Population and Oil

[neonlyte]

North America (inc. Canada) and Asia Pacific have approximately the same daily oil consumption at 25 million barrels per day*. Europe/Eurasia are not far behind at 20 million whilst Africa tails in last at 2.8 million.

Expressed in terms of population, daily consumption (in barrels) per 1 million of population works out like this:
North America - 48,216
Europe/Eurasia - 28,848
Middle East - 17,794
South/Central America - 13,881
Asia Pacific - 6,147
Africa - 4,103

In terms of percentage of daily worlds oil consumption, the figures are:
North America - 29.7%
Asia Pacific - 29.4%
Europe/Eurasia - 24.5%
Middle East - 7.2%
South/Central America - 6.1%
Africa - 3.1%

* Source - British Petroleum

You can show anything with figures but the figure most difficult to ignore is the daily oil consumption. Asia Pacific (inc India) consumes almost as much of the daily world oil supply as North America, yet in terms of population, their consumption is 12.75% of North Americas and 21% of Europe/Eurasia. With Asian economies expanding at annual rates approaching 10%, it is almost inevitable that oil prices will continue an upward spiral. Even a doubling of Asia Pacific daily oil consumption bringing it close to South American levels will see demand outstrip supply by 20 - 25%. Current daily oil production is in the order of 84.5 million barrels (US Gov. 2006). Adding 25 million barrels a day to production quotas sounds impossible, for reference Iraq produces just 2 million barrels per day.

I've first hand experience of the miracle of economic growth. Portugal 30 odd years ago was little more than a subsistence economy, after the country joined the EU in 1986 it embarked upon economic transformation switching from a agrarian/industrial to a service/industrial economy. The immediate consequence of wealth is a massive growth in consumer goods, the most important of which for most families is a car. Even at the astonishing rate of road building in Portugal, the roads can barely keep up with the expanding car base. China is currently building more miles of highway each year than the rest of the world combined. Car production quadrupelled between 2000 and 2004 and is predicted to reach 6 million vehicles p.a by 2010, small beer in respect of the Chinese population, but it makes China the worlds largest car market.

Any number of scenarios are possible going forward, it is difficult to see one that might be described as optimistic. Three years ago I planted 3,500 trees, I reckon they will keep my daughter and her family in timber and fuel. I actually beginning to feel rather pleased that I won't be around to witness the debacle. I don't quite see how we get out of this situation without drastic world wide population reduction since the effort to come up with alternative energy supplies should be being made now and I don't see anything being done that will make a significant difference.

 

[trysail]

I agree. It's a bit spooky. We in North America may have to dust off our bicycles, walk to the grocery store, and build nuclear generating facilities- not because the largest committees in the world (i.e., governments) tells us to, but because the operation of the free market pricing system results (as it always has when permitted to operate) in the efficient allocation of scarce resources.

Then again, I may be engaged in wishful thinking. No self-respecting demagogic politician has ever resisted the temptation to point the finger of blame for the purpose of manipulating the economic illiterati.

Hmmm...., the more I think about it, the more I think I'll hold off investing additional capital in energy; the possibility that the demagogues will only tax it away from me is too great.

I'll just trust in the Rob Oil Company or the Sean H Nuclear Generating Company or the Pure Gas Company or Jenny's Uranium Company to keep the lights on, provide heat, mine coal, and drill all those 20,000' foot wells in 10,000' of water in the hurricane-prone Gulf of Mexico.

After all, anybody with any sense knows that corporations are evil.

 

[Liar]

North America (inc. Canada) and Asia Pacific have approximately the same daily oil consumption at 25 million barrels per day*. Europe/Eurasia are not far behind at 20 million whilst Africa tails in last at 2.8 million.

