Forget Property prices - the real elephant in the room is Energy

Utopian? Preached by evangelists? Sure. The word Nanotechnology is bandied around to describe any technology that uses small, miniscule parts. However the real description of nanotechnology is manipulation at the atomic or molecular level. If in the next 50 years, as has been mooted, this technology can be harnessed and used safely then it will be the answer to all our energy worries and more.

http://www.foresight.org/ has more information.

It seems to be unrealistic or touching on science fiction but I've been watching this with great interest ever since I produced my thesis at the end of the 90's and it has moved on at an extortinate rate. The Japanese seem to be very keen on it.

The downsides are pretty heavy and there are enough evil people in the world to stop the technology in it's tracks but if the downsides can be overcome and the technology developed in the right way then who knows.

I'm certainly hoping for my children and grandchildren and great grand children that it is more than just a pipe dream, because whatever the answers to the energy questions are they just create more questions.
 

I'll beg to differ ... that's not really what I take from the article.

What you say is true for the US (the lower 48 states anyway) but the point the article was making is that there's been very little exploration outside of the US & Canada in the last 20 years due to a combination of low prices and the determination of some governments to keep a lid on supply because they're worried more about future demand.

Nobody is denying that the ultimate physical amount of oil in the ground is determined by geology... but there's a lot more of it out there than some would have us believe (previous "peak" predictions have been well wrong) and currently global supply isn't constrained by geology, it is constrained by geopolitics and an "exploration deficit" over the last 20yrs.
 
EvilDoctorK said:
I'll beg to differ ... that's not really what I take from the article.
Click to expand...

I agree that the article is trying to suggest that there is endless suppies of crude if only politics and low oil prices are didn't constrain exploration. However it sows the seeds of the destruction of its own argument by showing how many wells have been drilled in the lower 48 resulting in no noticable difference in downwards supply trends.

Its all a matter of degree. Geo-politics and low exploration and investment rates by NOCs (national oil companies in Saudi etc.) undoubtably has some effects on supply at the margins. However this factor isn't going to change any time soon. These countries have the cop on to realise that oil is an appreciating asset so they have no incentive to increase production. (Why use up all your oil and gas as the UK has while prices are cheap when you could hang on to it and sell it for much higher prices later). Because of this we can't expect any action by NOCs to postpone peak oil.
 
Of course oil, gas will gradually become more scarcer and much dearer; but they will not run out in our lifetimes.
The increasing price of the cost of fuel will force people,except for the very rich, to use energy more sparingly and efficiently.
Insulated houses to the best standards,alternative energy will be tested and examined for its benefits.
I personally think great savings can be made by people driving less
and even flying less.This unfortunately will only happen when the cost proves prohibitive , as it seems people love to drive, and to go on 3 or 4 overseas holidays when they could take 6 weeks off and go on just one long holiday.
And nobody it seems wants to share their car with other workers on the long commutes to work ,if they can avoid it.
And not to mention all the houses that have only 1 person living in them
Water may be a scarce resoucre , but nobody in ireland should worry that we will have a fresh water problem anytime soon.A lot of this concern is whipped up by the water companies.Countries in hotter climates of course may have aserious problem.
The tar sands in canada can produce oil ,but it is very energy intensive and very bad for the environment.No doubt if oil gets over 100 or 200 dollars a barrel ,production in canada will be stepped up.
And for the record ,i do believe in conservation and investing in alternative soucres of energy i e wind,wave.
But we might as well use what we need, especially as we have the money.
We have very expensive energy from esb etc ,but thats at retail level.
I m sure the ESB don t pay over the odds for oil gas etc
 
sunrock said:
Of course oil, gas will gradually become more scarcer and much dearer; but they will not run out in our lifetimes.
Click to expand...

No one is claiming that they will. But that's a bad excuse for doing nothing.

But we might as well use what we need, especially as we have the money.
Click to expand...

