Now all things considered, what new policies would make a significant difference for improvement in the global energy condition? Please click on suggestions to see the list that is being generated by this Section and please add other ideas that you think are important.
Top of Form
User: tedjgordon
.
Suggestions
new decisions
Comments
When you are satisfied with your inputs in the matrix above, click save below and your input will be added to the group's scoring.
Appendix C4-4. Respondents Comments to Round 1 (Delphi)
4.1 Section 1
All sections of both the survey and the RT Delphi format invited comments from the participants. These comments are repeated below, edited when necessary but essentially in their original form. The comments from the RT Delphi appear after the comments from the survey and are indicated by the smaller type face.
Section 1 Responses
1.01. Hubbert Peak when half the conventional oil is gone (but conventional may one day in the future include deep drilling, tar sands, and shale)
Scenario 1: Business as Usual
Comment on the scenarios: We interpret the environmental scenario as a scenario dominated by changes in people’s behavior in order to clearly distinguish it from the high-tech scenario. One could also interpret it as being an environmental-high-tech scenario. It is difficult to follow why there will be violent attacks in the environmental scenario.
Explanation: the expected peak is only defined if restricted to conventional oil. If it is allowed to include functional substitutes, first of all there is no peak until the total amount of coal is finally converted to liquid products;
How well can we trust the reserve estimates from the energy industry?
Hubbert Peak when half the conventional oil speculative resources are gone (in my answer conventional may not one day in the future include deep drilling, tar sands, and shale; these are considered technologically too different and separate sources)
Including Venezuela’s soon-to-be-certified-as-proven extra heavy oil (XHO) reserves and Canada’s tar sands, both at higher-than-present % Recovery Factors (RF) production (15-30% RF vs. today’s 5-10% for XHO).
Intensifying exploration and recovery techniques
Intensifying exploration and recovery techniques
La tendencia histórica ha sido hacia el desplazamiento de este pico hacia mayores valores
Momentum is too great to expect any sudden changes in the current pace of resource depletion
New sources found and new extraction methods developed
Oil prices rise but not enough to curb demand
Pricing will anticipate this scenario before the peak is realized. Oil era could end before oil actually ends.
Significant additional deposits likely to be found, even under the business as usual scenario. 2030
Think its almost certainly happening now
This definition of conventional oil is like redefining water as hydrogen. It is simply not true of what anybody means by "conventional oil" and facilitates cloudy thinking on a very important topic.
Unconventional resources are currently economic, and the Hubbert Peak will occur much later, however, the "Business as Usual" scenario is evolving rapidly as we see 15%+ inflation in development costs annually
We hear about the peak for the last 50 years, although new resources are discovered each day; no foreseeable peak
When the peat moss is about to hit the fan, which is the present trend -- the motion of the peat moss or the motion of the fan? On the fuel side, Exxon World Energy Outlook now predicts 2010 as peak production time.
The problem may be that people don't realize the peak is upon them.
It will depend greatly on demand and hence economic factors. Rapid demand growth from India and China is likely to continue. ASPO recently raised its prediction from 2008 to 2010 taking into account better-than-predicted yields from deep-sea sources. They believe that it will "certainly" happen before 2020. Higher revenue due to competition for a limited resource might accelerate exploration and extraction, but there are many limits to how fast exploration for new oil fields and extraction from tar sands can be stepped up.
Hubbert Peak: triggers reaction and response (across all spectrum of energy economy) [crises realization point -present E system of production and distribution collectively [collectivelesslly] disunited, unknown]: a. Opportunistic (model -life, self-organized competition ) -Response: capital - initially signal to noise high b. Predictive (model) -Response: suggests model(s) of scale and rhythm and justice for/to seek peak(s) and valley(s) in disparate roaming/combing [herd(s) Energy States, trans-nation, meta-national energy-pool resource based economy; operation modeled on Information production, distribution, and consumption (Constituent Confederate Union of energy producer(s) distributor(s) and consumer(s) self organized into republic of united states of energy USofE, / self-assembling democracies] -initially unaffiliated; disassociated; --signal to noise low c. Serendipitous / chance (model - mythic, religious, aesthetic, signal thinking models w/ random pattern matching) -Response: happenstance, right place at the right time -Response: organize under cultural /political leader(s) and ideals.
All of my time estimates (this, and the next ones in this matrix) are based on my firm belief in the acceleration of changes: 1) the acceleration of (human, scientific) knowledge development 2) the acceleration of the dissemination of knowledge through digital communication 3) the acceleration of the operationalization of knowledge through computer modeling, simulation, COMPUTER AIDED DESIGN, and the like. 4) as a consequence of 1 - 3, the acceleration of social, political and economic changes; changes with the qualities of paradigm shifts.