Expressed in terms of population, daily consumption (in barrels) per 1 million of population works out like this:
North America - 48,216
Europe/Eurasia - 28,848
Middle East - 17,794
South/Central America - 13,881
Asia Pacific - 6,147
Africa - 4,103

In terms of percentage of daily worlds oil consumption, the figures are:
North America - 29.7%
Asia Pacific - 29.4%
Europe/Eurasia - 24.5%
Middle East - 7.2%
South/Central America - 6.1%
Africa - 3.1%

* Source - British Petroleum

Europe/Eurasia is a pretty vauge descriotion, and most likely contains a much more economically diverse population than North America.

A much more interresting number for comparison would be North America vs Western Europe, two regions with approximately the same amount of material well being.

 

[neonlyte]

Europe/Eurasia is a pretty vauge descriotion, and most likely contains a much more economically diverse population than North America.

A much more interesting number for comparison would be North America vs Western Europe, two regions with approximately the same amount of material well being.

Eurasia has an approximate boundary drawn north just east of the Caspain Sea, including part of the old USSR. Figures for the EU are as follows:

Daily consumption (in barrels) per 1 million of population (2006 figures)
European Union - 30,091

As a percentage of daily world oil consumption:
European Union - 18.2%



By implication, the Eurasia (largely the developed parts of the old USSR)

 

[Jenny_Jackson]

The asian problem is China. We say asia and immediately think Japan. Not true these days. The Chinese are building and selling smoky little basard cars at a rate never seen before anywhere - even in the U.S.

This is another problem we have created by out-sourcing our production to China. Thanks, Wal-Mart.

 

[gauchecritic]

The asian problem is China. We say asia and immediately think Japan. Not true these days. The Chinese are building and selling smoky little basard cars at a rate never seen before anywhere - even in the U.S.

This is another problem we have created by out-sourcing our production to China. Thanks, Wal-Mart.

You say China. We say India.

 

[Jenny_Jackson]

You say China. We say India.

To a somewhat lesser extent India is in there too. What's happened in China is the U.S. has created an affluent middle class in China who suddenly can afford cars. The exponential growth in production capacity in China is, again, oil based.

We are doing the same thing to both India and Indonesia, however, they haven't developed the affluent middle class they way the Chinese have - yet. According to EXXON, China is the second larges user of oil and oil products - and growing. India and Indonesia will not be far behind.

 

[neonlyte]

To a somewhat lesser extent India is in there too. What's happened in China is the U.S. has created an affluent middle class in China who suddenly can afford cars. The exponential growth in production capacity in China is, again, oil based.

We are doing the same thing to both India and Indonesia, however, they haven't developed the affluent middle class they way the Chinese have - yet. According to EXXON, China is the second larges user of oil and oil products - and growing. India and Indonesia will not be far behind.

India is a huge way behind, 2.5 million barrels per day growing from 1.7 mn over the decade. Chinese consumption has grown from 3.7 - 7.5 million barrels per day over the same period. In other words, China needs 4 Iraq's to meet its daily oil needs. Indonesia is actually used significantly less oil in 2006 reducing consumption to 2000 levels though this may be due to the effect of the tusami.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Oh! Stop It!

People have been predicting the extinction of oil since about 1900. Adjusted for inflation, a barrel of oil in 1869 cost $100US. Since 1980 the price of oil has fluctuated between $16-$100 a barrel (adjusted for inflation).

Once fuel-cells and some other technologies are improved the Arabs can kiss our obese butts.

 

[lesbiaphrodite]

Maybe if an oil crisis happens and Americans have to walk or ride a bike somewhere, the diet fad companies will finally go out of business and we can stop having to listen to the droning about the obesity crisis.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

It won't be fuel cells that pick up the slack as the easier-to-process oil gets used up over the next 30-60 years, but nukes and geothermal, which will power an all-electric economy that's more cost-effective than the more expensive, harder-to-process oil that is left (which will be used mostly in things like air travel). We'll heat our homes, run our factories and power our cars with electricity. Cars will have standardized multi-cell battery packs. Most of the time you'll just plug in the car at night and recharge off the grid, but for long distance travel there will be "gas stations" where machines automatically swap out your discharged battery cells and replace them with newly-recharged units that someone else swapped-out a few hours earlier.

