I've Been Encouraged Before...
Posted by Prof. Goose on June 13, 2007 - 11:47pm
Hi there all, just thought I'd bring this article up for its own comment thread. Have at it.
http://news.independent.co.uk/sci_tech/article2656034.ece
A world without oil
Scientists challenge major review of global reserves and warn that supplies will start to run out in four years' time
By Daniel Howden
Published: 14 June 2007Scientists have criticised a major review of the world's remaining oil reserves, warning that the end of oil is coming sooner than governments and oil companies are prepared to admit.
BP's Statistical Review of World Energy, published yesterday, appears to show that the world still has enough "proven" reserves to provide 40 years of consumption at current rates. The assessment, based on officially reported figures, has once again pushed back the estimate of when the world will run dry.
However, scientists led by the London-based Oil Depletion Analysis Centre, say that global production of oil is set to peak in the next four years before entering a steepening decline which will have massive consequences for the world economy and the way that we live our lives.
According to "peak oil" theory our consumption of oil will catch, then outstrip our discovery of new reserves and we will begin to deplete known reserves.
Good on you ODAC! http://www.odac-info.org/
Contact
- Content: editors at theoildrum dot com
- Tech support: support at theoildrum dot com
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.
This got picked up on Drudge Report.
Not exactly USA today, but a lot of new folks will be learning about peak oil for the first time...
Such short memories. USA Today has already covered PO, about 20 months ago.
Debate Brews: Has Oil Production Peaked?
An excerpt:
Not to mention, this was on the front page. I even have a copy and scanned it in.
http://www.updebate.org/phpBB2/album_pics/89.jpg
The exact same thing that happened after that article will happen after this one: Nothing.
People don't want to know, or they think "someone will think of something". Face it folks, we're on our own here. Collapse is going to happen fast, and the public will panic and run amok. Make your plans based on that, don't expect a soft landing.
Its a grand piece, well done the INDEPENDENT. I have been badgering David Smith (the Sunday Times economic editor) about PO - he is extremely dismissive, but maybe this piece will finally make him think.
On a related note is it possible that Greenspan has been reading the Oildrum?
All of a sudden he is on to the brewing Mexican crisis:
http://money.cnn.com/2007/06/13/news/international/bc.usa.economy.greens...
One of the great things about this site is that you get to see and hear about these problems way before the mainstream (in the same way as RR developed the petrol run up in the US several months before it happened).
So mighty plaudits to all those who have been banging the Mexican drum (Westexas etc etc - you know who you are).
I also wrote to David Smith - he believes CERA and OPEC. He would be extremely surprised if production did not increase as EIA predict. TOD are amateurs and doom-mongers, therefore no credibility.
I find his sort of arrogance irritating, but the fact that he is influential makes things worse. He does not have a good grasp of energy detail, but then with attitudes like his, how could he?
I have stopped bothering to write to him.
Heh, Heh, he must of gotten sick of Peakists over the last 2 years.
The Independent Story (for all its technical faults) is basically a gauntlet. A challenge to the BP Statistical review.
Its out now, and that is something.
Maybe time for some serious media discourse now.
Headline was a bit grabby, but thats what headlines are supposed to do. It grabbed everybody at work today.
He might believe CERA and OPEC (while ignoring CERA's complete and utter blunder on the natural gas production peak in the US). But if you notice CERA (Yergin, in particular) are off on a biofuels/ethanol jag and others like Lynch (SEER) have been pretty quiet (seems like their "back to $30/barrel by the end of 2004" didn't quite work out).
What's really interesting is that some "doubters" keep arguing the fact that the 1997 Science artcle by Campbell and Laherrere the graphic shows a peak occurring in 2004 (although the article says sometime before 2010) and that Campbell was "wrong," once again.
They have a little difficulty when I point out the peak production for oil + condensate is the month of May 2005 (with December 2005 coming in a very close second) and according to my calendar it's now June 2007. So, what does it matter that the article shows a possible peak in 2004 and it occurred in 2005? Let the economists find the oil.
