Slashdot Mirror


For the First Time In 3 Years, Investments In Renewable Energy Increased

Lucas123 writes: Driven largely by oil price weakness, 2015 could be the best year to date for investments in renewable energy technology, according to several new reports. According to Bloomberg Energy Finance, new funding for wind, solar, biofuels and other low-carbon energy technologies grew 16% to $310 billion last year. It was the first growth since 2011 (PDF), erasing the impact of lower solar-panel prices and falling subsides in the U.S. and Europe that hurt the industry in previous years. Demand for solar power grew 16% year-over-year in 2014, representing 44 gigawatts of capacity purchased during the year. Worldwide solar demand in 2015 is projected to be 51.4GW, compared with 39GW in 2014. Government policies will continue to improve for renewables — solar, in particular — given that anti-dumping duties imposed on Chinese modules by the U.S. last year are expected to be removed this year, Deutsche Bank said.

134 comments

  1. Huh? by Guspaz · · Score: 2

    I don't get it, wouldn't lower oil prices reduce demand for renewable energy, thus reducing investment?

    1. Re:Huh? by DamonHD · · Score: 4, Informative

      “Healthy investment in clean energy may surprise some commentators, who have been predicting trouble for renewables as a result of the oil price collapse,” said Michael Liebreich, chairman of the advisory board of the London-based researcher. “Our answer is that 2014 was too early to see any noticeable effect on investment. The impact of cheaper crude will be felt much more in road transport than in electricity generation.”

      http://www.bloomberg.com/news/...

      Rgds

      Damon

      --
      http://m.earth.org.uk/
    2. Re:Huh? by burni2 · · Score: 4, Informative

      perhaps some managers took engineering classes and started to re-project peak oil and realized:

      That peak oil will still be there, just a bit later. And that when you have cheap oil at hand and you make yourself highly depended on such a resource, where we have seen everything from extreme low to painfully high within a very short time.

      That not looking on efficiency and substitution you wouldn't be prepared for the future, when such choices would be made by many companies+people that would increase the demand on renewables to a stretch where markets simply cannot deliver any more. When markets cannot deliver anymore prices go skyrocketing making that late choice for renewables really painfull.

      (we saw this in 2007/2008 when market demand for renewables was so high, that the demand could not be satisfied any more)

    3. Re:Huh? by Hadlock · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Solar is already on par with electricity prices (which are mainly driven by the pool-table flat price of coal) and solar is expected to be half the price of electricity in 15 years. And that's in the first year. That means you get back 100% return on your investment in the first year. The next 25 years are just gravy (assuming no hail storms and your batteries never wear out). If you live in a hot state nearly free electricity during the hottest part of the day means you'll have a very predictable and very low electric cost for 10 months out of the year (12 if you have gas heat).
       
      What I'm saying is, solar is already cost-effective, but in 10 years even with dirt-cheap oil, solar will still be cheaper, and there's no global fluctuation in locally produced and consumed solar energy.
       
      Energy independence = less need for global intervention in war-torn oil producing states.

      --
      moox. for a new generation.
    4. Re:Huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The issue with solar (PV) is the energy storage. There is no current safe, small scale, cheap, energy dense solution. I don't see one on the horizon either. So unless you like your electronics, cooling, etc to only run ~ 8 hours a day, until energy storage becomes viable solar isn't the answer for offline energy unless you manage it very carefully with your lead acid batteries.

    5. Re:Huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This article talks about investments initially. Since Oil is slumping, find a sector that is performing better - renewables!

    6. Re:Huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Are you basing your cost analysis on the price adjusted by subsidies and the cost of others adjusted by tax (anti subsidies)?

    7. Re:Huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes. It would reduce demand.

      But it's also massively cutting the available profits for oil extraction business; it's not worth doing new things.

      And since solar power has a much higher fixed cost to ongoing cost ratio, this is finally tempting investors.

    8. Re:Huh? by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

      There is no current safe, small scale, cheap, energy dense solution

      It's called buried evacuated flywheels. HTH, HAND!

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    9. Re:Huh? by DamonHD · · Score: 1

      Also this that I just saw:

      http://www.carbonbrief.org/blo...

      "There's little consensus. Some analysts argue that the falling oil price could end the world's slow march towards zero carbon energy. Others say renewables are established enough to see out the storm.

      There are good reasons for such uncertainty. The renewable energy industry's fate rests on a number of factors that are very hard to predict."

      Generally we know that we don't really know.

      Rgds

      Damon

      --
      http://m.earth.org.uk/
    10. Re:Huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Just looking at the trends in oil and gas prices over the last century there is a steady upward trend in prices.

      Looking at the demand curves for China, India and other countries that are catching up to the Western World, their demand for oil and gas is going up - along with their demand for autos.

      See, this relatively cheap gas and oil prices will not last because it never has in the past. This is just a small dip in a long term trend. Why some oil speculators are renting out oil tankers and just parking them off-shore waiting for the inevitable increase in prices.

      Anyone who thinks this oil and gas boom is permanent and low oil and gas prices is will stay is a short sighted fool.

      See, all these people are going to panic when oil prices shoot up again. .

    11. Re:Huh? by dunkelfalke · · Score: 1

      USA hit their peak oil in the 1970ies in fact. Russia reached peak oil about a year ago. When the ISIS situation is over, then the cheap oil from Iraq will also be gone. Oil price will go up long term, even when they are political driven fluctuations right now.

      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
    12. Re:Huh? by swb · · Score: 1

      That was my first thought too, but then I assumed that maybe these statistics lagged the change in oil prices by decent amounts or perhaps there's some counterintuitive investment or accounting logic to it, like some investors putting more money in as valuations fall (seeing a bargain or long-term plan) or perhaps companies shifting money on paper into "investments" as a tax hedge or a way to claim a higher paper loss.

      I'm just making this up, I don't know, but sometimes these things have complex explanations from the alternative universe of money.

    13. Re: Huh? by WindBourne · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Cheap oil does not impact AE. Cheap coal, Nat gas, nukes, etc, do.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    14. Re:Huh? by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      I would really like to see large scale and efficient methane synthesis one day.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    15. Re:Huh? by Mashiki · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      If that was true, then in places like Canada, we wouldn't be paying $0.60kWh for solar energy, when nuclear is $0.05kWh, and natural gas is $0.07-0.09kWh. Don't even get me started on wind with it being as high $0.83kWh. Then again, you guys in the states seem to throw a hissy fit every time we want to sell you oil, or even build pipelines to ship it to you. Energy independence? Only if it fits an environmentalist agenda for some people.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    16. Re:Huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      the oil price "collapse" is temporary, soon as opec drives alternative drilling methods like fracking bankrupt, prices will rebound back to all time highs.

    17. Re:Huh? by thegarbz · · Score: 3, Informative

      That's a statement born out of looking at existing reserves and then drawing a trend line. There is no such thing as peak oil. What we do have is a supply and demand function where the supply is actually dependent on the price point caused by demand.

      As supply decreases the price of goods increase. These increased prices make it economic to extract other goods which were previously unavailable. When the price got high enough we started drilling deeper and started sucking it out of tar sands. If the price gets high enough again you're starting to look at drilling into the Arctic. Heck if the price every gets truly ridiculous then you start looking off-world.

      While this all may sound sci-fi about 50 years ago if you would have told someone that the future of oil is drilling 10km into the ground they would have laughed at you. That is the nature of peak oil. We've hit "peak oil" in the 1800s and again pretty much every day since as we started drilling for it.