Scenario 2: Environmental Backlash
Accelerating clean coal technologies
Accelerating clean coal technologies
Alternatives found for power; oil used more for non-fuel applications
Backlash may force development of more energy efficient use of technology
Disruptive technologies could totally change the energy landscape by 2050. The question would be: how political equilibria will be designed after the oil age? (We are talking about 2050 scenario!!)
Environmental movement cannot dramatically curb oil use
Environmental policy changes are unlikely to have impact on overall consumption of fossil fuels
Existing, peaking @ 2020 - Tech. exists to define reserves, we know the limits of reserves, but am not making fast choices and interventions, no political support for immediate policy interventions - we knew about the reserve crisis long ago.
I don't see environmental backlash as a plausible scenario.
Kyoto style lawyer/political non-tech backlash hurts as much as helps on this variable.
More likely scenario of the 4 based on the location of many unconventional reserves, politically stable
Most developments will take time and won't have much effect on the actual peak-oil time.
Signs are already showing but may not be fully acknowledged before
Some impressive environmental victories will not change the overall global dynamics
The peak is so near term in the future that in this scenario not much of a difference would be visible
The peak is so near term in the future that in this scenario not much of a difference would be visible
This is highly probable. New high-tech methods will provide much better definition of oil, gas, and tar sands reserves, increasing significantly the proved reserves of hydrocarbons.
This is highly unlikely. Peak oil is the environmental "backlash" that results from wasteful overuse of a very limited resource
We hear about the peak for the last 50 years, although new resources are discovered each day; no foreseeable peak
Will impact on exploration as well as utilization.2020
Multivalent assaults caused by decomplexification of environmental ecosystems, and decreasing sustainability potential due to monocultural induced imbalances, and synergistic toxicological living media, exert bottom up pressures for uncontaminated resources.
Scenario 3: High Tech
Advanced tech changes definition of reserves, and different sources, and efficiencies
Even advanced technology changes, definition of reserves, and different sources, and efficiencies may not change much.
'ICT and disruptive technologies could improve energy efficiency and allow for a high tech economy
Immense ability to improve efficiencies and identify alternative energy sources.
No foreseeable peak in this scenario.
The advanced technologies change the definition of reserves, of different sources and efficiencies
The peak is so near term in the future that in this scenario not much of a difference would be visible
The peak is so near term in the future that in this scenario not much of a difference would be visible
The technologies developments change the definition of reserves, of different sources and efficiencies
There is a lot of inertia in the system even with most effective action which we are far from doing.
This gives a significant possibility of positive impact.
Use of unavailable reserves and leaps in efficiency
Using new-to-be- developed more advanced higher efficiency and much higher % RF for XHO production technologies (30-60% RF).
We don't need "high tech" so much as a new worldview about the good life that is not so cheap energy dependent. The Union of Concerned Scientists for instance has shown how the US could meet its electricity needs basically with current solar technologies
We hear about the peak for the last 50 years, although new resources are discovered each day;
High-tech won't make a big dent in the next 20 years because of existing consumption infrastructure and the enormous cost of changing it. So peak will happen regardless of high-tech. However high-tech might substantially change how sharp the peak will be. It might make the depletion slope gentler than the pre-peak slope and thus reduce the economic consequences of peaking.
Might peak out not because we run out of oil, but because high tech makes alternative fuels more competitive and people use less oil.
The researches of new technologies to substitute oil will increase exponentially as increases the price of oil. The change of technology doesn't mean necessarily a complete change of infrastructure. The present infrastructure can be adapted.
Break down of world economy may decrease global use of oil (china)
Conflicts are terminated by most violent means
Conflicts decrease consumption - air travel etc
Conflicts make oil unavailable to some countries - it may not be sold to them or the oil wells may be destroyed
Conflicts reduce rate of extraction, but not demand
Conflicts use oil and destroy oil (Many)
Conflicts use oil and destroy oil – but insignificant compared with global consumption
Distribution disrupted. Oil available but not supplied.
However, major third world significant oil producers will hardly move towards the category of failed states, event under this scenario, since emerging economic-military powers like China and India, and even the G8 will first invade them and take them over, in order to maintain market supply stability.
Likely for two reasons: a) if economic development is path dependent (still based on current patterns), oil will be perceived as a key resource which is not able to accommodate emerging economies' needs. If evolution is disruptive there will be adjustment problems.
Los conflictos serian más locales que generalizados y no impactarían significativamente respecto escenario
No foreseeable peak
Prices rise if conflict soon but not near-term destruction of raw oil in ground
Quite likely
Regional conflicts in the Middle East and Black Sea area may change the supply-demand situation not in the distant future.
Scrambling for technology, equity issues of investing in poor countries? Resources extraction globally - impacts?
