NationStates Jolt Archive

Princton Professor Emeritus says Peak Oil passed on Dec. 16th, 2005.

The world peak would then happen when 1.0065 trillion barrels have been produced (half of 2.013). Following Hubbert, I used the Oil & Gas Journal end-of-year production numbers. It isn't that the Oil & Gas Journal reports are divinely inspired; their methodology is well explained and their reports constitute a relatively consistent data set. The cumulative world production at the end of 2004 was 0.9812 trillion barrels and at the end of 2005 it was 1.00748 trillion. During the year, we passed the halfway point. The graph shows the date of the crossover: December 16, 2005.

Since we have passed the peak without initiating major corrective measures, we now have to rely primarily on methods that we have already engineered. Long-term research and development projects, no matter how noble their objectives, have to take a back seat while we deal with the short-term problems. Long-term examples in the proposed 2007 US budget (Feb. 9, 2006 New York Times page A-18) include a 65 percent increase in the programs to produce ethanol from corn, a 25.8 percent increase for developing hydrogen fuel cell cars, and a 78.5 percent increase in spending on solar energy research. The Times reports that solar energy today supplies one percent of US electricity; the hope is to double that to 2 percent by the year 2025. By 2025, we're going to be back in the Stone Age.

http://www.princeton.edu/hubbert/current-events.html

A map to the stone age. It's pretty technical, but you don't have to speak math to understand it.
http://www.oilcrisis.com/duncan/OlduvaiTheorySocialContract.pdf

I have a problem with the idea that peak oil = eventual stone age. Where is the logic in that? Even if peak oil were to result in worldwide catastrophe, wouldn't that put us at say... pre-industrial times? That would put us somewhere in the Renaissance level with some accumulated knowelge from the Industrial period. Why exactly would we revert to cavemen? Not enough gas for our horse and buggy?

Yes it has. And BTW, I work in the energy industry and perfectly sane people with experience agree. So there. Human ingenuity my ass, the projects just aren't there, and they aren't on the horizon either. For one thing, there isn't anyone to start them.

I have a problem with the idea that peak oil = eventual stone age. Where is the logic in that? Even if peak oil were to result in worldwide catastrophe, wouldn't that put us at say... pre-industrial times? That would put us somewhere in the Renaissance level with some accumulated knowelge from the Industrial period. Why exactly would we revert to cavemen? Not enough gas for our horse and buggy?

Because we have used all of our high quality ores for metals. Where 500 years ago we were mining iron ore that was 30,40 even 50% Iron, we now mine ores that are 0.5% iron, for example. Mining ores of that quality and smelting them into metal is not possible without oil.

I have a problem with the idea that peak oil = eventual stone age. Where is the logic in that? Even if peak oil were to result in worldwide catastrophe, wouldn't that put us at say... pre-industrial times? That would put us somewhere in the Renaissance level with some accumulated knowelge from the Industrial period. Why exactly would we revert to cavemen? Not enough gas for our horse and buggy?
True, "stone age" is unnecessarily sensationalist. The 22nd century will look like the 19th, and the second half of this century will look like the first half of the 20th. The next half century will be a pretty steep decline though, marked by all sorts of shit.

True, "stone age" is unnecessarily sensationalist. The 22nd century will look like the 19th, and the second half of this century will look like the first half of the 20th. The next half century will be a pretty steep decline though, marked by all sorts of shit.
I don't know about that. Remember that at teh same time we will be producing energy equivalent to 1980 in 10 years we will also have about 7 billion people rather than 4.

I don't know about that. Remember that at teh same time we will be producing energy equivalent to 1980 in 10 years we will also have about 7 billion people rather than 4.
Well yeah, global peak energy use per capita actually happened in 1970. But all those extra people will die without making too much of a fuss on the news, I reckon. It's the visible effects in the West that will be used as the yardstick. Arrogant, yeah, but guess who writes history?

Well yeah, global peak energy use per capita actually happened in 1970. But all those extra people will die without making too much of a fuss on the news, I reckon. It's the visible effects in the West that will be used as the yardstick. Arrogant, yeah, but guess who writes history?
Sure except for four things.

1. We've gone from about 200 million to 300 million here, too.
2. Energy demand from the rest of the world is much greater than it was in 1980.
3. There will be a mad rush of immigration, probably.
4. Energy was cheap in 1980 by comparison to what it will be in 10 years.

As long as people remember how to make nuclear power plants or read plans to do so, we will not go 'back to the stone age.'

Almost anything that runs on oil can be made to run on electricity.

True, "stone age" is unnecessarily sensationalist. The 22nd century will look like the 19th, and the second half of this century will look like the first half of the 20th. The next half century will be a pretty steep decline though, marked by all sorts of shit.

As we decide that nuclear energy really isnt worth the bother when we can just ride horses, right?

The stone age lasted a very long time, so it couldn't have been all that bad. Besides, who doesn't look forward to having an mamooth as washing machine?

As long as people remember how to make nuclear power plants or read plans to do so, we will not go 'back to the stone age.'

Almost anything that runs on oil can be made to run on electricity.
1. Petro chemicals cannot be made from nuclear energy.
2. How do you propose we mine the uranium?

Sure except for four things.

1. We've gone from about 200 million to 300 million here, too.
2. Energy demand from the rest of the world is much greater than it was in 1980.
3. There will be a mad rush of immigration, probably.
4. Energy was cheap in 1980 by comparison to what it will be in 10 years.
Yes, but I'm just saying, it's unlikely to be a quick and dirty cataclysm. Remember the old financial adage, "Bubbles last a lot longer than predicted". We are gradually entering a permanent state of crisis with many facets, and the exact point when industrial civilisation is at an end will pass unnoticed just like the mathematical peak on the bell-curve. One day the world will be in ruins, people will look back and say, "Yeah, things never did get better, did they?" We're looking at a couple of decades before finally people realise that their former way of life is over. There will be many years of denial, believe me.

As we decide that nuclear energy really isnt worth the bother when we can just ride horses, right?
We already have. :(

We have reached a point where you simply can't build a nuclear power plant in a democracy. The only place doing it is Finland, and that's one plant, and a unique society.

Yes, but I'm just saying, it's unlikely to be a quick and dirty cataclysm. Remember the old financial adage, "Bubbles last a lot longer than predicted". We are gradually entering a permanent state of crisis with many facets, and the exact point when industrial civilisation is at an end will pass unnoticed just like the mathematical peak on the bell-curve. One day the world will be in ruins, people will look back and say, "Yeah, things never did get better, did they?" We're looking at a couple of decades before finally people realise that their former way of life is over. There will be many years of denial, believe me.
On that we can agree.

For all you "nuclear will save us" people I have a picture for you. What I'd like you to do is look at it and tell me how we can continue to do this without oil.

http://www.grahamdefense.org/Images/key-lake.jpg

We already have. :(

We have reached a point where you simply can't build a nuclear power plant in a democracy. The only place doing it is Finland, and that's one plant, and a unique society.
the French don't seem to mind much, either.

We have reached a point where you simply can't build a nuclear power plant in a democracy. The only place doing it is Finland, and that's one plant, and a unique society.
Democracies will be a lot easier to convince when they see gas prices rising and rising and rising.

Will it be too late then? Maybe.

Anyway, people will have to get used to a totally different way of life.

Democracies will be a lot easier to convince when they see gas prices rising and rising and rising.