    18. Re:Huh? by burni2 · · Score: 1

      Yes, your conclusion is basically what my argumentation is based uppon.

    19. Re:Huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Solar is already on par with electricity prices

      Electricity prices are on par with electricity prices? Amazing how that works.

    20. Re:Huh? by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 5, Insightful

      ... or even build pipelines to ship it to you. Energy independence? Only if it fits an environmentalist agenda for some people.

      Canada does not need Keystone XL to ship oil to the USA. Already enough pipelines exist to ship crude to US refineries. It needs Keystone XL to access the ports in Gulf of Mexico to export it to other countries. Keystone XL will create about 2000 temporary jobs to build and about 100 permanent jobs to maintain it. But if we force Canada to ship crude to USA, and we do the refining and then export value added products to rest of the world, there would be 10000 permanent jobs in the USA. What Canada really wants is a cheap way to gets its crude to places where there is no pollution control, no labor safety and low wages to do the refining.

      10000 jobs works out to about 1 billion in wages. Cost of pollution abatement and labor safety would add another four of five billion a year. To save that money and funnel it to the top executives as bonuses and pay rises, they are engaging in scorched earth politics and divisive rhetoric.

      Why export crude? Build the damned refineries in the tar sands. Capture the pollutants and bury it back where you dug the crude out. You have permanent jobs and all the profits that could be made in refining the oil too.

      Oh, I get it. Your crude is too expensive to be refined safely paying decent wages to the workers and without causing too much of pollution. All that talk about USA's energy independence and enviro - nazis, all that rhetoric is to basically mask these facts: Canadian tar sands crude is extremely dirty. It has no market value unless you cut pollution abatements, labor safety and wages.

      --
      sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    21. Re:Huh? by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 1

      I'm just making this up, I don't know, ...

      If you cut these kind of statements out, you could become a "Energy Investment Consultant" and charge oodles of money. I don't think the talking heads and columnists in Bloomberg "know" stuff more than you do. They are doing exactly what you are doing, except they don't admit making stuff up and not knowing.

      --
      sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    22. Re:Huh? by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      "Soon as" could be a long time. If it is long enough to drive a fracking company out of business, then it's long enough to drive an AE company out of business.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    23. Re:Huh? by DamonHD · · Score: 2

      I think that the current low price is all about the Saudis making life hard for Russia and Iran. Everything else is insignificant.

      Rgds

      Damon

      --
      http://m.earth.org.uk/
    24. Re: Huh? by Tetetrasaurus · · Score: 1

      Yet I have read how cheap oil is threatening the future of the fracking boom.

    25. Re:Huh? by swb · · Score: 1

      It's an inherently complex measure (investment) given a simplistic outcome (increase).

      I'm not even sure what numbers you would use to measure "investment" and there are probably many complex motivations involving actual long term investment, tax strategies, trailing indicators, etc etc.

      Maybe the breadth of deployment and usage of solar and wind has reached the point where enough people are convinced that it represents the future and aren't just doing a price comparison to oil/gas today.

    26. Re:Huh? by burni2 · · Score: 2

      Heck if the price every gets truly ridiculous then you start looking off-world.

      Unlikely to happen, the abiotic theory in the creation of oil by Gold is mostly viewed as disproven, because it lead to deep drilling efforts, these got not much oil out of it but showed that even there bacteria (extremophiles) were present so deep inside the earth.

      If you would now jump off your seat and say again that this is proof that we just must dig deeper. This can be disproven to be sustainable by logic, meaning yes there is little oil, but again "little" not the amounts needed.

      The steps to disprove:
      a.) The creation of oil needs at least plant life (the biomass of plant life is enormous), while it may not need the life itself(chemical proccession is possible) but life (our known carbon based life) accumulates water and carbon,
      and these things can recombine to hydrocarbons (under the influence of heat and pressure)

      This means to create oil reservoirs you need and accumulation of the right components and life has the ability to accumulate.

      hydrocarbons == oil

      If those elements would have been scattered there would be no such oil "stashes" found in the earths crust.

      b.) the past view of the O2 content over the last billion of years
      - some 650 million years ago the O2 concentration began to rise,

      deduction: that this must be initial starting point in develloping of plant life. This is our ground zero for oil creation inside the earth

      If you accept the assumption that 99% of the oil resources are based on reprocessed biological matter. The next deduction is, that: There is only a limited amount of oil because of the limited time span of life on earth.

      Evidence can be seen, when you look at all discoveries of oil reservoirs, they have two huge peaks(40s and 50s), and many small peaks, but the trend is going downwards, even with the invention of new techniques.

      Also discovery doesn't mean production, so basically the reservoirs that are in production now(yes fracked and tar sands) were found some 40-20 years ago, (tar sands are known even longer before) and fracking is also sucking the last drops from known deposits.

      Deduction: Digging deeper means just going longer back into the earths biological history And this also means that you are just going back to that point when the "tank" (meaning all that biological matter that was conserved and did not decompose) was started to be filled.

      Meaning: The deeper you dig the less you will find.

      The other evidence proving the reality of peak oil is that this oil is used for rougly 130yrs. at industrial scale.

      These resources were never drained before. So even that right now hydrocarbons are formed in the earth crust. The rate of oil creation by this process can deduced to be very slow.

      Taking into account the long time for creation, the total consumed amount and the growing hardships that prospectors face since the 60s it can be logically deduced that there is a limited amount of oil, and if you start to drain it, the creation rate of new oil due to biological processes does virtually not even cover for about 0-point-0-somehting percent of the whole oil production. This means it is logical and safe to assume that peak oil (production) is very real.

      And if you look into the future consumption of China and India which I did not, it looks just more severe.

    27. Re: Huh? by blang · · Score: 0

      Thats what the grid is for.
      If the grid is powerful enough, you will export your excess to the grid when your storage is full and import from the grid when your reservoir is gone.
      If there are some hydroplants on the grid, excess solar power could be used to pump water back to the reservoi during daytime when the turbines are running at a tricke, and crank the turbines up to full load at night when all the solars are down.
      Excess energy could be used to produce hydrogen or methanol for fuell cells. Maybe a generator per household would be overkill, but one per neighborhood oughta do.
      Energy storage is not trivial, but it is a far cry from impossible.
      I can imagine an energy coop would want to have a ,ix of souces, including solar, wind as well as a common energy storage facility.

      --
      -- Another senseless waste of fine bytes.
    28. Re:Huh? by Shoten · · Score: 1

      I don't get it, wouldn't lower oil prices reduce demand for renewable energy, thus reducing investment?

      Very little power is generated using oil. The exceptions are places like the Bahamas, where coal isn't really accessible and it's easier to get oil on the island...but in those cases, there's really no effect from lower oil prices anyways because oil/diesel are incredibly expensive when compared to pretty much every other kind of generation. Also, oil only just recently dropped in price; planned projects related to the study here would have been planned out two years earlier (at the earliest) and capitalized a year before when budgets were worked out. It's odd, because the report talks about "industry concerns" related to this...but I work in the power industry, and nobody there even notices that the cost of oil has been low. So I don't understand who these analysts are speaking to, or how much knowledge they really have of the power sector.