As I point out, there is a very easy way to prove that peak production has not occurred...six consecutive months of production of crude and condensate greater than 74.2 million BPD.
As for the EIA, the other day I finally got around to running a Hubbert Linearization on the EIA's reference case (which only goes to 2035), That curve takes a complete bender from the current H-L curve(since 1982) that is "aimed" at 2200 GB URR, and heads off "aimed" (2006-2035) at 4400 GB URR.
But if Smith believes the EIA, then he must also believe in the "collapse" that the EIA has routinely shown in their curves once the peak arrives (since the total area under the curve constrains the total production and the EIA has selected a R/P of 10 after the peak) as they have attempted to dismiss the possibility of a near-term peak. If Smith thinks that a drop of 55 MMBPD over a five year period is no problem, then he might wish to explain how thas going to be "no problem."
It's totally understandable. Why bother people with a problem that they (and you, as the responsible reporting agency) are unprepared to address.
Re: Mexico
The key point about Mexico today is that it is a real life example of the Export Land Model (ELM) in action. Based on Pemex data from 1/06 to 4/07, we observed the following:
And once again, the various discussions down the thread of various world crude oil decline rates ignored the critical aspect of the ELM. Consider the following graph of US oil production, versus petroleum imports and consumption: http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/pdf/pages/sec5_4.pdf
We see the gradual increase in crude oil production from 1950 on, the peak in 1970, a slight rebound because of Prudhoe Bay and then the decline resumes. Key Point: During the entire time period that this graph shows, the US was a net importer. Or let me put it this way, if the US were the sole source of crude oil exports for the world, world crude oil exports would have ceased around 1950.
Consider another real life case history.
Based on EIA data, we observed the following for the UK from 2000 to 2005:
I think that almost everyone--including yours truly--is underestimating the deadly effect on the world industrial of economy of the ELM.
I just picked it up off of http://www.attytood.com/. This article seems to be moving fast. If it spreads like wildfire on the blogs, it may get picked up in the U.S. MSM in about 2 weeks. :)
I particularly thought this quote from BP’s chief economist was sweet:
Followed further down by this quote:
Kind of sums it up.
Hmmmm. Too bad it's just above the "UFO Sighting in Salt Lake City?" lead.
Campbell and the people of ASPO recently favored a model that forecasts a world peak production of crude + liquids in 2010. The forecast might be adjusted if more data will be made public.
During 2004 ASPO predicted oil production might peak in the year 2007.
http://www.answers.com/topic/alex-kuhlman
world peak production of crude + liquids in 2010
The ASPO table gives an all liquids peak date of 2011, but doesn't give an amount. They do however predict 90 Mbpd for 2010, declining to 40 Mbpd by 2050. This is only -1.4% a year (straight line). (ASPO).
I agree with Roger Conner below, this is not "a world without oil". Not yet.
Why? Some people saw something they can't explain.
Hello TODers,
It appears the US MSM and Iron Triangle is failing the huddled masses: just checked Yahoo, NYT, FOX, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, and MSN homepages for this news--> nothing so far! Yet we know they monitor the Drudge Report and most likely read The Independent too.
By the way: Kudos for ODAC for getting this into the British Press!
Bob Shaw in Phx,Az Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?
Hello Prof Goose,
I submit this on REDDIT and nothing happens when I check their new list--what gives? Are we being censored?
Bob Shaw in Phx,Az Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?
Yes, it seems that is the case. It has been for about a month (which is why I quit asking people to do it--futile gesture).
It's only when different people with different upmodding histories, etc., reddit and digg for us that it really matters any more.
Oh well. Not much to be done on that other than complain, which I encourage you to do. :)
I don't think we are being censored per say. Both digg and reddit have instituted new rules to keep people from gaming the system.
It makes sense, you want the opinions from the broader community. A highly vocal minority would otherwise skew the voting results.
