# China's influence and oil no longer priced in Dollars



## pinkyBear (6 Oct 2009)

Hi there,
I read this article today and I thought it very interesting.
http://www.independent.ie/business/world/economic-balance-of-power-shifts-to-the-east-1905435.html

If oil is no longer priced in Dollars - what are the imlications of this? Is this the start of the collapse of the Dollar and Sterling? There is a mention that Britian may have to join the Euro.. The Euro sceptics in Britian would not fancy that!
Cheers,
P


----------



## Chris (6 Oct 2009)

If oil is no longer priced and traded exclusively in $US then this would have a big impact on the dollar. The daily global consumption of oil is about 80 million barrels; at about $70 a barrel that is about $6 billion per day. If you reduce demand for $US by that much every day, then you very quickly run into massive over-supply.
I believe this will be a process that gradually increases in speed, but I belive at this stage it is inevitable. The most powerful raw commodity consumers and producers are all paving the way for a new reserve currency, and all the US is doing is giving them more reason to get on with it.


----------



## pinkyBear (6 Oct 2009)

So this in turn could potentially collapse the US economy???


----------



## Chris (6 Oct 2009)

Potentially yes, but it will also have the effect of making US goods a lot cheaper to foreigners, causing an increase in demand for them. The problem is, that the US is no longer a producer nation and a lot of what they do produce is not really in demand abroad, e.g. cars.
The big question is how high will inflation go?


----------



## VOR (6 Oct 2009)

The Saudis and Russians are denying that any such talks have taken place. Obviously, we all believe what the Russians and Saudis tell us. 

The last 2 paragraphs of that article sum up for me what is wrong in this world.


----------



## spursman (6 Oct 2009)

i would believe it has been taking place. china have openely commented that they will slow down their purchases of us govt bonds. they are also tired of oil being so volatile cos its priced in USD


----------



## VOR (12 Oct 2009)

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aA6_py_71g_o

Interesting Bloomberg article on the placement of 63% of new cash in to yen and euro. Dollar down to 37% from 63% a decade ago.


----------



## Boros (4 Nov 2009)

it depends on what currency that the oil would be priced in after the dollar.

obviously the dollar's value would decline and the new currency i.e euros would gain dramatically.


----------



## spursman (4 Nov 2009)

it would be a basket of currencies i.e. euro , yen, dollar, gold etc


----------



## sunrock (11 Nov 2009)

It would be disastrous for the U.S. if oil wasn`t priced in dollars ,or they weren`t the ones doing the selling. I`m talking about middle east oil and african oil.THAT IS WHY the U.S. has such a military presence in these areas trying to ensure that U.S. companies will be the major beneficaries of ever more expensive oil, whether its sold in dollars or euros or yen.Most manufacturing and jobs have gone to asia and asia in turn rely on western markets to sell their produce.Of course the rich companies and individuals benefit more than poorer people who have lost their jobs.This arrangement may seem a bit unethical....wherby the west tries to control the resoucres and gets asia to buy them for their exports and also gives a poor deal to people in the resource rich countries.Ireland is involved in this....with many irish people working for multinational companies and also we have military in CHAD and its well known that Sudan and CHAD are rich in oil.My point is..that it is naive to expect the euro to become superstrong ,even if oil is traded in euros....uncle sam won`t be left short....not when it has to use its military and oil companies to secure the oil for the west.


----------



## Chris (11 Nov 2009)

sunrock said:


> This arrangement may seem a bit unethical....wherby the west tries to control the resoucres and gets asia to buy them for their exports and also gives a poor deal to people in the resource rich countries.



This is not entirely correct. Asian countries buy most of their oil directly from the oil producing/mining companies, which in the Middle East are Middle Eastern (often state owned) companies; it is large Asian oil refining companies that take delivery of oil just like western oil companies. However, China for example has such a large demand for oil that it often cannot secure enough directly from oil producing countries and then resorts to buying on the open market, where of course western oil companies come into play.
What the large western oil companies do is secure access to certain amounts or percentages of the pumped oil. And the presence of western military in the region is there to 'protect' those oil pumping operations and 'encourage' certain deals between the countries and oil refining companies.


