Sunday September 24, 2006 | ${log.root}/lowem.log Inflation, Investing and Everything |
|
peakoil.com -> bruneitimes.com.bn : OPEC called for the use of advanced technology that reduces carbon dioxide emissions to ensure a cleaner environment and the safe use of oil and natural gas to foster global development. Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage technology is based on removing harmful gases from major industrial activities, mainly power generation, and then storing it or injecting it into mature oilfields to boost reserves. CCS technology is not yet used on an industrial scale but three pilot projects are already operating in Algeria, Canada and the North Sea off the Norwegian coast. The technology has the "dual benefits of reducing carbon dioxide emissions into the atmosphere while enhancing oil recovery", said Majed al-Moneef, Saudi governor to Opec. According to initial reports, the technology boosts reserves of mature oilfields by between 10 and 15 per cent, while it cuts the emission of carbon dioxide from industrial activities by half. See also : 1. OPEC: High and volatile prices may be new norm (2006-09-24 21:11:39 SGT)
[Energy]
Permalink
peakoil.com -> gristmill.grist.org : All forms of energy are not equal. Cheap oil was maximum extraction for very little energy input. Those days of cheap energy are gone forever. Also, oil and gas give us more than liquid fuels and electric energy: synthetic petroleum materials are part of our daily lives and survival. The worst part of petroleum dependence is that it is how modern societies feed themselves - entirely. It is no mere coincidence that population growth has mirrored petroleum consumption's huge rise. Solar and wind are strong contenders for serious applications for energy production, but problems remain: imbedded petroleum energy in these systems, their transport by oil, and their petroleum-plastic composition are never addressed. As electric-power technologies, they don't solve the liquid fuels crisis we have barely started to experience. Tar sands? The oil PR machine calls them oil sands now, but they are never going to deliver more than 5%, eventually, of today's 85 million barrels per day global oil consumption. And the massive amounts of dwindling natural gas and fresh water to mine and process tar sands make the process questionable. - Not too bad. I disagree with the anti-nuclear part at the end though. It's not all about nuclear weapons. France is 80% nuclear. They're not MAD'ing anyone. And they are aiming for 100% nuclear. Japan is 30% nuclear despite having been at the receiving end of two atomic bombs in WW2, they have no nuclear weapons themselves, and they are planning to recycle nuclear waste to extract more energy. The "liquid fuels crisis" part sounds very "Hirsch report"-like. But we now know that the "Hirsch angle" involves mitigation via fuels like CTL and GTL because the existing infrastructure is too costly to change out all at once. Got 1 trillion dollars to spare? How about 20? Interesting that he has also observed how the tar sands people have now been calling their stuff oil sands - which is kind of misleading since it is bitumen (tar) and not at all free-flowing oil. But tar sands does have its part to play, it makes sense as long as crude oil stays well above $50 and Canada's natural gas doesn't start to run out (which it is unfortunately). As you can see, the Great Debate about our energy future is riddled with "if's" and "but's". See also : 1. Meeting peak oil threat will cost $20 trillion : US (2006-09-24 08:31:20 SGT)
[Energy]
Permalink
Most popular blog postings on lowem.log : 1. Singapore SIBOR interest rates fall to 1.5%, lowest since Dec 2004 Featured articles on lowem.log : 1. ABC Guide to Beating Inflation in Singapore and Elsewhere |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||