Riots won’t bring oil prices down
June 6, 2008
(No Ratings Yet)
Loading ...Last Tuesday I was a witness of a very sad episode. Belgian riot police employed force against a group of French and Italian fishermen marching to the European quarter to protest violently against high price of fuel. A car crash occurred as a consequence of the riots. The frustration of the demonstration is easy to understand, but certainly demonstrations and street fights are not the answer to this problem. Oil prices are high and will go higher. No demonstration can change that.
In the past, periods of relatively expensive crude, were followed by periods of cheap oil due to temporary factors like the first Gulf war. Currently, as well, there are temporary factors that are influencing oil prices, like the boom in commodities markets, geopolitical situation in several key producing areas, the wakening of the dollar or the turmoil in global financial markets.
However, the real drivers of oil price escalade have a structural nature. You all know the offer and demand law. If offer decreases, price increases. If there is a growth on demand, there is also a growth on price. If, at the same time offer decreases and demand increases then, price skyrockets. This is precisely what is happening in oil markets.
In year 2000 China had 4 million cars. In 2005 - already 19 million cars. It is expected that in 2010 the Chinese car fleet will be 55 million and 130 million in 2020. India is following a similar trend, and the economies of the United States and Europe continue to devour oil in large quantities. More and more people compete for an increasingly scarce commodity. We all know that oil will run out some day. The exact date is certainly under discussion, but there is a fact that nobody can deny, getting oil out of the earth is now much more difficult and expensive that it used to be.
The easy sources of oil are already in use. Oil companies are currently exploring in deep seas or in frozen and inaccessible regions. Geopolitical uncertainties reign in oil producing areas, while there is a growing tendency among producing countries to nationalise their resources, or make foreign investments more difficult. There is a growing shortage of highly skilled working force and exploration and production of oil is becoming a high tech activity, extremely expensive.
We all know the consequences. The barrel is currently around 130$, 300% more expensive than only 3 years ago. Experts are talking about prices of 200$ per barrel for next year only. At this levels, even non-conventional oil sources, such as heavy crude or tar sands become attractive, despite its awful CO2 foot print and high energy consumption.
So what is the solution? Well, we have to move away from oil. This is what the European Energy Policy is all about. We need to reduce demand with more efficient transport, industry and housing. We need to promote alternative fuels, like biofuels, electricity or hydrogen; we need to change to cleaner and more efficient transport modes like rail, short sea shipping, or public transport. And in the meantime, we need to continue our dialog with oil producers to encourage them to produce more and to supply the markets better. On 24th of June, I will meet ministers of the OPEC countries to discuss with them on this issue.
The era of chap and easily available oil is over. We need to move away from black gold and put our efforts in a low carbon economy. The sooner we do that, the better.
Print This Post
Email This Post
RSS comments feed on this entry
June 6th, 2008 at 8:23 pm
The Directive 2003/54/EC , Article 3 is providing “Member States may impose on undertakings operating in the electricity sector, in the general economic interest, public service obligations which may relate to security, including security of supply, regularity, quality and price of supplies and environmental protection, including energy efficiency and climate protection ”. The Year and Problem ! Goals - Policy EU (Global) in 2030- Obligatory :energy savings !-Dependence on imported oil and gas could rise to 70% (World energy demand and CO2 emissions is expected to rise by some 60%).
YES for -The PLAN for the Promoting of Energy EFFICIENCY !The directions on action :
1.For Europe needs to deal with the challenges of climate change and a clear goal to prioritise energy efficiency with A Europe-wide “white certificates” trading system! .
2. Implantation of the Performant and Clean technologies for energy generation and use sector Energetics total Efficiency and in costs to makes certain for each ,therefore,and total -producer (slack link point of view ),conveyer and final consumer:
a.the urgent needs for investments and rehabilitation in the thermal sector ( that ensure approx.60% ot the electricity consumption;
b.implementation Performant Technologies -Modern furnace gas ;Regulate and control ardent ;Introduction on airsols ;Ardents mixeds for natural gas and light liquid fuels;Promotion of Co-generation , a significant increase in the use natural gas (the optimization to the steam extraction of turbines; the improvement of the steam thermal cycle; the use of combinated cycles – fuel-gases-steam, especially without post-combustion, which assure, in Thermalheating regime, a global efficiency more than 85% and double quantity of electric power);
c.the triple-generation system is the combinated production of electric power, heat and cold. This system assures annually a rising efficiency of central Thermalheating system(applied in Japan, United States – District Heating and Cooling(DHC)). Is necessary to introduce this system in temperate zones of Europe(inclusive commercial centers and public buildings).
3.The obligations the company in production ,transport and to distribute of energy in Romania
The Program ,with extending in other States, for put into practice of Law no.199/2000 concerning the efficient use of energy (Law Petre Naidin), republished, with the later modifications and the completions, at any trade society or local authority (more than 20.000 peoples): rehability, modernization and energy efficiency, inclusively through the introduction of new energy-efficiency technologies; the promotion of renewable energy sources . Beneficiary:the home consumers; the judicial persons consumers and we need about energy- certain and inexpansive, sustainable, ecologic and „intelligent” !.
S.O.S Live Earth and with Counsellor Naidin :www.eficientaenerg.ro/www.SOSTerra.go.ro and http://www.sustenergy.org( Promotion of Energy Intelligent Building PLAN-Romania –Naidin)!
June 6th, 2008 at 9:37 pm
There are no direct solutions to the above, however there are innovative concepts that surely will help to prevent and reduce the above mentioned issues.
This Latvian invention is one of them;
This Latvian company is starting to make artificial natural looking trees and plants, these trees and plants will be fitted with Nanoleaves. These Nanoleaves are a combination of nanophotovoltaic, nanopiezovoltaic and nanothermovoltaic thus converting 3 available energies “light, Thermal and Wind” into electricity in one system. This system is a tree for example a Oak tree. You can Imagen the efficiency, the aesthetics and the broad application range for these products.
Environmental friendly, highly efficient, low production cost, durable, easy to install, wide range of applications and added value. This is not only taking care of our energy needs, this is also creating jobs, preventing of heat islands and so on.
for more information please contact solarbotanic@apollo.lv
June 7th, 2008 at 6:25 am
RIOTS WONT HELP, BUT THE ARE COMING. CIVIL UNREST,RIOTING,REVOLTS,PANIC AND POSSIBLE CIVIL WAR.
WHAT WE ARE SEEING IS A PLANNED ENDING TO THE MIDDLE CLASS. WE WILL ONLY HAVE ONE OUTCOME. THE SURVIVORS WILL BE THE POOR AND THE RICH. NO MORE MIDDLE CLASS. THIS IS A PREPLANNED ENDING TO OUR SOCIETY. TERROISTS DONT HAVE TO USE GUNS TO DESTROY A CIVILAZATION OR WAY OF LIFE. ALL THEY HAVE TO DO IS FIND A COMMODITY THAT EVERYONE NEEDS AND PRICE IT TO WHERE IT IS EVENTUALLY SO HIGH THAT IT EFFECTS AND DESTROYS BUSINESSES AND LIVES. AND THEN ALL OF THE FOOLS ARE ELECTING THE PERSON THAT IS SET TO ENSURE THE DOWNFALL OF OUR SOCIETY. NO ONE EVEN THINKS ABOUT 9/11 ANYMORE. WHAT HAS HAPPENED TO AMERICANS.
June 9th, 2008 at 8:42 pm
I think we should just recognize that we will not be able to
sustain our energy-hungry lifestyle and accept our destiny with dignity.
Moreover , i think it is too late to change the destiny of our generation, that is , to maintain the current economical status quo;
all we can do is leave to our grandchildren a cleaner planet and a sustainable economy . I don’t think we’ll reach these objectives in our lifetime though , we should accept that .
just my two cents .
June 10th, 2008 at 2:21 pm
You’re absolutely correct, and energy efficiency and demand reduction is the way. So why is so much political capital of the Commission spent on the unbundling shenanigans?