Sorry Neon, but there need not be any debacle for you to point and laugh at, just energy prices that are slightly higher in absolute terms, but actually lower in proportion to the larger economy that 30-years of growth will have produced. The good news is that your daughter and her kids will be able to enjoy all the same comforts, conveniences and broader horizons that we have become accustomed to, and on a sustainable basis. Surely that outweighs the doom-casting "prophet's" chagrin at not being a witness to the end of industrial civilization (or, you being too mature and level-headed a person to actually look forward to that, more likely the "comeuppance" of some of your favorite bête noirs). Instead, you and we will merely be witnesses to industrial civilizaton's transition to a more mature phase.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

North America (inc. Canada) and Asia Pacific have approximately the same daily oil consumption at 25 million barrels per day*. Europe/Eurasia are not far behind at 20 million whilst Africa tails in last at 2.8 million.

Expressed in terms of population, daily consumption (in barrels) per 1 million of population works out like this:
North America - 48,216
Europe/Eurasia - 28,848
Middle East - 17,794
South/Central America - 13,881
Asia Pacific - 6,147
Africa - 4,103

In terms of percentage of daily worlds oil consumption, the figures are:
North America - 29.7%
Asia Pacific - 29.4%
Europe/Eurasia - 24.5%
Middle East - 7.2%
South/Central America - 6.1%
Africa - 3.1%

* Source - British Petroleum

Let's add another set of figures:

World economy* - $66,228,669
Asia: $18.077 trillion **
North America - $15.560 trillion (US is $13 trillion)
Euroope: $12.82 trillion
South America - $2.65 trillion
Africa - $1.635 trillion

*in "purchasing power parity" terms

** China (excludes Hong Kong and Macau) $8,091,851
India $4,247,361
Japan $4,202,524
South Korea $1,099,066


Note that oil consumption correllates fairly well with size of the economy. Actually, it's total energy use from all sources that is causally-related to GDP - wealthier countries use more energy. We're just using oil as a proxy for that in this discussion.

So sure, wish for greater efficiency of energy use, and wish for sustainable sources that can produce the magnitudes required by industrial civilization (which pretty much narrows it down to nukes and geothermal, with "alternatives" merely serving in certain narrow niches), but be aware that if what you wish for is reductions in energy use, or for energy use not increasing in some parts of the world, it's very likely that the this also means poorer populations, or ones that do not escape poverty in the first place.

 

[gauchecritic]

So sure, wish for greater efficiency of energy use, and wish for sustainable sources that can produce the magnitudes required by industrial civilization (which pretty much narrows it down to nukes and geothermal, with "alternatives" merely serving in certain narrow niches), but be aware that if what you wish for is reductions in energy use, or for energy use not increasing in some parts of the world, it's very likely that the this also means poorer populations, or ones that do not escape poverty in the first place.

Well ok but (I hope Rob will forgive me putting words in his mouth) isn't the point that those that use most are the ones that should be cutting back?

Dropping a dollar in a begging bowl means you don't have that dollar any more but the poor guy that gets it is a dollar closer to you.

(and you can stick your nukes up your arse )

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Well ok but (I hope Rob will forgive me putting words in his mouth) isn't the point that those that use most are the ones that should be cutting back?

Dropping a dollar in a begging bowl means you don't have that dollar any more but the poor guy that gets it is a dollar closer to you.

(and you can stick your nukes up your arse )

Nukes are dandy. I think they are the real litmus test for global warming proponents - if they are sincere about their concern and aren't just using the whole thing as a scam to impose their aesthetic revulsion of industrial civilization upon those of us who are quite delighted with the comforts, conveniences and broader horizons it allows, then they will embrace nukes.

Your begging bowl analogy is deeply flawed. It implies that Chinese, Indians and others who are seeking those advantages for themselves and/or their children are really just wanting to "keep up with the Jones's," rather that actually desiring the comforts, conveniences and broader horizons themselves.

 

[neonlyte]

Oh! Stop It!

