Re: Energy Policy / Junk Science Environmentalism

RE: Energy Policy / Junk Science EnvironmentalismChuck Vandergraaf wrote:

"...We have to consider the advantages of hydrogen over that of other energy sources. Portability is one advantage, but energy density is pretty low."

Actually, portability over significant distances remains a serious problem for hydrogen, because it is very difficult to hold for any length of time in containers. A proposed solution is to store it on solids by adsorption.

One of my Chevron friends who's very interested and involved in this energy subject "answered my prayers" by sending me a copy of a speech by Chevron's CEO on the subject; so I now have a much better idea of what the CEO really thinks. I'm willing to email the full text to anyone who asks. Here's a key excerpt:

Three predictions

Keynote address by
David J. O'Reilly
Chairman and CEO
Chevron Corp.

at the 26th Annual Oil & Money Conference
London, England
September 20, 2005

...

Most of the debate about whether peak oil is imminent...misses the point. Oil will peak - that is a geologic fact. But the new energy equation is not static. It is dynamic and variable.

Current prices, for instance, are moderating demand growth and will bring about increased emphasis on conservation - whether it is through changing individual or collective behaviors. There is still enormous potential to further reduce energy use through conservation. In many ways, it is the lowest-cost new energy we have.

And as we begin to contemplate the future decline of oil resources, we are also beginning to contemplate where the next generation of energy will come from.

For the near future, extending oil production and expanding the global natural gas market will play primary roles. But we need to make sources such as coal and nuclear energy a larger part of the global supply mix for power generation.

And over the long term, the continuing revolution in technology and market forces will move emerging sources such as gas-to-liquids closer to the mainstream. They also will enable renewables such as wind and solar to become more competitive and economic.

All of which leads me to believe that peak oil, when it occurs, will actually resemble more of a long plateau - one in which transitions to new sources can be managed without major shocks or disruptions.
...

What follow are a few of my friend's comments that, I believe, make a useful contribution:

Here in geophysics both [another colleague] and I are actively following this "debate", meaning reading whatever books and articles are published from both sides. Last year I gave a lecture to UC Berkeley's economic geology class along these lines.... One thing I'm absolutely sure about is that this is no debate in any [normal] sense of the word, as the "pessimists" and "optimists" view each other in very much the same way as do Democrats and Republicans. (This is no exaggeration.) The pessimists are mostly intelligent geologists who believe they understand the earth well enough, thank you, and don't have much patience for [economics] interlopers...nosing into their science. The optimists are mostly intelligent economists who believe they understand human nature and the allocation of scarce resources well enough, thank you, and pity their whining wimpy opponents. The pessimists maintain that the world is near peak, and further (as outlined in Matt Simmon's latest book Twilight in the Desert), that the Mideast is very unlikely to remain a swing producer any more, since it's also in decline. The optimists, however, rightly maintain that we will never run out of oil, simply because the price will rise sufficiently to contain demand in a quasi-equilibrium state.... Their other main argument is that knowledge and technology (two aces in the hole) will always come to the rescue, at least until economics forces the world to transition into "the next energy source", among which are nuclear (electric power), coal..., etc.

What I stress in my talks to...students is that the optimists are entirely correct that we won't run out of oil, due to the corrective effects of the market, but I maintain that...the *rate* of economic adjustment... is the problem, not the adjustment per se. In other words, if economic readjustment happens in a quasi-equilibrium manner there will not be a shock to the system, but if adjustment must occur over a period as short as five years, the economic shock can be big. This is a subject for econometricians, but I've never heard any argument made for the rate of adjustment being the material factor. Both sides are too busy vilifying each other.

... Finally, if you google Jon Claerbout's website at Stanford, he has an entire page devoted to peak oil literature references.

 Don
Received on Thu Jan 5 03:36:30 2006