Breif Overveiw of Dyson Sphere

A Dyson sphere would completely cover the Sun and capture all the energy it releases.

Early stage in construction

Late stage in construction

This video briefly explains the definition of a Dyson sphere and the possibilities it will bring for us.

The Pros and Cons of Geothermal Power

The Pros and Cons of Geothermal Power 

http://www.energy-green.net/blog/articles/geothermal-power/pros-and-cons-of-geothermal-technology.html

Electricity generated from geothermal energy (geothermal power) offers a number of advantages:
1. Reliability
2. Renewability
3. Combustion-free
4. Very low emissions
5. Reduction in global warming
6. Domestic economic boon
7. Minimal land impact
8. Water conservation
9. Flexible plant growth

However, there are some disadvantages to the production of electricity from geothermal energy sources:
1. Limited geographic site locations
2. High start-up cost
3. Land subsidence may occur
4. Poor management can exhaust sites
Tax incentives, subsidies and government policy will play a large role in the speed to develop and implement geothermal energy technology.

 The Pros and Cons of Wind Energy

 

http://energyinformative.org/wind-energy-pros-and-cons/

Wind energy, also known as wind power,  is considered the second largest renewable resource after solar. The total worldwide wind energy potential is calculated to be about 3600 TW, in other words, more than enough to supply humanity’s energy needs 200 times.
What is wind energy? By wind energy, we mean the kinetic energy (motion) in the wind. There are several methods we can use to harness this energy.
This article is mainly about the advantages and disadvantages of generating electricity with wind turbines. However, many of the same principles apply for the other methods to harness wind energy. More information on these methods can be found in An Overview of How Wind Energy Works.

How does wind power produce electricity? The basic gist is that turbines convert kinetic energy into mechanical energy, which again is converted into electricity by a generator. Read the article mentioned in the above paragraph to get an in depth look on how wind turbines work.

Advantages of Wind Energy

• Wind energy is a green energy source. Harnessing wind energy does not pollute the environment such as fossil fuels, coal and nuclear energy. However, there are some environmental impacts of wind energy that we will discuss later.

• Wind energy is a renewable. This means that the supply is practically unlimited. Wind energy does ultimately come from nuclear fusion on the sun. In other words, as long as the sun shines, we can harness wind energy on Earth. This is not the case for fossil fuels, which we heavily rely on today (e.g. oil and gas). Read An Overview of Non-Renewable Energy Sources if you want to learn more.

• Good availability. Although some places are better suited for harnessing energy from the wind, it can be done most places. However, it all comes down if we can generate cost-competitive electricity with current technology in the particular area.

• Prices have decreased significantly (some sources say as much as 60% since the 1980’s). Better technology and higher demand is expected to continue to push the prices even further.

• The possibility for people to produce own electricity using wind power is now a reality. Some companies specialize in these types of installations. There are also several DIY wind energy kits on the market.

• The fact that residential buildings can produce their own electricity opens up for several possibilities. The first is the ability to save money on the electricity bill. Some people take this to the next level and sell energy back to the grid.

• People can become energy self-sufficient, providing themselves with all of their power needs.  Read Energy Self-Sufficient With Wind and Solar Energy if you are interested to learn more on this subject.

• Becoming energy self-sufficient if only just for a limited amount of time can be a lifesaver in emergency situations where you are cut off the grid.

• Works in harmony with other methods of harnessing energy such as solar panels and geothermal heating.

Disadvantages of Wind Energy

• Wind is unpredictable. The availability of wind energy is fluctuating. Therefore, wind energy is in most cases not suitable for providing a base load of energy. This is why wind turbines should be used together with other renewables or even non-renewables to meet the power demand.

• Are wind turbines cost effective? This is highly debatable. The wind turbines technology is relatively new. In most cases these projects heavily rely on incentives to lower costs.

• Wind turbine noise levels can be annoying. Living too close to big wind turbines could be a problem. However, this is most likely not the case for smaller residential wind turbines.

