[Rhodes22-list] Energy -go sailing

[Bill Effros]

Ron,

I've heard and bought into these arguments in the past.  It's just that 
they make no sense.  If the price of oil goes from $30 a barrel to $50 a 
barrel, OPEC has no problem maintaining a continuous level of income, 
unless demand goes down. But, as we all know, demand is increasing 
notwithstanding the price increases.

There is no technology that can possibly change this relationship before 
OPEC has the ability to sell all of its oil, at substantially higher 
prices than it has obtained in the past.

Please note, that since oil prices are denominated in US dollars, only 
we are forced to pay higher prices.  With the dollar plummeting, others 
can convert their stronger currencies into many more dollars to pay the 
rising price of oil at no additional cost to their industries or citizens.

US oil companies could elect to sell their oil to US citizens for $30 a 
barrel to maintain our competitive position in the world, and maintain 
their own high level of continuous income, but none has chosen to do so.

Bill Effros



Ronald Lipton wrote:

> Bill,
>
>   At the same time he discussed the motivations for OPEC to keep
> the price down Koonin mentioned that the states need to maintain
> a high level of continuous income - he did not elaborate.  He also
> mentioned that OPEC tries to keep a ~10 million barrel/day (if
> memory serves) capacity buffer, which at the moment is gone.
> A number of alternative technologies were discussed - biomass,
> solar, wind, coal liquefication.  Coal-related technologies seem to
> be the most viable - coal coversion to diesel is competititve now -
> but plant construction depends on future cost projections.
>
> Ron
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "ed kroposki" <ekroposki at charter.net>
> To: "'The Rhodes 22 mail list'" <rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org>
> Sent: Friday, April 15, 2005 8:29 AM
> Subject: RE: [Rhodes22-list] Energy -go sailing
>
>
> Bill:
> I am in a tear into them mood today.  Let everybody understand that
> there are alternative technologies to oil available today.  The biggest
> issue is cost.
> There are even cheaper technologies available today, but the
> misinformed put up a big stink about them.
> The tabloids suggest that secrets are being kept.  In the world
> today, if there was a cheaper, safer, non polluting way of doing 
> things that
> require energy, do you really believe that it could be kept secret?  
> Do you
> think a threat of a patent infringement lawsuit would really stop 
> using some
> innovative technology. If it worked, it would be all over the internet 
> in a
> day.
> As for something that we have not heard of yet, go ahead and invent
> it.  We are all waiting.  Why expect somebody else to do it.
> Ed K
> Greenville, SC, USA
> :-{}
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: rhodes22-list-bounces at rhodes22.org
> [mailto:rhodes22-list-bounces at rhodes22.org] On Behalf Of Bill Effros
> Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2005 7:10 PM
> To: The Rhodes 22 mail list
> Subject: Re: [Rhodes22-list] Energy -not sailing
>
> Ron,
>
> I keep hearing that OPEC wants to keep the price of oil moderately low
> to prevent the development of alternative technologies coupled with
> projections that there's only 30-40 years worth of the stuff left.
> Doesn't make sense to me.
>
> Bill Effros
>
> Ronald Lipton wrote:
>
>> We had an interesting talk today by Steven Koonin, formerly the
>> provost of cal tech and now the chief scientist at BP.  Since there
>> was some discussion on the list about future energy issues it was useful
>> to get some up-to-date information.  He made a few interesting points:
>>
>> - It is in OPECs interest to keep the price of oil moderately low to
>> prevent
>> development of alternative technologies and discourage conservation.
>> - The known reserves of oil is projected to last 41 years, gas 67 and
>>  coal 200. The oil projection has been at 40 years for the past decade.
>> - The world supplies will begin to trend downward in ~20 years (non 
>> OPEC)
>>   and 30 years (OPEC)
>> - Technologies like natural gas and coal conversion to diesel become
>>  cost effective at $40/barrel oil!
>> - Co2 loading of the atmosphere is a serious issue. (He felt that the
>> cause/effect
>>   relation between Co2 and the demonstrated warming trend was plausible
>>   but not proven.) This will become particularly serious as the
>> developing world
>>   become significant consumers.  It is a problem with no solution that
>> is both
>>   politically and economically feasible.
>> - The developing world is the 1000 pound gorilla here - even moderate
>> increase
>>   in per capita consumption is a huge effect with that many capitas.
>> - Population growth is expected to moderate - to about 8-10 billion
>> toward the
>>   end of the century.
>>
>> We are actually going to have a series of these lectures, including
>> fusion and
>> hydrogen power. For folks with fast connections the talks are
>> available on
>> streaming video a few days after they are presented on:
>> http://www-ppd.fnal.gov/EPPOffice-w/colloq/colloq.html
>>
>> Ron
>>
>> __________________________________________________
>> Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help? www.rhodes22.org/list
>>
> __________________________________________________
> Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help? www.rhodes22.org/list
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help? www.rhodes22.org/list
> __________________________________________________
> Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help? www.rhodes22.org/list
>