June 10th, 2008 at 3:22 pm
It is now just over three months since you started your blog and since then oil prices have risen by about one third. But Andris don’t worry I am sure the Belgian police will continue to prevent strikers marching to your European Parliament quarter, well for the next couple of months at least, so no reason for alarm then.
“Currently, as well, there are temporary factors that are influencing oil prices” always have been always will but these are insignificant as you know (i hope).
“So what is the solution? Well, we have to move away from oil” Well, let’s get on with it, for starters a 90 kmh speed limit tomorrow and a ban on sales of new gas guzzlers from say 1 October 2008. That should get people’s attention and make it clear we have a problem that goes beyond just cutting the price of diesel. Or should we wait for more riots before you explain we can’t magic more oil?
“We need to promote alternative fuels, like biofuels, electricity or hydrogen” hydrogen is merely an energy carrier so unless there is some amazing breakthrough that allows hydrogen to be produced for less energy than can be obtained when buring it we are in a losing game. Isn’t more energy out than in some sort of perpetual motion machine?
“we need to continue our dialog with oil producers to encourage them to produce more” you’re probably wasting your breath and our time. Haven’t you heard, Mr KSA says they’re leaving some for their children? Also Salim bin Rashid Al Marri is seeking to persuade parliament members that the production must be linked to the country’s actual development needs not the needs of foreign consumers he says “Preserving our oil reserves is better than investing our financial surpluses which could lead to inflation”
June 10th, 2008 at 10:33 pm
Commissioner Piebalgs writes:
We need to move away from black gold ..
It is the black gold that is moving away from us, unfortunately. The black gold is the dog that wags the tail (consumer behaviour). It is the price of oil that is the independent variable and there is absolutely nothing the energy commissioner (or anybody else) can do about it. So don’t worry: once the price rises high enough, there will be no need for admonitions to wear a pullover, turn down the central heating, or practice eco-driving. Willy-nilly, scarcity will turn us all into eco-warriors.
In fact, things are so bad we’re not only running out of oil – we’re running out of scapegoats as well. Pity we can’t blame all this on Commissioner Piebalgs, or Big Oil, or Big Finance, or the Arabs, or the Murcans, or the Chinese. But the buck stops nowhere, which means it stops everywhere.
Shucks, no – I’ve changed my mind. Let’s bash Piebalgs again.
I’ve just found a typo in the penultimate line of his posting …
June 10th, 2008 at 11:25 pm
Dear Commissioner Piebalgs
I hope you find it as depressing as I do, that the Pavlovian response of most of the Heads of European Governments to rising oil prices is still to seek to persuade OPEC to increase the supply of oil.
It is depressing, because these are precisely the same Heads of Government who, with their following breath, will be reiterating their commitments to reducing carbon dioxide emissions. And who apparently refuse to acknowledge the contradictions in the two policies.
Yours sincerely
Andrew Warren.
June 12th, 2008 at 12:53 pm
Thre is some “light at the end of the tunnel” in fuel riots - if the problem will be there for some time, it will effecively cut off unproductive un unreasonable use of any type of energy, oil in the first round.
June 13th, 2008 at 1:25 am
Dear Commissioner Piebalgs ,Politics and Oil just got into the picture, and it’s not nice …
Europa must do it alone and fast! below is the opinion from here in the USA about the sad news that the neocons that got us into Iraq are basically controlling the campaigns from the 2 USA candidates, Obama and McCain as well the White House, so Europe is alone, YOU should MAKE A MOVE OUT OF OIL AT ONCE, IT’S JUST GOING TO GET A LOT WORST! …..remember that these financial neocons work with the Riyadh mullhas, they work together and the target is the gentiles in Europa and the USA: so get out of oil today !
….The big news in the USA today is that Barak Obama is including the Hedge-Funds in his team, with Orin Kramer from the N.J.Investment Council disaster,Farber and now Furman from the Robert Rubin group and the Citi Corp. 24 billion dollar hole with sub-prime ,swaps and energy freak futures , so the same neocon team that pushed for the Irak War , that pushed for ” no financial supervision to do as we please and blame others ” and that pushed for the ” LETS KEEP AMERICA ADDICTED TO OIL AND FORCED TO KEEP ITS TROOPS IN THE MIDDLE EAST FOREVER” is back in the Democrat’s donkey,so like they say:”…humans are the only animals that flip over on the same rock twice…” , and on the Republicans side, McCain’s got Kravis from KKR ,Schwartzman from Blackstone,,Eisenberg from the 9/11 WTC lease contracts and insurance policies for Silverstein (!!!) and Mehlman (ex-White House with Abrams and Libby) doing the money push behind the curtains…so it’s the same team as in the White House, a triple whammy, THEY ARE EVERYWHERE , they are betting short,long and steady, amazing! , no matter the winner in November 2008 THEY WILL KEEP THE WHITE HOUSE HOOK ON OIL AND MIDDLE EAST WARS FOR A VERY LONG TIME ….but after all, they got thousands of years of experience covering all their bases, right?
in essence , this is bad news for Energy Independence AND FOR PEACE, these neocons in the 2 candidates teams as well as in the White House will keep the USA against Venezuela,Russia,Iran ,etc., so to keep them out of the Oil markets and keep prices way up,with only the Middle East with friends and oil…get it ? a disaster for consumers and clearly a sign of 200 to 250 dollars a barrel by early 2009…it’s time to get together in Europa and plan a 12-18 month strategy , solar wind,geothermal,hydrogen , biofuels and sugar cane ethanol, and everything else you all know, it’s time for Europe to get out of this trap,right now !
June 13th, 2008 at 12:48 pm
Dear Andris,
This entry is the most appalling muddled mess - which is a direct reflection of EU energy policy. There are shafts of sunlight mixed in with utter rubbish.
Each time I have left an entry here I have told you that we are in the early stages of a full blown energy crisis. It is a great pity that you have waited until oil hit $130 per barrel and for French fisherman to riot before realising that this is indeed the case. Of course if you and your team were up to the job, you would be able to study the oil supply and demand data published by the IEA, the EIA and BP and conclude that an energy crisis is on the way in advance and put in place effective strategies to mitigate for this. But no, your approach is reactive, well behind the curve, wrongly focussed and without a substantial re-writing of the EU Energy policy, it is destined to fail. The riots in Belgium and Iberia are partly your fault. You are the EU energy commissioner, pipe dreaming whilst EU energy security drains away.
It is encouraging to see that you finally understand that demand for oil, gas and coal are rising whilst supply for oil at least is static. Rising demand against static supply is controlled by escalating price, encouraging conservation and pricing poor Europeans out of the energy market. You should by now understand that when poor people get priced out of the energy market they riot.
The next thing you need to grasp with some urgency is that oil supply will not stay static for long. IT IS GOING TO GO DOWN ONE DAY VERY SOON. (2012±3 years) And then the problems we are experiencing now will get worse by a factor of 100 or more. WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO ABOUT THIS?
The EU and the OECD in general has absolutely no control over raising global oil supplies. You seem to think that OPEC does, BUT YOU DON’T UNDERSTAND THAT OPEC ARE PUMPING FLAT OUT. The IEA data shows that their reserve capacity is near zero. So the only control OPEC has would be to reduce supply in order to conserve their dwindling reserves for future generations.
Thus, the only part of the equation that the EU can control is demand. The EU needs to introduce with some urgency measures to reduce demand for oil and natural gas. And here I believe you make some good points. We need solid, urgent plans to radically transform our transportation systems. To be blunt, cheap air travel for all will not be part of this future. Shipping, canals, and electrified mass transit and electric cars are the future. We need someone with vision to stimulate pilot V2G projects across Europe.