And you have to admit our message isn't very popular with those online communities. And there are so many Paris Hilton and iPhone stories that need attention.
Besides have you ever read any of the comments our stories get? The ignorance is stunning.
The direct link to The Independent is on digg and on reddit . These communities prefer the direct link to the original article.
Agreed. In fact, it really irritates them, when you post a link to a blog entry about an article, rather than to the article itself. Unless you have a weighty response or critique to the article, they see it as useless blogwhoring.
This is a pretty big deal to get a front-page story like that.
Now I have something to show to my "doubter" friends.
Folks, I'm sorry to report this but right now the server hosting the Independent is down:
A few other mainstream PO articles, OK to very good, useful for sceptics:
National Geographic: "Humanity's way of life is on a collision course with geology—with the stark fact that the Earth holds a finite supply of oil. The flood of crude from fields around the world will ultimately top out, then dwindle." link
Michael T Klare in the Eng. version of Le Monde Diplomatique: link
Yves Cochet in Le Monde (English Translation) link
Robert Semple in the New York Times (via Energy Bulletin) link
Warren Brown in the Washington Post link
Dan Neill in the Los Angeles Times (mostly about Kunstler, calls Gore a candy assed optimist!) link
Matt Crenson in the San Francisco Chronicle (via Energy Bull.) link
=======
Business Week: Ethanol, a tragedy in 3 acts. link
Here's another one
Petrol problems about peak oil, not snake oil
http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/petrol-problems-about-peak-oil-not...
For those having problems accessing the Independent's server I've uploaded a pdf of a World Without Oil onto the TOD server which you can download here.
Thanks Euan for the link.
I hate to make a Pitt the Elder type of comment (although I DO love his logic exercises:-) Here's where I'll disagree with the article:
1) This is opinion stated as fact.
2) Price could and will do anything the markets can agree upon. Fundamentals are only a partial concern.
3) A rise in price, as long as it's not a price "shock" will (see McKillop) probably continue to heat up the world economy and the US's debt-driven economic expansion. The German economy, for instance (a country completely dependant on oil imports), is beginning to expand significantly probably BECAUSE of high oil prices - while exporting industrial machinery etc is going gang-busters. And where are those oil$s going? Has anyone noticed that the DAX went from ca. 2,200 in 2003 to now 7,770?
A recession will probably follow the inability to get gasoline at the pump, the inability to do business/ to transport food because of the lack of supplies..
At the end of the book Twighlight in the desert, Matt Simmons actually comes to similar conclusions as yourself.
Marco.
That's not the part of the article that irritated me. The problematic part was where they repeated several claims that are known to be wrong:
1) "Nearly all pesticides and many fertilisers are made from oil."
- Fertilizers require a hydrogen source for Haber-Bosch, and hence are made with natural gas. Oil has very little to do with it.
2) "The construction of a single car in the US requires, on average, at least 20 barrels of oil."
- Manufacturing a car requires the energy equivalent of 20 barrels of oil, not 20 barrels of actual oil. The link on latoc underpinning this claim shows pretty clearly that it's BOE, and that actual oil is only about 5-10% of the total.
3) "Metal production - particularly aluminium - cosmetics, hair dye, ink and many common painkillers all rely on oil."
- Aluminum relies on heat for the smelting process, and that heat is usually generated by electricity. Again, oil has very little to do with it.
Why do I point this out? Two reasons:
Credibility is your friend; promulgating myths like these? Not so much.
Please re-read the aluminum smelting link you posted. If heat was the important part of the process, electricity would not be used as there are more cost effective ways of heating things up. Rather, electricity is required for the electrochemical reduction of alumina to aluminum metal.
The link I posted says nothing about that; however, it also does not say anything about the electricity being used to produce heat, as I had assumed. A little googling isn't clearing this up one way or the other, so it's entirely possible that you're right.
However, that's beside the point, which is that oil is not heavily involved in the process. (Interestingly, more than half of the world's aluminum is produced via hydro power.)
