NASA Free Computer Model Available to Classrooms
WASHINGTON, Jan. 11 /PRNewswire/ -- A free NASA global climate model is available for high school and university desktop computers.
The Educational Global Climate Model (EdGCM), available for both Windows and Mac platforms, incorporates a 3-D climate model developed at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), New York. It wraps complex computer modeling programs with a graphical interface familiar to most PC users.
The climate model runs on a desktop computer to allow teachers and students to conduct experiments identical to those scientists run on supercomputers to simulate past and future climate changes. EdGCM links the climate model to both a database and scientific visualization utilities, making it simpler to create and organize data and images.
"The real goal of EdGCM is to allow teachers and students to learn more about climate science by participating in the full scientific process, including experiment design, running model simulations, analyzing data, and reporting on results via the Web," said Mark Chandler, lead researcher for the EdGCM project from Columbia University, New York.
An EdGCM Cooperative is being designed to encourage communication among students at different schools and among schools and research institutions. The cooperative will help students become familiar with the importance of teamwork in scientific research.
EdGCM educational materials are also in development. A curriculum module will walk students through a complete scientific project involving the Global Climate Model (GCM) and climate change analysis. Additional lesson plans will elaborate on how students can use a climate model to study topics such as ancient climates in geologic history or future climate water cycles. NASA is contributing funding to improve cross-platform compatibility and to create detailed manuals to help guide teachers through the many uses of EdGCM.
Professors at three N.Y. area universities are already using EdGCM. Professors and students at Columbia University, City University of New York, and New York University can conduct research projects using the NASA/GISS GCM. At least two high schools in Madison, Wis. are also testing EdGCM this semester in Earth Science courses.
For more information about the EdGCM, visit:
http://www.edgcm.org
To download EdGCM software from the Internet, visit:
http://www.edgcm.org/EdGCMCooperative/Downloads.php
For more information about climate study in the classroom, please visit:
http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/everyd ... class.html
For information about NASA and agency programs on the Internet, visit:
http://www.nasa.gov
Comment en serez-vous informés?
Si vous êtes arrivé jusqu'ici, vous avez un énorme avantage sur les 99% du reste de la planète – vous êtes conscient du problème. Pratiquement tout les autres croient qu'il y a plénitude de pétrole, ou que le problème est mineur. Ils s'inquiètent du réchauffement du climat, de la pauvreté, ou des guerres. Ils ne connaîtront pas, ou ne croiront pas, la déplétion du pétrole jusqu'à ce qu'elle ne les frappe de plein fouet et que les prix à la pompe n'augmentent chaque jour et le chômage ne s'envole. Mais vous savez. Regardez les journaux et la télévision, recherchez les statistiques données généralement sans commentaires – en particulier la production de pétrole. Téléchargez chaque mois la newsletter de l'ASPO et chaque année la statistique BP.
En ce qui concerne les politiques, des experts ont déjà tenté de les alerter, mais nos dirigeants soit les ignorent ou ne les croient pas. Néanmoins, il vaut la peine de les contacter, ainsi que les journaux, les médias électroniques ou les écoles. La prise de conscience de la déplétion du pétrole sera graduelle et plus ceux qui doutent en entendront parler, plus rapidement ils en prendront conscience.
Les années passant, le déclin permanent deviendra clair. Les gouvernements et groupes pétroliers prétendront qu'il ne s'agit que d'une mauvaise passe, rassurant chacun qu'il y a assez de pétrole et que la production repartira bientôt à la hausse. Votre avantage, alors que les ignorants seront apaisés, sera de pouvoir lire entre les lignes et d'agir. Ne ratez pas cette occasion.
Pour plus d'informations sur ce qu'il est possible de faire, voyez la page Que faire.
ENVIRONNEMENT - Il n'est pas trop tard pour sauver la planète
"Le futur est entre nos mains." C'est avec ces mots d'espoir que Robert Watson, le responsable de l'étude la plus importante jamais publiée sur l'état de la planète, a commenté ses résultats pour l'hebdomadaire britannique New Scientist.
Cette étude, qui a duré quatre ans, coûté 24 millions de livres (34 millions d'euros) et fait travailler 1 300 scientifiques de 95 pays, s'est attachée à faire l'inventaire de nos ressources naturelles. Elle est arrivée à la conclusion que nous vivions très au-delà de nos moyens et elle confirme que 60 % de notre écosystème est dégradé, ce qui provoque les changements dramatiques, en particulier sur le climat et la vie des fonds sous-marins, que nous connaissons.
Or, malgré la morosité et l'inquiétude que ces résultats engendrent, il y a de l'espoir. La Mission d'évaluation de l'écosystème, l'organisme qui a mené l'étude, soutenu par les Nations unies, la Banque mondiale et l'Institut des ressources mondiales, estime en effet qu'il y a encore des marges de manœuvre. D'autant plus que, grâce à l'information, la prise de conscience se généralise.
Pour aider les décideurs du monde entier, les chercheurs ont établi une liste de 74 types d'action et proposent avec l'analyse de leurs données quatre scénarios possibles sur l'avenir de la planète. Et un seul d'entre eux arrive à la conclusion que notre écosystème va continuer à se dégrader.
Site du projet "Millenium Ecosystem Assessment": http://www.maweb.org/en/index.aspx
On peut y télécharger le communiqué de presse en Français.
Extrait du communiqué de presse :
"Le défi qui consisterait à renverser la tendance à une dégradation des écosystèmes tout en satisfaisant une demande croissante peut être relevé selon certains scénarios qui impliquent des changements significatifs des politiques et des institutions. Il s’agit cependant de changements importants et les tendances actuelles ne pointent pas dans ce sens."
Le site présentant le rapport de synthèse est très bien réalisé et a l'air passionnant (des jours de lecture !).
Les scénarios sont décrits à la page suivante :
http://www.greenfacts.org/ecosystems/mi ... rios.htm#1
Lien avec la file "Constitution"
Le scénario correspondant le plus aux orientations données par le projet de constitution Européenne est celui nommé "Global Orchestration" : forte croissance, libéralisation économique, mondialisation du commerce, égalité d'accés aux biens et services, accent mis sur l'éducation et la santé, l'amélioration du niveau de vie, protection locale de l'environnement. Ce scénario conduit à des inégalités profondes et des altérations graves des éco-systèmes.
