I would like to focus my blog on the book "Beyond Oil". I think it is a very good reading! It is the exact background information that the course needs to be able to carry out more profound discussions about alternative energy.
I really appreciated how each fossil fuel was explained in a detailed manner, from the molecular structure to the different types of market prices and government policies. I really gained a scientific and factual overview, that I definitely lacked before. After going through Hubert's simplified calculations, the curve made a lot of sense. Yet, it remained unclear how Deffeyes concluded that we hit 94 percent of the oil that we can ever expect to hit. On the one hand he derives it from Huberts calculations yet on the other hand he mentions how difficult it is to find oil reserves through seismic exploration. Even though oil reserves have certain characteristics like anticlines, salt domes or faults, it is difficult to believe that all the ocean surface has been explored with either laser or sound-waves. Yet I do acknowledge his point that any new discoveries would not make a difference in the depleting fossil fuels due to the rising demand.
His central point is very relevant and one that we have discussed in class. Since he has a scientific perspective, he lacks the politician's cynicism. This makes it understandable why he loses a little bit touch with reality, as he proposes future solutions or alternative scenarios. But he is calling for political leadership and its actions. Deffey mentions that we have missed the period in which alternative energy sources could have been experimented with and developed parallel so that the transition from fossil fuels to new energy sources would be a smooth one. He says that now we just have to cope with trial and error, which will take a harder tole on society. The "Hubertians" and "cornucopians" disagree on the time frame in which oil will deplete. However, both are aware that fossil fuel sources are not infinite. Hubbertians, according to Deffey's portrait, seem more precarious because they are calling for a blueprint of the world's resources so we can be honest with ourselves as a civilization and have a bigger control in which direction the wind of the future will take us. While the "cornucopians" are simply waiting for the invisible hand of the market and consequently for the extreme scarcity to drive prices up and prolong the supply. Naturally an alternative would emerge but be at a very high cost to our momentary living standards and economies.
I fully support the method of prevention which the hubbertians are calling for!
1 comment:
Yes, this is a perplexing issue, but also critical. If we are going to run out of oil soon, and waited to long to prepare, we need to panic. :) If we have enough time if we start now to prepare, then we should be starting.
Unfortunately, we won't know for sure until it's too late. So, the gamble. The smart choice would be not to take a chance. Besides, there are other reasons (protecting the environment and wildlife) to switch to better sources of energy.
About the analysis, the conclusions from Hubbert's curve are based on assumptions and theory, but the actual data points incorporate several factors that reflect reality. In other words, when you plot annual production it "is what it is", whether due to pessimism about finding more resources, increases in prices due to various factors, etc.
Post a Comment