Recently in Analysis/Theories Category

A low-carbon future can be possible if policy makers and industry leaders shift their focus from green energy to clean energy, according a new whitepaper from Dr. Joseph A. Stanislaw, a senior advisor to Deloitte and founder of the advisory firm The JAStanislaw Group, LLC. Stanislaw is also co-founder and former president and CEO of Cambridge Energy Research Associates.

In his whitepaper, "Clean Over Green: Striking a New Energy Balance as We Build a Bridge to a Low-Carbon Future," Stanislaw explains that the "all-consuming global obsession with anything green has subsided" and stresses that energy decision makers should "move from breathless anticipation of a green dawn, to the more sober work of systematically and thoughtfully building toward a low-carbon future."

According to Stanislaw, this means pursuing energy options that are clean, not simply renewable and green. Implicit in this is the idea that oil, natural gas and coal have the potential to be clean. "The principle goal of policymakers should be to establish a level playing field that makes it easier to identify the cleanest fuels producible at the lowest cost, while also reducing energy use through efficiency and other technologies," said Stanislaw.

In the paper, Stanislaw stresses that now is a good time to shift from green to clean because we are "in the midst of creating a new development model that allows for industry leaders and policymakers to simultaneously promote economic growth and fight climate change."

Stanislaw further recommends a series of potential changes in how we think about energy, including the following:

• Policymakers could establish a predictable price for carbon emissions to unleash greater efforts at conservation, efficiency and demand reduction -- leading to a cleaner future. Stanislaw feels that an enlightened and fair policy framework is intrinsic to this effort.

• The current schism between the old and new energy industries -- wherein the green evangelists mock the traditional fuels and the oil and gas crowd reciprocate -- should end. This transformation also could be led by policymakers who admit there is no silver bullet in our common effort to build a low-carbon future. All energy forms, provided they can meet standards for being clean and cost-effective, should be able to compete for market share and funding.

• The marginalization of natural gas, which the United States has in increasing abundance, should be an area of focused attention. This relatively clean fuel is desperately sought after by nearly every country, yet somehow the U.S. considers it a lesser fuel. Natural gas could be treated equally with other fuels in the climate change bills currently being debated in Congress.

• The oil and gas industries could do their part by committing to developing carbon-neutral technology. The top goal could be to produce ever-cleaner oil, natural gas and coal. Within a generation, we could well be talking about clean oil, clean natural gas and clean coal.

Stanislaw concludes his whitepaper by explaining that "there will probably be more money spent in the energy sector in a broad sense in the next 50 years than has been invested in the past 100 years, if not in the history of mankind. Channeling these investments well, into an era of clean energy, is the challenge that policymakers, the private sector and the public all face together. The bridge to tomorrow's energy future depends on a sensible transition plan -- one that takes advantage of all of the clean fuel sources available to us."

To download the whitepaper, visit www.deloitte.com/us/newenergybalance.

About the Deloitte Center for Energy Solutions:

The Deloitte Center for Energy Solutions (Center) provides a forum for innovation, thought leadership, groundbreaking research and industry collaboration to solve the most complex energy challenges. Through the Center, Deloitte's Energy & Resources group leads the debate on critical topics on the minds of executives -- from legislative and regulatory policy to operational efficiency to sustainable and profitable growth. The Center provides complete solutions to Deloitte's clients through a global network of specialists and thought leaders. With locations in Houston and Washington, D.C., the Center offers interaction through seminars, roundtables and other forms of engagement, where established and growing companies can come together to learn, discuss and debate. For more information, see www.deloitte.com/energysolutions.

SOURCE Deloitte

Results released today from a detailed economic study show that China may cut carbon emissions deeply and minimise the adverse effects on its economy over the next 40 years. The report, Going Clean: the economics of China's low-carbon development, by the Chinese Economists 50 Forum and Stockholm Environment Institute, says that emission reductions up to 2050 can be made for example through:

    - Energy efficiency gains through improved building design, standards for
      electrical appliances and the use of less energy-intensive materials

    - A massive shift towards the use of renewable energy such as wind and
      solar energy, municipal solid waste and biomass, and small hydropower

    - Electric vehicles for road transport

    - Using Carbon Capture and Storage technology in new coal-fired power
      plants

    - A better international cooperation mechanism that can channel more
      finance and technologies from developed countries

The report by Chinese, Swedish, German, British and American experts says that these changes would also present opportunities for China to improve its energy security and move its economy higher up the international value chain.

