NationStates Jolt Archive

From the Huston Chronical. Now even the DOE admits it.

Last September, a Chronicle editorial warned that global oil production would peak in this decade or the next, and then inexorably decline. Given that likelihood, the United States would have to embark on a crash program to develop alternative energy sources or endure crippling increases in the price of energy.

Last week, a study performed for the U.S. Department of Energy concurred with the editorial's conclusions.

The study, led by Robert Hirsch, warned that the world should be spending $1 trillion per year developing alternative energy sources — including tar sands, oil shale and gas liquefaction — to avoid having its economy crippled by oil shortages and the resulting chaos. The study recommends a 20-year lead time, so it might already be too late to prevent a crunch.

The report said the timing was uncertain. Hirsch predicted peak oil production could come in five years, almost certainly by 2020.

Actually, the world would not have to arrive at peak production in order to experience severe shortfalls in oil supplies. The aftermath of Hurricane Katrina showed what even a minor constriction in supply can do to drive prices skyward. Apart from natural disasters, wars, political unrest, government intervention, deteriorating equipment, accidents or any combination could interrupt the supply of oil.

Demand for gasoline in the United States is dropping with the end of the summer vacation season. Consequently, prices also are dropping. But this trend is extremely temporary.

Demand for oil in China, in India and throughout the developing world will continue to grow. Exxon Mobil CEO Rex Tillerson predicts that world demand for crude will increase 50 percent in a decade.

Bloomburg News reported that the Energy Department study found that conventional oil production reached "soft and sudden" peaks in Texas in 1972, North America in 1985, Great Britain in 1999 and Norway in 2001. These dates were predicted by formulas used by proponents of the peak oil theory to predict the crest of global oil production.

Perhaps the report's most serious conclusion is that the free market and private industry alone will not prevent economic catastrophe from energy shortages. Government must have a policy for managing the transition from conventional crude oil to other energy forms.

Hirsch, a consultant and former government official overseeing research into solar and other renewable energy forms, said the conversion from oil could be compared to the race for the moon or the mobilization for World War II. Consumers, he said, could not rely on oil companies to get the huge job done.

If oil company managers disagree, they need to demonstrate where all the oil is going to come from to meet rising demand, or propose their own plans for developing alternative sources.

Well, at least it's good news for global warming...

Of course oil will peak, was anyone even arguing that? The stuff doesn't just magically appear.

Of course oil will peak, was anyone even arguing that? The stuff doesn't just magically appear.

You mean God didn't create enough oil for everyone!?!

Of course oil will peak, was anyone even arguing that? The stuff doesn't just magically appear.

Yes. On this very forum. :D

Yes. On this very forum. :D

Wow, never underestimate the stupidity of others I suppose.


You mean God didn't create enough oil for everyone!?!

Maybe if we all pray real hard!

Clearly, the Department of Energy has been subverted by communist muslim liberal terrorists. This is not a sign we need to be worrying about oil! Instead, we must invade oil-producing nations in the Middle East. To combat terrorist subversion of our precious bodily fluids.

Thats why we need those oil producing algae to reproduce like rabbits.

Conservation would also help a lot. These solutions are perfect for the intermediate term (I think the fuels program is on a 10 or 20 year timeline), but conservation and improved efficiency are the only ways we will be able to handle the immediate post-Peak era. We need to get out there and pass laws mandating conservation of energy and improvements in efficiency; of course, given that the current Administration believes that conservation is a virtue and not a vital part of our energy plan (something history would disagree with...conservation ultimately saved our asses in the 1970's) it will take someone with backbone to get people to cut back.

Ironically, the last president with that backbone was Jimmy Carter...and look what the people did to him. I think we'll need some $300 oil, $6 or $7 gasoline and $20 natural gas to get peoples' attention. Maybe we can finally get some new nuclear plants too...I mean, if European countries can build them safely the US sure as hell can.

Holy sh*t. I think I time traveled fourty years back.

Conservation would also help a lot. These solutions are perfect for the intermediate term (I think the fuels program is on a 10 or 20 year timeline), but conservation and improved efficiency are the only ways we will be able to handle the immediate post-Peak era. We need to get out there and pass laws mandating conservation of energy and improvements in efficiency; of course, given that the current Administration believes that conservation is a virtue and not a vital part of our energy plan (something history would disagree with...conservation ultimately saved our asses in the 1970's) it will take someone with backbone to get people to cut back.

Ironically, the last president with that backbone was Jimmy Carter...and look what the people did to him. I think we'll need some $300 oil, $6 or $7 gasoline and $20 natural gas to get peoples' attention. Maybe we can finally get some new nuclear plants too...I mean, if European countries can build them safely the US sure as hell can.


I agree. we could use nuclear power for heavy populated areas, and then use something like wind power for rural areas. It's all efficient and clean, right?

I agree. we could use nuclear power for heavy populated areas, and then use something like wind power for rural areas. It's all efficient and clean, right?