People have been predicting the extinction of oil since about 1900. Adjusted for inflation, a barrel of oil in 1869 cost $100US. Since 1980 the price of oil has fluctuated between $16-$100 a barrel (adjusted for inflation).

Once fuel-cells and some other technologies are improved the Arabs can kiss our obese butts.

You go on ignore. You've had several weeks to show you can construct an arguement or understand a question and I've decided you're a waste of screen space. Sorry, but I don't have the time to be indulgent.

 

[neonlyte]

Maybe if an oil crisis happens and Americans have to walk or ride a bike somewhere, the diet fad companies will finally go out of business and we can stop having to listen to the droning about the obesity crisis.

Yes... there is always an upside. Though there is still a risk, with a healthier population will all the medical dramas disappear from television?

 

[neonlyte]

Well ok but (I hope Rob will forgive me putting words in his mouth) isn't the point that those that use most are the ones that should be cutting back?

Dropping a dollar in a begging bowl means you don't have that dollar any more but the poor guy that gets it is a dollar closer to you.

(and you can stick your nukes up your arse )

That has long been my reaction. Having visited the USA for the first time this year and seen the extraordinary distances people travel and the harsh weather in early spring in up-state New York, I have a better understanding of the use to which USA energy consumption is put.

A closer examination of BP's ten year figures shows North American oil consumption has grown 13.5% over the eleven years 1996-2006, most of that growth was in the period to 2001, consumption actually declined 1.3% 2005-06.

The begging bowl kinda fits the USA/Mexico relationship so how worrying is it that Mexican oil consumption only rose by 16% over the same period particularly with all the noises made by the US over Mexican immigration. Surely helping the Mexicans expand their economy would have made sense both in terms of expanding local markets and reducing immigration. Of course the USA only sees East/West and not North/South in everything except politics. Do politicians really believe paying attention to the poorer south risks increasing immigration?

 

[neonlyte]

Roxanne,

The correlation between wealth and oil consumption really didn't need spelling out. If I'd wanted to talk about comparative wealth, I'd have taken that tack. Also understand this thread is not an attack on 'American Values' - see reply to gauchelad above.

Choice to a large degree is the province of the affluent. Reducing the energy footprint of an individual or a family is possible with affluence, e.g. hybrid car, solar panels etc... we know the choices. It is also possible to reduce energy footprint by stepping back to a more primative way of living but it is a fruitless arguement limited to a relative handful of ideological individuals and actually only an option of last resort for the majority - so let's not explore that route.

Aspiration fuels acquisition of consumer goods hand in hand with prosperity and as much as ideologically I may not like what I see (I prefered the William Morris romance of pre-EU Portugal), I am hardly in a position coming from the relatively prosperous UK to tell others to reduce their acquisative aspirations. In the case of China and India, it will be impossible to stop the growth of those economies, and as the economies grow, their demand for oil with escalate. Taking their consumption pattern of the period 1996-2006, oil producing companies need to deliver an extra 20 million barrels of oil per day spread across the next twenty years just to meet Chinese and Indian growth.

So let's go back to my first post. I don't see any clear evidence that alternatives to oil as a fuel of convenience (i.e. available in the volumes and at the prices needed) are likely to emerge in the next twenty years. So let's not talk in hypotheticals about 'fuel cells', nuclear, solar or wind. Nuclear is not an option in the time frame. I'm as optimistic as the next guy in thinking 'alternatives' will materialise to meet demand, if they do emerge, they will only be available to the affluent and they will only be available if the energy supply necessary to produce them can be guaranteed.

Talk about how economies maintain an oil dependent life style in the face of likely soaring oil prices. While affluent societies may adjust, given time, less affluent societies will experience considerable hardship and in this context, China and India are 'less affluent' but still have immeasurable resources to acquire what they need to survive.

 

[gauchecritic]

Nukes are dandy. I think they are the real litmus test for global warming proponents - if they are sincere about their concern and aren't just using the whole thing as a scam to impose their aesthetic revulsion of industrial civilization upon those of us who are quite delighted with the comforts, conveniences and broader horizons it allows, then they will embrace nukes.

