rickyp wrote:The notion that the US can be long term energy independent without moving to renewables in a big way, if its based on frakking reserves, is a dream Fate. Frakking is giving the US about a 20 year bubble which can be useful to really gear up renewables, capacitors and conservation.

A spokesman for the oil industry expressed optimism that new techniques will eventually open up the Monterey formation.

"We have a lot of confidence in the intelligence and skill of our engineers and geologists to find ways to adapt," said Tupper Hull, spokesman for the Western States Petroleum Assn. "As the technologies change, the production rates could also change dramatically."

Rock Zierman, chief executive of the trade group California Independent Petroleum Assn., which represents many independent exploration companies, also sounded hopeful.

"The smart money is still investing in California oil and gas," Zierman said.

"The oil is there," Zierman said. "But this is a tough business."

Ray Jay wrote:We've been talking about peak oil for 40 years; no doubt we will be talking about it for at least 40 more years.

danivon wrote:

Ray Jay wrote:We've been talking about peak oil for 40 years; no doubt we will be talking about it for at least 40 more years.

Well when it happens I expect we will talk about it a lot!.

Ray Jay wrote:It will never happen ...we didn't stop riding horses because we couldn't find any more.

Doctor Fate wrote:Renewables are NOT viable.

Oh. Wait. From the LAT:

A spokesman for the oil industry expressed optimism that new techniques will eventually open up the Monterey formation.

"We have a lot of confidence in the intelligence and skill of our engineers and geologists to find ways to adapt," said Tupper Hull, spokesman for the Western States Petroleum Assn. "As the technologies change, the production rates could also change dramatically."

Rock Zierman, chief executive of the trade group California Independent Petroleum Assn., which represents many independent exploration companies, also sounded hopeful.

"The smart money is still investing in California oil and gas," Zierman said.

"The oil is there," Zierman said. "But this is a tough business."

Hmm.

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:Renewables are NOT viable.

Not sure I believe this absolute truth is actually true. Do you have more than a soundbite?

Why on earth would a spokesman for a group that represents oil exploration companies boost for oil? It's mystery to me, if not possibly because, well, it's his job to boost for the industry his organisation represents.

Germany is cutting back.

BERLIN — Chancellor Angela Merkel’s government approved legislation on Tuesday revamping Germany’s sweeping plan to generate more than 40 percent of its energy needs through renewable resources by 2025 by slowing the rapid expansion of solar and wind parks in an effort to hold down spiraling prices.
Already, 25 percent of German energy comes from renewable resources, but that advance has come at a cost to consumers, who have borne the brunt of the surcharges that funded the expansion.
Keeping power prices in check is a key element of the government’s revised policy, even as it upholds exemptions for crucial industries that require high amounts of energy.
“Restart means no longer following the illusion that the energy transformation can be achieved by expanding renewable energy as quickly as possible, but to make sure that the expansion will be safe and predictable,” Sigmar Gabriel, the energy and economics minister, said in announcing the changes to the legislation, the Renewable Energy Sources Act

Mr. Rifkin is the principle architect of the European Union's Third Industrial Revolution long-term economic sustainability plan to address the triple challenge of the global economic crisis, energy security, and climate change. The Third Industrial Revolution was formally endorsed by the European Parliament in 2007 and is now being implemented by various agencies within the European Commission as well as in the 27 member-states.

rickyp wrote:fate

Germany is cutting back.

wrong

BERLIN — Chancellor Angela Merkel’s government approved legislation on Tuesday revamping Germany’s sweeping plan to generate more than 40 percent of its energy needs through renewable resources by 2025 by slowing the rapid expansion of solar and wind parks in an effort to hold down spiraling prices.
Already, 25 percent of German energy comes from renewable resources, but that advance has come at a cost to consumers, who have borne the brunt of the surcharges that funded the expansion.
Keeping power prices in check is a key element of the government’s revised policy, even as it upholds exemptions for crucial industries that require high amounts of energy.
“Restart means no longer following the illusion that the energy transformation can be achieved by expanding renewable energy as quickly as possible, but to make sure that the expansion will be safe and predictable,” Sigmar Gabriel, the energy and economics minister, said in announcing the changes to the legislation, the Renewable Energy Sources Act

Germany has bought into the idea that we are going through another Industrial revolution. And part of the revolution is the move to renewable energy.

Following Japan’s Fukushima nuclear disaster in 2011, German lawmakers opted for an even more dramatic change in policy. Riding the fashionable green wave of the moment, the main political parties in Germany reached a hasty decision to phase out all 17 of the country’s nuclear power plants. German leaders vowed to eliminate clean nuclear power while simultaneously aiming to reduce carbon emissions by 80 to 95 percent by 2050.

These overly ambitious and seemingly contradictory targets are to be achieved by an extravagant government plan to encourage the development of renewable energy production methods. Under this plan – called “Energiewende,” or “energy transition” – renewables, mostly solar and wind, would supply 80 percent of Germany’s electricity and 60 percent of the country’s total energy requirements.

If those goals look impossible, that’s because they are. Germany’s ongoing subsidization of alternative energy industries means Germans pay energy prices at least two to four times higher than the global average.

Regular middle-class households bear by far the greatest share of this onerous cost burden, since industries themselves are heavily subsidized.

Earlier this year, the German government revealed that 6.9 million families are in energy poverty, which is defined as spending at least ten percent of household income on energy expenses.Today, German citizens complain loudly about these extra costs, costs that Americans and most EU nations do not yet face.

Sigma Gabriel, Germany’s Vice Chancellor and Economic Minister, recently told a meeting of the country’s leading solar technology manufacturers that the energy transition policy was “on the edge of failure.” He and others have expanded on that startling public admission by explaining that massive government subsidies are unsustainable.

Meanwhile, technological innovation has been slowed and even obstructed as companies become accustomed to government subsidies. Even the extravagant goal of reducing carbon emissions has been reversed, with emissions steadily going up since the policy’s beginning. Germany now imports energy from nuclear plants across the border in France.

Doctor Fate wrote:

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:Renewables are NOT viable.

Not sure I believe this absolute truth is actually true. Do you have more than a soundbite?

Don't need more. Germany is cutting back. Spain lost its shorts trying to "go green."

Renewables are more expensive and not competitive. If that were wrong, then there would be a thriving market, particularly since government has had its thumb/hand/arm and everything else on the scale for the last 5 1/2 years.

Is solar a good investment?

Does wind beat oil cost-wise?

No.

Why on earth would a spokesman for a group that represents oil exploration companies boost for oil? It's mystery to me, if not possibly because, well, it's his job to boost for the industry his organisation represents.

He's also got recent history on his side. If you'll recall, we've been in a "scarcity panic" for 40 years. And yet, somehow, they keep finding new reserves and new ways to reach new reserves. In effect, yes, they are "renewing" oil.

So, in other words, they're willing to pay more for it. Great! We can crush our middle class too! Awesome!
I'd love to have a national referendum on this issue. I wonder how many Americans want their energy bills to "necessarily skyrocket?"

now that we know frakking is a bubble

rickyp wrote:Rapidly varying costs for energy are more difficult for industry to deal with then (sic) constant costs.

I don't think a reasonable person can know anything from just one study

rickyp wrote:ray

I don't think a reasonable person can know anything from just one study

The US Energy Information Administration report
http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/er/

is not one study. Its a compendium of actual production rates. Everything that we've had till now we're forecasts based upon industry promoters. Wall street trying to attract investors...
In other words its reality versus speculation.