R&D at OPEC
Posted by Yankee on August 15, 2005 - 9:24pm
In case you don't read Environmental Economics, you might have missed this pointer to an article called "OPEC sees threat from 'alternative energy'".
I have to say, though, that the scant information provided in this article is rather strangely worded.
It almost seems as if Salatt's statement indicates that like other energy providers, OPEC is also going to start researching alternatives to oil and gas. The opening line of the article, however, reports that the R&D center is going to be dedicated to "improv(ing) oil production technology."
In any case, it looks like OPEC is scared. Maybe this will be a self-fulfilling prophecy? If OPEC thinks Western nations are developing alternative energy on a massive scale, maybe it will actually come true.
Following a tip from a commenter at Environmental Economics, I looked up Sheik Ahmed Zaki Yamani, who was the former oil minister of Saudi Arabia. OPEC has a history of being worried about technological advances. This William Grieder article in The Nation from 2000 has an interesting quote:
In light of his feelings, the new OPEC R&D center seems like an especially surprising move, but I guess he's not in charge anymore. Besides, times and circumstances change, and it's becoming more and more evident that his view of the relationship between technology and consumption simply has not come to pass.
Technorati Tags: peak oil, oil, OPEC
I have to say, though, that the scant information provided in this article is rather strangely worded.
OPEC plans to establish a research and development institute in an effort to improve oil production technology.
"Our competitors, the alternative energy providers, are intensively pursuing research programs aimed at reducing the domination of oil and gas in the global energy market," Abdullah Salatt, Qatar's representative to OPEC, said. "Likewise, we should have our own independent programs."
It almost seems as if Salatt's statement indicates that like other energy providers, OPEC is also going to start researching alternatives to oil and gas. The opening line of the article, however, reports that the R&D center is going to be dedicated to "improv(ing) oil production technology."
In any case, it looks like OPEC is scared. Maybe this will be a self-fulfilling prophecy? If OPEC thinks Western nations are developing alternative energy on a massive scale, maybe it will actually come true.
Following a tip from a commenter at Environmental Economics, I looked up Sheik Ahmed Zaki Yamani, who was the former oil minister of Saudi Arabia. OPEC has a history of being worried about technological advances. This William Grieder article in The Nation from 2000 has an interesting quote:
Sheik Ahmed Zaki Yamani, Saudi Arabia's former oil minister and a founding architect of OPEC, already fears this--another round of innovations that drastically reduce gasoline and oil consumption. "Technology is a real enemy for OPEC," Yamani warned in a Reuters interview. "Technology will reduce consumption and increase production from areas outside OPEC. The real victims will be countries like Saudi Arabia with huge reserves which they can do nothing with--the oil will stay in the ground forever."
In light of his feelings, the new OPEC R&D center seems like an especially surprising move, but I guess he's not in charge anymore. Besides, times and circumstances change, and it's becoming more and more evident that his view of the relationship between technology and consumption simply has not come to pass.
Technorati Tags: peak oil, oil, OPEC
“If kindness and comfort are, as I suspect, the results of an energy surplus, then, as the supply contracts, we could be expected to start fighting once again like cats in a sack.”
—George Monbiot
Contact
- Content: editors at theoildrum dot com
- Tech support: support at theoildrum dot com
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.
If they want to knock out alternative energy, they better go at the Israelis toute de suite. The Elders of Zion set up solar research (PVs and solar algae) teams in the Weitzman institute and in the Technion. Tick. Tock. Tick. Tock.
It hasn't come to pass...because oil prices were never high enough to make it so, maybe? Among other things, I guess.
omri: You may have not meant any harm by referring to Israelis as "The Elders of Zion", but I think it's quite distasteful. You should be able to make your point just as well without a reference to a fabricated anti-Semitic conspiracy theory.
omri: Ditto on Super G's comment. TOD is not a site for sponsoring mindless hate speech. We are all brothers (& sisters) on this sinking Island Earth. Shalom and Salam.
