tomjoad82 at libero.it
Tue Aug 12 09:00:17 MDT 2003
I agree completely with the post of DMS.
It was the economic logic who lead the drift from wood to coal, then from
coal to oil as the main source of energy.
Neither wood nor coal became exhausted: when their price began to rose, or
technological improvements or discoveries made other sources of energy more
profitable ad convenient, capitalism made the latter the main fuel and let
the former a reduced space (but always important).
Observing from an historical and dialectical point of view, it's probable
that the same will happen with oil, which will be substituted as the main
fuel by the atomic, solar, eolic, hydro or other kind of energy, whose cost
of production and efficiency will improve as long as they get a mass market
and increasing investments.
This don't deny the present economical and strategical importance of oil,
but put it in a more reasonable perspective.
By the way, a look to the IEA statistics show that from the 70s the share of
oil in the total world energetic production is decreasing, and it's due for
more than half to the transport sector (the substitution of the current
oil-driven engine with some electric, solar or hydrogen engine will reduce
dramatically the consumption of petroleum).
Here some interesting abstracts:
TOTAL PRIMARY ENERGY SUPPLY, per fuel
Oil 45,0% 34,9%
Coal 24,9% 23,5%
Natural Gas 16,2% 21,1%
Nuclear 0,9% 6,8
Wood & co. 11,1% 11,0%
Hydro 1,8% 2,3%
Other (solar, eolic...) 0,1% 0,5%
WORLD OIL CONSUMPTION, per sector
Transport 42,2% 57,7%
Industry 26,2% 20,1%
Non energy use 6,4% 5,9 %
Other 25,2% 16,3%
TOTAL ENERGY FINAL CONSUMPTION, per region
OECD 62,4% 52,3%
ex-URSS 14,1% 9,0%
China 5,8% 11,4%
Asia 5,2% 12,0%
Middle East 2,0% 3,8%
East Europa 2,7% 0,9%
Latin America 5,2% 5,1%
Africa 2,8% 5,5%
More information about the Marxism