# rising oil prices



## joe sod (16 Mar 2005)

just wondering what other people think about the effect of rising oil prices. How far do people think it will go and where will it be in 2006 and 2007. The general consensus is that rising oil prices will cause inflation to rise. The big question is whether this will cause interest rates to rise. Some people think that it will in order to control inflation, other people think that interest rates will stay low in order to keep the economy growing. My personal opinion is that American interest rates will keep rising but European interest rates will stay low as Europe is more worried about a stagnant economy than inflation. Just wondering do other people agree with this and if they do what effect will it have on Ireland.


----------



## Chrisb (16 Mar 2005)

I think it is more important to look a llittle bit further into the future to assess the effect of oil prices. It is very clear that there is only limited oil on this planet; what isn't addressed enough is that peak production of oil will be reached by about 2010 (according to www.peakoil.net/). From that point on it will become substantially more expensive to harvest the oil, and the amount of oil produced will decline, no matter how much companies will try to increase production.
It's anyones guess how bad the effect on the world wide economy will be, but I don't think it looks too rosy.


----------



## sherman (16 Mar 2005)

What do people think of switching to nuclear power instead? Countries like France and Japan get up to 80% of their power from nuclear - leaving them laughing at the moment.

Its about time we took some hard decisions in this country, rather than buying incredibly expensive oil for the chronically inefficient Moneypoint etc. or destroying what's left of our precious bogs in order to fuel peat stations in Biffo's constituency.


----------



## Chrisb (16 Mar 2005)

I think nuclear energy will soon have to be considered, but not neccesserily adopted. There was a program on RTE in the last 12 months about a windfarm being set up off the cost, in the sea. I actually saw the turbines from a plane one day, flying out of Dublin. Apparently they are much more efficient at sea, as the wind is not deflected by hills, mountains, towns, forests etc. And they sure aren't as much an eye sore as they are on land. This along with equipping households with solar pannels and possibly installing tidal power plants should make up for a substantial amount of energy.


----------



## heinbloed1 (19 Mar 2005)

*rising oilprices*

According to english.aljazeera.net/NR/...E992EF.htm
the OPEC does have no powers anymore to dictate the oil price.That means free market.
The nuclear option does not exist:to cover the worlds energy demand in the form of hydrogen-cars do not run on el.batteries-it  would
need tens of thousands of nuclear power plants.Just to supply the existing 400 with "fuel" the demand of uranium has chased the price up to twice the amount it did cost 4 years  ago.That means that the price of nuclear fuel is strongly connected to the price of oil-whatever the price for a conventional Kilowatt is it must be met by competitors.Imagine we build the tens of thousands of nuclear power plants.......at the moment there are only 400 of them world wide!
But anyhow:the costs of nuclear power are so high that neither French nor Japanese power producers can cover them!They all need state subsidies,this is contravening the idea of a free energy market( BNF had been bailed out several times).In Germany-they claim to have safest nuclear technology-every nuclear power plant is insured with 250.000.000 €s(twohundredfiftymillions).The cars on the car park of the power plant are better insured!!One Chernobyl in the state of New York or in Dublin or central Europe makes every financial calculation crap.We had two accidents "known" to us in 50 years .With 400 plants.......With tenthousend power plants it would be.......use the calculator yourself!                                              And what is left over from "recycling"nuclear waste they dump in the sea ......                                                             Compatible are only renewables,the Fraunhofer Institute (Germany) announced only this week that they have increased the efficiency of solar cells from the existing 4% to a staggering 30%.Simply by using a lens to concentrate the sunlight reaching the solar cell.This is already making the production of electricity cheaper than any other form of electricity production-at least in Italy and further south,California etc..We don't need rocket science to get an effective solution to the worlds energy demand.Simple market forces would do the trick.But not piracy!Stealing from the neighbours oil tank or just from our own children's future is no option.


