V
vern_humphrey
Guest
I wonder if those who blame “Big Oil,” “Wall Street”, Wal-Mart and so on for all the evils of the world realize how far they’d fall in the morning if all those booger-bears really were hiding under their beds.
- Status
D
drpmjhess
Guest
Doug, my father was at a banquet last night for the Oxford-Cambridge Boat Race (we are both old Oxonians). At his table was a conservative (Republican) oil corporation executive, gentle, quiet, and not given to hyperbole or doomsday talk. My father broached the conversation of affordable oil, and the executive said matter-of-factly “We are at peak right now.” He said also that while Cheney and others know about this fact, the government at present has no plan on the table for dealing with the chaos that will potentially erupt a few years down the line, when people can’t get to work, when food can’t be delivered to supermarkets, and when the tax based falls out from under fire, police, and other emergency protection.
A colleague of his has an even darker take on this, opining that in 3,000 there won’t be any humans left (snuffed out by resource wars and famines). I don’t buy that, since there are still primal tribes in the Amazon not dependent on petro-civilization. I suspect we may have a great-die-off of much of the present 6.6 billion, but that we will see the survival of pockets of fairly civilized life, particularly in temperate zones that are bioregionally self-sufficient. And who knows – perhaps some of our artistic civilization and technological skills and even our theology will be preserved as well. I don’t think the end of oil will issue in an apocalyptic meltdown of everything!
Optimistically yours,
Petrus
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
The question is, are we at peak because the world is running out of oil, or because we are blocked from finding and using the oil reserves that still exist in abundance?
D
drpmjhess
Guest
I assume that for this executive “peak oil” refers to the maximum rate of extraction of the resource. Oil pumping will never take place at the same rate as now, even though global demand for oil will continue to rise.
Petrus
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
Is that “maximum rate of extraction” with drilling off the Atlantic and Pacific coasts, off the coast of Florida and in the Arctic, or without it?
Does it factor in a serious move to build new nuclear plants and make our electric power completely free of dependency on fossil fuels?
D
drpmjhess
Guest
(1) I’ll let the oil professionals (Doug, DeeDee) answer this, but I think it means maximum, period. Even when modest offshore finds are made, the cost of drilling in deep water or in the Arctic will delay production long enough that we will never be able to extract oil at the global rate we do today.
(2) Nuclear power is relevant to the discussion of the peak of oil only to the extent that massive nuclear facilities will be needed to create steam to help in extracting tar from the Athabasca tar sands. After oil, of course, nuclear might be the only thing standing between civilization and the brink of Olduvai Gorge.
Petrus
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
To quote Uncle Herbivore, “However long it takes, if we don’t start until tomorrow, it will take a day longer.”
Nuclear power is relevant because we have a lot of oil-burning power plants. It is also relevant if we wish to have more electricity to do things now done by gasoline engines.
A
Al_Masetti
Guest
Absolutely right. On both counts.
In the forestry business, when considering that trees take 30 years or 50 years to grow … we don’t have a second to waste.
And absolutely right about nukes. There are a lot of processes that are easy to electrify … all we need is a large quantity of really cheap electricity. The only reason why nuclear power is expensive is that the NRC and other agencies required change order after change order. Delaying what should be no more than a four year process from start to finish to over ten years.
Every railroad could and should be electrified. At one time there were many more electrified railroads than there are now, but cheap diesel power made maintaining the overhead catenaries less financially feasible in comparison with diesel power.
[There needs to be some way of transporting overheight/oversized loads … the overhead wires will be a problem in some cases.]
Every house and office can be heated with electric power … either with heat pumps or with resistance heaters (not the cheapest way to go), but if the electricity was available, it could be done.
Etc, etc, etc.
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
We should be fully nuclear – the only exceptions being hydro-electric and similar sources.
We should also be drilling in those places where we have not been allowed to drill.
And we should stream-line the processes for both licensing nuclear power plants and obtaining concessions to drill. And we should start today.
D
Doug50
Guest
It’s not about running out of oil. It’s very much like Dr Hirsch said, if you listened to the interview, the world uses sooooo much oil today that huge finds don’t mount to a heck of a lot. For example, suppose there is 33 billion barrels of recoverable oil that hope for of Brazil. The world uses 31 billion per year so that find gives you another year’s supply. According to the Hirsch report to the DOE if a crash program were implimented today it’d still take 20 years to solve the “peaking of world oil production”. That’s the point were you’ve reached your maximum production, not the point were oil is no longer coming out of the ground. The oil embargo caused about a 5% decrease in world production but look at what that 5% decrease did to the US economy at the time. That’s the problem. It only took a small decrease to have a big affect on the economy. Today the US economy is more dependent on oil due to commuters driving further miles per year.
