Joined: Oct 23, 2004 Posts: 5922 Location: New Jersey
Posted: Mon Nov 13, 2006 3:48 pm Post subject: US Energy Sec Bodman Downplays PO-Seeks Alternat/Technol
The US Secretary of Energy, Bodman, says the world should develop new technologies and alternative energy sources to replace a limited supply of 'hydrocarbons'.
However Bodman doesn't believe in PO:
Quote:
Not a proponent of the "peak oil" concept that postulates world oil production will soon reach its peak, Bodman said he was increasingly concerned that global oil reserves weren't being developed at a pace that could comfortably keep up with growth in global oil demand. "There is oil available, but increasingly, supplies are under the control of national oil companies," Bodman said, pointing to Russia as a good case. "It's a matter of concern ... that Russia is not developing its reserves as fast as we would wish them to," he said.
Source: Dow Jones Commodity News, 11/13/06 ODJ 15:59:10
Rigzone/Dow Jones
Here is the full text of the speech to the Middle East Institute today:
Quote:
November 13, 2006
Middle East Institute’s 60th Anniversary Conference
Remarks Prepared for Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman
Thank you, Ambassador Mack, for that kind introduction. And many thanks to you and your colleagues at the Middle East Institute for inviting me here today. The Middle East Institute has a long history of bringing people together – scholars, businesspeople, diplomats and government officials – to examine some of our world’s most intractable conflicts. And it does so with an eye to one goal: creating an environment of mutual understanding and respect. Everyone associated with this Institute understands that in order to develop solutions that stick, we must first listen to each other in an informed and civil way. And so, I greatly appreciate the opportunity to share a few thoughts with all of you and also to hear from you.
As evidenced by the theme of this conference – developing new approaches to enduring conflicts – there is certainly no shortage of tough issues facing the Middle East, and the United States’ relationship with that region. Today I’d like to concentrate on one such issue – energy concerns and specifically, the global dependence on fossil fuels. I thought I might give you my take on both the major problems that we all face – and also the major opportunities that we all share.
First off, as we all know, the global demand for energy is rising rapidly and will continue to do so. The Energy Information Administration (EIA) estimates that, by 2030, global energy consumption will grow by over 70 percent. Not surprisingly, the strongest growth is expected in developing economies in Asia – including China and India – with growth projected to triple in that region over the next 25 years.
Secondly, most national economies around the world, including the United States’, are fundamentally hydrocarbon-based. And they will remain so in the near-term. Though we estimate that oil’s share of total energy use will fall slightly in the coming decades (from 38 percent in 2003 to 33 percent in 2030), the demand for oil is still expected to grow strongly, reaching 118 million barrels per day by 2030. The United States, China, and India together will account for half of the projected growth in world oil demand. It’s fair to ask: is that type of growth even sustainable? Will the supply be available?
And that’s not even the whole picture. There is an appropriately high level worry about the impact of energy prices on American families and American companies and similarly, in recent years we all have heard about the booming economies of China and India and their nearly insatiable appetites for more and more energy. But what we do not hear as much about is the impact that high energy prices have on smaller, developing economies. It is not an understatement to say, as the President did recently, that high oil prices can literally wreck economies. They can restrict development in a way that stifles business growth and, more notably, inhibits improvements in the health and well-being of so many around the world.
What I’m saying, is that this is a global problem and it goes like this: if we are to encourage economic growth around the world if we are to raise living standards for all people of all nations the world needs a clean, affordable, diverse energy supply. If we look two or three or four decades into the future, we know that hydrocarbons alone will not meet the needs of a growing world economy. Even with all the technical expertise the world could offer and all the political will it could muster, eventually, we will run out of oil. And, even before then, the price of a dwindling supply will be prohibitive. At present, our world is overly focused on, and overly dependent upon, one source of energy. And that path is unsustainable.
And now comes the hard part: what do we do about it?
That answer is complex, of course, and the solution will be multifaceted. But, it can be summarized this way: we must grow the pie of what’s available. And we need to start right away.
In the very short-term – like, now – we certainly must stop doing the things that we know will not help. For example, we know that purposeful market distortions – such as rationing supply, cutting production, or creating price floors and ceilings – do not work. That is, market interventions have been proven ineffective for controlling prices. I can’t stress this enough: the global oil market must be allowed to function in a predictable and transparent way.
And, in the same way, we all recognize that the market is now demanding alternatives to oil. Which means that we must actively move toward developing and deploying alternatives to diversify our global energy supply. To be sure, the private sector has a major role to play here – and companies are realizing that they can make money in the alternative energy business. But, I also believe that governments – all governments – must lead the world to a quick and aggressive transition to alternatives.
We know, for example, that there are technologies on the verge of breaking through that will provide cleaner, more efficient energy. And, there are new sources of energy and production methods on the horizon that will one day be available to our grandchildren. All of these advances will be revealed through the basic scientific research that is taking place in government laboratories, at universities, and in corporate labs around the world. And they will require significant and sustained investments.