Wind can also be used offshore along with tidal power for coastal cities; nuclear's ideal role would be as a major source of power as well as a load stabilizer for alternative energy. You could also use geothermal power for similar effect, but generally it doesn't produce anywhere near the same amount of power as a nuclear plant; still, there is a lot of geothermal potential and any bit will help once oil/gas peak.

Disposing of nuclear waste will be the sticky part; currently, France sends its waste to Russia for disposal so we could possibly work out a similar agreement to export our reprocessed waste to them or another recipient. Or, we could shoot it in to space...but that seems way more risky than burying it.

Wind can also be used offshore along with tidal power for coastal cities; nuclear's ideal role would be as a major source of power as well as a load stabilizer for alternative energy. You could also use geothermal power for similar effect, but generally it doesn't produce anywhere near the same amount of power as a nuclear plant; still, there is a lot of geothermal potential and any bit will help once oil/gas peak.

Disposing of nuclear waste will be the sticky part; currently, France sends its waste to Russia for disposal so we could possibly work out a similar agreement to export our reprocessed waste to them or another recipient. Or, we could shoot it in to space...but that seems way more risky than burying it.

Yeah, sending nuclear waste into space is uber dangerous. I wonder what would happen though if we put in like...magma or something? :p Would it melt it? hmmm...(i love my off the wall ideas)

Yeah, sending nuclear waste into space is uber dangerous. I wonder what would happen though if we put in like...magma or something? :p Would it melt it? hmmm...(i love my off the wall ideas)

I don't know, honestly. That would be a great way to dispose of it though....just dump it down a geothermal borehole and be done with it.

I don't know, honestly. That would be a great way to dispose of it though....just dump it down a geothermal borehole and be done with it.

However, in case of eruption and spewing of ash, we'd all be butt raped.

However, in case of eruption and spewing of ash, we'd all be butt raped.

And that's probably why we don't dump toxic waste in to volcanoes...it wouldn't be fun if Hawaii or Washington ended up being a gigantic version of Chernobyl whenever the volcanoes erupted.

Conservation would also help a lot. These solutions are perfect for the intermediate term (I think the fuels program is on a 10 or 20 year timeline), but conservation and improved efficiency are the only ways we will be able to handle the immediate post-Peak era. We need to get out there and pass laws mandating conservation of energy and improvements in efficiency; of course, given that the current Administration believes that conservation is a virtue and not a vital part of our energy plan (something history would disagree with...conservation ultimately saved our asses in the 1970's) it will take someone with backbone to get people to cut back.

Ironically, the last president with that backbone was Jimmy Carter...and look what the people did to him. I think we'll need some $300 oil, $6 or $7 gasoline and $20 natural gas to get peoples' attention. Maybe we can finally get some new nuclear plants too...I mean, if European countries can build them safely the US sure as hell can.


Well, well. Starting to sound more like me. Deffeyes's book having an effect on you. ;)

And that's probably why we don't dump toxic waste in to volcanoes...it wouldn't be fun if Hawaii or Washington ended up being a gigantic version of Chernobyl whenever the volcanoes erupted.

Ultra deep sea dumping in sealed containers can keep the shit away for millions of years - even if it leaks.

Well, well. Starting to sound more like me. Deffeyes's book having an effect on you. ;)

I'd say so...it's a damn good read, and the professors know the issue very well. Actually, I believe the mechanical engineering professor knows Jean Laherrere personally and both of them are ASPO members, so we are really digging deep in to the issue with our discussions and lectures. Honestly, it's become more and more clear that the only way people are going to seriously pay attention to the issue is if we get a very nasty energy crisis and people learn that this is not some esoteric or fringe issue but rather one that will affect them both now and well in to the future.

We don't have that much time to mitigate the effects of the Peak; just because the market can "solve" the problem of energy scarcity doesn't mean that's a desirable end. After all, the rationing effect means people are priced out of the good in order to balance supply and demand, and the result of that price adjustment could be very painful.

Ultra deep sea dumping in sealed containers can keep the shit away for millions of years - even if it leaks.

That's what we're going to have to do, along with expanding storage sites on land and forming agreements with nations like Russia for ore, waste reprocessing and storage. I really wonder at how the geopolitics of uranium and oil are going to intersect in the next few decades...

I'd say so...it's a damn good read, and the professors know the issue very well. Actually, I believe the mechanical engineering professor knows Jean Laherrere personally and both of them are ASPO members, so we are really digging deep in to the issue with our discussions and lectures. Honestly, it's become more and more clear that the only way people are going to seriously pay attention to the issue is if we get a very nasty energy crisis and people learn that this is not some esoteric or fringe issue but rather one that will affect them both now and well in to the future.

We don't have that much time to mitigate the effects of the Peak; just because the market can "solve" the problem of energy scarcity doesn't mean that's a desirable end. After all, the rationing effect means people are priced out of the good in order to balance supply and demand, and the result of that price adjustment could be very painful.

Wel, dammit. What happened to blowing sunshine? You were the last optimist I knew of that had any idea what all this is about.

Holy sh*t. I think I time traveled fourty years back.

