Peak Oil - How big is the Risk?

A short clip introducing the Industry Taskforce on Peak Oil & Energy Security.

The UK Industry Taskforce on Peak Oil and Energy Security (ITPOES) is a group of British companies concerned that threats to energy security are not receiving the attention they merit.

The aim of their first report is to engage Government more proactively on the peak oil threat, and also to alert the public to the problem. The Taskforce aims to encourage collaborative contingency planning by government, industry, and communities on measures that can be taken to accelerate independent energy supply within the UK.

This video was filmed at the launch of the Taskforce's report on 29th October 2008 at The London Stock Exchange.

Category:

Science & Technology

Tags:

• Virgin
• Branson
• Richard
• Jeremy
• Leggett
• Stagecoach
• Peak
• oil
• energy
• crunch
• Solarcentury
• First
• Group
• Will
• Whitehorn

[Standuble]

3:05 - I bet if Peak Oil heats up old Richard Branson will just retire away on his private island, do you think he would accept any refugees?

[DanFrederiksen]

after the imminent peak oil crash there will no longer be gasoline cars. that's how dramatic a situation we are facing. and while that might sound good the problem is that because we are not prepared, the effect on the world economy can be so severe that we can hardly afford to electrify the cars as well as similar transitions on other parts of our energy use.

[DanFrederiksen]

given the ignorance and obtuseness that still dominate politicians and car makers of the world, it seems a given that global financial disaster is imminent. oil is at 113/135$ now and it will rapidly continue to rise until the economy snaps again. like a tsunami each wave will hit harder and unlike a tsunami it will never end this time. each hit will get worse and since we are not prepared it will be a plane crash. first break will be within the year and the disaster horizon will be ~4 years

[DanFrederiksen]

way too lame. it has to be made absolutely clear that it is certain that oil supply will wither away forever and that if we remain dependent it could be catastrophic for the world economy on a scale that can make even the great depression look like a picnic. now it's 2011 and given the carmakers responsetime of at least 4 years per car model I think we are frankly too late to avert disaster now. if we act strongly right now we can only hope to soften the blow, not avert it. any further delay..

[TheClimatePost]

@hitssquad Also consider energy security. Nuclear power plants require well refined and processed fuel rods of uranium. Right now that fuel is quite cheap, but is expected to grow much more expensive as our stocks of decomissioned nuclear war heads is used up. This accounts for a significant portion of the fuel, and we lack capacity to run the worlds nuclear plants when the stocks deplete.

The price of wind as a fuel will always be 0.

[TheClimatePost]

@hitssquad "How many people did it kill? How many days of life-expectancy did it remove?"

The incidents did not cause any deaths. There were incidents causing permanent damage to a worker handling nuclear fuel for the plant (Westinghouse).

There were many deaths related to uranium mining in Africa (where we get our fuel).

Death toll of the Chernobyl accident is estimated around 4000. Another 4000 has gotten thyroid cancer but 99% survives. Still no fun disease.

Nuclear will always be risky.

[hitssquad]

google. com/search?q=crop+circles+in+t­he+desert+saudi+oil

"Campbell applied the same flawed logic in his 1991 book, arguing there was no likelihood of major new discoveries in the U.K. North Sea and only large fields mattered; thus, production would be falling by 11% annually. This led him to forecast that output would drop to 352,000 barrels per day (b/d) by 2004, when the actual level was 2.029 mbd."

[hitssquad]

@TheClimatePost "There are huge problems associated with nuclear power, one of which is safety. One of Sweden's reactors, Ringhals, had over 60 high risk incidents during 2008"

How many people did it kill? How many days of life-expectancy did it remove?

"The answer is a wide mix of energy sources"

Why not a wide mix of nuclear-fission types?

"go for the least risky and most rewarding sources first."

That would be nuclear-fission, since its fuel is the densest.

[MrEnergyCzar]

@KilonBerlin all great points and oil finds but those finds might/hopefully just keep up with the decline rates of the existing fields in decline...the world uses 30 billion barrels per year...I hope we can at least stay at an oil production plateau for a few decades but there are just too many huge fields in decline to think we could even do that...we could hope China and India won't drive also but they all want to ...

[KilonBerlin]

@MrEnergyCzar And that we don't find every 3 years a new Ghawar doesn't mean we hit peak soon... old fields are in most cases giving more than it had been expected... look @ russia, many fields in western siberia were called to de almost depleted in early 90's... now russia produces around 20% more than Saudi Arabia and is biggest producer and exporter of oil in the world.