 | Natural Gas: how big is the problem? | The Oil Drum: Europe | The forecasting record of CERA and other commentators |  |
45 comments on Fuel duty and the effect of oil prices on the UK economy
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
User login
Personnel
Editors
Contributors
Peak Oil Primers
Archives
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
- August 2006
- July 2006
- June 2006
- May 2006
- April 2006
- March 2006
Vital Trivia
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.
GAIA Host Collective
And why's Gordon looking so happy - has he been reading TOD? :-))
Most metals prices crashed in May along with equities - but not oil at that time. Metals are just off their May lows now.
U - that energy metal - just keeps going up - I wonder why?
But I agree global demand has stayed strong. Brown is forecasting 2.75% growth next year.
As for green fuel taxes - who is gong to be put off flying by an additional £5 on air passenger duty?
- current demand for uranium exceeds production. World production of uranium ore only accounts for 60% of consumption, the rest comes from dismantled bombs and from existing nuclear fuel units.
This state of affairs is likely to continue for some years as
- there have been no new uranium production facilities of size opened for some years
- a third factor is the flooding of the Cigar Lake facility (Cameco) which was to be as much as 10% of world supply, when completed
There has also been a lot of hedge fund activity, going long in the uranium metal, for the reasons as above.Demand from new civilian nuclear facilities is at least a decade away, in most cases (there are a number of units being built in China, I believe, and also Finland has one under construction).
Let me expand a little.
LCA - cradle to grave on new Scandinavian buildings show an energy use for construction materials and erection of the building of approx 1 barrel oil energy per square meter ~160 liter oil energy/m2(1 liter fuel oil= 36 MJ/liter). And 1 square meter single family home weighs approximately 1 ton.
Variation is from timber houses approx. 135 liter/m2 to concrete/ brick approx 160 liter/m2. However if you add durability of materials and maintenance into the calculation there will not be much difference in energy use/ CO2 seen over a 50 year span.
Then what is the actual CO2 of 1 m2 building(for construction materials)?
Source 1)+2) together
1 m2 building = 1 ton ~0.160 m3 * 0.86 ton fuel oil/m3* 3 ton CO2 per ton fuel oil = 0.41 ton CO2 per ton average Scandinavian building.
But heating energy use in the average EU building(and Danish also- cold climate but relatively well insulated) is approx. 140 kWh/m2/y= 14 liter fuel oil energy per m2/year.
So, heating buildings equals the construction materials energy cost in 160/14
= 11½ years. If you add cost for hot water and Electricity - typically 50% on top, then it is clear that the energy use in buildings are dominating.
In fact 3) some 40% of the present EU energy use is spent for heating, hot water and electricity in buildings. Transport is some 30% of the EU energy spending.
Therefore the EU commission 4) is concentrating on energy efficiency in buildings and transport togethher with energy efficency in energy supply.
Sources.
1)P.Steiger;R. Frichknecht et al. "Hochbaukonstructionen nach ökologischen Gesichtspunkten" SIA dokumentation D 0123 Schweizerischer Ingenieur- und Arkitekten - verein September 1995. (encyclopedia ( bible)of LCA data for construction materials and constructions).
- Sverre Fossdal Energi- og miljöregnskab for bygg NBI-projektrapport 1995 (Norway) ISBN 82-536-0481-5
- http://ec.europa.eu/environment/climat/pdf/official_sec_2001_2053_en.pdf
(energy use in buildings = 40% etc.) section 4.3 page 85.4) http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/06/1434&format=HTML&aged=0&la nguage=EN&guiLanguage=en
regards / And1
The other thing that has happended in the UK is the government obsession with tertiary education for all. This has led to a big migration of young folks from country areas to the University cities - like Aberdeen - and that means even more young people chasing 2 bedroom flats. And the country schools are half empty.
The EU statistics show a steady growth in m2/person and it is the same trend all over europe. In Denmark there is an average 55 m2 / person and the rest of Europe is closing in on that number. Luckily the improvment of building standards has kept the heat loss in check. In Denmark the energy use for heating per person has been the same for 25 years.
As once a farmers boy I pity the depopulation of the countryside. On the other hand I cannot blame people for seeking well paid jobs in the city- and for the remaining farmers to merge farms to make a living?
As many have mentioned in TOD there will, at some stage be a reversal of the trend - but possibly not before biomass/ renewables are dominating energy supply and will need a localized workforce.
In terms of energy use, cities are usually more efficient than living in the countryside. The " compact city" with short distances, piping, sewers, wiring and the relatively lower heat loss from apartment buildings compared to single houses ( volume/area) will possibly mean that people will be better off in cities. As long as there is work there.
But what is important to me is to reduce the base energy consumption in society. Ideally by incremental steps year by year. As I have mentioned before, Denmark 2005 used 840 PJ/year. In a post fossil scenario Denmark can sustainably produce some 250 PJ energy with biomass and full use of renewables ( solar hot water PV, Windmills etc.
So sustainable " forever" energy consumption should be 250/840 ~1/3 of 2006 for Denmark. The big energy consumers are building energy use plus transport- together some 70% of all energy use, and we should concentrate on reducing them.
For buildings a reduction of energy use to 1/3 for buildings over a 50-75 year time frame is possible and demonstrated already- both for new- and old buildings. For transport it should be possible also in shorter time frame.
So I am quite optimistic. There is no easy fix- but a lot of changes.
In order to prepare society for this future it is important to improve energy understanding on all levels in society and for this education and "visibility" are important ingredients.
Regards And1
I couldn't agree more - but getting our politicians to acknwoledge there is a problem is no easy thing. In the UK, where in a few short years we have gone from being oil and gas exporter to an importer of both you would think the government might take note - no chance I'm afraid, they think energy grows on trees - and now we've used up all our own we'll just go use some one elses instead.
I always enjoy your postings..!
That coupled with the low hanging fruits theory, everything remains very botanical!
Just what is the expected lifespan of new Nordic housing ?
I would have expected a "half-life" of 250 years or so. Well insulated means that they would not be scrapped prematurely.
What I have seen seems to be first quality construction (unlike US !) that should wear well.
Best Hopes for High Quality, Energy Efficient Construction,
Alan