Poate v-aţi prins deja că apogeul resurselor energetice neregenerabile nu e un scenariu de genul "virusul anului 2000" sau "cometa care loveşte pământul". Sau "Era Glaciară".
2000" s-a dovedit o păcăleală, statistic
şansele ca o cometă să lovească pământul şi să
vă afecteze viaţa sunt mai mici decât şansele ca să câştigaţi la
6 din 49, iar "era glaciară" nu va veni, nu o mai
se numeşte teoria lui Lovelock care vă explică de ce şi cum
biosfera Pământului reglează temperatura planetei.
Vă simţiţi ca în Matrix? Vă întrebaţi de ce aţi luat pilula roşie?
Atunci să ştiţi că nu sunteţi singurul.
De azi probabil că aveţi alte priorităţi în viaţă.
E posibil să fii realizat brusc ce viaţă incredibilă am dus noi, oamenii care am trăit la sfârşitul mileniului. Ce norocoşi am fost. Ne-am obişnuit cu un standard de viaţă pe care planeta Pământ nu ni-l putea oferii de fapt. Decât pentru o scurtă perioadă. Iată scrisoarea imaginară a unui urmaş din viitor http://www.museletter.com/archive/110.html
În 1999 Dick Cheney: "Estimările spun că avem o creştere a ratei consumului de 2,5% pe an şi minim 3 % declin pe an în producţia din rezervele existente. Asta înseamnă că în 2010 vom avea o lipsă medie de minim 50 milioane de barili zilnic." Ca să înţelegeţi cifra, să o punem în perspectivă; în 2004 producţia zilnică mondială e de 80 de milioane de barili iar cifra aceasta nu se va mai mări niciodată, este maximul, vârful, peak-ul.
Deşi presa încearcă să vă convingă că e vorba de o criză temporară, vă rog să citiţi Ştiri recente şi să judecaţi singuri. Marea majoritate a ştirilor vin de la periodice consacrate şi nu au nevoie de prezentare. Vă întrebaţi cum e posibil? Cum apar asemenea ştiri în "NY Times" sau "Washington Post" şi nimeni nu dă alarma? Într-adevăr, răspunsul nu mai e aşa simplu. Dar are de a face cu faptul că 99 % din oamenii de la ei ca şi la noi nu citesc ziarele serioase şi au nivel de informare ce nu depăşeşte buletinul de ştiri de seară al televiziunii . Sau şi mai rău că presa lor ca şi presa noastră publică gunoaie. Dacă aţi citit în Sumar despre interviul lui Peter Odell publicat de BBC, atunci vă invit să comparaţi cu articole din presa romanească care publică articole despre piaţa internă de petrol - Stiri recente.
Bine, trebuie să recunosc că noi avem şi alte probleme (cum să furi de la stat 500 milioane de euro) Până la urmă în România merită să furi.
Aţi auzit de Proiectul Manhathan ?
In an article in Science, November 1, 2002, eighteen experts reported that they examined all the conventionally understood alternatives to fossil fuels and found them all to have “severe deficiencies” in their ability to deal with environmental problems while also being adequate to growing planetary energy needs. Physics Professor Martin Hoffert, leader of that research group, told the press that the United States would have to undertake an urgent energy research crash program, like the Manhattan atomic bomb project or the Apollo lunar missions. According to the New York Times (November 4, 2003, D1), Hoffert stated that we would need “Maybe six or seven of them [massive projects] operating simultaneously…We should be prepared to invest several hundred billion dollars in the next 10 to 15 years.”
E adevărat, preşedintele Bush a făcut ce trebuia. A invadat Irakul şi i-a pus pe cercetători la treabă pentru a găsi soluţii energetice noi. Irakul a rămas a doua ţară ca mărime a rezervelor de ţiţei după Arabia Saudită. Iar hidrogenul pare o soluţie interesantă. Până o studiezi mai mult. Aşa cum puteţi citi în ştiri mai precis aici, Bush s-a opus înfiinţării unei taxe pe combustibil ca în Europa, pentru că ştie că politic asta ar însemna să-şi taie craca de sub picioare.
