Oil:- This Is It!
So what's all this about then? Well, this afternoon I read an line on CNN which claimed said that OPEC denied oil was close to peak production. So I read into what was going on, and found out the recent happenings (I'll elaborate further, later into the post, for those who are not aware).
Let's rewind slightly to the year 2005. Before I started blogging, before I sat for my o' levels...in short, before a lot of things happened both personally as well as on a global scale. A fifteen year old Darryl was conducting research (I do this sort of thing for fun - I'm not being sarcastic here) on non-renewable energy sources with specific attention to the global peak and end. Anyway, through looking at trends and creating my own graphs I made six predictions - these being the years for the peak and end of all oil, natural gas and coal.
I published the most urgent prediction, that of peak oil, wherever I could. Unfortunately, this was mainly on geocities sites and most of them are gone. My inactive forum, Looking Ahead was set up with this in mind. Looking Ahead was supposed to be a forum for people to discuss issues which would affect us by 2010. Peak Oil was the first issue (unfortunately, to see this, you have to register and there's no point doing so until we revamp it in December 2010 since it's, as I mentioned earlier inactive). I then added a few other issues so that it wouldn't be focused solely on the environment. I also mentioned my prediction in the 'Generations' blogpost, however, as I rechecked it today - I found I left out the date. Other than those, I posted this prediction/projection on forums so in short, I have no actual link which proves my claim. Although I do have a sticky note which I've kept for four years with all six of my predictions.
So, basically what happened this week is that whistle blowers (as they call them) from the International Energy Agency (IEA) announced that the figures from this same agency were being tampered with to appease politicians and that, in fact, we are on verge of peak oil.
Here's what really gets under my shorts. In 2005, a fifteen year old me said this very thing. It took the scientists, graduates, qualified officials and scholars four years to 'agree' with me (In inverted commas as they obviously made no reference to me). That is four years gone, in which we could have set up a framework to deal with this. Of significant interest here is that OPEC are denying that we are close to peak. Why would they do this, after years of warning it was approaching? Simple, my son (or daughter), when it was still far away it was in their interest to say that peak oil was close so as to raise prices, but now that it's actually arrived, they would rather people were not uneasy about oil so that they would not divert to renewable sources of energy.
So, is this what my blogpost is all about? Self-praise for successfully predicting something scores of qualified scientists waited until it was too late to do?
No, of course not. Well, mainly, yes. But I think that now, more than ever, I should put forward the proposals I devised earlier this year for mitigation.
Let's get the facts out there. Peak oil is a situation whereby after next year, demand for oil will exceed the supply, inevitably resulting in unprecedented price rises. Yes, unprecedented. The July 2008 prices will be what we pray for. The IEA (I believe) have said that prices will increase by 550%. I am not an authority on this and cannot confirm of deny this. However, I can safely predict that by 2011, oil prices will be double what they are today (currently they fluctuate between 70 and 80 dollars a barrel). After that prices will continue to rise as long as there is the demand for them.
I don't think I need to go into the consequence of that. The Spring/Summer of 2008 was a perfectly fine demonstration. As I type this, over 80 million barrels a day are consumed in the world. 80 million. A day. The United States of America is, by far, the largest consumer with over 20 million a day - a quarter of the world total. In second place is China, with nearly 7 million. Malta uses up nearly 19,000 barrels a day and Niue, consumes the least with approximately 20 barrels a day - that's 0.0001% of the USA's total. Inevitably, the solution is reducing the consumption rate.
Obvious. Use renewable energy sources. We've been saying that for years, but it's just not working fast enough. I believe that in December's Copenhagen meeting the countries need to make a simple decision. Within five years (that is, 2015) reduce oil consumption to 90% of current levels. That means, 72 million barrels will be consumed each day. And let this 10% apply to all countries so that everyone carries a fair burden. Hence, Niue would reduce it's consumption to 18 barrels a day, while the USA would reduce consumption to 18 million.
Of course, the population grows everyday and with this comes an increased need for energy and consequently oil. No one is saying that this will be easy. The point is, we need to stop talking about emissions and get right to something tangible which is oil consumption. It's about making the right moves. Use solar energy (with batteries to store excess for when sun is less available) in the Mediterranean and Africa. Use wind energy in Scandinavia and windy places. Use hydro and tidal energy in Asia and wherever else it can be used. I'd be careful with geothermal though as digging into the earth may pose other environmental problems.
Ultimately, one hopes that all countries could agree to form a power sharing deal whereby the renewable energy generated in all countries would be available to all, thus the world would benefit from 24 hour solar energy and the like. Understandably, some developing nations may find it hard to make the switch to renewable energy due to financial concerns. For these nations there's the temporary solution of switching to Natural Gas to make up for the 10% less oil.
I must stress temporary here. Otherwise, a couple of decades down the line we'll be in the exact same place. Natural Gas is cleaner and usually cheaper, so it makes a fitting short-term resolution, provided a framework/strategy is set up to switch to renewable energy.
There's no postponing peak oil, we're too late for that. However, with the above measures, we can lessen the effects as with the reduced demand, the price would not rise as substantially as it would if we do not take this action. Then, in 2015, when the 90% target has been met, nations can meet again to lower it to 80% by 2020 and so on, until ideally, we are no longer burning oil.
Naturally, the figures and timescales I list here are unprofessional estimates but I believe that this is the magnitude of change that is warranted given the hole we've dug ourselves into.
At 15, I could not make my voice heard and by the time the experts woke up, it is now too late. So I am listing my other five predictions here, for everyone's benefit, in chronological order.
2030 - Peak Natural Gas.
2040 - End Oil.
2046 - Peak Coal.
2085 - End Natural Gas.
2267 - End Coal.
Needless to say, if the above changes are enacted, changes to the above figures will have to be made - especially in relation to the first two with peak natural gas happening earlier and the end of oil ending later. If humanity ignores peak oil, then in all likelihood the figures will remain the same. I just hope we do not make the mistake of switching to cheap coal. The side effects of such a move, would not be cheap, by any stretch of the imagination.
I'm going to end my post here. I think my point's been made. One of the few things Gordon Brown has done well in his time as Prime Minister, is warn that without an agreement in Copenhagen, there would be no turning back. He is right. This, truly is it. It's not about emissions anymore - targets like those are given little attention. It's about the world's largest cause of pollution - oil. Speaking of what "it's about"..."it's about" time we got off it.
Darryl, from Malta - Online
Labels: Peak Oil
