Rystad estimates US oil reserves (recoverable) to be higher than Russia and Saudi Arabia thanks to advancements in fracking and recovery technologies.
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/us-now-more-oil-reserves-180800487.html
Estimated global reserves at 2.1 trillion barrels, current annual production of 30 billion barrels.
Topic: Long term OIL - page 28. (Read 91744 times)
The electric grid on trucks 
I would never think of this. But I think it's a silly idea. The advantage of trucks is that they can go everywhere. If you need infrastructure, it's better to simply use railroad.
I would never think of this. But I think it's a silly idea. The advantage of trucks is that they can go everywhere. If you need infrastructure, it's better to simply use railroad.Is it a fuel tank under the driver's cab or are my eyes betraying me? Is this photo real at all?
Totally agree! With electric grids, trucks could only drive on streets with such a facility. To rig only the main streets and highways with electric grid will cost billions. Remember, even the infrastructure of electric grids for common use cases like households is in a bad shape in most parts of the world.
The electric grid on trucks I would never think of this. But I think it's a silly idea. The advantage of trucks is that they can go everywhere. If you need infrastructure, it's better to simply use railroad.
I would never think of this. But I think it's a silly idea. The advantage of trucks is that they can go everywhere. If you need infrastructure, it's better to simply use railroad.
The electric grid on trucks I would never think of this. But I think it's a silly idea. The advantage of trucks is that they can go everywhere. If you need infrastructure, it's better to simply use railroad.
I would never think of this. But I think it's a silly idea. The advantage of trucks is that they can go everywhere. If you need infrastructure, it's better to simply use railroad. 
The flywheels had been used, for example, in gyrobuses
How about this, just implemented I think. Anything goes, isnt the Japanese bullet train with no actual physical contact friction in its movement the most energy efficient form of transport. At least for people, I dont know about heavy haulage maybe boats win on that one with diesel engines the size of buildings and their ability now to use the waste parts of oil cracking so Ive read is new tech available
Well oil seems to be a good long term investment. There is less risk in trading oil because it is highly demanded. It is like gold that is also a good investment.
Oil is a good long-term investment if you are able to physically buy it, which in and of itself is a massive challenge for the average person, and then proceed to be able to store it while complying with the laws and regulations surrounding the transport and storage of the substance. It will more than likely go up in value again in the future, but it all depends on whether or not you can get your investments intelligently protected. With the recent developments of electric drives and batteries I don't know if oil investments are going to be as profitable as they were ... We are getting to a turning point, where solar energy is cheaper than fossil energies and where electricity storage is becoming really cheap (when compared with the previous decade).
Solar is still highly dependent on government subsidies to be competitive. The high up-front costs are prohibitive to many folks, as it will take many years for the system to pay itself off, and without tax credits, many folks wouldn't bother as it just increases the pay-off period. We know oil eventually has to go away, but that doesn't make it a bad investment for the next 20-30 years or longer. Oil just simply will not be disrupted quickly. Berkshire has investments in all sorts of energy sectors, including refining and electric utilities. I'm sure the stake in Phillips is the result of a very long examination and sound thesis, as is the investment in everything that company does.
Imho im not sure if this is true anymore atleast if you dont look at enviromental expenses.
I.e. in germany exist punitive tariffs for solar panels from china and i read if they wouldnt exist prices could be at half of what they are now: -50% is ridic.
(~5000-8000€ for a house full of solar panels and everything)
Edit
Punitive tariff is actually EU wide.
With the recent developments of electric drives and batteries I don't know if oil investments are going to be as profitable as they were ... We are getting to a turning point, where solar energy is cheaper than fossil energies and where electricity storage is becoming really cheap (when compared with the previous decade).
Solar is still highly dependent on government subsidies to be competitive. The high up-front costs are prohibitive to many folks, as it will take many years for the system to pay itself off, and without tax credits, many folks wouldn't bother as it just increases the pay-off period. We know oil eventually has to go away, but that doesn't make it a bad investment for the next 20-30 years or longer. Oil just simply will not be disrupted quickly. Berkshire has investments in all sorts of energy sectors, including refining and electric utilities. I'm sure the stake in Phillips is the result of a very long examination and sound thesis, as is the investment in everything that company does.
With the recent developments of electric drives and batteries I don't know if oil investments are going to be as profitable as they were ... We are getting to a turning point, where solar energy is cheaper than fossil energies and where electricity storage is becoming really cheap (when compared with the previous decade).