----------



## Purple (11 Nov 2009)

Chris said:


> This is not entirely correct. Asian countries buy most of their oil directly from the oil producing/mining companies, which in the Middle East are Middle Eastern (often state owned) companies; it is large Asian oil refining companies that take delivery of oil just like western oil companies. However, China for example has such a large demand for oil that it often cannot secure enough directly from oil producing countries and then resorts to buying on the open market, where of course western oil companies come into play.
> What the large western oil companies do is secure access to certain amounts or percentages of the pumped oil. And the presence of western military in the region is there to 'protect' those oil pumping operations and 'encourage' certain deals between the countries and oil refining companies.



Yep, and long may it continue. If China becomes the dominant player in the world there's no way they will behave as well as the Americans. That can be seen clearly in how they are acting in African states that have opened their door to Chinese oil companies.


----------



## spursman (11 Nov 2009)

leak from the IEA yesterday saying that peak oil is basically upon us and they didnt want to annouce it cos it would crash the stock markets. i dont think it would to be honest as the value of oil companies would jump my many many multiples over night and this would prop the indices up


----------



## csirl (13 Nov 2009)

> leak from the IEA yesterday saying that peak oil is basically upon us


 
Isnt "peak oil" just a media invention. If you are saying that we've reached peak oil, then you are essentially saying that there is no oil left in the world that isnt currently being tapped. What a load of rubbish - there's loads of oil in the Atlantic, just at present the technology isnt there to fully exploit it. As technology improves, this will be tapped.

You are also saying that oil usage will not change. I'd say that it's near certain that electric car technology will improve at a similar rate to the way mobile phone technology improved between the 80s and 90s. Where there's a demand, the technology will improve more rapidly than people imagine.

We could end up in a situation whereby in 20 years time, nobody is interested in oil and the middle east is bankrupt.


----------



## Chris (13 Nov 2009)

csirl said:


> Isnt "peak oil" just a media invention. If you are saying that we've reached peak oil, then you are essentially saying that there is no oil left in the world that isnt currently being tapped. What a load of rubbish - there's loads of oil in the Atlantic, just at present the technology isnt there to fully exploit it. As technology improves, this will be tapped.


No, peak oil is based on geologic science. However, like global warming it is not an exact science and whether you believe in it is up to you.
What peak oil means is the following: at some stage the supply of oil will not be able to keep up with the demand, as no matter what you do, you cannot extract more than is practically possible restricted by costs.
The reason certain oil reserves are not currently tapped is not because the technology doesn't yet exist, but rather that using that technology is too expensive, i.e. retrieving one barrel of oil costs more than the market price of that barrel.
Peak-oil does not mean the end of oil, but the end of cheap oil.



csirl said:


> You are also saying that oil usage will not change. I'd say that it's near certain that electric car technology will improve at a similar rate to the way mobile phone technology improved between the 80s and 90s. Where there's a demand, the technology will improve more rapidly than people imagine.
> 
> We could end up in a situation whereby in 20 years time, nobody is interested in oil and the middle east is bankrupt.



Of course oil usage is changing, the problem is that oil usage is going up. Of course electric car technology will improve, but the electricity still has to be generated. And if the amount of electric cars increases, so does the demand for electricity, resulting in higher electricity prices making oil more attractive.
The scientific world is split between those that believe we've passed peak-oil, those that think it is imminent, and those that think it is about 10 years out. The big question is whether electric motor and battery technology can improve fast enough AND whether roughly 800million motor vehicles can be replaced fast enough.
And even if this happens, electric motors and batteries require huge amounts of limited resources themselves.


----------



## shanegl (14 Nov 2009)

I'm with Mish on this one:

http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2009/10/ridiculous-hype-over-secret-oil.html


----------



## sunrock (25 Nov 2009)

Peak oil refers to the time when extraction of oil, and hence consumption is at its maximum.As oil is a finite resource,this has to occur or has already occured.A year ago oil was 150 $ a barrel before the global recession which brought the price down.It looks like we may have lots of future volatility in oil prices.Traders know that oil demand/supply is very tight and any upturn in the economy will see a surge in the price...which will make it too expensive for consumers and companies who will cut back and we will  have another recession which will force the price down...leading to lower oil prices and the scenario starts all over again.
The truth is, that even as China and western countries compete for oil supply...at some time oil will become prohibitively expensive as the supply just isn`t there in anything like the amounts required.Then people will have to learn to live with a lot less fossil fuels to power their lifestyle.Personally I can`t see how everyone could have an electric car.How will all the electricity be created?.Most people will have to walk or get on their bike.