L'expression "ressources naturelles" est employé 2 fois dans le projet de constitution. L'expression "marché intérieur" 60 fois.
Le mot "Climat" 0 fois (comptage Jancovici)
La réflexion sur le projet Européen devrait se faire aussi et principalement autour de ces sujets. Au contraire, hors de toute réflexion, le "package" Européen nous impose un modèle dont voit qu'il est potentiellement porteur de dangers graves pour le futur. Le pire est que les partisans du "Oui" (j'en fait peut-être parti) sont certainement aussi sincèrement inquiets des graves dangers auquels sont confrontés les écosystèmes. Schizophrénie ?
von Rauffenstein a écrit:Bah, c'est pas grave. On roulera à l'électricité.
Nucléaire ! Comme ma perceuse !
Y'a superphénix. A condition de la faire tourner comme il se doit. Mais on va pas relancer le débat qui est enterré quelque part dans le salon et auquel tu avais fini par admettre qu'on avait dit beaucoup de conneries à son sujet.Garion a écrit:von Rauffenstein a écrit:Bah, c'est pas grave. On roulera à l'électricité.
Nucléaire ! Comme ma perceuse !
J'ai vu un calcul interessant du nombre de centrale nucléaires qui seraient nécessaire pour remplacer le carburant des voitures avec des piles à hydrogène.(mais je l'ai corrigé )
Rendement de la distribution d'électricité : 93%
Rendement de l'électrolyse pour produire l'hydrogène : 50 %
Rendement de stockage : 70% (compression, fuites, transport, refroidissement, poid des bouteilles)
Rendement de la pile à hydrogène : 40 %
Rendement du moteur : 80%
Rendement final : 10 %
On utilise 50 Million de TEP (tonne équivalent pétrole) pour les transports avec des moteurs à 20% de rendement, soit 630 TerawattHeure à fournir.
Il faudra donc que les centrales fournissent 630 TWh / 0.1 (rendement calculé précédemment) = 6300 TWh par an pour alimenter les voitures.
Un réacteur ayant une puissance de 1 gW, il produit par an : 1 gW * 8760 heures = 8.7 TWh
Ce qui nous donne.... 724 réacteurs nucléaires à construire...
Je te souhaite un bon courage pour trouver des emplacements adéquats
Bref, on va devoir moins se déplacer, c'est une évidence...
B.Verkiler a écrit:Vous preferez que ça tourne au Mad Max ou au Waterworld?
Moi Waterworld quand même, le trimaran est plus écologique que la caisse de Mad Max.
Putaiiinnn... avec un peu de chance, schumi est le denrier champion du monde de bagnole à pétrole...B.Verkiler a écrit:Vous preferez que ça tourne au "Mad Max" ou au "Waterworld"?
Moi Waterworld quand même, le trimaran est plus écologique que la caisse de Mad Max.
von Rauffenstein a écrit:Y'a superphénix. A condition de la faire tourner comme il se doit. Mais on va pas relancer le débat qui est enterré quelque part dans le salon et auquel tu avais fini par admettre qu'on avait dit beaucoup de conneries à son sujet.
Luke a écrit:On se déplacera différemment mais on continuera de se déplacer...
Ça m'étonne toujours de voir que malgré la hausse continue du prix de l'essence il y a toujours plus d'autos sur les routes... En général quand une forte hausse se produit (cf la clope) il y a un changement de comportement, mais là on se demande à partir de quel seuil on inversera la tendance
DCP a écrit:Luke a écrit:On se déplacera différemment mais on continuera de se déplacer...
Ça m'étonne toujours de voir que malgré la hausse continue du prix de l'essence il y a toujours plus d'autos sur les routes... En général quand une forte hausse se produit (cf la clope) il y a un changement de comportement, mais là on se demande à partir de quel seuil on inversera la tendance
Une partie de l'explication réside dans le fait que la voiture est indispensable pour certains trajets quotidiens........
Didier
Garion a écrit:DCP a écrit:Luke a écrit:On se déplacera différemment mais on continuera de se déplacer...
Ça m'étonne toujours de voir que malgré la hausse continue du prix de l'essence il y a toujours plus d'autos sur les routes... En général quand une forte hausse se produit (cf la clope) il y a un changement de comportement, mais là on se demande à partir de quel seuil on inversera la tendance
Une partie de l'explication réside dans le fait que la voiture est indispensable pour certains trajets quotidiens........
Didier
Je ne suis pas d'accord.Regarde la France d'avant guerre, ou regarde la Chine, c'était presque sans voiture. Ce n'est qu'une question d'organisation. Quand la voiture reviendra trop chère, on se raprochera de notre lieu de travail c'est tout. La voiture n'est pas indispensable.
La péninsule Antarctique, qui s'étire au nord-ouest du continent blanc entre la mer de Weddell et celle d'Amundsen, est l'endroit du globe qui a connu le réchauffement climatique le plus élevé : + 2,5ºC depuis 1950. Cette situation a entraîné la régression de 87 % des 244 glaciers marins recensés dans la région. Un constat que vient d'établir une équipe de chercheurs anglais et américains dirigés par Alison Cook, du British Antarctic Survey (Cambridge, Grande-Bretagne).
Les glaciers marins sont des glaciers terrestres qui se terminent dans l'océan. Sous l'effet du réchauffement, leur glace descend jusqu'à la mer pour former des plates-formes flottantes. "Pour leur étude, les chercheurs ont observé l'évolution du front en bas du glacier, qui peut, selon les cas, avancer ou reculer", explique Catherine Ritz, glaciologue au Laboratoire de glaciologie et géophysique de l'environnement (LGGE CNRS et université Joseph-Fourier), à Grenoble.
$380 en 2015, est-ce possible?
24 avril 2005 — Un rapport réalisé par les économistes français Patrick Artus and Moncef Kaabi envisage qu’en 2015 le prix du baril de pétrole pourrait atteindre $380.
