there can really be no argument that dependence on finite sources of energy is really stupid in the long run.

Why?

Yea … why? Ultimately ALL energy sources are finite (even the sun will run out of fuel eventually). So what matters is HOW long. There are literally trillions of barrels of oil in the ground that we know of. Undoubtedly a lot more is yet to be found. So when you have an abundant, powerful, and relatively cheap form of energy readily available the really stupid thing is to adopt a scarce, or weak or relatively expensive alternative.

I say do it all … why not … but this obsession with getting rid of our best source of energy immediately is … well … stupid.

And I still think Al Gore should stop using toilet paper … like Sheryl Crow and Larry David’s wife … whatever her name is …

Hmmm…it seems you aren’t getting that demand is exponentially outpacing supply. …

Blah blah blah. Do you realize demand in the US is actually dropping? Supply is also increasing with the various improved extraction processes. And you don’t know what exponential means.[/quote]

Douche.

Main Entry:
ex·po·nen·tial
Pronunciation:
\�?ek-sp�?-�?nen-ch�?l\
Function:
adjective
Date:
1704

1: of or relating to an exponent2: involving a variable in an exponent <10x is an exponential expression>3: expressible or approximately expressible by an exponential function; especially : characterized by or being an extremely rapid increase (as in size or extent)

You do realize GLOBAL demand increasing.

[quote]Malevolence wrote:
No, I did not say your position was pathetic. I said that 100 years worth of oil is a pathetic amount of oil.

The fact that you seem to be ignoring is that Oil is no longer going to be a cheap resource. By the time we are forced into using Oil shale, and I say forced because the economic, logistical, pragmatic, environmental and even somewhat moral aspects of extracting shale and converting it into usable crude are drastically more involved and costly than what we have developed this economy around. Ask yourself this.

You must understand the volatility of an oil based economy? have you not seen how heavily gas prices have increased and we’re not even remotely close to running out, or even significantly running short on production capabilities.

But it doesn’t take running out or lowered production, or even increased demand to send a shockwave through the entire oil based economy. All it takes is a little bit of fear mixed with a little bit of uncertainty, and suddenly we’re paying twice as much in gas every time we fill up our tanks.

Additionally, my position is not that we should stop exploring, extracting and domesticated our oil production. I think that’s absurd. However, the vocal proponents of doing so, have a disturbingly short-sighted mentality that seems to start and end with “oh, someone will make it better, someone that is not me, yeah, they’ll figure it out.” And it will take a lot more than passing the responsibilities(and blames) around.

[/quote]

You think 100 years of oil is pathetic. It’s not. It’s an eon. 5 years in technology is a long time. 100 years in technology is beyond our ability to predict and possibly even imagine. We won’t be using gasoline in 2100.

You think we need some kind of program to push for new technology. I’m assuming you mean a government program? I think you’re simply mystified by the workings of a free market. The free market has produced every single advancement I can think of. The car, the train, the aircraft, the lightbulb, the telephone, the internet, the transistor and on and on and on.

I just read yesterday that some little startup in San Jose has developed microbes that eat biomass and excrete crude oil. They believe it will be viable. No government 5 year plan was necessary for this … just 3 or 4 smart guys in a warehouse.

You think oil based economies are volatile. They’re not. We’ve had one for 75 years or more and it’s been incredibly stable. What shockwave btw? People are bitching … driving a little less? Adjusted for inflation the price of gas today is about the same as it was 50 years ago.

You think oil isn’t going to be cheap anymore. Well definitely not if we continue to refuse to pump any of the trillions of barrels of it we have in the ground.

You say oil shale can’t be extracted profitably. I’ve read multiple articles in the last few days that say it is. $70-$95 a barrel is the magic number. And that’s with existing technology but there’s a few more efficient new technologies that are being developed that would make it even better. There are countries around the world that have been operating with prices like this for years …

[quote]100meters wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
100meters wrote:
flyboy51v wrote:
Mick28 wrote:
beebuddy wrote:
The funny thing is that there can really be no argument that dependence on finite sources of energy is really stupid in the long run.

Why?

Yea … why? Ultimately ALL energy sources are finite (even the sun will run out of fuel eventually). So what matters is HOW long. There are literally trillions of barrels of oil in the ground that we know of. Undoubtedly a lot more is yet to be found. So when you have an abundant, powerful, and relatively cheap form of energy readily available the really stupid thing is to adopt a scarce, or weak or relatively expensive alternative.

I say do it all … why not … but this obsession with getting rid of our best source of energy immediately is … well … stupid.

And I still think Al Gore should stop using toilet paper … like Sheryl Crow and Larry David’s wife … whatever her name is …

Hmmm…it seems you aren’t getting that demand is exponentially outpacing supply. …

Blah blah blah. Do you realize demand in the US is actually dropping? Supply is also increasing with the various improved extraction processes. And you don’t know what exponential means.

Douche.

Main Entry:
ex·po·nen·tial
Pronunciation:
\�?ek-sp�?-�?nen-ch�?l\
Function:
adjective
Date:
1704

1: of or relating to an exponent2: involving a variable in an exponent <10x is an exponential expression>3: expressible or approximately expressible by an exponential function; especially : characterized by or being an extremely rapid increase (as in size or extent)

You do realize GLOBAL demand increasing.

[/quote]

As is global supply of energy. China brings a coal fired powerplant on line every week. The world has massive coal reserves.

The US is using energy more efficiently than ever and Al Gore is wasting more than ever. But that is cool with you because he has a D next to his name.

[quote]flyboy51v wrote:
Malevolence wrote:
No, I did not say your position was pathetic. I said that 100 years worth of oil is a pathetic amount of oil.