• Some complain about the aesthetics of wind turbines. This is debatable. I personally like the way wind turbines blend in the environment. One way to deal with aesthetic and sound problems is to make wind turbine parks, concentrating them outside housing areas. Offshore wind turbine parks are another solution.

• Wind turbines kill birds. Birds stand no chance when flying into rotating wind turbine blades.

• Wind turbines can be damaged in heavy weather and repair costs are usually expensive.

The future of wind energy is very promising. Big offshore wind farms are being built right now, allowing more stable and stronger wind resources, eradicating some of the disadvantages talked about in this article. Wind turbines for home use allow everyone to contribute positively to the climate crisis. It will be interesting to see how the situation will be only ten years from now.

 

The Pros and Cons of Hydropower

The Pros and Cons of Hydropower

www.cga.ct.gov/2010/rpt/2010-R-0401.htm 

Arguments in Favor

There are economic and environmental arguments for hydropower. Generally, hydropower facilities have high capital costs but very low operating costs. Over their lifetime, the total cost of producing power at a hydroelectric facility is typically less than that for a fossil fuel or nuclear plant. Hydropower facilities are dispatchable, i.e., their owners can, within limits, increase or decrease power production to reflect changes in electric demand.

Hydropower is a renewable resource, relying on the natural cycle in which water falls as precipitation, flows in rivers to lakes and oceans, and evaporates from these water bodies back into the atmosphere. Hydropower facilities produce no air pollution. They emit no carbon dioxide, and their “cradle to grave” greenhouse gas emissions are less than most other types of generation (this approach measures emissions associated with facility construction and operation, as well as direct emissions).

Impoundment facilities typically offer a variety of recreational opportunities, notably fishing, swimming, and boating. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, which regulates hydropower, generally requires these facilities to provide public access to the reservoir to allow the public to take advantage of these opportunities. 

Argument Against

The primary arguments against hydropower are environmental. Impoundment and pumped storage facilities can cause serious environmental harm to surrounding areas. They can alter the amount and quality (e.g., oxygen level) of water flowing downstream, which affects plant life as well as both aquatic and land-based animal species. Turbines kill fish in the river, although this impact can be mitigated through the use of fish ladders and similar structures. Dams block migratory routes, particularly for anadromous fish such as salmon that live in the ocean but come up rivers to spawn. The creation of new dams can destroy the habitat of species, including forests. The destruction of forests produces methane, a potent greenhouse gas. Dams also reduce sediment and nutriment flow downstream and reduce the temperature of the water.

In addition to these environmental impacts, impoundment facilities can reduce the aesthetic value of streams, particularly wild rivers. As a result of environmental and aesthetic concerns, a number of dams in New England have been removed in recent years, including dams on the Kennebec River in Maine and the Pawcatuck River in Rhode Island. In contrast, run of river facilities have a smaller environmental impact, and produce relatively little change in the stream channel and flow.

The Pros and Cons of Solar Energy 

http://www.solarrooftilesx.com/solar-energy-pros-and-cons/

Solar Energy Pros

One of the solar energy pros produces no pollution; the only real pollution created consequently of solar power panels may be the manufacturing of those products in industrial facilities, transportation from the goods, and installation. Second solar energy pros, producing energy from using fossil plus some renewable fuels (e.g. wind generators) could be noisy, yet solar power produces electricity very silently. Among the great solar energy pros is a chance to harness electricity in remote locations that aren’t associated with a national power grid. Solar energy pros, an excellent illustration of this really is in space, where satellites are operated by high quality solar panels. A solar energy pros which installing solar power panels in remote locations is generally much less expensive than lounging the needed high current wires. Solar energy pros can be quite efficient inside a large part of the globe, and technology permit a far more efficient wind turbine on overcast/dull days. Solar energy pros could be installed on the top of numerous roofs, which remove the issue of locating the needed space for cell positioning; there solar energy pros which an excellent professional of solar power may be the cost. Including the solar energy pros are to produce energy of solar panels might be high, once installed, they offer a totally free electrical source, which will repay over in the future. Solar energy pros are using the solar power to create electricity enables the consumer being less determined by the mobile phone industry’s fossil fuel supplies.

