NationStates Jolt Archive

Hey guys,
a while ago, I came across the website lifeaftertheoilcrash.net
I started reading, always nice, another one of those weird conspiracy theorists with their doom scenario's....
but sadly, what this guy said made sense, and I investigated a bit.... it is shocking, but it might actually be true... yet, I am not sure what to believe.

Go ahead and have a read (yes, it IS a long read)...tell me what you think of this concept of peakoil this man explains.

we demand a clickable link

we demand a clickable link
www.google.com (http://www.google.com)

I've read it, and I'm convinced it's nothing more than a doom-and-gloom scenario based on little more than speculation. It seems scary, but realize that much of it is nothing more than apocalyptic thinking in the vein of Malthus or the Club of Rome, both of which have been proven totally wrong time and again. All of the evidence technologically, historically, politically, and economically all suggest that it is certain peak oil will be a nonevent and at worst a moderate disruption.

There are so many alternatives, so many ways to conserve, and so many replacements for oil that the only thing barring a new energy revolution is the still cheap price of oil. Everything else "built" on cheap oil could be transitioned to something else or used more efficiently. I hope there is a peak, because then we can finally escape the trap of ecological devastation caused by petroleum and build a newer, cleaner, and ultimately better economy than exists today.

And worst comes to worst, we revert to a technological level equal to the pre oil age, which is about...1880 or 1890.

we demand a clickable link
Indeed!

www.google.com (http://www.google.com)
Now we demand a search query (starts with p)

Now we demand a search query (starts with p)
GIMME A P!!!!:p

we demand a clickable link
Whut chew mean "WE," white ... boy? :D

I've read it, and I'm convinced it's nothing more than a doom-and-gloom scenario based on little more than speculation. It seems scary, but realize that much of it is nothing more than apocalyptic thinking in the vein of Malthus or the Club of Rome, both of which have been proven totally wrong time and again. All of the evidence technologically, historically, politically, and economically all suggest that it is certain peak oil will be a nonevent and at worst a moderate disruption.

There are so many alternatives, so many ways to conserve, and so many replacements for oil that the only thing barring a new energy revolution is the still cheap price of oil. Everything else "built" on cheap oil could be transitioned to something else or used more efficiently. I hope there is a peak, because then we can finally escape the trap of ecological devastation caused by petroleum and build a newer, cleaner, and ultimately better economy than exists today.

And worst comes to worst, we revert to a technological level equal to the pre oil age, which is about...1880 or 1890.
You're high. Peak Oil is already an "event." What we're seeing now is just the beginning. It's going to get a lot worse.

Whut chew mean "WE," white ... boy? :D
The royal form as in 'We, the king, etc'

1. Pesticides are made from oil;

Pesticide production is an extremely small part of oil consumption, and most pesticides are synthetically manufactured. All industry in the entire world only uses 21% of oil consumption, and much of the oil used is wasted

2. Commercial fertilizers are made from ammonia, which is
made from natural gas, which will peak about 10 years
after oil peaks;

Proven natural gas deposits will last for at least 70 years without peaking. Also, biofuels produce fertilizers and feed as a byproduct of their manufacture
Ammonia can be made from other sources; natural gas is only used because it is cheap.

3. With the exception of a few experimental prototypes, all
farming implements such as tractors and trailers are
constructed and powered using oil;

Biodiesel can be used in a 100% blend in farming equipment today, and the fuel can be made on the farm using minature reactors that instantly convert vegetable oil to biodiesel. Ethanol can be used to transport it, as can hybrids , railroads, electric vehicles, or barges.

4. Food storage systems such as refrigerators are
manufactured in oil-powered plants, distributed across
oil-powered transportation networks and usually run on
electricity, which most often comes from natural gas or
coal;

There's tons of coal and more than enough alternative energy and nuclear to replace 100% of our power needs without fossil fuels. Factories run on fuel oil, which is easy to synthesize or they could be switched over to biofuels, fuel cells, alternative power, or many other sources.

Also, we can conserve as much energy today as we could in 1979. That's over 20% of savings, or at least a decade's worth of high-end energy demand.