« A report prepared by energy economists at the French investment bank Ixis-CIB has warned crude oil prices could touch $380 a barrel by 2015. Analysts Patrick Artus and Moncef Kaabi said in the next 10 years demand for oil will outstrip supply by around 8 million barrels per day (mbpd). “If one takes into account the level of previous oil shocks such as in the 1970's, we don't think a price level of $380 per barrel is out of the question,” they said.
» The analysts argued that the shortfall in energy needs would not be made up by alternatives as they were not developed as yet. “Thus the world will still need to rely upon traditional fossil fuels,” their report said. They also said existing new oilfield projects would not be enough to satisfy unprecedented growth in demand from developing economies, particularly China.
» “We have taken into account every new oil discovery and potential source … as well as this we note the continuing situation of a fall in new field discoveries,” the analysts said. »
Cette sorte de prévision répond à un courant général maintenant bien établi, et établi autour de ce qui est considéré comme un fait objectif, et non une spéculation politique: le déclin de la production de pétrole parallèlement à l’accroissement continu et accéléré de la demande. La dernière estimation en date est celle d’un article très récent, (le 21 avril dans le Guardian), de John Vidal, estimant que le déclin de la production de pétrole commencera en 2007.
C’est une perspective de crise qui n’a pas de précédent dans les caractères qu’on identifie. La crise pétrolière du début des années 1970 était une crise spéculative, notamment due à la volonté des pays de l’OPEP emmenés par l’Iran d’augmenter le prix du brut (dans le cas des années 1970, c’est l’augmentation du prix du pétrole qui provoquait la crise; dans le cas exposé ici, l’augmentation est la conséquence de la crise). Diverses hypothèses de crise de production furent également évoquées, notamment la crise de production en URSS autour de 1985 comme le prévoyait la CIA en 1979 (la prévision s’avéra fausse); mais c’était des hypothèses de crise portant sur les moyens de production (technologie de forage, moyens de communication, moyens de transport du pétrole, etc.), nullement sur les réserves. Il s’agissait aussi de crises relatives, concernant certains pays et entrant dans un jeu stratégique où la manipulation politique avait sa place (dans le cas évoqué, l’affaiblissement de l’URSS, qui pouvait être accéléré selon l’hypothèse envisagée par des restrictions à l’exportation de divers types de technologies; paradoxalement, cet affaiblissement eut lieu, mais pour la raison inverse de l’abondance de pétrole qui fit chuter le prix et provoqua une crise de devises en URSS). Aujourd’hui, l’hypothèse envisagée, sur laquelle convergent toutes les évaluations, porte sur une situation naturelle, et à très court terme.
Il est évident que les chiffres envisagés, dans tous les cas l’ordre de grandeur impliqué, sont intenables pour le système international tel qu’il est (on peut mesurer l’ordre de grandeur en rappelant qu’en 1985 le prix du brut était tombé à $10 le baril, 38 fois moins que l’hypothèse envisagée ici pour 2015). Il s’agit d’une perspective de crise globale radicalement déstabilisante, qui va provoquer ses effets avant même qu’elle ne se manifeste dans toute sa plénitude, par des actions préventives, des changements d’alliance radicaux, etc. D’autre part, les effets quotidiens, au niveau des populations, vont également se faire sentir très vite, avec des enchaînements d’effets secondaires au niveau de la stabilité interne des nations et groupes de nations. D’autres enchaînements déstabilisants encore plus indirects sont à craindre (par exemple, pour prendre le cas des USA : la politique belliciste actuelle, qui va être exacerbée par les perspectives de la chute de production du pétrole, nécessitera le retour rapide à la conscription; une telle décision pourrait conduire à des effets déstabilisants graves à l’intérieur des Etats-Unis).
Il n’existe pour l’instant aucune perspective d’initiatives stabilisantes, notamment au niveau de la prévision du monde politique, lequel est figé dans des actions retardatrices de dissimulation des réalités par crainte d’effets incontrôlables (la plus importante de ces “actions retardatrices” étant la prise en compte officielle, dans toutes ses conséquences, de la politique déstabilisante des Etats-Unis par les autres pays occidentaux). La crise de la production du pétrole, comme la crise climatique, est une de ces menaces transnationales d’un nouveau type, suscitées par des développements naturels sur lesquels la politique n’a aucune prise, et dont la perspective réelle est même niée par la politique. Ces menaces concernent directement la cohésion générale du système mondial et doivent être définies, par leurs conséquences potentielles très rapides, en termes qui vont, à leur extrême, jusqu’à la mise en question de la survie de l’espèce. L’effet au niveau de la psychologie, à mesure que les conditions de la crise se préciseront, sera dévastateur et contribuera grandement à la déstabilisation générale.
The end of oil is closer than you think
Oil production could peak next year, reports John Vidal. Just kiss your lifestyle goodbye
Thursday April 21, 2005
The Guardian
The one thing that international bankers don't want to hear is that the second Great Depression may be round the corner. But last week, a group of ultra-conservative Swiss financiers asked a retired English petroleum geologist living in Ireland to tell them about the beginning of the end of the oil age.
They called Colin Campbell, who helped to found the London-based Oil Depletion Analysis Centre because he is an industry man through and through, has no financial agenda and has spent most of a lifetime on the front line of oil exploration on three continents. He was chief geologist for Amoco, a vice-president of Fina, and has worked for BP, Texaco, Shell, ChevronTexaco and Exxon in a dozen different countries.
"Don't worry about oil running out; it won't for very many years," the Oxford PhD told the bankers in a message that he will repeat to businessmen, academics and investment analysts at a conference in Edinburgh next week. "The issue is the long downward slope that opens on the other side of peak production. Oil and gas dominate our lives, and their decline will change the world in radical and unpredictable ways," he says.
Campbell reckons global peak production of conventional oil - the kind associated with gushing oil wells - is approaching fast, perhaps even next year. His calculations are based on historical and present production data, published reserves and discoveries of companies and governments, estimates of reserves lodged with the US Securities and Exchange Commission, speeches by oil chiefs and a deep knowledge of how the industry works.
