Geological peak oil still a thing

*Geological* peak oil is still a thing. Just finished watching an Al Jazeera thing explaining that big OPEC producers like Saudi Arabia were over-producing to put American unconventional oil producers out of business, as they are only viable at the much higher prices of a few years back. They said most OPEC nations were only profitable at around $60 a barrel, the same price that grabbed headline attention and the attention of the NSW Cross- Benchers my Sydney Peak Oil team briefed a decade ago. $60 is where we *should* be so that the average producers like Venezuela can make money.
What all this screams to an old peak oiler like myself is that we’re still at geological peak oil, despite crashing oil prices. This is an OPEC lead economic war against unconventional oils that are only profitable well *above* the sweet-crude breakeven of $60 a barrel. But here’s the thing. Peak oil isn’t the most pressing issue, as in a real crisis we could kick start Coal-To-Liquids. There’s the real danger. CTL and unconventionals dump far more carbon into the atmosphere. Peak oil will bump around through the economy in bizarre counter-intuitive ways like today’s *low* oil price, but climate change is the real monster lurking in the background.
We could beat climate change AND peak oil by switching to nukes + boron cars. Exxon will just have to switch to becoming Exxon Sanitation Inc, the guys that recycle our rubbish through a plasma-burner, to stay in business. Nukes, boron, & plasma burners all described in “Prescription for the Planet” below. (Free PDF)

This entry was posted in Economics, Peak Oil, Pollution. Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to Geological peak oil still a thing

  1. klawrencej says:

    dear Dave “Max Green”, DownUnder in (damn-hot) Sydney:
    Too bad that Tom Blees, in his o/w-Excellent “Rx for the Planet”, didn’t see Fit to make much mention of Fluid MSR Technology!
    Check-out (e Please feel Free to Share):
    –Kim J. /”Molten-sal.Centric” Chem-E

    • Eclipse Now says:

      From my layman’s understanding, whatever that is worth (being that I come from a humanities background), I love the MSR, especially the LFTR. That’s probably the long term goal. But are they ready? *Truly ready?* What about tritium extraction? Salt corrosion? Aren’t these still things? Let’s face it, the EBR2 ran for decades and provided all kinds of R&D opportunities that poor MSR’s simply haven’t had yet. I understand that fluoride is a far preferable medium than sodium: it doesn’t explode in air or water. But let’s get real here. GE have the PRISM ready to build a commercial prototype, not proof-of-concept. Are you saying someone has a LFTR beyond proof-of-concept stage? We need all these things yesterday, and we should be researching LFTR’s while the IFR’s are already pouring off the production line. Then, once the LFTR’s are truly perfected, they can eventually take over.

  2. Jim Baerg says:

    I don’t see that the flammability of sodium is that big a problem. I did until in _Plentiful Energy_ I saw mention of filling the containment building for the IFR with argon. That makes fire a non-issue. If sodium is better in most ways than less flammable reactor coolants, then argon in the containment building would solve the problem.

    The boron car idea sounds like it’s worth some R & D money for the two problems of making a practical engine & recyling the boron oxide cheaply. It certainly doesn’t look like a sure thing for replacing petroleum in transportation.

    If we shift road & air traffic to electric rail, trolley busses/trucks & ropeways where practical, & use plugin hybrid battery combustion engine vehicles where practical: how much liquid fuel would still be needed? Would shoving all the carbon rich trash through the plasma converters make enough for the remaining liquid fuel needs?

    Trolley busses/Trucks

    Another possible petroleum substitute for transportation etc. is ammonia.
    had been claiming to have a cheaper & more efficient way to make ammonia than the existing Haber-Bosch method, but someone seems to have hacked their website.
    Their device takes in electricity water & nitrogen from air & makes ammonia.

    When I use their energy use figures it works out to 80 to 90 % efficient. If it can be run in reverse at similarly high efficiency it would be the cheap energy storage method that would be nice to have to have for nuclear & essential to have to use intermittent renewables.

    I do have a reservation about ammonia as a fuel. We currently have environmental problems from nitrogen fertilizer use. Could ammonia leakage be kept small enough for ammonia fuel to not be an environmental disaster

    • Eclipse Now says:

      Hi Jim,
      sure, I’d rather the whole planet ran IFR’s with sodium coolant rather than burn coal. The way Blees links up IFR’s and boron in the global G.R.E.A.T. energy embassy idea, rather than trusting to the corporations, certainly appeals. As does every form of public transport and New Urbanism that does away with the need to drive in the first place! But it’s going to take time to implement all that, and EV”s are also dropping in price. I just want to keep putting the idea of boron out there as it certainly should be researched for trucking and harvesters and mining.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s