Our economy (really the world economy) is based upon debt. Most everyone has a loan. What pays off all these loans? A growing economy does which is why recessions are tough on morgages. Growing GDPs are linked to growing oil supplies.
Is there anything to give credit to the following arguement by Hirsch? Yes. It’s exactly what happend in the 1970s
contreinfo.info/article.php3?id_article=1358
"David Strahan : So what you really saying is that peak oil means peak economy ?
Robert Hirsch : When oil goes into decline yes. World GDP will decline, I am perfectly convinced of that. In talking to economists, they believe very much in their models and their models are econometric so they don’t deal directly with shortage, they deal with oil price and their models can handle oil prices changing relatively slowly but to a person, economist that I have talked to and I have talked to a number of very significant economists, they admit that their models cannot handle significant changes, rapid changes, shock changes, and that is what peak oil is likely to be."
Worldwide there are 439 nuclear power plants. To meet the energy needs expected by 2050 it will take the equivolent of 10,000 producting a gigawatt each. If you tried to run 10,000 plants using lightwater reactors how long would the available uranium supplies last? If Dr. Goodstein’s analysis is correct about two decades.
20% of the uses electric generation is from nukes, or 1 in 5 homes. But the US produces 102,162 MWe of nuclear powere while France produces 62,466 MWe, Spain 7,400 MWe, United Kingdom 14,620 MWe, and Germany 21,931 MWe. The US produces almost as much as those 3 countries combined.
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
As Uncle Herbivore said, “However long it takes, if we wait until tomorrow to start, it will take one day longer.”
And less domestic resources – despite having many areas where we could drill.
Which is why we should seek to maximize our own supplies.
The Vizer had angered the Sultan, who condemned him to death. The Vizer said, “I can teach your favorite horse to sing.”
The Sultan said, “Very well. I will give you everything you need.
But if at the end of the year, if the horse doesn’t sing, off comes your head.”
So the Vizer lived in luxury. But a friend said, “Are you crazy? You’re on death row.”
And the Vizer said, “In a year, anything can happen. The Sultan may die. I may die. Or . . . the horse may learn to sing.”
And in 20 years, anything may happen.
The US is a much bigger country. Which is why we use percentages to compare one country to another.
If we hadn’t had a 30-year moratorium on nuclear plants, we’d be there now.
R
ricmat
Guest
Amen. And the Vizier story was quite funnyAs Uncle Herbivore said, “However long it takes, if we wait until tomorrow to start, it will take one day longer.”
The Vizer had angered the Sultan, who condemned him to death. The Vizer said, “I can teach your favorite horse to sing.”
The Sultan said, “Very well. I will give you everything you need.
But if at the end of the year, if the horse doesn’t sing, off comes your head.”
So the Vizer lived in luxury. But a friend said, “Are you crazy? You’re on death row.”
And the Vizer said, “In a year, anything can happen. The Sultan may die. I may die. Or . . . the horse may learn to sing.”
And in 20 years, anything may happen.
The US is a much bigger country. Which is why we use percentages to compare one country to another.
If we hadn’t had a 30-year moratorium on nuclear plants, we’d be there now.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
I don’t see how the oil executive or Cheney either one, could have a plan in the face of the solid opposition of Dems and environmentalists to developing resources or changing sources.
“Pockets of fairly civilized life” where “perhaps some of our artistic civilization and tech skills and even our theology will be preserved…” Assuming, as doomsdayers seem to stubbornly insist, that no new resources or more efficient uses can be developed, the worst case scenario is the late 19th century with curiously advanced technologies powered by the non-petroleum power sources of that era. (Well, maybe there’ll be enough oil left to avoid having to grease train wheels with mutton fat.) Interestingly, a very substantial portion of the U.S. was more heavily populated then than now, the art was more pleasing and the theology less compromised.
I have every confidence Vern can survive quite well in that environment. I know I can. But I have more faith in human ingenuity than to believe that’s where we’re headed.
I do hope the Oxonians enjoyed their after-boat-race banquet while they condemned the rest of us to death. Seems they likely enjoyed that even more than they enjoyed the Chateau Petrus.