True, the article doesn't give the details. Basically, aluminum oxide is dissolved in molten fluoride salt at 1,000 °C (hence the need for heat). Current is passed between two carbon electrodes (hence the need for the electricity). Aluminum ions are reduced to the metal at one electrode (and it sinks to the bottom for separation) and oxygen anions give up their electrons and react with the other electrode (basically the reaction vessel) to form CO2. For each pound of aluminum, the process requires nearly a half pound of carbon and produces almost 1.5 pounds of carbon dioxide, plus some fluorocarbons.
There's a reason that the Pacific Northwest has smelted a lot of aluminum, and cheap electricity from hydro is it. You can read the history of it here.
Best hopes for recycling more aluminum.
Guess I didn't read the whole article, must admit..
But it's good to hear your reply too:-)
Cheers, Dom
Munich
Folks, do be careful...if you send your “doubter” friends down this path, and I am not going to even try to be delicate here, you will make the whole cause look like a bunch of kooks.
First, on this post, we read from Prof. Goose the prhrases almost back to back to back...
“A world without oil”
“start to run out”
“the end of oil”
If did not know better, (and I am assuming I know better) I would think that CERA must have planted this to set up a strawman “peak oil” to knock down.
I MUST ask, does anyone, anywhere, believe there will be “a world without oil” in our lifetime, or in the lifetime of our children, EVEN if you believe in impending Peak Oil?
If so, and you have been registered here for anything over 30 days, then TOD would have to be considered an absolute failure as a “Peak Oil” educational tool.
Does anyone belive that peak oil is about “running out” of oil? And using the phrase “start to run out” is fudging, because we “started to run out” the day we drilled our first barrel. Are we now so desperate for attention that we are disavowing the first law of “Peak” pedagogy that peak is not about “running out?
“The end of oil” is a bit different, in that we could mean the end of oil as a growing decisive energy source in the near future, being replaced and pushed aside by post fossil fuel energy supply.
I think it is an error to dismiss BenjaminCole’s points so sneeringly. It is easy to say present evidence as strong as “Stuart, Robert, and many others” (that really should be “a few others” by the way, as Stuart and Robert are in pretty exclusive company), and it has been done on forums other than TOD.
However, if a post showing the advances in alternative energy technology is run on TOD (as the recent extraordinary and well done piece on concentrating solar), they literally dozens of posts are spent trying to slander the advances made, and distracting with more “dieoff” and “Mad Max” fascination.
If by the end of oil we mean what the other phrases above indicate, that we will literally be out of oil in our lifetime, please try to avoid making an azz of yourself spreading this tale, you will be cut to shreds by those wanting to discredit anyone interested in the VERY real and VERY serious issues of oil depletion, and energy security.
Let’s go back up this very string of posts for evidence:
In a post by rainsong is included the most famous of graph icons of the Peak Oil movement, the “ASPO” depletion model. This is one of the darkest scenario models, indicating peak about 2010 (as rainsong indicates, this is a modification, the model used to be even darker, but the past peak date has come and gone)
Note that the world will still be producing as much oil in about 2040 as it did at anytime up to the 1970. And this according to the dark model of the ASPO and Colin Campbell, known to the world as “doomers.”
Now that would be a shock to the world, to have to come back to 1970 levels of consumption, and given the rising world population (which may slowdown in rise over the next few decades but will still be on a rising glidepath), without mitigation, that drop in production could be deadly for many, many human beings.
But it will most CERTAINLY NOT be the “end of oil”, “running out of oil” or “a world without oil”. To make such assertions is fantastical on the face of it. Totally irresponsible.
But it meshes perfectly with some of the posts that claim there will not be enough oil and gas left in only a few years to build windmills, extract metals, manufacture solar panels, or build the batteries and motors for hybrid cars. Surely it must be realized how much damage to the peak oil and oil and gas depletion argument is done with these types of assertions. It is realized, isn’t it?