Your begging bowl analogy is deeply flawed. It implies that Chinese, Indians and others who are seeking those advantages for themselves and/or their children are really just wanting to "keep up with the Jones's," rather that actually desiring the comforts, conveniences and broader horizons themselves.

If you gained electricity directly from nuclear power I may have a different view of it but you don't. You gain heat. This heat (mostly wasted) then irradiates water which produces steam. The steam is used to turn a turbine which does produce electricity.

Nuclear power stations do nothing that other power stations do. They boil water.

The eastern countries have no option but to broaden their horizons due to naturally rising populations. This broadening entails improvements in comms and infrastructure, their broadening is entirely dependent on an already existing world market. In the world market there are only so many resources and the modern industrialised nations have been feeding at that trough throughout, so the limited resources need to be distributed through a greater area.

The begging bowl held no overt implication other than the need to share.

Any covert inference was supplied by your own view of those nations.

 

[trysail]

Big Oil, Little Gratitude
by Ben Stein

Pure Chemistry

Imagine there was a chemical compound so valuable, so useful, and so indispensable that the whole present and future of the industrial world depended upon its plentiful supply. Suppose that chemical meant the difference between life and death, peace and war, and freedom and slavery for the whole developed world.

Suppose there were a small number of companies that took great pains to find this chemical, extract it from underground in deep jungles, miles below the ocean floors, in cruelly hot deserts, and in swampy marshes. Suppose that these companies sent brave men and women into these inhospitable spots to face the elements -- as well as terrorists, kidnapping gangsters, and extorting governments.

Then suppose these companies brought the chemical home to North America, and had to face endless, bitter fights from well-funded opponents of this chemical -- some good-intentioned, but some purely troublemakers. These opponents fought to the bitter end any attempt to turn the raw material of this chemical into a refined product that would power cars, trucks, fire engines, ambulances, hospitals, schools, factories, nursing homes, and the military weapons that guard us and fight our wars.

The Truth Hurts

Now further suppose that the companies that bring us this chemical and its refined products, like heating fuel and gasoline, made profits that were, on a percentage-of-sales basis or a percentage-of-equity basis, far smaller than the profits in banking or Internet software.

Finally, imagine that political people and intellectuals wanted to put every kind of control and restraint on these companies and tax them to within an inch of their survival. And that the owners of these companies were not billionaires, but that the pension funds of firefighters and police officers and nurses and teachers and widows and orphans relied on the dividends of these companies to survive.

You don't need to suppose any of this, of course, because it's the reality of America's oil companies and how they're treated.

Don't Be a Hater

Yes, America's oil companies, besieged by foreign dictators, attacked endlessly in the media, mocked and belittled in the academic world, are vital to the survival of this country. Just try to imagine America without oil -- we'd be embroiled in "Mad Max"-style chaos within a week. We would be living in complete anarchy.

Instead, we have a rich, advanced nation where the whole society and its progress float on liberally supplied, bargain-priced petroleum. And, like surly teenagers who hate their parents because they're totally dependent on them, we respond by hating the oil companies.

This is a sure way to commit national suicide. The oil companies aren't run by rich conspirators out of some Oliver Stone movie. They're not monopolists illegally fixing prices the way Rockefeller did more than a century ago. They're owned by people like us, employing people like us, saving the rear ends of people like us.

Lighting the Genie's Lamp

If they're making a legal product that we can't live without in a legal way and selling it at a legal price, let's lay the heck off of them and let them do their jobs. If you think the oil companies make too much money for their stockholders, then buy their stock for your retirement.

If burning their oil causes pollution, well, so do cattle. If burning their oil heats the planet's atmosphere, then let's work with them to make cars and trucks that burn less oil. (And let's not forget our dear pals in China, who are offsetting all of our "green" efforts a million times over with their ruthless murder of the planet in the form of massive, unchecked pollution of the air and water.)