5. In the US, the average piece of food is transported
almost 1,500 miles before it gets to your plate. In
Canada, the average piece of food is transported 5,000
miles from where it is produced to where it is consumed.

Large scale shipping is extremely efficient. Container ships run on residual oil, which is virtually limitless with current reserves and planes consume only 4% of world oil with current technology. Fuel cells, biofuels, improved efficiency, solar sails and a bevy of improvements in technology are all available and are all being implemented now. The shipping that is the most expensive is short distance because quantities are smaller and the ton-miles per gallon is much lower

You're high. Peak Oil is already an "event." What we're seeing now is just the beginning. It's going to get a lot worse.

We're still nearly $20 below the prices in 1979, and are at the same real price as we were from 1979-1986. Oil demand is slowing, and alternative energy is growing exponentially; there is so much opportunity that the only thing barring a massive transition is the price of oil. It's still too economical to be replaced totally.

It's not just transportation and agriculture that are entirely dependent on abundant, cheap oil. Modern medicine, water distribution, and national defense are each entirely powered by oil and petroleum derived chemicals.

All of those can either be replaced, improved in efficiency, or consume so little oil as to be negligible. The US military is one of the largest pursuers of alternative energy for military purposes.

In addition to transportation, food, water, and modern medicine, mass quantities of oil are required for all plastics, all computers and all high-tech devices.

All plastics in the entire world only use 4% of total oil production. That's only 3.36 million barrels per day; many plastics are already made with synthetic petrochemicals and there are many technologies for bioplastics. Mazda, in fact, recently developed a new bioplastic for cars that is cheaper, stronger, and 20% less energy intensive than petroleum plastics.

We're still nearly $20 below the prices in 1979, and are at the same real price as we were from 1979-1986.No we're not. In today's dollars oil peaked at about $80/barrel in 79-80. We're at $72 as of right now.



Oil demand is slowing, and alternative energy is growing exponentially; there is so much opportunity that the only thing barring a massive transition is the price of oil. It's still too economical to be replaced totally.
You act like we can pull a whole new infrastructure right out of our asses. First, we will never be able to power our economy the way it has been on "alternatives." There simply isn't one that gives you anywhere near the energy return. By that what I mean is that ther is not an alternative source of energy that lives in the same universe as oil and gas in regards to EROEI. Not even close and NEVER will be. You need to put down the glue if you think anyone is going to make biodeisel or ethanol give you a 2000% return on energy. You state that "if worse comes to worse we'll just go back to our old technology." Do you even realize for a second how absolutely devastating that would be? Billions of people will die. In 1880-90 the Earth only had about 1 billion people. The technology we have developed, with oil, is what has allowed us to push our carrying capacity to 6 billion. Can we do teh kind of agriculture that we do now without oil? We don't know because we never tried. I'm willing to bet that we can't. Look at the condition of most of our farmland. It cannot produce food without petro chemicals. The soil is barren of nutrients and we just pour artificial nutrients made of petro chemicals onto it to grow food. We pump the water with this massive petroleum based energy infrastructure that we have built.

We're not going to build 100 nuclear reactors in the next couple years to replace oil and gas. We're not gonna panel the roofs of every building in the country in the next two decades with solar panels. The kind of things you talk about replacing oil doesnt' just pop out of people's asses. We blew it years ago when we needed to start making these changes. Now it's too late. Will we end up in the stone age as Savinah claims? Probably not if we can avoid going to war with China and Russia over energy, but we will suffer as our energy resources dwindle. It will not be pretty and it will almost definately NOT be a "non-event."

No we're not. In today's dollars oil peaked at about $80/barrel in 79-80. We're at $72 as of right now.

Imported oil prices hit a peak around $90 in 1980, drifted down from there, and didn't break below $60 until 1984 and not below $50 until 1986. That only happened because of the oil price collapse, which stemmed from falling demand.


You act like we can pull a whole new infrastructure right out of our asses. First, we will never be able to power our economy the way it has been on "alternatives." There simply isn't one that gives you anywhere near the energy return.