"About 944bn barrels of oil has so far been extracted, some 764bn remains extractable in known fields, or reserves, and a further 142bn of reserves are classed as 'yet-to-find', meaning what oil is expected to be discovered. If this is so, then the overall oil peak arrives next year," he says.
If he is correct, then global oil production can be expected to decline steadily at about 2-3% a year, the cost of everything from travel, heating, agriculture, trade, and anything made of plastic rises. And the scramble to control oil resources intensifies. As one US analyst said this week: "Just kiss your lifestyle goodbye."
But the Campbell analysis is way off the much more optimistic official figures. The US Geological Survey (USGS) states that reserves in 2000 (its latest figures) of recoverable oil were about three trillion barrels and that peak production will not come for about 30 years. The International Energy Agency (IEA) believes that oil will peak between "2013 and 2037" and Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Iraq and Iran, four countries with much of the world's known reserves, report little if any depletion of reserves. Meanwhile, the oil companies - which do not make public estimates of their own "peak oil" - say there is no shortage of oil and gas for the long term. "The world holds enough proved reserves for 40 years of supply and at least 60 years of gas supply at current consumption rates," said BP this week.
Indeed, almost every year for 150 years, the oil industry has produced more than it did the year before, and predictions of oil running out or peaking have always been proved wrong. Today, the industry is producing about 83m barrels a day, with big new fields in Azerbaijan, Angola, Algeria, the deep waters of the Gulf of Mexico and elsewhere soon expected on stream.
But the business of estimating oil reserves is contentious and political. According to Campbell, companies seldom report their true findings for commercial reasons, and governments - which own 90% of the reserves - often lie. Most official figures, he says, are grossly unreliable: "Estimating reserves is a scientific business. There is a range of uncertainty but it is not impossible to get a good idea of what a field contains. Reporting [reserves], however, is a political act."
According to Campbell and other oil industry sources, the two most widely used estimates of world oil reserves, drawn up by the Oil and Gas Journal and the BP Statistical Review, both rely on reserve estimates provided to them by governments and industry and do not question their accuracy.
Companies, says Campbell, "under-report their new discoveries to comply with strict US stock exchange rules, but then revise them upwards over time", partly to boost their share prices with "good news" results. "I do not think that I ever told the truth about the size of a prospect. That was not the game we were in," he says. "As we were competing for funds with other subsidiaries around the world, we had to exaggerate."
Most serious of all, he and other oil depletion analysts and petroleum geologists, most of whom have been in the industry for years, accuse the US of using questionable statistical probability models to calculate global reserves and Opec countries of drastically revising upwards their reserves in the 1980s.
"The estimates for the Opec countries were systematically exaggerated in the late 1980s to win a greater slice of the allocation cake. Middle East official reserves jumped 43% in just three years despite no new major finds," he says.
The study of "peak oil" - the point at which half the total oil known to have existed in a field or a country has been consumed, beyond which extraction goes into irreversible decline - used to be back-of-the envelope guesswork. It was not taken seriously by business or governments, mainly because oil has always been cheap and plentiful.
In the wake of the Iraq war, the rapid economic rise of China, global warming and recent record oil prices, the debate has shifted from "if" there is a global peak to "when".
The US government knows that conventional oil is running out fast. According to a report on oil shales and unconventional oil supplies prepared by the US office of petroleum reserves last year, "world oil reserves are being depleted three times as fast as they are being discovered. Oil is being produced from past discoveries, but the reserves are not being fully replaced. Remaining oil reserves of individual oil companies must continue to shrink. The disparity between increasing production and declining discoveries can only have one outcome: a practical supply limit will be reached and future supply to meet conventional oil demand will not be available."
It continues: "Although there is no agreement about the date that world oil production will peak, forecasts presented by USGS geologist Les Magoon, the Oil and Gas Journal, and others expect the peak will occur between 2003 and 2020. What is notable ... is that none extend beyond the year 2020, suggesting that the world may be facing shortfalls much sooner than expected."
According to Bill Powers, editor of the Canadian Energy Viewpoint investment journal, there is a growing belief among geologists who study world oil supply that production "is soon headed into an irreversible decline ... The US government does not want to admit the reality of the situation. Dr Campbell's thesis, and those of others like him, are becoming the mainstream."
In the absence of reliable official figures, geologists and analysts are turning to the grandfather of oil depletion analysis, M King Hubbert, a Shell geologist who in 1956 showed mathematically that exploitation of any oilfield follows a predictable "bell curve" trend, which is slow to take off, rises steeply, flattens and then descends again steeply. The biggest and easiest exploited oilfields were always found early in the history of exploration, while smaller ones were developed as production from the big fields declined. He accurately predicted that US domestic oil production would peak around 1970, 40 years after the period of peak discovery around 1930.
Many oil analysts now take the "Hubbert peak" model seriously, and the USGS, national and oil company figures with a large dose of salt. Similar patterns of peak discovery and production have been found throughout all the world's main oilfields. The first North Sea discovery was in 1969, discoveries peaked in 1973 and the UK passed its production peak in 1999. The British portion of the basin is now in serious decline and the Norwegian sector has levelled off.
Other analysts are also questioning afresh the oil companies' data. US Wall street energy group Herold last month compared the stated reserves of the world's leading oil companies with their quoted discoveries, and production levels. Herold predicts that the seven largest will all begin seeing production declines within four years. Deutsche Bank analysts report that global oil production will peak in 2014.
According to Chris Skrebowski, editor of Petroleum Review, a monthly magazine published by the Energy Institute in London, conventional oil reserves are now declining about 4-6% a year worldwide. He says 18 large oil-producing countries, including Britain, and 32 smaller ones, have declining production; and he expects Denmark, Malaysia, Brunei, China, Mexico and India all to reach their peak in the next few years.
"We should be worried. Time is short and we are not even at the point where we admit we have a problem," Skrebowski says. "Governments are always excessively optimistic. The problem is that the peak, which I think is 2008, is tomorrow in planning terms."
On the other hand, Equatorial Guinea, Sao Tome, Chad and Angola are are all expected to grow strongly.