There will be a substitute for oil in a few generations anyway, or maybe we'll be living a totally different kind of life. (I won't be living at all.) But for now, oil is what lights up the genie's lamp. Let's show some respect for the companies that bring it our way. After all, it makes no sense to kill the goose that lays the (black) golden eggs.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Roxanne,

The correlation between wealth and oil consumption really didn't need spelling out. If I'd wanted to talk about comparative wealth, I'd have taken that tack. Also understand this thread is not an attack on 'American Values' - see reply to gauchelad above.

Choice to a large degree is the province of the affluent. Reducing the energy footprint of an individual or a family is possible with affluence, e.g. hybrid car, solar panels etc... we know the choices. It is also possible to reduce energy footprint by stepping back to a more primative way of living but it is a fruitless arguement limited to a relative handful of ideological individuals and actually only an option of last resort for the majority - so let's not explore that route.

Aspiration fuels acquisition of consumer goods hand in hand with prosperity and as much as ideologically I may not like what I see (I prefered the William Morris romance of pre-EU Portugal), I am hardly in a position coming from the relatively prosperous UK to tell others to reduce their acquisative aspirations. In the case of China and India, it will be impossible to stop the growth of those economies, and as the economies grow, their demand for oil with escalate. Taking their consumption pattern of the period 1996-2006, oil producing companies need to deliver an extra 20 million barrels of oil per day spread across the next twenty years just to meet Chinese and Indian growth.

So let's go back to my first post. I don't see any clear evidence that alternatives to oil as a fuel of convenience (i.e. available in the volumes and at the prices needed) are likely to emerge in the next twenty years. So let's not talk in hypotheticals about 'fuel cells', nuclear, solar or wind. Nuclear is not an option in the time frame. I'm as optimistic as the next guy in thinking 'alternatives' will materialise to meet demand, if they do emerge, they will only be available to the affluent and they will only be available if the energy supply necessary to produce them can be guaranteed.

Talk about how economies maintain an oil dependent life style in the face of likely soaring oil prices. While affluent societies may adjust, given time, less affluent societies will experience considerable hardship and in this context, China and India are 'less affluent' but still have immeasurable resources to acquire what they need to survive.

Neon - Individual members of affluent societies can reduce their carbon footprint by a marginal amount, and if everyone does so the marginal reduction will be large in absolute terms, but not large relative to the absolute magnitudes of energy that a mature industrial civilization uses. For example you mentioned a hybrid vehicle as one way an affluent individual can reduce energy use, but the energy used to produce the batteries and related systems offsets part of that. The "deep ecology" types have a better understanding than most of the energy budget or energy "trail" left by even the simplest of daily life actions that we take for granted. Yes we can reduce energy use or its growth by adopting more efficient systems, but the magnitudes are still huge.

I specified a 30-60 year transition period to an all-electric economy and not only do I believe it can happen, but that it will, because when push comes to shove, when faced with having to do so or give up the comforts, conveniences and broader horizons we are accustomend to, our societies will demand that the purely political obstacles that prevent it be dismantled. And they will be.


Gauche - nukes do one thing that conventional electric plants cannot: They boil water without burning any fossil fuels.

 

[neonlyte]

Neon - Individual members of affluent societies can reduce their carbon footprint by a marginal amount, and if everyone does so the marginal reduction will be large in absolute terms, but not large relative to the absolute magnitudes of energy that a mature industrial civilization uses. For example you mentioned a hybrid vehicle as one way an affluent individual can reduce energy use, but the energy used to produce the batteries and related systems offsets part of that. The "deep ecology" types have a better understanding than most of the energy budget or energy "trail" left by even the simplest of daily life actions that we take for granted. Yes we can reduce energy use or its growth by adopting more efficient systems, but the magnitudes are still huge.

I specified a 30-60 year transition period to an all-electric economy and not only do I believe it can happen, but that it will, because when push comes to shove, when faced with having to do so or give up the comforts, conveniences and broader horizons we are accustomend to, our societies will demand that the purely political obstacles that prevent it be dismantled. And they will be.


Gauche - nukes do one thing that conventional electric plants cannot: They boil water without burning any fossil fuels.

