Peak Oil Thread (1 Viewer)

[Philip Hamm]

There's plenty of energy to take it's place, the planet is awash in energy. It'll be good to stop burning oil for fuel. It will be a long and sometimes difficult transition, but it won't be the end of the world catastrophe that the peal oil doomer nutcases make it out to be.

 

[ChristopherDAC]

I'm just going to mention, here, that you can run air transport on nuclear power — it just doesn't appear to be a very good idea. The Air Force spent a great deal of money in the 1950s and 1960s developing nuclear jet engines for bombers, to avoid having to do aerial refuelling on B-52s to achieve the long on-station loiter times required by the strategy of the period. Two different systems eventually met the performance requirements, but nobody ever worked out a satisfactory way to keep highly radioactive material from being scattered over the countryside in case of a crash. Ballistic missiles took over the strategic deterrent role at about that time, so the whole question was shelved. Back in the 1970s there were design studies done on employing nuclear power in airships, for intercontinental passenger & cargo transport at about 120 mph. The major advantages are (a) the much lower power-to-weight ratio required by lighter-than-air craft, as compared to heavier-than-air, (b) the large internal volume, & (c) the much lower impact speed in case of emergency descent. These factors significantly reduce the problems associated with shielding & protection for the powerplant under normal & emergency conditions. Unfortunately, since there has been little progress with large conventionally-powered airships, & it seems that they would have to be accumulate quite a bit of operational experience before moving on to a nuclear-powered version, that's not something we are likely to see in the near future. I rate its probability marginally higher than Myrabo's orbiting death ray planes.

 

[Don Solosan]

"There's plenty of energy to take it's place, the planet is awash in energy."

Yes, there's lots of energy, but it's diffuse like solar, wind, and wave (and it can't be manufactured into stuff like petroleum can). So it's going to be expensive, if it can be collected profitably at all. Of course, the country is in great financial shape, so paying for all this new infrastructure will be no problem at all!

Plus, I think you're forgetting that our near 7 billion world population was made possible by petroleum inputs into big agri-business. The Green Revolution is already falling apart at the seams; what happens when it collapses? Down in Haiti they're eating mud pies. In other places, they're rioting. What happens when Americans (who own lots of guns) start to go hungry?

 

[Philip Hamm]

It's ovious that you've completely fallen under the spell of the kooky Peak Oil end of the world doomsday cult. Their circular arguments allow for nothing but doom and gloom. There are no arguments that can satisfy religious ferver. Enjoy. When you tire of their preaching, try reading this blog for another point of view.

 

[Don Solosan]

And it's obvious that you're a cornucopian, which has a religious fervor all its own. Enjoy!

 

[Buzz Foster]

Both sides, to a degree, have a requirement of faith. I tend to avoid short-sightedness, and it certainly appears that the doomsayers are the most short-sighted.

Here's something that a lot of people tend to forget even exists: ITER. The timeline on this thing is something like 75 years before we have viable, reproduceable reactors that can be built and provide the world with clean, reliable, cheap electricity. Can a regimine of conservation, renewables, other fossil fuels, and fission bridge that 75 year gap? I'm willing to bet it can. I'm also willing to bet that somewhere in that 75 year gap will be energy innovation unlike what we have seen before.

No, it isn't going to be all sunshine and buttercups, but I also don't think that it will be anything like the massive "die-off" predicted by doomsayers, either. I think this will be the point at which we reach equilibrium. We will find the way to live within our energy means, at an economic cost that will allow for sustainability, and not massive growth in population and consumption.

The countries that will have the hardest time adjusting will be those whose, ahem, philosophical attitude tends toward familial population growth and away from the planning of such. I won't touch the pros and cons of this, or the reasoning behind it here with a ten-foot pole, but it is going to be an economic fact that poor, population dense areas, which are already an environmental knife-edge, are likely to become unbalanced. Upswings in food prices are already causing problems in those places. I am optimistic, but also realistic enough to be aware that the countries best able to afford expensive oil are those with the highest degrees of personal and national wealth. Everyone will have some pain as we adjust, but complaining about how much it costs to gas up the Excursion is certainly less painful than being unable to afford feeding the family.

 

[DaveF]

I hope you don't mind if I have some questions about your lifestyle -- I've been curious since I read this post.

In context, I take this as not simply a description of your habits but an implied assertion as to how everyone should live more frugally with regards to energy. Is this what you meant?

Do you live so conservatively in an Ed Begley-esque committment to carving a low energy path? Or is the motivation different (like saving money)?

What do you mean you have your appliances on powerstrips? Do you have your oven, washer and dryer on switches? To what end? Do you have your electronics on powerstrips? If so, isn't it extraordinarily tedious to re-program your TV, Tivo, VCR, stereo every single day (perhaps several times a day), when you want to watch some TV or listen to music? Do you also have clocks on switches, so they don't drain power when you're not checking the time?