Energy conservation and energy efficiency must be vital cornerstones of the EU energy policy. I believe you understand that but you don’t seem to understand what energy efficiency means. (hence you drive one of the least energy efficient cars ever produced). Producing H uses more energy than can be recovered. It is an energy sink, a waste of energy and a waste of time (apart from in some isolated special cases). Ethanol consumes almost as much energy as it produces and falls into the same category - a waste of time and precious energy. You are converting Gold (nat gas) to Lead (ethanol - anecdote borrowed from Matt Simmons). As a guiding beacon if the eroei of an energy producing system is less than 7 then it must be ignored. It does not produce sufficient net energy to run society - and so pursuing the twin follies of H and ethanol will drag Europe off the net energy cliff.
In essence what you have done in this blog entry is to re-package the wholly misguided EU energy policy that is predicated on climate change and trying now to sell this rubbish as a solution to the emerging energy crisis.
From here there are two ways forward. You either have to admit that the current energy policy is a shambolic mess, tear it up and start over - but this needs to be done urgently, within a matter of months. Or you need to resign and let someone else do this vital job.
Euan Mearns BSc PhD
Editor The Oil Drum Europe
PS I wholly endorse tonyw’s comment up thread - if you want to reduce demand for oil today we need pan-european speed limits and legislation on gas guzzlers. Let these fine German engineers turn their attention to efficiency instead of speed and power.
I have just opened a discussion thread over at The Oil Drum - so you may get a few more comments.
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/4147
June 13th, 2008 at 2:27 pm
A shorter Piebalgs: “Let them eat cake.”
June 13th, 2008 at 3:54 pm
Total CEO, Christophe de Margerie, stated last week ‘that to replace reserves now will cost a minimum of $80 per barrel’. With the ‘easy oil’ already being exploited future reserves will have to be sourced from difficult / remote areas thus requiring project lead time before ‘first oil’ of 6 to 8 years. Future price will need to be at least $150 - $200/bbl to attract necessary investment taking into account interest on capital during the long development period, risk and a profit margin.
Even more important is the impact of the ‘Export Land Model’ where the combination of flat or declining production and rising internal consumption in key oil exporters leads to a rapid fall-off in volumes available for export. Huge internal fuel subsidies keep the populations of these (mainly OPEC) nations immune to market based price rises hence there is little incentive to conserve - SUV’s etc abound. Gasoline currently retails at 2.5 and 7.5 euro CENTS per litre in Venezuela and Saudi Arabia respectively! Rising internal consumption together with crashing output in its largest oilfield mean Mexico is on track to cease oil exports entirely by around 2014. With volumes available for export about to experience a sharp decline where does EU propose to source oil supplies for any form of ‘business as usual’?
Given the above, why is EU continuing to facilitate major expansion of highways and aviation in member states, construction of out of town business parks and campuses etc? Not least when is aviation fuel not taxed at all (when it should accrue the same rate as road fuel) and why are aircraft not subject to VAT? Large scale funding continues to be directed to these unsustainable activities when it should instead be used to electrify transportation systems, provide mass transit and re-design society so as to be much more to a local scale (think walking, cycling etc) and thus far less fossil fuel dependent.
The implications of paragraph 1) and 2) above are that oil is going to become much more expensive…and scarce. More fuel riots will ensue together with long lines at the pumps. Make little mistake about it, the EU will change to use far less oil; it’s just a case of whether the change is started now as a matter of urgency but in a planned manner or whether EU remains in reactive mode. The latter, of course, means that Nature will simply make the changes for us!
June 13th, 2008 at 5:00 pm
Commissioner,
while you are of course correct that rioting will not lower liquid fuel prices, your note does little more than cover the usual points with regard to both causation and mitigation of the energy dimension of the three converging crises, namely the common decline of security of climate, food, and energy.
For those whose livelyhoods are being crushed, now, today, sober talk of “economic fundamentals” just doesn’t register.
Furthermore, these rioters are just “the first of the swallows” given the number of industries facing untenable costs. For example, where I farm in Wales, most farmers are not using any fertilizer this year, since the major loss of yield arising will be less costly than the exorbitant fertilizer prices.
I fully recognize that there is much about Peak Oil that cannot be said by an EU Commissioner without causing a panic - indeed, I do not envy your position. But, with respect, there is much more that surely must be said with regard to mitigation if outright widespread panic is to be avoided.
People are beginning to be afraid that there are no solutions capable of supporting a reasonable society, either in energy or food supply, and the EU Commission has yet to provide (and to widely disseminate) any credible reassurance.
Yet it owns, for instance, the report it funded back in the ’80s detailing how 80% of the EU-15 nations’ power could be collected from Wave Energy on the Atlantic Seaboard.
Instead of developing that option, I understand that five thousand million euros of EU funds are now being poured down the drain of Hydrogen Fueling.
I suggest that we need strategies that offer positive impacts across the three converging crises, that is,
we need to raise food production while using less fertilizer,
we need to replace at least a fraction of liquid fuel supply with sustainable alternatives while agreeing Contraction & Convergence as the basis of a global “Treaty of the Atmospheric Commons”,
and we need to capture very substantial amounts of airborne carbon.
What is more, any attempt to use technologies for these ends that are not globally replicable, almost certainly dooms us to the global failure and decline into resource warfare.
Moreover, given the privation that is likely coming to formerly wealthy European states, perhaps the most vital factor is the development of a popular sense of common purpose. People must not only believe in the viability of mitigation efforts, to participate effectively they must also be confident of fair play and of others sharing the burdens.
From this latter perspective, I suggest that the repair of the EU Parliament’s democratic deficit is simply pre-requisite to The EU’s successful navigation of the crises.
There is one technology I’d commend to you for consideration as a model of integrated efficacy, as I doubt it has been brought to your attention.
Back in ‘56, after Hubbert’s seminal warning, Shell’s strategic planning group reviewed the diverse liquid fuel options and selected as “the Backstop Option” that of using Coppice Woodlands’ annual harvest for Methanol production.
(Present research yields an output of over 60% by weight).
Europe, like much of the planet, has much steep land, high land and waste land that is simply not viable for crop production - here in the UK over 30% of our ground is now high moorland, though once it was mostly forest.
Hauling fuelwood more than a few miles gets very costly, so village scale refineries will be needed, which again fits neatly with developing countries’ needs and capacities - oxen can do the haulage perfectly well if needed.
The wood-conversion process yield roughly twice the carbon-to-hydrogen ratio needed for methanol, so there is, potentially, a substantial yield of charcoal available at village-refinery level. This can be used to double or triple farm yields under the very ancient technique of “Terra Preta”.
(If you are not already aware of this technique you have some remarkably good news awaiting your enquiry).
The third benign outcome of “the Backstop Option” is that of very substantial carbon sequestration,
first in widespread reforestation for sustainable coppice energy with a standing stock of carbon being held in coppice above ground, plus a growing stock below ground and also in growing shelter-belts,
and second in the widespread annual plowing-in of charcoal by farmers under the practice of Terra Preta.
The Backstop Option is the only one I’ve found that addresses each of the three converging crises, and thus I suggest that it will also do most to help generate that urgently required popular sense of common purpose.
I hope very much that you are able to advance these ideas.
Regards,
Lewis Cleverdon
June 13th, 2008 at 5:50 pm
The original entry discusses the problem, with only scratching at the surface. While no obvious solutions exist, there is a need for action. As an American Senator recently said, Energy Efficiency is a like a great big train coming out of the station. Of course there will be problems on the way, but I say, let the train get started moving.
It has to. Oil may or may not be available at today’s production rates for the forseeable future, but continuing extraction will inevitably become increasingly expensive. One thing to note in the supply-demand analysis is that a barrel of oil from an exising land-based well and a barrel of oil from a deep sea well provide the same amount of energy at the end of the day. However, the barrel from the new deep sea well is inherantly more expensive, regardless of demand. An increase in demand may justify this extra expense, but this difficulty in extraction is where it comes from. So, regardless of future demand, I would expect that cheap oil is a thing of the past. All the cheap oil is gone, for purposes of this view.
This brings back to the point you finished with, which needs to become action rather than rhetoric, both in the EU and in the USA. efficiency and alternative energy sources need to be developed, with all the efforts of the industrialized world. Yes / No should not be the discussion. The discussion should only be “How”.