I might not have been clear, Roxanne.
I meant taking a backward step to reduce energy footprint was an unlikely scenario. Conversly, only the affluent can currently afford to take measures to reduce their energy footprint whilst maintaining their lifestyle. My arguement is along the line that few in developed countries have the necessary level of affluence to reduce their energy footprint. Still fewer in China and India where the desire is to 'have the trappings' of western perceived affluence.

Your 30-60 transistion period (assuming what you propose is achievable) strikes me as unrealistic in the face of growing energy demand. The technological hurdles to produce safe nuclear power and safe nuclear waste disposal are immense within your time frame. I doubt if we started tomorrow we could have a nuclear power station open in the UK in less than twenty years, the planning process and public opposition will guarantee that. The only way to achieve your programme, I suggest, is to move to an authoritarian form of government with power to mandate energy use, generation capacity, etc, and I suspect such a government would act to ensure oil supplies before embarking upon an energy reconstruction process.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

I might not have been clear, Roxanne.
I meant taking a backward step to reduce energy footprint was an unlikely scenario. Conversly, only the affluent can currently afford to take measures to reduce their energy footprint whilst maintaining their lifestyle. My arguement is along the line that few in developed countries have the necessary level of affluence to reduce their energy footprint. Still fewer in China and India where the desire is to 'have the trappings' of western perceived affluence.

Your 30-60 transistion period (assuming what you propose is achievable) strikes me as unrealistic in the face of growing energy demand. The technological hurdles to produce safe nuclear power and safe nuclear waste disposal are immense within your time frame. I doubt if we started tomorrow we could have a nuclear power station open in the UK in less than twenty years, the planning process and public opposition will guarantee that. The only way to achieve your programme, I suggest, is to move to an authoritarian form of government with power to mandate energy use, generation capacity, etc, and I suspect such a government would act to ensure oil supplies before embarking upon an energy reconstruction process.

You see, I strongly suspect that when oil prices reach levels at which adopting nukes becomes one side of a clear "either/or" choice between having or not having the comforts, conveniences and broader horizons that industrial civilization has granted us, that 20-year political obstacle course for new nukes will be swept away. The third- and soon fourth-generation plants being built around the world today are built in well under five years and are light years ahead of the earlier "kludges" in terms of safety, reliability and efficiency. The difficulties of dealing with nuclear waste are also are mostly political, including a ban in he U.S. on reprocessing fuel. Dismal projections regarding the "proven reserves" of uranium ignore the fact that we've barely scratched the surface in terms of exploration, and also will become all-but irrelevent when we eventually adopt breeder-reactor technology. The bottom line is, the obstacles to transitioning to a nuclear powered all-electric economy are political, not technological or economic (absent the political obstacles).

I also suggested that geothermal is a promising source capable of providing the magnitudes of energy needed. I think the ultimate solution will involve a combination of the two.

 

[neonlyte]

Hmmm... scratch all the above. I've just heard an interview with the CEO of Renault announcing the $3,000 car. It is to be built in India, initially for the Indian market and subsequently exported to other developing countries. Let's hope it has a small fuel tank else the fuel in the tank will soon be worth more than the car.

 

[trysail]

Oil Poised for Drop as Price Gap to Gasoline Widens (Update1)

By Mark Shenk


Oct. 8 (Bloomberg) -- The widening gap between crude oil and the relatively low price of gasoline is signaling the first quarterly decline in oil prices in a year.

While oil has fallen in the fourth quarter during 13 of the past 20 years because of the transition from peak summer demand, the pressure for another drop in the months ahead is the most intense since 2004 and may defer any rebound to record crude prices until the first half of 2008.

Citigroup Inc., Deutsche Bank AG and HSBC Holdings Plc anticipate oil will slide from last month's record $83.90 a barrel as gasoline sales weaken to the lowest level this year and a slowing U.S. economy curbs demand. Profits from making fuels are so low that refiners have 12.5 percent of capacity off line, the second-highest rate of the past two decades for this time of year, data from the U.S. Department of Energy show.