Yeah, you can already see public opinion changing with reagrds to gas and oil drilling here in the states.

I'm not too worried about being 'on the road to the Stone Age'. My people were 'Stone Age' into the last century, and we have by no means forgotten how to live off the land. I do feel sorry for the less capable of you, but get the hell away from my tipi:)

Sorry to interrupt, but what exactly is peak oil? The moment we used half of the oil reserves?

the French don't seem to mind much, either.
I haven't heard of any new build over there. Not that they need it at the moment. Maybe they can replace a couple, but I don't see the French approving a new generation on the scale of what is needed in the UK. The thing with nuclear is, getting public approval for one nuclear power plant is a meaningless gesture. To even partly mitigate the energy crisis, industry has to be given state backing to build anything, anywhere, without public scrutiny or financial risk, to the extent that it is a state rather than commercial venture. Only a command economy can force through the sorts of changes we need. And it's not happening. Like I said earlier, all the talk of human ingenuity and technological miracles around the corner, are worthless when you consider that no-one has the authority to pick up the phone and give the order. There is no phone, there is no office, there is absolutely no-one in control. The UK government doesn't even have an energy department.

Sorry to interrupt, but what exactly is peak oil? The moment we used half of the oil reserves?
Yes, and it corresponds to the maximum rate of extraction. At the moment we have just under half the world's oil left for consumption, but the rate at which we can extract it is subject to exponential decline, and much of what's left is heavy, tainted with sulphur, vanadium and other heavy metals.

Thanks.
Quite interesting, since it´s not being discussed at all in Germany (even the Green Party seems to be more obsessed with the role of some German intelligence guys in the Iraq War than with this).

We already have. :(

We have reached a point where you simply can't build a nuclear power plant in a democracy. The only place doing it is Finland, and that's one plant, and a unique society.


As of yet circumstances arent forcing people to build nuclear plants.

500$/barrel oil would probably put support for nuclear plants at around 90%.

Sorry to interrupt, but what exactly is peak oil? The moment we used half of the oil reserves?
Peak Oil is the time when the world is producing the most oil it will ever produce. After Peak Oil world production will go into decline even as demand increases. Since demand will always match production teh market has to have a mechanism to deal with increasingly less oil being produced as more people want more of it. The mechanism the market uses is price. As we go over the peak and are incapable of increasing production the price of oil will skyrocket and will probably wreak havok with the world's economy as it is the lifeblood of inductrial civilization. Almost nothing you take for granted in life isn't reliant ultimately on oil.

Here's a good primer. (http://www.energybulletin.net/primer.php)
Another peak oil site. (http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net)

As of yet circumstances arent forcing people to build nuclear plants.

500$/barrel oil would probably put support for nuclear plants at around 90%.
Ironic how the public would be compelled to act, when the nuclear power plants would do nothing to ease the impact of $500/barrel oil on transport.

We need nuclear power plants for the electricity really. People don't realise that natural gas is in the same shape.

Its important to remember that in the final accounting, nuclear energy can be very clean and is almost infinitely renewable.

Thanks.
Quite interesting, since it´s not being discussed at all in Germany (even the Green Party seems to be more obsessed with the role of some German intelligence guys in the Iraq War than with this).
It's a big subject in the UK, since we are about to get owned by it.

As of yet circumstances arent forcing people to build nuclear plants.

500$/barrel oil would probably put support for nuclear plants at around 90%.
Not only would $500/barrel oil increase demand for nuclear power, it would also make building plants and mining uranium impossible.

Ironic how the public would be compelled to act, when the nuclear power plants would do nothing to ease the impact of $500/barrel oil on transport.

We need nuclear power plants for the electricity really. People don't realise that natural gas is in the same shape.


If it became impossible to power transport with petrolium, a painful switch would be made to electricity.

Trains, boats and automobiles can all be run on electricity.

Its important to remember that in the final accounting, nuclear energy can be very clean and is almost infinitely renewable.
Okay. Deal with this:

For all you "nuclear will save us" people I have a picture for you. What I'd like you to do is look at it and tell me how we can continue to do this without oil.

http://www.grahamdefense.org/Images/key-lake.jpg

Not only would $500/barrel oil increase demand for nuclear power, it would also make building plants and mining uranium impossible.


Clearly some scheme would be devised to ration and appropriate the petrol needed for vital projects like power plants.

As long as people stand to gain or lose fortunes from the switch to electric power, it will have the full support of governments.

It is absurd to believe that governments and corporations, which have an enormous interest in perpetuating themselves over the long-term, would permit every drop of oil in the world to be used before starting construction of power plants &c.

The most likely scenario is that the same companies which make their fortunes in the oil business now will eventually be making their fortunes in the non-fossil fuel business.

How about we forcibly relocate the Algerian population and fill the country with solar panels?

On that we can agree.

For all you "nuclear will save us" people I have a picture for you. What I'd like you to do is look at it and tell me how we can continue to do this without oil.

http://www.grahamdefense.org/Images/key-lake.jpg
It's called biodiesel. A little research never hurt a post. :rolleyes:

Clearly some scheme would be devised to ration and appropriate the petrol needed for vital projects like power plants.

As long as people stand to gain or lose fortunes from the switch to electric power, it will have the full support of governments.
So what need doesn't get fullfilled? Do we stop pumping water to our farms and cities? Do we stop roducing fertalizers and pesticides? Do we stop transporting food? Do we stop transporting ourselves? What need do we do without so we can mine uranium and build power plants? Who foots the bill for all this oil? I thin as oil starts to deplete there will be no oil for building plants and doing research. I think it will all be used for war and food.

Isn't the AVERAGE human being pretty close to the stone age anyway? Most people don't live in industrialized nations. Using your math, the average person speaks chinese and is a goat farmer, so we're technically not really too far from the stone age overall.

It's called biodiesel. A little research never hurt a post. :rolleyes:
I know. That's why I love it when peple who have never studied this subject post thinsg like "biodeisel." Funny how you always here things like "you can get four barrels of oil equivalent from an acre of corn" but no one ever talsk about how much oil it takes to produce an acre of corn. Hint: It takes a lot more than four barrels.

Biodiesel is at best a local solution for cummunities to use as they deal with petro-collapse. It will never be the kind of industrial fuel that oil is.

Isn't the AVERAGE human being pretty close to the stone age anyway? Most people don't live in industrialized nations. Using your math, the average person speaks chinese and is a goat farmer, so we're technically not really too far from the stone age overall.
Yes, that's true. But you're not. Are you ready to be?

I thin as oil starts to deplete there will be no oil for building plants and doing research. I think it will all be used for war and food.


I dont think that corporations and governments are suicidal, and I dont think that corporations are run by incapable people.

Self-interest on the part of the petrolium industry is the only force that will push us towards non-petrol energy.

Its pretty clear that the first people to know when oil supplies are getting low or when oil is going to be prohibitavely expensive are oil companies and oil-funded governments.

The strangest scenario would be nuclear cooling towers peppering the globe with something other than "ExxonMobil" and "Shell" plastered on the sides.

I know. That's why I love it when peple who have never studied this subject post thinsg like "biodeisel." Funny how you always here things like "you can get four barrels of oil equivalent from an acre of corn" but no one ever talsk about how much oil it takes to produce an acre of corn. Hint: It takes a lot more than four barrels.