You mean forty years ago when teh world was burning about 20 million barrels/day and we could look back at teh previous decade and see abot 400 billion barrels of new oil discoveries? Yeah... that woudl be nice. unfortunately we burn over 80 million/day now and we've discovered about 1 barrel for every four we burn now in teh last decade. In fact, the last time we discovered as much oil in a year as we burned was in the 1980s.

Wel, dammit. What happened to blowing sunshine? You were the last optimist I knew of that had any idea what all this is about.

Oh, I'm still optimistic in the longer term; we will adapt and survive even if there is some hardship along the way. Of course, since that "long term" is definitely 10, 20 or more years after peak that still leaves a lot of time in between for things to get very ugly. I believe we'll have a solid, functioning post-oil economy by, let's say, 2050 but that still leaves 44 years of possibly rough times depending on when oil and gas peak and how steep the declines are relative to the development of alternatives.

It's that period immediately after peak that concerns me, because there is a lot that needs to be done in order to mitigate the negative effects and comparatively little public awareness or basic efforts to prepare ourselves for the invevitable. Given that oil production in individual fields tends to peak suddenly, we run the risk of being caught off-guard and being forced to undergo a market-based transition until new sources can be brought on line.

I've gone from pure optimism to more guarded optimism; the facts show that we can survive and grow post-oil, but there is going to be a lot of pain between now and that point.

Oh, I'm still optimistic in the longer term; we will adapt and survive even if there is some hardship along the way. Of course, since that "long term" is definitely 10, 20 or more years after peak that still leaves a lot of time in between for things to get very ugly. I believe we'll have a solid, functioning post-oil economy by, let's say, 2050 but that still leaves 44 years of possibly rough times depending on when oil and gas peak and how steep the declines are relative to the development of alternatives.

It's that period immediately after peak that concerns me, because there is a lot that needs to be done in order to mitigate the negative effects and comparatively little public awareness or basic efforts to prepare ourselves for the invevitable. Given that oil production in individual fields tends to peak suddenly, we run the risk of being caught off-guard and being forced to undergo a market-based transition until new sources can be brought on line.

I've gone from pure optimism to more guarded optimism; the facts show that we can survive and grow post-oil, but there is going to be a lot of pain between now and that point.

Oh, I always thought we'd survive, but how will the world look for the rest of our lives? I'm not going to be alive in 2050, but I will be in 2020. Also, we live in a very violent world today and it looks like it's getting worse, not better. With the advent of energy scarcity it will probably get a LOT worse. Then there's impending water shortages, food shortages, even a salt shortage looks like it's in the outing. Whatever we can do to get through this could easily be rendered moot by increasing violence and wars. How much of our dwindling energy resources are we goint to put into rebuilding ou infrastructure and transitioning to a new economy when we're at war with China?

Oh, I always thought we'd survive, but how will the world look for the rest of our lives? I'm not going to be alive in 2050, but I will be in 2020. Also, we live in a very violent world today and it looks like it's getting worse, not better. With the advent of energy scarcity it will probably get a LOT worse. Then there's impending water shortages, food shortages, even a salt shortage looks like it's in the outing. Whatever we can do to get through this could easily be rendered moot by increasing violence and wars. How much of our dwindling energy resources are we goint to put into rebuilding ou infrastructure and transitioning to a new economy when we're at war with China?

I'll be alive in 2050 (I'll be 62 as a matter of fact), so I guess I'll be one of the people trying to solve the problems....hopefully, medical technology will enable me to live long enough to see the problems solved, but if we're truly in for a long emergency I might not get a chance to see it. Even I think the outlook for the next few decades, energy aside, is going to get worse before it gets better. Population growth puts strain on our resources but the only effective way to stop population growth without government intervention (which can be very difficult and have undesirable consequences) is to increase consumption of resources which in turn further pressures our planet's resources and makes it harder to sustain.

And, of course, the places growing the fastest are the ones least capable of supporting their populations in the event of a serious resource or energy crisis; sub-Saharan Africa has declined from a major food exporter to an importer over the past 4 decades, and the Middle East is definitely not capable of supporting its population without energy intensive desalinization or food imports paid for by oil and gas exports. Even worse, the growth in Africa is primarily supported by food exports from the US and other mechanized countries. If we cut back on food production to conserve resources or shift from food exports to biofuels, it could have a horrendous effect on these regions and could cause serious famine.

Perhaps the Middle East could use solar, but there's a lot of sand in the world outside of that region...perhaps they could use the salt from desalinization as a new source of revenue, but economically they're in trouble. The geopolitical ramifications could be equally as severe; I personally feel we will see a new version of the Cold War, with the US and its allies (hopefully, they will forget 2001-2009) aligned against other power blocs with the fight for resource and energy rich nations taking the place of fighting for Communist or capitalist regimes.

It might flare in to a hot war, or it might not; personally, I fear more the time after the transition because the world powers will have an energy infrastructure ready to support a military campaign. I could see these programs becoming propagandized, as we build energy infrastructure in a new version of the arms race and proceed to use it as a weapon of war. Hopefully, the 21st century will be more like the 14th century than the 5th century; both were times when the world faced war and hardship, but the first led to the flourishing of the Renaissance and the other paved the way for the decay and regression of Europe from the Roman Empire to the chaos of the early Middle Ages.