Solar Energy Cons

The solar energy cons is the solar power may be the initial price of solar panels. Presently, solar energy cons is the prices of highly efficient solar panels could be above $1000, plus solar energy cons some homes may require several. Solar energy cons will make the first installing of solar power panels very pricey. Solar energy cons could only generate electricity throughout daylight hrs. The solar energy cons which means is for approximately 1 / 2 of every day, solar power panels aren’t creating energy for your house. The elements of solar energy cons can impact the efficiency of solar panels. Pollution could be a  solar energy cons, as pollution levels can impact a solar panels efficiency, this is a significant solar energy cons for companies or industry wanting to set up solar power panels in heavily polluted areas, for example metropolitan areas.
Above is a listing of numerous solar power benefits and drawbacks, and while not definitive, you can observe how the amount of pros relevant to solar power, greatly exceeds the solar energy cons.

 

The Pros and Cons of Bio-fuels

http://environment.about.com/od/fossilfuels/a/biofuels.htm


There are many eco-benefits to replacing oil with biofuels like ethanol and biodiesel. For one, since such fuels are derived from agricultural crops, they are inherently renewable--and our own farmers typically produce them domestically, reducing our dependence on unstable foreign sources of oil. Additionally, ethanol and biodiesel emit less particulate pollution than traditional petroleum-based gasoline and diesel fuels. They also do not contribute to global warming, since they only emit back to the environment the carbon dioxide (CO2) that their source plants absorbed out of the atmosphere in the first place.
Biofuels are Easy to Use, but Not Always Easy to Find
And unlike other forms of renewable energy (like hydrogen, solar or wind), biofuels are easy for people and businesses to transition to without special apparatus or a change in vehicle or home heating infrastructure—you can just fill your existing car, truck or home oil tank with it. Those looking to replace gasoline with ethanol in their car, however, must have a “flex-fuel” model that can run on either fuel. Otherwise, most regular diesel engines can handle biodiesel as readily as regular diesel.
Despite the upsides, however, experts point out that biofuels are far from a cure for our addiction to petroleum. A wholesale societal shift from gasoline to biofuels, given the number of gas-only cars already on the road and the lack of ethanol or biodiesel pumps at existing filling stations, would take some time.
Are There Enough Farms and Crops to Support a Switch to Biofuels?
Another major hurdle for widespread adoption of biofuels is the challenge of growing enough crops to meet demand, something skeptics say might well require converting just about all of the world’s remaining forests and open spaces over to agricultural land.
“Replacing only five percent of the nation’s diesel consumption with biodiesel would require diverting approximately 60 percent of today’s soy crops to biodiesel production,” says Matthew Brown, an energy consultant and former energy program director at the National Conference of State Legislatures. “That’s bad news for tofu lovers.”
Does Producing Biofuels Use More Energy than They Can Generate?
Another dark cloud looming over biofuels is whether producing them actually requires more energy than they can generate. After factoring in the energy needed to grow crops and then convert them into biofuels, Cornell University researcher David Pimental concludes that the numbers just don’t add up. His 2005 study found that producing ethanol from corn required 29 percent more energy than the end product itself is capable of generating. He found similarly troubling numbers in making biodiesel from soybeans.
“There is just no energy benefit to using plant biomass for liquid fuel,” Pimentel says.
Conservation is a Key Strategy for Reducing Dependence on Fossil Fuels
There is no one quick-fix for weaning ourselves off of fossil fuels and the future will likely see a combination of sources--from wind and ocean currents to hydrogen, solar and, yes, some use of biofuels--powering our energy needs. The “elephant in the living room” that is often ignored when considering energy options, however, is the hard reality that we must reduce our consumption, not just replace it with something else. Indeed, conservation is probably the largest single “alternative fuel” available to us.
GOT AN ENVIRONMENTAL QUESTION? Send it to: EarthTalk, c/o E/The Environmental Magazine, P.O. Box 5098, Westport, CT 06881; submit it at: www.emagazine.com/earthtalk/thisweek/, or e-mail: earthtalk@emagazine.com.