Biodiesel is at best a local solution for cummunities to use as they deal with petro-collapse. It will never be the kind of industrial fuel that oil is.


Farm equipment can easily be run on electric power.

I dont think that corporations and governments are suicidal, and I dont think that corporations are run by incapable people.


What world do you live in and can I move there? :)

If it became impossible to power transport with petrolium, a painful switch would be made to electricity.

Trains, boats and automobiles can all be run on electricity.
No, because the switch would be too painful. The transformers would melt.

Yes, that's right. You have to charge the batteries using an energy source. Connect up lots of switched-mode power supplies to an electricity grid and watch the harmonics do this (http://www.eatechnology.com/IMAGES_ARCHIVE/Failure.wmv).

Any car charged from the electricity grid would be outlawed by the electricity companies unless the charging mechanism could be made harmonic-free. I'm betting the car manufacturers would go bankrupt from existing liabilities before they could hope to achieve it, solve all the other technical challenges AND go into millions of units per year mass production with an affordable model.

Farm equipment can easily be run on electric power.
Produced by what? Coal burning plants? Hydroelectric stations? Electricity doesn't come from nowhere...

Other great, usable solutions for our energy woes....REDUCTION IN ENERGY NEEDS is the biggest one. Then, solar, wind, geothermal energy for keeping homes and businesses running, biofuels for our transportation needs, and a serious focus on not making energy pigs of ourselves. Oh. I said that part already, just not as clearly.

Produced by what? Coal burning plants? Hydroelectric stations? Electricity doesn't come from nowhere...

Other great, usable solutions for our energy woes....REDUCTION IN ENERGY NEEDS is the biggest one. Then, solar, wind, geothermal energy for keeping homes and businesses running, biofuels for our transportation needs, and a serious focus on not making energy pigs of ourselves. Oh. I said that part already, just not as clearly.


The splitting of the atom.

Farm equipment can easily be run on electric power.
You have to produce the electricity. You're in a circular reasoning trap. Also, a lot of the oil used in farming is actually petrochemicals that have dramatically increased yields by many orders of magnatude. When you subtract them from the equation you lose 50,60,70% of your yield. try fertalizing a field with electricity.

I know. That's why I love it when peple who have never studied this subject post thinsg like "biodeisel." Funny how you always here things like "you can get four barrels of oil equivalent from an acre of corn" but no one ever talsk about how much oil it takes to produce an acre of corn. Hint: It takes a lot more than four barrels.

Biodiesel is at best a local solution for cummunities to use as they deal with petro-collapse. It will never be the kind of industrial fuel that oil is.
I didn't say biodiesel was the "solve all" to replace oil. BUT it will definately power Diesel-Electric mining equipment, which is what you said was impossible without oil.

Quit trying to mix my words. It makes you look desperate.

No, because the switch would be too painful. The transformers would melt.

Yes, that's right. You have to charge the batteries using an energy source. Connect up lots of switched-mode power supplies to an electricity grid and watch the harmonics do this (http://www.eatechnology.com/IMAGES_ARCHIVE/Failure.wmv).

Any car charged from the electricity grid would be outlawed by the electricity companies unless the charging mechanism could be made harmonic-free. I'm betting the car manufacturers would go bankrupt from existing liabilities before they could hope to achieve it, solve all the other technical challenges AND go into millions of units per year mass production with an affordable model.

You'd be surprised how hard it is to file a liability suit when congress absolves an industry of liability.

You'd also be surprised what can be accomplished when industry colludes with government, as during ww2.

You have to produce the electricity. You're in a circular reasoning trap. Also, a lot of the oil used in farming is actually petrochemicals that have dramatically increased yields by many orders of magnatude. When you subtract them from the equation you lose 50,60,70% of your yield. try fertalizing a field with electricity.


Again, this is in the "aliens invade" scenario you've concocted where all the oil in the world dissapears before anyone bothers about what to do when its gone.

I didn't say biodiesel was the "solve all" to replace oil. BUT it will definately power Diesel-Electric mining equipment, which is what you said was impossible without oil.

Quit trying to mix my words. It makes you look desperate.
I wasn't mixing words. I very clearly stated that biodiesel would at best be a local commodity to solve local problems. No one has ever shown that you can produce it at an industrial level without oil. In order to maintain a massive mining, construction and transportation network to support nuclear power you need oil or an equivalent.

Again, this is in the "aliens invade" scenario you've concocted where all the oil in the world dissapears before anyone bothers about what to do when its gone.
Exactly. It's not like everyone is going to wake up one day, and there will be no oil. As the oil supply drops, the law of supply and demand will slowly raise the price of oil. As the price starts to rise, it will then become economically viable to invest in alternative energy sources.

People who act like we are all going to go into the stone age without oil either enjoy causing panic, or are severely retarded.

The splitting of the atom.
Until you figure out a way to deal with the radioactive byproducts of nuclear energy, I'm going to go with the less environmentally dangerous methods of energy production.

Again, this is in the "aliens invade" scenario you've concocted where all the oil in the world dissapears before anyone bothers about what to do when its gone.
No it isn't. Oil will not disappear. It wil just get prohibitively expensive. This will show up in the price of food and just about everything else. Including uranium mine equipment and shipping uranium ore, which is not renewable, BTW. I don't know where you picked that up.:rolleyes:

It is absurd to believe that governments and corporations, which have an enormous interest in perpetuating themselves over the long-term, would permit every drop of oil in the world to be used before starting construction of power plants &c.

The most likely scenario is that the same companies which make their fortunes in the oil business now will eventually be making their fortunes in the non-fossil fuel business.
Regarding the first point. Not true. Governments only plan ahead to the next election. No-one in government cares about the condition of the next. If they did, action would have been taken two decades ago. Instead, the UK government ceased to accept responsibility for energy policy. They left all planning to the Market. The Market didn't plan. Now we are where we are, and this year for the first time in 15-20 years, the British government is actually reviewing the state of the energy business. Only they still haven't put together an energy department yet. Well, one step at a time, eh boys? Let's leave the decision to the next government! :headbang:

As for the second point...how I wish the corporations really could make policy on the ground. But they can't. Unless explicit instructions are received, they can do nothing. Not even the mighty oil business. The sad fact is, the corporations have to be given permission by the government and regulators to put together a project propsal, and then give the general public a decade in which to consider it and decide whether or not to veto it.

Yes, that is how it works. There is no doubt that there are people in the business who wish things were getting done right now, but they are genuinely powerless to do anything. The lights will go off because the public genuinely wants the infrastructure demolished, and has the democratic right and power to have that accomplished.

Exactly. It's not like everyone is going to wake up one day, and there will be no oil. As the oil supply drops, the law of supply and demand will slowly raise the price of oil. As the price starts to rise, it will then become economically viable to invest in alternative energy sources.

People who act like we are all going to go into the stone age without oil either enjoy causing panic, or are severely retarded.
It won't be slow. It will be sudden and will feel like an ambush.

I wasn't mixing words. I very clearly stated that biodiesel would at best be a local commodity to solve local problems. No one has ever shown that you can produce it at an industrial level without oil. In order to maintain a massive mining, construction and transportation network to support nuclear power you need oil or an equivalent.
Just what exactly do you need the oil for, in the production of biodiesel, which makes it irreplaceable? Perhaps you could shed some light on this for me?