----------



## csirl (26 Nov 2009)

> How will all the electricity be created?.


 
Hydo electric power and nuclear power plus some renewables such as wind, wave. None require oil.

Remember the 80s when mobile phone batteries were similar size and weight to car batteries? And they'd only power the phone for a short time. Within 10 years, the batteries were down to a few grams in weight and powering a phone for days. When there's a market, technology can react very quickly. I believe this will happen with cars - if oil were production were to stop today, within 10 years, we'd have electric cars that are much faster and cheaper than petrol cars.


----------



## spursman (26 Nov 2009)

peak oil has not happened and will not happen for some time yet.

we have been running out of oil for the past 50 yrs, its always exxagerated


----------



## sunrock (26 Nov 2009)

csirl said:


> Hydo electric power and nuclear power plus some renewables such as wind, wave. None require oil.
> 
> Remember the 80s when mobile phone batteries were similar size and weight to car batteries? And they'd only power the phone for a short time. Within 10 years, the batteries were down to a few grams in weight and powering a phone for days. When there's a market, technology can react very quickly. I believe this will happen with cars - if oil were production were to stop today, within 10 years, we'd have electric cars that are much faster and cheaper than petrol cars.


 
Nuclear power relies on uranium which is also running out.Even nuclear power and hydro and renewables will not be enough to power our homes and factories never mind providing power for electric cars for everyone ...maybe 1% of the amount of the cars on the road now.
I find this comparison between mobile phone batteries and car batteries a bit silly.We already have electric cars which are very expensive to buy and run.There is no guarantee that technology can solve our problems that will arise as  oil runs out. I mean scientists have been working on possible solutions for at least 20 years and have very little progress made.


----------



## colm5 (26 Nov 2009)

spursman said:


> peak oil has not happened and will not happen for some time yet.


 

Can you show us this data please?


----------



## colm5 (26 Nov 2009)

sunrock said:


> Nuclear power relies on uranium which is also running out.Even nuclear power and hydro and renewables will not be enough to power our homes and factories never mind providing power for electric cars for everyone ...maybe 1% of the amount of the cars on the road now.
> I find this comparison between mobile phone batteries and car batteries a bit silly.We already have electric cars which are very expensive to buy and run.There is no guarantee that technology can solve our problems that will arise as oil runs out. I mean scientists have been working on possible solutions for at least 20 years and have very little progress made.


 
I really think you should look more into this before you make such remarks.


----------



## sunrock (26 Nov 2009)

Look into what? Please explain  and debate if you have different views


----------



## Chris (27 Nov 2009)

colm5 said:


> I really think you should look more into this before you make such remarks.




I don't see anything wrong with the comment. Here are some facts:
- there are 436 active nuclear power reactors worldwide (104 in the US)
- 53 new nuclear power reactors are currently under construction, mainly to replace old ones that are reaching their end of life
- it takes about 7-10 years to build a nuclear power plant at a cost of about $13billion
- uranium reserves will last for about 80 years under current consumption demand
- estimated kWh needed to replace gasoline for vehicles in the US: 1300 billion kWh
- current US nuclear power output is 800 billion kWh 
- with roughly 12 billion kWh per power plant, it would take about 110 new nuclear power plants to power all vehicles in the US (roughly $1.4 trillion)
- with an average output of 500000kwh per wind turbine it would take 2.6 million wind turbines to power all vehicles in the US (roughly $5 trillion at average cost of $2 million per turbine)

Technology and investment in alternatives to oil are way behind. Sure, it will pick up, but there is no short term solution coming our way that will replace oil. Oil production will peak at some stage; if this happens before alternatives are viable we better get our walking boots on.


Sources:
[broken link removed]
[broken link removed]
[broken link removed]
[broken link removed]
[broken link removed]


----------



## onq (27 Nov 2009)

Chris said:


> The big question is whether electric motor and battery technology can improve fast enough AND whether roughly 800million motor vehicles can be replaced fast enough.
> And even if this happens, electric motors and batteries require huge amounts of limited resources themselves.



Like the current situation with housing and conservation of fuel and energy, emerging solutions are sorting out the problem of "replacing" existing houses.

External retrofit solutions are offering relatively cost effective methods of enormously improving heat retention and hybrid ventilations systems are dealing with additional heating requirements.