Pe undeva pe aici se presupune că vorbim puţin şi de Azerbaijan. În 1997 un zvon despre petrolul de acolo a întunecat minţile câtorva. După ce perdeaua de fum a trecut, peste tot în Azerbaijan erau găuri goale, investitori ameninţau că se aruncă de la etaj, Amoco a fost preluat de BP şi secretarul american cu probleme de energie ( ministrul energiei ) şi-a dat demisia. Aşa că atenţie la păcălelile de genul "goana după petrol" pe care le veţi citi în ziare de mii de ori în viitorul foarte apropiat.
Nothing has the bang for the buck of oil, and nothing can replace it - either separately or in combination.
You probably know that crude oil was formed in ancient times from rotting vegetation or marine life, etc. It only appears in very unusual geological conditions where the rotting material happens to get trapped and compressed under rock dome 'lids' that prevent the usual composting and evaporation into the atmosphere.
No countries plan
for a decline in global oil production in the next decades.
On the contrary, in its annual
reports the International Energy Agency (IEA) presents
scenarios for the future development of the global economy
based on continued growth in fossil fuel consumption in
general and oil consumption in particular. In these
scenarios the per capita energy consumption remains much
higher in the OECD countries than in the developing
countries (9 times higher in 2000, 6 times higher in 2030)
and the OECD countries become more and more dependent on oil
and gas imports from the Middle East, Africa, and the FSU.
In a recent report
energy, technology and climate policy outlook 2030 (WETO)
Commission presents similar scenarios, based on
macroeconomic modelling under certain assumptions regarding
growth in population, economic growth, future costs of
different energy technologies, etc.
Le Monde 31.03.04
Michael Meacher, former Minister for the Environment of the United Kingdom (1997-2003), recently wrote in the Financial Times that in the absence of a general awakening and immediate global decisions of radical changes as regards energy, “civilisation” will face its most acute and violent upheaval of recent history.
If we want nevertheless to maintain a little humanity to the life on Earth in the years after 2010, we must, as the geologist, Colin Campbell, suggests, invite the United Nations to agree today to an agreement, based on the objectives of allowing the poor countries to still import a little oil; preventing profiteering from the oil shortage; providing incen-tives for energy saving; and stimulating renewable energies.
To achieve these goals, the universal agreement will have to implement the following measures. Each State shall regulate the imports and exports of oil; no oil exporting country shall produce more oil than its annual Depletion Rate, such to be scientifically calculated; and each importing State shall reduce its oil imports to match World Depletion Rate
This necessary recognition of physical economic limits will confront the theories of classical economics and the in particular the policies of the United States, whose successive governments have never accepted any question regard-ing the viability of the “American way of life”.
All American military interventions since the first oil crisis of 1973-1974 can be attributed to the fear an inter-ruption in the supply of cheap oil. Furthermore it was the peak of American oil production in 1970, which made it possible for OPEC to take control. It led to this first shock, coinciding with the Yom Kuppur war. The West then tried to regain control, not by energy saving but by bringing in new oil fields of Alaska and the North Sea. The Iranian Revolution of 1979 triggered the second oil crisis, returning power to OPEC, while the Western economies paid for their oil dependence by moving into recession over the following years.
Does the IEA deliberately aim to mislead?
A casual meeting with a member of the International Energy Agency revealed that it is at work on the next Energy Outlook, and is desperate to find a way to show that peak oil cannot arise before 2030. A fore-taste of this was also publicly presented in the workshop of the Swiss Federal Energy Office (see Item 334). In short, the stratagem is to take the USGS Mean Undiscovered and Mean Reserve Growth combined with Reserve to Production Ratio to demonstrate that there is enough to support growth to 2030, the convenient end of the study period. It evades the implication that production would have to fall like a stone in 2031 to respect even those numbers. The EIA did much the same with its earlier scenarios by assuming a 2% growth to a midpoint peak followed by a 10% decline, that succeeded in delaying peak to 2037, notwith-standing that a global 10% decline offends the physics of the reservoir.