It is very sad, because the reason some of us don’t just get disgusted and stop coming is because of the really great posts that are still allowed to be seen here, the above mentioned piece on concentrating solar, the Jerome’A Paris article on wind energy finance, Robert Rapier’s articles on the flaws in ethanol, and discussion of other possibilities including bio-butanol and celuosic alcohol, and the perspective altering post by Khebab on “one cubic mile of oil a year for the world”, not to mention the great work on the Saudi Arabian oilfields.
These make it worth it.
I have to say, in this string, as far a post that leads to further thought, BenCole’s is the jewel in the crown. It may lack deep mathematical modeling, but compared to “running out of oil”, “the end of oil”, and “a world without oil” as scientific observations, it is absolute high calculus! :-)
Take the easy dismissal as flattery Ben, you’ve caused them just that glimmer of doubt (and it will stay with any thinking person, I know from experience, Khebab accidently put one on me), but yes, keep working on the mathematical rigor!
Roger Conner
Remember, we are only one cubic mile from freedom
Actually it should be "Now that would be a shock to the world, to have to come back to 1970 levels of
consumptionproduction"It seems a nitpick I know. Perhaps you just mistyped. But it has a very profound impact.
By 2040 using UN pop growth numbers and postulating a very small energy production decline the per capita energy consumption for the world will be at pre-industrial levels. Circa 1900 levels.
So yes "
withouteven with mitigation, that drop in productioncouldwill be deadly for many, many human beings."Rethin,
While I take your point, and am familiar with the logical basis from which you are working, I must tell you, and this I hope will not be taken as disrespect to you (my posts here at TOD and in other places going far back have always been consistant on this:
I do not in any way accept the ideas behind the so called "olduvai theory".
I have written several long posts on my differences wtih the theory, the central one being that I do not accept oil and gas consumption as any measure of wealth, but much more often, as a measure of waste and ignorant design and engineering.
I feel and have long felt that the "back to the stone age" portrayal of the post fossil fuel dominant era is utterly simplistic, non-scientific, and completely impossible to support with evidence, and that the portrayal of the future as given in descriptions and illustrations (some of which are outright farcical) by olduvai theory supporters has done more to discredit real concern regarding energy depletion (which, unlike olduvai descent, is a real and pressing concern) than the cornucopians or the CERA type flacks could ever do.
I won't argue the olduvai theory per se here, having done so in long posts many times, and do not want to spend great time and effort on it in a marginal string of posts which will soon be dead.
Roger Conner Jr.
Remember, we are only one cubic mile from freedom
I wasn't arguing Olduvai theory here. I was just pointing out that a 1970's level of production in 2040 is a very different thing than 1970's level of consumption in 2040.
There will be much less energy per capita in 2040. Whether or not this means the end of industrialized civilization isn't really relevant to this thread. But when I mean much less, I mean very very much less.
You're post confused production and consumption. I just wanted to illustrate the difference.
BTW we are at the same level of consuption per capita as we were in 1979. This despite nearly 30 years of technological advances.
"This despite.."
Or do you mean, "this because of.." technology..
Same level of consumption, but the economy (don't know about the world economy) at leat in the US is twice as large! Isn't that a miracle, proof that we have learned our lessons, that we've come a long way since then?
I'm afraid the cornucopians must be right. Right???
Please tell me that the cornucopians are right!!
PeakPlus asks,
"I'm afraid the cornucopians must be right. Right???
Please tell me that the cornucopians are right!!"
No, the cornucopians are not right, but we have some pretty damm good technicians! And we could have had more great ones had our educational system not went to helll in a handbasket....
Europe and Japan has also accomplished similiar efficiencies....and had we not taken off on a sudden wierd love affair with 6000 pound all wheel drive hyked in the air trucks, we would be consuming back at 1970 levels already, and putting the spare change into AMERICAN INVESTMENT instead of the vaults of overseas "princes". Think about how strong our dollar would have been then.