You'd be surprised how hard it is to file a liability suit when congress absolves an industry of liability.

You'd also be surprised what can be accomplished when industry colludes with government, as during ww2.
I'm not talking about lawsuits, I'm talking about international standards. The energy industry can get the IEC and others to tell the car manufacturers "No, you're not connecting this to the network. Change it. Now." After which their products would be impossible to sell irrespective of government thoughts on the matter.

The government is not colluding with industry, by the way. It hasn't got the balls.

Apart from a global war caused by China/india/Russia trying to corner whats left of the Middle Easts oil due to the West being too unwilling to do what it takes, things shouldn't be too bad. 1) We have Nuclear power, 2) there's shedloads of coal left, 3) sky high oil prices will make oil drilling in deep ocean financially viable. 4) we have nuclear power and 5) we have lots of coal. Have I mentioned nuclear power yet?

Just what exactly do you need the oil for, in the production of biodiesel, which makes it irreplaceable? Perhaps you could shed some light on this for me?
All commercial pesticides are made from oil. All commercial fertalizers are made from natural gas which is in even worse shape for North America than oil is. All farming equipment runs on oil. All shipping of raw materials is done with oil. Creating biodeisel requires heat which you get from either natural gas or oil. Shipping of the refined product to the consumer requires oil.

Regarding the first point. Not true. Governments only plan ahead to the next election. No-one in government cares about the condition of the next. If they did, action would have been taken two decades ago. Instead, the UK government ceased to accept responsibility for energy policy. They left all planning to the Market. The Market didn't plan. Now we are where we are, and this year for the first time in 15-20 years, the British government is actually reviewing the state of the energy business. Only they still haven't put together an energy department yet. Well, one step at a time, eh boys? Let's leave the decision to the next government! :headbang:

As for the second point...how I wish the corporations really could make policy on the ground. But they can't. Unless explicit instructions are received, they can do nothing. Not even the mighty oil business. The sad fact is, the corporations have to be given permission by the government and regulators to put together a project propsal, and then give the general public a decade in which to consider it and decide whether or not to veto it.

Yes, that is how it works. There is no doubt that there are people in the business who wish things were getting done right now, but they are genuinely powerless to do anything. The lights will go off because the public genuinely wants the infrastructure demolished, and has the democratic right and power to have that accomplished.


I can understand how this system is problematic today, but today there is no real pressure on oil companies or governments to do anything about energy.

The process you're talking about that hampers projects can be abolished overnight by legislative fiat.

When the public gets squeezed hard by energy prices, elections will start to focus on alternatives to oil and 'winning the next election' will be tied to fixing crises that emerge.

Just what exactly do you need the oil for, in the production of biodiesel, which makes it irreplaceable? Perhaps you could shed some light on this for me?
You need oil and natural gas based fertilizers to grow any energy crop. The crop is then turned into a chemical fuel. It's basic energy return on energy invested. At the moment, the research is inconclusive as to whether biodiesel is a very poor energy source, or an energy sink.

Apart from a global war caused by China/india/Russia trying to corner whats left of the Middle Easts oil due to the West being too unwilling to do what it takes, things shouldn't be too bad. 1) We have Nuclear power, 2) there's shedloads of coal left, 3) sky high oil prices will make oil drilling in deep ocean financially viable. 4) we have nuclear power and 5) we have lots of coal. Have I mentioned nuclear power yet?
Yes you did. Unfortunately you didn't read the thread...

I wasn't mixing words. I very clearly stated that biodiesel would at best be a local commodity to solve local problems. No one has ever shown that you can produce it at an industrial level without oil. In order to maintain a massive mining, construction and transportation network to support nuclear power you need oil or an equivalent.
Diesel engines can run great on vegetable oil or alcohol. Most heavy duty diesel engines, for tankers and so on, are built to handle 'dirty' oils (less refined biofuels).

I can understand how this system is problematic today, but today there is no real pressure on oil companies or governments to do anything about energy.

The process you're talking about that hampers projects can be abolished overnight by legislative fiat.

When the public gets squeezed hard by energy prices, elections will start to focus on alternatives to oil and 'winning the next election' will be tied to fixing crises that emerge.
When the public is squeezed hard by energy prices, it will be far too late. Energy infrastructure projects have very long lead times. You never wait for market signals, you look at the state of the system and commence planning years before the market signals are due to arrive. Energy prices shooting through the roof and the public complaining, isn't a sign that you should start work on something new, it's a sign that a decade ago, you screwed up.

The legislative fiat, we needed it done overnight in the late 80s.

Yes, elections in future will be tied to energy prices, but not the next ones. The ones after that, quite possibly. But that's already in the next decade. Absent action today, in the next decade we lose.

You need oil and natural gas based fertilizers to grow any energy crop. The crop is then turned into a chemical fuel. It's basic energy return on energy invested. At the moment, the research is inconclusive as to whether biodiesel is a very poor energy source, or an energy sink.
It will work just fine, as long as we realise that switching to biofuel isn't going to miraculously allow us to consume energy at the same levels we've be consuming petroleum. Regardless of it's efficiency, we are going to have to start doing things differently. Right now, transportation is given major subsidies...transportation costs are not 100% factored into the cost of goods, for example. At some point, they will have to be. Meaning, no more importing New Zealand beef, when you have Alberta beef in your back yard. Kind of makes sense though, doesn't it? Of course if we start growing crops like crazy to produce biofuel, it's going to cause a meltdown...we need to cut down our wasteful energy uses FIRST.

Because we have used all of our high quality ores for metals. Where 500 years ago we were mining iron ore that was 30,40 even 50% Iron, we now mine ores that are 0.5% iron, for example. Mining ores of that quality and smelting them into metal is not possible without oil.

Even without modern mining techniques used to extract needed iron ore, I think you're forgetting about a huge abundance of metal produced by the Industrial age, much of which is stainless steel. Not to mention that empires were forged in the classical period much without the need of super durable metals. Also, we've accumulated over 4000 years of history and knowledge, much of which has nothing to do with the Industrial Age. Peak Oil does not equal Quest for Fire.

Peak Oil does not equal Quest for Fire.
Aw....I was looking forward to the nakedness and the doggy-style, grunting sex.

Arcologies are not a bad idea, overall. You have your top level where wind and solar generators are; then you have your farm level perhaps using hydroponics and some other modern stuff, plus piggies and chickens. Then you have the levels where people live and work, and at the bottom you have the energy processing plants, turning waste into methane and fertilizer. Further down you can have a nuclear plant to supplement the energy needs, radiation being kept at bay by several meters of rock.

Geothermal is another good source of energy that has only barely been tapped.

As to what to do with nuclear waste, that's easy: you throw it into a subduction zone. You bury it there and the techtonic plate will carry it to the core of the Earth, which is mostly radioactive anyway.

All commercial pesticides are made from oil.
Yeah, because natural fertilizer could NEVER work, right?
All commercial fertalizers are made from natural gas which is in even worse shape for North America than oil is.
Are you speaking of Nitrogen, one of the most common elements on the planet, making up 78% of the Earths atmosphere? Yeah, where are we gonna get that without oil? :rolleyes:

All farming equipment runs on oil.

Or biodiesel
All shipping of raw materials is done with oil.

Or biodiesel
Creating biodeisel requires heat which you get from either natural gas or oil.
Or electricity from a Nuclear power plant, coal plant, solar cells, or wind energy, or hydroelectric energy.