``Refinery profit margins are being squeezed at a time when significant maintenance is scheduled,'' said Tim Evans, an energy analyst with Citigroup Global Markets Inc. in New York. ``The combination of these factors should send crude oil lower.''

Oil traders and analysts have never been more pessimistic, with 75 percent of respondents anticipating prices will fall, according to a weekly survey by Bloomberg News that started in April 2004.

Crude may end the year below $70 a barrel, compared with $81.66 at the end of the third quarter, forecasts Adam Sieminski, the global oil analyst at Deutsche Bank in New York. If he's right, a $1 million investment in crude oil futures in New York would more than double to $2.3 million, assuming speculators used the exchange's minimum deposit to conduct the transaction.

Lower Fuel Demand

``The most important development of the last six weeks has been that there's been no growth in demand for petroleum products,'' Sieminski said. ``High gasoline prices weren't enough to curb demand. The combination of the threat of layoffs and higher mortgages might finally be doing the job.''

Not everyone forecasts that oil will move lower by the end of the year. Goldman Sachs Group Inc. is the most bullish commodities trading firm on oil, forecasting on Sept. 17 that crude will end the year at $85 a barrel, with a ``high risk'' of a jump above $90, according to a report from analysts including Jeffrey Currie in London. Its two current trading recommendations on oil are both money-losers. One of them was to buy the gasoline refining margin, which has lost more than half its value since then, Goldman's research shows.

U.S. fuel consumption during the four weeks ending Sept. 28 averaged 20.45 million barrels a day, down 0.3 percent from the same period a year earlier, according to the Energy Department.

`First Time'

``We've seen with gasoline that month-on-month demand is lower for the first time in the U.S. in years,'' said Hakan Kocayusufpasaoglu, director of commodity derivatives at Credit Suisse in London.

Gasoline futures on the New York Mercantile Exchange declined 7.1 percent to $2.034 a gallon in the last five months, while crude oil has increased 31 percent to $80.41 a barrel during the same period.

``We're at a turning point for prices and margins,'' said Lynn Westfall, San Antonio-based chief economist for Tesoro Corp., the second-biggest refiner in California. ``It's hard to imagine $80 oil being sustainable based on supply.''

The profit from turning three barrels of crude oil into two barrels of gasoline and one of heating oil fell to $5.7406 on Oct. 2, the lowest in 11 months. It surged to $30.479 on May 17, the highest since at least 1989, based on futures prices in New York.

Refinery Usage

U.S. oil refineries are running at 87.5 percent of capacity, according to the U.S. Energy Department. The only time rates were lower for this time of year was in 2005, when Hurricanes Katrina and Rita slammed the Gulf Coast. Crude-oil demand is falling this month because refiners have scheduled maintenance during a lull in fuel sales.

``You're looking at a situation where refinery maintenance will cut back on demand, product demand seasonally has been falling and the threat of hurricanes'' is easing, said Harry Tchilinguirian, a senior oil market analyst for BNP Paribas in London. ``Last year there was an end-of-season correction'' after it became obvious the hurricane season was not severe.

The Atlantic hurricane season lasts from June through November. So far this year, no hurricanes have damaged U.S. Gulf Coast refineries and oil rigs.

Rising Supply

U.S. crude-oil supplies rose 1.14 million barrels to 321.8 million barrels in the week ended Sept. 28, an Energy Department report showed. The gain left stockpiles 9.3 percent higher than the five-year average for the week.

Crude-oil inventories may also rise because of increased production by the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries. The group, which is responsible for about 40 percent of global output, agreed last month to increase output by 500,000 barrels a day starting Nov. 1.

OPEC pumped 30.3 million barrels a day in August, or more than 33 percent of world crude supplies, according to Bloomberg data.

``The next move will be south toward the low $70s and high $60s before the end of the year, primarily as more bad news comes from the U.S. economy,'' said Pierre Martin, a Frankfurt-based manager of a $565 million commodity fund at DWS Investment GmbH, a unit of Deutsche Bank AG.