June 13th, 2008 at 6:29 pm
For the purposes of brevity, I echo the comments of;
- damiano
- Jerome a Paris
- tonyw
- Andrew Warren
- Vidvuds Svire
- Euan Mearns
- Chris Barton
I’ve said the same things here before. Infrastructure support must change from focusing on cars to pedestrian, bike, and mass transit. Land use planning (and permitting) must revert to the traditional European practice of walkable communities, supported by light rail, and interconnected with heavy rail. Can you find it within yourself to boldl progress in this direction?
June 13th, 2008 at 8:46 pm
We have enough energy, its right above our heads.
It is called “wind energy”
Here and there you see large slim towers with 3 rotating blades at the top. That is where smart sustainable people live.
Go ask them how they managed to build these windturbines, that is how they are called.
Especially in Germany and Denmark, they have factories that build them. The nice thing is, everyone can buy these windturbines.
if you do, and build them soemwhere in the country, they start producing electricity.
We just need to build about 200.000 of then in Europe, to replace most of our oil demand.
Want to get rich? Build 300.000 of these amazing machines.
Why Andris, does the EU not execute a intensive program to introduce this readily available sustainable technology in the EU society? Why wait? You are in the driverseat!
June 14th, 2008 at 12:35 pm
I like the Solar Botanic Idea, lets go green Mr. Piebalgs
Roberto
June 14th, 2008 at 1:26 pm
Dear Andris
I endorse the comments made by Euan Mearns, Editor of The Oil Drum Europe.
Recently I have helped edit an article to be shortly published in the journal Renew, on behalf of the Claverton Energy Group, around 200 UK scientists, engineers, ‘energy’ academics, financiers and ‘energy’ entrepreneurs.
We as a group focus mainly on the woeful insecurity of the UK, but clearly the EU context is of profound importance. Focus on low EROEI technology like liquid biofuels, is as Euan points out one of a number of very stupid so-called solutions. Insulation of our UK homes on the other hand is an obvious priority for our national security but there are other obvious ‘no regrets’ pan-EU policies we point to. We do need you to get real and move on and promote infrastructure that can deal with the coming decline in total fossil fuel use.
June 14th, 2008 at 1:29 pm
Dear Commissioner Piebalgs,
With all due respect, but you really need to get going.
Supply is not going to increase for europeans so demand in europe needs to be cut while still preserving our economy.
Please stop waisting time.
June 14th, 2008 at 1:30 pm
Today on june 9th 2008-I was deleted by wecansolveit.org-
the organization looking for alternative energy for america has deleted me- the man who solved the energy crisis-
why- because i say I am a messenger of god
you want your cake and eat it too- you want life exactly the way you want it and not told by another
you dont pick your messengers- they are chosen-
i had enough- i have now endured 13 months on this net being deleted by every arrogant organization run by humans and just regular folk like you who have always ignored my messages since my time upon the net-
well i am done with your stupidity-
let your oil prices go up- let your food prices go up- watch your economies crumble- see your jobs lost- get rid of all your pet animals as you cannot feed your family and pet dog as so many are giving them to the pound-
I have come openly with a solution 13 months ago only to be ignored-
now a gluttonous world playing on the internet shall all learn how primitive man is and must be civil to one another- instead of shunning someone bringing forth a solution- in the months to follow- you will learn there is no alternative fuel- panic mode will set in very soon-
when you understand clearly how important energy is- i guess your arragance will stop and just implement my scientific deeds - as for my messenger duties- it will make sense in time- all is well- but it will only get better after your destruction- i am sorry i have to say this- but it is I who has now watched you completely ignore and ridicule a man of god- as always you will learn the hard way-
time will tell
solomon azar
noblefuse.com
June 14th, 2008 at 3:34 pm
There is an old joke about a bystander watching a man hit his donkey with a wooden plank. When asked what he is doing the man replies, “I’m trying to get him to move, but first I have to get his attention.”
The “riots” and strikes may not “do” anything, but first they have to get your attention. This seems to be the only way political action takes place. When the fear of civil unrest gets high enough then politicians start to think that there is a problem. When the real civil unrest breaks out (1789,1848, 1968) then they start to think that maybe they should even look for some solutions.
Which side of history do you want to be on this time? The proactive or reactive side?
June 15th, 2008 at 12:58 pm
Gas-guzzling vehicles have become a DIRECT THREAT to economic and societal stability. There must be tax incentives to get them off the road and replace them with far more fuel efficient vehicles.
Forget current generation biofuels - they’ve already caused PEAK FOOD.
Fuel efficient vehicles can - if electric - have very good performance and still be relatively large. In the USA there is a start up company AFS-Trinity that has produced an SUV plug-in electric hybrid vehicle that does 65km on an overnight charge. Most city commuters would NEVER need petrol. For inter-city travel it uses petrol but at 1.5L/100km or 150 miles per gallon!!
Major car makers are way behind. The AFS-Trinity engine should be heavily subsidised to replace the existing motor fleet.
Of course to replace the existing road fleet will take many years. So expansion of PUBLIC TRANSPORT by electrified rail and trams is essential.
Then turn European know how to renewable electricity. Peak Coal will hit before end of this century, Peak Gas will come at some time too. If there was a massive increase in Nuclear Power - Peak Uranium would happen within 10 years some say.
But current CSP (concentrating solar power) technology could power all Europe from power stations ranging from Spain across Nth Africa to the Middle East - not a brilliant security scenario admittedly but at least potentially infinite source of energy and at least no more security problems than the current oil based world economy. Tidal, wave and wind power could maybe power much of Europe - so just keep building and developing it so it is available by time of Peak Coal or when perhaps Global Warming becomes just so obvious and threatening we know we must turn the coal power stations off to survive.
June 16th, 2008 at 7:44 am
“So what is the solution? Well, we have to move away from oil. This is what the European Energy Policy is all about. We need to reduce demand with more efficient transport, industry and housing. We need to promote alternative fuels, like biofuels, electricity or hydrogen; we need to change to cleaner and more efficient transport modes like rail, short sea shipping, or public transport.”
1. How about moving away from diesel specifically? The shortage curve for diesel is well ahead of the shortage curve for gasoline.
2. How much land acreage does the EU have for potential biofuels? Given current infrastructure, wouldn’t it be best to capitalize on an already, somewhat healthy, V2G infrastructure?
3. What sort of hydrogen are you talking about? If you’re talking about fuel cells, it’s a far too expensive, long-term, solution that we’ll likely never get to. If you’re talking about hybrid electric/electrolysis vehicles that convert water to H+H+O (Brown’s Gas) and then combust the gas, you might end up with a net win. But since there’s practically zero infrastructure for electrolysis driven vehicles, you’d probably be better off fast tracking a direct V2G build.
4. How much unrest will it take for the EU to shift to emergency mode in seeking these viable alternatives? If the window is now until 2012, then you’d better get moving. As Euan noted above, now is not the time to dally!
“You all know the offer and demand law. If offer decreases, price increases. If there is a growth on demand, there is also a growth on price. If, at the same time offer decreases and demand increases then, price skyrockets. This is precisely what is happening in oil markets.”
You may also wish to take into account a growing trend among producers to husband their resources. Kuwait is on the verge of admitting overestimating its reserves. The result would be a drastic reduction in Kuwaiti exports to 1% of real oil in place in order to preserve the resource for approximately 100 years. In other words, at the point at which the resource is considered ’scarce’ and ‘precious’ the tendency is to hoard as the value proposition is biased to trend higher and higher as time goes on.
The only way to fight this vicious cycle is to destroy or remove through innovation and efficiency a significant amount of demand. With North America, Asia, the Middle East, and Europe all in need of this supply, the prospect for diminished demand must be a substantial portion of all demand. In other words, if the gain in the Middle East and Asia overwhelms the reduction in US/Europe, then you’re running to stand still or running to fall behind.
