[amberelle]

An update on the peak oil theory by Prof. J. Carlos Jarillo, Founding Partner SIA
6th Natural Resources Day on Thursday, September 14, 2023.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RIcM8ZQ8J2I

Mentions depletion:

you know a a cookie factory as long as you maintain the machines can
produce cookies forever but the copper mine or an oil field cannot
produce forever after a number of years depending on how big the thing
is it's empty that's it there's some more now every year some fields
become extinct and that depends a lot on how fast that happened how
many you get in a particular year depends on how much you reinvest
because you can always get a little bit more oil spending more money
out of the out of the place until it's really truly empty and that's
called depletion and now depletion it depends on the year as you see
in this curves on the right but it averages about five percent so that
means that every year you lose five percent of production capacity
which means that every year you have to increase I mean you need new
production of five percent to stay even not to produce more blah blah
blah just to stay even now five percent would be five million more or
less that would make you the fourth largest producer in the world and
we need one every year a new one every year every single year the
moment you stop investing well nothing happens but you start losing
that and eventually it catches up with you and this is what is
happening right now

Sorry the text is all run together. I scraped the transcript which does not have punctuation and sentence breaks.

[Tuike]

Thanks for the rare Youtube lecture link! I feel like peak oil is a taboo, as no one talks about it anymore.

[yellowcanoe]

Thanks for the rare Youtube lecture link! I feel like peak oil is a taboo, as no one talks about it anymore.

That's because predictions of peak oil were premature. The oil industry went big on fracking to keep increasing production and peak oil silently dropped off of most peoples radar. Now peak oil will sneak up on us and we'll be totally unprepared to deal with it!

[ralfy]

Thanks! He raises points similar to those given in threads about electric vehicles and others. That is, oil demand won't go down because much of the world is still developing economically but supply can't meet it.

[Outcast_Searcher]

Thanks for the rare Youtube lecture link! I feel like peak oil is a taboo, as no one talks about it anymore.

That's because predictions of peak oil were premature. The oil industry went big on fracking to keep increasing production and peak oil silently dropped off of most peoples radar. Now peak oil will sneak up on us and we'll be totally unprepared to deal with it!

Yeah, because, for example, EV's don't exist. /s

And meanwhile in the real world, US oil production recently hit an all time high, thanks to production increases in the Permian. Unlike the usual suspects' many predictions in recent years that we'd seen the permanent peak, etc.

After three and a half years, a tripling in the S&P 500 Energy Index, and many soon-to-be-forgotten culture-war volleys, the U.S. Department of Energy announced Oct. 12 that U.S. crude oil production had hit an all-time high of 13.2 million barrels per day, entirely wiping out Covid-era losses of more than 3 million barrels per day.

https://www.cnbc.com/2023/10/15/us-oil- ... %20million

It's like the endless calls for instadoom re the financial markets. After 50 years (as long as I've paid much attention) of that, while the SPY grows long term at a total 10 percent nominal rate -- it gets rather silly.

What we'll have at some point is peak global DEMAND for crude oil. And that's a good thing, as since we have finite crude oil available, it makes FAR more sense NOT to endlessly burn it, given the usefulness of hydrocarbon products like plastics.

[mousepad]

And meanwhile in the real world, US oil production recently hit an all time high,

Exactly, and that's the scary part.
No weaning off from fossil fuel in sight at all.

[amberelle]

Thanks for the rare Youtube lecture link! I feel like peak oil is a taboo, as no one talks about it anymore.

You're welcome. The hard part is finding someone with credentials talking about it.

[jato0072]

No weaning off from fossil fuel in sight at all.

Of course not. "Weaning off" will only occur once civilization slides down the fossil fuel production curve. We might be on a Peak Oil plateau, but we still have room to increase natural gas and coal production. Humans will burn everything they can to keep civilization growing.

[mousepad]

Crazy graph. Traditional biomass (I assume that's wood) is a larger chunk than all them high tech super large windmills and solar combined. I'm wondering who's so stupid to burn wood. Don't they read them multiple university studies showing that solar is WAY cheaper than anything else?

[kublikhan]

Crazy graph. Traditional biomass (I assume that's wood) is a larger chunk than all them high tech super large windmills and solar combined. I'm wondering who's so stupid to burn wood. Don't they read them multiple university studies showing that solar is WAY cheaper than anything else?