This reminds of me of my first year in grad school: I slept on the floor that year since I didn't have a bed and didn't want to bother getting one. I was young and could have slept on a bed of nails, so all was fine. But I have no intention of ever living so meanly again. Even if we reach Peak Mattress, I will find a way to afford one.

 

[Dan Mc]

The higher price of oil has made lots of alternatives possible, not just the pie in the sky "solar, wind, and wave", but practical alternatives that we currently have the technology for, but it just hasn't been commercially viable, or politically popular to utilize yet. Now it is commercially feasible to produce gasoline from shale oil as well as from coal, both of which we have in abundance in this country. Not to mention nuclear technology. These technologies will come into play well before any meltdown of society as we know it occurs. If we expand nuclear power, our oil refining capabilities, and utilize our own oil reserves, we won't even approach this "peak" by the time other energy technologies are available.

 

[Don Solosan]

"it certainly appears that the doomsayers are the most short-sighted."

I would say that the doomers are more far-sighted than the cornucopians, for the simple reason that they understand that things change. The cornucopians think things will stay the same, i.e., in terms of technological advance, availability of resources, etc. That's short-sighted.

"The timeline on this thing is something like 75 years before we have viable, reproduceable reactors that can be built and provide the world with clean, reliable, cheap electricity."

This is great, but you can't surface a street with electricity. You can't fertilize a field or make pesticides from electricity, nor can you use it to repair topsoil. Petroleum gives us so much more than just an energy source. So on top of a crash course to replace our primary energy source, we need a crash course to provide us with everything from Tupperware to electrical insulation.

Plus, hey, it just may be too late. Our existing oil fields are declining by 4-8% per year. Presently the world uses something like 30 billion barrels of oil a year. The fields they're drilling now are unlikely to add to supply for another ten years. What happens if we only have 15 billion barrels in the next few decades?

"We will find the way to live within our energy means, at an economic cost that will allow for sustainability, and not massive growth in population and consumption."

More likely, we will be forced into a situation whether we like it or not. Most people don't give up their SUVs until the price of fuel forces them to.

 

[Don Solosan]

"I hope you don't mind if I have some questions about your lifestyle -- I've been curious since I read this post."

I don't mind at all.

"In context, I take this as not simply a description of your habits but an implied assertion as to how everyone should live more frugally with regards to energy. Is this what you meant?"

No, the original question (I believe) was something like, "What are you doing to save energy?" I don't go around telling people how to live their lives. The reason I started this thread is to provide a possible answer to the "why is gas so expensive?" debate. If we are at peak oil production, wouldn't you want to know?

"Do you live so conservatively in an Ed Begley-esque committment to carving a low energy path? Or is the motivation different (like saving money)?"

My parents grew up in the Depression, so I think I inherited a bit of frugality from them. My lifestyle has been described by friends as "minimalist." I tend to have only the possessions I need for the immediate future. If I don't need it, I sell it or give it away. Saving money is good, too. The more money I have, the less I have to work.

"What do you mean you have your appliances on powerstrips? Do you have your oven, washer and dryer on switches? To what end? Do you have your electronics on powerstrips? If so, isn't it extraordinarily tedious to re-program your TV, Tivo, VCR, stereo every single day (perhaps several times a day), when you want to watch some TV or listen to music? Do you also have clocks on switches, so they don't drain power when you're not checking the time?"

I live in an apartment, a single (one large room with a kitchen, dining area, bathroom and closets). I use the building's washer and dryer; sometimes I hand wash stuff and hang it up to dry. I don't pay for water, but try to be conscientious about using as little as possible. There is a gas fireplace, with the pilot switched off for most of the year; I have a gas stove with a pilot light that I can't turn off, unfortunately. I don't pay for gas, but there's no reason to waste the stuff.

I don't have a TV, I have a video projector hooked up to a DVD player and a surround sound system. All of these can be switched off without losing any programming. Lately, I've been considering parting with it. I live near a lot of good movie theaters, and I can watch DVDs on my laptop...

For the time, I have a battery-powered alarm clock. I hate battery-powered devices, but I found that wind-up alarms tended to last about a year, then I'd have to buy another one. This present clock has lasted for three or four years, I think, so overall it seems better for the environment.

My life seems to be getting busy lately, so now the answering machine is always on. That's two appliances.

 

[Don Solosan]

"If we expand nuclear power, our oil refining capabilities, and utilize our own oil reserves, we won't even approach this "peak" by the time other energy technologies are available."

Do you see the problem with switching from one nonrenewable resource to another?