----------



## ClubMan (19 Mar 2005)

*Re: rising oilprices*

Nuclear power will most likely have to be considered as one potential option probably sooner rather than later. Of course, any attempt at a rational debate on this issue in this country will just exercise the likes of the populist, knee-jerk, reactionary, [broken link removed] headers. Just look at how impossible it is to have a rational debate about incineration for example! We don't want bin charges, landfills or incinerators and yet can't recognise the contradictions. Similarly we don't want to reduce our energy usage but neither do we want monstrous windmills or nuclear power plants. Go figure... :\ 

By the way, anybody who believes that rising oil prices will impact economies in the short/medium term should presumably be buying shares in that sector.


----------



## joe sod (19 Mar 2005)

*Re: rising oilprices*

I agree with alot of heinbloeds posting, i don't think nuclear technology in its present form can replace oil, however there needs to be alot more research into nuclear technology. I think if oil goes over $100 $150 $200 a barrel the global economy is finished. Globalisation is based on using cheap energy to take advantage of cheap labour. Currently labour costs are the biggest cost in producing a product so we see raw materials being transported to the cheap labour in china and finished products being transported from china to western countries. What happens if energy and raw materials become the biggest cost, what happens if energy costs decide what products get produced and where they get produced. Of course there are alternatives to oil but none are cheap, oil at $200 a barrel would still be cheap in comparison to some of the alternatives. So just as oils cheapness shaped the 20th century, oils dearness will probably shape the 21st


----------



## heinbloed1 (21 Mar 2005)

*rising oilprices*

When labour costs increase it drives invention toward automatising.
When energy costs increase it drives invention backward?
Certainly not.Well,except for those who have no future anyhow.
The sun sends no bill.And everyone can make use of it for free-if that means the collapse of capitalism than let it be.
You do not have throw good money after bad.You do not have go into the coal mines.You do not have to look after leukemia/skin cancer sick children.And you don't have to send your children to war to save your pension or to avoid dying of fuel poverty.
A bill of a few thousand €s or $s for heating per winter will put a strain on any personal pension plan.Investing  in a sustainable heating for example is your hands.Don't expect any free oil for pensioners! 
Don't forget that energy has to be marketed in competition. As long as someone can make money with it.If one major source becomes more expensive than the competitor will rise prices as well.Who would forbid that?!
Well , only Communists or other Mafiosos would make sure there is no competition.
And we consumers should keep in mind that we pay for the band,so let them play the tunes we really like to hear.The sun sends no bill......the global economy was not in danger because slavery was abolished.Slavery did put the global economy in danger,so it was abolished.And if fossile/nuclear energy  puts the global economy in danger than we will abolish that as well.No problem.Economical darwinism will do its job.If we let it.
And when  oil goes above the $100.- (or € 80.-) limit than ALL renewables would be cheaper/competitive.So why looking at nuclear power???We here in Eire wrap and pack combustible household rubbish in bales for the day when oil costs € 60.-.It was planned to keep these bales for a few years and sell them .....But than some Mafiosos bought the "Herhof " system(the company that invented the rubbish baling and still has a patent on it) and you guess what will happen....


----------



## ClubMan (21 Mar 2005)

*Re: rising oilprices*

Sorry - you lost me completely there. Any chance you could summarise your points in an easier to digest form please?


----------



## heinbloed1 (22 Mar 2005)

Well,Club Man,I lost myself.The original question was if the rising oil price will effect the  bank rates.Either in the US or in Europe.My opinion is that they might effect  the US rates more than the ECB's.Since The EU is more able to react to changing market situations than the US economy.
By the way:Is it constitutional legal for a state to opt out from the US?Just wondering if Alaska or California could do the necessary thing them self.
And finding the thread again:From a certain price per  barrel all answers except nuclear energy are an option.Nuclear energy has no option because the (eternal) costs can not be calculated.


----------



## Tonka (22 Mar 2005)

*Nuclear is back already*

albeit in China, once the UK realises how best to reuse their vast stock of Uranium I think the era of the many small reactors will soon be upon us. 

about 2010 I'd say.