What is agreed is that world oil demand is surging. The International Energy Agency, which collates national figures and predicts demand, says developing countries could push demand up 47% to 121m barrels a day by 2030, and that oil companies and oil-producing nations must spend about $100bn a year to develop new supplies to keep pace.
According to the IEA, demand rose faster in 2004 than in any year since 1976. China's oil consumption, which accounted for a third of extra global demand last year, grew 17% and is expected to double over 15 years to more than 10m barrels a day - half the US's present demand. India's consumption is expected to rise by nearly 30% in the next five years. If world demand continues to grow at 2% a year, then almost 160m barrels a day will need to be extracted in 2035, twice as much as today.
That, say most geologists is almost inconceivable. According to industry consultants IHS Energy, 90% of all known reserves are now in production, suggesting that few major discoveries remain to be made. Shell says its reserves fell last year because it only found enough oil to replace 15-25 % of what the company produced. BP told the US stock exchange that it replaced only 89% of its production in 2004.
Moreover, oil supply is increasingly limited to a few giant fields, with 10% of all production coming from just four fields and 80% from fields discovered before 1970. Even finding a field the size of Ghawar in Saudi Arabia, by far the world's largest and said to have another 125bn barrels, would only meet world demand for about 10 years.
"All the major discoveries were in the 1960s, since when they have been declining gradually over time, give or take the occasional spike and trough," says Campbell. "The whole world has now been seismically searched and picked over. Geological knowledge has improved enormously in the past 30 years and it is almost inconceivable now that major fields remain to be found."
He accepts there may be a big field or two left in Russia, and more in Africa, but these would have little bearing on world supplies. Unconventional deposits like tar sands and shale may only slow the production decline.
"The first half of the oil age now closes," says Campbell. "It lasted 150 years and saw the rapid expansion of industry, transport, trade, agriculture and financial capital, allowing the population to expand six-fold. The second half now dawns, and will be marked by the decline of oil and all that depends on it, including financial capital."
So did the Swiss bankers comprehend the seriousness of the situation when he talked to them? "There is no company on the stock exchange that doesn't make a tacit assumption about the availability of energy," says Campbell. "It is almost impossible for bankers to accept it. It is so out of their mindset."
Crude alternatives
"Unconventional" petroleum reserves, which are not included in some totals of reserves, include:
Heavy oils
These can be pumped just like conventional petroleum except that they are much thicker, more polluting, and require more extensive refining. They are found in more than 30 countries, but about 90% of estimated reserves are in the Orinoco "heavy oil belt" of Venezuela, which has an estimated 1.2 trillion barrels. About one third of the oil is potentially recoverable using current technology.
Tar sands
These are found in sedimentary rocks and must be dug out and crushed in giant opencast mines. But it takes five to 10 times the energy, area and water to mine, process and upgrade the tars that it does to process conventional oil. The Athabasca deposits in Alberta, Canada are the world's largest resource, with estimated reserves of 1.8 trillion barrels, of which about 280-300bn barrels may be recoverable. Production now accounts for about 20% of Canada's oil supply.
Oil shales
These are seen as the US government's energy stopgap. They exist in large quantities in ecologically sensitive parts of Colorado, Wyoming and Utah at varying depths, but the industrial process needed to extract the oil demands hot water, making it much more expensive and less energy-efficient than conventional oil. The mining operation is extremely damaging to the environment. Shell, Exxon, ChevronTexaco and other oil companies are investing billions of dollars in this expensive oil production method.
L'effet de serre mesuré par la Nasa
L'agence spatiale américaine a évalué la quantité de chaleur que "stocke" la Terre du fait du réchauffement climatique. Selon la Nasa, la Terre retient 0,85 watt d'énergie de plus par mètre carré qu'elle n'émet sur une période donnée. Conséquence déjà visible : une hausse du niveau des océans de 3,2 cm depuis 1993.
La Terre absorbe davantage d'énergie qu'elle n'en émet, et ce déséquilibre calorique confirme le réchauffement de la planète par effet de serre atmosphérique dû à la pollution humaine, indique une étude de la Nasa, publiée jeudi aux Etats-Unis. "Ce déséquilibre d'énergie est l'indice prouvant que les estimations scientifiques de l'impact de l'activité humaine sur le climat sont bien exactes", a déclaré James Hansen, directeur des études spatiales de l'institut Goddard de l'agence spatiale américaine, principal auteur de ces recherches publiées dans Science Express, version en ligne de la revue scientifique américaine.
Utilisant des satellites qui relaient des données recueillies par des stations climatologiques installées sur des bouées sur les océans ou dans des stations terrestres, ainsi que des modèles informatiques d'océanographie, cette équipe de chercheurs a calculé que la Terre retenait 0,85 watt d'énergie de plus par mètre carré qu'elle n'émettait sur une période donnée. Cette accumulation d'énergie entraînera, si elle persiste, un relèvement de 0,6 degré Celsius (un degré Fahrenheit) de la température médiane de la Terre d'ici la fin du siècle, selon ces chercheurs.
Les effets aggravants de l'inertie thermale
Bien que paraissant modeste, cette quantité de chaleur supplémentaire, emmagasinée sur l'ensemble de la superficie du globe, aura un impact significatif sur le climat, ont-ils affirmé. Un accroissement d'un watt par mètre carré maintenu pendant dix mille ans est suffisant pour faire fondre la glace d'un kilomètre à la surface de l'océan, ont calculé ces climatologues. En outre, les océans gardent la chaleur plus longtemps que le sol, ont-ils souligné, comme le montre le fait que l'eau met plus longtemps à se réchauffer au début de l'été que l'air. Ce phénomène, qui se produit dans les profondeurs océaniques, appelé "inertie thermale", signifie que l'on peut s'attendre à terme à une élévation supplémentaire de 0,6 degré Celsius (un degré Fahrenheit), ont relevé ces scientifiques.