 

The Pros and Cons of Fossil Fuels

 The Pros and Cons of Fossil Fuels 

http://www.buzzle.com/articles/fossil-fuels-pros-and-cons.html

Arguments in Favor of Fossil Fuels
The main reason behind the immense popularity of fossil fuels, as energy source, is that each of them have a high calorific value. In other words, combustion of fossil fuels generates a large amount of usable energy and are considered as high efficiency fuels. In spite of being such a highly combustible material, fossil fuels are quite stable in nature as compared to many other forms of fuels.

Another advantage is their availability. The fuels can be found quite easily on the surface of the earth. Moreover, the extraction and refining processes are not very time-consuming and hence, the crude form of these fuels can be easily converted for practical purposes.

Almost fifty percent of the power generation plants of the United States utilize coal as the source of fuel. This is because, it is cheap and is a highly reliable source of energy.

As coal can be transported from one place to another without any hassles, it is not necessary to build the power stations close to the location of the coal mines. Whereas, oil and natural gas have one big advantage that they can be carried very easily by the means of pipelines.

Last but not the least, it helps to create job opportunities for people. This is an important aspect of fossil fuels that we cannot afford to ignore. It generates employment for millions of people all across the globe who are involved with processing of the fossil fuels in one way or the other.

Arguments Against Fossil Fuels
When fossil fuels are burned, a large amount of carbon dioxide is released. Carbon dioxide is considered as one of the greenhouse gases. In the atmosphere, it absorbs heat and contributes towards the green house effect. As the percentage of carbon in the atmosphere becomes high, it leads to elevation in the average temperature on the earth. This is known as global warming and it has several adverse effects on our environment.

Another toxic gas released by fossil fuels is sulfur dioxide, which reacts with the moisture present in air to produce sulfuric acid. This leads to acid rain which causes extensive damage to the living as well as nonliving matter on the earth.

The coal mines are full of various harmful gases and they pose a threat to the lives of thousands of miners working in them. Some of the by products obtained during processing of the fossil fuels are highly toxic too. Oil is often transported from one place to another by the means of sea route. During this time, oil spills occur on the ocean surface and that causes severe harm to the marine life.

Due to mining of the coalfields, landscapes spread over large areas is being destroyed and the land surface cannot be used for any other purpose. Search for newer location for oil reserves is an highly expensive process with a very low success rate. As a result, huge amount of money gets wasted in the process.

Fossil fuels are non-renewable source of energy and are being used up very fast. As a result, there will be more demand and less supply of fossil fuels in future. This is likely to increase the price of fossil fuels manifold.

Depletion of these non-renewable sources of energy is taking place at a rapid pace because of the increasing demands of energy, with the modernization of our society. However, the time required for production of fossil fuels is millions of years. So, there is not enough scope to renew the sources of fossil fuels. Therefore, it is high time that we start looking out for some renewable sources of energy that can be used as an alternative to fossil fuels.
 By Bidisha Mukherjee

The Pros and Cons of Nuclear Energy 

http://www.triplepundit.com/2009/02/nuclear-energy-pros-and-cons/ 

Nuclear power is once again considered a prominent alternative, despite the disregard it was met with in the 1970s. This is because it’s now being touted as a more environmentally beneficial solution since it emits far fewer greenhouse gases during electricity generation than coal or other traditional power plants.

It is widely accepted as a somewhat dangerous, potentially problematic, but manageable source of generating electricity. Radiation isn’t easily dealt with, especially in nuclear waste and maintenance materials, and expensive solutions are needed to contain, control, and shield both people and the environment from its harm.
The dialogue about using nuclear power – and expanding it – centers on weighing these risks against the rewards, as well as the risks inherent in other forms of power generation. These are just some of the issues involved.