Saudi Arabia going after Israel? A goat trying to eat a hornets nest comes to mind.
But I'm with Ianqui - would that we actually were on crash alternate energy programs!!
Yet don't we all know that no alternative will ever replace the energy we get from oil..
Right Reno.
But I would much rather some kind of soft landing than a complete crash and burn. Wouldn't you rather solar heated water than cold showes? Or a battery powered something rather than walking?
"Our competitors, the alternative energy providers, are intensively pursuing research programs aimed at reducing the domination of oil and gas in the global energy market," Abdullah Salatt, Qatar's representative to OPEC, said. "Likewise, we should have our own independent programs.... The R&D institute would be located in Kuwait and stemmed from a decision in 2001, Middle East Newsline reported."
Hello Abdullah Salatt!
You mean, like, ahhhh, really, dude, you made a decision in 2001 that it might be a good idea and you just decided to create it now?
Go For It!!!!!!
reno, you shouldn't use sarcasm on-line; it comes through very poorly unless set off with <sarcasm> tags.
Actual US energy produced (as in, delivered to wheels) from motor fuel is on the order of 183 GW average. In contrast, US electric power production averages upwards of 440 GW. Not only can we replace all the energy we get from oil except for a very few applications like air transport, it wouldn't even be much of a challenge.
I should mention here that a solid R&D program to eliminate the need for petroleum would be one part of my proposed energy program. Even if it didn't yield results right away, it would keep OPEC pumping like mad to reduce the incentives to switch; this would reduce the total wealth transferred to S. Arabia and the other negative effects of petrodollars.
[quote]In contrast, US electric power production averages upwards of 440 GW. Not only can we replace all the energy we get from oil except for a very few applications like air transport, it wouldn't even be much of a challenge.[/quote]
Although you are correct about total GW, from my understanding, electric engines are weak at best and could not be produced to move the massive amounts of goods oil delivers. I drive a semi and I don't see any possible way an electric engine is going to push or pull 80,000 pounds across this country!!
Yabbut, if we convert passenger transport (minus air transport) to electricity, then we have more oil available for goods transport. Or perhaps whatever alternative sources there are.
Electric engines, weak? Perhaps you'd like to argue this with General Electric, whose complete locomotive product line gets the power to the wheels through electric motors. They pull thousands of tons each.
AC Propulsion's AC-150 drivetrain gets 200 horsepower out of a 110 lb motor. You could put one of these on each pair of drive wheels on a semi tractor and probably be under 600 pounds with all the final drives included. Would 800 horsepower pull your 80,000 pounds?
(Electric dynamic braking would certainly be a lot quieter than jake brakes.)
I read the article and if you noticed, this device delivers a very low torque ratio. Not nearly enough to pull 80,000 lbs down the roads.. Diesel engines provide high amounts of torque at low RPMs. SO how many of these devices would you needs to pull 80,000 lbs up and down mountains and across country?? SO its looks like this application has a long way to go before its put into any semis..
And while GE may be producing electic engine to run train, I believe they're used in a limited manner ie: they need tranmission lines to operate vs the typical diesel ones) and need a constant flow of electicity to work(no interruptions please).
" I read the article and if you noticed, this device delivers a very low torque ratio. Not nearly enough to pull 80,000 lbs down the roads."
Well, let's see about that. The redline speed on the motor is 12,000 RPM, and stall torque is 165 ft-lb; if you gave first gear a redline of 15 MPH each motor would give you 2850 pounds of static thrust, or 11400 pounds for the full quartet. That's not enough?
Motor technology isn't standing still; a motor small and light enough to pull a jetliner around would be even better for a heavy truck. What does a Cummins or Caterpillar diesel weigh, anyway?
"And while GE may be producing electic engine to run train, I believe they're used in a limited manner"
But you said there was no way an electric engine could pull 80,000 pounds; those engines are pulling a million pounds. I'll take that as a retraction.
Excuse me; those engines are pulling TEN million pounds (5000 tons plus). Weight of a single locomotive can be 150+ tons.