It will take massive effort, on the part of the OECD to get ahead. If we are smart, we’d enlist China and India in the innovation race as well.
It may sound alarmist to say so, but the race is not just for new energy. It is also for the preservation of civilization and the prevention of dissolution and vicious resource wars.
June 16th, 2008 at 9:35 am
Please read this interview with IEA Chief Economist Fatih Birol!
Excerpt:
Fatih Birol Offers the World an Oil Health Check, and the prognosis isn’t good.
The International Energy Agency used to have the role of being the energy optimists, reassuring Governments and markets that there would be sufficient supplies to keep the world sufficiently fueled for the foreseeable future. Indeed, it is still one of their wildly outdated and wildly optimistic forecasts that still underpins the UK government’s absurb assertion that oil will cost $67 a barrel in 2020.
Every year the IEA publish their ‘World Economic Outlook’, which gives their assessment of where the world is in terms of oil and other energy supplies. Last year’s talked of a ’supply crunch’ in 2012. This years has been based on their going back to the data and reassessing the state of the world’s supply. What they have found has clearly shocked them, and already IEA Chief Economist Fatih Birol, a man with the perfect hang-dog glum expression to be breaking this news, is doing the rounds preparing people for the forthcoming report.
What follows is an interview he gave recently in International Politik, the Journal of the German Council on foreign Relations. If ever there was an example of a man with bad news to break breaking it in the most straightforward way possible and not mincing his words, this is it. Essential reading…..
Link: http://transitionculture.org/2008/06/12/fatih-birol-offers-the-world-an-oil-health-check/
In short: Peak Oil is here.
June 16th, 2008 at 10:12 am
Can I request something?
When you meet these ministers from OPEC, can you request of them that they open their books regarding their field production and reserve data? This is of such vital importance to the future of our economy that they can hardly refuse - unless they have something major to hide, of course.
It looks very much like peak conventional oil is here. And if we do not meet this challenge, I am 99% sure that such ‘market solutions’ as coal-to-liquids, increased tar sands extraction and other very carbon-intensive solutions will be scaled up, even if they don’t fix the problem.
June 16th, 2008 at 11:08 am
Dear Commissioner Piebalgs thank you for your pulic comments about the recent riots caused by the high oil price .
Please allow me to comment on your proposed solutions
[quote] And in the meantime, we need to continue our dialog with oil producers to encourage them to produce more and to supply the markets better. On 24th of June, I will meet ministers of the OPEC countries to discuss with them on this issue. [/quote]
IMHO If they could give us more oil i guess that the $130 price would convince them.
[quote]So what is the solution? we need to change to cleaner and more efficient transport modes like rail, short sea shipping, or public transport. [quote]
IMHO Yes we do . However in our society people do something because it is more profitable than the alternative.
We are talking about serious money here.
Does this kind of money really exists ?
[quote] We need to promote alternative fuels, like … , electricity … [/quote]
IMHO If with “electricity” you are talking about electrification of transportation then i agree with you.
[quote]
We need to promote alternative fuels, like biofuels, … or hydrogen; [/quote]
Hydrogen is a net energy loser a battery not an energy source.
Hydrogen is now made from natural gas.
Hydrogen would require that the entire fleet and infrastructure be remade something that IMHO would require an astronomical cost.
IMHO ammonia or supercapacitors or litium phosporus batteries would be a far better alternative IF we had lots of time.
Biofuels
IMHO At best biofuels would be a valid excuse for all countries in the world to stop food exports.
This will cause mass starvation.
IMHO Biofuels production and production is a total waste of time because in an age of
food shortages and energy shortages the EU will need to trade its food surplus to get opec oil surplus.
Converting food to biofuel then will be totally ineficient and out of the question.
—————————
A great percentage of all the ads in TV are about buying new cars.
I wish that something could be done about those ads.
Like in smoking ads.
Perhaps the bottom 1/3 rd of those ads could say something like this
“if you buy this new automobile you help to raise the price of oil and gas.”
chrisfromgreece
June 16th, 2008 at 11:34 am
Mr Piebalgs,
you can fiddle while the EU burns or you can be part of the solution. That would first involve an admission of the true scale of the problem for Europe. Ring the alarm! Break the glass! This is an emergency. Plan for oil prices at $1000 a barrel in five years and you might start to flirt with reality. YOU HAVE A VOICE in Brussels - USE IT before the lights are off and petrol stations empty.
Or, alternatively, just resign and leave the mess to your successor.
June 16th, 2008 at 11:50 am
The EU’s current emphasis is on CO2 reduction.
This is good in itself but does not address the most urgent issue.
Oil is in crisis, and gas will be so shortly.
This is not basically due to speculation, and ultimate reserves are irrelevant to it.
What counts is that it is costing more and more in money and energy to extract additional barrels of oil or meters of gas.
Big oil exporters like Saudi and Russia are using more and more of their oil, so there is less and less available for export, and what there is has to be shared with rapidly expanding China and India.
It is all very well to say that it is pointless rioting, but you are driving the bus, and will be held responsible.
For instance, the current business model of air travel is unsustainable with oil at $130/barrel, let alone the higher costs which will be here soon.
So why are more airports being built and extended?
What about the tourist industry in Greece and Spain? What plans are in place to cope with the hit that will have?
Where is the oil to come from to fuel the cars and lorries to use the roads that are being built?
As a planner, the job is to plan, and there is little sign of recognition of the most urgent problem we have, let alone a joined up plan to deal with it.
June 16th, 2008 at 12:03 pm
Andri, I beg you - help this new technology to reach our region ASAP!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KBBxQA7OYVk&eurl=http://www.tribine.lv/articles/4896/1/Naktones_tehnologijas
June 16th, 2008 at 12:07 pm
Yeah, I know - government will not be able to tax alternative fuels that are available for free, so the only option is something governments can fully control and tax.
June 16th, 2008 at 12:27 pm
This comment by Andrew Warren is pretty damming of the hypocrisy of you and the majority of European politicians. We’ve turned up here for 3 months now to be preached to about the glory of EU energy policy and its central goal to reduce CO2 emissions. And now you tell us your off to the Middle East to ask the Arabs to raise their oil production. It pretty much proves that your energy policy is not just shambolic but it is a scam as well.
A few pointers:
We are entering an energy crisis and need to conserve energy at all costs:
CO2 sequestration (without miscible gas flooding of oil reservoirs) is a waste of energy - bad
Producing hydrogen is a waste of energy - bad
Producing ethanol is a waste of energy (blasting food off in a traffic jam - common!) - very bad
Windmills - good
Hydro - good
Solar - good
HVDC - good
V2G - good
Batteries - good
Insulation, insulation, insulation - very good
Combined heat and power - good
Electric trains - good
Electric trams - good
Gas guzzlers - bad
Driving at 150 kph - bad
Tumble driers - bad (during day time)
Single occupancy dwellings - bad
Cheap air travel for all - bad
Cutting energy taxes - bad
The list is not exhaustive. Now which of these are you actively involved in promoting and which of these are you actively discouraging? It would make and interesting Blog entry.
Euan Mearns BSc PhD
Editor The Oil Drum Europe
June 16th, 2008 at 12:47 pm
Dear Mr Piebalgs,
I think it is safe to say we all agree that riots will not bring down the oil price. Even the rioters deep down understand this.
However, one must also understand that those who riot are (beginning) fighting for their livelihood. Desperate times call for desperate measures, if and when their leaders fail them.
Further, it should be painfully obvious to anybody who follows oil production data and not PR gibberish, that asking OPEC nicely to pump out something that they cannot pump, is not going to bring down the price either.
You can extend this to Russia as well and you will find the same answer.
Furthermore, any and all alternatives do not scale well enough to meet current annual demand growth rate. That includes all biofuels, all unconventional oils, all efficiency measures and all alternative energy storage pathways - combined.
This has been calculated several times by several independent analysts (Michael R Smith/Energyfiles Ltd, Robert Hirsch/SAIC/MIS, etc).