An excerpt from Design is the Problem, by Nathan Shedroff, published by Rosenfeld Media
PROS
* Lower carbon dioxide (and other greenhouse gases) released into theatmosphere in power generation.
* Low operating costs (relatively).
* Known, developed technology “ready” for market.
* Large power-generating capacity able to meet industrial and city needs (as opposed to low-power technologies like solar that might meet only local, residential, or office needs but cannot generate power for heavy manufacturing).
* Existing and future nuclear waste can be reduced through waste recycling and reprocessing, similar to Japan and the EU (at added cost).
CONS
* High construction costs due to complex radiation containment systems and procedures.
* High subsidies needed for construction and operation, as well as loan guarantees.
* Subsidies and investment could be spent on other solutions (such as renewable energy systems).
* High-known risks in an accident.
* Unknown risks.
* Long construction time.
* Target for terrorism (as are all centralized power generation sources).
* Waivers are required to limit liability of companies in the event of an accident. (This means that either no one will be responsible for physical, environmental, or health damages in the case of an accident or leakage over time from waste storage, or that the government will ultimately have to cover the cost of any damages.)
* Nuclear is a centralized power source requiring large infrastructure, investment, and coordination where decentralized sources (including solar and wind) can be more efficient, less costly, and more resilient.
* Uranium sources are just as finite as other fuel sources, such as coal, natural gas, etc., and are expensive to mine, refine, and transport, and produce considerable environmental waste (including greenhouse gasses) during all of these processes.
* The majority of known uranium around the world lies under land controlled by tribes or indigenous peoples who don’t support it being mined from the earth.
* The legacy of environmental contamination and health costs for miners and mines has been catastrophic.
* Waste lasts 200 – 500 thousand years.
* There are no operating long-term waste storage sites in the U.S. One is in development, but its capacity is already oversubscribed. Yucca Mountain is in danger of contaminating ground water to a large water basin, affecting millions of people. It’s difficult, if not impossible, for the U.S. to impose its will on the state of Nevada (or other places) if they don’t want to host long-term storage of waste.
* There are no operating “next generation” reactors, such as high-temperature breeder reactors and particle-beam activated reactors, that are reported to produce less waste and have reduced safety concerns. Even if these technologies were ready, they wouldn’t be deployable commercially for another two decades.
* Shipping nuclear waste internationally poses an increased potential threat to interception to terrorism (though this has not happened yet with any of the waste shipped by other countries). Increasing the amount of waste shipped, particularly in less secure countries, is seen as a significant increase in risk to nuclear terrorism.

 

Global Energy Demand Seen up 44 Percent by 2030

Global Energy Demand Seen Up 44 Percent By 2030

http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/05/27/us-eia-global-demand-idUSN2719528620090527

Global energy demand is expected to soar 44 percent over the next two decades with most of the demand coming from developing countries such as China and Russia, the U.S. government's top energy forecasting agency said on Wednesday.
The worldwide economic downturn has hit energy consumption, but an expected recovery next year could respark demand and boost prices, the Energy Information Administration said in its new forecast.
U.S. oil prices are forecast to rise from an average $61 barrel this year to $110 in 2015 and $130 in 2030.
Oil prices "begin to rise in 2010-2011 period as the economy rebounds and global demand once again grows more rapidly than non-OPEC liquid supply," EIA acting administrator Howard Gruenspecht told a news conference.
Global oil demand is expected to rise to 107 million barrels per day over the next two decades from nearly 84 million bpd this year. Oil will account for 32 percent of the world's energy supply by 2030 from about 36 percent in 2006.
Almost 75 percent of the rise in global energy demand through 2030 will occur in developing countries, particularly China, India, Russia and Brazil, the agency said.
The Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries will continue to provide 40 percent of the world's oil supplies during the period.
Renewable energy, like wind and solar power, will be the fastest growing energy source, making up 11 percent of global supplies. Biofuels, including ethanol and biodiesel, are expected to reach 5.9 million bpd by 2030.
The EIA said its long-term forecast does not reflect efforts the United States may take to cut greenhouse gas emissions or an expected international agreement to curb greenhouse gases.
Gruenspecht said the agency will analyze the possible impact of climate change legislation approved last week by the U.S. House of Representatives Energy and Commerce Committee.
But he said the bill may not change energy use initially, citing carbon dioxide emission limits and the allowed transfer of carbon cuts to developing countries.
"One could imagine that one could comply at least with the 2020 part of this proposal calling for a 17 percent reduction (from 2005 levels) just using the offsets and not having a significant change in our consumption or the way we use energy at all," Gruenspecht said.
If global climate change laws and policies don't change, world energy-related carbon dioxide emissions will rise by a third to 40 billion metric tons a year, the agency said.
The EIA's report also found that global natural gas demand will increase by almost 50 percent to 153 trillion cubic feet. The agency said that unconventional natural gas production, particularly from gas shale, will make the United States "virtually self sufficient in natural gas supply in 2030."
The EIA's forecast also predicts that in 2030:
* World production of unconventional petroleum resources, including oil sands, extra-heavy oil and coal-to-liquids, will quadruple to 13.4 million bpd, representing 13 percent of total global petroleum supplies.
* Iraq's crude oil production will jump from 2 million bpd to 5 million bpd.
* China's electricity generation from coal-fired power plants will triple.