*snip*

Damn, dude. It's almost hard to read shit like this from you. I had grown used to your optimistic view of the future even though I didn't agree with it.

That aside, the first real thing that needs to be done is education, education, education! People are just not aware of this and if they are they are not aware of how bad this could potentially be and that's a real problem. As Kunstler put it, "We need to get smaller in everything that we do - from farming to how we deploy ourselves in the landscape - sports, everything we do needs to be made smaller and more efficient and we're not prepared for it... and it's a tremendous, awesome project! It will call into question whether we can continue this project of civilization in the context of a representative republic."

You mean God didn't create enough oil for everyone!?!


No, he only created enough to last us until judgement day ... so when the oil runs out ... God will return! hurry up and use more oil! :)

I've gone from pure optimism to more guarded optimism; the facts show that we can survive and grow post-oil, but there is going to be a lot of pain between now and that point.

Holly crap, what happened to the old V? The one that had a technological answer to every one of my worst case scenarios?

Holly crap, what happened to the old V? The one that had a technological answer to every one of my worst case scenarios?

He read Deffeyes' book.

You mean God didn't create enough oil for everyone!?!
Of course He did. Unfortunately He created just enough for His worshippers and those damn ungraqteful heathens and unbelievers had to come along and steal it.

Gasp! You mean that we don't have an infinite supply of crude? Well we've known this for a long time now. I won't be the first to say that we'll never really run dry, we'll stop pumping long before that because it will no longer be profitable. There will still be a few wells and refineries that stay open and operating for those who collect old (gas) vehicles. The sky won't fall. The streets won't be full of angry, starving people any more than they are today. It won't be like some post-apocalyptic movie. I know, I know. The future is so damn boring. We've got other sources of power, like fission (and in time, solar), that are just waiting to fill the gaping void.

Heat from a fission reactor could be used to flash distill seawater and generate power at the same time. And for everyone that says we'd have to deal with a bunch of nuclear waste, well 95% of what you call waste can be recycled into new fuel. Anything highly or even moderately radioactive can be used as fuel. Fission would let the grid handle the extra strain of a bunch of electric cars during and after the transition. ZOMGshift+1, our problems are solved! Who knew it could be so easy? Now all we need to do is get off our collective ass and start building some new plants.

Yeap... a thread for nothing.
When you say oil will end, you seem to say it will be the end of the world!
On the contrary it will be the beginning of a new era for the good friends of gw bush... prices will be at the top $500 a barrel or so, they will only sort out some cereal oil or algae oil for cheaper and you happy consumer will have the choice of smell: banana or onions

Gasp! You mean that we don't have an infinite supply of crude? Well we've known this for a long time now. I won't be the first to say that we'll never really run dry, we'll stop pumping long before that because it will no longer be profitable. There will still be a few wells and refineries that stay open and operating for those who collect old (gas) vehicles. The sky won't fall. The streets won't be full of angry, starving people any more than they are today. It won't be like some post-apocalyptic movie. I know, I know. The future is so damn boring. We've got other sources of power, like fission (and in time, solar), that are just waiting to fill the gaping void.

Heat from a fission reactor could be used to flash distill seawater and generate power at the same time. And for everyone that says we'd have to deal with a bunch of nuclear waste, well 95% of what you call waste can be recycled into new fuel. Anything highly or even moderately radioactive can be used as fuel. Fission would let the grid handle the extra strain of a bunch of electric cars during and after the transition. ZOMGshift+1, our problems are solved! Who knew it could be so easy? Now all we need to do is get off our collective ass and start building some new plants.

The fact that you called it "fission," which is what all nuclear plants run on now, and not "fusion," which is what I suspect you are actually talking about tells me all I need to knwo about your education level on the subject. Here's a little more education on "fusion" - The president of the physics department at the California Institute of Technology, a world leader in fusion research, once had this to say about "fusion" as a future energy source - "Fusion is the energy of teh future... and always will be."

Does it bother anyone that just five years ago fear for your physical safety wasn't a concern when you thoought about whether or not to express yourself politically, socially or artistically?

Why is my reply to another thread showing up in this one? :confused:

Temporary or not, Im in Missouri and enjoying $1.90 gas! Im just going to enjoy it while it lasts but im most likely making my next vehicle one that can accept multiple fuel sources.

Temporary or not, Im in Missouri and enjoying $1.90 gas! Im just going to enjoy it while it lasts but im most likely making my next vehicle one that can accept multiple fuel sources.

Enjoy it. Nect Summer I predict $4. :)

Enjoy it. Nect Summer I predict $4. :)

I'm a little more muted. I think it's going to remain in the $2.50-3.00 range all summer and will only break above that in the event of a major hurricane or other disruption. It'll only break below that in the event that we have a recession in 2007 and oil demand stagnates or declines; given that world GDP is growing by at least 4.4% next year, it's highly unlikely that world demand will slow appreciably.

