DOE latest predictions for 2035

[bananas]

http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/12/16/the-energy-future-aint-what-it-used-to-be/

December 16, 2010, 2:09 pm
The Energy Future Ain’t What It Used To Be
By MATTHEW L. WALD

The price of natural gas and electricity will be low over the next quarter-century, and crude oil will become more expensive but not radically so, the Energy Department predicted on Thursday, in a report that contradicts widely held notions.

And even without a national global warming law, American carbon dioxide emissions will not inexorably set new records; they will stay below the rate of 2005 for the next 15 years because of economic forces, the forecast said.

<snip>

The big change is the amount of natural gas available in shale formations. The department nearly doubled its estimate in the new projection from the one it issued a year ago. As a result, it is predicting that natural gas will remain under $5 per million cubic feet through 2022. Before the recession, it sold for over $12; the price lately has been between $4 and $4.50. Natural gas will increase its share of the electricity market, one factor that will drive down carbon emissions, the government predicted.

The international price of oil will rise, but in 2035 it will not be radically higher than it has been lately, perhaps $125 a barrel in current dollars, according to the projection. Oil has recently been approaching $90 a barrel.

The information released on Thursday was based on what the government calls a reference case, or estimate; its report in March will also include a low case and a high case. Among the major changes from last year, it projected that the price of a kilowatt-hour of electricity in 2035 will be 9.2 cents; last year it estimated that would be 10.3 cents. The price in 2009 was 9.8 cents.

<snip>

Now that the "peak oil" hysteria is over, maybe we can start having rational discussions about the two biggest threats to the environment: nuclear weapons and global warming. Nuclear energy and coal make these problems worse.

[joshcryer]

1. EIA, totally quotable when it fits ones agenda.

But otherwise, http://climateprogress.org/2009/05/18/eia-stimulus-wind-power-renewable-energy/">completely bollocks. :rofl:

Not only that but the linked article claims Nuclear gets a nearly 13% boost, yet another hilarious example of someone with an agenda posting something that they wouldn't agree with.

At least I'm consistent, EIA's long term projections are not reliable, but their short term observations likely very much are.

For projections I'd rather look at WEO: http://www.worldenergyoutlook.org/

[bananas]

3. "by ca. 2007 most of the blackouts are permanent"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=262451&mesg_id=262465
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=58397&mesg_id=58468

[NickB79]

8. My post from that thread, which you never replied to

"The Olduvai Cliff hypothesis is regarded as radical even among Peak Oil theorists. Siting it is like siting someone who believes in global warming but worries we'll turn into another Venus, complete with 900F temperature. They took a real problem and ran off a cliff with it into a world of unsuportable woo-woo."

But don't let that get in your way of making strawmen to tear apart.

[bananas]

10. I said "hysteria" and "doomers"

In this thread, I said "hysteria", in the other thread, I said "doomers".
This place was full of claims that civilization was about to collapse because of peak oil.
It distracted from the much more serious problems of nuclear weapons and global warming.

[NickB79]

2. Hooray, widespread shale fracking for nat. gas!

It's not like there are any major environmental issues associated with that :eyes:

[bananas]

4. "peak oil" wasn't based on environmental concerns

it was based on theoretical flow rates which had nothing to do with environmental issues.

[4dsc]

5. You are correct sir..

[joshcryer]

6. Oh yeah, no one ever argued that peak oil had environmental implications.

It's not like we humans wouldn't find other ways to fuck the earth up in the event of peak oil. Indeed, peak oil clearly means we stop fucking up the earth and hold hands and sing kumbaya.

[joshcryer]

7. Yep, been saying that's the new focus. WEO, EIA, all agree.

We're going to start going after non oil sources of fossil fuels.

[Bill USA]

9. I wonder what growth rates for China and India they were using in their estimate?

Increased sales of cars in both countries will lead to increases in demand for petroleum from both countries. Even in the midst of this depression oil is at $87-$88 per barrel. What's going to happen when China and India get growing at their recent rates again? We'll pass $100 a barrel oil at a blur. THen we'll hit $125 a barrel in not too much time (1.5 to 2 years?) and probably won't look back.