The fact that you seem to be ignoring is that Oil is no longer going to be a cheap resource. By the time we are forced into using Oil shale, and I say forced because the economic, logistical, pragmatic, environmental and even somewhat moral aspects of extracting shale and converting it into usable crude are drastically more involved and costly than what we have developed this economy around. Ask yourself this.

You must understand the volatility of an oil based economy? have you not seen how heavily gas prices have increased and we’re not even remotely close to running out, or even significantly running short on production capabilities.

But it doesn’t take running out or lowered production, or even increased demand to send a shockwave through the entire oil based economy. All it takes is a little bit of fear mixed with a little bit of uncertainty, and suddenly we’re paying twice as much in gas every time we fill up our tanks.

Additionally, my position is not that we should stop exploring, extracting and domesticated our oil production. I think that’s absurd. However, the vocal proponents of doing so, have a disturbingly short-sighted mentality that seems to start and end with “oh, someone will make it better, someone that is not me, yeah, they’ll figure it out.” And it will take a lot more than passing the responsibilities(and blames) around.

You think 100 years of oil is pathetic. It’s not. It’s an eon. 5 years in technology is a long time. 100 years in technology is beyond our ability to predict and possibly even imagine. We won’t be using gasoline in 2100.

[/quote]

It is laughable to think that we should dictate the technology used 100 years from now. I wonder if the people in 1908 thought this way. I do know they were worried about where to pile all the horse shit in the future. I am glad they didn’t write all kinds of crazy laws and build all kinds of horse shit repositories. Then again, Al Gore would not have needed to build a new house.

The exponential curve of technology development in the last 100 odd years was largely a result of the availability of cheap energy, if energy stops being cheap, technological development will slow.

[quote]flyboy51v wrote:

You think 100 years of oil is pathetic. It’s not. It’s an eon. 5 years in technology is a long time. 100 years in technology is beyond our ability to predict and possibly even imagine. We won’t be using gasoline in 2100.

You think we need some kind of program to push for new technology. I’m assuming you mean a government program? I think you’re simply mystified by the workings of a free market. The free market has produced every single advancement I can think of. The car, the train, the aircraft, the lightbulb, the telephone, the internet, the transistor and on and on and on.

I just read yesterday that some little startup in San Jose has developed microbes that eat biomass and excrete crude oil. They believe it will be viable. No government 5 year plan was necessary for this … just 3 or 4 smart guys in a warehouse.

You think oil based economies are volatile. They’re not. We’ve had one for 75 years or more and it’s been incredibly stable. What shockwave btw? People are bitching … driving a little less? Adjusted for inflation the price of gas today is about the same as it was 50 years ago.

You think oil isn’t going to be cheap anymore. Well definitely not if we continue to refuse to pump any of the trillions of barrels of it we have in the ground.

You say oil shale can’t be extracted profitably. I’ve read multiple articles in the last few days that say it is. $70-$95 a barrel is the magic number. And that’s with existing technology but there’s a few more efficient new technologies that are being developed that would make it even better. There are countries around the world that have been operating with prices like this for years …
[/quote]

I never said we needed a program to explore new energy technology, where did you get that idea? I’m not at all enthusiastic about the government controlling our economy, that is daft.

As for the rest, I do not disagree, but I am also not writing it off, because for all of the talk about our future, energy, oil and the availability of it(read: to produce cheaply), the only thing that is abundantly clear, is that we really do not know.

We’re(being us in this forum, as well as the owners and operators of the major oil enterprises) speculating on speculation. We’re pretty sure we can get some stuff done with oil shale, and/or offshore drilling, but we won’t actually know if they are economically viable in the long term.

In the 70s there was an oil scare that had to do with the US production peaking. We began to import heavily, crisis averted. Today we are seeing signs that global production is peaking, whether or not it has peaked, or will peak in 5 years or 30 years, we’re not sure(again, so much of this discussion is speculation on speculation).

I think you can agree that once the discussion is revolving around sketchy offshore reserves and squeezing oil out of rocks, that things are not all fine in the world of oil production.

With shale oil, it is tremendously costly(not just financially) to extract and convert to crude, we have little to no infrastructure to do so on a mass scale, the environmental concerns are significantly greater than conventional crude extraction, both in terms of physical land destruction and pollutants, even the processes that we use to extract it are ugly and infantile.

It is hardly better off than Solar power when it comes to being a ‘viable option’. With the only notable bonus being that we can make petroleum out of it, thus, run our cars.

Other than that, the fact that we are even considering oil shale, should be raising numerous red flags.

Additionally, as best I am aware, the stat about gas prices being the same as they were 50 years ago is no longer true. Given the recent steep hike in gas prices has not followed a comparable spike in inflation. But you are free to correct me on that if you have a citation.

Another thing to consider. Let’s assume global oil production has not peaked yet(many people disagree, but let’s be conservative here) Let’s say it won’t peak for another 20 years.

It will take at least that long to establish a wide scale Shale/tar sands oil operation, but, by then, all of our estimates about the costs of these things will more than likely be completely off the mark, because in the mean time, our oil production will have begun to slow, while our demand will have continued to rise.

How do you expect shale oil operations to scale up quickly enough when these offshore drilling operations are expected to take upto a decade to materialize, knowing that shale oil is significantly more challenging to produce at scale?

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:

It is laughable to think that we should dictate the technology used 100 years from now. I wonder if the people in 1908 thought this way. I do know they were worried about where to pile all the horse shit in the future. I am glad they didn’t write all kinds of crazy laws and build all kinds of horse shit repositories. Then again, Al Gore would not have needed to build a new house.
[/quote]

Svante Arrhenius proposed global warming in 1896. It was widely believed that global warming would be a positive thing, fending off global winter and enhancing agriculture.