En d'autres termes, souligne James Hansen, si le monde décide d'avoir davantage de preuves du réchauffement atmosphérique avant d'agir, le phénomène d'inertie thermale des océans laisse prévoir un changement climatique encore plus important qu'il sera très difficile voire impossible d'éviter. En effet, "des eaux plus chaudes accroissent la probabilité d'une fonte accélérée de la couche de glace aux pôles comme l'a déjà montré la montée du niveau des océans". Les données recueillies par les satellites d'observation ont montré que le niveau des océans a monté de 3,2 centimètres (1,26 pouces) depuis 1993, a-t-il précisé. Cette variation paraît minime mais elle est deux fois plus importante que celle enregistrée sur l'ensemble du siècle dernier.
[...]
"C'est un travail intéressant qui montre que le déséquilibre radiatif constaté est en fait un réchauffement qui n'a pas encore eu lieu" , estime Hervé Le Treut, directeur du Laboratoire de météorologie dynamique du CNRS.
"Cette étude américaine met en évidence une question capitale pour le réchauffement à venir : celle de l'inertie du système climatique. Une inertie largement liée à l'océan et aussi aux calottes polaires, explique Jean Jouzel, directeur de l'Institut Pierre-Simon-Laplace. J'ai beaucoup de mal à faire comprendre cette notion capitale qui sera au centre des prochains débats du GIEC. Cela signifie que nous subirons pendant longtemps les effets du déséquilibre énergétique actuel, même si on maintient les GES à leur taux d'aujourd'hui. Le niveau des océans continuera aussi à s'élever de 10 à 25 cm pendant plusieurs siècles. Si on ne stabilise pas le taux des GES, ce sera pire, car l'élévation sera de 40 cm par siècle. Aussi, l'idée que certains avancent, selon laquelle le recours à de nouvelles techniques pourrait minimiser les dégâts, est illusoire comparée à l'énorme énergie des océans."
"C'est donc un défi considérable qui attend l'espèce humaine, prévient le spécialiste français, membre du GIEC. Nous relâchons actuellement dans l'atmosphère 7 milliards de tonnes de carbone par an. Pour stabiliser la situation, il faudrait descendre à 2 milliards de tonnes. Cela plaide donc en faveur de l'Europe, qui souhaite limiter à 2 ºC l'augmentation de la température par rapport à celle qui prévalait avant l'ère industrielle."
f1pronostics a écrit:voici les liens de deux articles traitant de la fin du pétrole!
http://www.dedefensa.org/article.php?art_id=1496$380 en 2015, est-ce possible?
24 avril 2005 — Un rapport réalisé par les économistes français Patrick Artus and Moncef Kaabi envisage qu’en 2015 le prix du baril de pétrole pourrait atteindre $380.
« A report prepared by energy economists at the French investment bank Ixis-CIB has warned crude oil prices could touch $380 a barrel by 2015. Analysts Patrick Artus and Moncef Kaabi said in the next 10 years demand for oil will outstrip supply by around 8 million barrels per day (mbpd). “If one takes into account the level of previous oil shocks such as in the 1970's, we don't think a price level of $380 per barrel is out of the question,” they said.
» The analysts argued that the shortfall in energy needs would not be made up by alternatives as they were not developed as yet. “Thus the world will still need to rely upon traditional fossil fuels,” their report said. They also said existing new oilfield projects would not be enough to satisfy unprecedented growth in demand from developing economies, particularly China.
» “We have taken into account every new oil discovery and potential source … as well as this we note the continuing situation of a fall in new field discoveries,” the analysts said. »
Cette sorte de prévision répond à un courant général maintenant bien établi, et établi autour de ce qui est considéré comme un fait objectif, et non une spéculation politique: le déclin de la production de pétrole parallèlement à l’accroissement continu et accéléré de la demande. La dernière estimation en date est celle d’un article très récent, (le 21 avril dans le Guardian), de John Vidal, estimant que le déclin de la production de pétrole commencera en 2007.
C’est une perspective de crise qui n’a pas de précédent dans les caractères qu’on identifie. La crise pétrolière du début des années 1970 était une crise spéculative, notamment due à la volonté des pays de l’OPEP emmenés par l’Iran d’augmenter le prix du brut (dans le cas des années 1970, c’est l’augmentation du prix du pétrole qui provoquait la crise; dans le cas exposé ici, l’augmentation est la conséquence de la crise). Diverses hypothèses de crise de production furent également évoquées, notamment la crise de production en URSS autour de 1985 comme le prévoyait la CIA en 1979 (la prévision s’avéra fausse); mais c’était des hypothèses de crise portant sur les moyens de production (technologie de forage, moyens de communication, moyens de transport du pétrole, etc.), nullement sur les réserves. Il s’agissait aussi de crises relatives, concernant certains pays et entrant dans un jeu stratégique où la manipulation politique avait sa place (dans le cas évoqué, l’affaiblissement de l’URSS, qui pouvait être accéléré selon l’hypothèse envisagée par des restrictions à l’exportation de divers types de technologies; paradoxalement, cet affaiblissement eut lieu, mais pour la raison inverse de l’abondance de pétrole qui fit chuter le prix et provoqua une crise de devises en URSS). Aujourd’hui, l’hypothèse envisagée, sur laquelle convergent toutes les évaluations, porte sur une situation naturelle, et à très court terme.
Il est évident que les chiffres envisagés, dans tous les cas l’ordre de grandeur impliqué, sont intenables pour le système international tel qu’il est (on peut mesurer l’ordre de grandeur en rappelant qu’en 1985 le prix du brut était tombé à $10 le baril, 38 fois moins que l’hypothèse envisagée ici pour 2015). Il s’agit d’une perspective de crise globale radicalement déstabilisante, qui va provoquer ses effets avant même qu’elle ne se manifeste dans toute sa plénitude, par des actions préventives, des changements d’alliance radicaux, etc. D’autre part, les effets quotidiens, au niveau des populations, vont également se faire sentir très vite, avec des enchaînements d’effets secondaires au niveau de la stabilité interne des nations et groupes de nations. D’autres enchaînements déstabilisants encore plus indirects sont à craindre (par exemple, pour prendre le cas des USA : la politique belliciste actuelle, qui va être exacerbée par les perspectives de la chute de production du pétrole, nécessitera le retour rapide à la conscription; une telle décision pourrait conduire à des effets déstabilisants graves à l’intérieur des Etats-Unis).