"A low-carbon China is a country with a larger service sector, more advanced labour skills and less environmental degradation," said Dr FAN Gang, Director of the National Economic Research Institute in China, who led the research in China. "Such a transition would also be an essential part of China's development."

China is currently one of the 10 most carbon-intensive economies in the world, meaning that it has a high carbon footprint in relation to the level of economic activity. "Avoiding dangerous climate change requires the world to act together to cut global emissions. Developed countries are largely responsible for the past build up in global green house gas emissions but future responsibility is shared by developed and developing countries alike," said Lord Nicholas Stern, report author and Professor at the London School of Economics. "This important report demonstrates that China can take strong and decisive action to reduce its carbon emissions, whilst continuing its economic growth and delivering a prosperous and a harmonious society for its people."

"China will be one of the countries most adversely affected by dangerous climate change. Avoiding dangerous climate change is in the best interest of China," said Professor Ottmar Edenhofer, report author, deputy director and chief economist of the Potsdam Institute of Climate Impact Research. "The study demonstrates that China can combine a high economic growth path with ambitious emission reductions. This is the reason why China has the potential to become a role model for other economies in transition."

Going Clean recommends a phase-out of fossil fuel subsidies and for carbon to be priced more highly, either through a carbon tax or a global cap-and-trade system. "With today's low prices, the incentives for a low-carbon transition are not strong enough. But this can change," said Dr Fan Gang. The report shows that it is technologically feasible for China to reach a 2 degrees pathway and estimates that the savings from lower energy use and other efficiencies will partly offset the costs of transformation. "High-income countries account for a vast majority of global emissions to date and need to shoulder this responsibility through financial support to developing countries," said Professor Johan Rockstrom, Executive Director of the Stockholm Environment Institute. "To make this a reality, Going Clean proposes a new international finance mechanism - the Inter-country Joint Mitigation Plan - as a broader and more efficient way of financing technology transfers."

"Consumption and production patterns also need to be steered in a more resource- sustainable direction," said Klas Eklund, report author and Senior Economist at the Nordic bank SEB. "As the world's most populous country and the largest emitter of greenhouse gases, China's role is critical in combating global climate change. Thus, effective economic tools to curb emissions are necessary."

The shift to a low-carbon economy will hit coal-fired power and some heavy industries, but will also create new 'green jobs'. In the first half of 2009, China built more wind turbines than the US. Low-carbon transport is growing - there are currently over 50 million electric bikes and motorcycles in the country, and China is now leading the mass production of electric hybrid cars.

"Even in these difficult economic times, climate change action may present more opportunities than costs," said Professor Johan Rockstrom. "Such a transformation, for China and the rest of the world, will not be easy. But it is possible, necessary and worthwhile to pursue."

The Chinese 50 Economists Forum is a Beijing-based grouping of Chinese economists for collaborative research and public discussion of China's economy. The Stockholm Environment Institute is an independent, non-profit research organization bridging science and policy for sustainable development.

    - Going Clean - The Economics of China's Low-Carbon Development will be
      launched in Beijing on 8 December 2009, 12:00 at the Raffles Beijing
      Hotel.

    - The report can be downloaded from http://www.sei-international.org

SOURCE Stockholm Environment Institute and the Chinese Economists 50 Forum

Despite a short-term reduction, electricity prices are estimated to rise by 10 - 15% in 2013, following the tightening of restrictions on emissions levels. This has caused concern amongst intensive energy users such as the steel, aluminium, cement and paper industries. They fear that the price increase, along with other related factors, will significantly increase their costs at the time when they will still be recovering from the current economic slowdown. In order to remain successful in the future, they will need to hedge looming high costs by investing in emissions-reducing technologies.

Prices of European Union Allowances (EUA), where one allowance represents a permit to emit one tonne of carbon dioxide under the European Union Emissions Trading scheme, are currently low. Companies who possess unused allowances will be able to sell them easily to high-polluting industries that may require extra allowances. Such actions would mutually benefit industries in either position; buyers and sellers would be able to invest their respective savings and earnings in energy efficient equipment and abatement technologies.

