I believe the reason why, the US in particular hasn't made any drastic leaps forward to alternative fuels, is because there is a lot more profit to be made in crude.
Coal, just like oil, should not be used as fuel - because these things are more valuable as "chemicals" and as "raw materials". For example, coal is required for the 'reduction' of iron ore for steel production, just as oil is a raw material for a million products! Thus, if we use coal as a substitute for oil as fuel to burn, then we will lose a very valueable resource for other purposes. And that is equally frightening, too.
Even if peak oil is way down the road, doesn't it make sense to drastically change our energy policies now, given our warming climate, and our geopolitical climate? US foreign policy is influenced more by oil security than anything else, leading to 2 wars in the Gulf, a critical situation with Iran, and many policy choices that fueled the hatred that led to 9/11. If a terrorist bomb doesn't fry me first, the sun probably will, all because of our addiction to oil!
well, it is really algea, isnt it? I think he just said it like that to make it easy for people to think what it is. It's not a endless supply... :) Just my thought about that..
It looks like Jimmy Carter was RIGHT about energy policy being the moral equivalent of war. IF America had followed his ideas, peak oil might have been delayed a hundred years or more. Ask now, WHO it was that opposed Carter and his energy conservation efforts? THAT is who you DO NOT want to give power to and PRECISELY who HAS power in America today.
Vaitheeswaran is another clueless journalist: does not understand geology, does not understand upstream technology, does not understand supply/demand margin constraints.
Also, he plays the normal free-market fundamentalist bull about oil concentration. 2/3rds of oil is in Middle-East. Boohooo. Why did UK/US burn up their oil for themselves first? And then cry about other countries having more? Silly :)
The problem isn't scarcity or concentration, but production. Unconventional sources are slow as molasses to produce, peak oil has already happened if you look at the production data, and we don't have any time to prepare for it, much less 2 decades.
In short, get ready for the largest discontinuity in the history of indistrial society.
I believe the reason why, the US in particular hasn't made any drastic leaps forward to alternative fuels, is because there is a lot more profit to be made in crude.
SSHHMEEE 1 year ago
fucking beardy, full of shit.
TheFormalizer 2 years ago
we need energyyyyyyyyyyyy
verycoldice2 2 years ago
Coal, just like oil, should not be used as fuel - because these things are more valuable as "chemicals" and as "raw materials". For example, coal is required for the 'reduction' of iron ore for steel production, just as oil is a raw material for a million products! Thus, if we use coal as a substitute for oil as fuel to burn, then we will lose a very valueable resource for other purposes. And that is equally frightening, too.
todaysissues 3 years ago
Even if peak oil is way down the road, doesn't it make sense to drastically change our energy policies now, given our warming climate, and our geopolitical climate? US foreign policy is influenced more by oil security than anything else, leading to 2 wars in the Gulf, a critical situation with Iran, and many policy choices that fueled the hatred that led to 9/11. If a terrorist bomb doesn't fry me first, the sun probably will, all because of our addiction to oil!
etsneroj 3 years ago 3
Any 'expert' (in this case the Economist correspondent) saying oil is made of "bones of crunched up dinosaurs" needs to go back to school.
rspawn 3 years ago
I was kinda thinking the same thing when I heard that.
xxblodlustxx 3 years ago
well, it is really algea, isnt it? I think he just said it like that to make it easy for people to think what it is. It's not a endless supply... :) Just my thought about that..
koskovs 3 years ago
It looks like Jimmy Carter was RIGHT about energy policy being the moral equivalent of war. IF America had followed his ideas, peak oil might have been delayed a hundred years or more. Ask now, WHO it was that opposed Carter and his energy conservation efforts? THAT is who you DO NOT want to give power to and PRECISELY who HAS power in America today.
exenrontexas 3 years ago 2
To describe Vaitheeswaran as "clueless" is overly kind! We are on the eve of destruction and he thinks that is a good thing?
ehswan 3 years ago 2
Vaitheeswaran is another clueless journalist: does not understand geology, does not understand upstream technology, does not understand supply/demand margin constraints.
Also, he plays the normal free-market fundamentalist bull about oil concentration. 2/3rds of oil is in Middle-East. Boohooo. Why did UK/US burn up their oil for themselves first? And then cry about other countries having more? Silly :)
anonym0u5 4 years ago
What's Vaitheeswaran on about? Most of oil is decomposed vegetation, not dinosaurs.
rspawn 4 years ago
The problem isn't scarcity or concentration, but production. Unconventional sources are slow as molasses to produce, peak oil has already happened if you look at the production data, and we don't have any time to prepare for it, much less 2 decades.
In short, get ready for the largest discontinuity in the history of indistrial society.
Golgo13ThePro 4 years ago 9
saudi hav 1/4 wow
DAYEL007 4 years ago
That's just their claim, in reality they have less now. Many of their assumed sources end up being empty or useless.
Meowbay 4 years ago