Also, it is now painfully obvious even to the conservative IEA that beyond 2015-2017 - maybe even sooner - we may not even be able to sustain current levels of production, which is a far, far worse situation than not being able to meet growing demand. When we start declining in daily available production capacity, all of the riots this year will look like an amusing sideshow.
Thus, you, your team and the rest of the EU administration along with all of the rest of us face a question of grave importance:
When we face a liquid energy crisis that has not immediate solution with the next 25 years, we will have to cut consumption drastically.
The relevant question is: will you let the markets turn to chaos, before you turn to the obvious measures: stringent new standards, taxation targeting and eventually rationing?
Will it be a forced and panic-ridden reduction in consumption with all of it’s side effects like panic-buying, ultra-spikes and loss of functioning to major logistic systems
or
will we choose an alternative, planned and yes, painful, but hopefully more ordered transition?
Which would you choose, if you could decide?
We all will have to start using less, because in the end it will be about more than just prices rising. There just won’t be enough fuel to go around for everybody.
That is what you need to be concentrating on.
The transition to new energy systems will take more decades than either of us will live to see (ref: Marchetti).
The important point is to set us on an orderly course for those who come after us to follow
Which brings me to a second important theme - which is the selection between new alternatives for transport logistics energy systems.
You need to be really careful about the ethanol and hydrogen lobbies, because they are touting systems that cannot be physically sustained.
And while you and I may be able to break a few laws of politics, good argumentation and even fiscal funding - the laws of physics do not break.
Thus it is imperative to prevent as many a false start as possible when transitioning to new energy platforms.
We do not have a lot of time and most of all, energy to waste.
With Best regards,
Antti Kaipainen
June 16th, 2008 at 12:53 pm
Andris,
Europe is caught between the rock and the hard place.
The new (and apparently not working too well) EU structure leaves you guys with no real power. You are not going to get unity on a REAL energy policy. I think this energy crisis will be the thing which splits the EU up again. Sadly, there are too many self centered and divergent vested interests involved to actually allow any change.
Euan has told you the reality of what you should be doing.
Sadly, the hat you are wearing has already failed you. There would have been no riots had any of the worlds politicians understood that the TOD is a highly intellectual forum which “knows” what is coming down the tubes.
You guys (dolls) should, at least 10 years ago, certainly 5 years ago, and definitely 2 years ago, have started telling people the truth of their situation. (Which you still are not doing)
Every day you wait industry will make more profits at the expense of the destruction of all their consumers.
You look like a young man still and if the Olduvai Theory kicks in, You may not and your children certainly will not survive the myopic European Energy policy.
Graham
June 16th, 2008 at 2:54 pm
Mr Piebalgs,
As someone here said, you do not have an easy job, but you do have the potential of being ‘that man who proposed the Bold Plan”. A visionary is required though, not a sympathetic and well-meaning bureaucrat.
Denny
June 16th, 2008 at 6:01 pm
my dear Andris,
We seem to need a new socio-political movement in the EU to better articulate
the various global energy and resource issues to the european public.
The various sentiments that led to recent violence during the truckers strike
are a clear indication of a substantial gap between the emotional reactiveness
of the public to unevenly distributed energy scarcity and the percieved priorities of most EU governments and political movements.
This should lead to the formation of a energy-reactive
broad-spectrum politics based on the accelerated implementation
of different alternative energy economies,
divided in progressive, conservative and green energy movements.
The public should be properly informed about the value
and nature of energy to any economy,
and the reasons for implementing rationing
(by price) should be discussed in detail on a international level
before we accidentally trigger a nasty revolution.
The EU must prioritize the allocation of funds to transport and distribution systems, electricty generation and agriculture, since these systems affect all other economic activity, and have a disproportionately high impact when disrupted.
Liquid alternatives to petroleum must be implemented where sensible,
biofuels that require arable land or fertilizer and freshwater
inputs must be seen as rubbish!
Total electrification of all EU distrubution and transportation
should probably be our goal, as it offers the highest thermodynamical efficiency,
but this might take 20 years or more.
The electricity can be generated in many different ways, but non-fossil should remain focus, what with AGW to consider.
This process of public and political re-education
on energy and resource potentials
would concievably reduce the negative responses
to constraints that will emerge.
Unfortunately, any true public insight in energy might also reveal the true nature of globalised financial capitalism, that is,
the economic proportioning and rationing of human slavery
into discrete units of money,
and why we have far too much unstable money, and too many people,
relative to available energy and resources.
Public knowledge of this energy-leak in money, and specifically its distribution, might trigger or intensify socio-economic meltdown, if the public begins to value energy over actual money.
This is the time of energy descent.
Solutions are possible, but first we must identify the problem.
It is NOT only a technological problem, it is a sociological problem,
since less than 1% of the EU population actually produces any energy.
Expanding the ammount of available energy
will not only require many techno-solutions,
it will eventually ammount to a sociological restructuring,
and the formation of a new class of energy-farmers and specialists.
Energy, money, power and freedom are intimately related,
these remain unevenly distributed within our glorious society.
Demand destruction on the level of the poor
is also the destruction of their power,
or the reduction of their indivdual human freedom,
and the poor can sometimes identify the reasons for this.
So you may also solve this particular problem by making the EU truckers less poor.
June 16th, 2008 at 6:28 pm
“we need to continue our dialog with oil producers to encourage them to produce more and to supply the markets better”
This is a typical reaction of short-sighted politicians and is just about the worst thing you could do. The energy crisis is only just starting. In a few years time it is going to get a lot worse. World oil production is currently at an all time high, so imagine how bad it is going to be when oil is declining by several percent a year.
Five or ten years from now we are almost certain to find ourselves in such a position, so if producers are currently holding back some supply for future years, we should be congratulating them for their foresight, not putting pressure on them to produce more at a time of relative plenty. Please remember, Mr Piebalgs, that these are the good times. Oil is currently cheap and plentiful, and climate change has barely begun. This is not going to last much longer.
As others have also pointed out, your desire for oil production to be increased is also in blatant contradiction with your claims to be concerned about climate change. If you were really concerned about climate change, you would not only be encouraging producers to reduce their current production, but would be working to ensure that some oil/gas/coal was never extracted at all.
Alternative technologies may be of help during the oil decline/crash, but they will not replace oil. Unforunately, politicians have skillfully used these technologies as a distraction from the more effective action of reducing energy demand. Ultimately the societies which will fare best will be those which learn to live with less, not those committed to wasteful and polluting biofuels.
The European Commission needs to move away from its obsession globalisation and start getting serious about localisation and reducing energy consumption. By voting no, the Irish have given you a chance to think again about the direction you are pushing Europe in. Please use your opportunities much more wisely than you have done so far.
Cóilín Nunan.
June 16th, 2008 at 6:34 pm
Dear Mr. Piebalgs,
you certainly cannot blame the fishermen and truckers for rioting, as their whole future is literally draining away from them. Because of decades of failed policies, because your kind has made a fool of itself by being the sycophants of an invasive, destructive economy, ducking everytime, when master money called and thus supporting a system that is devouring the base it depends upon, millions of people will face their ruin and whole ecosystems their devastation. Everybody worshipped gluttony, when temperance was needed. This was the easy path, on whose end hell awaits.
So you should blame yourself and politicians in general for failing to act, when there was still time to do so, and instead proposing business as usual, envisioning an utopic idiocy where everyone drowns in his own wealth, and thus continuing the unsustainable energy orgy, for a little bit if fun and some happy hours, all the time feeding the people the lies they wanted to hear.
It’s time to admit it: We have fucked it up. Totally!
Our petty little scheme is about to be exposed as the stupidity it really is.
In fact, our whole system of growth was dead from the beginning. It was a stillborn child, but we prefered to feign it was alive, ignoring its hideous smell and the maggots crawling all over it, keeping the appearance of a happy little family. But finally the pretence is rotting away in our hands and the farce, we played for decades now, is falling apart It’s about time we pay the price for our folly. There is nowhere to run anymore.