D
Doug50
Guest
Vern, Al, the US only use oil to produce about 3% of the electricity generation in the US. The only way more electircal power plants come into play for transportation is when cars are running on plug-ins.
Petrus, Deepwater production takes on the order of 10 years to bring to market. The problem here in this debate is Al times three. It doesn’t matter what hard numbers I bring out they will field them with “will I just believe!!!” Hallalujah. Take Al in the other thread, it became all too evident that he uncharitably ignore any link I gave but expected me to open his.
Petrus, Deepwater production takes on the order of 10 years to bring to market. The problem here in this debate is Al times three. It doesn’t matter what hard numbers I bring out they will field them with “will I just believe!!!” Hallalujah. Take Al in the other thread, it became all too evident that he uncharitably ignore any link I gave but expected me to open his.
D
Doug50
Guest
This person’s argument is all to reminiscent of trying to have a discussion with polyannas (have you met this guy, Al?): countercurrents.org/goodchild051207.htm
The problem of explaining “peak oil” does not hinge on the issue of peak oil as such, but rather on that of “alternative energy.” Most people now have some idea of the concept of peak oil, but it tends to be brushed aside in conversation because of the common incantation: **“It doesn’t matter if oil runs out, because by then everything will be converted to [whatever] power.” **Humanity’s faith in what might be called the Pollyanna Principle — everything will work out right in the end — is eternal.
The critical missing information in such a dialogue, of course, is that “alternative energy” will do little to solve the peak-oil problem, although very few people are aware of the fact. The situation might be illustrated by a representative conversation I myself had a few months ago; the discourse might also illustrate the extent to which we are preparing the next generation for the coming decades:
P: There won’t be much gasoline left in a few years from now. Did your mother ever tell you that?
A (age 14): No, but I pretty well figured it out by myself. I guess we’ll be running cars with vegetable oil.
The Pollyanna Principle, after all, is what gets us through the day. Unfortunately, a quick glance through any standard textbook on world history would show that the principle does not apply to the many civilizations that lie buried beneath the sand. But to point at oil-production charts is to mistake a psychological problem for an engineering one: most people do not like to be pushed very far in the direction of the logical.
The main stumbling block, as noted above, is not the fact of the decline in world oil production, but the related fact of the impracticality of alternative energy. Alternative sources of energy do, of course, have certain uses, and they always have had, especially in pre-industrial societies. However, it is not possible to use non-hydrocarbon sources of energy to produce the required annual 400 to 500 quadrillion BTUs, and in a form that can be (1) stored conveniently, (2) pumped into cars, trucks, ships, and airplanes for the purpose of long-distance transportation of goods and people, (3) converted into a thousand everyday products, from asphalt to pharmaceuticals, and (4) used to run factories (which are places for machines that make machines [that make machines etc.]) — and which costs so little that it can be purchased in large quantities on a daily basis by billions of people.
There is also the question of time. The entire conversion of world industry would have to be done virtually overnight. The peak of world oil production was perhaps 2006. The more important date of peak oil production per capita was 1990. There are approximately 1 billion automobiles, and nearly 7 billion people. Throughout the 20th century, food production only barely met global needs, and in the last few years it has not even reached that level. In terms of the amount of time available, the switch from hydrocarbon energy to an alternative form of energy would stretch the bounds of even the most fanciful work of science fiction. continue
The problem of explaining “peak oil” does not hinge on the issue of peak oil as such, but rather on that of “alternative energy.” Most people now have some idea of the concept of peak oil, but it tends to be brushed aside in conversation because of the common incantation: **“It doesn’t matter if oil runs out, because by then everything will be converted to [whatever] power.” **Humanity’s faith in what might be called the Pollyanna Principle — everything will work out right in the end — is eternal.
The critical missing information in such a dialogue, of course, is that “alternative energy” will do little to solve the peak-oil problem, although very few people are aware of the fact. The situation might be illustrated by a representative conversation I myself had a few months ago; the discourse might also illustrate the extent to which we are preparing the next generation for the coming decades:
P: There won’t be much gasoline left in a few years from now. Did your mother ever tell you that?
A (age 14): No, but I pretty well figured it out by myself. I guess we’ll be running cars with vegetable oil.
