Difference between revisions of "Chem321:Discussion 9"

From WikiChem
Jump to: navigation, search
(Amend, expand)
m (fmt)
 
(18 intermediate revisions by 10 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
−
In its predictions for the next 30 years, the US Energy Information Administration '''[http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/assumptions/pdf/international.pdf predicts]''' that by 2035 the crude oil price will be in the range $50-200 per barrel, with the most likely scenario predicting around $125 per barrel (2009 dollars).  Likewise, the '''[http://ec.europa.eu/energy/observatory/trends_2030/doc/trends_to_2030_update_2009.pdf European Union predicts]''' a price of $106 per barrel by 2030 (2008 dollars).  (For comparison, oil prices have been in the range $80-110 during 2012, and are [http://www.oil-price.net/ currently around $80]).  Natural gas prices are also expected to hold fairly steady, and become slightly more competitive with oil.  Some experts concur with this opinion, as [http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/economic-intelligence/2012/02/29/has-the-peak-oil-tipping-point-arrived here], but others [http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v481/n7382/full/481433a.html disagree] (see [http://www.alaskadispatch.com/article/oil-tipping-point-has-passed-much-higher-prices-come this summary]).  The "tipping point" advocates argue that supply is leveling off at around 75 million barrels per day at a time *crude oil and lease condensate only) when consumption in [[http://www.indexmundi.com/energy.aspx?country=cn&product=oil&graph=consumption China] and [http://www.indexmundi.com/g/g.aspx?c=in&v=91 India] is soaring.  Some argue that new cheap reserves have been found, but others [http://ftalphaville.ft.com/blog/2012/07/24/1094111/is-peak-oil-dead/ question these assumptions].
+
{{Chem321 navigation}}
  
−
Other factors to consider:
+
This discussion will be held on EtherPad.
−
# As prices rise shale oil from Canada and elsewhere may become competitive and serve as a buffer and keep prices down.
 
−
# If significant efforts are made to avoid climate change and invest are made in renewable energy resources, this may reduce demand for oil in some countries, to offset the rise in other countries.
 
−
# Because of the current poor state of the world's economy, demand for oil has drawn back a little (even in China, for the first time in many years), and this will tend to keep prices down in the short term.
 
  
−
'''Which scenario do you believe is more realistic, and why?'''
+
==Future energy: Solar/wind or fossil fuels==
 +
Solar & wind are now [http://www.forbes.com/sites/chipregister1/2014/09/11/solar-continues-trumping-fossil-fuel-pricing-with-more-innovations-to-come/ becoming cheap enough to compete with fossil fuels], and now 30% of electricity in the EU comes from renewables (of which solar/wind comprise 11% - rising rapidly).  By 2050, the EU expects to have [http://www.eurel.org/home/TaskForces/Documents/EUREL-PV2040-Short_Version_Web.pdf much of its power from renewables (see p33)].  In contrast, the US Energy Information Administration predicts that fossil fuels will still dominate US power production in 2040, with renewables predicted to [http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/section_elecgeneration.cfm only contribute 17% of the total by 2040].  Are the Europeans just optimistic and the US realistic, or are the US forecasters stuck in the fossil fuel past?  What about trying to reduce CO2 emissions?
  
−
==Sign in==
+
==Use of biomass as a resource==
−
*
+
Is the biorefinery idea mentioned in Hill a viable one?  Consider the pros and cons of biological material resources.
−
*
+
 
−
*
+
;Locations:
−
*
+
*Group A: 6:30pm-7:30pm Wednesday, July 22, 2015 '''[https://etherpad.net/p/oCXNyXCUGy here]'''
−
*
+
*Group B: 11am-noon Friday, July 24, 2015 '''[https://etherpad.net/p/6KhqJjxNC9 here]'''
−
*
 
−
*
 
−
*
 
−
*
 
−
*
 
−
*
 
−
*
 
  
 
[[Category:Chemistry 321 discussions]]
 
[[Category:Chemistry 321 discussions]]

Latest revision as of 17:14, 22 July 2015

THE SUSTAINABLE
WORLD
(Chemistry 321)
Earth from space
MAIN PAGE
Syllabus — Schedule
Welcome page
Contact Dr. Walker
This week
Today's tasks — (tomorrow)
Course units
1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 - 6 - 7
8 - 9 - 10 - 11 - 12 - 13 - 14
Moodle site
Course content
Assignments

Paper - Acme - 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5
Final exam - Practice final

Practice problems
Discussions
General wiki help
Basic editing
Create an account
Protocols
Tutorial
Demo, for practice

This discussion will be held on EtherPad.

Future energy: Solar/wind or fossil fuels

Solar & wind are now becoming cheap enough to compete with fossil fuels, and now 30% of electricity in the EU comes from renewables (of which solar/wind comprise 11% - rising rapidly). By 2050, the EU expects to have much of its power from renewables (see p33). In contrast, the US Energy Information Administration predicts that fossil fuels will still dominate US power production in 2040, with renewables predicted to only contribute 17% of the total by 2040. Are the Europeans just optimistic and the US realistic, or are the US forecasters stuck in the fossil fuel past? What about trying to reduce CO2 emissions?

Use of biomass as a resource

Is the biorefinery idea mentioned in Hill a viable one? Consider the pros and cons of biological material resources.

Locations
  • Group A: 6:30pm-7:30pm Wednesday, July 22, 2015 here
  • Group B: 11am-noon Friday, July 24, 2015 here
Retrieved from "https://wiki.potsdam.edu/wikichem/index.php?title=Chem321:Discussion_9&oldid=14706"