Nina Jankovic
Claim: Peak oil will not greatly affect the economic or social stability of the industrialized civilizations. By the time oil peaks, in a few decades, the dominant energy source will no longer be petroleum. There will be a great transition to alternative energy sources-the oil industry will start to “manufacture” oil- , such as tar sands, gas and ethanol diesel mix.
Research Plan:
1. Examine the Economists sources and verify their credibility. Sources include: IEA, Chevron Corp., Shell Group, CERA, NYT (article on ethanol-mad-Brazil).
2. Research organizations which release the accepted date estimations. Such as: USGS & OPEC.
3. What methods do geologists use to create these estimates? Is there any scientific methodology behind the predictions, or is it all statistical and political?
4. How does the USGS quantify (in such clean numbers) what has not been discovered yet?
5. Has natural gas already peaked? If not, when is it projected to?
6. Is the argument in fact logical? Is looking at what the corporations assert enough to confirm credibility?
7. The Economist does not acknowledge the arguments of their opponents fully, correctly or in depth. Why?
8. Check Heinberg’s sources on alternative energy sources: ACF new source, Post carbon, Department of Energy Funding opportunity and Nature (June 13, 2003).
Provisionary Belief, based on a range of information:
The above claim truly rests on the belief of the time at which oil will peak. It is clear that this year or the next or in five years the civilization is not prepared- in terms of a switch or abandonment- to sustain it self. The three core questions are: 1. When will oil peak? Is there a way of accurately knowing? 2. Why are there such discrepancies between the predictions? Who benefits? 3. What will the civilization due, if the apocalyptic prediction is true?
I am still uncertain which time frame to accept as true because I don’t fully understand how the prediction and knowledge is scientifically obtained. However, there seems to be a consensus and logic in the fact that oil is a finite resource. From my understanding the second certainty is the amount of barrels produced and the reserves discovered. Finally it is logical to look at the relationship between production, discovery and peak – find a pattern and apply it. Peak-oil Theory is still a theory/ speculation there is no certainty.
Evaluating the claim above (premise eight of the Economist), it is highly unlikely that unconventional fuels (alternative energy sources) will be able to substitute (neither in quantity nor in the level of safety) the amount of energy produced by petroleum. In addition consider the sheer amount of oil consumed today, let alone in a decade. Cavallo states in his article- Oil: Caveat empty that the projected use of Canadian tar sands in 2030 is 4 million bpd of oil, which would only account for 3.3% of the estimated oil consumption. Almost all other unconventional fuels marketed by today’s industry (in particular by Shell and BP) are created by merging part petrol based substances with substances such as ethanol. This would cut down the consumption of petroleum, however most cars cannot run on alternative fuels, therefore costs for the consumer and manufacturer would drastically increase. Also, if methane became a source of energy and extraction began this would ruin the world’s oceans. Moreover once consumed would ruin our atmosphere (through pollution) and would raise the earth’s temperature hence raising the sea level enough to establish the earth uninhabitable for most of the population. Application of most known alternative energy sources that are energy profitable (assuming they can substitute the quantity of oil consumption) would establish global warming, and such environmental cataclysms, as the true catastrophe bring about our demise.
Claim: Peak oil will not greatly affect the economic or social stability of the industrialized civilizations. By the time oil peaks, in a few decades, the dominant energy source will no longer be petroleum. There will be a great transition to alternative energy sources-the oil industry will start to “manufacture” oil- , such as tar sands, gas and ethanol diesel mix.
Research Plan:
1. Examine the Economists sources and verify their credibility. Sources include: IEA, Chevron Corp., Shell Group, CERA, NYT (article on ethanol-mad-Brazil).
2. Research organizations which release the accepted date estimations. Such as: USGS & OPEC.
3. What methods do geologists use to create these estimates? Is there any scientific methodology behind the predictions, or is it all statistical and political?
4. How does the USGS quantify (in such clean numbers) what has not been discovered yet?
5. Has natural gas already peaked? If not, when is it projected to?
6. Is the argument in fact logical? Is looking at what the corporations assert enough to confirm credibility?
7. The Economist does not acknowledge the arguments of their opponents fully, correctly or in depth. Why?
8. Check Heinberg’s sources on alternative energy sources: ACF new source, Post carbon, Department of Energy Funding opportunity and Nature (June 13, 2003).
Provisionary Belief, based on a range of information:
The above claim truly rests on the belief of the time at which oil will peak. It is clear that this year or the next or in five years the civilization is not prepared- in terms of a switch or abandonment- to sustain it self. The three core questions are: 1. When will oil peak? Is there a way of accurately knowing? 2. Why are there such discrepancies between the predictions? Who benefits? 3. What will the civilization due, if the apocalyptic prediction is true?
I am still uncertain which time frame to accept as true because I don’t fully understand how the prediction and knowledge is scientifically obtained. However, there seems to be a consensus and logic in the fact that oil is a finite resource. From my understanding the second certainty is the amount of barrels produced and the reserves discovered. Finally it is logical to look at the relationship between production, discovery and peak – find a pattern and apply it. Peak-oil Theory is still a theory/ speculation there is no certainty.
Evaluating the claim above (premise eight of the Economist), it is highly unlikely that unconventional fuels (alternative energy sources) will be able to substitute (neither in quantity nor in the level of safety) the amount of energy produced by petroleum. In addition consider the sheer amount of oil consumed today, let alone in a decade. Cavallo states in his article- Oil: Caveat empty that the projected use of Canadian tar sands in 2030 is 4 million bpd of oil, which would only account for 3.3% of the estimated oil consumption. Almost all other unconventional fuels marketed by today’s industry (in particular by Shell and BP) are created by merging part petrol based substances with substances such as ethanol. This would cut down the consumption of petroleum, however most cars cannot run on alternative fuels, therefore costs for the consumer and manufacturer would drastically increase. Also, if methane became a source of energy and extraction began this would ruin the world’s oceans. Moreover once consumed would ruin our atmosphere (through pollution) and would raise the earth’s temperature hence raising the sea level enough to establish the earth uninhabitable for most of the population. Application of most known alternative energy sources that are energy profitable (assuming they can substitute the quantity of oil consumption) would establish global warming, and such environmental cataclysms, as the true catastrophe bring about our demise.
posted by Nina Jankovic at 22:36
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home