And another thing ... ;)
This isn't just a transport/motoring issue, although it obviously affects transport and motoring as well as domestic and industrial energy usage. Nevertheless, many people seem to misinterpret calls for energy efficiency/conservation (which happens to affect motoring and transport amongst other things) as a breach of their personal freedoms. Some of you may be aware that one of the most energy-intensive industrial processes (and the single biggest source of industrial CO2 pollution) is the production of cement, yet we continue to live in houses made of the stuff when (for one example) dwellings made 800 years ago of cob, i.e. mud and straw, are still standing and in use, as well as being naturally warmer in winter - thus reducing the need for heating oil or gas.
A radically different approach to our use of resources is needed - like I say, it isn't just a transport or motoring issue. As consumers, i.e. the end-users of all industrial processes, we still have the ability and even the responsibility to change our own behaviour and create the demand for a more sustainable way of life. But will we? I doubt it.
--
andymc
|
If you are REALLY honest, how many of you give a hoot about "green things" and are just mouthing the usual P.C. platitudes so as to seem "caring" and "socially responsible"?
Well I am unrepentantly not interested one jot in conservation - just as long as petrol lasts until I am gone! At my age I think I'm OK!
Let future generations look after themselves - human ingenuity being what it is, I think a solution will be found if the return is worth the expenditure.
Roger. (in Spain).
|
I am 100% with Roger on his point, selfish as it seems, for similar reasons.
Humanity has managed to overcome just about every threat to it so far, and I'll be damned at my age if I'm going to ride a push bike, hug trees, wear open-toed sandals and listen to doomsayers mouthing off sanctimonious nonsense at Greenpeace meetings. As for Ford using windmills, I'd put my $0.02 on this being a cynical marketing/appeasance lip-service gesture more than anything else.
But on the Chinese point, I don't know how many BR-er's have ever been there but the sheer size of the place, the population, the frenetic progress of catch-up and the backlog after 60 years of repression is breath-taking. You can feel the growth happening around you rather like the tiger economy days of the '80's in SE Asia in HK, Malaysia and Thailand. India of course also.
There's a perceptible dynamism/optimism when you visit, which of course rides on ever-increasing amounts of energy, which in turn places increased demand on that smelly stuff the perfume of which used to permeate my home in Bahrain in the morning when the BAPCO refinery was working full blast and the wind was in a certain direction.
Global fuel supplies effects from Chinese growth will be only a symptom of a greater cause: China becoming the next world power as a fat and lazy America becomes more isolated and an overweight EU burdened with bureaucrats and legalistic nonsense implodes. I expect most of Asia to become new provinces of mainland China over the next 50 years.
Saudi will collapse politically because of its corrupt and unstable dynasty before too long and then someone (doubtless the Americans will have to intervene, in my view they should have done so at the same time as the Iraq thing) so I hope someone in the DoD over in WDC is thinking about that instead of acting on 4 year old intelligence! That will cause an immediate short-term oil supply problem.
However, I have yet to be convinced that the Central Asian republics' oil resources have yet been accurately plumbed and measured, so as somebody said, don't panic yet.
I base this remark on the fact that one of my local drinkers is frequented by Brits on R & R from places like Kazakhstan who work for oil exploration companies, and with whom we chat. They assert that the so-called "remaining reserves" are in those places we know about but that we still haven't looked in an awful lot of others. For me the opinions of front-line hands-on guys, as in most things I have learned, tend to get my ear more than the hands-off alarmist pundits all too often with a political agenda of their own.
On the matter of replacement fuels: the Philippines for example grows so much sugar and coconuts (you would have to see to believe how enormous the estates held by private interests are in places like Mindanao -- the Del Monte one for example -- and no, it isn't all pineapple in cans and rum in bottles!) that many studies have been done to suggest that much automotive fuel could be produced for this country's needs from what are in theory infinitely replaceable resources. As usual it's all talk and little action.
We even have our own oil offshore in the Spratly Islands. Significantly these are disputed ownership-wise by China....along with Vietnam et al. I remain convinced there is still a lot more oil down there than anyone really knows about.
....but think of power politics like those of Iran with all that oil still to be pumped AND being a nuclear power (she is, or certainly will be), and that starts to send serious shivers down the spine.
|
Great post GRowler. Each time I hear the oil producers hiccup, I see the finger getting a little closer to the button.
Should solve all America's problems. No foreign imports to dilute the home economy because they'll all be irradiated to hell and no foreigners left to threaten their way of life. Shame about the sudden reduction in the amount of breathable atmosphere, but somebody is bound to find a way to sell clean air to the survivors.......
|
|
|
Unfortunately this isn't just a resource issue. Presently there are 5 or 600 million northern Europeans and Americans pushing out enough polution and straining the eco-system perhaps close to breaking point. Over half the resources that have ever been used have been used since 1950.
Just add 2 billion in China and the Indian sub-continent who all want cars and refrigerators and what will happen when they get them?