      What's behind this is another thing that the analysts totally don't see...the challenges of managing generation from renewables, and the fact that power companies have been able to make strides towards this. Generation and load (sink) have to be in balance...otherwise you get variations in both voltage and frequency. This has been a hard enough challenge to manage when the utilities had solid control over generation (they have very little control over load, and what control they do have is caused by "load shedding," whereby they cause a small, localized blackout). But when you add renewables, they lose control over some of their generation output as well...the wind picks up/dies down, clouds cover (or uncover) solar panels, etc. This was further validated as power companies started solar and wind projects, and saw the impact that came from them. The problem can be managed, but it requires more analytic systems (Transmission Management Systems, Distribution Management Systems, and Advanced Distribution Mangement Systems), AMI meters, and a host of other things that are referred to as "WAMPAC," or "Wide Area Monitoring, Protection and Control". These technologies have been developing over the years, and they all take a lot of time and money to implement. That said, power companies have been busily rolling them out, and now a lot of them are far better-prepared to absorb the fluctuations incurred by renewable energy sources.

      So, in short:
      -Renewable projects fired up some years ago
      -They made it harder to manage the grid, as is
      -Power companies, now having solid hard information as to how renewables impact their own piece of the grid, set about dealing with the problem with new tech
      -Now they're better-prepared to roll out more renewable generation capacity

      --

      For your security, this post has been encrypted with ROT-13, twice.
    29. Re:Huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What about bio fuel? At a certain price point this becomes economical and we can make as much as we want. The advantage of oil isn't the free energy, it's the energy density in liquid form.

    30. Re:Huh? by dunkelfalke · · Score: 1

      And this is a statement born out of ignorance of what peak oil actually is. It is maximal sustainable production.
      Tar sands won't ever get you over a peak because the oil from tar sands is difficult to extract, so it won't be possible to extract as much oil from tar sands, as there was extracted from easy to claim oil wells at their peak. You won't be possibly able to extract as much oil from the difficult sources as you had extracted it from the easy ones.
      Even if you get your oil off world, you certainly won't be able to get 80 millions of barrels a day from space. Even if one very distant day in the future the transport capacity would enable humankind this feat, the humankind would not need oil by then anymore.

      Supply and demand function is not magical, as you imply. Sometimes there is just no more supply, no matter how high the demand is. And sometimes the supply costs have risen so high that it would be way cheaper to find an alternative solution. Thus in any of these cases oil production would not ever reach the erstwhile peak.

      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
    31. Re: Huh? by blang · · Score: 1

      As much as we want?
      If you compare world food procdution to world oil production, and keep in mind that many already do not have enough food, and also keep in mind that modern agriculture is a large fuel consumer, you would have to eat those words. There would nothing else for dinner.

      --
      -- Another senseless waste of fine bytes.
    32. Re:Huh? by burni2 · · Score: 1

      The argumentation wasn't about biofuels or their feasebility. It was just about why it is safe to assume that oil reserves are limited.

      The thought you indirectly implied with hinting at biofuels, so to substitute part of the oil consumption - with biofuel - so that oil reserves will last longer.

      Biofuels will be a part of the energy mix for propulsion of the future yes, but only a part.

      a.) yes, at some point in time biofuels may/will become economical enough to compete with petrol. Some still are,
      depending on where you use them (ethanol production in brazil for example).

      b.) Till today the advantage of using fossil fuels is that it is "free" energy. As you just need to get it out of the earth but you don't need to put resources(usable land area) into just to create it.

      The production of biofuels however is limited as they compete with food (except jatropha which is poisonous) but also with cultivating land.

      c.) I indeed see the ethical problem in using food to drive a car,
      however I do also think that it can be solved if the priority is on the food production for humans and that biofuel production is only secondary.

      Looking into the energy markets, electrical propulsion is the most likely the biggest part of the "mix" solution. Because you can harvest the (renewable-)energy for it it on very small areas.

      Also some areas that are ideal for solar for example are barren dry land or deserts

      "oil production": Yes, term oil production is actually wrong.

    33. Re:Huh? by burni2 · · Score: 1

      Sorry to devide the answer into more than one part,
      but the scifi-solution you mentioned (off world) I'd like to argument against it.

      Where: Titan
      Why: Titans atmosphere and sea are liquid methane CH4 not because of life

      Problem:
      Adding matter to earth
      - yes, we have an addition of matter to the earth (comets, meteorites)
      - yes, we have a loss of mass (atmosphere)

      At the moment the increase or decrease rate I think is at an equilibrium.

      The solution to space mine(minerals) or prospect(hydrocarbons) would actually add matter to the earth and if the earth will increase mass so will our orbit around the sun decrease. I judge this effect not to be desired. It will get hot hot hot!

      Yes, I don't give a thought to the transfer of kinetic energy from titan to the earth.

    34. Re:Huh? by Blaskowicz · · Score: 1

      Bio fuels is maybe good in very limited quantity such as for running farm equipment but I would favor it banned elsewhere. We might as well to back to clearing all forests to burn the wood (trucks and cars can be run on wood) till there's nothing much left.

    35. Re:Huh? by SETY · · Score: 1

      So you are saying that the oil companies reason for not building more refineries in Alberta in because Alberta doesn't want the pollution from refining? Have you seen the tar sands? The environmental damage (And energy burning) is done when digging the stuff out and "processing it". At that point the damage is done and they load it on a train or pipeline. My local refinery processes tar sands and/or North Dakota oil. Last I looked there are no giant new holding pits around it? Are they just burning it off? Citation please for: "What Canada really wants is a cheap way to gets its crude to places where there is no pollution control, no labor safety and low wages to do the refining." and "Your crude is too expensive to be refined safely paying decent wages to the workers and without causing too much of pollution."

      Or we could believe (https://osi.alberta.ca/osi-content/Pages/OfficialStatistic.aspx?ipid=941 and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W...) what the oil companies say, that Alberta oil is/was trading at a discount (after taking into account the oil itself is different) because they are transport limited and the gulf has a pile of refineries that can use a new source of oil. Refineries are expensive to build and haven't made much money lately. With every oil train car in north america being used to ship oil I would tend to believe them. The want to put it on a boat too because as soon as you have it on a boat you get world price, which is a lot better than a transport limited price.

    36. Re:Huh? by khallow · · Score: 1

      the oil price "collapse" is temporary, soon as opec drives alternative drilling methods like fracking bankrupt, prices will rebound back to all time highs.

      They can't really make fracking bankrupt. Fracking will resume once the price increases. This sort of large fluctuation in price is common in the industry.

    37. Re:Huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course, and people roam earth along dinos 6000 years ago.

    38. Re: Huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      fracking isn't just NG.. it's also the term used for acquiring oil in a certain way.

    39. Re: Huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Low prices on oil means investment in the expensive infrastructure required to extract oil wont return the money. Therefore it is better to invest in green alternatives to make money.

    40. Re:Huh? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      And this is a statement born out of ignorance of what peak oil actually is. It is maximal sustainable production.

      Congratulations on compounding ignorance with ignorance. We have no idea what the sustainable level is, but we're surely well past it. Look into sustainability and figure out what that word means before using it again.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    41. Re: Huh? by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      Yet I have read how cheap oil is threatening the future of the fracking boom.

      Fracking is used for both oil and natural gas. It was used first for NG, driving down the price. But it is now used for oil, with a lot of NG coming up with the oil. The NG is more difficult to move to market, and with prices so low, that it is often more cost effective to flare it off. Expect flaring is illegal in America. So the drillers have no choice but to sell the NG at below cost, and make their profit on the oil.

      The main cost of fracking in in the drilling, not the pumping. Unlike conventional wells, fracking wells have a short lifetime. They go dry after about six months of pumping. So what is happening now, is we have lots of wells drilled when oil prices were high, but fewer new wells are being drilled. Don't be surprised if oil prices start to rebound around the middle of 2015, as these wells are depleted.

    42. Re:Huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It never was an 'investment' it was just a political pay off to people who supported the people controlling the purse strings.