Shipping of the refined product to the consumer requires oil.
Or biodiesel

Because we have used all of our high quality ores for metals. Where 500 years ago we were mining iron ore that was 30,40 even 50% Iron, we now mine ores that are 0.5% iron, for example. Mining ores of that quality and smelting them into metal is not possible without oil.

There is PLENTY of iron left on the planet and we have tons of energy.

Economy is party shifting, we can make natural gas from our bodies itself. Where as all this matter isn't just disapearing it is being transformed. The benifit of oil is crackability, we have abundance of energy, it is just the demand for energy due to the high rate of consumerism. We are overly dependant on oil as it is.

Peak oil is just another Y2K bug used to cause hysteria. It is more so about accessability and momentum in a competitive world then it is about resource abundance.

Diesel engines can run great on vegetable oil or alcohol. Most heavy duty diesel engines, for tankers and so on, are built to handle 'dirty' oils (less refined biofuels).
*sigh*

I sound like a broken record..

You have to complete the full equation from start to finish. How do you get the vegetable oil? How do you get the alcohol? Both are agricultural products. How do you grow the food? how do you tend it? How do you transport it? You have to be able to produce enough biofuel to grow the plants, harvest the plants, transport the plants, render the oil or alcohol or ethanol, transport the fuel and still end up with a surplus that you can bring to market.

How expensive will this be? How expensive will nuclear power be with $500/barrel oil? One of Enron's biggest debacles was a power plant in India. They built it and now it is in ruins not because it didn't work, but because the electricity it produced was too expensive for people there to afford.

*sigh*

I sound like a broken record..

Yeah, I hate that feeling (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10418723&postcount=65).

Aw....I was looking forward to the nakedness and the doggy-style, grunting sex.
Well at least we won't have any megafauna to worry about. Last time dating involved wooden clubs, we could become a snack or footprint lining at any moment. Indeed, according to some people, we even had dinosaurs to contend with. Luckily, our predecessors had the foresight to hunt it all to extinction.

You need oil and natural gas based fertilizers to grow any energy crop. The crop is then turned into a chemical fuel. It's basic energy return on energy invested. At the moment, the research is inconclusive as to whether biodiesel is a very poor energy source, or an energy sink.
You are assuming, of course, that we would have to produce vegatable oil that isn't already being produced. Oil which can be used to cook with, and then turned into fuel.

My point is that, by itself, yes, biodiesel isn't the BEST alternative energy source. But considering the millions of gallons that we already use and then throw away, that energy sink turns into a viable problem to a problem.

Remember, as with crude oil, no one realizes all the ways that vegatable oil is used in commercial applications, and the amount that is just thrown away is considerable.

Well at least we won't have any megafauna to worry about. Last time dating involved wooden clubs, we could become a snack or footprint lining at any moment. Indeed, according to some people, we even had dinosaurs to contend with. Luckily, our predecessors had the foresight to hunt it all to extinction.
*plop*
Too funny:) Oddly, my people have no oral tradition about hunting dinosaurs...but what do we know, having thousands of years of unbroken oral history? It's more fun to imagine us running from the Rex to the Rez...:D

Aw....I was looking forward to the nakedness and the doggy-style, grunting sex.

And the cannabilism. Yay cannabilism!

You are assuming, of course, that we would have to produce vegatable oil that isn't already being produced. Oil which can be used to cook with, and then turned into fuel.

My point is that, by itself, yes, biodiesel isn't the BEST alternative energy source. But considering the millions of gallons that we already use and then throw away, that energy sink turns into a viable problem to a problem.

Remember, as with crude oil, no one realizes all the ways that vegatable oil is used in commercial applications, and the amount that is just thrown away is considerable.
If you have a way to turn a distributed system loss in the food industry into an energy source capable of profitable management by a centralised entity, you could very quickly become a millionaire. Yes, there are people who experiment with turning fish and chip oil into diesel fuel. No, it is not going to solve anyone's energy problem. Except perhaps the owner of said catering business, assuming (s)he has the time to get the right permits from the government and the health and safety authorities.

Yeah, because natural fertilizer could NEVER work, right? Not to produce the kinds of yields we do now.

Are you speaking of Nitrogen, one of the most common elements on the planet, making up 78% of the Earths atmosphere? Yeah, where are we gonna get that without oil? :rolleyes: Actually, no. I'm talking about fixed nitrogen. Having it float around in the air does us no good.



Or biodiesel


Or biodiesel

Or electricity from a Nuclear power plant, coal plant, solar cells, or wind energy, or hydroelectric energy.


Or biodiesel
You have to produce that stuff. It doesn't happen by magic.

Complete the whole equation from start to finish.

Princton Professor Emeritus says Peak Oil passed on Dec. 16th, 2005.



http://www.princeton.edu/hubbert/current-events.html

A map to the stone age. It's pretty technical, but you don't have to speak math to understand it.
http://www.oilcrisis.com/duncan/OlduvaiTheorySocialContract.pdf

This is a totally obsurd idea.. that by 2025 we will be out of oil ? Even as oil demand grows today, new methods to locate new fields, pump more from the fields we have and make every drop of oil go farther explodes.. does this theory take into account new advances which are used to squeze oil from the sands in Canada ? it is estimate the oil in the sand fields there could by itself supply the world oil markets for another 30 - 50 years. As well new carbon injecting methods have been developed to inject carbon into already active oil fields to force more oil up.. extending the lives of otherwise spent fields. As well, hell capitalism anyone ? As the price of oil sky rockets, so does investment in alternative energies... New solar fields are being built in Nevada on the order of some 400 million to supply the growth west and midwest with new advanced solar energy. Car manufatures now developing hybrid hydrogen electric engines belive this could help bring down the costs of hydrogen fuel cells and bring these cars to market within the next decade.

As well.. new ethanol techologies using microrganisms have been found to mass produce ethanol at a fraction of the cost, not relying on corn like old technologies but now using argricultural waste and even wood by products.
Wake up to the world of a market economy... everything wont fall apart just cause one resource starts to come up scarce.

Migh I also mention clean coal technologies and liquid coal fuel ? Guess who is the Saudi Arbia of coal in world resources.. the US. Our coal supplies alone could last us decades to come. Stonage ? I think not.. just wake up to the world of alternative fuel

Everyone is over-reacting. The only doggy-sex will take place in the stix, like always.

This is a totally obsurd idea.. that by 2025 we will be out of oil ? Even as oil demand grows today, new methods to locate new fields, pump more from the fields we have and make every drop of oil go farther explodes.. does this theory take into account new advances which are used to squeze oil from the sands in Canada ? it is estimate the oil in the sand fields there could by itself supply the world oil markets for another 30 - 50 years. As well new carbon injecting methods have been developed to inject carbon into already active oil fields to force more oil up.. extending the lives of otherwise spent fields. As well, hell capitalism anyone ? As the price of oil sky rockets, so does investment in alternative energies... New solar fields are being built in Nevada on the order of some 400 million to supply the growth west and midwest with new advanced solar energy. Car manufatures now developing hybrid hydrogen electric engines belive this could help bring down the costs of hydrogen fuel cells and bring these cars to market within the next decade.

As well.. new ethanol techologies using microrganisms have been found to mass produce ethanol at a fraction of the cost, not relying on corn like old technologies but now using argricultural waste and even wood by products.
Wake up to the world of a market economy... everything wont fall apart just cause one resource starts to come up scarce.