You could put your faith in Gaya theory (or voodoo I suppose), but that seems rather selfish to me. Honest and responsible politicians would be putting up oil prices in concert not buying votes by reducing them.
|
|
|
|
|
Funny you should mention cement. Builders here are blaming delays on building houses - and the essential swimming pool - on the shortage of cement. Guess where they claim all the cement is going? Clue: Bamboo and Rice!
|
OK, for what it's worth, a good number of economists have the following take on this.
Let's assume oil is selling for $20 per barrel, and that there are X years of reserves.
Demand goes down, and short-term prices go down similarly (remember, oil was dirt cheap only a few years ago, $12 a barrel IIRC). Oil companies do not spend so much time looking for new reserves, and so new capacity doesn't come online. Thus, after a little while, despite lower demand, the number of years supply settles out at X years.
Similarly, demand (and price) go up, and more effort is expended looking for new reserves. Reserves go up, and eventually settle down at X years. The level of X that we seem to have settled upon for the past few decades is 25 years.
This would appear to have a flaw, which is, what if the oil simply runs out? Well, at current consumption, estimates go as high as 5,000 years of reserves.
When anyone tells you that we're running out of mineral A or B, remember that we've been told this for years. It's like my telling you that thanks to extra demand placed by visitors the Vin household will run out of food next Tuesday. No it won't, I'll go and get some more; it's part of my business to keep the fridge stocked. There will always be around 1-2 weeks of food reserves in the Kennedy household.
Similarly, the oil companies will look for more reserves because it'll be worth their while.
Perhaps we should flag this thread for a revisit in five years.
V
|
for what it's worth, a good number of economists have the following take on this
>>
>>
the same economists and forecasters who wanted britain to build at least one 1,200,000kw pressurised water nuclear power station every year from 1980 onwards.
the same economists who imagined chinese or soviets would never go capitalist; and go on riding their bikes in their millions at least until 2020.
just look at photos of peking/beijing streets from 10 years ago and look at them today!
we are all doomed, dooomed, doooomed - not because of shortage of oil, but because of global warming having far greater impact and at an earlier date than forecast.
yes, let us revisit this thread in five years.
|
"the same economists and forecasters ...."
On what basis do you say it's the same ones?
Try dealing with the central theme of the thread. When I was at school, aged around 10, I was told "There are only 25 years of oil left". Recently, we were being told "There are only 25 years of oil left". What changed in the intervening 31 years? I'll tell you; oil companies found and developed more oil fields.
As for "...because of global warming having far greater impact and at an earlier date than forecast," on what basis do you come to that conclusion?
And, finally, if we had built a few more Nuclear power stations, your beloved "Global Warming" might have been slowed down (if CO2 is indeed the cause).
V
|
|
I know this is going to stay motoring related - I just have faith.
|
Some of it may have been tenuous but they've managed it so far....
:o)
Oh! I posted this in open forum! The proles can see the mods saying nice things about them! Where's that button.......
:: Zap ::
|
|
|
|
Ah, I've just found the figures:
Number of years supply of oil over the decades. In each case, the figures are the total known oil reserves divided by the annual consumption (pre 1944, US reserves only, post 1944, world reserves):
1920 - 10
1930 - 8
1940 - 8
1950 - 20
1960 - 38
1970 - 35
1980 - 30
1990 - 45
2000 - 40
So, my "X = 25" was unduly pessimistic.
In 1865, Stanley Jevons wrote a book about coal use. He foresaw a relentless increase in the demand for coal, which would inevitably exhaust the nation?s coal supplies. He warned: "It will appear that there is no reasonable prospect of any release from future want of the main agent of industry." Same story. More demand, higher prices, more mines.
No need to panic.
V
|
Sorry, just seen the mods comments. It's a fair cop, but I do feel that oil reserves are at least peripherally motoring-related, as my car, at least, uses oil products to no little extent.
V
|
There was a piece in The Times business pages (www.thetimes.co.uk) on August 3 last which dealt with China's escalating fuel demands.
It revealed that the US Energy Information Administration predicts that "China's consumption of oil will double in 20 years to 12.8 million barrels per day and it will be hunting for 9.4 million of these on world markets, nearly three times today's imports."
alex
|
|
And not just fuel, but also steel. That's why old wrecks are now worth something to scrap men.
|
This thread started, as did an earlier one about the rapid growth in car ownership in China, due to concerns about the effect on oil stocks and prices. Well the oil required to build and run cars is one thing but what about the oil required directly and indirectly to build all the roads and other massive infrastructure required for those cars to function in China ?
Also, I'd think that most Chinese car owners would currently be using their vehicles primarily for essential or at least important journeys. Imagine how much fuel they'll use if they all start wanting to drive their children to/from school every day or round the corner for a newspaper and a packet of fags like so many of us do without a thought. It's ironical but maybe this problem in China will focus our minds a little more on what we should be doing to reduce our reliance on cars.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