      If a person is of average intelligence and wisdom and runs the calculations, all this stuff was and is just a cash sink.

      It never had a return on investment, and it never will.

    43. Re:Huh? by John+Jorsett · · Score: 1

      That's not an answer. Slashdot headline says, "Driven largely by oil price weakness." Where's the evidence for that statement? It makes no economic sense that renewable energy investment increases because its competition gets cheaper unless 1) It's due to subsidies, and/or 2) It's due to the coming on line of projects that were in the pipeline before oil took a dive.

    44. Re:Huh? by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      it's long enough to drive an AE company out of business.

      Most AE companies don't compete against oil. They are in the electricity business, which is a completely different market from transportation fuels.

    45. Re:Huh? by DamonHD · · Score: 1

      a) I'm quoting from one of the sources from the summary.

      b) The quote is saying that it's "too early to tell" and is thus neither (1) nor (2).

      Rgds

      Damon

      --
      http://m.earth.org.uk/
    46. Re: Huh? by Rei · · Score: 1

      It'll stabilize the fall at the very least, to be sure. But the rest of the oil industry is trying their hardest not to give ground - they don't want to undercut their future on projects that can take years to develop and stay in operation for long periods of time. Most wells (or non-well projects such as surface-mined bitumen) have much longer lifespans. Fracked oil and oil shale will be what gives way most, but the exact nature of where the market will head is yet to be seen.

      --
      It's times like this I wish I had a friend named 'The Professor'.
    47. Re:Huh? by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      They can't really make fracking bankrupt. Fracking will resume once the price increases.

      Indeed. Many frackers are multi-billion dollar companies with deep pockets. They also have easy access to capital markets. They will be able to ramp up drilling in a few months, as soon as prices start to recover.

    48. Re:Huh? by Rei · · Score: 1

      Probably some truth to this. Russia has been a thorn in OPEC's side for a long time. And they got the perfect opportunity here to hit them when they were weak. Now they've got Russia losing income *and* not able to get foreign investment. The net result, if Russia's isolation and weakness continues, is that future projects will be delayed or cancelled, existing production dries up, Russian hardware wears out, etc - and overall Russia becomes a smaller player in the global oil market.

      It's clearly not the only factor in the oil slide, but OPEC seems more than a little content with the price slide. And I don't think there's any love lost between the Saudis and the Russians on non-economic issues either... they seem to be on opposite sides of most international conflicts.

      --
      It's times like this I wish I had a friend named 'The Professor'.
    49. Re:Huh? by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      Well, then, that would also negate the AC's point.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    50. Re:Huh? by dryeo · · Score: 1

      Many of us Canadians wish that the bitumen sands were being used to add value to the economy through refineries but our right wing government is in the pockets of American, Chinese and Indonesian oil companies as well as having the business attitude of maximum profits now rather then sustainable profits for the future. And yes they're deregulating as fast as they can with the odd bump when a town gets blown up (or too many people are dieing of salmonella). Shit, the last refinery here on the southwest coast can't get enough oil and has to import it even though the oil pipeline terminates basically at the refinery.
      Fucking right wingers are financially idiots who rather then paying off the debt that they created by blowing the surplus and running a deficit for the last 8 years while going on about how being Conservative means they're good with money would rather cut taxes now that an election is coming up. I'm probably old fashioned but I'd rather see the bills being paid off while the economy is good due to the high oil prices just in case the price of oil drops.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    51. Re:Huh? by Kernel+Kurtz · · Score: 1

      Build the damned refineries in the tar sands.

      And then use pipelines to move the refined product to markets? Sure you have thought this through?

    52. Re:Huh? by MtHuurne · · Score: 1

      Peak oil is the moment when the maximum production rate is reached. If you say there is no such thing as peak oil, that means you're predicting the production rate will forever increase. Even if that would be possible on the supply side (which I sincerely doubt), the demand for oil will decrease when the price increases, leading to lower production.

      We're not running out of oil, we're running out of cheap oil. As oil gets more expensive, people will find ways to use less oil: other fuels, renewable energy, better home insulation, fuel efficient cars, less air travel etc. We already saw the demand for oil drop when the economic crisis hit, showing that there is flexibility in the demand.

    53. Re:Huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It depends on how you look at it. From a consumer side, lower gasoline and oil prices means cheaper driving and lower home heating costs (assuming you heat your home with oil or natural gas). From an investor point of view, if you have a dollar to invest, you want a return. Oil has provided very nice returns. Now that the price has dropped, the returns are less and alternative energy sources are more attractive (its not that they are more attractive, but oil has become less attractive). Even besides the green part, there are reasons to move away from oil: if you get power from the grid, and the price of producing that power fluctuates because of the oil/gas used to spin the turbines, going to solar or wind means you pay once and get power for 15-20 years and don't have to worry about 'price shocks' and whether a Saudi Prince wants to buy new LearJets for the whole family again this year. They are still making money even when the price is $20 a barrel, but when its $140 a barrel, they have *you* over a barrel (think hard about that: when its $140 a barrel, if they ship 6 million barrels per day, that's $720,000,000 profit per day. That's $262.8 billion per year in profit. From your pocket. Since 1972, that's 11.0376 Trillion dollars (the last 6 is the hundreds of million part). So yeah, Saudi Arabia has exported oil and Sunni Islam in the last 42 years. How do you feel now?

    54. Re:Huh? by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      There is no such thing as peak oil.
      Of course there is. There is a "Peak X" for any X that is limited and gets "destroyed"/consumed in its usage. Actually a no brainer. I wonder how much merit the rest of your post has if it started so badly :D

      Heck if the price every gets truly ridiculous then you start looking off-world.

      Sure, as we are knowing already how to get there and which places have oil ... rofl. It will never be cost effective to get oil from off world, even if Mars e.g. had oil. There is simply nothing that valuable you can do with oil which you can not do far cheaper on earth by either synthesising oil or replacing it.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    55. Re:Huh? by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Actually modern batteries last quite long and are quite cheap.

      Also we have new kinds of batteries, so called "flow batteries", which should be unaffected by the typical wear.

      But I agree, if you want to be autarkic, the investment (especially time to figure the right path) is still quite high.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    56. Re: Huh? by turkeyfish · · Score: 2

      It won't be that simple, since those who do shut down will be out of business more or less permanently, having given up their market share. Also the investment profit cycle of shale oils are quite different from those of fracking and they must continue to produce regardless just to pay back billions in loans already spent on infrastructure. This is a particular problem for the Canadians, who the Saudis see as their first target. The battle is over market share and who will be the top dog, the current price is incidental, since the winner will be able to set whatever price they want. The Saudis with their ability to make a profit even at $10 per barrel are likely to win out, but the Koch brothers and others will fight tooth and nail before letting that happen and one reason their recent Fox News propaganda is increasingly pushing policies that will further destabilize the Middle East and Saudi influence there.

      The reason alternative energy will continue to gain ground is that ever increasing efficiencies and long term costs are becoming increasingly competitive with fossil fuels. Recent breakthroughs in solar, which will increase current efficiency by about 40%, haven't even come to market yet. Likewise, there is considerable profit to be gained in alternative energies by increasing scale and mass production that are only now being realized. Fossil fuels on the other hand face increasing costs going forward, higher costs to drill with less return on investment, greater costs associated with cleanup and pollution controls that alternative energy simply don't have. Further, there is increased realization that fossil fuel burning will cause humans to go extinct unless curtailed. This means the fossil fuels industry will have to dramatically increase their spending on propaganda just to maintain the current drill, baby, drill mindset.