Similary with transport, most of the car is not the engine.
Even in the engine bay a significant amount of the hardware is ancillary to the motive power unit:



clutch
gearbox
drive shaft(s)
suspension
cooing system
wash-wipe pump and bottles, etc.
Thus, most of an existing car could be retained except for the actual motive unit. The complexity would arise in terms of all the individual layouts and finite element modelling which has left very little empty spacein newer models.
Ironically it may be easier to fit electric enginers in older larger saloons and estates than in family hatchbacks.
A possibly more complex issue is the installation and disposition for frash safety of the power cells/fuel supplies, but I have no doubt these issues can be dealt with.

ONQ.


----------



## spursman (27 Nov 2009)

colm5 said:


> Can you show us this data please?


 

colm - show me the data that says it has peaked?


----------



## spursman (27 Nov 2009)

one article for example - even US production is starting to increase again as higher prices enables companies to get oil that was previoulsy too expensive to extract. it was "predicted" that the US would have run totally out of oil long before now

"NEW YORK (MarketWatch) - This year's U.S. crude oil production is on track to show its biggest year-on-year jump since 1970, an analysis of historical data by Platts showed Friday. If the 5.268 million barrels a day of average production level, recorded in the first ten months of the year, holds through December, this year's output will rise 6.4% from 2008, the Platts analysis of Energy Information Administration data showed. This year's production level will be the highest since 2004, when output averaged 5.419 million barrels a day."


----------



## sunrock (27 Nov 2009)

I am not an expert on nuclear energy or indeed how much of the raw material fuel..uranium is left in the world.YOU say that at present consumption rates there is enough uranium for 80 years.Well if oil got scarce and the amount of nuclear power stations increased 3 or4 fold then we are talking about 20 years before all the uranium is used up....but no doubt people will say that some new uranium or technology will have been discovered by then...MAYBE
Some time in the not too distant future mankind is going to have to adjust to a world where fossil fuels like coal,gas and oil and nuclear energy is going to be so expensive that it will only be sparingly used by the average citizen.
O.K.  maybe some new soucre of energy will be made available to solve the worlds energy needs......then again maybe not.


----------



## colm5 (30 Nov 2009)

sunrock said:


> Look into what? Please explain and debate if you have different views


 

Using cell phone battrey comparsions is very valid, and makes perfect sense. 


National Energy
- Ireland has a 44TWh onshore wind potential and at least 10 times that for offshore Wind generation. Lets call it 400TWh. And thats it just wind power.
- Current total national electricity consumption is 27TWh 
- 400/27= about 15 times our consumption.
- Current install base of wind = 1.2GW
www.iwea.com
www.ewea.org
www.sei.ie

Electric cars are not expensive to buy or run. Infact, they make good sense when you look at some numbers

Typcial battery - 24kWh
Range - 100 miles tpyically for 24kWh
cost of electricity - 15cent per kWh, night rate more importantly is about 6 cent / kWh
100 miles for 24 * 6 = 1.46euro (compare that to cost of petrol/diesel at about 9cent a mile = 9 euro per 100 miles, variable of course)

So, for financial viability, take Ireland as an example
toe imports for private cars - 2.2Mtoe/yr
cost of 1 toe is about 300 euro at a very low guess, but its hard to find out how petrol is calculated in ktoe. If its
1:1, there are about 900 liters petrol in 1 toe, = 500 euro approx, excluding vat etc....
Cost of fuel importes for cars (@ 300euro/toe) = 2.2x10^6 x300 = 660 milion/year (low estimate)

1GW of installed wind power = 2.2TWh per year (www.eirgrid.com)
Assume all batteries can be charged over night.
Assume 30kWh including losses for a 24kWh charge, which is alot.
=73000000 full charges per year @ 160km per charge at and avg of 130gCO2/km
=1.5184 MtCo2 saved per year 
= 600Ktoe per year (assume 1toe = 2.5 ton Co2)
= 27% of all private car fuel usage

So over a quater of all private cars could be run with a 1GW installed power base. On shore wind costs less that 4 cents per kWh to install.

cost of carbon saved per year = 1.5 million tonnes * (anywhere between 10 -100 euro per ton)

Cost of cars = $25 -35K

So, my point is when you look into it, its not that crazy an idea and you cannot just say 'its not possible'.
An infrastructure is needed. 
Grid up grades and reinforcements are under way.
Fuel imports saved per year for 1GW = 160 million, plus cost of CO2 = 200 million per year approx, which would be much better staying in the country, creating employemnt in the energy industry rather than exporting our cash for fuel. (and this is at 300 euro per ton, at 500 euro, then 350million euro.)