The conflicts use petroleum and destroy petroleum
The peak will be before 2010 due to Risk Aversion. 50% will happen after the peak
They already are and BUSINESS AS USUAL will simply worsen the situation
We hear about the peak for the last 50 years, although new resources are discovered each day;
Political turmoil discourages investment in otherwise promising oil market such as Nigeria, leading to early peaking.
1.02 Affordable photovoltaic cells with >50% efficiency are available Scenario 1: Business as Usual
>50% efficiency seems too optimistic at this juncture
>50% never, Affordable 2020
Affordable! The overall efficiency is of no significance if the price is low enough
At present DOE rates. But what is affordable?
Does efficiency refer to conversion of incident solar energy or the energy cost ratio of producing and using solar cells? Fossil fuel dinosaurs will seek to avoid or control this resource if there's only a technical change.
In a competitive price in 2060
Investments are going to be mainly allocated to other means of energy development.
It is not clear why the focus is on high-efficiency PV cells; cheaper low-efficiency thin-film cells might come earlier, and are a good alternative for building-integrated PV
Likely but insufficient
May not available
Maybe 2009, due to demand and pricing issues, but technology exists.
Never (Several)
Not likely in 15 years, maybe in 50
The growth entered an exponential period around the 2000
They will be affordable only because of oil’s cost, but they won’t help the economy from a steep decline
What will be important is the application and the widespread usage
Will 50% ever be attained? Is it a sensible goal at all? I’m rather skeptical… But cost-efficiency is another matter.
Scenario 2: Environmental Backlash
Environmental pressures would help to make this happen by 2050
Focus on environmentally friendly technology
If meant negatively, never. Concern about resources needed to manufacture panels - good job creation opportunity; immediate environmental benefit.
If this technology were widely distributed and controlled, it would make a difference in greenhouse, if we change our "growth is good" worldview, otherwise we're still headed for trouble
May not available
Never (Several)
New legislation increase economic incentives for new technologies
Political correctness slows science, in past DOE experience.
Pressure from Environmental. Groups would accelerate it.
The next generations are more aware of the challenges and focused on them.
There will be concern about cells material waste
Scenario 3: High Tech
50%?
Affordable but cheap solar cells with low efficiency might be economically viable by 2015
Function like BUSINESS AS USUAL
Good possibility
If not deemed important, 2020 if deemed important
In all cases, more likely a distributed generation capability that decreases reliance on fossil fuel, but will never be primary source of power
Increase in the efficiency of the photovoltaic cells
Innovations will come from highly skilled engineers in developing countries, ex. India.
May not available
Never
New developments on the main elements of cells allows an efficient loaded of energy
Organic and polymeric photovoltaic cells
R&D gets good push
There are already companies developing the technology in Africa
This will contribute to a high tech economy, but could
With 35% probability, following up NASA JPL “sandwich” work to utmost and using reflectors.
Scenario 4: Political Turmoil
Countries need to be independent on oil resources
May not available
Never- conflict destroys capacity to move into solar production
No clear linkage between conflict and invention
Not affected by political turmoil
Political turmoil is more related to a sense of injustice and desperation. Any technology can exacerbate this, depending on how it’s used
Possible lunacy in Middle East and US might force intense development in short term
Prices pressure over Latin America
R&D is not given enough priority
Resources redirected towards conflicts
Solar has substantial military apps and independence apps
Some focus on energy substitution
War inhibits such progress.
Won’t happen
1.03. First demonstration of cost-effective generation and delivery of base load electricity from solar earth orbital satellites
Scenario 1: Business as Usual
>>2100
2100+
After 2050
Complete idiocy and hopefully will never occur
Difficult to achieve
I hope never: too dangerous
Later than 2075
Never (Many)
Never, we’ve invested our capital in houses, roads, consumer goods etc, debt on these will lower demand for energy and reduce capital available for big projects
Never. Key enabling technologies are either not being developed or, in the key RLV area, are endangered legacy technologies not easily reinvented
Not in foreseeable future
They will be affordable only because of oil’s cost, but they won’t help the economy from a steep decline
But how long after this until it makes a significant contribution?
Scenario 2: Environmental Backlash
>>2100
2100+
After 2050
Damages of the electromagnetic fields and space waste
Environmental impact of MW transmission through the atmosphere cause for concern.
Hopefully never
Never (Majority of responses)
Not to be expected within this scenario (missing support for the associated research and development programs)
Not used
Sounds good :-)
Will be opposed by environmentalists probably
Won’t happen ever - earth based solutions will take precedent
Scenario 3: High Tech
Advanced industry Airspacial improves its results
After 2050 (Several)
Domain of the transportation technology of high watts energy without physical environment
Extreme capital investment a major obstacle
Later than 2050
Never (Many)
Power generation from other sources will slow down
Research would entail financial resources of the magnitude that no country would be ready to spend at the moment.