Migh I also mention clean coal technologies and liquid coal fuel ? Guess who is the Saudi Arbia of coal in world resources.. the US. Our coal supplies alone could last us decades to come. Stonage ? I think not.. just wake up to the world of alternative fuel
Oil dicovery over time. (http://www.btinternet.com/~nlpwessex/images/oildiscoveries.gif)

Money doesn't make oil.

As Tactical Grace has pointed out, we needed to start preparing for this a long time ago. It is going to take oil to create an alternative fuel infrastructure and no one has vene been able to sow that you get a positive EROEI out of any alternative fuel except coal liquifaction and we are liquifying exactly zero barrels of coal right now. It will take years, maybe decades to build the type of infrastructure necessary to replace what is going to be very expensive oil with liquified coal products or oil from sand. In anycase, I'm not sure that tar sands are even exploitable in a world short of oil and nat. gas. It takes emmense amounts of energy to produce oil from tar sands.

For what it is worth, I don't think that this is going to be the total problem that we are making it into. First and foremost, oil is not going to run out all at once. Secondly, we have not come close to drilling for all the oil, or even half of the oil. It is just we have gotten a lot of the easy oil. Technology will advance (mother necessity), and we will gather more of the deeper, or more difficult to capitalize upon oil Now, once you get past that, and realize that we are going to have decades, or maybe even close to a century of declining oil, it is easy to see that we will have plenty of time to develop a bio-solution to the problem.

Remember, there is a whole ocean out there that can grow huge amounts of alge (where oil came from in the first place) and we can harvest it and process it for carbohydrates/alcohols, and if we can turn it into sugars, then we can convert to oils.

Not the end of the world, not the end of an era, but perhaps the end of the easy.

I think we will convert over to better fuels with ease.

Oil dicovery over time. (http://www.btinternet.com/~nlpwessex/images/oildiscoveries.gif)

Money doesn't make oil.

As Tactical Grace has pointed out, we needed to start preparing for this a long time ago. It is going to take oil to create an alternative fuel infrastructure and no one has vene been able to sow that you get a positive EROEI out of any alternative fuel except coal liquifaction and we are liquifying exactly zero barrels of coal right now. It will take years, maybe decades to build the type of infrastructure necessary to replace what is going to be very expensive oil with liquified coal products or oil from sand. In anycase, I'm not sure that tar sands are even exploitable in a world short of oil and nat. gas. It takes emmense amounts of energy to produce oil from tar sands.

Your being rather misleading with your comments .. define "emmense amounts of energy".. You know it takes oil to refine oil right ? As long as your getting more oil out then your putting in.. that is what you call a surplus.
http://www.capp.ca/default.asp?V_DOC_ID=688
by 2015 sand oil will account for 75% of western canadas oil production... and the total estimate of oil volume is set at 2.5 trillion barrells which can be produced. These are not numbers to scoff at.

While its true not much infastructure currently exists for coal liquidifcation, new projects have been announced to build mass infastructure in Montana.. That is also just private investment.. Just because oil has to be used to yeild many altnerative fuels does not mean we are in trouble.. as alternative fuels gain cost effectiveness they will start to off set oil production and consumption. These numbers you present are only viable if consumption continues to grow unchecked.. but consumption will be checked by market price. As price increases consumption tapers off, and investment is fueled in alternatives. As well many emerging technologies as well as existing ones are in place to make oil go farther.... the life of oil changes dramatically when new engines are developed to make a gallon of gas last 5 times longer then a gallon would have lasted on older engines. All this effects the life of the viable oil markets. Things are not as sever as you make them out to be.

There is PLENTY of iron left on the planet and we have tons of energy.

isnt the planet largely iron under the plates so why not extract ore whie dumping the nukeliar waste in its place :confused:

isnt the planet largely iron under the plates so why not extract ore whie dumping the nukeliar waste in its place :confused:

While we are at it, we can grab some fissive material out of the sun, and make a mint mining neutron stars to make itty-bitty paperweights.

You want to grow hydrocarbon feedstock in the oceans? Have you gone insane?

Also, there is virtually no oil left to be found. We have already found virtually every drop. 95%. Increasing the recoverable resource simply doesn't work when over-exploitation of a field (waterflooding it and pumping it as hard as you can) totally fucks the geology. Technology will never overcome fundamental geology and fluid mechanics. There are no significant gains to be made anywhere. What we have available today, is all we will ever have.

And yes, the production rate will decline gradually, an exponential decline with a rate of 3-4% per year, with more significant jumps as key producers are taken out (eg rising water table hitting the horizontal well bores in Saudi Arabia, slashing its production within 5 years). In 2050, we will still be producing a quarter as much oil as we produce now. Sounds like a lot, but with 7 billion people to support, a quarter of the oil we have now isn't a whole lot. It's barely enough for just the US, assuming no growth in domestic demand for 45 years.

Also, not just any oil can be made into anything. Oil is cracked into different fractions, and there are limits to what you can achieve. Some stuff you can use to make Kerosene, some stuff you can't. We will be running short of those oil types in particular, soon. You can't synthesise aviation fuel from just anything. We'll still be left with plenty of stuff to surface roads though.

A 3% global decline rate year on year, with an abrupt fall or two of 5-10% is brutal. It is not easy to build an entirely new energy system in the midst of a global recession. And yes, we have left it so late that one is unavoidable. The US car manufacturers will go completely belly-up within the next few years, for a start. That'll do some interesting things to the financial markets.

isnt the planet largely iron under the plates so why not extract ore whie dumping the nukeliar waste in its place :confused:

It's sorta... not very easy to get under the plates. They're kinda thick.

You want to grow hydrocarbon feedstock in the oceans? Have you gone insane?

Also, there is virtually no oil left to be found. We have already found virtually every drop. 95%. Increasing the recoverable resource simply doesn't work when over-exploitation of a field (waterflooding it and pumping it as hard as you can) totally fucks the geology. Technology will never overcome fundamental geology and fluid mechanics. There are no significant gains to be made anywhere. What we have available today, is all we will ever have.

And yes, the production rate will decline gradually, an exponential decline with a rate of 3-4% per year, with more significant jumps as key producers are taken out (eg rising water table hitting the horizontal well bores in Saudi Arabia, slashing its production within 5 years). In 2050, we will still be producing a quarter as much oil as we produce now. Sounds like a lot, but with 7 billion people to support, a quarter of the oil we have now isn't a whole lot. It's barely enough for just the US, assuming no growth in domestic demand for 45 years.

Also, not just any oil can be made into anything. Oil is cracked into different fractions, and there are limits to what you can achieve. Some stuff you can use to make Kerosene, some stuff you can't. We will be running short of those oil types in particular, soon. You can't synthesise aviation fuel from just anything. We'll still be left with plenty of stuff to surface roads though.

A 3% global decline rate year on year, with an abrupt fall or two of 5-10% is brutal. It is not easy to build an entirely new energy system in the midst of a global recession. And yes, we have left it so late that one is unavoidable. The US car manufacturers will go completely belly-up within the next few years, for a start. That'll do some interesting things to the financial markets.


What would be wrong with growing ocean based plant matter? Alge is super fast growing, can be grown three dimensionally, (not just on the surface), and will ferment the same as any other vegetable product. Perhaps I am wrong, but it seems logical. the problem with corn is it's two-dimensional nature.