The significance of this casual encounter is the recognition that the IEA studies derive not from ignorance or incompetence, but deliberately policy, based on the fear that any realistic assessment would cause panic, as the member governments are not remotely prepared. A similar reading has also been reported by a for-mer member of the UK Department of Trade and Industry, who says that the peak and decline of the North Sea is accepted internally, but the Minister finds it politically expedient to ignore the issue. The government is already in enough difficulty over its Middle East policy and immigration issues without drawing attention to the desperate energy crisis that stares it in the face.
Today, oil provides 40% of traded energy, and energy not money drives the economy. Production is set to start declining within about ten years. Since Hydrocarbon Man will be virtually extinct by the end of the Century, it might be a good idea to start planning how to use less and bring in such substitutes as can be found. Given the importance of the subject, it is surprising that more serious work is not done to resolve the matter. The obstacles are primarily political, tolerating ambiguous definitions and lax reporting practices, as there are no particular technical challenges in estimating the size of an oilfield or in assessing the potential for new discovery.
In a growth based economy such as ours, a 1-5% shortfall in oil supply will cause a recession. A 5-10% shortfall will cause a second Great Depression. The effects of a shortfall greater than 10-15% are almost too horrible to imagine.
what we can call the Energy/Cultural Transition (E/CT) can be seen as the dominant challenge of our times. The main characteristic of the E/CT is an inevitable and irreversible change
One measure which has been proposed as a physical representation of natural resource availability is the quantity of energy used to make an additional unit of a resource available to society
One of the most important aspects of energy is its "quality". Different kinds of fuel have different qualities. For example, coal contains more energy per pound than wood, which makes coal more efficient to store and transport than wood. Oil has a higher energy content per unit weight and burns at a higher temperature than coal; it is easier to transport, and can be used in internal combustion engines. A diesel locomotive uses only one-fifth the energy of a coal-powered steam engine to pull the same train. Oil's many advantages provide 1.3 to 2.45 times more economic value per kilocalorie than coal.
Oil is the most important form of energy we use, making up about 38 percent of the world energy supply. No other energy source equals oil's intrinsic qualities of extractablility, transportability, versatility and cost. These are the qualities that enabled oil to take over from coal as the front-line energy source in the industrialized world in the middle of this century, and these qualities are as relevant today as they were then:
If one considers the last one hundred years of the U.S. experience, fuel use and economic output are highly correlated. An important measure of fuel efficiency is the ratio of energy use to the gross national product, E/GNP. The E/GNP ratio has fallen by about 42% since 1929. We find that the improvement in energy efficiency is due principally to three factors: (1) shifts to higher quality fuels such as petroleum and primary electricity; (2) shifts in energy use between households and other sectors; and (3) higher fuel prices. Energy quality is by far the dominant factor.
Once we pass the peak, oil production will decline by 1.5-3% per year. Oil demand, however, will continue to increase by 1.5-3% per year. This means that one year post-peak, we will experience a 3-6% shortfall in oil supply.
None of the alternatives to oil can even come close to delivering net energy the way oil can.
With all due respect to any environmentalists reading this, your dreams of a society powered by renewable energy are based more in myth and fantasy than science and reality. It is physically and economically impossible for renewable energy to replace oil.
Oil has had an Energy Profit Ratio as high as 60 to 1. This means it takes one unit of energy to produce 60 units
Furthermore, almost every advocate of alternative energy fails to realize two absolutely key points:
1. It takes a tremendous amount of oil to build alternatives to oil such as solar panels, windmills, and nuclear power plants. The construction of an average solar panel system, for instance, consumes about as much energy as the construction of a brand new SUV.
2. It would take even more oil to retrofit our multi-billion dollar, fossil fuel based infrastructure to run on these alternative sources of energy.
in the best-case scenario, we will have to accept a drastically
reduced standard of living. None of the alternatives can supply
us with enough energy to maintain even a modest fraction of our
current consumption levels. To survive, we will have to
radically change the way we get our food, the way we get to
work, what we do for work, the homes we live in, how we plan our
families and what we do for recreation. Put simply, a transition
to these alternatives will require a complete overhaul of every
aspect of modern industrial society. Unfortunately, industrial
societies such as ours do not undertake radical changes