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/11/091116103451.htm
http://www.nrel.gov/vehiclesandfuels/vsa/pdfs/40485.pdf
http://www.byd.com/highlight.php?index=0
http://www.byd.com/showroom.php?car=e6
http://www.rationalwalk.com/?p=1344


my rough $0.02.


----------



## colm5 (30 Nov 2009)

spursman said:


> colm - show me the data that says it has peaked?


 
I didn't make a statement about it peaking or not, you did! Do you have a scientifically reviewed source?


----------



## spursman (30 Nov 2009)

heres my evidence.

oil is half the price it was last year. if it had peaked it would have risen far far higher and would still be at record levels


----------



## Derek123 (30 Nov 2009)

Spursman, you're chancing your arm but I really wish you were right. See here . for an Irish book on the subject and follow the links to the IEA, ASPO, Energy Watch Group and many more. Oil has plateaued for the past four years and gone up by multiples since 2000.


----------



## colm5 (1 Dec 2009)

Chris said:


> I don't see anything wrong with the comment. Here are some facts:
> - estimated kWh needed to replace gasoline for vehicles in the US: 1300 billion kWh


 
This is the problem with that calculation. Of course, if you want to run a V12, 8 litre, 6 ton, 4x4 to a Mcdonalds and back twice a day, you will need a lot of energy.

The US is extremely wasteful of energy because its cheap. When gas 'peaks' to $4 a gallon, as it did, sales of large cars collapse.

So divide everything by 4-6, or more...for fuel efficiency measures.


----------



## Chris (1 Dec 2009)

colm5 said:


> This is the problem with that calculation. Of course, if you want to run a V12, 8 litre, 6 ton, 4x4 to a Mcdonalds and back twice a day, you will need a lot of energy.
> 
> The US is extremely wasteful of energy because its cheap. When gas 'peaks' to $4 a gallon, as it did, sales of large cars collapse.
> 
> So divide everything by 4-6, or more...for fuel efficiency measures.



The source I used for the calculation of US gasoline consumption already discounted by a factor of 5: [broken link removed]


----------



## colm5 (1 Dec 2009)

So they did, apologies, I didn't read it.
But I really think the rest of the information on that link should be used, as below. The US, of all places, should realise the importance of their resource. No more wars for a while?

Its a good article.

"5,200 billion kilowatt-hours / 4 = 1,300 billion kilowatt-hours

Here it is. This is how much electricity we will need in order to replace gasoline.

Let’s say we want to get this electricity from a renewable source. How does this much electricity compare to, say, wind energy? For this, we take a look at the estimated wind energy potential for the top 5 states1:

North Dakota 1,210 billion kilowatt-hours
Texas 1,190
Kansas 1,070
South Dakota 1,030
Montana 1.020

As you can see, gasoline could be almost totally replaced by the wind energy of North Dakota _by itself_.

The coming switch from gasoline to electricity is not lost on the big utility companies. They see electric vehicles as a major new market for electricity, and especially a market that will consume electricity mostly overnight, when the utilities have a lot of excess capacity."


----------



## spursman (1 Dec 2009)

Derek123 said:


> Spursman, you're chancing your arm but I really wish you were right. See here . for an Irish book on the subject and follow the links to the IEA, ASPO, Energy Watch Group and many more. Oil has plateaued for the past four years and gone up by multiples since 2000.


 

The aspo is a highly biased group. the IEA is only a group of business people. you need to speak to geologists and engineers about this. i have and none of them think peak oil is here


----------



## colm5 (1 Dec 2009)

spursman said:


> The aspo is a highly biased group. the IEA is only a group of business people. you need to speak to geologists and engineers about this. i have and none of them think peak oil is here


 
OK, can I see their scientifically reviewed literature please ?

There are a couple of geologists and engineers here who would disagree with your mates.



I don't have an opionion either way on peak oil, but I would like to see some balanced, non OPEC, non industry, published, peer reviewed literature backing up your statements


----------



## Chris (1 Dec 2009)

colm5 said:


> Typcial battery - 24kWh
> Range - 100 miles tpyically for 24kWh
> cost of electricity - 15cent per kWh, night rate more importantly is about 6 cent / kWh
> 100 miles for 24 * 6 = 1.46euro (compare that to cost of petrol/diesel at about 9cent a mile = 9 euro per 100 miles, variable of course)
> ...



