Wouldn't it be funny if someone somehow filled all the oil deposits with cement?

No more fossil fuels guys. Umad?

A recent TEDx talk about Tar sands (quite moving):
Garth Lenz: The True Cost of Oil | Common Dreams

Germany had its peak oil in 1968.
It is now at 3 million tons a year.
Consumption is at about 80 tons and falling. In 2010 the reduction in consumption (about 2.7 million tons) was almost as big as the total domestic oil production. I doubt severly that any redution in domestic oil production capacity has any influence at all in terms of oil crisis. Germany cannot avoid the oil crisis because it totally depends on foreign oil.

Hehe - Aftermath: World Without Oil in HD - P1 of 3 - YouTube ;)

You know I meant overall electrical generation capacity (hence buying oil to compensate), not oil extraction, which is something completely different.

Haha, ultimate nonviolent protest :D

There you made me do it again. Defending myself against arguments that lack any foundation or reference at all.

Well here you have it:
AG Energiebilanzen e.V. (the last PDF)
That is the percentage in mineral oil consumption for electricity generation in percent over the past 20 years.
a) no increase in 2011 compared to 2010
b) overall the percentage is so low that it cannot possibly compensate for any other decline in energy production even if it would double (which it did not)

The compensation for the powerdown of nuclear power plants is mostly compensated by running the other plants at higher rates (including the remaining nuclear plants). I assume that electricity prices also are rising, creating an incentive for consumers (mainly commercial consumers) to consume less. As Germany used to be a net energy exporter, there is actually not a need to compensate that much anyways, but export is declining. What effect this has on other countries is another topic.

Another way to put this is: http://www.rwe.com/web/cms/de/111639...leibt-wichtig/
The energy production capacity was 95 GW before the powerdown of a number of reactors. Due to the powerdown, 8 gW were lost, That leaves 87 GW. Sone additional losses due to old age of power plants and such lost some more, RWE (one of the largeste energy producers in Germany) accounts the present energy production capacity for 80GW. The maximum consumption throughout the year (peak consumption) is 76 GW according to the same infographic. RWE says that we are not in the "safety margin" anymore that is 82 GW (2 more than the 80GW available now), which means that in some extreme case of massive energy consumption, the capacities could go beyond the limit and there could be the need to buy electricity from other nations or to actually power down some consumption. Nothing of this has to do with oil by the way and nothing has to do with tar sands. Tar sands produce oil and the main consumers of oil in Europe are cars and trucks as well as homes that are heated by oil.

Well, that reduced output was the exact effect during the last cold spell (by courtesy of that former-Soviet cyclone called "Cooper", shoving that Siberian air into Europe) when those brokers, responsible of their accounting districts ("Bilanzkreise") at the energy stock market in Germany, the so-called "Strombörse" speculated on prices falling - which they didn't. Of course, they withheld their buying orders and did not purchase the Gigawatts, their industrial customers needed. Therefore, energy producers and net agencies had to balance the net with short-term balancing supplies ("Regelenergie"), which are normally applied as an emergency stabilizer, since they can be placed on the spot, by the second. It is not designed for long runs, though. The capacity was all there, it just was withheld from being fed to the net - for reasons: see above.

Therefore, a large black-out in Germany was a possibility during the last two to three weeks - and, according to some sources, imminent.

So, if there have been amounts of oil withheld for a reserve, I'd say it was for a good cause, otherwise I wouldn't be posting here.
:D

BTW, I'm indirectly working for one of the two largest power companies in Germany... the one goes foward, in German.
(Secrecy clause in my employment contract, can't say the name, I'm afraid) - therefore I do have quite some insight into how all that works... and I bet that some posts of Bilanzkreisverantwortliche, as those brokers are called in German, have become vacant all of a sudden...

http://www.abload.de/img/sad280b.jpg
I Iz So Sowwy!! Us German Elektrizitäts Brokers Iz Stoopid!!

:P

Wiggling bare toes,

~*Txim Asawl*~

Yeah, that also, Txim. But in any case - OIL has basically nothing at all to do with electricity in Germany and the same is true for much of the rest of the world. Japan is an exception among the industrialized nations I think. And i suspect even those 1.someting percent that comes from oil is due to a very few diesel generators that are used to buffer peaks in consumption plus the couple of combined heat/electricity plants in buildings that use oil to make electricity locally and use the heat to warm the houses. I dont know if the statistic only counts grid-electricity, otherwise I would say that that oil is probably mostly going to small diesel generators for construction sites and such. None of the above has the capacity to significantly make a dent in the oil consumption that comes from non-electricity generating combustion engines

Here in the States, there are still areas that use filthy fuels for generating power. The power for the power company that serves this three county area uses COAL to generate power.
Right across the ten meter wide drainage ditch that people call the Rio Grande,
from El Paso, the power in Juarez, Mexico is generated with coal, and in the winter, the poorest of the people of the city heat their packing crate shacks by burning tires. The smoke from all of this, is taken right over El Paso by the prevailing winds, causing them to be in CONSTANT VIOLATION of the EPA's pollution limits, but the EPA realizes the unique problem that the city is in, and cuts them some serious slack.
Ateyo and I live almost a hundred miles to the east, on a plateau that is 1,200 to 1,600 feet higher than El Paso, and our air is VERY clean by comparison.
Niri Te

Oil is still cheap compared to many power sources - so, yes, running at higher capacity on existing generation infrastructure can be used to compensate for a degree, but adds an element of instability as well as increasing prices; which is presumably why oil is being sought - it is comparatively cheap, and is fast to respond to demand - if existing oil/gas infrastructure is run at higher load to keep up with demand, the load balancing capacity needs to be held elsewhere.