Wealth is a also a bad excuse for irresponsibility. But don't confuse access to money with wealth. Truly wealthy people tend to know something about value - and wasteful practice is not good value.

We need to take responsibility as individuals, and start with the small things - using energy efficient lightbulbs, turning off lights, switching off unused appliances.

This naturally leads to more significant behaviour changes - using public transport when possible, investing in energy efficient heating systems, understanding and taking advantage of opportunities for passive heating etc.

The bottom line is we have to start to take responsibility as individuals, influencing others when we can, rather than taking a pessimistic view, like for example, "Ireland is too insignificant in terms of global energy consumption, so let's do what we like."
 
EvilDoctorK said:
Yes - but even at that it's still a huge net gain in energy .. and it should soon (if not already) be possible to get the energy to extract the oil from the bitumen which is a by product of the oil extraction process.
.....
Click to expand...

....it is very worrying that most of these new sources of energy dont 'eat their own dogfood', i.e. dont use some of the surplus energy produced from the mining/drilling/biomas conversion in order to demonstrate that they are in fact new net energy producers and not a scam just to get tax credits or something...

From my very limited reading, the main issues with the tar sands is the amount of energy and fresh water needed to extract the oil from the tar sands. up to 4 times as much water wasted as oil produced. That water has to go somewhere, and is superheated in order to 'wash' the sands... When you consider that the output is X million bpd, thats a lot of heat and a lot of waste, wouldnt like to have a well anywhere near it...

But i believe, whatever about the extra pollution, the oil sands are in fact net energy contributors. ... I dont believe any of the "green biomass" alternatives are net energy producers, ie. it takes more inputs in terms of oil used for fertilizer/energy than whats produced...

the next 10 years will be very interesting, either theres a lot of scare mongering going on or theres nowhere near enough
 
darex said:
However it sows the seeds of the destruction of its own argument by showing how many wells have been drilled in the lower 48 resulting in no noticable difference in downwards supply trends.
Click to expand...

The lower 48 states have been heavily drilled for around the last 150 years (by commercial oil companies with different incentives to NOCs) - and they never had great reserves anyway ... the point I think is that areas that do have huge reserves - the Gulf / Russia etc. have hardly been touched from an exploration point of view and this is changing now with higher prices once again encouraging exploration.
 
Surprised nobody here has mentioned the latest Green Party intiative.

http://www.unison.ie/irish_independent/stories.php3?ca=184&si=1723222&issue_id=14886

Rather than imposing a carbon levy on companies, they are now proposing that each individual in the country is allocated a carbon quota. Individuals who do not exceed their quota will be eligible for a rebate or if they do exceed their quota, they may be hit with an additional levy. They are also considering allowing free market trading of unused quotas, akin the the EU emissions trading scheme.

Not sure about the feasibility of the scheme but I like the idea in principal. There is little incentive in this country to act "green" and the chance to sell my unused carbon quota to those who are less compliant would be warmly welcomed!
 
sunrock said:
Of course oil, gas will gradually become more scarcer and much dearer; but they will not run out in our lifetimes.
The increasing price of the cost of fuel will force people,except for the very rich, to use energy more sparingly and efficiently.
Click to expand...

The rebuttal (from Peak Oil theory websites etc) against improved efficiency is Jevon's paradox: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox

The idea being that when a resource is used more efficiently, consumption actually increases.
 
ubiquitous said:
What a wonderful idea!! Another tax!! Lovely!!
Click to expand...

Did you read the article? Anyone who tries to reduce their carbon emissions will gain under this scheme. The people who will pay extra will be those who drive SUVs, take multiple trips abroads etc.
 
Last edited:
Yes I did read the article.

As I said it is a wonderful idea. People will just love taking out their calculators to see if they are winners or losers. Just as they did in relation to the "income tax down/stealth taxes up" merry-go-round that followed the 2002 election...
 