Our power infrastructure doesn't really require a lot of additional changes; computing technology is making distributed generation easy and cheap. The bevy of fuel cell and storage technologies are rendering natural gas unnecessary, and combining technologies smooths out the problems with each individual source.

EROEI doesn't really matter, either. All oil driven technology can be transitioned right now with current alternatives, and the drive to do so is only getting stronger as the technology becomes economical and abundant. All that matters is that it is profitable.

And remember, we stepped down on the ladder when we transitioned from hunting-gathering to agriculture. Agriculture was more productive, which means it was advantageous in the places where more food could be produced despite the drop in EROEI. Transitioning infrastructure takes a while, but high prices motivate change and that is happening right now. If prices get too high, government will get involved but that is almost certainly not reality.

By that what I mean is that ther is not an alternative source of energy that lives in the same universe as oil and gas in regards to EROEI. Not even close and NEVER will be. You need to put down the glue if you think anyone is going to make biodeisel or ethanol give you a 2000% return on energy.

Oil's EROEI has been plunging since the 1940's, yet the economy is stronger and more stable and living standards are much higher than they were then. Oil use per capita is much lower than it was in 1973, but the economy is much bigger, better, and stronger than it was then. Falling EROEI doesn't matter if the new technology is profitable, and alternatives are. Net economic gain is more important than energy gain, because it is the cost of energy and not the energy itself that matterrs. Furthermore, EROEI isn't that important for renewable energy because it is both passive and limitless in nature; a self-sustaining, self-powered manufacturing system for alternative energy is both possible now and a reality in Brazil.

You state that "if worse comes to worse we'll just go back to our old technology." Do you even realize for a second how absolutely devastating that would be? Billions of people will die. In 1880-90 the Earth only had about 1 billion people. The technology we have developed, with oil, is what has allowed us to push our carrying capacity to 6 billion.

Most of the world does not have oil intensive agriculture; a huge chunk of our population growth comes from places where oil is not used extensively and is not used in agriculture. Furthermore, biofuels are both economical and fully plausible for agriculture, and there are numerous technologies to replace oil in distribution and production. The small amount of fossil fuels used in fertilizer is so small as to be a nonissue; if we really need to, we can synthesize what we need from coal, biomass, oil sands, shale, or any other source of bitumen.

Can we do teh kind of agriculture that we do now without oil? We don't know because we never tried. I'm willing to bet that we can't. Look at the condition of most of our farmland. It cannot produce food without petro chemicals. The soil is barren of nutrients and we just pour artificial nutrients made of petro chemicals onto it to grow food. We pump the water with this massive petroleum based energy infrastructure that we have built.

60% of our oil is used for non-shipping transportation purposes. Of the remaining, only 21% is used for industry and that amount has been flat in the US or declining continuously since 1975. The US is above and beyond the main producer of fossil-fuel agriculture but has kept production up despite falling oil consumption. This is during 20 years of cheap oil; since there is so much room for more conservation and switchovers if prices keep rising. Even within agriculture/industry, fuel is the main source of consumption and than can be replaced with alternatives.

Plus, organic and renewable farming are in demand. Some of our market will switchover anyway to take advantage of profit opportunities in the industry, further reducing oil demand regardless of prices.

We're not going to build 100 nuclear reactors in the next couple years to replace oil and gas. We're not gonna panel the roofs of every building in the country in the next two decades with solar panels. The kind of things you talk about replacing oil doesnt' just pop out of people's asses. We blew it years ago when we needed to start making these changes. Now it's too late. Will we end up in the stone age as Savinah claims? Probably not if we can avoid going to war with China and Russia over energy, but we will suffer as our energy resources dwindle. It will not be pretty and it will almost definately NOT be a "non-event."

In two decades, the US built almost all of its nuclear power capacity and that was during a period of ultracheap oil. The Tenessee Valley Authority was mostly completed in a little over a decade, and the wind industry is growing at an exponential rate; solar power has massive untapped potential that is only limited by polysilicon prices that will be resolved by 2008. Coal, biomass, geothermal, waste-to-energy and tidal power are all able to be built quickly.

