Interessant artikel. Maar van peak oil demand vóór peak oil, daar geloof ik
helemaal niks van.
De auteur maakt het onbelangrijk genoeg, maar in deze tussenzin verraadt hij zelf al: "While
the demand for oil does continue to rise in the developing world, even there it’s not climbing
at rates previously taken for granted."
Of hij de bevolkingsgroei heeft verdisconteerd weet ik niet.
Bovendien, komt het rendement (Return of Investment) aan bod; met een quote van
"In its early days, oil frequently yielded an EROEI in excess of 100:1, meaning that 1% or less of the energy contained in a barrel of oil had to be expended to deliver that barrel of oil. Not a bad bargain. Oil production today more typically has an EROEI around 20:1, while tar sands and oil shale tend to be about 5:1 and 3:1, respectively. By contrast, it is debatable whether corn ethanol exceeds break-even: it may optimistically be as high as 1.4:1. Switching from conventional oil to corn ethanol would be like switching from a diet of bacon, eggs, and butter to a desperate survival diet of shoe leather and tree bark. Other approaches to biofuels, like sugar cane ethanol, can have EROEI as high as 8:1.
To round out the introduction, coal typically has an EROEI around 50–85:1, and natural gas tends to come in around 20–40:1, though falling below the lower end of this range as the easy fields are depleted. Meanwhile, solar photovoltaics are estimated to require 3–4 years’ worth of energy output to fabricate, including the frames and associated electronics systems. Assuming a 30–40 year lifetime, this translates into an EROEI around 10:1. Wind is estimated to have EROEI around 20:1, and new nuclear installations are expected to come in at approximately 15:1. These are all positive net-energy approaches, which is the good news."
zien we dat kolen en olie nog altijd het voordeligst zijn.
Die kun je bovendien heel makkelijk in een 'containertje' meenemen; met zonne-energie is dat
wat indirecter, lastiger, en onzekerder.