The other possibility is simply to buy stocks from oil companies. Most of their assets are their oil reserves, so their stock should be quite correlated with the oil price. (A better option would be to buy an index of oil companies to reduce variance due to possible regional problems)
Oil index would definitely be the way to reduce variance, and absent that, you are correct, the best way to play the long term game is buy stock in oil companies. That's what Berkshire has done, taking a very large stake in Phillips 66 last year.
The other possibility is simply to buy stocks from oil companies. Most of their assets are their oil reserves, so their stock should be quite correlated with the oil price. (A better option would be to buy an index of oil companies to reduce variance due to possible regional problems)
Well oil seems to be a good long term investment. There is less risk in trading oil because it is highly demanded. It is like gold that is also a good investment.
Sure, maybe if you're going to buy physical oil and store it somewhere. Except of course for the costs associated with that. When trading oil contracts, isn't there a relatively short period of time the contract is good for? The contract underlies a physical asset that someone is holding until expiration, so someone is incurring the cost of storing that oil. No one is going to allow you to buy a contract and just hold it indefinitely like you might with equities until you reach a point where you can sell it for a profit.
But you still have to do regular verifications on this system (probably more than with batteries, because if something goes wrong you would see a 2'000kg disk rolling at more than 100km/h in the middle of town crushing everything in its way).
Why would it? The fact that it rotates ~50,000 times per minute doesn't in the least mean that it will move at all from where it is installed. I've never seen nor heard about SCSI hard disk drives (15,000 RPM) erupting like a chestburster from computer cases and flying around, lol. Rotating whirligig is an obvious example which proves that...
And I think that an internal combustion engine actually requires greater amount of maintenance (given its complexity)
Meh... IMO everything that requires highly calibrated mechanical parts is not very efficient. Not because of the yield of the technique, but rather because of the manutention needed. An electrical drive requires much less daily work and offers similar (or even better) benefits.
It is not actually so. Flywheels with magnetic bearings enclosed in a high vacuum casing can maintain about 97% mechanical efficiency (as per Wikipedia). In fact, they can potentially replace conventional chemical batteries, since it takes only a few minutes to "charge" a flywheel, i.e. to spin it up to its full rotational speed...
And the rotational speed limits depend on the strength of the flywheel material
But you still have to do regular verifications on this system (probably more than with batteries, because if something goes wrong you would see a 2'000kg disk rolling at more than 100km/h in the middle of town crushing everything in its way).
Meh... IMO everything that requires highly calibrated mechanical parts is not very efficient. Not because of the yield of the technique, but rather because of the manutention needed. An electrical drive requires much less daily work and offers similar (or even better) benefits.
It is not actually so. Flywheels with magnetic bearings enclosed in a high vacuum casing can maintain about 97% mechanical efficiency (as per Wikipedia). In fact, they can potentially replace conventional chemical batteries, since it takes only a few minutes to "charge" a flywheel, i.e. to spin it up to its full rotational speed. And the rotational speed limits depend on the strength of the flywheel material...
Just in case, an electrical motor is also made up of high-precision mechanical parts (rotational speeds are not much different)
Combustion engine may be an "ancient" technology, but it is so pervasive because for the amount of energy you get for the cost, combustion engines are cheap and easy. I also believe electric cars are the future. I currently own a hybrid car.
Comparatively, a hybrid car costs a few thousand dollars more than the exact same non-hybrid version, about $2-3k. I've more than made up that cost in the years of driving it, so it's been a sound investment.
Comparatively, a hybrid car costs a few thousand dollars more than the exact same non-hybrid version, about $2-3k. I've more than made up that cost in the years of driving it, so it's been a sound investment.
For short drives (10-20 kms), these can work. The Lithium battery which you get for $2,000 runs out of charge after 20 km max. Then you have to spend 3-4 hours to recharge it. The batteries which last 400 km or more usually costs around $30,000. The invertor costs another $25,000 to $30,000. So if you are using the car mostly for long drives, then 98% of the time, you will be running it using gasoline
For short term (lol) drives you could also use flywheel energy storage. Given the recent breakthroughs in the nanomaterials, which have outstanding qualities in respect to their mechanical strength, this technology may gain traction again (pun intended)...
They had been used, for example, in gyrobuses
Meh... IMO everything that requires highly calibrated mechanical parts is not very efficient. Not because of the yield of the technique, but rather because of the manutention needed. An electrical drive requires much less daily work and offers similar (or even better) benefits.
Combustion engine may be an "ancient" technology, but it is so pervasive because for the amount of energy you get for the cost, combustion engines are cheap and easy. I also believe electric cars are the future. I currently own a hybrid car.