If oil gets expensive enough, the world's governments will step in. Right now, however, the market is doing well on its own. Oil demand is slowing rapidly despite stronger growth, and alternatives are growing exponentially worldwide.

Oil is only used for 3% of US power generation, and only 9.2% worldwide. We utilize almost none of our available alternatives, and there is massive untapped hydroelectric capacity in many places where oil is used. Efficiency alone could eliminate the need for petroleum power generation in the US and Europe, and stable alternatives could easily replace natural gas. Even coal could be gradually phased out to reduce pollution after the others are replaced.

:rolleyes:

We are not going to be bashing people over the head with rocks any time soon.

That said, we will come to terms with a post-Soviet Russia standard of living.

:rolleyes:

We are not going to be bashing people over the head with rocks any time soon.

That said, we will come to terms with a post-Soviet Russia standard of living.

I agree. The days of personal transportation (cars and the like) and air travel for the masses is rapidly comming to an end. But tha'ts ok. We'll still be able to do mass transit, transnational railways, and shipping. We'll have to cut out all of our waste too, but that is a good thing. Even if we tap the potentially massive oil reserves in Antarctica, they will be too expensive to waste on mass personal transport and waste. And as over 90% of the electricity in the US is generated from coal, nuclear and hydro, we'll have electricty for a good long while yet.

As to the mass starvation thing, it's highly unlikely. The grain used to feed livestock in the US could feed 800 million people. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1997/08/970812003512.htm Even assuming a loss of 50% productivity in agriculture, that would still feed 400 million. And that is not counting what we already grow for human consumption. If we go back to crop rotation, ferilizing crops with animal and human waste, composting of organic waste, and mined fertilizers like sulphur, phosphate, and potash, we won't loose very much productivity. Most modern farming machinery was developed in the 19th century before oil. They were powered by horses. We can easily go back to that. And all the people who will suposedly be out of work can go work in the fields to increase productivity like their ancestors did. Also consider that China, a nation with less productive land than the US grew to almost a billion in population using very low tech subsistance agriculture.

No worries. Things will change. Standards of living will drop over time. We'll have to work harder for less. People won't like it and will complain bitterly, but they will do it as there isn't any other choice. But the world isn't ending.

I agree. The days of personal transportation (cars and the like) and air travel for the masses is rapidly comming to an end. But tha'ts ok. We'll still be able to do mass transit, transnational railways, and shipping. We'll have to cut out all of our waste too, but that is a good thing. Even if we tap the potentially massive oil reserves in Antarctica, they will be too expensive to waste on mass personal transport and waste. And as over 90% of the electricity in the US is generated from coal, nuclear and hydro, we'll have electricty for a good long while yet.

As to the mass starvation thing, it's highly unlikely. The grain used to feed livestock in the US could feed 800 million people. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1997/08/970812003512.htm Even assuming a loss of 50% productivity in agriculture, that would still feed 400 million. And that is not counting what we already grow for human consumption. If we go back to crop rotation, ferilizing crops with animal and human waste, composting of organic waste, and mined fertilizers like sulphur, phosphate, and potash, we won't loose very much productivity. Most modern farming machinery was developed in the 19th century before oil. They were powered by horses. We can easily go back to that. And all the people who will suposedly be out of work can go work in the fields to increase productivity like their ancestors did. Also consider that China, a nation with less productive land than the US grew to almost a billion in population using very low tech subsistance agriculture.

No worries. Things will change. Standards of living will drop over time. We'll have to work harder for less. People won't like it and will complain bitterly, but they will do it as there isn't any other choice. But the world isn't ending.
It's not just about the chemicals. Oil has made it possible to grow food where you couldn't before. It allows us to pump water out of the ground in quantities that made deserts into crop land. Without oil we may not be able to farm much of the land we farm now, nevermind the chemicals. You also mentioned mining fertalizers. How do yu propose we mine them? How do you propose we refine the ores? Also, you're just wrong about our electricty generation. There have been almost no powerplants built that run on anything other thna natural gas since the 70s. I don't knwo what percentage of our electricty we get from natural gas, something already in decline in North America, but it's more than any other single source.

wow, replies are -generally- of higher quality than I was actually expecting :)

and I agree that it is possible to find alternatives for all the use of oil, yet I see no way of coughing up all the required investments in time... even though more people are aware of the issue right now, I think the majority is still following the ostrich-tactics.