World Energy Use Per Capita

World energy use per capita

US Energy Projection to 2035

US Energy Projection to 2035

Energy Consumption by Primary Fuel

Total primary energy consumption, which was 101.4 quadrillion Btu in 2007, grows by 10 percent in the AEO2012 Reference case, from 98.2 quadrillion Btu in 2010 to 108.0 quadrillion Btu in 2035—6 quadrillion Btu less than the AEO2011 projection for 2035. The fossil fuel share of energy consumption falls from 83 percent of total U.S. energy demand in 2010 to 77 percent in 2035.
Biofuel consumption has been growing and is expected to continue to grow over the projection period. However, the projected increase would present challenges, particularly for volumes of ethanol beyond the saturation level of the E10 gasoline pool. Those additional volumes are likely to be slower in reaching the market, as infrastructure and consumer demand adjust. In the AEO2012 Reference case, some of the demand for biofuel, which in 2035 is projected to displace more than 600 thousand barrels per day of demand for other liquid fuels, is as a direct replacement for diesel and gasoline.

Total U.S. consumption of liquid fuels, including both fossil fuels and biofuels, grows from 37.2 quadrillion Btu (19.2 million barrels per day) in 2010 to 38.0 quadrillion Btu (20.1 million barrels per day) in 2035 in the AEO2012 Reference case (Figure 8). As in AEO2011, biofuel consumption accounts for most of the growth; with expectations of additional waivers, the biofuel portion of liquid fuels consumption in 2035 is 3.9 quadrillion Btu in AEO2012, slightly (0.2 quadrillion Btu) higher than projected in AEO2011. The transportation sector dominates demand for liquid fuels, with its share (as measured by energy content) growing slowly from 72 percent of total liquids consumption in 2010 to 73 percent in 2035.
In the AEO2012 Reference case, natural gas consumption rises from 24.1 trillion cubic feet in 2010 to 26.5 trillion cubic feet in 2035, about the same level as in the AEO2011 Reference case. The largest share of the growth is for electricity generation. Demand for natural gas in electricity generation grows from 7.4 trillion cubic feet in 2010 to 8.9 trillion cubic feet in 2035. A portion of the growth is attributable to the retirement of 33 gigawatts of coal-fired capacity over the projection period.
Total coal consumption—including the portion of CTL consumed as liquids—increases from 20.8 quadrillion Btu (1,051 million short tons) in 2010 to 22.1 quadrillion Btu (1,155 million short tons) in 2035 in the AEO2012 Reference case. Coal consumption, mostly for electric power generation, falls off through 2015 as retirements of coal-fired capacity more than offset an increase of about 9 gigawatts in capacity due to come online in 2011 and 2012. After 2015, coal-fired generation increases slowly as the remaining plants are used more intensively. Coal consumption in the electric power sector in 2035 in the AEO2012 Reference case is about 2.1 quadrillion Btu (98 million short tons) lower than projected in the AEO2011 Reference case.
Total consumption of marketed renewable fuels grows by 2.8 percent per year in the AEO2012 Reference case. Growth in consumption of renewable fuels results mainly from the implementation of the Federal renewable fuel standard (RFS) for transportation fuels and State RPS programs for electricity generation. Marketed renewable fuels include wood, municipal waste, biomass, and hydroelectricity in the end-use sectors; hydroelectricity, geothermal, municipal solid waste, biomass, solar, and wind for generation in the electric power sector; and ethanol for gasoline blending and biomass-based diesel in the transportation sector, of which 3.9 quadrillion Btu is included with liquid fuel consumption in 2035. Excluding hydroelectricity, renewable energy consumption in the electric power sector grows from 1.4 quadrillion Btu in 2010 to 3.4 quadrillion Btu in 2035, with biomass accounting for 30 percent of the growth and wind 44 percent. Consumption of solar energy grows the fastest, but starting from a small base it accounts for only a small share of the total in 2035.