I can assure you that President Bush understands this quite well. The President’s American Competitiveness Initiative proposes, among other things, an increase of half-a-billion dollars this year for the Department of Energy’s research budget, and a doubling over ten years. The complementary Advanced Energy Initiative proposes to increase funding for clean energy technologies by 22% this year. Our goal is to identify the technologies that could have the greatest impact on the marketplace in the relatively near future, and then really go after them with increased resources and aggressive timelines. These are things that are already in the pipeline and, as a matter of sound public policy, need to be pushed more quickly to market. In my view, key areas include:
The development of commercially competitive cellulosic ethanol;
Advanced hybrid vehicle technologies – with a focus on developing better batteries;
Hydrogen fuel cells;
Solar energy, including an acceleration of the development of solar photovoltaics;
Wind energy; and
New technologies to burn coal for electricity production with near-zero emissions.
We also must safely expand the use of nuclear power – in this country and across the world. And so, as part of the Advanced Energy Initiative, the President has proposed a Global Nuclear Energy Partnership, or GNEP. An international effort, GNEP aims to address our growing global energy demands in a way that will foster economic development around the world, improve our environment, responsibly manage nuclear waste, and significantly reduce the threat of nuclear proliferation and terrorism. GNEP will develop the technological capability to increase the energy extracted from spent fuel by repeatedly cycling it through advanced burner reactors. There are two major advantages: first, the energy benefits will be enormous. But that is not the only – or arguably even the most important – up-side. This process of repeatedly reprocessing and recycling spent fuel – which would consume, not separate, plutonium – has the potential to reduce proliferation risks and reduce in the amount, heat-load and radiotoxicity of nuclear waste.
There are a few key ideas that underpin all these initiatives. The first is that innovation offers the best path to bold, new energy solutions. The second is that if we are to make critical advances in this area, we must train enough scientists and engineers to do this important work. This is a crucial component. We need more highly-skilled researchers devoted to these problems. There are too few in the United States – and, indeed, around the world. Which brings me to the final piece: this is a global problem that demands a global solution. I hope that other nations follow America’s lead here and devote significant, national resources to one of the greatest challenges that the world community faces.
So, let me tie this up, if I might, with a few points.
Point one: the global demand for energy is only going to grow. And that’s a good thing because that demand is fueling economic growth around the world.
Point two: we cannot meet future demand with hydrocarbons alone. Period.
And so, point three: we must grow the pie, we must expand the availability of and access to clean, affordable, diverse sources of energy around the world.
To achieve it, we need a global response and, by that, I mean all nations, including those that produce our world’s oil supply. In my view, the idea of moving toward increased use of alternative energy should not be viewed as a threat to oil-producing nations. First of all, such a move provides an opportunity to diversify energy industries around the world – with plenty of advance warning. After all, even an aggressive transition to alternatives will not happen overnight. Secondly, the introduction of alternatives will actually prolong the life of earth’s fossil fuel supply, which is certainly not unlimited. And not incidentally, there is another global benefit: the pursuit of new energy sources will allow poorer, developing nations to “leap-frog” over some of the dirtiest (but most rudimentary and prevalent) fossil-fuel-based technologies – improving public health and our earth’s environment. We can’t afford to have any nations sitting on the sidelines here – protecting their own short-term interests. I believe we all should get into this game.
So, right now and into the future, the bottom line is this: if we work together, if we promote the very type of understanding and collaboration that this fine Institute was founded upon we can expand our world’s energy supply in a way that is cleaner, more diverse, more secure, and more affordable to all people of all nations.
I thank you very much for your time. I’m happy to take any questions.
Joined: Mar 18, 2006 Posts: 1211 Location: Last outpost of Civilisation
Posted: Mon Nov 13, 2006 4:55 pm Post subject: Re: US Energy Sec Bodman Downplays PO-Seeks Alternat/Technol
DantesPeak wrote:
The US Secretary of Energy, Bodman, says the world should develop new technologies and alternative energy sources to replace a limited supply of 'hydrocarbons'.
However Bodman doesn't believe in PO:
Quote:
Point one: the global demand for energy is only going to grow. And that’s a good thing because that demand is fueling economic growth around the world.
Point two: we cannot meet future demand with hydrocarbons alone. Period.
And so, point three: we must grow the pie, we must expand the availability of and access to clean, affordable, diverse sources of energy around the world.
Good grief. What an interesting set of points... Good work DP - that's worth printing off to save for my future-grandchildren to read ;o)
Joined: Dec 02, 2005 Posts: 6429 Location: Oil-addicted Southern Californucopia
Posted: Mon Nov 13, 2006 5:59 pm Post subject: Re: US Energy Sec Bodman Downplays PO-Seeks Alternat/Technol
Bitumen Bodman wrote:
"It's a matter of concern ... that Russia is not developing its reserves as fast as we would wish them to," he said.