But what stupidity givith, stupidity takes away....the giant truck fad is ending, and efficiencies are coming to the ones that will be sold new... and when it does we could see oil demand collapse with a heavy thud...what a wonderful sound! (Just hedge your bets if your betting on oil price! :-)
Roger Conner Jr.
Remember, we are only one cubic mile from freedom
I assume you speak of the US?
RE: Our per capita level consumption.
Since we have exported alot of manufacturing there should be some addition for the oil used by China. I see alot of petroleum based products from there sold here.
I question if we are comparing apples and oranges by comparing 1979 and todays per capita comsumption.
That graph above (up to 2006) was from the BP statistical review. It was for world per capita energy use, not just the US.
I have the same data for the US, but not on hand. I can post it tomorrow if you'd like. (it's late here in Japan)
The difference between 1970 and 2040, in addition to the gain in population, is that in 1970, the U.S. oil production had just peaked. The U.S. at the time had the greatest per capita consumption of oil. By 2040, given increased world competition for what oil remains, the U.S. per capita consumption will most likely need to shrink dramatically. There are lots of goons out there in the hinderlands, who think that driving a car/truck very fast is the ultimate expression of his (her?) manhood and those folks will not take kindly to limits on driving which will necessarily result after Peak Oil. There are still several billion people on Earth who don't have electricity, let alone the luxury of riding on the freeway in an air conditioned SUV. When the time for Demand Destruction arrives, there's a great possibility for conflict between those who have enough wealth to continue to waste oil and those who will need the oil just to survive in the world of 2040. The Road Ragers will be much more brutal and less interested in following the letter of the law.
As for whether "oil and gas consumption as any measure of wealth", there's been considerable discussion over the years on that question. Some have pointed out that money and energy are the same, only they flow thru the economy in opposite directions. This makes perfect sense if one includes the inputs of solar energy captured by plants. Before the Fossil Age, wealth was directly measured by how much land one could own/control and how much agricultural productivity was possible with that land. As fossil fuels become less available, the old definition of wealth will likely re-emerge. The conflicts over ownership which have been seen repeatedly thru out history will likely move to the front pages again (as if they ever left). Of course, money, (as in paper values), is not a fixed measure, while BTU's are solidly defined. So is acreage and increasing population is not a good sign for a back-to-land future. Demand Destruction becomes easier when the Demand is concentrated in a small area. I think we will experience MadMax Rules, since the necessary political/social changes are not likely to occur soon enough. Remember that Bagdad has been "civilized" for thousands of years...
E. Swanson
Linear thinking will be our undoing.
That being said, however, because there isn't enough room in the lifeboat for everyone, the less people that would be driven to prepare because of Olduvai, the better.
So, yeah, of course the Olduvai theory is crap, baseless, ridiculous, pure Mad Max-based fantasy. Don't think about it, don't give it a second thought.
Linear thinking will be our undoing.
Roger,
I strongly agree with you on this point and want to elaborate.
The end of cheap oil (and energy) will cause a lot of pain in the world. It likely will cause an increased death rate in some places in the world. It should not cause the extinction of the human race or a complete loss of civilization.
Cheap energy allows humans to be both physically and mentally lazy. With cheap oil we always revert to the easiest and fastest way to do things, not the smartest or most well thought out.
I submit that having the ability to bring enormous energy to bear on an issue (moving people say) prevents long engineering thought cycles on what the most efficient way to move people would be. The engineer is prevented from searching for that efficient method because time is money today. Spending time on problem solving is not viable today if there is a workable solution with high energy consumption built in. True SOME people are thinking about cost of energy but my experience is most are not.
We are headed for a lot of pain post peak. We could prevent much pain by changing now, but we aren't/won't. None of this means we can't change behavior in the future and look for solution.
From your graph, you expect per capita energy to fall from 12 (now) to about 2.2 in 2040. Since world population is expected to increase from 6.6B to 8.7B (32%) by 2040, that's a fall due to lower total energy production from 9.1 to 2.2, or about 76%.