Or are we so blind that we really think we can continue our destructive way of life forever? Do we really think we can invent and engineer our way out of this mess, when this was exactly the way we got into it? Everyone with a little bit of a brain can see that what we are doing is utterly unsustainable and that it will cause our own doom in the end. A system, permanently seeking the short term profit, even when the long term consrquences of this behaviour are dire, cannot expect to survive the turmoil it eventually causes.
In our constant pursuit of accumulating as much wealth as possible, even at the cost of the lifes of others and our own future, we have forgotten what’s the most precious thing on this world. It’s the world itself. It is what gives us life, but we prefered to rape and destroy it. And for what?
Paper! Paper called money, whose objective value is almost zero. If this isn’t absolutely idiotic, then I don’t know what is. We have become the slaves of what should be our slave.
Though, we are all part of this little comedy, and none of those who were lucky enough to get some of the better places can say that they don’t enjoy it, including myself. But they’ll also have to pay their share of the bill. And the longer the play goes on, the higher it will be.
June 16th, 2008 at 7:39 pm
Dear Andris,
I find the EU’s position on energy near catatonic. In fact, I am deeply disappointed by my politicians, both national and international. They are failing to respons proactively, and barely registering a pulse reactively, to what will be a watershed moment for any polity or international, collaborative body.
I was in Spain as the strikes began - people are incensed, and frustrated to the point where they feel they must strike out at someone — though, with better guidance and with proper legislation, they would not have been in this position to begin with.
Energy policy in the EU and the US has been abysmal, and continues on its path towards the precipice. Speed limitations, restrictions on the use of carbohydrates across the board, and the banning of gas guzzling cars is imperative — accommodating to the necessary change in our ways with petroleum is a ten year process, and we’re five years (at least) too late in doing something about it.
Your blog entry, also as responded to at The OilDrum, leaves me little hope that the EU is on its way to effecting the necessary legislation and guidance.
June 16th, 2008 at 8:32 pm
Mr Pielbags,
Truck drivers in Spain, France, etc. have families to feed, budgets to meet, houses to heat.
I find it typical that the stress - ignored, first, badly handled, second - is shunted down to the little person. So what are the EU plans, beyond waffling about the Chinese (gasp!) driving cars? What will high official do when there is no more Aragula salad of favorite crunch snacks in the supermarket? Go with the flow won’t hack it. Is it really the case that all Gvmt. officials consider themselves above ordinary people and speak with forked tongues? Counting on their belonging to an elite? Picking up vague Reuters news and blowing it up? Thinking that demos can always be repressed by the military (see Berlusconi) and then what? Business as usual, once the pesky, loud, ignorant, boring, people have been sent home? That won’t happen, hoping for it, while clocking in with the chauffeur to the office, to publish accusatory pablum and confused slogans won’t work.
Some protestors are demanding and rowdy and - yes ‘count’ on a nanny state to see them through. So, will a more libertarian policy be useful? Telling ppl they have problems and should just, like, deal with them? Or giving some small sops for a short period of time (relief from taxes to x amount or whatever), all is solved, now go home? (Where are those fresh veggies? ..)
I am staggered by the lack of foresight, honesty, sharp analysis (or in fact any analysis, any proposal), moves towards community effort, such as conservation. Understanding of the tissue of society, of the whole system, is sorely lacking.
I admit that I sometimes use the personal to jar, can on occasion be aggressive — all pols know this tactic. I’m almost tempted to apologize! What I wrote is not original or new - it can be heard all over the place.
And thumbs up to Euan.
Cordially,
Noizette.
June 16th, 2008 at 8:58 pm
Great article and even better comment.
The oil producers of the world are experiencing population growth and industrialization on huge scales. Even the countries of the Persian Gulf are using more and more oil for their growth each year. This is ominous for the West . The oil exporters will export less and less to America and use more for their own economies. It is a fact of life.
What they need is alternative forms of energy more than we do. We don’t like Nuclear power plants in our back yards but other countries don’t mind at all. So the workable paradox here is for the US to finance and encourage alternative energy use in the exporting nations to enable them to keep exporting more oil to the West. In return we will cut our oil consumption by reducing speed limits
and by outlawing SUVs.More alternative energy to the Mideast!!!!!!!!
June 16th, 2008 at 10:20 pm
Please, sir. You have within your power to help Europe through the coming crisis.
I’m an American. And I deeply dread what is in store for America as the upcoming global energy crisis unfolds. My nation is ill-situated to withstand the inevitable and soon-coming close to the Age of Cheap Oil. Our suburbs and our lack of sidewalks and our irreversible car-dependence and our yellow school busses and our regional high schools and our skyscrapers and our strip malls –these will all be our undoing.
Meanwhile, I have been very hopeful that at least Europe will be able to soldier on with its more reasonably-sized towns and especially its far superior and efficient public transit systems. However, I fear you are making a grave error in your suggestion that bio-fuels and hydrogen cells should be part of the European plan to weather out the coming storm. Bio-fuels have regretably brought the human race back to the previously-defeated conundrum (defeated by the advent of oil) of trying to decide whether to plant food for people or food for horses (in this case food for cars). And so I want to caution you that reviving that competition between the refrigerator and the prevailing mode of transportation is ill-advised. As for hydrogen, I am told there are TWO kinds of hydrogen cells: one which is a loser’s game whereby you expend far more energy to charge the cell than you actually get from it, and the other which is somehow more prudent as far as net-energy return is concerned (or ERoEI). I do not know enough about hydrogen cells, but if you do intend to steer Europse toward hydrogen cells, then please be absolutely certain you elect the type of cell with an ERoEI that falls into the positive zone and NOT the negative.
Difficult times lie ahead, and because of that fact your current position is not an enviable one to be in. I wish you the best of luck and that God will give you the wisdom needed to execute your extremely critical duties with diligence and effectiveness.
–Virginia O’Hanlon
June 17th, 2008 at 12:23 am
Dear Andris Piebalgs,
I trust you read Euan Mearns letter (Editor of The Oil Drum Europe) which can be found at:
http://europe.theoildrum.com/node/4147#more
I wholeheartedly agree with Mr Mearns position. The price of Oil will continue to rapidly increase, as demand increases and supply decreases. “Peak Oil” is a reality - it has been predicted for many years, and I find it absolutely shocking that the governments of this planet, and the European Union, have failed to act upon or indeed even foresee this inevitable reality.
Major initiatives are needed - war time style efforts. Encouraging people to “Save Energy” via advertising campaigns will not cut it. Massive economic incentives are needed. Mandatory Europe wide energy policies are needed. European member countries MUST invest heavily in alternative energy sources. Commitments must be made to dramatically increasing the use of mass transit - new electrified railway lines, new tram lines, and electric/hybrid/hydrogen busses should be introduced. Tidal and Wave power projects should be pushed through.
Home Owners should be encouraged and incentivised to install solar water heaters and photovoltaic solar panels on their homes. Governments should be leading the way - national advertising campaigns, websites, national training schemes, subsidies, and similar courses of action are urgently needed. Asking people to “turn unused electrical items off” is simply not enough.
I would go as far as to suggest that new homes have mandatory energy efficiency requirements. Every new home should have Solar water heaters, PV solar panels, and water collection systems for collecting rain for use with toilets/gardening/etc.
Biofuel/ethanol was branded a “Crime against humanity” by Jean Ziegler of the UN special rapporteur on the right to food. Biofuels lead to soaring food prices and increased deforestation of the rain forests as land is cleared to grow crops. It is not a solution, and policies encouraging their use are negligent.
Investing in coal, and other fossil fuels such as oil shale, may solve the energy crisis, but with their far higher CO2 emissions, they will contribute to global warming and anihilate any chance of European member states meeting their CO2 reduction targets.
MegaProjects are needed. Nuclear Energy should be considered, and pushed through. The UK is set to decomission many ageing Nuclear Power Plants over the next 5 to 10 years, yet no new Nuclear plants are planned. It takes over 10 years to build a Nuclear Power station.
