The European Tribune is a forum for thoughtful dialogue of European and international issues. You are invited to post comments and your own articles.
Please REGISTER to post.
As for overdue US decisions, I agree with your 1, 2 and 3. Your fourth and "ingenuity" are NOT reasonable solutions. More like sticking one´s head in the sand, or wishful thinking. Our knowledge has surpassed our wisdom. -Charu Saxena.
And if you don't think providing more oil as one source of energy, when there is a supply problem, will help the situation, you might want to go back to Economics A01 and look at some of those supply/demand charts.
Note my five suggestions have three on the demand side, and two on the supply side. It's just not rationale to eliminate half the options. Certainly increasing the supply of oil helps the situation--I'm not saying that it solves the situation, only that it helps. And the new technologies that are being developed will have the effect of shifting the supply curve.
Historically cheap oil has made it impractical, in a capitalist society, for the investments in new technologies to be made that will shift the supply curves. This is an area where visionary public policy could have seen the situation, and made policy decisions that would have smoothed the transition. Obviously that didn't happen, and the road to change is going to be bumpier than it might have been. But what's new with politicians that either lack vision, or lack courage because often vision requires short term pain--anathema to politicians--(see social security and healthcare for the aging).
It's peak oil supply. Peak oil demand is nothing to worry about. If prices stay reasonable, demand is almost infinite. Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
Regretting the past and fantasizing about the future does not change the urgency to stop wasteful use.
If you count on "finding more oil", with all its environmental-climate-changing damage, ask yourself what future value does that have. If you count on the "magic of science" coming to the rescue, you are gambling many lives to the limit. Science still does not have the support necessary to make renewables an accessible choice.
Even if I could count on both, I wouldn´t trust the current USgov and energy multinationals, even if they were in another planet.
PEAK OIL calls for individual ACTION NOW and we know what to cut. Write to your monsters; I´m working on mine. And if you know of good investments in renewables, let me know and I´ll see if they pass my tests. Our knowledge has surpassed our wisdom. -Charu Saxena.
We will see 1) in the longer term, some of the emerging technologies will eventually be successful, 2) in the short/medium term,existing energy sources being exploited more aggressively--note plans for new nuclear plants, continuing efforts with hybrid, electric and "cleaner diesel" just as examples, 3) in the short term, more drilling for oil, note new drilling in the gulf, I believe between US and Cuba, financed by Russia, 4)also in the short term, previously unprofitable oil sites opened and producing, plus previous sources such as oil shale seem to be opening now, and 5) rising prices will both lower demand and move demand gradually away from oil,,,,and it would be nice if public policy supported that. And probably a number of other factors i don't have a clue about.
There is no single "silver bullet" here, imho, but we'll get something from each of the above factors.
I don't know energy well enough to really invest in it, but Uranium mining stocks have done very well, such as Cameco and Pinetree Capitol, the former up eight fold in less than five years, and the latter up four fold this year. I made some small investments in these and did well. I'm letting those investments ride for a while, but watching somewhat carefully. But I don't know the energy field well enough to to make any serious investments in it, so I can't really answer you.
Not due to peak oil actually, but due to North American peak gas. Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
Exelon Nuclear is headquartered in Warrenville, Ill., and is a business unit of Exelon Corporation. It operates the largest nuclear fleet in the nation and the third largest fleet in the world. Exelon's ten stations - with 17 reactors - represent approximately 20 percent of the U.S. nuclear industry's power capacity. Chris Crane is president and chief nuclear officer Exelon Nuclear and senior vice president, Exelon Corporation. Exelon Nuclear's 17 generating units produced a total of 130.2 million net megawatt-hours of electricity in 2005. The fleet also achieved an average capacity factor of 93.5 percent, the fifth year in a row the capacity factor was more than 92 percent.
Exelon Nuclear's 17 generating units produced a total of 130.2 million net megawatt-hours of electricity in 2005. The fleet also achieved an average capacity factor of 93.5 percent, the fifth year in a row the capacity factor was more than 92 percent.
by Migeru - Jun 15 62 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Jun 17 20 comments
by Katrin - Jun 12 88 comments
by Jerome a Paris - Jun 9 68 comments
by DoDo - Jun 9 22 comments
by Zwackus - Jun 11 64 comments
by Metatone - Jun 8 4 comments
by Ted Welch - Jun 3 1 comment
by Frank Schnittger - Jun 1720 comments
by Migeru - Jun 1562 comments
by Katrin - Jun 1288 comments
by DoDo - Jun 1126 comments
by Zwackus - Jun 1164 comments
by Jerome a Paris - Jun 968 comments
by DoDo - Jun 922 comments
by Metatone - Jun 84 comments
by DoDo - Jun 671 comments
by DoDo - Jun 418 comments
by Ted Welch - Jun 31 comment
by gmoke - Jun 211 comments
by Frank Schnittger - May 3113 comments
by A swedish kind of death - May 3113 comments
by ceebs - May 2927 comments
by ARGeezer - May 2915 comments
by Zwackus - May 271 comment
by DoDo - May 2631 comments
by DoDo - May 2346 comments
by Metatone - May 1490 comments