I'm a little more muted. I think it's going to remain in the $2.50-3.00 range all summer and will only break above that in the event of a major hurricane or other disruption. It'll only break below that in the event that we have a recession in 2007 and oil demand stagnates or declines; given that world GDP is growing by at least 4.4% next year, it's highly unlikely that world demand will slow appreciably.

I'll bet you a gallon of gas. If it's above $3.50 you buy me a gallon and if it's below $3.00 I'll buy you one. If it's in the middle we'll call it a draw and if there's a recession or a war or a major hurrincane all bets are off. ;)

Regular political upheaval doesn't count, though, because that's part of the normal equation.

I'll bet you a gallon of gas. If it's above $3.50 you buy me a gallon and if it's below $3.00 I'll buy you one. If it's in the middle we'll call it a draw and if there's a recession or a war or a major hurrincane all bets are off. ;)

We'd be the only people ever to mail each other a gallon of gas...I wonder how that works in the postal system?

Regular political upheaval doesn't count, though, because that's part of the normal equation.

Of course.

We'd be the only people ever to mail each other a gallon of gas...I wonder how that works in the postal system?



Of course.

We'll write a check.

We'll write a check.

Bah, sending gas by mail is so much more fun...

Bah, sending gas by mail is so much more fun...

We'd end up in Gitmo.

We'd end up in Gitmo.

Come to think about it, good point. At least it's sunny in Cuba....

Ultra deep sea dumping in sealed containers can keep the shit away for millions of years - even if it leaks.

Yea right. Out of sight out of mind, eh? Deep sea ecosystems are kind of important to life on this planet, and kind of poorly understood. Not something we should be lightly tampering with. Besides, is nothing sacred? Can we not go without dumping our waste in every last corner of the planet?

He read Deffeyes' book.

That'll do it. Since my one friend read it, we sit around and talk about what our back up plan will be if industrial civilization collapses ... :)

The fact that you called it "fission," which is what all nuclear plants run on now, and not "fusion," which is what I suspect you are actually talking about tells me all I need to knwo about your education level on the subject. Here's a little more education on "fusion" - The president of the physics department at the California Institute of Technology, a world leader in fusion research, once had this to say about "fusion" as a future energy source - "Fusion is the energy of teh future... and always will be."
I knew exactly what I was talking about. Fusion doesn't work yet. At least not as better than break even. I have followed fusion research for quite a while now and I can tell you we are going in the wrong direction. Tokamaks will likely never hit break even yet that is where most of the funding is going. Fission on the other hand, works and works well right now. That is the solution for the near future. Break even fusion technology doesn't yet exist. The closest thing is an H-bomb and that's useless as a power source.

Yes, the world is depleting easily accessible oil. Big shocker there.

The world is far more adaptable than you think – there is no crisis whatsoever. The only problems come from the hysteria of people freaking out. Stay calm and you will realize that going chicken-little is not the appropriate response.

We have other viable alternatives to using oil; the only reason we don’t use them is because oil is still a little cheaper. A few years from now those technologies can easily become commercially viable and many are already looking at a market test within the next 2 years.

Look around you and you will see that there is a huge capacity for energy savings if we simply make minor changes in lifestyle. There is a school near me which has huge floodlights every 20 feet all along the outside and massive streetlights in the parking lot which effectively light up the entire school property to daylight levels 24 hours a day – this is a colossal waste of power and is by no means an isolated instance.

Simply by keeping tires inflated to the proper pressure, changing your air and fuel filters, and driving a little more conservatively you can reduce your fuel consumption by around 15%. The average person could cut 15% of their fuel consumption tomorrow – and that is just the beginning. Turn the lights off in a room when nobody is in it, watch less television (*gasp* actually read a book), switch from incandescent to LED lights, walk or bicycle rather than drive short trips, do any number of things to conserve power. We have a massive potential to reduce out consumption with only very minor adjustments.

Roughly every 27 years there is some big panic about oil running out – it has been happening since petroleum was first collected seeping out of the ground in Pennsylvania. Oil is still cheap (it may cost more than it did a couple years ago, but until it starts changing peoples’ behavior, it is cheap), and until it starts to truly become scarce (probably not for another 20 years at least) there is nothing to worry about. We already have alternatives to shift onto, and they are even becoming economically viable.

Don’t panic. The world is not coming to an end.

BTW – has anyone seen the doco “who killed the electric car?”

Yes, the world is depleting easily accessible oil. Big shocker there.

The world is far more adaptable than you think – there is no crisis whatsoever. The only problems come from the hysteria of people freaking out. Stay calm and you will realize that going chicken-little is not the appropriate response.You sound like Vetalia did just a week ago. Once you start seriously looking at the alternatives, the time frames for implementing them and their energy return reltaive to oil you get different picture.

We have other viable alternatives to using oil; the only reason we don’t use them is because oil is still a little cheaper. A few years from now those technologies can easily become commercially viable and many are already looking at a market test within the next 2 years.Bitchen! When do I get my new car? Do I need to pay for it? Because I can't afford one. Also, when do they install all those new pumps in all the gas stations? Also, all the pipelines needed to transport it? Where are teh factories? Thefilling stations? The capital for the factories?

Look around you and you will see that there is a huge capacity for energy savings if we simply make minor changes in lifestyle. There is a school near me which has huge floodlights every 20 feet all along the outside and massive streetlights in the parking lot which effectively light up the entire school property to daylight levels 24 hours a day – this is a colossal waste of power and is by no means an isolated instance. Great! Taht'll save a bunch of nat gas and coal, but this thread is about oil.

Simply by keeping tires inflated to the proper pressure, changing your air and fuel filters, and driving a little more conservatively you can reduce your fuel consumption by around 15%. The average person could cut 15% of their fuel consumption tomorrow – and that is just the beginning. Turn the lights off in a room when nobody is in it, watch less television (*gasp* actually read a book), switch from incandescent to LED lights, walk or bicycle rather than drive short trips, do any number of things to conserve power. We have a massive potential to reduce out consumption with only very minor adjustments.

Roughly every 27 years there is some big panic about oil running out – it has been happening since petroleum was first collected seeping out of the ground in Pennsylvania. Oil is still cheap (it may cost more than it did a couple years ago, but until it starts changing peoples’ behavior, it is cheap), and until it starts to truly become scarce (probably not for another 20 years at least) there is nothing to worry about. We already have alternatives to shift onto, and they are even becoming economically viable.

Don’t panic. The world is not coming to an end.

BTW – has anyone seen the doco “who killed the electric car?”

Don't have the energy. I'll let someone else tackle the rest.

Oil is not going to suddenly disappear. Peak production just means that the rate of production is no longer increasing, not that production has stopped.

While demand is growing, this demand will slacken as the price goes up. This will result is higher fuel costs, but not the sudden disappearance of oil. As the supply slowly ebbs over the period of decades, we have more than enough time to make the transition. Not everything needs to be changed over to alternatives right away, just enough to counter the drop in supply.

We will slowly phase out oil usage and shift to new sources of energy. All we need to do is to switch to purchasing alternative sources and let oil usage decline through attrition. This could be fairly easily accomplished with little economic disruption.

Since this seems to be a concept many of you simply cannot grasp, I will repeat it: oil will not suddenly disappear so we will still have oil in the future, just not as much of it.

While you point out that saving electricity in general will reduce other fossil fuels, but not oil, you are mistaken. While not the primary fuel for power generation, oil and natural gas are major sources for power generation; thus lessening the demand for electricity will lessen the need for oil.

When it comes to vehicles: the use of biodiesel is already becoming fairly common, hybrid and even just more efficient normal internal combustion cars reducing demand, fully electric cars are once again being produced, engines running on waste vegetable oil are becoming more popular, not to mention something as simple as people being more conservative with their driving is poised to make massive reductions in the oil demands for new vehicles.

I’m not sure of the statistic, but it is somewhere around 8 to 9 million car sales every year, plus another 8 million trucks, which adds up to a significant change of the current fleet in the US market. There is no need for everyone to suddenly abandon their gas powered can and buy a new one right away. Oil is not about to suddenly disappear – attrition over the next decade will be sufficient.

Yeah, sending nuclear waste into space is uber dangerous. I wonder what would happen though if we put in like...magma or something? :p Would it melt it? hmmm...(i love my off the wall ideas)

The main problem with shooting it into space is cost. It costs alot of money to do so.

And that "waste" may not be waste. It has energy in it, perhaps we could even use this "waste" to produce other types of energy. It's a possibility.

Oil is not going to suddenly disappear. Peak production just means that the rate of production is no longer increasing, not that production has stopped.No, duh?

While demand is growing, this demand will slacken as the price goes up. This will result is higher fuel costs, but not the sudden disappearance of oil. As the supply slowly ebbs over the period of decades, we have more than enough time to make the transition. Not everything needs to be changed over to alternatives right away, just enough to counter the drop in supply. And what alternatives are ready that come anywhere near being abl to slack even a 5% depletion rate year over year? Ethanol? Biodeisel? Estimates from the DOA suggest that in order to fuel our current demand we would need about 29 billion acres turned over to fuel production. We have only 9 billion acres growing food now as it is. You also underestimate the speed at which supplies can decline. Mexico announced last March that it's Canterral field, the second largest in the world, is in permanent decline and expects rates of depletion of 8% year over year. Combine with similar production declines in their peripheral fields, this will cut the countries production in half in four years. So, in order to replace just mexico's production declines with alternatives we'd need to produce somewhere on the order of about 2.5 million barrels/day of ethanol/day when you take into account ethanol's 25% lower energy yield. That's just one country. Saudi Arabia has said that it's Gwahar field is experiencing production declines in excess of 5%. That's a field that is responsible for one out of every 20 barrels produced of teh 84 million per day that the world produces. How are you going to "grow crops" your way out of declines like that? Better get to it fast.

We will slowly phase out oil usage and shift to new sources of energy. All we need to do is to switch to purchasing alternative sources and let oil usage decline through attrition. This could be fairly easily accomplished with little economic disruption. First, all the alternartives I've seen really are just wasy to turn oil into something else. They are not really alternatives at all. Second, the point isn't that fuel will become unavailable, it is that it will become expensive which means less nights at the restaraunt, less movies to go see, less video games to buy, The economy runs on consumer spending. When you hit that you have economic disruption.

Since this seems to be a concept many of you simply cannot grasp, I will repeat it: oil will not suddenly disappear so we will still have oil in the future, just not as much of it.Actually, I think most of us grab this subject much better than you. I think you fail to see the challenges to replacing oil (we won't) and the impact on the middle class and what that impact wil do to our whole eceonomy. Further, you seem to believe that technology will save us. Technology is fueld by the very resource we are staring to run short of. hell, the computer you are typing on is largely made directly out of oil.

While you point out that saving electricity in general will reduce other fossil fuels, but not oil, you are mistaken. While not the primary fuel for power generation, oil and natural gas are major sources for power generation; thus lessening the demand for electricity will lessen the need for oil.Nat gas is. Oil is not a major power source for electricity. 70% of all oil is used in transportation. Much of the rest is used in producing fertalizers to grow crops, including corn to make ethanol, plastics and industrial fuels.

When it comes to vehicles: the use of biodiesel is already becoming fairly common, hybrid and even just more efficient normal internal combustion cars reducing demand, fully electric cars are once again being produced, engines running on waste vegetable oil are becoming more popular, not to mention something as simple as people being more conservative with their driving is poised to make massive reductions in the oil demands for new vehicles.There's no way we are going to produce enough biofuel to allow us to keep out mass motoring way of life and if we do not consumer spending will crumble.

I’m not sure of the statistic, but it is somewhere around 8 to 9 million car sales every year, plus another 8 million trucks, which adds up to a significant change of the current fleet in the US market. There is no need for everyone to suddenly abandon their gas powered can and buy a new one right away. Oil is not about to suddenly disappear – attrition over the next decade will be sufficient.I hope you're right. But I know you're not. The market says oil is peaking now or very soon and we are not prepared. These alternatives you talk about don't just pop out of the ground like an oil well. They take years, often decades to bring on line, if they are economic at all. A nuke lant can take a deacde before it produces a single watt. Refineries take years to buold and bring online and both take a lot of oil to build. Nuclear power uses huge amounts of oil from the mining of the Uranium to the refinement of the ore to the transportation of the ore to the building of the plant.

You seem to be under the impression that we can just wish upon a star and tomorrow, or five years from now, we'll all be buy e-85. Not gonna happen that way. Will we all die? No, but we are headed for a ride as rough as any we have seen since the 1930s.

Ethanol? Biodeisel?
Ethanol is largely a misallocation of resources. I see it as a boondoggle from the corn lobby.

Biodiesel on the other hand, is a viable source of fuel. It will never be the primary source, but it can certainly be produced in significant volumes from waste agricultural products. The amount of waste food produced in the US alone is enormous and can be very easily turned into fuel. Just waste fry oil from fast food chains would produce massive amounts of fuel.

One of the companies I work for was looking at setting up a biodiesel plant in an area which produces large quantities of soybeans. It would take the waste soybeans (those not of a good enough quality to be used as food, what is leftover from extracting proteins for animal feed, etc) and convert it into diesel using a highly efficient process requiring very little outside energy input (though the conversion is slower than with typical biodiesel plants). While it would take more storage space for the same level of production, not having to heat the tanks would gain a significant advantage. It would have been economically feasible even without any government subsidies or support (and this was back when diesel was just getting up to $2/gal). Unfortunately another less-efficient plant was already going through the regulatory process and was held up as an example of the administrations commitment to alternative fuels. Basically a less efficient plant which needed huge subsidies to survive won out over an efficient economically viable plant because of political influence. Anyway, bitching about politics aside, the point is that biodiesel is a potentially significant source of fuel, even though it will not be able to come anywhere near replacing oil. It does not need to anyway, just help ease some of the demand, especially if most vehicles switch to electric systems.

While oil fields are declining, sometimes rapidly, new fields are coming online. Do not twist my statements to fit your arguments better, I am not saying we are replacing everything and we are not experiencing decline. We are exploiting new fields and exploring new areas, which helps cushion the decline significantly. We are not looking at a sudden massive drop.

the alternartives I've seen really are just wasy to turn oil into something else. They are not really alternatives at all.
Biodiesel is not turning petroleum oil into something else. Electricity is not (with minor exceptions) turning oil into something else. Hydrogen is not turning oil into something else.

Second, the point isn't that fuel will become unavailable, it is that it will become expensive which means less nights at the restaraunt, less movies to go see, less video games to buy, The economy runs on consumer spending. When you hit that you have economic disruption.
Oh poor baby, you might have to adjust your lifestyle to be more like a European’s. Europe has significantly higher petrol prices than the US yet they somehow seem to survive. I never said there would be no economic disruption – of course there will be some. There is economic disruption from copper miners in Chile going on strike. The point is that the world economy is not going to suddenly come to a screeching halt. You grossly overestimate the impact a rise in fuel prices has on the economy – we are not going to be plunged into another great depression.