Radical solutions such as Nuclear Fusion ARE viable. Theory suggested the atomic bomb could be built - it was, and it worked. Theory tells us Nuclear Fusion is possible, and if mastered, will produce clean and abundant energy from nothing more than abundantly available heavy water (Deuterium). The ITER (http://www.iter.org/) project is one such example, but it is not ambitious enough. There should be many ITER style projects on the go - the potential rewards are too enormous for us to ignore.
A coherent set of policies and initiatives are needed. Please see to it.
Kind Regards,
Alasdair Lumsden
June 17th, 2008 at 12:31 am
I agree wholeheartedly with so many of the wise comments above. I spend large amounts of time screaming at the TV whenever some halfwit politician comes on and makes some inane comment about running our economy on hydrogen if the oil runs out or just getting OPEC to pump more oil. The sad fact of the matter is that in the UK at least, the political elite is composed almost exclusively of fuckwits. They think that science and technology are magic, they have no grasp of thermodynamics or chemistry or engineering and they mistake economic models for harsh reality. And the ones that aren’t fuckwits are abject cowards who put their own short term political advancement over the good of the people they govern. In answer to Denny above, never mind politicians with some vision, I would settle for some with intellectual ability slightly in excess of a rodent. I realise none of that adds to the intellectual rigour of the above debate but, boy, am I feeling angry and nothing that Mr Piebalgs writes above has reduced my ire or raised my confidence that the political process has any way to dig us out of the deep hole we’re stuck in, at all….the last thing we need right now would be for OPEC to increase production even if they are capable of it - we need to conserve reserves not splurge them on manufacturing yet more disposable tat to keep the wheels of our consumerist society turning (albeit briefly).
June 17th, 2008 at 11:58 am
A Davis says:
Luckily for us, Andris here has a degree in Physics.
June 17th, 2008 at 1:55 pm
The answer is Methanol.
June 17th, 2008 at 2:12 pm
Hello,
I want to contribute.
Where are the pages in French, German or Esperanto?
Thank you,
F. Bartsch
June 17th, 2008 at 2:34 pm
Surpise, surprise …
Discovered on the net (hat tip: colleague at the EU):
We are now facing the so-called “peak oil” problem, i.e. the question when the world will reach its maximum oil production rate. In a single oilfield, oil production rate reaches its maximum when about half the oil has been extracted. The same applies to the global oil reserves - that is, once we have used half of the world’s oil the annual production volume will inevitably begin to fall.
As I said, the oil is still far from all gone, but more and more estimates say that this “peak oil” will occur within the next 20 years. Some analysts even say that we are now at “peak oil”.
We can just imagine what happens then. Until now, oil production was able - with some effort, as we have seen in recent years – to keep in step with demand. Once we reach peak oil production, the oil production rate will start to fall, while demand naturally will continue to rise.
Just as with climate change, there is nothing in our history to prepare us for the impact of such a development. You may remember the oil crisis of the 70s. But this so-called crisis was in fact a deficit between supply and demand of 5%.
The projections for development after “peak oil”, on the other hand, tell us that we must reckon that each year the deficit between rising demand and falling supply will increase by more than 4%. In only 5 years we could have a deficit of over 20%.
It is difficult to imagine how this would impact the economy. I do not think we can take the chance.
[my translation of German original]
It’s an excerpt from a speech given by none other than …. Andris Piebalgs
“Die Strategie der EU in der Energie- und Klimapolitik – Ist die Energieversorgung langfristig gesichert?”
at the Swiss Energy Congress
Bern, 14 January 2008
Full text in German available here:
http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=SPEECH/08/13&for...
June 18th, 2008 at 12:29 am
Mr Piebalgs I have some very simple suggestions that your bureacrats probably can’t fathom because, well, they’re bureacrats.
Cease the 60% import tarif on Chinese energy efficient lamps. Philips and Osram bribes won’t last forever.
Cease listening to German and French carmakers. They made the 2CV and the Messerschmitt KR175
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messerschmitt_KR175) so they’re lying through their teeth when they say they can’t make proper energy saving cars. Force them to use lighter materials for chassis, for instance. Lotus does…Ferrari does…
The more money someone has, the more they lie.
Use the lawmaking-power for enforcing a pan-European electricity network so that wind energy from Spain can effectively be transmitted to, say Austria or Poland. It can be done. If you’re really know physics you know there’s no technical hurdle.
Immediately impose a 60% tarif on idiot consumption cars like the Hummer and all SUV’s in general.
Impose a 90 km per hour speed limit in the EU. Impose a 180 km per hour speed limit on the engine ability of each car. Now you have a 3000 Kilo SUV with 400 PK engines to drive the kids to school at 50 Km per hour. Sounds beyond stupid, it’s criminal.
And last but not least, fine each country that gives away too much CO2-trading rights to their respective industries. We all know it’s a shameful window-dressing now.
Oh yes, btw, Uranium won’t last either. Nuclear plants will be a cat in the bag.
Every sane person in Europe knows these measures are necessary. Everybody also knows that corruption in Brussels is interfering with making these necessary steps. It’s no use telling people to use energy efficient light bulbs if the industry bribes you into forcing a 60% tarif on them. People are not stupid, you know….
June 18th, 2008 at 12:39 am
“Radical solutions such as Nuclear Fusion ARE viable.”
No they’re not. 40 years ago it was said it would take 40 years to develop Nuclear Fusion. 2 Years ago it was said that it would take 40 years to devlop Nuclear Fusion. In general, if an engineer or a scientist says it will take 40 years to develop ANYTHING to a useful level, it’s a covert way of saying they haven’t got a clue as to how to make it work.
Geothermal, Wind and Tidal energy are here and they work. It’s politics that’s refusing to learn the lesson.
June 18th, 2008 at 12:53 pm
Thank you European Commission and BIG thanks this forum for the feed back we received.
Solar Botanics renewable energy systems is based on the unique design of trees and plants, which took millions of years of trial and error to come up with the perfect design.
We make these natural looking renewable energy trees and plants, we have tweaked them a little so they can now harvest solar radiation (light & heat) and wind energy in one system, and convert it into usable electricity.
This will provide an aesthetic and efficient way for harvesting green energy, with broad application ranges and added value. Trees are so much more, and can prevent our beautiful Europe from massive wind turbine farms.
We have begun with testing our first trees and plants, and soon we will publish our results. This hopefully will put an end to all discussion related to energy independence, limit application ranges of existing renewable systems.
Info: solarbotanic@apollo.lv
June 19th, 2008 at 9:31 am
Dear Andris,
Here’s a suggestion for a future blog post.
Spiegel Online: The Power Broker Behind the Franco-German CO2 Deal: HOW AN AUTO LOBBYIST DIRECTS EU POLICY (06/18/2008)
Discuss.
June 19th, 2008 at 11:15 pm
Migeru says:
- Luckily for us, Andris here has a degree in Physics.
Well in that case then….he can sit down, put his thinking cap on, get some data from his researchers, make a few assumptions and then work out how much energy we require to build the massive new infrastructure that will be needed to eliminate oil-dependency across the world whilst simultaneously phasing out the current infrastructure in some sort of planned and controlled way (i.e. that doesn’t involve blood in the gutters)…..and then he can come back and tell us if it is REALLY a good idea for us to persuade Opec to pump more oil right now (even if it were possible) - oil that will inevitably be used to manufacture SUVs, mountains of assorted consumerist tat and for jetting people around and about at £15 a throw i.e. exacerbating our difficulties not solving them……
I look forward to the answer and I sincerely hope that the sums do not look the way that I fear they will.
I like the little maths question at the bottom of this blog. Most UK politicians would struggle with that unless they had a flunky to tell them the answer. The UK government is dumber than a bag of hammers. Truly, it is.
June 20th, 2008 at 1:49 pm
Andris,
I read you have criticised French President Nicolas Sarkozy’s proposal to cap value-added tax on petrol. If this is correct then a small hurrah for you.