      The worse news for fossil fuels is that the smart money on Wall Street and other global markets increasingly see the that it is in smaller alternative energy companies and technologies that new fortunes will be made, while fortunes will be lost trying to sustain antiquated fossil fuel technologies on an ever warming planet, with increasingly higher extraction and maintenance costs. This is the primary reason why China is currently outspending the US on annual solar investments of $93B to $51 per annum and their 5-year plan indicates they are just ramping up. They intend to be the world leaders, while the US falls all over itself trying to prop up the fossil fuels industry. The transition from fossil fuels isn't over by any means, but it is well on its way and there is nothing the fossil fuels industry can do about it other than drill, baby, drill while they can still do it. Unfortunately for them, but fortunately for the rest of humanity that window is starting to close.

    57. Re:Huh? by turkeyfish · · Score: 1

      No. Alternative energies are gaining because they serve primarily to generate electricity and because technology is decreasing their costs faster than their profits are falling. That is not to say, however, that such technology doesn't play a role in the transportation markets where they will more directly compete in the future. For example, Tesla just recently increased the miles their cars can go on a single charge from about 250 miles to about 450 miles. Likewise, electric charging stations are rapidly increasing in number. Although these numbers are miniscule compared to conventional fossil fuels, it is the rate of their increase that drives profits and future investments, since that is where the new money is to be made. Keep in mind that at the beginning of the 20th century, buggy whips outsold autos several thousand to one, but now no fortunes are made selling buggy whips.

      The recent drop in oil prices will only spur the electric car industry to become more efficient and cost efficient sooner. This is the way natural selection works.

    58. Re:Huh? by turkeyfish · · Score: 1

      The demand for oil will definitely start to wane when soil temperatures become so hot that tires will melt and it will be impossible to grow crops in many parts of the world.

      I suppose the good news is that humanity soon won't have that much longer to wait. Within less than 100 years the amount of carbon released from thawing permafrost will begin to equal that generated by humans. Just a 1.5 deg C increase in warming in the arctic will release more than a trillion metric tons of the greenhouse gases CO2 and methane. Of course, rising sea temperatures are simultaneously increasing the sublimation of methane clathrates, that contain even far more stored carbon. In roughly the past 150 years, ocean pH has fallen fallen from 8.25 to 8.14 or about a 30% change in hydronium ion concentration. Thus we can expect annual extinction rates soon to exceed those observed during the "Great Dying" that occurred during Permian times. Its already baked into the cake. No further input required, we are now just waiting for equilibrium given the current carbon dioxide load in seawater.

      Let us all pray that Saudi Arabia brings this brief era of cheap gas to a merciful end so that we may soon be able to pay $500/gallon.

    59. Re:Huh? by turkeyfish · · Score: 1

      There are multiple solutions to that problem already in deployment. The two most common methods now in use is to use solar to heat sodium to about 400 deg and then use it to power steam generators at night and the other to simply pump water uphill by day and then generate power hydrodynamically at night. Both approaches are extremely simple, extremely cost effective, and already becoming increasingly common at many solar installations.

    60. Re: Huh? by turkeyfish · · Score: 1

      The most efficient biofuels come from culturing algae, not producing corn and other human consumables. Consequently, the only thing causing a clash between biofuels and food production going forward is the inertia created by locking in the political kickbacks associated with ethanol subsidies in corn producing states. This won't change anytime soon as the GOP ideology is all about granting special favors to insiders, who then provide the kickbacks necessary to sustain the process going forward.

    61. Re:Huh? by turkeyfish · · Score: 1

      Not to mention adding even more greenhouse gases to our atmosphere.

    62. Re:Huh? by turkeyfish · · Score: 1

      A major problem of estimating the costs of energy is failing to add the costs of transmission to the costs of production. It makes no sense to leave out relative transmission costs since without being able to get it to where it is used, the cost of production is meaningless. Solar and wind have in general lower transmission costs, because they can be sited closer to where they are used than can nuclear and fossil fuels and hence the relative cost of transmission is much lower. No need to transport fuels or waste by truck or rail or pipeline and often much less need for expensive transmission lines. In many cases its simply a short trip from a solar panel on a rooftop to the home heater or lightbulb, without the need for expensive transmission lines, except to transport the "excess" power generated back to the grid, where it lowers rather than raises costs.

    63. Re:Huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's no valid argument that oil reserves are infinite. We know they're finite and we know that they're being used more quickly than they're being replenished. The only real question is how long before we run out of the obtainable reserves and how much of the resulting pollution can we afford to pump into the atmosphere.

    64. Re: Huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      6 months? Go dry? I'm assume these remarks are Wittgenstein Ladderd.

    65. Re: Huh? by burni2 · · Score: 1

      Algae are a good point, they can be cultivated on a much smaller space, and also test appliances are beyond the stadium of just being an experiment.

    66. Re:Huh? by burni2 · · Score: 1

      Actually, there are some "theorists" (like Gold) that pronounced & defended the abiotic theory of oil creation. Which directly goes into that direction, that only some of the oil is created from biological "residue".

      Thus stating that due to this process oil reserves would be able to renew theirselves, as complex hydrocarbons are chemically produced without the help of bacteria with the earths crust, and therefore denying the existence of a "real" peak oil and that oil reserves are infinite according to their theorie as they renew their self.

      Basically, it means that even without bacteria you can reform hydrogen, carbon and oxygene in succeeding chemical reactions to produce hydrocarbons (more complex than just methane) About the abiotic methane creation we know from cosmologists. Also looking at the saturn moon titan, were it seems that there are indeed huge amounts of abiotic created methane that concentrates in forms of seas.

    67. Re:Huh? by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 1

      Yes, I have. It would be unprofitable, The only way to get usable fuel out of tar sands crude is to take it to places where wages are low, labor safety and pollution control is non existent. They can't refine it in Canada. That is why they want to pump it all the way across the bread basket of America. It is not about energy independence of Americas. It is simply trying to create value for an extremely dirty product,

      --
      sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    68. Re:Huh? by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 1

      I second you. The corporatocracy has taken over our countries. Both USA and Canada are transitioning from democracies to wholly owned subsidiaries of these multinational corporations.

      --
      sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    69. Re:Huh? by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 1

      Be my guest. Put it on a boat. Make sure you adequately insure the boat and the railroads. You spill them on our land or water we will sue for damages. Just wake up and smell the coffee. Oil price has crashed, You tar sands is worthless, The pipeline will not be built even if it is permitted, It is unprofitable at this low oil price.

      --
      sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    70. Re: Huh? by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      China is NOT spending 93b on putting up solar. If they had spent even 1/2 of that on it, they would have over 100 gw online.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    71. Re: Huh? by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      I did not realize that a fracked well lasted so short. That is interesting. If it is really that short, it would be interesting to move the used up well for geothermal. Basically, since these are close to each other, they could drill a central well about 2-4000' below these dry wells and force more oil until depleted but then run water through them. Might as well get some major usage out of the.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    72. Re: Huh? by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      ... having given up their market share.

      The oil market doesn't work like that. There are some long term contracts, but most oil is sold on the spot market. It is a commodity. If you got oil, and can deliver it to a hub, you can find a buyer in minutes.

    73. Re:Huh? by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      Really? We don't need to ship oil to the US? I guess that's why we have such a glut of refining capacity right. Well I guess we don't, because every time someone wants to go and build a refinery here some group of environmentalists throw a hissy fit. They even throw a hissy fit at expanding and updating existing refineries. So that's why it would be shipped to refineries in the US right? But, I guess the US has no pollution controls, no labor safety and lower wages then Canada? Well I guess the last one is mostly true. Wages in the US are lower than Canada now.