See the new design configurations in State of the Future CD Rom appendix, and in Beyond the Earth, Krone ed., 2006.
Small possibility but equally possible that "defense" satellites will be developed to eliminate these new sources of power
Scenario 4: Political Turmoil
After 2050
“Who knows”; in case of successful western blocking, maybe in 2050
>>2100
2100+
Dispute over the space domain among huge technically based countries
Hardly achievable during worldwide political uncertainty
Major users turn to other possibilities
Never (Many)
Never before stability is back
Never, but military solar weapons platforms by 2030
Never: depend on timing and degree of conflict and nature of response.
Not affected by political turmoil
Not likely
Not to be expected within this scenario (solar earth orbital satellites are only conceivable as a result of a huge international effort)
Not used
Some western countries can accelerate the speed of research to be independent
'Won't happen, too much chaos to produce successfully
International conflicts for use of orbital space could arise by the perspective of dominate it. It would be more a military than a technology or economic reason.
1.04. A solution is found for long-term safe storage or destruction of radioactive waste
Scenario 1: Business as Usual
>>2100
A solution is found for socially acceptable, non-forced long-term safe storage or destruction of radioactive waste on earth, 2020 but social acceptability criterion violated by force
After 2050
Although “safe storage and destruction” will remain highly controversial
Later than 2050
More a question of public acceptability
Never (Many)
Never, see above 1.3, economic growth needed for big projects, stagnant or declining economies will keep avoiding the issue
Not likely
Now
Now or never. Security against terrorists will never be so much better than now.
Nuclear energy comes to be energetic matrix
Possible
Safe storage
Send it into the sun via rockets
Temporary solution for storage
That might be useful but is very doubtful. Who can guarantee something over a period of several hundred of thousand to10 million years?
The solution already exists; the problem is socio-political
They will be affordable only because of oil’s cost, but they won’t help the economy from a steep decline
This scenario is like saying pigs will learn to fly
Today, it's a political issue
Under construction today in Finland
What constitutes a solution? Social acceptance of the risk is the key.
Safe storage is relative. It's impossible to proof it ahead of the outcome. Perhaps the most unpredictable factor is the stability of the society safeguarding the repository. Historic precedent is dismal in that respect. Maybe a hiatus of policing would not lead to catastrophe, but an apocalyptic scenario cannot be ruled out, e.g. a powerful anarchist group getting control of a repository and using it for dirty-bomb suicide attacks on opponents. The laws of physics make it highly unlikely that an ECONOMICAL way can be found to convert radionuclides to innocuous ones.
Scenario 2: Environmental Backlash
>>2100
After 2050
Current, historically proven disadvantages of unsafe storage
Environmental pressures would help to make this happen as the primary obstacle is political will and popular support, not technology or cost- see recent report by Dowd swell Commission on disposal of spend nuclear fuel (Canadian)
Environmental issues will continue
Never (Many)
Never, but waste itself might be zeroed out
Not to be expected within this scenario (associated research would not be supported)
Now
One assumes that this is a "publicly acceptable" means of long term storage, but this emotionally charged power source plays into the environmental backlash
Research will be stifled by political expediency. Other partially understood options will be similarly held back.
Strong confrontations of environmentalist organizations with governments
The environmentalists restrain the development of the nuclear technology
They do not accept storage solution
This scenario is like saying pigs will learn to fly
Under construction to day in Finland
To get the environmental movement to embrace nuclear energy as the answer to global warming, finding a solution to the waste problem was key. Also moderate politicians would not increase support until the waste problem was solved; hence, they would support increased R&D to speed up a solution.
As nuclear is phased out no research into this direction.
Scenario 3: High Tech
>>2050
After 2050
Definitive solution
Destruction
Destruction of RW realizes.
Never (Many)
Now
Now or never. Even new technology on earth has unavoidable social/political leaks.
Nuclear power in a reduced scale at more affordable prices
Quality science and transparency show a truly safe solution stays just beyond reach – though not impossible
Tech innovation may accelerate it.
This scenario is like saying pigs will learn to fly
Under construction to day in Finland
Weak linkage
Scenario 4: Political Turmoil
>>2100
After 2050
But social acceptability criterion violated by force
Conflicts turn aside the priorities towards other areas
Increase in the risk rates of terrorism attacks
'Never
Not to be expected within this scenario (missing research capacities, missing stability of societies)
'Now
Politically charged issue - technology not the issue.
Radio-active waste could propel easier construction of WMDs. Nuclear proliferation could be higher.
Several “safe solutions” go mostly unchallenged given all the other problems
Sooner here, but improvements would be too late and too little.
The struggle of power delays this
Under construction today in Finland
Wars would cause increasing need for such developments.
