by Tyler_JC » Wed 21 Nov 2007, 17:47:31
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('kublikhan', 'U')mm, I would call "Oil Shale" and "Tar Sands" unconventional oil. When I think alternative energy, I'm thinking solar, wind, tidal, etc. Surely you are not arguing these have been debunked, or are not economical at $10,000 a barrel oil?
The previous poster is merely parroting back the argument that oil prices are 100% correlated to energy production prices as a whole.
This is obviously not the case.
The cost of producing a wind turbine has not increased by 600% in the past 10 years like oil has.
In fact, wind turbines are far more efficient and more technologically advanced than they were in 1997.
Demand for the turbines themselves has pushed up prices for the turbines, which has lead many to believe that oil prices are pushing up the costs of production.
I would challenge that assumption and say that oil as a % of the cost of wind turbine is in the single digits.
Meaning, a 500% increase in oil prices leads to a less than 50% increase in the cost of wind turbines.
Eventually the cost of using oil as your energy source as opposed to wind will make wind the better investment.
The Market will respond by encouraging investment in wind turbine factories, etc.
The only problem is that the level at which wind cost = oil cost may be in the $100+ per barrel range. The global economy is already being driven off the tracks by $80 oil (anything higher than that hasn't filtered into the global economy yet)
It will be a very bumpy ride as the true cost of $100 oil filters into the equation.
Higher oil prices ALWAYS spur investment in alternative sources, especially if oil prices stay at high levels for extended periods of time. The worst thing that could happen right now would be a major drop in the price of oil that could put companies like First Solar out of business.
(the actual percentages themselves are merely estimates but the concept is accurate, IMO)