Il n’existe pour l’instant aucune perspective d’initiatives stabilisantes, notamment au niveau de la prévision du monde politique, lequel est figé dans des actions retardatrices de dissimulation des réalités par crainte d’effets incontrôlables (la plus importante de ces “actions retardatrices” étant la prise en compte officielle, dans toutes ses conséquences, de la politique déstabilisante des Etats-Unis par les autres pays occidentaux). La crise de la production du pétrole, comme la crise climatique, est une de ces menaces transnationales d’un nouveau type, suscitées par des développements naturels sur lesquels la politique n’a aucune prise, et dont la perspective réelle est même niée par la politique. Ces menaces concernent directement la cohésion générale du système mondial et doivent être définies, par leurs conséquences potentielles très rapides, en termes qui vont, à leur extrême, jusqu’à la mise en question de la survie de l’espèce. L’effet au niveau de la psychologie, à mesure que les conditions de la crise se préciseront, sera dévastateur et contribuera grandement à la déstabilisation générale.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/feature/ ... 50,00.htmlThe end of oil is closer than you think
Oil production could peak next year, reports John Vidal. Just kiss your lifestyle goodbye
Thursday April 21, 2005
The Guardian
The one thing that international bankers don't want to hear is that the second Great Depression may be round the corner. But last week, a group of ultra-conservative Swiss financiers asked a retired English petroleum geologist living in Ireland to tell them about the beginning of the end of the oil age.
They called Colin Campbell, who helped to found the London-based Oil Depletion Analysis Centre because he is an industry man through and through, has no financial agenda and has spent most of a lifetime on the front line of oil exploration on three continents. He was chief geologist for Amoco, a vice-president of Fina, and has worked for BP, Texaco, Shell, ChevronTexaco and Exxon in a dozen different countries.
"Don't worry about oil running out; it won't for very many years," the Oxford PhD told the bankers in a message that he will repeat to businessmen, academics and investment analysts at a conference in Edinburgh next week. "The issue is the long downward slope that opens on the other side of peak production. Oil and gas dominate our lives, and their decline will change the world in radical and unpredictable ways," he says.
Campbell reckons global peak production of conventional oil - the kind associated with gushing oil wells - is approaching fast, perhaps even next year. His calculations are based on historical and present production data, published reserves and discoveries of companies and governments, estimates of reserves lodged with the US Securities and Exchange Commission, speeches by oil chiefs and a deep knowledge of how the industry works.
"About 944bn barrels of oil has so far been extracted, some 764bn remains extractable in known fields, or reserves, and a further 142bn of reserves are classed as 'yet-to-find', meaning what oil is expected to be discovered. If this is so, then the overall oil peak arrives next year," he says.
If he is correct, then global oil production can be expected to decline steadily at about 2-3% a year, the cost of everything from travel, heating, agriculture, trade, and anything made of plastic rises. And the scramble to control oil resources intensifies. As one US analyst said this week: "Just kiss your lifestyle goodbye."
But the Campbell analysis is way off the much more optimistic official figures. The US Geological Survey (USGS) states that reserves in 2000 (its latest figures) of recoverable oil were about three trillion barrels and that peak production will not come for about 30 years. The International Energy Agency (IEA) believes that oil will peak between "2013 and 2037" and Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Iraq and Iran, four countries with much of the world's known reserves, report little if any depletion of reserves. Meanwhile, the oil companies - which do not make public estimates of their own "peak oil" - say there is no shortage of oil and gas for the long term. "The world holds enough proved reserves for 40 years of supply and at least 60 years of gas supply at current consumption rates," said BP this week.
Indeed, almost every year for 150 years, the oil industry has produced more than it did the year before, and predictions of oil running out or peaking have always been proved wrong. Today, the industry is producing about 83m barrels a day, with big new fields in Azerbaijan, Angola, Algeria, the deep waters of the Gulf of Mexico and elsewhere soon expected on stream.
But the business of estimating oil reserves is contentious and political. According to Campbell, companies seldom report their true findings for commercial reasons, and governments - which own 90% of the reserves - often lie. Most official figures, he says, are grossly unreliable: "Estimating reserves is a scientific business. There is a range of uncertainty but it is not impossible to get a good idea of what a field contains. Reporting [reserves], however, is a political act."
According to Campbell and other oil industry sources, the two most widely used estimates of world oil reserves, drawn up by the Oil and Gas Journal and the BP Statistical Review, both rely on reserve estimates provided to them by governments and industry and do not question their accuracy.
Companies, says Campbell, "under-report their new discoveries to comply with strict US stock exchange rules, but then revise them upwards over time", partly to boost their share prices with "good news" results. "I do not think that I ever told the truth about the size of a prospect. That was not the game we were in," he says. "As we were competing for funds with other subsidiaries around the world, we had to exaggerate."
Most serious of all, he and other oil depletion analysts and petroleum geologists, most of whom have been in the industry for years, accuse the US of using questionable statistical probability models to calculate global reserves and Opec countries of drastically revising upwards their reserves in the 1980s.
"The estimates for the Opec countries were systematically exaggerated in the late 1980s to win a greater slice of the allocation cake. Middle East official reserves jumped 43% in just three years despite no new major finds," he says.
The study of "peak oil" - the point at which half the total oil known to have existed in a field or a country has been consumed, beyond which extraction goes into irreversible decline - used to be back-of-the envelope guesswork. It was not taken seriously by business or governments, mainly because oil has always been cheap and plentiful.
In the wake of the Iraq war, the rapid economic rise of China, global warming and recent record oil prices, the debate has shifted from "if" there is a global peak to "when".
The US government knows that conventional oil is running out fast. According to a report on oil shales and unconventional oil supplies prepared by the US office of petroleum reserves last year, "world oil reserves are being depleted three times as fast as they are being discovered. Oil is being produced from past discoveries, but the reserves are not being fully replaced. Remaining oil reserves of individual oil companies must continue to shrink. The disparity between increasing production and declining discoveries can only have one outcome: a practical supply limit will be reached and future supply to meet conventional oil demand will not be available."