      So now you know why we'd ship it to the US, but since the US environmentalists keep throwing a hissy fit too. Canada will sell it to whoever wants to buy it. It has nothing to do with "wages, pollution controls, or wages." It has all to do with environmentalists and them throwing a fit.

      By the way, have you ever been to a reclaimed area? Like a coal mine, or an exhausted oil sand area. Places where nothing was growing before, and now it's in a pristine state. Yeah, I guess it's pretty dirty...

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    74. Re:Huh? by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      You are of course right that there is eventually a point where the peak is hit, but it's not now. It wasn't in the 90s, 80s, or 70s either. It won't be in the 2030s, 40s, or 50s. I don't think we're going to hit the point where production limits are reached in our lifetime.

      Not only because of future reserves but also because of past efforts to extract oil. Estimates for left over oil in "empty" well reserves range from 10-40% depending on the type of well. We rely on pressure to bring the stuff to the surface but that doesn't extract all the oil. Major oil companies are sinking a sizeable portion of their R&D budgets into what can be done with older wells, heck that is what spawned the fracking process.

      My point was not that we won't run out of oil, we will. Just that there's no single peak point and that even if there were we haven't reached it yet.

    75. Re:Huh? by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      It is maximal sustainable production.

      Which is a function of cost and profit.

      Disclosure: I work in the industry. There is a heck of a lot more oil out there that we aren't extracting because the price isn't right yet.

    76. Re:Huh? by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      Actually, while Canada does not need Keystone XL to ship oil to the USA, that is not because enough pipelines exist, but because they can, and do, ship it by rail. As a matter of fact, it appears that one of the reasons that the Obama Administration will not make a decision one way or the other on Keystone XL is because several major contributors to his campaigns (and their successor organization, OFA) own large chunks of the railroads which are currently shipping that oil. If the Obama Administration flat out said that they would reject the pipeline, Canada would begin work on a pipeline to Vancouver to ship the oil directly to China.

      As to the reason they want to build the pipeline, it is not particularly to export the oil. There is no reason to ship the oil to the Gulf of Mexico just to export it. They could (and will if the pipeline is rejected) ship the oil to Vancouver for export. The reason for shipping it to the Gulf is because the refineries along the Gulf are among the few already built which can process the oil.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    77. Re:Huh? by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      True but contrary to the person I was replying to we're not going to hit peak oil due to production restraints. We are going to hit "peak oil" due to declines in demand these will either be price driven or pollution driven (the rise of electric cars).

      Oil will always be available, for a price. Just like platinum or rare earth metals. We are not going to run out of oil, we're going to run out of the will to get it out of the ground when alternatives become available. I predict in 50-100 years we'll be drilling for oil only for the chemical industry and not for the energy market.

    78. Re:Huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Increased demand to suck the taxpayer teat for the generous subsidies before they evaporate. Nothing new there.

    79. Re:Huh? by Kernel+Kurtz · · Score: 1

      The only way to get usable fuel out of tar sands crude is to take it to places where wages are low, labor safety and pollution control is non existent. They can't refine it in Canada.

      Plenty of Canadian oil is refined and used in North America. The rest of our domestic oil supply comes on tankers from overseas. I guess they can't refine it where they are either.

      Actually makes no difference to me, so long as my tank is full. Just seems sensible to do it all in the most efficient way.

    80. Re:Huh? by kwbauer · · Score: 1

      Well belief in the impending doom about to be wrought because of our use of oil generally resides side-by-side with a general disbelief in market forces, so you shouldn't be confused at all.

    81. Re:Huh? by hsthompson69 · · Score: 1

      Lower oil prices mean that the value of subsidies for renewable energy are even more valuable - use a bunch of oil to build solar and wind farms that have a guaranteed price to producers, and profit.

      Now, if we were talking about a free market, you'd be right - energy being more expensive would mean we consume *less* of it.

    82. Re:Huh? by dryeo · · Score: 1

      It would be a lot safer to move at least semi-refined product. Bitumen is a bitch to clean up and the stuff they add to thin it down enough for it to flow can be nasty.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    83. Re:Huh? by dryeo · · Score: 1

      People, including the environmentalists want to build refineries in BC but the governments don't want to. Even better to build them in Alberta so that at least semi-refined product is flowing through the pipeline as it would be much easier to clean up then the raw bitumen and dilutates that need to be added to make it flow. The problem is right wing governments who want to run the place like a business, profits right now to drive up the stock price mentality rather then long term profits to keep Canadians working, productive and earning a living.
      I've been to ex-copper mines and lead mines. After a hundred years they're still dead zones. Grew up around the terminus of a oil pipeline as well, miles of beach (much rocky) where you could dig down a few inches and find a tar like substance. Currently that refinery (Chevron in Burnaby) has to import oil even though the tankers load a mile away as the government has decided that it is more important to ship the oil to China then refine it in BC and maybe get our gas prices down below a $1.10 a litre.
      Harpers stupid, if he wanted support for the bitumen industry, he could pressure the oil companies to sell the gas for a reasonable price and instead of using gas taxes to offset income tax and support sports, he could cut the gas tax or at least make the GST not apply to taxes.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    84. Re:Huh? by dryeo · · Score: 1

      Work is starting on twinning the pipeline to Vancouver and the pipeline to Prince Rupert has been OKed but no-one is happy about the idea of tankers full of bitumen plying the rugged coastline shipping Canadian jobs to China so the oil companies (mostly Texan but our government doesn't have a problem with selling us out to China and Indonesia as well) can make a quicker buck. BC will get very little benefit from Albertan oil getting shipped to China and Indonesia.
      They just want to ship as much product as cheaply as possible.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    85. Re:Huh? by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 1
      "Efficient" means different things to different people. For you efficient means cheapest priced gas for your car. For the gas stations, maximum price they can charge for gas for the minimum cost. For the owners of the tar sands, it is getting maximum money for minimal investment. If the cost of safety measures or pollution abatement is more than the fine or compensation, they have to pollute and pay the fine, compromise safety and pay compensation. That is the definition of efficiency for them.

      You too can take the same stand, "I want my gas cheap, I don't care about how it gets to be cheap." But usually people in the bottom 99.5% do not get much break. They live closer to these plants, they themselves or their relatives or friends might work in these plants. Or they will work, or their customers will work for corporations run by people with their definition of efficiency. So just be careful. They can dish out a lot and hide behind a huge wall of wealth. You probably can't.

      --
      sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    86. Re:Huh? by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      Well, yes, work is starting on building the capacity to pipe the oil to Vancouver because the Obama Administration has made it clear that they are not going to approve the Keystone XL pipeline. The opponents of the Keystone XL pipeline want the tar sands oil to stay in the ground. That is not going to happen. The only question is where does the oil go and how does it get there. Currently it is going to the Gulf Coast by rail. This is an economically and environmentally inefficient method of moving the oil. It would be better to transport the oil, both economically and environmentally, by pipe. The first choice would be to pipe the oil to the refineries it is currently being shipped to by rail, but if the US will not allow that, they are going to pipe it to Vancouver. Of course the thing many people overlook is that the Keystone XL would also be able to transport the oil being removed from the ground in the Dakotas (mostly North Dakota). It is probably not efficient to build a pipeline just for the North Dakota oil (I may be mistaken on that). If I am correct that means that that oil will continue to be shipped by rail, with the increased risks that come with shipping oil by rail as opposed to by pipeline.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    87. Re:Huh? by Socguy · · Score: 1

      There is one element of oil creation that you forgot: A mechanism to trap the Oil. Otherwise after the hydrocarbon is created it disperses. Finding the trapping mechanism at whatever depth is more important that the age of the oil.