----------



## heinbloed1 (22 Mar 2005)

*nuclear power ...*

Hi Tonka!
The "small nuclear power plants" can cause considerable costs.
Northern Korea has a small power plant-5 megawatts.That is what a modern wind turbine produces,in the front of Hamburg ,up and running and delivering at the benches of the river Elbe.And no trouble about it.Brokdorf ,just behind it, has a nuclear power plant - the most modern type of -and it won't make more electricity than a few of the modern wind turbines.Without depopulating eastern Timor.Without any risk to the people of Hamburg.Not even worth it to fight a war for. 
Ever been to  Sibiria?Dozens of small power plants rotting in the ice.Delivering nothing but death.


----------



## Tonka (22 Mar 2005)

*We have a lot of Nuclear Waste already*

Rather than create more waste I would suggest we reuse it and reuse it as we cannot afford to store the stuff for 10 m years. 

The small PIUS type reactor is probably the only game in town for Europe. It can be put underground and has built in safety systems that shut it down pronto unliek traditional designs with primary secondary etc cooling systems 

See

[broken link removed]


----------



## heinbloed1 (23 Mar 2005)

*don't waste my time and money!*

We have enough drawings and plans and other funny ideas in the drawers,Tonka.What you dug out is an idea from 1996 (!) that had never been build .Why?Could it be that such trash is just good enough for the third world?In the case of your link for Brasilia?The Brasilians have signed an agreement to opt out from nuclear power,one of their reactors(have they more than actually this only one?) had been build on an earthquake gap !The entire development aid they got from the world bank for years went into that banger(made in Germany),causing the financial ruin of the nation!
But we can get of the hook power plants for very little money (compared to your Jules Verne project)   .Check the Japan Times of today:[broken link removed]
As far as I understand no nation that has experience in the handling of nuclear power is interested in any further
"investments".Just something than can be sold to irresponsible gouvernments  and war mongers.


----------



## Devilsadvocate (23 Mar 2005)

*Am I the only one getting a headache?*

Heinbloed I've little doubt there are some worthy points of interest buryed within your posts but it's beyond me to tease them all out.

Along Clubmans suggestions could I ask that you paragraph your individual points for clearer reading?

Thank you.

To get back to the OPs point it seems that without some form of global recession continued growth in oil demand will mean a steady and continued growth in the price of oil.

Contrary to Heinbloeds assertion the US market is considerably more flexible economically overall and can adapt to this whereas European growth overall is (and has been for some time) in the doldrums. Ironically the falling dollar however is serving to shield us from most of the (dollar priced) oil increases while it damages us competatively.

As for the future there has been many advances in nuclear power and many more on the way. The notion of 'free' energy is an oxymoron ("the sun doesn't send a bill?) since the research/development and build costs are really what counts vis a vis nuclear energy.


----------



## joe sod (24 Mar 2005)

*Re: Am I the only one getting a headache?*

"As for the future there has been many advances in nuclear power and many more on the way"

This is the blase attitude alot of people have about technology generally and nuclear power in particular, in other words that advances in technology will save our bacon like it has over the last 100 years. Unfortunately the people most sceptical about technology's ability to save the day are engineers and technologists. Technology is not going to solve this problem nor is economics. Ive just been looking at the International Energy Outlook for energy consumption to 2025. The graph shows that by 2025 we will be more dependant on fossil fuels than we are today. Their projections for world energy consumption is that oil will constitute 40%, gas 23%, coal 22%, renewables 7%, nuclear 4%. Of course these projections assume that all these fossil fuels will still be available to extract in these quantities.
The only real solution to the problem is drastic reductions in energy use. Either we choose to do it or it will be forced on us anyway. This is actually a political problem and if politicians choose to ignore it the political system, even democracy will be the casualty


----------



## heinbloed1 (24 Mar 2005)

*Re.:*

Mea culpa,no insult was meant by my side.
On the oil price:As far as I am aware the US (home-)industry consumes more than twice as much energy to produce the same amount of wealth as the EU home industry.Correct or not?
Therefore they have a considerable higher problem facing accelerating energy prices.
Saving energy -as joe sod recommends- would make them even more incompatible as they are already.In China the same good produced costs only a fraction of energy what it costs to make it in the US.Free trade-once a flagship of the US- is not existing anymore.Marlboro and Coke made one step in the waltz to Asia-but it does swing back!The US gouvernment complain about the trade surplus of their Chinese trade partners was only the beginning of the last act.                                                                 Here in the EU energy saving is big business,and in the US?As soon as an US politician only mentions  an effective change in consumers/industry behavior he well be brought to the courts.See what happens to Arni's incentives in California.To stay compatible with the US wasters even German-US and Japanese-US car manufacturers are using the "legal" way  to challenge the only way forward  to a sustainable future."These laws are made for you and for me..."as Mr. Guthry sung in the 30s.You know,the trap door song. 
Back home in Japan 10l/100km cars are banned,so in China.But in the US?
Here in Europe we have a social system that allows for slowing down the economy without riots and the need to keep guns under the pillow or putting a good deal of the population in work camps (slave camps like Angola/US would be unthinkable) where cheap goods are provided for an ailing working class.                                    One black out in New York and the mob takes it's toll.They need it-the energy.Millionaires here can still go  into a pub or wherever without hired gunmen to protect their lives.As it used to be in the US 30 years ago.When they used only half the amount of energy to get rich.

The largest energy user of the world (here il) is the US Army.No where in the rest of the world such an ineffective/useless club of poverty drawn (virtually illiterate ,30%!!) money addicts are needed to keep the  limping horse of US hegemony on the course.Even China teaches their soldiers to save energy.
And,to get to the point:
Would any one please furnish us with a balance sheet ?
Where is the breaking point in €s or $s for nuclear power to  compete other forms of electric energy? In cents per Kilowatt hour please! And don't forget to include any costs.Like guarding(Terrorists!!) nuclear waste for a few hundred thousand years by the US army and so on....
This is Ask About Money here after all,so talk in numbers please and verify them.
I could deliver the numbers for alternative energy if there was a need by the community....


----------



## setanta (24 Mar 2005)

*Re: Re.:*

oil supply is limited, no doubting that. whether all known deposits are accurate is another matter. How much oil is in chechna or georgia or indeed in alaska or canada? but whether we have a right to  burn it up in our generation is another matter and I personally dont think we have. Take a spin in the country and look at the size of some of the houses we are building, for smaller families. With our climate heating such houses and keeping them up to standard from Nov to April costs and I wonder has anyone building a bigger house given any thought to this? also all those single houses in rural locations, of which I have nothing against but WHEN oil does finally become scarce and expensive there will be an added transport costs here too. A point that does puzzle however: China is consuming vast quanties of oil and will continue to do so. The citizens of China are expected to purchase more and more cars as the country becomes more prosperous. Yet we are informed that the wages in China are low - very low by our standards- allowing that the Chinese government does not clobber oil with punative taxes , how do the Chinese citizens  pay for oil at current or projected prices?  I am referring to perrsonal consumption and not state/facrory. and finally I too think we     ( the world) will have to move to 'cleaner' nuclear energy in the future.


----------



## heinbloed1 (24 Mar 2005)

*facts please*

Why do you think that nuclear power is "clean"?Where do you get this propaganda from ?From the same sources that "doubted" the climate change a couple of weeks ago?
Furnish us with numbers .What does it cost?


----------



## PaybackPayroll (24 Mar 2005)

*Nuclear Fusion.*

Fusion Reactor:
news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4328597.stm

Maybe the money should be spent on sorting out the mess we've already made with DU, Chernobyl, Sellafield/Windscale etc.


----------



## joe sod (25 Mar 2005)

*Re: Nuclear Fusion.*

I just had a look at the article on nuclear fusion and I hope it dispels any notion that nuclear fusion is just going to appear seamlessly online to replace fossil fuels as they run out. It exists in theory and in futuristic startrek technology along with "beam me up scotty". If it ever becomes possible on earth it will require enormous budgets and resources and take decades of sustained effort. It also won't be achieved by international cooperation but by nations or maybe continents acting in their own self interest. No nation if it achieves it will want to share it with other nations as if it were some sort of internet technology. Afterall the nuclear technology we now have was only made possible by America at war acting in its own self interest with military resources. It was made possible in Russia by Stalin using all of its resources to achieve it (so much resources that people starved). No private enterprise or corporation has touched nuclear technology since even though it is now 60 years in existence. This shows that even the limited nuclear technology we now have, it is still too difficult and too hot for private enterprise to go near.


