Greens told no alternative to fossil fuels

LISTEN to ministers and green campaigners and you would think that we are on a happy path to greener energy, with renewable sources of power freeing us from reliance on fossil fuels.

It is a pipe dream, according to a leader of Saudi Arabia’s oil industry. Abdallah Jum’ah, who stepped down last year as chief executive of Saudi Aram-co, the state-owned oil company, said objective assessment of the world’s energy needs showed renewable resources would provide only a minute share of what was required. Oil, gas and coal would remain the fuels of choice - and there was plenty of oil left, he told the Royal Academy of Engineering last week.

Jum’ah’s words will anger environmentalists, economists and former oil-industry executives who have argued we are near peak oil production, and that it will run out sooner rather than later. Renewable energy will grow at a faster rate than oil, but the supply will remain small, said Jum’ah.

“The volume of new energy supplied by renewables will still be only half of the additional energy provided by oil or by gas and only a fourth of the new energy expected to come from coal,” he said.

Much “renewable” energy was generated by burning wood and other biomass for heating and cooking in the poorest countries – energy use that is “neither environmentally friendly nor efficient”.

“Geothermal, wind and similar renewables account for less than 1% of today’s energy supply, meaning breakthroughs in efficiency and economic performance, and sizeable investments in infrastructure, will be required before they have a large impact. An objective assessment shows they face considerable obstacles.”

While renewables were struggling to get off the ground, the world’s demand for energy would grow quickly. The International Energy Agency forecasts that it will go up 45% by 2030 largely because of demand from emerging economies (see graphic above). Oil and other fossil fuels would have to fill the gap, he said. Reserves were available.

“The world’s endowment (including unconventional sources such as tar sands) is estimated at 15 trillion barrels. Even after more than a century of widespread use, we have consumed only 1 trillion barrels.”

He said oil consumption would rise because there were few alternatives. “Political rhetoric has made people believe there is a solution around the corner but there is not, he said.”

Jeremy Leggett, boss of renewables company Solar-century and chairman of a UK industry taskforce on peak oil, said Jum’ah’s comments were to be expected. “We believe this at our peril. Western economies allowed themselves to be duped by the investment-bank-ing industry, which massively overstated assets, and we cannot make the same mistake with the oil industry.”

business.timesonline.co.uk . . .

I hate to say it but he is correct. Green energy is a pipe dream. The amount of oil left is immense and they need to stop lying to us about it.

for electricity generation, Fission is the best choice, and once the Eggheads figure out Fusion THAT will be the best choice

but for vehicles... Dino Juice... is yer best bet

Well well, that's another thing the Saudis and American conservatives can agree on, they were made for each other.

Well well, that's another thing the Saudis and American conservatives can agree on, they were made for each other.

Windmills, Solar Cells, Hydrogen and other dreamy gimmicks will never power the world, silly Frog.

FrogKillr wrote:


Windmills, Solar Cells, Hydrogen and other dreamy gimmicks will never power the world, silly Frog.

Neither will non existing oil, stupid cunt.

By the way, since when is Hydrogen an energy source ?

ArthurH wrote:



Neither will non existing oil, stupid cunt.

By the way, since when is Hydrogen an energy source ?

Dont forget your Graph Artie homo

CafeduMerde wrote:



Dont forget your Graph Artie homo

Not sure which one is more appropriate here, can you help ?

you are the expert on (sniggger) "peak Oil" (snigger)

Ill let you figure it out...

Neither will non existing oil, stupid cunt.
By the way, since when is Hydrogen an energy source ?

Nonexistent? Bespit the claims of Leftist sheep, we have for that enough oil in conventional reserves, off-shore reserves )most of which haven't even been discovered yet), oil shale in the Green River Vally formation to, along with synfuel from COAL, get us anywhere we want to go for a long time to come.
BTW, I didn't say that Hydrogen was an energy source...though from the perspective of an automobile, it is. I mentioned Hydrogen to include the Hydrogen Economy as a "dreamy gimmick" along with wind & solar energy.
Now, please go back to sucking Muzzie cock and leave this conversation to the grown-ups, Froggy.

