The 8008 1761
 |
We must expect short range prices in the range of $100-$250 a gallon for such fuel, or an untaxed pump price of $6-$15. This may come down with more widespread use.
So why did Jaworowski make the statement in 2004? Indeed it does state that. It confirms the existence of UHI. But UniMelb says that UHI do influence the temperature data. They say that...
There are lots of options; we just have such a large energy demand that actually producing the stuff to make energy is going to be a major hurdle.
We must expect total energy consumption on the planet to double or triple from the pre-Kyoto levels before it levels off. Even if the US redesigns its infrastructure to handle higher energy prices it will still require high levels of energy supply.
Hydropower currently is at 6% or world energy supply, and will probably fall as the market grows. The large hydro power projects like the Hoover Dam and the Itapu are already built.
Nuclear energy is at 7%, and will have to struggle hard to rise. Uranium exploration is at a 50 year low because of the general state of the industry and the windfall of released reactor fuel from the cold war arsenals. These arsenals have fed 40% of the fuel need for a decade now. These arsenals are now down to less than 25% of their cold war peak. As a consequence, uranium production is down to 40.000 tons-year, down from 200.000 tons-year around 1970. It is expected to rise to 75.000 tons next year; but industry watchers expect problems in ramping up production.
That's buttuming that the analysts can discriminate between anthropogenic and natural contribution. They don't appear to be able to do so with data from the *present*. The idea with the methane is to eat...
But let us take a look at the best case.
A best case for new sources like wind, wave, solar is that the major one of them (probably wind) take a place like hydropower within a decade, and the others a similar share all togehter.
Oil has covered around 40% of world energy needs, and it is very unlikely that this share will grow; if we double energy consumption we will have to rely on other stuff. Natural gas has covered 24%, and could cover a bit more, but doubling is unrealistic.
So the budget for a doubling looks a bit like
Today Doubled by 2015
Oil 40% no more than 25%, this means a 25% increase in output Gas 24% 20% (65% increase in output) Hydro 6% 6% at the most(doubling) Nuclear 7% 10% at the most (almost tripled) Wind 0 6% at the most other "new" 0 6% at the most Coal 23%
which leaves
coal 27 %
Coal makes a LOT of CO2. Which heat the planet. And this is the best case.
-- mrr