I think you 24kWh per 100 miles is still a bit optimistic. The Mini E has a consumption of about 21kWh per 100km which is about 34kWh per 100 miles. Most importantly, this is for a very small car not an average family size car.

Nevertheless, your calculations are very interesting and certainly highlight the viability of electrically powered cars for some of the population. The question is how many people can and will switch to something with still a very limited range.

Of course it only makes sense to introduce electrically powered cars if the electricity is sourced from renewable energy. Per your calculation 2.2 tWh could power about a quarter of all cars (based on 30 kWh charges). Let's increase that number to allow for larger saloon vehicles and currently available cars, to 40 kWh. To make a nice easy number let's say that 2.2 tWh would fuel 20% of all cars.

So we would need to install an additional 2.2 tWh of wind energy. There are about 1100 wind turbines in Ireland, so it would take another 1100 to power 20% of cars. With demand for wind turbines greatly increasing, a turbine now costs on average about €2 million; with increasing demand that cost will only go up. So that would be an investment of about €2.2 billion to power 20% of cars. Generally speaking not a 'huge' investment, but given the state of the country, I can't see this happening in the short term.

I still believe that technology, investment and demand for electric vehicles and their power supply are far behind. This will certainly change in the future, but I won't be banking on it to viably replace oil based fuels any time soon.


----------



## colm5 (1 Dec 2009)

Chris,
These are not my assumptions, go look at byd.com, or , or any other car manufacturer of EV. 24kWh per 100 miles is typcial, not extraordinary, and is for a family car. BYD have leap froged BMW and all auto makers, and plan to be the biggest car manufacturer in the world by 2025. Mr. Buffett agrees and bought 10% of the company, after they refused his offer to buy 25%. (not that this means anything, but not a bad endorsement)

The range is not limited, 70% of all journeys are < 20km. (again look at ) 

There are alot less that 1100 turbines. There are 1100 MW, which would be about 600-800 turbines. Turbines continually increase in capacity. There is a 3 MW on shore available, and a 5MW off shore, with a 10MW in test.

100 -200 turbines on the offshore Arklow bank would power 27% of all private cars.

Investment is made by private or semistate companies, not the state. Grid upgrades are happening regardless of private EV introduction, at a cost of 4bn to 2025.

It can already replace oil based fuels, and is already viable, so I can't agree with your last point.


----------



## Chris (1 Dec 2009)

colm5 said:


> Chris,
> These are not my assumptions, go look at byd.com, or , or any other car manufacturer of EV. 24kWh per 100 miles is typcial, not extraordinary, and is for a family car. BYD have leap froged BMW and all auto makers, and plan to be the biggest car manufacturer in the world by 2025. Mr. Buffett agrees and bought 10% of the company, after they refused his offer to buy 25%. (not that this means anything, but not a bad endorsement)



The problem is though that any large increase in damands for batteries will increase demand and price for the rare earth metals, and other raw materials, which are expensive and also finite. No doubt this company is going to do well, as will others. I have investments in renewable energy myself, but I don't think they will deliver as much as what is hoped for.



colm5 said:


> The range is not limited, 70% of all journeys are < 20km. (again look at )



The average journey may be <20km, but the average daily distance traveled is a lot more than 20km. You need to consider the entire distance driven between the charges that would happen over night. Now 160km would be enough for my daily commute (and probably the majority of commutes), but is by far too little for regular longer journeys I make. This would mean having a second petrol/diesel based car. Or a combination like the Prius, but I can get a more fuel efficient diesel car than the Prius.



colm5 said:


> There are alot less that 1100 turbines. There are 1100 MW, which would be about 600-800 turbines. Turbines continually increase in capacity. There is a 3 MW on shore available, and a 5MW off shore, with a 10MW in test.
> 
> 100 -200 turbines on the offshore Arklow bank would power 27% of all private cars.



Nope, 1032 is the number from earlier this year.
According to IWEA there are 1032 turbines in 113 farms: http://www.iwea.com/index.cfm/page/faqs
Latest numbers I have found are that there are now 119 active wind farms, so a couple more makes roughly 1100.