The Pollyanna Principle, after all, is what gets us through the day. Unfortunately, a quick glance through any standard textbook on world history would show that the principle does not apply to the many civilizations that lie buried beneath the sand. But to point at oil-production charts is to mistake a psychological problem for an engineering one: most people do not like to be pushed very far in the direction of the logical.
The main stumbling block, as noted above, is not the fact of the decline in world oil production, but the related fact of the impracticality of alternative energy. Alternative sources of energy do, of course, have certain uses, and they always have had, especially in pre-industrial societies. However, it is not possible to use non-hydrocarbon sources of energy to produce the required annual 400 to 500 quadrillion BTUs, and in a form that can be (1) stored conveniently, (2) pumped into cars, trucks, ships, and airplanes for the purpose of long-distance transportation of goods and people, (3) converted into a thousand everyday products, from asphalt to pharmaceuticals, and (4) used to run factories (which are places for machines that make machines [that make machines etc.]) — and which costs so little that it can be purchased in large quantities on a daily basis by billions of people.
There is also the question of time. The entire conversion of world industry would have to be done virtually overnight. The peak of world oil production was perhaps 2006. The more important date of peak oil production per capita was 1990. There are approximately 1 billion automobiles, and nearly 7 billion people. Throughout the 20th century, food production only barely met global needs, and in the last few years it has not even reached that level. In terms of the amount of time available, the switch from hydrocarbon energy to an alternative form of energy would stretch the bounds of even the most fanciful work of science fiction. continue
D
Doug50
Guest
continue
Contemplating the expense will also take us far into the realms of fantasy. At $10,000 per vehicle, replacing the vehicles that are now on the road would cost $10 trillion. The infrastructure — the ongoing manufacture, transportation, maintenance, and repair — would add much greater expense. The existing furnaces and air conditioning in all the world’s buildings would be obsolete. Every machine on the planet would have to be replaced, every factory redesigned. We would have to replace the asphalt on all the world’s motorways by a non-hydrocarbon substance. The money and resources simply do not exist.
It is already too late; the system has been collapsing for years. The concept of retrofitting an entire planet must have the Pharaohs (who built only pyramids) chuckling in their graves. It is perhaps fortunate that there is no politician or business leader who would be willing to initiate such a mad venture.
In actuality, the world of the future will not be crowded. Survival for a few will be possible; survival for a population of billions will not be possible. But very few people have asked the ugly question of exactly how that rapid and dramatic reduction of population is going to take place. Voluntarily?
There are two further problems with trying to educate people on these matters. The first is that any discussion of both peak oil or alternative energy requires a scientific frame of mind: an understanding of empirical research and an ability to follow statistics without being misled. A grasp of basic science is essential in order to get a balanced perspective on the data, and in order to judge between the practical and the impractical.
The second of these further problems is that the concepts of peak oil and alternative energy are extremely complicated. Although it is possible to reduce those two topics to an “ABC” form of 500 words or so, the problem with such a single-page explanation is that much of the vital information would be left out. If the document failed to mention every “and / but / or,” the message would almost certainly be lost. If, on the other hand, the document were to be expanded to about 5,000 words, the writer probably lose track of the reader, since the text might exceed the latter’s attention span.
For those who are willing to make an effort to unravel the information, however, there are certainly several documents on alternative energy worth a close look. One of the best of the book-length documents is still John Gever et al., “Beyond Oil: The Threat to Food and Fuel in the Coming Decades” (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Ballinger, 3rd ed., 1991). A few useful hyperlinks are:
Jay Hanson, “Energetic Limits to Growth”
dieoff.org/page175.htm
Walter Youngquist, “Alternative Energy Sources”
oilcrisis.com/youngquist/altenergy.htm
Kevin Capp, “The End of Las Vegas”
lasvegascitylife.com/articles/
2007/09/27/news/cover/iq_16882035.txt
The “alternative energy” problem can also be illuminated by an examination of similar dialogues on other topics, especially in cases where science clashes with its opposite. A discussion about astrology, for example, might entail hours of exhausting dialogue, to be terminated when the pro-astrology party raises his head, takes a deep breath, and says, “Well, I believe. . . .” A barrier has been reached, beyond which no travel is possible. When communication is in such a poor state, there is often little hope that a reader will go so far as to check citations, bibliographies, or “Further Reading,”** or even to do something requiring as little labor as clicking on a hyperlink on a Web page**. But then the problem of being a teacher is that there is no such thing as retirement.
