Trending Content
| +81 | GF doesn’t care about her looks | 49 | 14h | |
| +55 | Affair with my Associate… In Desperate Need for Advice | 23 | 6h | |
| +41 | How to sound more eloquent? | 16 | 5h | |
| +39 | Insurance as High Finance? | 10 | 2d | |
| +38 | 400k/year in HVAC sales? | 26 | 1d | |
| +33 | Would you rather live alone in an outer borough or with roommates in Manhattan? | 23 | 2d | |
| +27 | Why do people listen to Jim Cramer Investing Advice? | 10 | 9h | |
| +27 | WSO Ranking On Resume??? | 6 | 8h | |
| +26 | Is my boss gaslighting me? | 3 | 8h | |
| +25 | Carnivore Diet | 9 | 10h |
Career Resources
I watched the interview with the lead economist at the top. Apparently by US energy independence, they really meant Western Hemisphere energy independence. I don't quite understand how you can then claim that's US energy independence but whatever. Interesting stuff.
solid post. interesting article
good one
Interesting, yet false (and driven by a propaganda machine). Sadly the only energy 'independence' for the US will be the extraction of oil from the governments that we have installed in the middle east. Make no doubt about it, we didn't involve ourselves in these dangerous countries because we thought Saddam had WMDs.
The truth is that no one really knows exactly how much of the oil supply is truly left (with exception of possibly a couple oil sheiks who overlook the Ghawar field.. and they keep those numbers highly confidential). As oil prices rise (supply will stay constant while demand from emerging markets sky rocket), natural gas will be seen as a viable alternative. '100 year supply of natural gas' will quickly change to a more conservative estimate once demand has skyrocketed in the US and around the world. I also forgot to add- most of our transporation system is not ready to be switched to natural gas on a whim; the situation is far more complicated and will take awhile to implement.
Nuclear isn't realistic.. it would take 4,000 (There are between 100-200 now) nuclear power plants to provide the US with the same throughput of energy as oil. Moreover, uranium would reach it's peak supply in no time (we are already not all that far). Oh, and we're not taking into account the dangers if a few of these plants melt down (e.g. Fukishima)
Wind, water, solar.. are all promising, but only solar can really help us in the near term. Wind and water energy systems must be maintained by humans and machines that run on.. you guessed it, oil. Solar has a future, but transporting the energy from one location to another is a large challenge. Either way, these alternatives cannot replace oil.
Oil companies love to lie about the coming energy crisis. And BP is probably the worst. They would like everyone to believe that we will smoothly convert to renewable energies in the next 10 - 20 years. The truth is that we are coming upon an energy crisis like the world has never seen. Our growing consumption for oil cannot be satisified forever.. And the choice to switch to alternatives cannot be done on a 'whim' when the markets tell us the oil is too expensive. Things like renewable energy take not only investment, but ample time to improve. Unfortunately we are starting to realize this reality entirely too late.
Solar is the only renewable that has any sort promise, the advantage of solar is that it can be decenteralized. However down sides exist, its not a 24/7 supply capable energy source, it is highly inefficent and costly. 2 of those 3 problems will be solved in the next 5 to 10 years. Fusion is the true energy of the future, the lab technology is 10 years off for creating a fusion energy idea that is deployable and another 15 years from being useable for commercial energy production.
We also have oil sands in Canda. It takes nat gas to make any use of them, and oil need to be expensive - but that's probably more practical than Solar.
Solar is probably less viable than Nuclear because of the amount of input it takes for any measurable output.
I'm hoping for like 2060. At that point, I won't give a fuck.
Oil sands will have a small impact. The power it takes to boil/break the sands down to oil and upgrade to crude makes it less efficient. If (and when) oil gets expensive as $200/bbl, this method may not even be seen as practical since you're using so much energy to get more energy.
The reason oil companies are scrambling to drill in the oil sands/off shore is because they realize that easy to extract oil is peaking as we speak. If they really thought we had many years of cheap oil left, then they wouldn't be working to hard to find these tough ways to extract oil from the ground (e.g. fracking and deep shore drilling.. extremely risky/dangerous).
The writing is on the wall for those who are willing to see the truth. Unfortunately most O&G analysts are more focused on demand than actual supply, and trust in markets to adjust perfectly. Although Boone Pickens has openly came out and stated that oil will be expensive forever in a few years. We will be hastily working to find an alternative that can support our extravagant, suburban based life styles where the food on our table is grown across the globe.
Qui autem quia repellendus qui. Repudiandae suscipit rerum illum ipsum quod reiciendis. Veritatis consequatur rerum nulla sapiente. Minus aut animi sed cupiditate. Temporibus laborum necessitatibus aperiam rem fugit quisquam.
Eveniet sed sunt aut magnam odio occaecati qui neque. Quia qui doloribus labore repellat.
Dolor magni eligendi eum et consequuntur debitis qui. Omnis perspiciatis impedit vel consequuntur. Nulla earum enim magni sunt praesentium fuga. Modi dicta sint et sint consequatur facere.
See All Comments - 100% Free
WSO depends on everyone being able to pitch in when they know something. Unlock with your email and get bonus: 6 financial modeling lessons free ($199 value)
or Unlock with your social account...