oil peak starting to look like hoax...thoughts?, page 3

Since this is a conspiracy-based website I'll try not step away from it. You are right that part of today's world price is made up by a deficiency in extracting and refining capacity. You are right in pointing out that some countries are stockpiling oil at an alarming rate (mainly China and the US), importing a much larger quantity than they actually need. You are wrong in pointing out that we are at immediate risk of an energy crisis. You are wrong in pointing out hydrogen as the only solution. You are wrong in pointing out "space" solar power as a viable solution. Finally, you are right in pointing out that a large share of today's crude price is made up by fierce financial speculation. Let's start with order: the world's KNOWN oil reserves are still very, very well stocked up. Apart from the best known deposits, there are number of them that are currently unexploited owing to financial or political reasons. It's cheaper to pump more crude from a pre-existing deposit than exploiting a new one. Much cheaper. The problem is with extracting capability: OPEC countries still have pretty much '80s capacities, when the crude request was much lower. In fact the only countries that seriously expanded their drilling and pumping operations in the last decade are Mexico, Canada and Brasil. It's like having a huge tank with a small tap attached: it could work well for, let's say five persons, but when other two show up, you need an additional tap to keep everybody happy. Refining capabilities are also an issue: the US has only ten or twelve refineries producing high-quality, low-pollution fossil fuels. The others are hopelessy outdated. A revamp process of other facilities currently underway, and the customer is paying for it, dearly. Most European refineries are also outdated and very inefficient: in fact only Switzerland, Germany and the Netherlands have a large number of modern, highly efficient facilities. The others still use '80s technology. Asia is even worse: only Japan and, to a lesser extent, South Korea have these new facilities. So there's a competition for high-quality, low-pollution fossil fuel: the US have been importing large quantities of it from Europe and Japan, while their older facilities are revamped, driving prices up. Stockpiling is laso an issue: because of today's unstable situation, many countries have been tempted to increase their reserves as much as possible. China is a leader here: fears of a confrontation in Iran, the unstable situation of Russia's oil industry and the availabilty of large sums of dollars and euros pushed their government into a buying craze. Japan and the US have also stockpiled, but to a lesser extent. With the worldwide economy slowing down, soon part of these reserves will be put into use, reducing the demand and pushing prices down. Also, some countries are planning to build more nuclear plants or to revamp their own: Germany announced that their plants will not be shutdown by 2015, France announced a countrywide plan to increase efficiency and cut down costs, South Korea will probably build a couple more plants, etc. Enviromental issues aside, nuclear power is currently the cheapest way to produce massive quantities of energy. The world should stop being paranoid and start considering it as a viable mean. Hydrogen, the Holy Grail of today's science, shows a lot promises. Too bad there are very serious issues in the large-scale production and safety area. You see, right now industry-scale quantities are produced by "breaking down" fossil fuels, mainly methane, into hydrogen and carbon dioxide. Too bad carbon dioxide is a no-go (greenhouse gas). Extraction from water should be cool: break down the water and all you get is hydrogen and oxygen. Too bad there's not a single method, not even theorized, to increase the efficiency of the reaction. Right now, breaking up a water molecule, even with the aid of top-notch catalyzers, is an incredibly inefficient procedure. You need far more energy than you'll ever get from burning hydrogen and oxygen. Researchers are working around the clock to solve this, but results have not been encouraging. Moreover, hydrogen, even when pressurized in liquid form, is an incredibly reactive gas. I wouldn't want to go around with a tank of it in the trunk. Solar power should be, on the paper, very, very promising. Too bad it only works when the sun shines (so not during the hight, or when it's cloudy, misty, foggy etc). Moreover, even with the recent advancements, it remains quite inefficient: you need a lot of surface just to have enough energy to warm (not boil) some water. New-generation cells are far more efficient than their predecessors, require less maintenance, but are also incredibly expensive, even when mass-produced. About the Moon: how are we supposed to get that energy down here? Microwaves? Radio waves? Or just a plain old cable? Too expensive and requires too much time: remember that the oil era will not end because we'll suck up all the oil, but simply because we'll find a cheaper, more efficient fuel, and because exctracting large qauntities of oil will become unprofitable. Even when we'll be buzzing around on nuclear cars, oill will still be needed, albeit in reduced quantities, to produce plastic, asphalt, solvents, etc.