FrogKillr wrote:

Well well, that's another thing the Saudis and American conservatives can agree on, they were made for each other.

Windmills, Solar Cells, Hydrogen and other dreamy gimmicks will never power the world, silly Frog.

ICE engines one day will go the way of the frunch empire,kuput.
Batteries,solar cells(not hydrogent) and big ole caps will run cars.Just watch "Who killed the electric car".also go to Youtube and watch the Tesla smoke the 911 and Ferrari.
It's here partner.All we gotta do is prevent Chevron from buying up the patents when a more efficient soloar cell,battery or cap is invented at Cal tech or MIT.

Anglophones en avant,Francophonies...Mort aux Vaches...hee,hee.

FrogKillr wrote:

Neither will non existing oil, stupid cunt.
By the way, since when is Hydrogen an energy source ?

Nonexistent? Bespit the claims of Leftist sheep, we have for that enough oil in conventional reserves, off-shore reserves )most of which haven't even been discovered yet), oil shale in the Green River Vally formation to, along with synfuel from COAL, get us anywhere we want to go for a long time to come.
BTW, I didn't say that Hydrogen was an energy source...though from the perspective of an automobile, it is. I mentioned Hydrogen to include the Hydrogen Economy as a "dreamy gimmick" along with wind & solar energy.
Now, please go back to sucking Muzzie cock and leave this conversation to the grown-ups, Froggy.

You're actally expecting to CONVERSE with froggy?

Proust wrote:



ICE engines one day will go the way of the frunch empire,kuput.
Batteries,solar cells(not hydrogent) and big ole caps will run cars.Just watch "Who killed the electric car".also go to Youtube and watch the Tesla smoke the 911 and Ferrari.
It's here partner.All we gotta do is prevent Chevron from buying up the patents when a more efficient soloar cell,battery or cap is invented at Cal tech or MIT.

Anglophones en avant,Francophonies...Mort aux Vaches...hee,hee.

electric cars like tesla are worth developing...if we can figure out a way to flash-charge the batteries, retrofit all gas stations with such chargers, and build 10,000 new nuke plants to provide all the necessary electricity


building more nukes is obviously the best thing we can do right now along with MORE OIL DRILLING but since those two ideas actually make sense, they are anathema to green liberal wackos

Your world won’t last long enough to worry about it, it’s all over in 2012.

Lily42 wrote:

Well well, that's another thing the Saudis and American conservatives can agree on, they were made for each other.

Typical of the level of debate regarding energy, i.e. if your politics are unacceptable, your engineering and economics are also wrong.

Political will does not trump basic mechanical engineering, electrical engineering, and the economies of supply and demand. Any politico so egotistical as to think so, is a fool.

You're actally expecting to CONVERSE with froggy?

As there's a difference between 'conversing' and 'having an intelligent conversation'...Yes.
In fact, I converse with Liberals and small children regularly. Sometimes the small children make sense.

Fearless_Leader wrote:

[q=Proust]

ICE engines one day will go the way of the frunch empire,kuput.
Batteries,solar cells(not hydrogent) and big ole caps will run cars.Just watch "Who killed the electric car".also go to Youtube and watch the Tesla smoke the 911 and Ferrari.
It's here partner.All we gotta do is prevent Chevron from buying up the patents when a more efficient soloar cell,battery or cap is invented at Cal tech or MIT.