Somebody still has sour grapes because I called his sources biased I doubt this will reach you since you are drowning in sour grapes, however I never said that. Neither did I say the government or university studies are free of bias. That is a ridiculous notion that I would never say. Nonetheless, getting your facts from tabloids and fossil fuel funded lobby groups is even worse. They have lower professional standards, are even more biased, and have incentive to peddle propaganda & sensationalist click bait crap.

[mousepad]

fossil fuel funded lobby groups is even worse. are even more biased, and have incentive to peddle propaganda & sensationalist

I have a crazy new idea. Do you think it's possible that a university (especially a progressive libtard university) is under enormous wishful thinking pressure to report renewables as rosy as possible? While the fossil fuel click bait outlet simply needs to report the truth, as the truth is already that much in favor of the fossil fuel that no bias is needed?
Do you think that's possible?

Thanks. Right back at you

[kublikhan]

I have a crazy new idea. Do you think it's possible that a university (especially a progressive libtard university) is under enormous wishful thinking pressure to report renewables as rosy as possible? While the fossil fuel click bait outlet simply needs to report the truth, as the truth is already that much in favor of the fossil fuel that no bias is needed?
Do you think that's possible?

Sure it's possible. That's why I fact check them both. And more often than not I have found the lobby groups and sensationalist click bait crap to be wrong. I'm not saying everything the fossil fuel industry puts out is wrong. I used to read the "BP Statistical Review of World Energy" all the time, before they stopped producing it. And I found it to be a well done, professionally put together source. Contrast that with some of the sources you used. When I fact checked them, I often found them to be misleading at best, sometimes straight up lying.

[mousepad]

That's why I fact check them both.

But how? That's a full time job, right there. And most of the time you don't get access to their data nor their calculations.
And many of them fabulous university papers contain forward looking rosy conclusions. Based on hope and more than optimistic assumptions.
How are you fact checking a forward looking assumption 10 years out?

Look here, the IEA cannot even accurately predict oil demand 1 year out. Do you believe some university grad students can accurately predict the cost of steel and concrete in 10 years? https://www.reuters.com/markets/commodi ... 20measures.

Why don't we look at what's real? Can you produce profit & loss sheets for some of them big renewable projects? That would be a good starting point of determining what is actually true. Some of them companies are publicly traded, right? So data is available. Are you making this part of your fact checking?

Look here https://oilprice.com/Alternative-Energy ... of%20scale.

Some of the world’s biggest wind energy companies are making huge losses despite their economies of scale.
Many companies remain optimistic about the growth prospects for wind energy because of generous government support.

Or is this article auto-dismissed because it's from oilprice.com?

[kublikhan]

But how? That's a full time job, right there. And most of the time you don't get access to their data nor their calculations.
And many of them fabulous university papers contain forward looking rosy conclusions. Based on hope and more than optimistic assumptions.
How are you fact checking a forward looking assumption 10 years out?

Look here, the IEA cannot even accurately predict oil demand 1 year out. Do you believe some university grad students can accurately predict the cost of steel and concrete in 10 years? https://www.reuters.com/markets/commodi ... 20measures..

You already asked me this question before, remember? And I said both the government studies AND the sensationalist click bait crap make forward looking statements. I said I wasn't fact checking the forward looking statements. What I was fact checking was the past. Both sources also make claims about what already happened. And surprise surprise, I found a great number of factual errors from the lobby groups and doomer rags.

Why don't we look at what's real? Can you produce profit & loss sheets for some of them big renewable projects? That would be a good starting point of determining what is actually true. Some of them companies are publicly traded, right? So data is available. Are you making this part of your fact checking?

Look here https://oilprice.com/Alternative-Energy ... of%20scale. Or is this article auto-dismissed because it's from oilprice.com?

No it is not auto-dismissed. I read oilprice.com almost daily. Did you read the rest of the article? It talked about a perfect storm of negative factors hitting the OEMs: supply chain disruptions, inflation, reduced tax incentives, etc. But it also said this was a temporary blip and OEMs are optimistic about their prospects. Are you starting to see my point here? Oilprice.com lists the real issues the industry is facing without any sugar coating or hopium. But they also say this is a temporary blip. But wait for some sensationalist doomer rag to get their hands on this article and they will pimp all of the negative comments, ignore all of the positive ones, then add their own doom daddy making proclamations about the end of renewables.