Contemplating the expense will also take us far into the realms of fantasy. At $10,000 per vehicle, replacing the vehicles that are now on the road would cost $10 trillion. The infrastructure — the ongoing manufacture, transportation, maintenance, and repair — would add much greater expense. The existing furnaces and air conditioning in all the world’s buildings would be obsolete. Every machine on the planet would have to be replaced, every factory redesigned. We would have to replace the asphalt on all the world’s motorways by a non-hydrocarbon substance. The money and resources simply do not exist.
It is already too late; the system has been collapsing for years. The concept of retrofitting an entire planet must have the Pharaohs (who built only pyramids) chuckling in their graves. It is perhaps fortunate that there is no politician or business leader who would be willing to initiate such a mad venture.
In actuality, the world of the future will not be crowded. Survival for a few will be possible; survival for a population of billions will not be possible. But very few people have asked the ugly question of exactly how that rapid and dramatic reduction of population is going to take place. Voluntarily?
There are two further problems with trying to educate people on these matters. The first is that any discussion of both peak oil or alternative energy requires a scientific frame of mind: an understanding of empirical research and an ability to follow statistics without being misled. A grasp of basic science is essential in order to get a balanced perspective on the data, and in order to judge between the practical and the impractical.
The second of these further problems is that the concepts of peak oil and alternative energy are extremely complicated. Although it is possible to reduce those two topics to an “ABC” form of 500 words or so, the problem with such a single-page explanation is that much of the vital information would be left out. If the document failed to mention every “and / but / or,” the message would almost certainly be lost. If, on the other hand, the document were to be expanded to about 5,000 words, the writer probably lose track of the reader, since the text might exceed the latter’s attention span.
For those who are willing to make an effort to unravel the information, however, there are certainly several documents on alternative energy worth a close look. One of the best of the book-length documents is still John Gever et al., “Beyond Oil: The Threat to Food and Fuel in the Coming Decades” (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Ballinger, 3rd ed., 1991). A few useful hyperlinks are:
Jay Hanson, “Energetic Limits to Growth”
dieoff.org/page175.htm
Walter Youngquist, “Alternative Energy Sources”
oilcrisis.com/youngquist/altenergy.htm
Kevin Capp, “The End of Las Vegas”
lasvegascitylife.com/articles/
2007/09/27/news/cover/iq_16882035.txt
The “alternative energy” problem can also be illuminated by an examination of similar dialogues on other topics, especially in cases where science clashes with its opposite. A discussion about astrology, for example, might entail hours of exhausting dialogue, to be terminated when the pro-astrology party raises his head, takes a deep breath, and says, “Well, I believe. . . .” A barrier has been reached, beyond which no travel is possible. When communication is in such a poor state, there is often little hope that a reader will go so far as to check citations, bibliographies, or “Further Reading,”** or even to do something requiring as little labor as clicking on a hyperlink on a Web page**. But then the problem of being a teacher is that there is no such thing as retirement.
D
Doug50
Guest
The fact is the modern world depends on oil, natrual gas, and coal. But 90+% of transpertation is dependent upon oil. Oil is the main energy source that runs modern economies. If world oil supplies decline 5% then, I believe along with others like Hirsch, you can expect to see a 5% decline in global GDP.
youtube.com/watch?v=FR86-9MGqZ0
D
Doug50
Guest
Ricmt, I own an an independent oil and gas company. That’s what I do for the bulk of my income. My family was in the drilling business for 52 years. What makes Vern have more knowledge and intuition about developing prospects, drilling, completion, and then bringing a field’s supply to market than I?Amen. And the Vizier story was quite funny
D
Doug50
Guest
Here’s a graph of US oil production which peaked in 1970. The green line 1980s is Alaska’s Prudhoe Bay production coming on line. It reversed the downward trend but it didn’t get the US back to being independent on petroleum. Drilling in deep water won’t either.
http://www.indianaenergyconference.org/peak_oil/Essent2.jpg
R
ribozyme
Guest
What do you mean by Dems? I would have bet that Al Gore would have bounteously supported alternative energy research and not focus on giving tax cuts for the wealthy.
I do expect a die-off in places such as Africa. I do not know what we can do to prevent such a malevolent catastrophe. However, my only hope is that alterative energy (I do believe humanity has the capacity to solve it but the question is whether there will be enough time) might save the survivors and the catastrophe will lead them to abandon religion as they see the incompatibility of such suffering with a benevolent God.
- Status