The price of emissions allowances in 2008 was negatively impacted by massive redundancies and production cuts across manufacturing industries in Europe. The EUA price tumbled from euro 22.5 in August 2008 to euro 15 in December 2008. The price of coal also dropped significantly, from euro 18.5 to euro 8 per MWatt during the same period. When coal prices decline, power plants often switch from gas to coal. Since coal produces the highest emissions output, the price of the EUA was expected to rise as the price of coal fell. This however, was not the case. In fact, the EUA price fell below euro 10 in the first months of 2009 following shrinking levels of production output that resulted from the economic crisis.

The negative impact of the economic slowdown on the industry had at least one positive effect - since fewer emissions were produced, Europe was able to get closer to its carbon reduction target. This situation, however, is expected to reverse once the economy picks up. Therefore, a smart move for many carbon emitters is to try investing in abatement technologies early on in order to minimise the impact of tighter regulations and higher carbon prices during Phase III.

"The current situation is giving high polluting industries an opportunity to cash in by selling their excess allowances allocated for Phase II. This could provide funds for investment in emissions reducing technologies when other companies try to save cash to shore up their balance sheets," says Zeinegul Hassan, Research Analyst, Renewable Energy, Frost & Sullivan. "Companies exceeding their emissions targets can benefit from buying allowances at a lower price in 2009-2010 and invest funds they did not spend on allowances into abatement technologies. With smart investments, industrial companies will be well prepared for 2013, when more allowances are to be auctioned."

According to an exemption set by the EU leaders, industries exposed to a significant risk of losing competition within the EU will be granted 100% of emissions allowances free in Phase III. Companies hoping to apply for free permits will need to demonstrate that they have deployed the best available technology. This means that only those enterprises that have invested in abatement technologies will get a chance to receive free permits, and the rest will be required to pay for the right to emit carbon dioxide.

"The competitive landscape in the equipment manufacturing may well change once this crisis recedes. The winners will be those whose R&D activities have not been suspended and who have continued to develop pollution reduction technologies," continues Zeinegul Hassan. "When the EUA price was at its lowest level of below euro 1 in early 2008, the market lacked the incentives to clean up its carbon act. The forthcoming Phase III has raised concerns amongst companies over the costs and competitiveness implications, but at least there is still time and the incentive to develop a plan to reduce their emissions."

If you are interested in this subject and would like to receive more information, then send an e-mail to Chiara Carella, Corporate Communications, at chiara.carella@frost.com" target=_new>chiara.carella@frost.com, with your full name, company name, title, telephone number, company e-mail address, company website, city, state and country. Upon receipt of the above information, a brochure will be sent to you by e-mail.

GIL 2009: Europe

Frost & Sullivan has expanded its flagship Global Congress on Corporate Growth - GIL Global - into several major cities around the world including London. For the first time ever in Europe, Frost & Sullivan will be hosting the Growth, Innovation and Leadership Congress 'GIL 2009: Europe' on 19-20 May, at the Sofitel St James in London. GIL Global is the industry's only event designed to support senior executives in their efforts to achieve sustainable, top-line growth. To register, obtain a programme agenda, explore sponsorship opportunities, or attend as a member of the media for 'GIL 2009: Europe', please contact Chiara Carella, Head of Corporate Communications for Frost & Sullivan in Europe, at chiara.carella@frost.com" target=_new>chiara.carella@frost.com. One-on-One interviews with Frost & Sullivan senior growth consultants are also being scheduled. For more information you can also visit www.frost.com/giluk

SOURCE Frost & Sullivan

In order to save money and energy, many people are purchasing hybrid electric cars or installing solar panels on the roofs of their homes. But both have a problem -- the technology to store the electrical power and energy is inadequate.

Battery systems that fit in cars don't hold enough energy for driving distances, yet take hours to recharge and don't give much power for acceleration. Renewable sources like solar and wind deliver significant power only part time, but devices to store their energy are expensive and too inefficient to deliver enough power for surge demand.

Researchers at the Maryland NanoCenter at the University of Maryland, College Park, have developed new systems for storing electrical energy derived from alternative sources that are, in some cases, 10 times more efficient than what is commercially available. The results of their research are available in the latest issue of Nature Nanotechnology.

"Renewable energy sources like solar and wind provide time-varying, somewhat unpredictable energy supply, which must be captured and stored as electrical energy until demanded," said Gary Rubloff, director of the University of Maryland's NanoCenter. "Conventional devices to store and deliver electrical energy - batteries and capacitors - cannot achieve the needed combination of high energy density, high power, and fast recharge that are essential for our energy future."