Here's another source talking about the profit hit the wind OEMs have been taking. This also breaks down the profits for other sectors like the wind farm owners:

Profit margins in the wind industry have tightened
As global markets grapple with both post-Covid recovery and geopolitical tensions, supply chains have been fundamentally restructured. The availability and cost of raw materials and parts have been significantly affected and flexibility has been drastically reduced.

It is, in many ways, a perfect storm for profit margins. Energy price inflation, skyrocketing costs for specialised logistics, rising skilled labour rates and lingering Covid-related delays now combine with downstream cost pressure from aggressive power pricing tenders. As a result, western original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) have recorded over €3.4 billion losses in the last two years, including nearly €1.5 billion in the first quarter of 2022 alone.


Profit pressures are the most intense upstream within the supply chain; asset owners and O&M providers enjoy higher margins
The squeeze is not being felt evenly across the industry. Cost pressure originates within the competitive power markets and long-standing expectations for sustained levelised cost of energy (LCOE) reduction for wind energy. These CAPEX reduction expectations are then passed upstream to the supply chain, including wind turbine manufacturers and their component vendors.

OEMs have limited options to pass inflation-related costs off to customers, due to the long timeline between order placement and equipment delivery. They have therefore begun to increase average selling price and implement cost-based indexing on new supply contracts. In addition, many OEMs are performing comprehensive product portfolio reviews, while re-valuating their existing order portfolio to prioritise profitability and long-term policy certainty over market share in many global markets.


Asset owners experience the highest average EBIT margins across the value chain, driven by the sale of electricity and project investment. Many of the largest global asset owners are also focusing on margin expansion within the O&M segment, as they vertically integrate the servicing of their growing fleets.

Wind industry faces a perfect storm of profit pressures

So to answer your question, the wind farm owners are making money hand over fist. And the OEMs were as well pre-pandemic. Then the Ukraine war hit and everything went from bad to worse. But again, the language here is not that this is "peak wind" or the death of renewables. The language is this is a perfect storm of negative factors whacking the industry all at once. But like all storms, they eventually blow over.

[mousepad]

You already asked me this question before, remember?

yes, and the answer was not satisfactory then, as it is not now.

I found a great number of factual errors from the lobby groups and doomer rags.

How? Most of the time you don't get access to the data nor the algorithm used.
And most of the time that's the purpose of the paper, to digest LOTS of data so you don't have to.
Are you checking the data? Are you checking the formulas used?

Did you read the rest of the article? It talked about a perfect storm of negative factors hitting the OEMs:

Yes. But you're focusing on the wrong thing. The key phrase I highlighted was this

Many companies remain optimistic about the growth prospects for wind energy because of generous government support.

And that's exactly the problem I have with all this. They are not optimistic because the storm will pass and they operate in a highly lucrative growth market. They are optimistic because they hope they will get more help.
Here is a quote from Warren Buffet

We get a tax credit if we build a lot of wind farms. That’s the only reason to build them

You remember the Lazard report you posted claiming it's all great and true and trusted?
It claims wind costs $26/MW, whereas coal costs $41/MW. All WITHOUT subsidies.
If you factor in subsidies wind drops to $9/MW (also according to the same Lazard report).

Do you trust Lazard? You must, right? You defended it tooth and nail when we had our discussion 2 years ago.
You get it? Wind is factor 5 cheaper than coal, yet them windfarms are screaming for more gov handouts.
And it's not only the windfarm operators that get heavily subsidized. Also the turbine manufacturer themselves get generous handouts.

So to answer your question, the wind farm owners are making money hand over fist.

Proof it with an actual profit and loss sheet from a large wind operator and with numbers from GE wind turbine division.
And once we have them we take out all them subsidies and get to the bottom of this.
Ever dealt with a financial statements from a large corporation? It's like wading in a swamp. You better take vacation, because it will take a while to untangle it all and make sense of it. Is that the fact checking price you are willing to pay?

You can claim this is the price we have to pay to go carbon free.
And I say, ok, I'm fine with that. But all this circles back to the main question that bothers me (and lucky from australia) the most. Is this renewable stuff able to stand on its own legs. Or once fossil is gone it comes all crashing down?

[kublikhan]

How? Most of the time you don't get access to the data nor the algorithm used.
And most of the time that's the purpose of the paper, to digest LOTS of data so you don't have to.
Are you checking the data? Are you checking the formulas used?

Sometimes I set aside time to dig into the data and formulas. But as you already noted, not all sources provide that.

You remember the Lazard report you posted claiming it's all great and true and trusted?
It claims wind costs $26/MW, whereas coal costs $41/MW. All WITHOUT subsidies.
If you factor in subsidies wind drops to $9/MW (also according to the same Lazard report).

Do you trust Lazard? You must, right? You defended it tooth and nail when we had our discussion 2 years ago.

No, I remember you brought up Lazard. I was posting data from OSTI. And it was on wind OpEx costs, not capital costs:

I then look at the daddy of all reports, Lazard, which pretty much shows what your are claiming.
https://www.lazard.com/media/451419/laz ... on-140.pdf

We find that average all-in lifetime OpEx has declined from approximately $80/kW-yr (~$35/MWh) for projects built in the late 1990s to a level approaching $40/kW-yr (~$11/MWh) for projects built in 2018. Turbine operations and maintenance costs represent the single largest component of overall OpEx and the primary source of cost reductions.

U.S. Department of Energy Office of Scientific and Technical Information: Assessing Wind Power Operating Costs in the United States

You're focusing on the wrong thing. The key phrase I highlighted was this "Many companies remain optimistic about the growth prospects for wind energy because of generous government support." And that's exactly the problem I have with all this. They are not optimistic because the storm will pass and they operate in a highly lucrative growth market. They are optimistic because they hope they will get more help. You can claim this is the price we have to pay to go carbon free.

Exactly. The subsidies are there to enable us to transition away from fossil fuels. Now I have argued in the past that with renewable costs falling so sharply, now might be a good time to start to taper off this government support. But it should be done gradually and predictably to give the markets time to respond. Not like the on again off again US subsidies that happen when the subsidies expire and are then renewed. However you should also not neglect the other points mentioned in the article that were hurting profitability: COVID and Ukraine related supply chain disruptions, inflation, rising interest rates, an 'arms race' between OEMs trying to build the biggest and most powerful turbines, etc. These are more transient factors that will fade in time. Already, there has been some movement to address these issues. One problem the OEMs are facing is the time lag between signing a contract and the installation of the turbine, which could be a year or more. What might have been profitable last year might no longer be profitable with all of the cost increases a year later. So OEMs are raising prices. For customers that got used to constant price declines year after year, this is an unwelcome change. However it is not unusual for businesses to pass on their cost increases to customers so I don't see this as a problem. Something similar happened in the Solar PV industry years ago when there was a polysilicon shortage that caused solar PV prices to rise. Many naysayers where quick to holler: "AH HA! Solar PV price falls have ended! Solar PV is doomed!" What they failed to realized however was economy of scale and technological improvements were still happening in the industry lowering costs. It was just that the material cost rises overwhelmed those cost declines. So a few years later when more polysilicon supply came online and polysilicon prices dropped rapidly, Solar PV also saw a rapid decline in price. Now wind turbines are in a bit more of a thorny situation with not knowing what costs are going to be a year from now. That's why some have started adding cost indexing to the contracts. IE, if the OEMs input costs go up, the contract says the turbine prices will go up as well. This way they can shield themselves from volatility outside their control. Kind of like how airlines added a fuel surcharge to ticket prices.

But all this circles back to the main question that bothers me (and lucky from australia) the most. Is this renewable stuff able to stand on its own legs. Or once fossil is gone it comes all crashing down?

Are you asking me if we can go 0% fossil fuels, 100% renewables with our current technology and maintain BAU? That does not seem very likely IMHO. A paper looked at this question and concluded we would see a significant increase in blackouts under such a scenario because of the intermittent and unreliable nature of renewables. And even then, the study ignored far too many real world costs:

Proponents of renewable energy have sought to demonstrate that economies can run solely on wind and solar at no significant cost to their citizens or economies. A recent paper that appeared in Nature just ahead of COP26 in Glasgow attempted to send a clear message to attendees—a world without fossil fuels is possible. However, this new research relies on unrealistic assumptions and ignores important costs associated with renewable energy developments. The authors of the study point out that their “results do not account for realistic power system specifications.” The lack of real-world constraints included in the analysis is astounding. Simply put, the analysis is of a world that does not yet exist.
...
Finally, energy transitions take time. Humanity’s history is full of energy transitions that moved from one dominant source of energy, such as whale oil or timber, to a more efficient source over time. The difference now is that governments want to force the transition on an expedited timeline while optimistically assuming a technological breakthrough in the future. While many proponents of the transition have lauded this recent study, we should be much more skeptical given the unrealistic assumptions upon which the study is based, the massive costs excluded from the study, and the history of energy transition.

‘Renewable’ energy can’t replace fossil fuels

Humanity has done energy transitions before. But trying to hyper-accelerate a transition from fossil fuels to renewables does not seem feasible to me. Especially when some of the required technology does not even exist yet. That's why I am skeptical of cities and states and their "100% renewable energy" mandates and goals. I think using fossil fuels to balance out the intermittent nature of renewables makes the most sense for now. And even then, that's still mostly the electricity sector we are talking about, maybe a portion of transportation as well. Other energy consumers such as heating, industry, etc are still predominantly fossil fuel supplied. Perhaps in the future if technology improves and is more cost effective, we can talk about getting the entire grid to 100% renewables, and further reducing fossil fuel consumption in other sectors as well. Still, these caveats are not a reason we should not pursue renewables. Perfect is the enemy of good. Renewables are not perfect. But they are getting better year after year and every MWh generated means that much less carbon from fossil fuels.

[theluckycountry]

tldr kub. Your paragraphs are too long, unreadable. I would have though someone who supposedly read as much science as yourself would have learned to format a post by now

[mousepad]

ok, kub. Nothing I can say anymore. You are an optimist. Good for you I guess, as optimist live longer, they say.
I'm running more on the pessimistic side. I guess we just have to wait and see.......

[AgentR11]

Proof it with an actual profit and loss sheet from a large wind operator and with numbers from GE wind turbine division.
And once we have them we take out all them subsidies and get to the bottom of this.
Ever dealt with a financial statements from a large corporation? It's like wading in a swamp. You better take vacation, because it will take a while to untangle it all and make sense of it. Is that the fact checking price you are willing to pay?

The subsidies simply balance the carbon cost of wind vs coal. They are PART of the bottom of this, they aren't artificial and should not be removed from the equation. What is artificial is FF dumping carbon into the air and sea and not having to pay for the impacts that has on other parts of the economy.

On the other hand the point about freestanding is a good one with regard especially to transport, nothing is replacing diesel for the hauling of wind turbine blades from manufacturer to field; but the good part is that the commercial viability of diesel for transport far exceeds what is needed for personal automobile transportation which will be priced out of the market easily enough when push comes to shove. I fully expect diesel to be available for such uses long after I've died and gone on to that great http server in the sky. lol.

[mousepad]

The subsidies simply balance the carbon cost of wind vs coal.

I disagree.

They are PART of the bottom of this, they aren't artificial and should not be removed from the equation. What is artificial is FF dumping carbon into the air and sea and not having to pay for the impacts that has on other parts of the economy.

I disagree. Any human activity has an impact on natures balance. Some more, some less. You go for a walk in the woods? You're going to upset some animals. You build a house at the edge of town? You destroy valuable land. You drive your tesla? You create break dust.

There's a solar farm in my neighborhood. 20 acres of prime farmland was taken out of farming and plastered over with solar panels. Was that priced into the cost of solar?

Putting a value on those things in $$$ is practically impossible, so let's not even try.

To make it very clear, I'm not concerned about higher energy prices. I would actually prefer higher prices of both gas and electricity as it promotes conservation. (Yet it's certainly ironic that electricity prices creep higher and higher even though WAY cheaper renewables are supplying more and more of it.)

What I'm wondering is if those renewables can be built and supported in a world powered by renewables. Solar and wind are highest high tech. Requiring modern materials, precision manufacturing, electronics. Many of it was developed for consumer products. Solar and wind directly benefit from large consumer economies. Can renewables power all this to a level needed for its continuation?

I had this discussion before with kub. And of course he's on the optimistic side claiming smooth sailing into a wonderful land ahead of us. Maybe, maybe not. I guess once again, we have to wait and see... unless you have some input?