By many indicators, we are at the peak right now. Our economy has been stalled for the past two or three years because we haven't got enough cheap petroleum. Can you imagine this going for decades while we search for a technological fix?

I think the US's proven petroleum reserves are 27 billion barrels. Assuming we could suck all of that out of the ground right now and turn it into gas, etc., it would run out in a few years. If there was an alternative technology to take up the slack, we should be deploying it now.

Another problem is that the dollar isn't worth spit, and the government has us deeply in debt. Where are we going to get the money to build the thousands of nuclear reactors (p.s. the first one's going up in your backyard!) we'd need to stop using natural gas, diesel fuel and coal to generate electricity?

As for American shale oil, well, Shell says they might have the technology figured out by 2010. Their plan involves heating the rock from underground with electric heaters. They have to bake it for two or three years before extraction. So, sure, there's a lot of it, and it might be commercially feasible to do it, but people have been trying to get at it for decades and failing. If Shell does it, they'll have gas to sell you sometime around 2020. Don't expect it to be cheap.

 

[Mort Corey]

At present, it would appear that the answer the US government has for peak oil is to take it through force. Not trying to get off on a "war" good/bad tangent....just pointing to one obvious set of means to enable continuation of supply at whatever cost.

Mort

 

[cafink]

This is exactly the opposite of what I see. Everyone agrees that oil is finite resource, and that as we use more of it, it becomes scarcer, more expensive, and more difficult to extract.

It seems to me that the "cornucopians" are the ones who recognize that things change. They recognize that there are other sources of energy, which will become increasingly viable with time and especially as oil becomes scarcer and more expensive.

The "doomsayers" are the ones who strike me as short-sighted, unable to understand where energy will come from as oil reserves are depleted, just because we rely so heavily on oil today.

 

[Buzz Foster]

"This is great, but you can't surface a street with electricity. You can't fertilize a field or make pesticides from electricity, nor can you use it to repair topsoil. Petroleum gives us so much more than just an energy source. So on top of a crash course to replace our primary energy source, we need a crash course to provide us with everything from Tupperware to electrical insulation."

No, but you can put mag-lev coils under the dirt and run cars and/or trains over it. If we cut private and mass ground transportation needs from petroleum, we save a tremendous amount of the stuff that can be used for other needs. The shale oil production in the US will provide a significantly reduced, but steady stream of the stuff for some time. Not enough for cars, but probably enough for our food production needs, and other uses.

I'm not a "cornucopian", but I am an optimist. The transition will not be fun, but I do not believe it is going to be a mass "die-off".

 

[JoeyR]

Nevermind not even worth getting stared on

 

[cafink]

Current uranium reserves are sufficient to provide thousands of years' worth of nuclear power (source).

So no, I don't see the problem.

 

[Don Solosan]

"Everyone agrees that oil is finite resource,"

No. There is a theory that a fair number of people subscribe to that oil is "abiotic," that it's not the result of decaying biomass, but is produced by physical forces deep within the planet. These people believe that oil fields will refill from below. They think we will never run out of oil.

"They recognize that there are other sources of energy, which will become increasingly viable with time and especially as oil becomes scarcer and more expensive."

Yes, there are other sources of energy, but so far none of them scale up to the amount we need (or provide the other stuff that petroleum provides).

 

[Don Solosan]

"Current uranium reserves are sufficient to provide thousands of years' worth of nuclear power (source).

So no, I don't see the problem."

For one thing, any time they say "at current consumption rates," they're selling you a bill of goods, because our economy is not based on standing still, it's based on exponential growth. Just the little supply hiccup in petroleum that we're experiencing now has stalled our economy. Our energy usage has traditionally grown at an average rate of 7% per year, which means it doubles every 10 years. You do several cycles of that, and the thousands of years get severely whittled down.

For another, uranium is of low density in the earth's crust. So you have to process a lot of matter to get the uranium. It takes a lot of energy to do this, so they should get started on developing electric mining equipment if they don't want to get caught behind.

 

[Don Solosan]

"No, but you can put mag-lev coils under the dirt and run cars and/or trains over it."

There are towns that are struggling now because the price of asphalt has doubled in the past few years. Instead of fixing all their streets, they're only fixing some of them. Now you want them to switch the infrastructure over to mag-lev technology. Who's going to pay for that?

By the way, I read that they're going to build a mag-lev train running from Anaheim, CA to Las Vegas, NV. Maybe if they were going to use the technology to move supplies around the country that would be a good thing, but tourists?

 

[cafink]

The article to which I linked used the "at current consumption rates" quote in the very first sentence. I guess that's all you bothered to read; otherwise, you'd have noticed that that the "thousands of years" conclusion actually takes future expansion of nuclear power into account.