Researchers working with Professor Rubloff and his collaborator, Professor Sang Bok Lee, have developed a method to significantly enhance the performance of electrical energy storage devices.

Using new processes central to nanotechnology, they create millions of identical nanostructures with shapes tailored to transport energy as electrons rapidly to and from very large surface areas where they are stored. Materials behave according to physical laws of nature. The Maryland researchers exploit unusual combinations of these behaviors (called self-assembly, self-limiting reaction, and self-alignment) to construct millions -and ultimately billions - of tiny, virtually identical nanostructures to receive, store, and deliver electrical energy.

"These devices exploit unique combinations of materials, processes, and structures to optimize both energy and power density--combinations that, taken together, have real promise for building a viable next-generation technology, and around it, a vital new sector of the tech economy," Rubloff said.

"The goal for electrical energy storage systems is to simultaneously achieve high power and high energy density to enable the devices to hold large amounts of energy, to deliver that energy at high power, and to recharge rapidly (the complement to high power)," he continued.

Electrical energy storage devices fall into three categories. Batteries, particularly lithium ion, store large amounts of energy but cannot provide high power or fast recharge. Electrochemical capacitors (ECCs), also relying on electrochemical phenomena, offer higher power at the price of relatively lower energy density. In contrast, electrostatic capacitors (ESCs) operate by purely physical means, storing charge on the surfaces of two conductors. This makes them capable of high power and fast recharge, but at the price of lower energy density.

The Maryland research team's new devices are electrostatic nanocapacitors which dramatically increase energy storage density of such devices - by a factor of 10 over that of commercially available devices - without sacrificing the high power they traditionally characteristically offer. This advance brings electrostatic devices to a performance level competitive with electrochemical capacitors and introduces a new player into the field of candidates for next-generation electrical energy storage.

Where will these new nanodevices appear? Lee and Rubloff emphasize that they are developing the technology for mass production as layers of devices that could look like thin panels, similar to solar panels or the flat panel displays we see everywhere, manufactured at low cost. Multiple energy storage panels would be stacked together inside a car battery system or solar panel. In the longer run, they foresee the same nanotechnologies providing new energy capture technology (solar, thermoelectric) that could be fully integrated with storage devices in manufacturing.

This advance follows soon after another accomplishment--the dramatic improvement in performance (energy and power) of electrochemical capacitors (ECC's), thus 'supercapacitors,' by Lee's research group, published recently in the Journal of the American Chemical Society. (Figure 1). Efforts are under way to achieve comparable advances in energy density of lithium (Li) ion batteries but with much higher power density.

"U-Md.'s successes are built upon the convergence and collaboration of experts from a wide range of nanoscale science and technology areas with researchers already in the center of energy research," Rubloff said.

The Research Team

Gary Rubloff is Minta Martin Professor of Engineering in the materials science and engineering department and the Institute for Systems Research at the University of Maryland's A. James Clark School of Engineering. Sang Bok Lee is associate professor in the Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry at the College of Chemical and Life Sciences and WCU (World Class University Program) professor at KAIST (Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology) in Korea. Lee and Rubloff are part of a larger team developing nanotechnology solutions for energy capture, generation, and storage at Maryland. Their collaborators on electrical energy storage include Maryland professors Michael Fuhrer (physics), Reza Ghodssi (electrical and computer engineering), John Cumings (materials science engineering), Ray Adomaitis (chemical and biomolecular engineering), Oded Rabin (materials science and engineering), Janice Reutt-Robey (chemistry), Robert Walker (chemistry), Chunsheng Wang (chemical and biomolecular engineering), Yu-Huang Wang (chemistry) and Ellen Williams (physics).

More Information:

Nature Nanotech web site: http://www.nature.com/nnano/index.html

Article on related work (see "The Power of Super Batteries"): research@MDMarch09.pdf" target=_new>http://www.umresearch.umd.edu/research_at_um/issues/research@MDMarch09.pdf

SOURCE A. James Clark School of Engineering

A year after Israel conducted a mysterious air- raid on Syria claiming to have destroyed nuclear reactors that the country had managed to build surreptitiously, the IAEA, which is conducting a probe into the incident, is finding it hard to find satellite images validating Israel's claims.
A chief nuclear inspector of the U.N. said on Thursday that his agency's probe had been considerably hindered because key satellite images of the alleged nuclear reactor site are surprisingly unavailable on the international market.
International Atomic Energy Agency chief Mohamed ElBaradei has not put the blame on anyone for his organization's apparent failure but diplomats familiar with the investigation said agency officials were not ruling out the possibility that Syria or other nations with an interest in covering up the truth, had bought the photos and all the rights to them, from commercial satellite companies.
To read the complete article click here.
 