I agree that turbines are getting better and are able to generate more electricity. But with this also comes a higher price. The cost per MW is between $1.2 and $2.6 million dollars. More powerfull turbines are not reducing the price by much at all, so the total cost of adding the additional turbines will still be the same.



colm5 said:


> Investment is made by private or semistate companies, not the state. Grid upgrades are happening regardless of private EV introduction, at a cost of 4bn to 2025.
> 
> It can already replace oil based fuels, and is already viable, so I can't agree with your last point.



Yes, I agree, but public and private entities are not able to get the amount of investments needed in the short term.
While electricity can replace some oil usage it is not currently possible to do so on any significant scale. As I've said before this will happen gradually, but I don't think that it will happen fast enough. I also don't believe that it will be as easily possible as is being promoted. Yes, some of the necessary technology exists, but any sudden increases in demand will make renewables and electric cars a lot less attractive.


----------



## colm5 (1 Dec 2009)

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.


----------



## Newyork204 (1 Dec 2009)

If the price of oil was ever switched to Euros, which it should be, there would be a war.  Why do you think the US military went there?  Duh?  Sadaam was going to start selling his oil in Euros.  Its a simple equation.  The dollar is crap now.  The only two things propping it up are a) oil is still sold in this currency and b) they still have the best military on the planet backed by Great Britain of course.

-Wesley


----------



## shammy feen (3 Dec 2009)

I live and work in China now...its extremely busy over here and has the buzz that Ireland had during the Celtic Tiger years.


----------



## Purple (10 Dec 2009)

didum said:


> Peak oil is the point in time when the maximum rate of global petroleum extraction is reached, after which the rate of production enters terminal decline and the price will inevitably climb with only minor variations in accordance with the economic situation pertaining at any particular time.  Its hardly a fallacy despite what the oil companies would like you to believe.  Oil, gas and their associated products were organic and are most certainly finite - long as geological time appears to most of us.  Fiddling at extracting from tar sands in Canada and desperately trying to exploit small fields in the relatively young Atlantic Ocean show the chronic state of the industry - they know they can't keep up with increasing demand - greed makes them desperate liars.



Peak Oil is when the rate of increase in demand is the same as, or greater than, the volume of new oil discovered. Technology increases yields from new fields, and makes extraction from oil fields viable again, but eventually we will run out. That's not just no more oil for cars but no more plastic for everything from computers to artificial joints. 
The whole line of "it's all greed, greeed!! They are evil, I tell you, evil!" can be seen through by anyone older than 9. We need energy and oil is the best natural source. Without it live would be much harder and many of the poorest people in the world would be hit hardest (hydro-electric power is bugger all use in much of Africa where there's no energy infrastructure and electricity is generated locally using a diesel generator).


----------



## sunrock (22 Dec 2009)

Thanks to the experts for their informative posts and viewpoints.
So the future is electricity from renewables and we are going to have electric cars on the roads.Hopefully this will all pan out without major hitches and the average joe soap will be able to drive his car around as before.We are all addicted to cars and the amount of energy expended driving them around is so wasteful.We really should have more rules about wasteful driving such as
1 only one drive to the supermarket once a week.
2 Use public transport where available
3 compulsory car sharing
4 Public transport for any journey over 30 miles

I would agree that the above measures are not exactly a vote winner but a start has to be made.Whats the point of saving heating oil by insulating a house and then going for needless drives in the car? And no point in increasing the price of petrol as this won`t deter the rich.....the poorer motorist thinks twice before getting into his car as it is.


----------



## Purple (22 Dec 2009)

sunrock said:


> Thanks to the experts for their informative posts and viewpoints.
> So the future is electricity from renewables and we are going to have electric cars on the roads.Hopefully this will all pan out without major hitches and the average joe soap will be able to drive his car around as before.We are all addicted to cars and the amount of energy expended driving them around is so wasteful.We really should have more rules about wasteful driving such as
> 1 only one drive to the supermarket once a week.
> 2 Use public transport where available
> ...



If China and the USA don't do anything then there's bugger all point in us doing anything either.


----------



## sunrock (23 Dec 2009)

Agree with you on that point.I argued in a post more than a year ago that I wouldn`t advise anyone to use less heating oil or electricity below their comfort level just so the drivers of SUVs will get a few months extra motoring as oil runs out.
The thing is though, we need to reduce energy use just to save money.


----------

