Eddie Hobbs: "We are now at Peak Oil"

[SkatesOn]

On the final Questions and Answers the other night, Eddie Hobbs led a discussion on Peak Oil.

I saw it, and was wondering: "where did that discussion come out of?"

I feel a new TV series coming on:

Show me the Oil (in a cork accent)

[birthday]

OpEdNews » Revolutionary Thorium Reactor - The most environmentally beneficial power source on earth

What about the possibilities of Thorium as a fissile material. Apparently reserach is movong rapidly ahead in this area. It is new to me. Anyone know much about this?

[wombat]

There is a belief that peak oil means we will run out of it suddenly. What will happen is that it will get too expensive for many present uses. It is possible that a commercial field will be found off the West coast which will give us security of supply but since we will pay the market price for it, it won't solve our problem. It looks like the best bet will be to generate enough electricity that we can heat our homes, electrify the railways and possibly develop electric cars. Personally, I doubt we will find a magic bullet, I think we need to work on conservation, SoI's proposal or something similar, biodiesel rather than ethanol, sort of like eating the elephant one bite at a time.

[cactusflower]

I heard Eddie Hobbs talking about this on another occasion - he was also pushing "Spirit of Ireland" for more than it was worth. I think he has just made a business decision to get into promoting renewables now that property has gone sideways.

Yes, we may well have reached peak oil. As food production depends heavily on oil this is a serious thing.

[wombat]

I think he has just made a business decision to get into promoting renewables now that property has gone sideways.

That thought crossed my mind too.

[Factorem]

Eddie Hobbs is betting reputation on being right about "peak oil". He's been harping on about it for months now.

[lapsedmethodist]

Would it not be in the interests of OPEC countries to underestimate the amount of oil they have ?
This would surely force the price upwards without having to curtail production.

This would only be true if OPEC were a true cartel and it's not. It's a loose confederation that agrees quotas. The method of setting the quota is as I outlined... a percentage of "known " reserves. They therefore, individually and not as a cartel, fake the figures.

And remember the first motor car had a guy walking in front of it with a red flag. The descent from Peak to scarcity is not the same curve that gets us there.

[SkatesOn]

Peak Oil - there is little or no evidence to suggest we are at Peak Oil.
- the doom & gloom merchants have been pushing this for 30 years (at least)

[Kensington]

I will not argue against nuclear, but I actually know what I am talking about when I say, it is not as clear cut as you think, please do a little research before you make up your mind.
And being reasonably well informed, I disagree that we have to go the nuke route, but it is an option, an expensive one, but an option.

.

I, too, know what i am talking about. I have researched the issue extensivlely at an academic level.

We know that wind power has serious limitations and will not become the major component of our fuel-mix in the foreseeable future. Some people think that we can run this country almost exclusively on wind in the next 20 or 30 years. They are being mislead and the CER and ESB national Grid have publically available reports that demonstate this.

We also know that Bord Gais's opinion on our long-term gas security is incredibly optimistic. The British energy white paper says, in black and white, that they will be facing gas shortages in the next 15 to 20 years. So, what do we do then?

Our LNG plant may not be built for another 5 years and does the Government even have a plan to ensure we have access to shipments? No, they do not. The free-market will not be Ireland's friend in this regard.

If one is being honest and aware of the situation, they must recognise that we need to go nuclear.

[Kensington]

We'd actually have to build two Nukes, otherwise what would we do when one of them is down?

More importantly though, Nukes cost too much, take too long to build, wouldn't fit on our grid, are not commercially viable (would require massive taxpayer subsidies), and we would still be relying on foreign sources of Uranium (which will peak very quick if lots of new Nukes are built).

On the other hand, a network of biomass CHP plants would cost a fraction to build, would produce cheaper electricity, would build resilience into the grid, would benefit local economies by keeping the money in the economies, and require no subsidies.

Someone else mentioned incineration: After peak oil, the amount of plastics we can produce will diminish, so the waste stream will decline massively in terms of energy content. Then what?

SPN,

I read that green pamphlet too, it's shoddy.

One would not a backup plant. Nuclear is incredibly reliable and we will have gas plants anyway.

It would fit on our grid. What type are you refering to?

It would take about 10 years to go from the decsion to build one to it being operational. It would need to be built by the state, nuclear power is cheaper than offshore wind. Uranium supply would not be a problem, where are your sources that it will peak soon?

I would love to build CHP plants, but we have got to be realistic. They would have to be powered by gas and we have got to move away from fossil fuels. Our supplies are not secure in the longterm.