So, yes, generation capacity (theoretical maximum, not realised) IS reduced, realised capacity as pecentage is higher but that bears less relevance. That matters when a country can produce MW-range demand surges from normal life, compared to significant low spots at night. That's why more fixed output energy sources are run as a base load, with faster-responding ones used to fill the peaks.

Oil is only "cheap" because it's meant to be constantly consumed. It's the running costs that make it profitable in the long run, and thus, not cheap, and not good for the environment. Oil companies know that they can keep the prices cheap enough for people to buy it, because we are dependant on fossil fuels as our primary source of energy for transportation, and many other essential things these days.

These things are always a combination of the natural reality of things, that is why solar power isn't really all that attractive in northern places compared to more sunnier climates, but also due to the fact how our whole economy is built upon consumption, and energy is one of the things we consume quite a lot. The whole idea that the economic model that is based on consumption needs tangible, consumable things like oil and coal to be around as a fuel source.

Anyhow, I'm rather bad at explaining all these things, and I know Aurora is a lot better at this stuff than I am, but then again she has the sort of reputation that people don't really take her all that seriously anymore due to her constant effort to spread awareness and fight against inevitable destruction of our planet and so on. I guess I would otherwise agree with her, but I'm not one to let go of my gadgets and creature comforts, for I'm too soft to go on without them.

All of this has nothing to do with Germany and Tar Sands. Of course it is convenient to have some oil as a reserve to fill peak electricity demands, but we are talking here about exceptional demands that go beyond the regular margins of power consumption. Germanys electricity system is well able to buffer the regular highs and lows and peaks by its regular power generators. That does include however natural gas which is a whole issue in itself. Natural gas and hydropower are the most used capacities to buffer peaks in demand. Oil is, as can be seen in these reports, a very minute portion and there is not way that an increase in that demand would actually increase oil imports by more than a percent.
The reason for the high oil prices at the moment and the idea to get some from the tar sands is much easier and obvious. Iran is threatened with wars and embargos. Most of the oil in Germany comes from Russia, but global market prices do react on the Iran problem. To add to this, the formerly top-of-the-list producer Saudia Arabia has peaked in production. They cannot deliver more oil than they do now (and will probably decline in the next years). All of this are very solid reasons to look for other sources of oil. And it has nothing to do with electricity. Another reason for Germany to seek alternatives is the huge dependence on Russia for oil and natural gas. Basically, Russia pwns Germany in that respect.
Its plain simple - we are running into peak oil and the predicted and now visible effect of that is, that oil is getting more expensive and more uneconomic sources with harder accessability, requiring more technology and involving higher risks do have to fill in for the easy oil of the past. Global conflicts are also a predicted and now visible outcome of dwindling oil supplies.

Sadly, coal is the primary power source in Germany as well. There are over 20% renewables already and rising, but coal and nuclear are still the top of the list. And a lot of that coal is mined in open pit mines in Germany that are close in their horror to the tar sands.

Honestly - all of these have to go - coal, nuclear, natural gas and definitely oil. They are all killing the planet. I dont like the alternatives so much, especially on the scale that people like to implement them, but still I think they do have less impact if done properly, while with the present options, the risks or impacts are always going to be high.

Oh yes I mean - we are all used to these comforts and gadgets and it would be hard to let go. But without a planet, all these comforts are meaningless... :(
Anyways - oil is cheap also due to another thing - environmental impacts and social impacts are not accounted for. The companies make a profit and people get cheap oil because who pays for it is the ecosphere and poor people. CO2 is changing the climate, tar sands effluents poison rivers in Canada causing cancer in indigenous people living there and oil leaks cause fish death in the oceans. Not even to begin to mention Nigeria where a whole river delta was turned into an oil swamp and local people suffer greatly economically and environmentally from the oil "developments" there (which is why they have after years of nonviolent protesting decided to take up arms and use guns and speedboats to bring the oil production there to an end - or at least slow it down). Plus think of all the war and death in the "middle east". Do you think that would have happened if there was not a problem with oil? All of these people that died or suffer froma ll of this, plus the uncounted nonhumans who suffer even more - they all pay for the oil in order for western industrialized nation to perceive oil as "cheap". Oil is not cheap - it is vastly expensive, but because it is stolen and conned from the world, it looks like it is cheap. It is about as cheap as the watch a shady person holds in his hands after stabbing some guy in a dark alley. Hey, it did not cost a penny, right?

I take what you have to say VERY seriously Auroraglacialis. while I am a strong supporter of Nuclear power when it is built and operated in a sane manner, it does nowhere near the day to day damage that Coal fired power plants do to the environment. I am also a huge supporter of Wind, Solar, Geothermal, and Tidal energy generation.
Niri Te

And for me, the planet is meaningless without these comforts, since raw nature demands physical ability, and that is something I don't really have.

I know the whole "back to nature" thing works, but it's simply not for the likes of me, and I'm never going to pretend otherwise. It is a hard and ultimate solution, that will come eventually if we don't get our act together with technology and create a sustainable system, but I just hope I won't be around to see it all go. Then again one must wonder if there even will be nature left to go back to for the people who so desire, once our broken system has reached its point of no return.

There may not be after the system breaks but Nature cannot be beaten. As long as there are small green shoots pushing through the concrete Earth can become like Pandora once more :) Remember Earth started out as a ball of fire and dust and it recovered from that.

That may be true, but you won't be there to experience any of it, so kind of pointless, at least from selfish point of view. Give me enough energy and I'll make the whole planet implode when I wake up cranky one morning. That's how the world is going to end, see for yourself.