Actually, I think most of us grab this subject much better than you. I think you fail to see the challenges to replacing oil (we won't) and the impact on the middle class and what that impact wil do to our whole eceonomy. Further, you seem to believe that technology will save us. Technology is fueld by the very resource we are staring to run short of. hell, the computer you are typing on is largely made directly out of oil.

Why do you think there are no alternatives to oil? Petroleum is so widely used because it has been cheep and this is where the focus has been, but is by no means so central and irreplaceable as you seem to think. One example is plastics – only a tiny portion of petroleum is used in the manufacture of plastics, and that quantity is still producible for the foreseeable future. Additionally plastics can be made from a wide variety of materials – petroleum is simple one possible source. Milk solids can be made into plastic. Certain types of clay can be made into plastics. Biological waste can be made into plastic. While these are more difficult to produce because there is not as much experience in producing them as we have in petroleum based plastics, that will change as petroleum become less interesting for production.

One of my clients is already producing some plastics components out of a special type of clay – it can make something harder, with a much higher melting point, is less friable (holds together better), has a much longer lifespan (plastics may not rot, but they loose their plasticity over time – they dry out and crack), and is comparable in price right now.

Petroleum is not irreplaceable. The world is not ending.

There's no way we are going to produce enough biofuel to allow us to keep out mass motoring way of life and if we do not consumer spending will crumble.
Why do we have to use either gasoline or diesel to fuel vehicles? Electric cars are certainly a possibility, as are hydrogen or other fuel types. Consumer spending is not wholly reliant upon people driving long distances all the time. Shocking I know, but there are people who don’t even own cars yet manage to have highly productive and consumerist lives. Yes, we might have to make a slight adjustment to society and not have everyone live in sprawling suburbs with a 50 mile commute to work in an SUV, but I don’t see that as a massive loss.

I hope you're right. But I know you're not. The market says oil is peaking now or very soon and we are not prepared. These alternatives you talk about don't just pop out of the ground like an oil well. They take years, often decades to bring on line, if they are economic at all.
Many alternatives are economically feasible right now, and there is a shift to making alternatives available already. Alternative energy has been worked on for decades, so it is not starting from scratch. Retooling an automotive factory to produce electric cars, for example, might take a couple of months, not the decades you are anticipating. Many alternatives are already slated to start coming off the production lines by 2008 – it would not take decades to shift production to more heavily favor them.

A nuke lant can take a deacde before it produces a single watt. Refineries take years to buold and bring online and both take a lot of oil to build. Nuclear power uses huge amounts of oil from the mining of the Uranium to the refinement of the ore to the transportation of the ore to the building of the plant.
Yup, nuclear plants can take years to get through the regulatory hurdles and through construction. Fortunately there are several designs already sitting ready and are simply blocked by the ‘not in my back yard’ mentality. All they need is the governmental go-ahead and they can start breaking ground. We can hold out for the anticipated 8 years – as you pointed out, most power generation is not done with oil anyway. They take a lot of oil to build, because oil is cheap and thus is the fuel of choice for construction and mining vehicles, and for some oil based construction materials (which all have alternatives on the market already, they are just a little more expensive – the cost of which will come down when they begin to gain economies of scale). This will change fairly easily.

You seem to be under the impression that we can just wish upon a star and tomorrow, or five years from now, we'll all be buy e-85. Not gonna happen that way. Will we all die? No, but we are headed for a ride as rough as any we have seen since the 1930s.
Tomorrow? Certainly not. 5 years from now? E-85 in every station would most definitely be a possibility (if there were any market demand, which I do not anticipate). Oh yeah, by the by, most cars produced in the last 5 years have been capable of running e-85 with a slight software update.

Alternatives are available now, the problem is not that they are not technologically feasible, nor that the distribution or support systems are beyond our ability to put in place within just a couple years, the one and only problem is the will to implement it. There simply is not a strong enough need. When that need becomes strong enough, you will find a long list of products just waiting to fill that demand.

snip

I am just in the process of (re-)reading the book Natural Capitalism. The authors make a lot of the kind of optimistic projections that you make regarding the adoption of energy-saving technologies and new sources of energy. And it is interesting to see, 7 years after the book was first published, how few of those optimistic projections have come true. They seem to make the same arguments you make ... people will have to adopt the technologies because they save money and they just make sense. I think you are underestimating the extent to which we have to overcome our path dependency, cultural biases, and certain vested interests in order to make the changes we need to make. I don't doubt that we have the technology, and I don't doubt that we can and will adopt it ... but I do not think it will take place as quickly as you suggest.

Nor are we barreling toward our doom as quickly as you and PD have suggested. Panic doesn't accomplish any good and can very easily do a lot of bad.

Nor are we barreling toward our doom as quickly as you and PD have suggested. Panic doesn't accomplish any good and can very easily do a lot of bad.

I don't think either of us suggested we are barelling toward our doom. I think we suggested that we are in for a rough ride if we don't change direction. And that is completely unnecessary. No-one is trying to create panic. But we are trying to do is actually force people to realize that there is a problem and it needs to be addressed, since the will to change seems to be totally lacking at the moment.