What would be wrong with growing ocean based plant matter? Alge is super fast growing, can be grown three dimensionally, (not just on the surface), and will ferment the same as any other vegetable product. Perhaps I am wrong, but it seems logical. the problem with corn is it's two-dimensional nature.
No-one will ever allow it. Hell, even the US would go and send ships to kill you for bio-terrorism, if you were to try it. Let alone another country. No-one is ever going to let anyone do anything that stupid without a fight.

Dude, it's alge, not anthrax

You get the alge out of a contained area, and pull it ashore. You process it on shore.

Dude, it's alge, not anthrax

You get the alge out of a contained area, and pull it ashore. You process it on shore.
Look, I have an engineering degree and I work in the industry, and I simply know what's in the pipeline and when I can smell bullshit. :rolleyes:

Your being rather misleading with your comments .. define "emmense amounts of energy".. You know it takes oil to refine oil right ?
Yes. The EROEI for oil is about 30 to one meaning that you spend a barrel of oil to get 30. This is the EROEI that has allowed us to live the way we do because of the huge surplus energy you get from oil and natural gas.

emmense amounts of energy = Digging two tons of sand with machines as big as two and three story buildings, transporting the sand to a furnace where it is heated with natural gas to 700 degrees for several days and then cruching the sand to squeeze out...


...one barrel of oil.



As long as your getting more oil out then your putting in.. that is what you call a surplus.
http://www.capp.ca/default.asp?V_DOC_ID=688
by 2015 sand oil will account for 75% of western canadas oil production... and the total estimate of oil volume is set at 2.5 trillion barrells which can be produced. These are not numbers to scoff at.Its not just total resources that matter. Flow rate matters, too. Ask a starving man. If you give him a whole pizza piece by piece over 30 years you've done him no good. At peak extraction rates the tar sands are expected to produce 2.5 million barrels/day by 2020. If Matthew Simmons (http://www.simmonsco-intl.com/) is correct (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/047173876X/ref=ase_bookstorenow57-20/103-4638389-1187807?s=books&v=glance&n=283155&tagActionCode=bookstorenow57-20) This wont even cover depletion from Saudi Arabia much less the rest of the world.

[url]While its true not much infastructure currently exists for coal liquidifcation, new projects have been announced to build mass infastructure in Montana.. That is also just private investment.. Just because oil has to be used to yeild many altnerative fuels does not mean we are in trouble.. as alternative fuels gain cost effectiveness they will start to off set oil production and consumption. These numbers you present are only viable if consumption continues to grow unchecked.. but consumption will be checked by market price. As price increases consumption tapers off, and investment is fueled in alternatives.[/quote]
I agree. I just think that the result will be a much poorer standard of living for the western world.

As well many emerging technologies as well as existing ones are in place to make oil go farther.... the life of oil changes dramatically when new engines are developed to make a gallon of gas last 5 times longer then a gallon would have lasted on older engines. All this effects the life of the viable oil markets. Things are not as sever as you make them out to be.To be honest, I don't really think we will see the stone age again in our lives, I just thinks it's possible. The key factor is going to be the decline rate. If oil declines at a rate of 2% year over year things may not be that painfull. We will have time to move closer to work. We will have time to re-localize food production, etc... But if oil declines at 10% year over year get ready to learn how to make stone tools.

Check out this web page. If you want to party like it's 1999, go ahead. I don't think we are balanced on the head of a pin, on the precipice of a dark age.

http://www.spe.org/spe/jsp/basic/0,,1104_1008218_1109511,00.html

*plop*
*plop* ? Have you been reading Condorito?

With evidence cited - algae is one of the front-running technologies being considered, for a multitude of reasons



Quote from http://www.unh.edu/p2/biodiesel/article_alge.html

[ Quote ]
One of the important concerns about wide-scale development of biodiesel is if it would displace croplands currently used for food crops. In the US, roughly 450 million acres of land is used for growing crops, with the majority of that actually being used for producing animal feed for the meat industry. Another 580 million acres is used for grassland pasture and range, according to the USDA's Economic Research Service. This accounts for nearly half of the 2.3 billion acres within the US (only 3% of which, or 66 million acres, is categorized as urban land). For any biofuel to succeed at replacing a large quantity of petroleum, the yield of fuel per acre needs to be as high as possible. At heart, biofuels are a form of solar energy, as plants use photosynthesis to convert solar energy into chemical energy stored in the form of oils, carbohydrates, proteins, etc.. The more efficient a particular plant is at converting that solar energy into chemical energy, the better it is from a biofuels perspective. Among the most photosynthetically efficient plants are various types of algaes.

The Office of Fuels Development, a division of the Department of Energy, funded a program from 1978 through 1996 under the National Renewable Energy Laboratory known as the "Aquatic Species Program". The focus of this program was to investigate high-oil algaes that could be grown specifically for the purpose of wide scale biodiesel production1. The research began as a project looking into using quick-growing algae to sequester carbon in CO2 emissions from coal power plants. Noticing that some algae have very high oil content, the project shifted its focus to growing algae for another purpose - producing biodiesel. Some species of algae are ideally suited to biodiesel production due to their high oil content (some well over 50% oil), and extremely fast growth rates. From the results of the Aquatic Species Program2, algae farms would let us supply enough biodiesel to completely replace petroleum as a transportation fuel in the US (as well as its other main use - home heating oil) - but we first have to solve a few of the problems they encountered along the way. [ /Quote ]

And I didn't even attack your engineering degree. See what a nice guy I am. ;)

No matter how wonderful our technology, no matter how much oil we can squeeze out of every remote pocket of oil left, there will be the time, where we'll have to stop using oil. It's best we be prepared and figure out a way to deal with it now, than get to that time and run around like headless dumbfounded chickens with our soft underbelly exposed.

It is not impossible. Yes, we will take a major hit to our easy, profligate way of living. And yes, after that everything will come much harder. But the loss of one resource, even oil, is not the end of the world.

The impact will be catastrophic, and some nations dependent on external aid will collapse as the donors suddenly have their own problems to worry about. But civilisation will not collapse. Greater energy efficiency (you'd be amazed at how much less energy people use when it costs them more, and they know it), new technologies to make the most of what we've got, and alternative energy sources, will fill the gap. There will however be a painful interim period after oil is insufficient and before new sources of energy are sufficient when we take a major dip.

That's what I take away from what has been posted, both directly here and the links, anyway.

It is not impossible. Yes, we will take a major hit to our easy, profligate way of living. And yes, after that everything will come much harder. But the loss of one resource, even oil, is not the end of the world.

The impact will be catastrophic, and some nations dependent on external aid will collapse as the donors suddenly have their own problems to worry about. But civilisation will not collapse. Greater energy efficiency (you'd be amazed at how much less energy people use when it costs them more, and they know it), new technologies to make the most of what we've got, and alternative energy sources, will fill the gap. There will however be a painful interim period after oil is insufficient and before new sources of energy are sufficient when we take a major dip.

That's what I take away from what has been posted, both directly here and the links, anyway.


I could not agree more. It will be a major hurdle, without a doubt. But it will not be the end of the world. The technology is there to overcome, it is just expensive. The reason we do not exercise it is because we currently have a cheaper choice.