Comparatively, a hybrid car costs a few thousand dollars more than the exact same non-hybrid version, about $2-3k. I've more than made up that cost in the years of driving it, so it's been a sound investment.
Comparatively, a hybrid car costs a few thousand dollars more than the exact same non-hybrid version, about $2-3k. I've more than made up that cost in the years of driving it, so it's been a sound investment.
For short drives (10-20 kms), these can work. The Lithium battery which you get for $2,000 runs out of charge after 20 km max. Then you have to spend 3-4 hours to recharge it. The batteries which last 400 km or more usually costs around $30,000. The invertor costs another $25,000 to $30,000. So if you are using the car mostly for long drives, then 98% of the time, you will be running it using gasoline
For short term (lol) drives you could also use flywheel energy storage. Given the recent breakthroughs in nanomaterials (such as carbon fibers), which have outstanding qualities in respect to their mechanical strength (critical for flywheels), this technology may gain traction again (pun intended)...
The flywheels had been used, for example, in gyrobuses
Combustion engine may be an "ancient" technology, but it is so pervasive because for the amount of energy you get for the cost, combustion engines are cheap and easy. I also believe electric cars are the future. I currently own a hybrid car.
Comparatively, a hybrid car costs a few thousand dollars more than the exact same non-hybrid version, about $2-3k. I've more than made up that cost in the years of driving it, so it's been a sound investment.
Comparatively, a hybrid car costs a few thousand dollars more than the exact same non-hybrid version, about $2-3k. I've more than made up that cost in the years of driving it, so it's been a sound investment.
For short drives (10-20 kms), these can work. The Lithium battery which you get for $2,000 runs out of charge after 20 km max. Then you have to spend 3-4 hours to recharge it. The batteries which last 400 km or more usually costs around $30,000. The invertor costs another $25,000 to $30,000. So if you are using the car mostly for long drives, then 98% of the time, you will be running it using gasoline.
Combustion engine may be an "ancient" technology, but it is so pervasive because for the amount of energy you get for the cost, combustion engines are cheap and easy. I also believe electric cars are the future. I currently own a hybrid car.
Comparatively, a hybrid car costs a few thousand dollars more than the exact same non-hybrid version, about $2-3k. I've more than made up that cost in the years of driving it, so it's been a sound investment.
In a town constantly stop starting is a big point in favour of electric as they have good torque and are better suited to being idle alot of the time. Crossing a country on a motorway is fine with petrolComparatively, a hybrid car costs a few thousand dollars more than the exact same non-hybrid version, about $2-3k. I've more than made up that cost in the years of driving it, so it's been a sound investment.
Quote
Sechin Says @RosneftRu Worth Up to $130 Billion as Putin Mulls Partial Sale http://bloom.bg/28LNgtZ via @business
Quote
Oil Merchant @EnergyRosen 7h7 hours ago
Crude Production = 8.6 million bbls/day
Crude Imports (net) = 7.9 million
Crude Supply = 16.5 million
Crude Runs = 16.5 million
Oil Merchant
@EnergyRosen
1-yr ago:
Crude Production = 9.6 million
Crude Imports (Net) = 6.7 million
Crude Supply = 16.3 million
Crude Runs = 16.5 million
Crude Production = 8.6 million bbls/day
Crude Imports (net) = 7.9 million
Crude Supply = 16.5 million
Crude Runs = 16.5 million
Oil Merchant
@EnergyRosen
1-yr ago:
Crude Production = 9.6 million
Crude Imports (Net) = 6.7 million
Crude Supply = 16.3 million
Crude Runs = 16.5 million
The main problem was, and still is the energy density of batteries versus gasoline.
Gasoline has more than an order of magnitude of energy density when compared to lithium batteries. (Even considering a 25% yield for petrol engines)
Lithium-air batteries might improve this a bit, but it would be still incomparable to gasoline. Industrial cargos will probably never use electric batteries because of this.
Gasoline has more than an order of magnitude of energy density when compared to lithium batteries. (Even considering a 25% yield for petrol engines)
Lithium-air batteries might improve this a bit, but it would be still incomparable to gasoline. Industrial cargos will probably never use electric batteries because of this.
What about tritium (and other betavoltaic) batteries and their energy density (costs aside)? Could we expect at least cell phones that wouldn't need recharging at all?
The few informations I found, say that for now batteries are limited to nano watts (10^-9), which is very, very little. But the idea is very interesting and could be very interesting in mobile devices.
Yes, but the power density should be high nevertheless since the energy source amount (i.e. the quantity of a radioactive isotope) is minuscule
Jump to: