http://www.tullettprebon.com/Documents/...I_009_Perfect_Storm_009.pdfhier ist der Research mit 84 Seiten und nicht die og. Kurzfassung
Miit der Parellelentwicklung der Bevölkerung und des Energieverbrauchs muss man ihm zustimmen.Auch dass Energie im Jahr 2020 möglicherweise 50% teurer ist.Ob aber auch mit der Schlussfolgerung, dass Schulden in Wirklichkeit ein Anspruch auf künftige Energie sind?
The appreciation of the true nature
of money as a tokenisation of energy
also enables us to put debt into its
proper context. Fundamentally, debt
can be defined as ‘a claim on future
money’. However, since we have seen
that money is a tokenisation of energy,
it becomes apparent that debt really
amounts to ‘a claim on future energy’.....
Therefore, the viability (or otherwise)
of today’s massively-indebted
economies depends upon the outlook
for energy supply...If such enlargement cannot
be relied upon, however, then the
debt burden can only be regarded
as unsustainable. ... interessanter Gedanke!
Mit dem oben von permanent zitierten Auszug finde ich schon,dass Morgan recht hat,denn Shale Gas verbraucht sich noch schneller als Öl und kann wohl langfristig kaum mit arabischen Öllagerstätten verglichen werden.Ich hatte dazu schon was gepostet vor einigen Tagen.Es werden nur immer mehr Bohrungen nötig um den Stand aufrecht zu erhalten (derzeit 5000/ Jahr),nur dass diese dann in Bereiche vordringen,wo der Gewinn immer geringer wird
Ähnlich argumentiert übrigens Morgan über die kanadischen Ölsands
die Energiergewinnung durch Windkraft,die Biofuelgewinnung,die er völlig negativ bewertet und er kommt zu dem Schluss,dass die Politiker an die unconventional hydrocarbon sources glauben ,einem aussergewöhnlich hohen Grad an Selbsttäuschung unterliegen
Hubbertians argue, the
supply of oil will decline, in pretty
much a mirror-image of the increase
in consumption which has taken place
since the 1850s. Much the same,
they argue, will eventually happen
to supplies of natural gas and of
coal, with depletion of these sources
accelerating as a result of substitution
from oil.
the critical issues are energy
returns on energy invested (EROEI)
and deliverability.
The best way to illustrate the
deliverability issue is to compare oil
sands reserves in Canada (about 170
bn bbls) with conventional reserves in
Saudi Arabia (about 270 bn bbls). Given
that Saudi production capacity is about
12 mmb/d (million barrels per day),
one might, on a simple pro-rata basis,
expect Canadian oil sands output to
reach perhaps 7 mmb/d. But the reality
is that output is most unlikely to reach
even 3.5 mmb/d. Deliverability from
the Canadian resource, will, then, be
less than half of that attained from
conventional reserves in Saudi Arabia
substantial new
sources are needed each year simply to
replace natural declines from already producing
fields. As the industry moves
from higher- to lower-deliverability
fields, maintenance of existing
production levels, let alone growth,
becomes ever more difficult.
supply from existing
sources of oil is declining by about
6.7% annually.
future supply projections
assume that a large proportion of all
future net gains in production will
have to come from OPEC countries.
This might be difficult to achieve,
particularly given that Saudi Aramco
admits that it is injecting 13 mmb/d of
treated seawater, most of it to sustain
production at its giant (but ageing)
Al Ghawar field, historically the source of about half of the
kingdom’s production.
At first
glance, the claimed EROEIs for onshore
wind power look pretty reasonable at
perhaps 17:1. However, the returns
claimed for wind seem to make some
pretty heroic assumptions about the
longevity of generating plant and,
in any case, wind turbines produce
electricity, not the highly-concentrated
transport fuels upon which the
economy depends.
Other energy sources look even worse
in EROEI terms. Biofuel EROEIs seldom
exceed 3:1, and some are negative. The
much-vaunted “hydrogen economy”
is a myth, because hydrogen acts as
a store (not a source) of energy, and
is very inefficient in the way in which
it converts energy obtained from
conventional sources. About 40% of
the initial energy is lost in conversion,
perhaps another 15% is lost in the
collection process and, if the hydrogen
energy is reconverted into electricity,
the process losses mean that one
finishes with barely 15% of the energy
put into the process in the first place.
Policymakers who pin their hopes on
unconventional hydrocarbon sources
are guilty of a quite extraordinary
degree of self-delusion.....