Entropy strikes again

Well at least we won't have any megafauna to worry about. Last time dating involved wooden clubs, we could become a snack or footprint lining at any moment. Indeed, according to some people, we even had dinosaurs to contend with. Luckily, our predecessors had the foresight to hunt it all to extinction.


You're way off about your human history. We've only been around as a species for about 500,00 years.

And there weren't even any primates around at the time of the dinorsaurs, only very small mammels.

Also, we didn't hunt any megafauna to extinction. In the last few hundered years some of us caused some horrible extinctions, but before that there simply isn't any archaeological evidence of humans or our ancestors whiping out animal populations. Yes we hunted, but natural climate changes and natural disasters are the only things responsible for ancient extinctions.

I realize this doesn't exactly relate to the post, but you clearly assumed a lot of things without checking your facts, which makes me question the validity of your other arguements.

I am currently working on a masters degree in anthropology, so I do know what I'm talking about.

I could not agree more. It will be a major hurdle, without a doubt. But it will not be the end of the world. The technology is there to overcome, it is just expensive. The reason we do not exercise it is because we currently have a cheaper choice.

Entropy strikes again
What was your argument then? That's exactly what tactical and I were saying. We weren't saying it would cause the sun to explode, just that we have a very painful future ahead of us as we try to adapt to a world with a lot less energy available.

One of the points of Peak Oil theory is that all of the world is going to be competing in a fair market, with a worldwide growing demand for oil, which is going to escalate into economic chaos... thus sparking resource wars...

Who says we have to have a fair market place? Theoretically, couldn't a major world power, like, let's say the United States of America, dominate the oil market in it's own interest, long enough to invest in alternative fuels? Isn't that essentially what is happening right now?

Man in Black
Exactly. It's not like everyone is going to wake up one day, and there will be no oil. As the oil supply drops, the law of supply and demand will slowly raise the price of oil. As the price starts to rise, it will then become economically viable to invest in alternative energy sources.

[QUOTE=PsychoticDan]It won't be slow. It will be sudden and will feel like an ambush.

Doubtful that it would, under normal circs, be slow. As knowledge becomes more and more widespread that knowledge would start being built into the price. Plus, the futures markets would (and do) set today's price many months into the future. It's a bit like the efficient capital markets hypothesis but in relation to oil rather than capital

The only thing that could derail that gradual process is if the big oil companies have been telling little untruths about the state of their oil reserves *coughShellcough* or if any of the major oil-producing states have been telling fibs about their reserves *coughSaudicough*. That's the big worry in my mind.

Regardless of it's efficiency, we are going to have to start doing things differently. Right now, transportation is given major subsidies...transportation costs are not 100% factored into the cost of goods, for example. At some point, they will have to be. Meaning, no more importing New Zealand beef, when you have Alberta beef in your back yard.

Depends upon the kind of transport and what type of subsidy. And I doubt it. Shipping has fundamentally driven down the cost of goods transport. Why? Cheap energy? That's part of it. But more importantly, someone (Malcolm Maclean) had the great idea of putting stuff in boxes. Containerisation fundamentally kick-started globalisation.

As for the energy point, bunker fuel on ships typically accounts for 20 to 30% of the running costs. there are a heap of projects ongoing right now to reduce that. One of the funkier is 'Skysails' - basically puts a great big kite on the front of the ship. The makers claim it can reduce fuel consumption by 20%. Bigger fuel prices will not bring globalisation to a halt.

Then there's the other big point. Increases in the cost of fuel can be offset by decreases in crew wages. You can buy a lot of Filipino labour for the cost of one US or one European seaman.

try to adapt to a world with a lot less energy available.

Three words. "Natural gas hydrates"

I have a problem with the idea that peak oil = eventual stone age. Where is the logic in that? Even if peak oil were to result in worldwide catastrophe, wouldn't that put us at say... pre-industrial times? That would put us somewhere in the Renaissance level with some accumulated knowelge from the Industrial period. Why exactly would we revert to cavemen? Not enough gas for our horse and buggy?

Maybe we would turn against technology and start breaking things.

You can buy a lot of Filipino labour for the cost of one US or one European seaman.

ha ha

You said "seamen."

haha :p

Three words. "Natural gas hydrates"
There's a lot to overcome there. There's three fundamental problems.

1. Small, dispersed deposits. Lees like I handed you a bag of sand and more like I took that bag of sand and spread it all over a big parking lot and told you to go get it all. That means that actually spending the money to get at oen deposit might not get enough gas to pay for the effort.

2. It's ice. It's not like oil and gas where you poke a whole and the stuff shoots out. You have to dig the stuff out of the ground or heat it in-situ which is dangerous and energy consuming.

3. Methane burping. If that happens we could have a runaway greenhouse effect that would make our planet much like Venus. Boiling the oceans off and heating the surface to a point that melts led.

It is all a conspiracy ... by nature ... to make us respect natural limits ... and slow growth ... don't let nature win.

50 years ago they were saying we will run out of oil by the year 2000. They just keep finding more.

Personally I think it's going to run out, but not for a while, and hopefully by then we will have done enough research into other fuel sources to not make the impact so deep. I'm not convinced with the "The end of the world is NIGH" types because like I say, people have being saying we are going to run out of oil for ages and we never do. Call it a case of the boy who cried wolf.

http://www.caodc.ca/wellcounts.htm#AnnProv

Wells drill stats for Canada, from 1983 till 2005. Make of it what you will.

alternatives may not, as it has been argued ad nausium that they cannot, produce as much energy as cheaply, as usuing combustion to generate it. basicly the big excuse argument against using any better sense about the world we all have to live in and what we're doing to it, but, and i'm glad not to be the only one to point this out, the suggestion that the only possibility this leaves us with being more mechanicaly primative in a sociological and experiential sense, is, to put it mildly, a bit of a streatch.

to those who think the world would come to an end without the private passinger automobile, or that all too familiar gunk in the air overhanging auto dependent cities, my sincere sympathetic condolences on such muddleheadedness.

perhapse it is totaly alien to such minds that something like the romney, hythh and dymchurch, or in the u.s., the portland zooline, could be morphed into a practical and energy effecient transportation system, but the reality is that it could. flanged wheel on steel rail, were it built to unfamiliarly more modest proportions, such as those cited, but multiple unit vehicules, of a similar proportion as today's minivans, propelled by stored energy supplied from alternative sources. could and would provide as much mobility as today's auto-dependency.

and this is only one example.

how much energy do we really need to consume to not be 'stone age'?

and what things do we absolutely need it for not to be?

well ok. refrigerators and our computers and this internet. and maybe our powertools out in the shop. although a lot of those can and will be replaced with highly effecient human powered devices which arn't as much more work to use as the oil worshipping corporatocracy would vestedly have us to believe.

and do computers and the internet really take that much energy? to manufacture uses some. to use, hardly a fraction.

refrigeration. that's probably the biggest power consumer we'd need to keep at the consumer level.

32% wind/solar + 41% hydro, including mini + 27% renewables/conservation/odds and ends = NO WE DO NOT NEED TO REMAIN DEPENDENT ON COMBUSTION GENERATED ENERGY OR "RETURN TO THE STONE AGE" WITHOUT IT!

how much will be done, and when, of course remains up to how long and well we remain brainwashed by the energy corporatocracy. but sooner or later, the voice of reason WILL be a matter of survival

=^^=
.../\...