A Latin American market analyst predicts that the value of Latin American energy stocks are set to hit the roof despite oil futures falling to lower than $50 a barrel recently.
Rudy Martin, the editor of Latin Stock Investing and the president of Latin Capital Market, in a detailed article on the Forbes website, has literally urged readers to invest in these stocks as they are set to witness a meteoric rise. His argument is that, the increase of Russian oil influence in Latin America herald's higher prices for these stocks.  
Russia's LukOil is in discussions to buy 30% of Spain's Repsol one of the leading producers of oil in Latin America. If this transaction takes place, LukOil would become an international oil producer. This coupled with the IAEA's prediction of the world's growing energy needs (45% more than present demand by 2030) and the unlikely chance that the equivalent of four Saudi Arabian oil fields will be discovered by that time have prompted him to make his argument.
To read the whole article on the Forbes website click here.

The wind energy industry in Europe is beginning to be affected by the global economic slowdown. Some companies have begun to cut down their forecasts and production for 2009. This is the first sign of a slowdown in this industry.
The positive side-effect of this situation is that turbine prices will reduce (due to a fall in raw material prices) and the delivery time of components will also reduce. According to Gouri Nambudrpad, Research Analyst at Frost & Sullivan, this situation will create a balance in supply and demand where earlier there was a state of overheated undersupply.
To read the complete article on the Market Watch website click here.

Norway will play a key role in ensuring that the world's oil and gas supplies remain diversified according to a statement made by the International Energy Agency's chief economist.
IEA's Fatih Birol said, at a conference in Oslo, that expectations from the OPEC to produce an ever increasing share of global oil made every drop of oil from Norway very important in maintaining a diverse energy mixture.
To read the complete article click here.

The International Energy Agency has warned in its global energy outlook that falling oil prices will lead to supply shocks in the future which in turn will give rise to higher prices. This statement, however, failed to have an effect on global oil markets as prices continued to plummet closing at $56.16 US a barrel in New York on Wednesday when this statement was made.
Despite this dismal trend of falling prices, Paris based IEA warned that the current supply and consumption trend was quite unstable and that pretty soon prices would surge back up to more than $200 US a barrel without efforts being made to identify new oil reserves.
The IEA report suggests that a $26 trillion development package is needed to develop new energy sources. However, deteriorating economic conditions may delay these investments.
Existing oil fields are getting depleted at a very fast rate adding to the instability of the world's energy situation. More than half of the world's energy comes from oil fields almost half a century old.
Nobuo Tanaka, the group's executive director gave a simple analogy to illustrate how growing oil demands could not be supported by existing resources. He said that even if oil demand was to remain flat, roughly four times the current capacity of Saudi Arabian fields would need to be built by 2030 just to offset the effect of oilfield decline.
This does not imply that the world will run out of resources. The IEA estimates that there are around 1.3 trillion barrels of proven reserves enough to keep the planet going for 40 years at current consumption rates.  However there's no guarantee that people who own those resources would be willing to exploit them quickly.

To read the complete article by Shaun Polczer on the Calgary Herald website click here.

In various discussions around energy consumption, we often overlook the fact that most production methods involve fresh water, itself a dwindling resource.

A professor and student at Virginia Tech are researching the water efficiency of some of the common methods of generating power. They have analyzed 11 types of energy sources, including coal, fuel ethanol, natural gas and oil, and also five different power generating methods. These methods include hydroelectric, fossil fuel thermoelectric and nuclear.

The research found that the most water efficient energy sources are natural gas and synthetic fuels produced by coal gasification. The least water efficient energy sources are fuel ethanol and biodiesel.

Pic courtesy Grendelkhan on www.flickr.com

The Peak Oil Theory of Value is worth analyzing in the view of recent comments by ExxonMobil's Australian CEO Mark Nolan that there " is no peak oil theory of value."
Beyond something "that possesses us" and "makes us speak its words and do violence to our nature", is the question: What is theory?
A theory is a doctrine, or scheme of things, which terminates in speculation or contemplation. A simple way to understand the concept of a theory is that it is the premise or set of premises upon which an argument rests, although the focus of theory is on the “science” of something, more so than the “art” thereof. 
If a theory is something that is going to possess us, it better be a good theory.