Concern high over global oil supplies

http://www.thenational.ae/business/energy/concern-high-over-global-oil-supplies

The risks to global oil supplies are greater than at any time in the past 30 years, according to a leading banker.
Tension in the Gulf, sanctions against Iran and disruptions to African exports have created a threat level last reached when tankers transiting the Gulf were attacked during the Iran-Iraq war.
"Not since the late 1970s/early 1980s has there been such a serious threat to oil supply," said Soozhana Choi, an energy analyst at Deutsche Bank, adding that Iranian threats to close the Strait of Hormuz were unsettling. Oil futures in London are expected to open near an eight-month high today, having closed at US$119 a barrel on Friday, while US crude oil ended the week at $103 a barrel.
Iran's refusal to halt its nuclear programme has led to a fourth round of sanctions by the US, designed to interrupt the payment mechanisms for its oil exports. The EU last month imposed an embargo on Iranian oil, to take effect from July, and Tehran responded by announcing an immediate end to exports to six European countries. Iran's ministry of petroleum announced yesterday that crude oil exports to the UK and France had been stopped.
"We will sell our oil to new customers," Alireza Nikzad, a spokesman, was quoted as saying on the ministry of petroleum website.
Threats by the Islamic republic to block the Strait of Hormuz, the waterway that carries 30 per cent of the world's crude supply, have added a $10 premium to the per-barrel price, experts say. Exports from South Sudan have come to a halt as Khartoum insists on a transit fee for crude flows through the Greater Nile Oil Pipeline in Sudan that far exceeds the amount Juba is willing to pay. The security situation in Nigeria is threatening oil production, while a strike by oil workers has halved Yemen's production.
Syrian crude no longer flows to Europe after the EU slapped an embargo on Damascus over the violent crackdown on opposition by the Assad government.
"The number of supply threats is extraordinary," said Seth Kleinman, the head of energy research at Citigroup. The halt of Iranian supply to Europe has been partially offset by a return of Libyan oil exports, which traditionally feed European refineries.
"The rapid recovery of Libyan crude supplies is undoubtedly good news for the sector, in particular the Med refiners geared into processing Libyan crude," said Goldman Sachs in a research note. "This benefit, however, may be entirely offset by the EU's sanctions on Iranian crude."
In spite of the threat of recession arising from the sovereign wealth crisis in Europe, demand for oil at the retail level is defying expectations.
Asian demand in particular is stronger than analysts had predicted at the end of the year, as the Chinese economy remains buoyant and Japanese demand is returning fast.
"While the year started with rather fat tail risks on either side, emanating from the contagion effect of the sovereign-debt crisis on the one hand and a possible blowout of any number of geopolitical risks on the other, the former is diminishing quite rapidly," said Barclays Capital in a report.
Spare production capacity among Opec producers is sufficient to make up for significant interruptions, mainly through the ability of Saudi Arabia to increase production by another 2 million barrels a day.
"Opec spare capacity is sufficient to offset the loss of Iranian exports or a combination of smaller losses but not the totality of the potential disruptions, though we acknowledge that this is a low probability," Ms Choi said.

The World's Energy Consumption & Resources

http://www.consumerenergyreport.com/2010/08/24/energy-resources-consumption/