      In traditional reserves this trapping mechanism has been a a limestone dome or some such but it doesn't have to be. Technology is now allowing us to exploit other trapping mechanisms (such as shale and sand). This means that we can exploit previously untouchable deposits. If the price of oil rises again, the same thing will happen and we will be awash with 'new' oil. The really scary part of all this is that we are now starting to transition to unconventionals, which are often trapped in different ways, such as methalhydrates frozen in the sea floor. This is a slow motion disaster for the planet as the amount of carbon trapped in these formations dwarfs anything we previously could have exploited.

      What does this mean for peak oil? What does peak oil even mean? Does it mean peak conventional production? If so, we may already be there. Does it mean peak hydrocarbon production? In that case we are nowhere near how much we could dig up....

    88. Re:Huh? by dryeo · · Score: 1

      You misunderstand. The idea is to move the bitumen to China as the Americans aren't willing to pay the world price for Canadian bitumen. The pipeline to Vancouver, the Northern Gateway and Keystone all are different plans to get the oil to China and planning started before Obama when we got the right wing Albertan centered federal government in 2006 and now that the Keystone has been delayed new plans are to reverse the flow of the pipeline to Atlantic Canada and to build a pipeline to the Arctic as well as shipping by train to all coasts.
      Currently here in BC we have to import oil as all the Albertan product is earmarked for China and there is none available for the last refinery in Vancouver and if Keystone is ever completed, it won't be to sell Americans cheap oil, it'll be to put the oil on tankers and ship it to the far east. Being Canadian product, the rules about selling unrefined product that America has don't apply.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    89. Re:Huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They can't really make fracking bankrupt. Fracking will resume once the price increases.

      Indeed. Many frackers are multi-billion dollar companies with deep pockets. They also have easy access to capital markets. They will be able to ramp up drilling in a few months, as soon as prices start to recover.

      Agreed-this is not about fracking, it is about putting the hurt on Russia and Iran.

    90. Re: Huh? by nobodie · · Score: 1

      You don't understand the numbers, or China: They have spent the money, yes. 1/3 went to panel production mostly for overseas sales. 1/3 went to infrastructure: building production plants, developing the raw materials contracts with governments like Mongolia, Russia and the 'Stans and 1/3 goes to corruption, or what we would call corruption. The vice-president of every company and org in China is a CCCP member who must be given a gift to sign off on anything. Their actual role in the company is control of the funds, incoming and outgoing, so you can see how that all works.

      --
      Subversion of spatial scale luxury decoration ideas.
    91. Re:Huh? by nobodie · · Score: 1

      Agreed. I am wondering if the POTUS also supported this to slam the Russians? That was my initial reading of the price drop: Obama said we will hit your economy where it hurts and then it happens. Sounds reasonable to me anyway.

      --
      Subversion of spatial scale luxury decoration ideas.
  2. That's due to a delayed reaction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nobody thought oil would ever reach $45.00/barrel ever again in human history.

    Solar and other renewables were just starting to become profitable. The Saudis shut that shit down with the swiftness by selling oil at $45.00/barrel vs. $120+, almost overnight.

    Renewables or anything else really can't compete with that, and never will until the wells run dry.

    Allah akbar.

    1. Re:That's due to a delayed reaction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Think about what just happended in France, and think about where this ideology originated from.

      This is Wahabist ideology from Saudi Arabia, and every dime you put in the pump refuells this system of hate.

      Get a bike, skateboard, rollerblades, unicycle, or walk -- whatever you have to do to stop purchasing these dip$hits oil.

      Where is the condemnation from the King of Saudi Araba regarding the French attacks?

      Exactly. There is none, because they are mentally aligned with the the attackers. Yet again, and again, and again.

    2. Re:That's due to a delayed reaction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We're not in the 1970s now, non-OPEC production capacity has grown and the Saudis no longer have de-facto control of the market. Saudi could reduce production dramatically, perhaps completely, and barely change the market price.

      With current climate change targets and no improvement in carbon capture it will only be possible to burn 50% of the already known fossil-carbon reserves.

    3. Re:That's due to a delayed reaction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      A Saudi official described it as a: “Cowardly terrorist act which Islam as well as other religions reject.

      [Saudi Arabia] offers its condolences to the families of the victims as well as the government and people of the French republic and wishes a speedy recovery for the wounded,” the official said.

      Not that I expect that will sway you from your religion of hate. I really pity the ordinary Muslim. Not only are they far more likely to be killed by Jihadi terrorists than any other group of people, but every time the terrorists kill someone who isn't Muslim, people like you crawl out of the woodwork.

    4. Re:That's due to a delayed reaction by Blaskowicz · · Score: 1

      But climate change targets are mostly ignored this far. I guess a few country will respect climate change targets like Iceland, North Korea and the Maldives, respectively from free geological energy, starvation and disappearance.

  3. In the US by tsa · · Score: 2

    Please add 'in the US' to the title. Here in Europe investments in clean energy increase yearly in some countries.

    --

    -- Cheers!

    1. Re:In the US by DamonHD · · Score: 2

      Actually this is a world-wide issue, not just US, though note that /. disclaims in advance that many of its stories are US-centric as /. is.

      So, no, the title is fine.

      Rgds

      Damon

      --
      http://m.earth.org.uk/
    2. Re: In the US by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      While in other nations, it went down. Your point?

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  4. RENEW SHAMU by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oil and gas is where it's at! And that's a fact, Frack!

    Keystone! Keystone! Keystone!

    1. Re:RENEW SHAMU by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whale oil is renewable.

  5. us should stop subsidizing solar by WindBourne · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Seriously, we are making a big mistake in subsidizing it at this point. It is still expensive enough that this can be used to help. In america, over 20% of energy is used on buildings HVAC and lights. In residential, HVAC is around 50% of its usage.
    so the smart thing is drop the subsidies, but require that all new buildings below 6 stories to have enough on-site AE to at least equal the buildings HVAC energy usage.
    With this approach, builders can choose where to focus at: better insulation, better HVAC, or loads of AE to make up the difference. This will not just bring down the price of AE, but also bring better down price of better insulation as well as geothermal HVAC.
    In addition, we should require that all utilities must buy back excess electricity . they need to buy it back at whatever rate they currently pay other wholesalers at that time.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    1. Re:us should stop subsidizing solar by dbIII · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Seriously, we are making a big mistake in subsidizing it at this point

      The right time would have been early on before we let the Chinese take the US developed technology and make a killing with it. Now it's got the critical mass to sell on it's own and the money is going to China for the panels and Germany for the electronics. A series of successive Governments demonising solar as part of getting into bed with the Saudis backfired.

    2. Re:us should stop subsidizing solar by dbIII · · Score: 1

      but also bring better down price of better insulation as well as geothermal HVAC

      There's a nice little demonstration of that in Scotland but they have the advantage of a lot of flooded mine tunnels at 12C all year under that city.
      Commercial solar thermal airconditioning also exists for those areas that get a bit of sunlight but it's for large buildings and doesn't really scale down to house sizes.

      Insulation should be obvious in nearly every situation (I want my house to lose a lot of heat at night so it's cool enough to sleep so I'm in a house on "stilts" with thin walls - in winter if it gets "really cold" I close the windows) but a couple of generations of doing things cheap and quick means the obvious was not done.

