reality check – realestate implications!!

Hi Wayne,
Good to see somebody gets it!!
Matt Savinar, in his new book explains it well, this chapter http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/PageThree.html where he explains why new forms of energy are not going to kick in seamlessly.

Solar panels are made from a high percentage of oil. Yes they work, but as oil goes up in price, the panels will also go up in price, they are energy intensive. The cheapest time to get solar is NOW even though it is not economically viable yet, it’ll be going up in price with the oil.
In five years time, you may realise you have made a valuable investment.

There are big drawbacks in being off the grid. Storage batteries are a big cost and don’t last long. They are also energy intensive and hence their cost will skyrocket as the oil price rises.
If you can get solar on the grid and cut back on energy use, you may make a small income.

Energy IMHO is the real investment of the future.
But, not everybody will be able to afford it by the time the crisis hits home.

Cheers

There are LOTS of alternatives to fossil fuels already available.

The rumours of big oil companies holding all these patents is one of those urban myths – has been around for decades. Patents are in the public domain – go and search through them (as people have) and you’ll find that there are no such patents owned by BP or other oilers that are being suppressed. There are inactive ones however, what use is a means to turn water into energy if it would cost $100 per petrol litre equivalent? Or if the technology to make it work is not yet technically feasible (such as Microsoft’s patent on using skin conductivity to create a personal network between carried technology devices).

There are two key issues that make it unlikely that alternatives become widely successful in the short-term (next 30 years) without a major breakthrough.

Firstly, pound for pound, oil & gas are still cheap. Regardless of the real reserves that exist around the world of these diminishable resources, the price at retail is such that there is insufficient incentive for companies and governments to put spending more on developing alternatives on their critical list AND for consumers to vote with their feet.

Secondly, fossil fuels are EASY. They can be extracted, processed & turned into energy without sophisticated information age technologies. For developing countries such as India and China, it’s simply not countenanceable for a major shift from fossil fuels at this time. The countries simply haven’t reached the level of development to afford alternative technologies.

I have a friend of a friend who’s an avowed greenie. They are self-sufficient in energy & food & put back as much as they take out of the system. He is in favour of further oil & gas exploitation because he reckons that the faster we use them up, the faster we will develop viable alternatives.

The UN has a strategy to have 10% of world energy needs supplied by renewable energy sources by 2050…this doesn’t even touch the sides – however it may just be achievable….higher that that – well

For me it’s a simple equation:

Develop an energy source that fits into the same space as a litre of petrol & delivers the same amount of energy at the same cost (dollars and energy) to deliver to consumers.

THEN you’ll have a true replacement for oil.

I remain bullish on oil – and my investments reflect that.

Cheers,

Aceyducey

Just on the ‘big company buys patent to suppress it’ crap, it’s just that. If you hold a patent and fail to market the product, it can be taken off you precisely to prevent this sort of behaviour. That’s been the law for decades.

Sheesh.

BTW, for the ‘wind is economical now’ fans, several investments in the Canberra region, in the face of potential rising energy costs, have neertheless been canned on a likely cost basis.

Shall we perhaps return to facts, instead of internet based conspiracy factoid babble?