It continues: "Although there is no agreement about the date that world oil production will peak, forecasts presented by USGS geologist Les Magoon, the Oil and Gas Journal, and others expect the peak will occur between 2003 and 2020. What is notable ... is that none extend beyond the year 2020, suggesting that the world may be facing shortfalls much sooner than expected."
According to Bill Powers, editor of the Canadian Energy Viewpoint investment journal, there is a growing belief among geologists who study world oil supply that production "is soon headed into an irreversible decline ... The US government does not want to admit the reality of the situation. Dr Campbell's thesis, and those of others like him, are becoming the mainstream."
In the absence of reliable official figures, geologists and analysts are turning to the grandfather of oil depletion analysis, M King Hubbert, a Shell geologist who in 1956 showed mathematically that exploitation of any oilfield follows a predictable "bell curve" trend, which is slow to take off, rises steeply, flattens and then descends again steeply. The biggest and easiest exploited oilfields were always found early in the history of exploration, while smaller ones were developed as production from the big fields declined. He accurately predicted that US domestic oil production would peak around 1970, 40 years after the period of peak discovery around 1930.
Many oil analysts now take the "Hubbert peak" model seriously, and the USGS, national and oil company figures with a large dose of salt. Similar patterns of peak discovery and production have been found throughout all the world's main oilfields. The first North Sea discovery was in 1969, discoveries peaked in 1973 and the UK passed its production peak in 1999. The British portion of the basin is now in serious decline and the Norwegian sector has levelled off.
Other analysts are also questioning afresh the oil companies' data. US Wall street energy group Herold last month compared the stated reserves of the world's leading oil companies with their quoted discoveries, and production levels. Herold predicts that the seven largest will all begin seeing production declines within four years. Deutsche Bank analysts report that global oil production will peak in 2014.
According to Chris Skrebowski, editor of Petroleum Review, a monthly magazine published by the Energy Institute in London, conventional oil reserves are now declining about 4-6% a year worldwide. He says 18 large oil-producing countries, including Britain, and 32 smaller ones, have declining production; and he expects Denmark, Malaysia, Brunei, China, Mexico and India all to reach their peak in the next few years.
"We should be worried. Time is short and we are not even at the point where we admit we have a problem," Skrebowski says. "Governments are always excessively optimistic. The problem is that the peak, which I think is 2008, is tomorrow in planning terms."
On the other hand, Equatorial Guinea, Sao Tome, Chad and Angola are are all expected to grow strongly.
What is agreed is that world oil demand is surging. The International Energy Agency, which collates national figures and predicts demand, says developing countries could push demand up 47% to 121m barrels a day by 2030, and that oil companies and oil-producing nations must spend about $100bn a year to develop new supplies to keep pace.
According to the IEA, demand rose faster in 2004 than in any year since 1976. China's oil consumption, which accounted for a third of extra global demand last year, grew 17% and is expected to double over 15 years to more than 10m barrels a day - half the US's present demand. India's consumption is expected to rise by nearly 30% in the next five years. If world demand continues to grow at 2% a year, then almost 160m barrels a day will need to be extracted in 2035, twice as much as today.
That, say most geologists is almost inconceivable. According to industry consultants IHS Energy, 90% of all known reserves are now in production, suggesting that few major discoveries remain to be made. Shell says its reserves fell last year because it only found enough oil to replace 15-25 % of what the company produced. BP told the US stock exchange that it replaced only 89% of its production in 2004.
Moreover, oil supply is increasingly limited to a few giant fields, with 10% of all production coming from just four fields and 80% from fields discovered before 1970. Even finding a field the size of Ghawar in Saudi Arabia, by far the world's largest and said to have another 125bn barrels, would only meet world demand for about 10 years.
"All the major discoveries were in the 1960s, since when they have been declining gradually over time, give or take the occasional spike and trough," says Campbell. "The whole world has now been seismically searched and picked over. Geological knowledge has improved enormously in the past 30 years and it is almost inconceivable now that major fields remain to be found."
He accepts there may be a big field or two left in Russia, and more in Africa, but these would have little bearing on world supplies. Unconventional deposits like tar sands and shale may only slow the production decline.
"The first half of the oil age now closes," says Campbell. "It lasted 150 years and saw the rapid expansion of industry, transport, trade, agriculture and financial capital, allowing the population to expand six-fold. The second half now dawns, and will be marked by the decline of oil and all that depends on it, including financial capital."
So did the Swiss bankers comprehend the seriousness of the situation when he talked to them? "There is no company on the stock exchange that doesn't make a tacit assumption about the availability of energy," says Campbell. "It is almost impossible for bankers to accept it. It is so out of their mindset."
Crude alternatives
"Unconventional" petroleum reserves, which are not included in some totals of reserves, include:
Heavy oils
These can be pumped just like conventional petroleum except that they are much thicker, more polluting, and require more extensive refining. They are found in more than 30 countries, but about 90% of estimated reserves are in the Orinoco "heavy oil belt" of Venezuela, which has an estimated 1.2 trillion barrels. About one third of the oil is potentially recoverable using current technology.
Tar sands
These are found in sedimentary rocks and must be dug out and crushed in giant opencast mines. But it takes five to 10 times the energy, area and water to mine, process and upgrade the tars that it does to process conventional oil. The Athabasca deposits in Alberta, Canada are the world's largest resource, with estimated reserves of 1.8 trillion barrels, of which about 280-300bn barrels may be recoverable. Production now accounts for about 20% of Canada's oil supply.
Oil shales
These are seen as the US government's energy stopgap. They exist in large quantities in ecologically sensitive parts of Colorado, Wyoming and Utah at varying depths, but the industrial process needed to extract the oil demands hot water, making it much more expensive and less energy-efficient than conventional oil. The mining operation is extremely damaging to the environment. Shell, Exxon, ChevronTexaco and other oil companies are investing billions of dollars in this expensive oil production method.
Utilisateurs parcourant ce forum: Bing [Bot] et 111 invités