    3. Re: us should stop subsidizing solar by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      The house should not get hot in the first place. The right way to stop that is better insulation. For example, windows are the worst leaks that we have. Most can be replaced with aerogel insulated windows, except that they are too expensive and, they have a smokey tint to them ( which is fine for most of the windows).

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    4. Re: us should stop subsidizing solar by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      Agreed with one exception. The Germans built up the electronic market fair and square. It is not like what China did.

      However, do not sweat it. Solar city will force a mass change. They are building not 1 gw factory, but multiple. This will force a number of issues.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    5. Re: us should stop subsidizing solar by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Most can be replaced with aerogel insulated windows, except that they are too expensive and, they have a smokey tint to them

      Even just moving to nitrogen-filled triple-pane glass will produce a massive improvement, combining that with passive solar design is a huge couple of wins. And you don't need any special glass coatings with passive solar; in fact, you need to get the windows without a low-E coating, so that your passive solar heat works. Of course, if you never want any of that, you still want coating.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    6. Re: us should stop subsidizing solar by dbIII · · Score: 1

      The house should not get hot in the first place

      A bit tricky in some areas without going for pumice walls multiple feet thick painted white such as in the Greek islands. The solution where I live is high ceilings and houses on stilts to provide shade plus airflow underneath, plus thin walls and lots of windows so heat doesn't get retained overnight. A shaded verandah prevents the sun hitting much in the way of walls and heating up the house. The floor is cool and the heat is way up near the ceiling somewhere and above it - but of course not cool like AC and AC is very impractical in such a house. That's a house for the tropics/subtropics - it's not for anywhere where a winter is cold enough to have to do much more than put a shirt on.

    7. Re: us should stop subsidizing solar by dbIII · · Score: 1

      True, but the US electronic industry was there for the R&D and had the chance to do something if they were not driven off by politics.

  6. wrong. by WindBourne · · Score: 2

    If Saudi were to stop exporting, international oil would rise over 100 quickly. However, within several years, prices would drop again.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  7. wrong by WindBourne · · Score: 2

    Flow batteries are just coming on-line. Look up eos energy.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  8. No by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not if the Jap's keep on slaughtering millions of innocent whales per year.

    1. Re:No by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't you mean nips? Heard that used recently on a McHale's Navy episode, something like:

        they sunk the nip's submarine

      Admiral to Captain, WRT PT 73 torpedoing said sub.

      Inhitherto, Jap's impliest belonging to. You are required to use Japs. Not if the Nips keep on ... is acceptable.

      Jap ... Japan
      Nip ... Nippon

  9. WANTED: 30 pigeons to shit in my mouth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    just flap and shit

  10. Need more than hope and numerology by dbIII · · Score: 1

    What we do have is a supply and demand function

    Apart from the physical constraints of course of being able to find an easy supply, and that is getting harder and more expensive all of the time. Do you deny that? Without a shift to other sources (which is already happening with shale and coal gas etc), and as such a diminishing demand, there will be a point where new oil sources do not become available as quickly as they are demanded. We can't just hope that there is deep oil, we have to find it and that is quite difficult the deeper it is, and we don't have a clue how much oil there is or isn't in the arctic either.
    We've found all the easy stuff. It gets more difficult from now on. Getting oil from a 12km deep well was something that required a vast amount of effort over decades since the initial survey - done way back before the USSR fell (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sakhalin-I)

  11. The Jackie Chan factor, perhaps? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The increase in adaptation of the renewable energy, especially solar panel, perhaps can be credited with Jackie Chan

    See this /. thread -- http://hardware.slashdot.org/s...

    "By imprinting Jackie Chan's BR disc pit pattern on the solar panel medium, some scientists manage to add a whopping 22% conversion rate to achieve a quantum efficiency of around 40%"

    To find out if the Jackie Chan factor does take hold we may need to trace how well his BR discs are selling

  12. 2015 Will Definitely Not... by artlu · · Score: 1

    Be the best year for investments in renewable energy. The decline in fossil fuels across the board will kill the incentive to find renewable energy. The U.S. manipulation of the oil market in order to cripple Russia will have profound effects, but the reality is that oil and combustion technology will continue to lead the way for the next decade. And remember, even with manipulation, The Market is not Random.

    --
    -------
    artlu.net
  13. Status Quo by MrKaos · · Score: 1

    One of the most intriguing things I find about oil is that it is such a useful compound and the best we can do with it is burn it!

    Oil prices can only go up in the long term and the pretending that goes on with our politicians in relation to these industries really reveal the cracks and flaws in our democratic processes that stop structural issues like renewable energy deployment being addressed.

    Hopefully, as it becomes obvious that the science on these matters is actually correct, the problem solvers will have more influence over the politics. I keep hearing that it will take a long time, however I think it was about 2006 when people started talking about it and here is solar and wind making great impacts on the energy markets already. Perhaps the day will come much sooner and oil prices will become less relevant.

    Surely human beings can adapt to this.

    --
    My ism, it's full of beliefs.
  14. I need to correct myself by burni2 · · Score: 1

    The basic reaction that such hydrocarbons can be created exists.

    But it cannot lead to the conclusion that because of this oil would be renewable.

  15. not really. by WindBourne · · Score: 1

    Gas filled windows still transmit plenty of heat. OTOH, aerogel is the world's best insulator next to a pure vacuum. But, the market needs to be built up.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    1. Re:not really. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I take it you have not looked into the prices of aerogel. Or attempted to look through it.

      It is a wonder material, but it is not yet a cost effective replacement for windows. Besides, most of the energy lost through a window doesn't go through the glass, it goes around the poor sealing.

    2. Re:not really. by dbIII · · Score: 1

      Besides, most of the energy lost through a window doesn't go through the glass, it goes around the poor sealing.

      With single panes it's very noticable even on your skin. You can feel yourself radiating heat to warm the things up when the inner surface of the window is cold enough.

    3. Re: not really. by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      Aerogel IS expensive. That is why I suggested that we require NEW buildings to onsite AE equal to HVAC energy. Builders will have a choice of putting on expensive solar OR building better buildings. And no, windows have been sealed fine for over a decade. There is a reason why HVAC vents are under windows. It is to heat the air since the window allows so much cold through.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    4. Re: not really. by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      Exactly. But the singles panes are in old homes in which they did not build vents under the windows. If not for HVAC vents under double and triple panes, you would still feel the sucking of heat in winter.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    5. Re: not really. by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      And as far as looking through it goes, there are plenty of windows in most homes that are ideal for aerogel: basements that are subterain; bathrooms; bedrooms; front door side windows; skylights; etc, etc.
      I would not do scenic views or even living rooms ( unless facing west ), but so many others beg for it.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  16. False by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Energy is neither renewable nor sustainable:
    http://www.shapingtomorrowsworld.org/energy_is_neither.html

  17. LOL! And with oil this low. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Watch them all go belly up and out of business if oil remains this low for more than 3 months.

  18. US ITC runs out at the end of 2016 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The US solar investment tax credit runs out at the end of 2016. So firms with commitments to put up solar plants are scrambling to get the projects finished. That's going to drive a frantic rush to put equipment in service before 1/1/17.

  19. No it isn;t. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > Which is a function of cost and profit.

    No it isn't.

    Doesn't matter how much you spend (it has FUCK ALL to do with profit: you HAVE to spend the cost to extract, even if it's profitless, therefore not done at all), you cannot extract oil faster than the extraction process allows.

    Shale oil needs to be cleared, and that takes time. No matter the cost, it can't happen any quicker.