Spoken like a true Neocon. Nervy little S.O.B., isn't he?
Fortunately for the Russians, they have something like 8,000 thermonuclear warheads available to deter us from getting possessive about their reserves. Good for them... _________________ "Thank you for attending the oil age. We're going to scrape what we can out of these tar pits in Alberta and then shut down the machines and turn out the lights. Goodnight." - seldom_seen
Joined: Sep 06, 2004 Posts: 5315 Location: Smalltown New Zealand
Posted: Mon Nov 13, 2006 6:41 pm Post subject: Re: US Energy Sec Bodman Downplays PO-Seeks Alternat/Technol
So is a free-market now being defined as you must sell what the US wants you to? _________________ "Complex problems have simple, easy to understand, wrong answers." - Henry Louis Mencken
Posted: Mon Nov 13, 2006 6:42 pm Post subject: Re: US Energy Sec Bodman Downplays PO-Seeks Alternat/Technol
Quote:
I can assure you that President Bush understands this quite well
Understands?
Like he "understands" how well we're doing in Iraq? Like he "understands" how much public support he has? Like he "understands" what a great, Churchillian leader he is? Like he "understands" what great shape the US economy is in? Like he "understands" how harmless deficit spending is?
Joined: Dec 27, 2004 Posts: 12582 Location: zombie horde wonderland
Posted: Mon Nov 13, 2006 7:09 pm Post subject: Re: US Energy Sec Bodman Downplays PO-Seeks Alternat/Technol
The alternatives/technofix route is the one TPTB will promote as it is the best way the money-making class will make the most money. There is an enormous amount of money to be made as folks scramble desperately for solutions. Jump on the bandwagon while you can. _________________ No original ideas are contained in this post.
Posted: Mon Nov 13, 2006 8:08 pm Post subject: Re: US Energy Sec Bodman Downplays PO-Seeks Alternat/Technol
Quote:
Not a proponent of the "peak oil" concept that postulates world oil production will soon reach its peak, Bodman said he was increasingly concerned that global oil reserves weren't being developed at a pace that could comfortably keep up with growth in global oil demand.
Do you think that this damn fool doesn’t understand “that the reason that global oil reserves weren't being developed at a pace that could comfortably keep up with growth in global oil demand”, is because of PO. Would someone send this idiot an article on oils declining ERoEI and the impact it is having on world oil production; if you think it is worth the stamp. However, it is getting PO into the mainstream media in a major way.
Posted: Mon Nov 13, 2006 8:20 pm Post subject: Re: US Energy Sec Bodman Downplays PO-Seeks Alternat/Technol
If NOC's are unwilling to bring new supplies online, then doesn't it make it more likely that peak oil will occur and even quicker? _________________ I want to put out the fires of Hell, and burn down the rewards of Paradise. They block the way to God. I do not want to worship from fear of punishment or for the promise of reward, but simply for the love of God. - Rabia
Posted: Mon Nov 13, 2006 8:36 pm Post subject: Re: US Energy Sec Bodman Downplays PO-Seeks Alternat/Technol
mekrob said:
Quote:
If NOC's are unwilling to bring new supplies online, then doesn't it make it more likely that peak oil will occur and even quicker?
The real question here is: are they unwilling, or are they unable? I think the building evidence is rapidly pointing to the conclusion that they are unable.
Posted: Mon Nov 13, 2006 8:39 pm Post subject: Re: US Energy Sec Bodman Downplays PO-Seeks Alternat/Technol
Misread. _________________ I want to put out the fires of Hell, and burn down the rewards of Paradise. They block the way to God. I do not want to worship from fear of punishment or for the promise of reward, but simply for the love of God. - Rabia
Joined: May 22, 2004 Posts: 1424 Location: Ottawa, Ontario
Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 1:36 am Post subject: Re: US Energy Sec Bodman Downplays PO-Seeks Alternat/Technol
Quote:
The real question here is: are they unwilling, or are they unable? I think the building evidence is rapidly pointing to the conclusion that they are unable.
Economics dictates that they won't invest ever increasing amounts of money into their fields even if they could technically increase production rates. At some point it is no longer good value for money to increase the capital invested and they will start to manage fheir assets to maximize profits by milking the existing infrastructure.
That's what the Hubbert curve is all about, economics, not geology. _________________ Biofuels: The "What else we got to burn?" answer to peak oil.
Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 7:16 am Post subject: Re: US Energy Sec Bodman Downplays PO-Seeks Alternat/Technol
What a total dick ! _________________ "One minute I held the key, next the walls were closed on me, and I discovered that my castle stands upon pillars of salt and pillars of sand."
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
News
Discussions
Resources
Members
Forum FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
