Re: [asa] $4 gas is here to stay

Glenn -

Apparently you think I disagree with you about the current oil situation. I
don't. Perhaps you've forgotten the Lutheran Partners column I did on this
back in 2004, a column which you kindly reviewed for me before I sent it in.
You can find it at
http://archive.elca.org/lutheranpartners/handiwork/past/040910.html .

But let me ask you then, do you have any positive suggestions for future
energy sources? & if you do, do you think what I said about railroads would
be a good way to make use of that energy?

Shalom
George
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/

>>>>Which brings us to the issue of nuclear energy. I grant that the
> concerns about it that you cite are legitimate, though too dismissive of
> prospects for breeder reactors & ignoring possibilities for recycling
> spent
> nuclear fuels (yes, I read the article by Von Hippel in the recent Sci Am)
> &
> recycling of a great deal of our weapons stockpile (though not
> unilaterally). & I doubt that fusion will always be 50 years in the
> future.<<<
>
> George, unless we have numerous working breeder reactors by 2014
> (something
> well nigh impossible) we will experience huge problems. I think you are
> working under the assumption that the peak of world oil production is 20
> years away. It isn't. The numbers are quite simple. Today's oil fields
> produce about 86 million bbl. In 16 years, they will produce only 43
> million
> bbl. That is using a decline rate of 4% per year, which is about the
> average
> decline of an oil field (modern technology can suck an oil field so fast
> that the decline rate is faster but we will be generous here). The UK has
> been declining at an 8% rate! If the world production drops at the former
> rate, starting from 2009, which is when I think it will begin (from
> looking
> at the numbers), then we will need something like 20% of our oil energy
> replaced by breeders and whatever in merely 6 years. Care to guess how
> many
> permits are being issued right now for all these new breeder reactors?
>
>
>>>>But the main point of my argument was the desirability of replacing a
> large fraction of our petroleum powered transportation with a modern
> railroad system. Whether or not that system would run on hydrogen, & if
> so
> whether the energy to obtain it would come from nuclear sources, are other
> questions. If solar or geothermal, e.g., can make an important
> contribution, fine. & no, that doesn't mean that I'm either ignoring or
> downplaying the need for an adequate energy supply or that I imagine that
> we're guaranteed always to have such a supply.<<<
>
> Ok, George, you once convinced me that I was wrong on an argument I had
> with hydroplate--it took you a bit of work, but you succeeded and you were
> right and I was wrong. Run the oil numbers. Look at how few big projects
> are left to do in the Gulf of Mexico. So far only 4 deepwater offshore
> areas have been prolific oil producers. These are the Gulf of Mexico,
> Nigeria, Angola and Brazil. All others have only been minor players or
> dry
> holes. Look at how little oil has been found each year compared to how
> much
> we burn. And I haven't even touched on natural gas yet--but one can't
> post
> pictures here as one can do on a modern list, so you will just have to do
> without them.
>
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Fri Jun 6 17:09:59 2008