Reporter Mike Sexton from ABC in a conversation with Mark Nolan ExxonMobil came upon the ExxonMobil view regarding peak oil.
He said that while the peak oil theory suggests that at one point the world will have used more than half its oil supply and future demand will be sharply higher than supply, big oil isn't buying it.
Nolan said that these theories have been around since the 1920's, especially when oil hits high prices. The ExxonMobil view is that the world has abundant energy resources and there is no peak oil theory of value.
Mr. Nolan did not expand on his throwaway comment that there is no peak oil theory of value initially. Later he talked about

the US Geological Survey's report that the Earth has more than 3 trillion barrels of conventional recoverable resources and so far we’ve produced 1 trillion of that. An additional 1 trillion barrels are estimated with conservative estimates of heavy oil and shale oil.

While the USGS estimate is notoriously optimistic with lots of good petroleum geologists and engineers taking the USGS to task on it, the focus of this article shall remain on the Exxon man's comment on there being "no Peak Oil theory of value."

So what is a theory of value?
You know what a theory is; Value is the worth of something or its utility to satisfy the needs of people.
A theory of value must be the premise or set of premises upon which an argument rests, relating to the worth of something, or its utility to satisfy the needs of people.
A key question in economic theory is how the value of goods and services comes about, and how to calculate the correct value of goods and services if such a value exists.

The first category in measuring value is called the "intrinsic theory of value". This theory implies that every item has an inherent worth built into the item itself that does not depend on what people think of it. Intrinsic valuations mostly depend on the process of producing an item and the costs involved in that process as a measure of the item’s intrinsic value. The "labor theory of value" which holds that the value of an item comes from the amount of labor spent producing the item, is one of the  most influential of the intrinsic theories.

The second category is the "subjective theory of value". This theory holds that for an object to have economic value, i.e. a price, it must be useful in satisfying human wants and not be in unlimited supply.
Goods that are in unlimited supply, or in a greater supply than that demanded, would have lower value. This theory recognizes that an item may be more useful in satisfying the needs or wants of one person than another, or of no use to one person and of great use to another.
This theory differs from the intrinsic theory in that it holds that beyond the objectively correct value of an object, is the value of individual judgments.

The third category is the "cost-of-production theory of value". The theory is that the price of an object is determined by the sum of the cost of the resources that went into making it. Factors such as labor, capital, land or technology will all come under cost of production.

Now that we have the basics, it's back to the Peak Oil Theory of Value. The central argument of Peak Oil is a scientifically valid concept that relies on historical "discovery" numbers and extraction figures for conventional petroleum.
Extraction figures implies that you cannot extract what you have not discovered and peak oil says that mankind has found most of the world's oil deposits. And it appears that mankind has extracted about half of all the conventional oil that will ever be extracted. This is the basic premise.

Peak oil refers to conventional petroleum as the substance that will be available in lower and lower quantities. Conventional petroleum is the rock oil that is made to flow from pores in rock formations into bore holes in the ground and lifted from there to the surface of the Earth.
The world’s exploration, production, transportation, refining, marketing, delivery and end use is geared by conventional petroleum.
The world's extraction and use is currently at 85 million barrels per day.

As a departure from conventional petroleum are tar sands and oil shale, that require different methodologies not only to extract or produce, but also for transportation, refining and delivery. The infrastructure in the world for plumbing for these is negligible. Besides, non-conventional hydrocarbon sources have a far more negative economy in both energy return on investment and monetary metrics.

The question for the future is whether the world's energy sectors and the economies they drive can make the transition from extracting, refining and delivering conventional petroleum to delivering non-conventional petroleum. And additionally, if the transition can happen... will it happen faster than conventional sources are depleting?

Coming back to the peak oil theory of value begs the question - what is it worth to be able to understand if not predict that the world's capacity to extract conventional petroleum is on a downhill run? What is it worth to be forewarned?

If we're headed for a cold, bleak future, isn't it best to look at the peak oil theory of value as a caution toward the future trends of mankind's energy use and particularly mankind's oil use.

Is the value of peak oil intrinsic or subjective? Is it based on the cost of production? Or is it quite simply that understanding of Peak Oil is a key to mankind understanding how to survive into the future. That seems like a perfectly useful “theory of value.”

Read

Picture Courtesy: www.flickr.com