----------



## heinbloed1 (25 Mar 2005)

*nuclear investment*

Is anyone here that has invested in nuclear energy?
How did it work out?
I,as a tax payer ,have lost a lot of money already !!


----------



## techman1 (5 Apr 2005)

*back to the future*

I have been looking at alot of analyis of the energy market for the next 20 to 30 years. No serious analyst is expecting some magic new cheap energy source. They predict that oil will get more and more scarce and more and more expensive. Many analysts are now predicting a return to coal as oil gets scarcer. Coal can be liquified and gasified but it is not cheap and not clean. Currently coal is still abundant but by its nature it can't be extracted quickly enough because it is not a liquid like oil. So what ever way you look at it the global economy is going to run into a brick wall, there is no alternative to serious cutbacks in global energy use. It is interesting to note that mankind abandoned coal in favour of oil because oil was superior to coal. If mankind is forced to return to coal it will be the first time that man has had to go back to using an older technology. It would be like iron age man going back to using bronze.


----------



## HB1 (10 Apr 2005)

Well,the people of the Netherlands have used windpower to create the Netherlands.The mills pumped the water into the sea.Then they switched to steampower for the pumps,then to electricity created by (nuclear) powerplants.Now they use more and more windturbines to replace the nuclear powerplants.And they are not going back(smiley).
HB


----------



## techman1 (11 Apr 2005)

The dutch have been masters at using resources they have at their disposal. When the dutch were using windpower to reclaim land from the sea they didn't have a densely populated country of 10 million on a land area less than half the size of ireland. This population can only be maintained by importing energy (in the form of fossil fuels) and raw materials from abroad. Only a fool would believe that this population and its standard of living can be maintained by windpower blowing across the netherlands. In fact the population of Europe cannot be maintained by using European resources, it can only be maintained by importing resources from third countries. This is what globalisation is all about, and globalisation needs cheap energy in order that everything can be moved around the planet.


----------



## Unregistered (12 Apr 2005)

There is no doubt that we are living on a standard that is not sustainable.The developed countries have to save 80 % on fossile resources incl. nuclear power.Any alternative form of  energy resp.the combination of several forms of them can provide for the other 20%.(Half of Irelands energy demand is used for homes-and the zero energy homes are available of the hook.)That is the opinion of the IEA-certainly not a "green phantasts" organisation.The sun propably provides your roof/backgarden with more energy than you use at all-around 700 watts per square meter.The harvest is up to everyone.
The Dutch are fulfilling their promise under the Kyoto agreement.With the help of their brains,their feeling for being responsible .That is something that religious nations don't have.A priest killed in a German concentration camp(Bonhoeffer) said that we have to live as if God doesn't exist-we are responsible for what we can influence.
That the oil prices are increasing leads to energy price increases.To price increases generally.Capitalism gives us a tool that shoudn't be underestimated.And the major energy user (in national terms),the U.S., is calling for communism.They want to abandon the mechanisms of the free market with the aid of protectionistic laws.......Fine.Otherwises nuclear power wouldn't have a chance.
When intelectual fossiles are the decision makers of a society this society is determined for extinction.
Arnold Schwarzenegger phones home every day to see if his children have done their homework,Daddy Bush never did so....


----------



## HB1 (14 Apr 2005)

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/08B97BCF-7BE6-4F1D-A846-7ACB9B0F8894.htm
There is a lot of fiddling going on,surely Shell wasn't the last company to adjust their existing field capacitys.The third last sentence of the article above gives food for thought,at least for me.