Anglophones en avant,Francophonies...Mort aux Vaches...hee,hee.

electric cars like tesla are worth developing...if we can figure out a way to flash-charge the batteries, retrofit all gas stations with such chargers, and build 10,000 new nuke plants to provide all the necessary electricity


building more nukes is obviously the best thing we can do right now along with MORE OIL DRILLING but since those two ideas actually make sense, they are anathema to green liberal wackos[/q]

Well that's a good point but I don't know about the oil thing.Oil companies really want to kill the electric car because if they don't it will be the end of them.Hence I really don't support helping the oil companies out in any way.
Tesla is presently working with a solar cell company to provide solar cells to charge the cars up.They presently charge in around 2 hrs with 240v I think.It has a range of around 250 miles.That is with a 0-60 of 4 sec.One could probably increase the range to around 400 miles per charge if he were to take some of the torque off the line.
Also electric cars only have one tenth the moving parts so it is pretty much instant torque at the tranny.No recipricating motion(kinda like the mazda wankel engine without the problems).The Tesla is quite the flagship and it is going to kill alot of jobs.. all along the corporate vertical stack from parts to assembly.

electric cars like tesla are worth developing..

Works really well if you have $100K to plunk down on one.

Sure. I couldn't possibly believe some fat, robe wearing, medieval royalist who made his fortune inheriting it. Anyone who actually believes in that shit is just plain INGNORANT! Read-up on developments in EDLCs in conjunction w/ Li-ion, that and Tesla's inventions. Otherwise, keep paying fools!

he's right! after all there is an infinite amount of carbon based fuels waiting to be developed, and that'll serve an expanding world population all aspiring to an American lifestyle

of course science should not even contemplate any alternatives

BilltheCat wrote:

electric cars like tesla are worth developing..

Works really well if you have $100K to plunk down on one.

When I bought my first walkman cassette player, they were like $2-300. After a few years, now you can purchase a cassette playing walkman type player (if you can find one) for ten bucks at some dollar store. If and when manufacturing ramps up and other auto companies license the tech, the cost will go down.

When I bought my first walkman cassette player, they were like $2-300.

Your absolutely correct. The engineering and tooling costs have to be recovered first. Then the economy of mass production and the multiplicity of manufacturers steps in and lowers cost.

The problem as I see it is, there won't be enough of them produced for costs to naturally decline. If the greens have their way with cap and trade, electricity costs are going to sky rocket.

If we are having issues with generating enough electricity to keep the moonbats in California cool in August, Think what it's going to be like when you start plugging in just 100,000 electric vehicles into the grid.

What happens when that number reaches a million?

I believe the greens will have us all peddling bicycles first - which is what their real goal is.

What's good for me ... is not for thee

I agree with the Saudi.....but I don't think it is in America's interest to be buying from them. We need to develop our own huge energy resources and we need to build a lot more nuclear power plants. Of course Hussein is opposed to all of this....thus making us far more dependent on the oil sheiks no matter what he claims about "renewable" energy. The science just isn't there.

Abdallah Jum'ah is quite correct in his assessment. The "green" crowd think they can magically suspend the laws of physics and thermodynamics and pull a rabbit out of the hat. I've read plenty of reports about windmills and photovoltaic cells. They are not even capable of providing even a large minority share of the grid. I'm not against using 'em, just realistic about what they can achieve. Like Dick Morris, I think we should do it all, including getting rid of the asinine bans of more exploring and drilling. By all means find ways to use energy more efficiently. But we just are not going to be able to replace fossil fuels without terrible consequences for our economy and standard of living. Plus, it would be a massive transfer of wealth to some very unsavory characters like Gore, Strong, Soros, and other oligarchs and NGO's.

And why are we not building more nuclear power plants? This is lunacy to eschew what may be the best source of electrical power going.

I don't believe in Peak Oil, and I stated my reasons why on Artie's last thread on this topic. I believe it to be a politically expedient theory being used by some investment bankers to pump up the prices in the oil futures' markets. I wish we could blow up Goldman Sachs investment house.

Lily42 wrote:

Well well, that's another thing the Saudis and American conservatives can agree on, they were made for each other.

What do you drive, sweetie, and how far do you drive each day?

Just wondr'n.