Petrol to exceed €1.50 per litre by the new year?


That’s true, the only problem is it’s much harder to get it and much of it is of inferior quality.
In the past, the energy equivilent of one barrel use to extract 200 barrels out of the ground, now one barrel only extracts about ten. About 80% of the stuff in the ground will never be economic to extract as it will take more than one barrels worth of energy to get one barrel of oil out!


Where are you getting those numbers? … recovery factors today are 30% for primary recovery, and up to 60% for tertiary recovery. It might be possible to agree with your 80% if you are including tar sands et al., but recovery factors for conventional oil are much better even with existing technology.


Ok, chomping on a small slice of humble pie – recovery factor of 67% has been achieved, but the norm for conventional supplies is more like 22% … I admit to being surprised. Still … leaves lots of room for enhanced recovery techniques. 8DD … llenge.pdf


It’s the EROI or ERoEI (Energy Returned on Energy Invested) that I was referring to, most of that 78% would need more energy expended to extract the energy available thus is worthless to extract.


Well, it doesn’t have to be oil that is used for the energy in…


True, but where to get the energy…
use biofuel - the population will starve,
use coal - we’ll smoke ourselves out,
renewables - could we build enough windmills.
Short of a massive and intensive nuclear construction programme or replaced by some new super fuel yet to be invented, oil will get harder and more costly (financially & energy wise) to extract and use in the future.


Thats true for tar sands, mostly, where nat gas is used to make useable oil, but in general its the portablility of oil that allows it to be used as the gateway energy; eg, mining equipment, transport, construction of assets that deliver energy etc. Notwithstanding that, peak natural gas and peak coal are biting hot on the heels of peak conventional oil which happened 6 years ago. This means that those resources are already being used for other purposes and will not be at disposal without some other sector suffering. One mitigating factor is that as we make more efficient use of scarcer energy, it becomes more valuable, but this may be more than offset by the damaging of credit markets (caused by the scarcity in the first place) which are required to access the hard to reach stuff, which creates a catch 22. Suffice to say that the best measure to simplify it for economics sake is calculating the EROI in any particular play.


In about 60-61 I remember my father telling me that he was paying 1s 2.5d per gallon for red diesel. That would be 6p sterling as near as dammit. If the dollar/sterling exchange rate was 2.8 dollars to 1 pound that would have made the red diesel about 17 cents. Now I am assuming that there would have been very little tax on the US petrol so the 31 cents looks a but expensive, especialy for a US gallon.

Of course on the absolute price of oil a cynic might say that its not so much that oil has gone up more that paper currencies have devalued.


Well a massive nuclear programme looks sensible.


It’s not happing (especially in the next 10 years). plants take a long time to build and in some areas (like britian) replacement is not keeping pace with decommissioning of old plants. Some would argue it’s because they are never built without huge government subsidy, which, some would say, is because their EROI is so low when ALL energy inputs are taken into account. Thats not a good reason from an energy security point of view, but its hard to ignore plain old economics


I’d say thats more to do with raising revenue via speed cameras.
It was planned long before the North African implosion. Just handy timing.


If the government will is there, plants do not take a long time to build. With all the heavy construction involved in a nuclear plant it takes less than 4 years from breaking the ground to a fully operational plant and less if a modular engineering and build process is used.


Yeah, until the next generation of plants are viable large scale, there’ll also be the risk that you embark on some massive project that will be superceded by local thorium (for example) plants. There is also the risk, though, that the next generation won’t happen/won’t be viable.


The service station at mountbrown, Dublin 8 ( Emo I think ) where i have been filling up cos its the cheapest around ( 147 ) has run out of fuel, today at 3pm.


And how long does it take for planning / public consultations etc. British nuclear plants are being fast tracked, but now enough to cater for the fall off


Main problem is regulatary and planning etc. Needless to say in Emergency such minor issues will be brushed aside. Curently AP1000 an American design takes 50 months to complete in China but expected to reduce significantly as more come online. China is certainly involved in pretty massive nuclear ramp up with over 25 plants in construction and many more in the planning stage.


Maybe this was posted before


How much of that oil is destined for oil-burning power stations ?


We have less than 48 hours reserve in terms of at the pump from what I know. Like this might come as another surprise. We’ve been posting about this our national Achilles heal for how long? :unamused:


oil-burning stations are the least of our worries, according to CER

Electricity Fuel Mix - 2009 Gas 61.8% Renewables 14.2% Coal 14.2% Peat 6.7% Oil 2.5% Other 0.4%

{renewables - 11% wind, 2.6% hydro, 0.6% biomass and >0% photovoltaic}