The Y2K bug became a non-issue, as everybody was convinced it was a big thing and worked to solve the problem. But with our oil dependency, I see no big initiatives.

Many small ones, yes...but where is the masterplan? The Marshallplan for energy?

wow, replies are -generally- of higher quality than I was actually expecting :)

and I agree that it is possible to find alternatives for all the use of oil, yet I see no way of coughing up all the required investments in time... even though more people are aware of the issue right now, I think the majority is still following the ostrich-tactics.

The Y2K bug became a non-issue, as everybody was convinced it was a big thing and worked to solve the problem. But with our oil dependency, I see no big initiatives.

Many small ones, yes...but where is the masterplan? The Marshallplan for energy?
Tactical Grace, Vetalia and I debate this issue all the time here. Almost everyday. TG and I tend to be a little more pessimistic while Vetalia, as you can see, tends to be more optimistic. You can read what we debate and decide who you agree with.

No comparison with Y2K. That was a small bug that was easily fixable. Generally speaking people in the computer industry were pretty much telling everybody to relax, but the public didn't want to give up it's doom and gloom headlines. Peak Oil is different. The energy industry is telling us teh complete opposite: "be worried, be very worried." TG's in the industry so you can ask him more about it. I invest in options on oil and gas stocks so I read a lot about what's going on and then I post some of the articles here and Vetalia comes in and says everything's gonna be fine and I say we're all gonna die and TG says a=b/c <x-6y = 5c.

It's not just about the chemicals. Oil has made it possible to grow food where you couldn't before. It allows us to pump water out of the ground in quantities that made deserts into crop land. Without oil we may not be able to farm much of the land we farm now, nevermind the chemicals. You also mentioned mining fertalizers. How do yu propose we mine them? How do you propose we refine the ores? Also, you're just wrong about our electricty generation.

A lot of heavy machinery runs on residual oil, which is little more than tar and is extremely easy to produced compared to other products made from petroleum. That stuff could easily be mined from bitumen or kerogen deposits and processed in to fuel for heavy machinery without a lot of energy added or extensive infrastructure. Agriculture has a lot of room for efficiency improvements, and farm machinery could be run on biofuels produced on site using minature reactors with part of the production, or even better, farm waste.

Mining also uses a relatively small amount of oil; we could switch over most of our oil to alternatives and the rest could be made from coal/biomass. Environmentally, alternative fuels would be very beneficial to mining because they would mitigate some of the impact.

There have been almost no powerplants built that run on anything other thna natural gas since the 70s. I don't knwo what percentage of our electricty we get from natural gas, something already in decline in North America, but it's more than any other single source.

That's mainly because it was so cheap; now, natural gas is falling out of favor with the bulk of new generation coming from renewables and coal. Even so, most of our natural gas is consumed for heating by residential and commercial consumers or industry; there's a lot of conservation opportunities, and turning down thermostats 2 degrees would reduce demand by 8%.

Also, we could save a lot with greater use of passive solar heating, solar water heaters, and better insulation. There's as much room to conserve today as there was in 1979, but the amount saved is a lot bigger.

Many small ones, yes...but where is the masterplan? The Marshallplan for energy?

I think it depends on the way prices go. If they remain relatively stable but clearly in an uptrend, the market will drive most of the growth and government will have a more passive role. If prices suddenly skyrocket or there are embargos/major supply disruptions that create shortages, government will take a much more active role. It really depends on the way prices go.

Most government leadership in the US on the issue is on the state or local level, but nations like China/India and organizations like the EU deserve major credit for alternative energy initiatives. All of them have major alternative energy projects and grid upgrades led by government and private industry cooperation.