----------



## roker (17 Apr 2005)

We have not considered Bio fuels. Made from beet crops. The Brazilians have been using gasahol for years. ( petrol and alcohol mixed)

Roker


----------



## heinbloed (18 Apr 2005)

Beet are about the worst agriculture for the environment that we have in Irland.It is a monoculture that demands heavy spraying and weeding.It is a typical Sargent Trevor idea-when other brighter people have dimissed it he picks it up.The EU and the US and the former USSR have done plenty of research inthe field,check google.Sugar in brassilia is growing in the form of canes after destroing the natural environment and with the aid of slaves it is-since there is no tax on methanol/ethanol-a little bit cheaper than the conventioanal fuel.Except for NLG,LPG,oil from plants ect..Sargent Trevor is trying to lure farmers to vote for his income.He is a mafiosi in my opinion.During the last election the lady on his side made publicly the announcement that "nothing has to change for farmers"(on RTE)-the worst polluters in the EU!!! There is no sugar industry cheaper than the unsubsidised sugar industry.But that is history.Unless some idiots jump onto the waggon.
Sugar cane is several times more productive than sugar beet.Compare like with like -calories per hectar is the base.The cane grows several meters high ,the beet a few inches.Sugar cane needs no weedkiller,it grows by itself for several years without reseeding,without ever seeing a tractor running on diesel.Sugar cane factories are energy autark,they burn the leftover fibres to produce the energy to run them.And still have plenty of surplus energy to sell to the grid.That is nowadays technic.Without any subsidies and development aids.The sugar beet is a German first world war developement.As dead as a "Panzerkreuzer",a battelship. 
Aid to the third world aid (that will keep us the terrorists away) means opening of the market and NOT subsidising further  dependancy.Don't throw good money after bad.And don't take us for stupid.
You are voting Green ?I did so by tradition until I met the Irish Greens.I never met so much hypocracy and ignorance with any politicans before-and I met a lot of them.


----------



## z102 (20 Apr 2005)

It's getting even better.$120.- per barrel predicts the IMF.See http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/E161F3F4-4602-4C09-AB80-8B121C0EABA0.htm


----------



## HB1 (23 Apr 2005)

(I don't want to push that theme to far ,tell me when it get's out of hand.)
To heat up the discussion here is an other one.
$ 380.- per barrel:
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/73CE8286-740C-482B-8150-DA57696BC02F.htm
I don't assume that the dollar will still be the currency to pay with for it in 2015.
But the $ 380.- per barrel is still cheaper than nuclear power.So there is a good chance that it realy is compatible at that price.....and what can be done will be done.


----------



## techman1 (25 Apr 2005)

Even though I think that oil is going to get very scarce and very expensive and that it will propel the global economy into crisis I would take what Al Jazeera says with a large grain of salt. They have their own agenda which is an anti western one. The problem is that as the situation moves up the political scale, it will be used by different people to drive their own agendas. I think that western governments are discussing this problem behind the scenes but any measures they take will be presented to the public under the guise of tackling "global warming". It is interesting to note that Tony Blair has recently given the issue of global warming a high priority. There is even talk of Britain building a new generation of nuclear power plants after the next election to tackle "global warming"


----------



## Unregistered (26 Apr 2005)

But Britain has privatised the energy market , techman.Even when the atomic mafia -they are ,after all,comitting a crime on our future by influencing gouvernment decisions to fill their pockets- gets a say who will finance the project? You and me?Get your say and sign this petition:[broken link removed]
Billions are already lost in the pockets of those who are working-as you put it - behind the scenes.For this money  all EU homes could have had a PV solare panel and hyper insulation.
The British army is facing  an existency crisis.So guarding nuclear rubbish after running out of oil  seems to be a job guarantee for the next few hundred thousand years . That won't come cheap to all of us .
Will the children get new school books or will sargent ray get a new radio meter.That is the question.And how do army vehicles move? On hydrogene? They  would be  targets for bow and arrow ! A match strike could blow up an entire battalion plus whatever they guard.And don't tell us these guys don't smoke the dreadful weed....


----------



## cuchulainn (26 Apr 2005)

there was something in the sunday times last sunday ( cant recall which section) about some guy who says there is no global warming in fact he says greenland is getting colder and the ice packs are getting bigger. on oil, i suspect that the military will never run out of oil, take the second world war when oil was pretty scarce in Britain , there was still plenty to run the war effort. same today . petrol may get scarce or expensive but how many airplanes do the US military have in the air at any given time?. during the 2nd world war Britian was able to  bomb the This post will be deleted if not edited to remove bad language out of Germany night after night but when the war ended how many British Citizens could afford to take a european flight ( I know, bad example )?


----------