Im skeptical of this as an idea... Its pretty simple to introduce a carbon tax.... increase the tax on, petrol, diesel, natural gas, turf, electricity, heating oil, fertilizer, plastics .... all fuels, including airline fuels.
very easy to have a carbon credit for people, your first X units of electricity or gallons of oil dont have tax... and companies cant claim back the taxes spent on these items....

So the more u use, the more u pay, no rebates.... but lets see the greens spell it out simply like that and see who votes for it...

but they will probably have zillions of consultants and public servants, coming up with schemes, which can be gotten around and waste more energy administrating than they save...


Saw also they are pushing for biofuels tax exemptions. Would be all for this provided the biofuel plants operate in a closed loop system, ie. they are demonstrable self sufficent and net energy contributors, not relying on inputs of electricity or fertilizer to subsidize them.
Otherwise you'll end up with so called green fuels which are really just tax scams and further damaging the environment. i.e; using more oil to make the fertilizer, plough the land, and extract the biodiesel than what gets produced, or worse still, encouraging tropical countries to hack away some more forest so they can sell you some "green diesel"
 

This would be great if there was a feasible method of implementation. It is really annoying to see people driving SUV's and ruining things for the rest of us and getting off scot free, there should definitely be some serious financial punishment for them.

Also the fatalistic argument that there is no point a small country such as ireland doing anything is nonsense. All modern governments copy each others policies and if we can show good workable green policies then there is no doubt that other countries would adopt our measures into their policy mix.
 

This is a very valid point. The technical term for it is EROEI (energy returned on energy invested). The energy return on most biofuels is almost non-existant. The Americans have poured billions in to bio-fuels and by their own govenrment admission they get hardly any more energy out than they put in. Brazilian sugarcane is somewhat more effective - it has a respectable EROEI.

However in this countries situation by far the best alternative energy source in terms of EROEI is wind power. We would get something like 10 times as much energy out as we put in - this would be similar or better than the EROEI of modern oil fields and is high enough to power a modern economy
 

Are you being sarcastic?

A carbon tax shouldn't (in principle) operate as a revenue generator but is designed to coerce people into beneficial modes of behaviour (e.g. use public transport, car pool, buy low-emission cars, use airlines less, recycle more etc.). Agree with Madpad that energy efficiency will need to be looked at in total - as a lot of biofuels are not actually energy efficient if the crops are grown specifically for the purpose of biofuel generation.

Allowing resale of unused carbon tax credits means people will see a direct benefit from being environmentally-friendly. For example, people may be encouraged to not purchase a car and sell their petrol-related tax credits to the idiot at the end of the street who bought an SUV.

If this is coupled with a scheme to allow resale of generated electricity onto the national grid, it may make home renewable energy sources a more viable option.
 
room305 said:
If this is coupled with a scheme to allow resale of generated electricity onto the national grid, it may make home renewable energy sources a more viable option.
Click to expand...

Both Italy and the UK have schemes in place to allow consumers to sell energy back to the grid - I really don't understand why we don't, yet another example of our backwardness with respect to energy policy I suppose
 
soma said:
The rebuttal (from Peak Oil theory websites etc) against improved efficiency is Jevon's paradox: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox

The idea being that when a resource is used more efficiently, consumption actually increases.
Click to expand...

Yes - but if supply increases too that's not necessarily an issue is it ... Mr Jevon's original theory concerned coal and we didn't run out of that (we've largely stopped using it because we've discovered better alternatives to steam engines ... and one day we'll surely have a better alternative to the internal combustion engine too and oil usage will decline as well)
 

I've never really looked into it in enough detail but i've heard it said that wind energy isn't considered reliable enough to provide baseload to the power grid ... because it's not that predictable other power plants need to be kept on "hot standby" to kick in when the wind literally stops blowing - while wind energy might stop us using fossil fuels sometimes it doesn't replace "convential" power stations in teh way that other non carbon emitting options like nuclear or hydro electric can as they're more predictable power sources.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register