In 33 years, a 76% drop is a fall of 4.2% per year.
Oil represents only 35% of world energy use, so you're predicting a rapid decline in all other forms of energy as well in order to get down to 24% of current energy levels.
Nuclear and renewables (incl. hydro) accounted for 14% of total energy production in 2004. There's no compelling reason for that segment to decline by 2040 - indeed, the renewable part is growing rapidly - so you're effectively suggesting that energy production from fossil fuels will fall from 86% of current total energy levels to only 10%, a drop of 6.3% per year.
Do you possess information demonstrating that we should expect coal and natural gas production to enter a terminal decline of 6% per year, starting immediately? Because if you don't - and you don't - you're guilty of Begging the Question: you assume world energy production will crash due to society collapsing, and then use that to argue that society will collapse due to crashing world energy production.
Circular argument. Try again.
Easy there Pitt.
I don't assume a 6% decline at all.
The decline rate is as follows
2007-2012 1%
2013-2018 2%
2019-2024 3%
and so on.
I did another chart but started at 0% for the first 5 year period and then incremented 1% per half decade and got a very similar result. The end of industrialized civilization (as defined as 30% of peak per capita energy use) within 25 years of peak energy production.
The point of the exercise was to see if Olduvai theory holds true with only a modest depletion rate and UN pop growth figures. I purposly excluded society collapsing, natural distaster, or wars in that model. So go easy on your circular argument acusations.
To answer your other points. Yes oil is only a part of world energy growth. But the decline curve on NG is also pretty scary and peak NG will closely follow peak oil. Coal has limited expandability (transportation etc) and according to some models will peak not too far in the future as well.
Most Nuke plants are scheduled to be taken offline due to age in the next 25 years. I have seen no evidence they will be replaced.
Hydro has be implemented in most of the oppertune spots and has limited expansion growth.
Solar doesn't seem to be much of a hope due to silicon production limitations. Perhaps plastic pv can overcome that. I remain skeptical.
Wind is growing, but like hydro will see the creaming curve take effect as most of the good spots are taken. Plus the intermitent qualities make it hard to expand past a small percentage of total power.
I remain open to suggestions.
The decline rate is as follows
2007-2012 1%
2013-2018 2%
2019-2024 3%
...
I remain open to suggestions.
I suggest you try ASPO's -1.4% straight line decline rate for the period 2010 - 2050. I might even try it myself :)
Is this -1.4% stright line decline for all energy production?
Can you link to the source?
Thanks
Would every one please note, please, please.
PV IS NOT THE ONLY SOURCE OF SOLAR POWER
Not by a sam dite, as they used to say. Solar thermal is much cheaper right now, easy to do anywhere, and TAKES NO SILICON. Cost-effective solar thermal can be made from common stuff you can find in junk yards.
Search for MIT low cost solar thermal linear focus system.
Somebody is gonna grap on to this and make a lot of money. It might even be me.
Agreed. The lack of focus on solar thermal is almost suspicious. there isn't even a rebuttal or pooh pooh. I guess it just isn't sexy. Too simple.
Rumors are out there of plans for a massive installation in North Africa feeding through a low voltage underwater cable to Europe. While I am enamored of the basic principle, I will admit that it has greater possibility as a large central generating system where thermal storage can be carried out more efficiently.
Storage increases with volume and loss with surface area, so the larger the volume of hot XXX the lower the loss over time. Of course, realizing this will call into play our understanding of the exponential function, which seems to be limited to about 15% of the population recognizing its existence and about 2% actually able to sucessfully utilize it.
I am repeatedly amazed at how otherwise intelligent humans can be tone deaf to exponentials. If it takes thirty feet to stop from thirty miles per hour, how far does it take from sixty? Okay, which takes longer to cool down, a big rock or a small rock? which puts it in stone age dynamics.
Thermal storage of solar thermal makes sense because it doesn't need a conversion with its attendant losses. BIG solar thermal plants will win, but will need BIG money to build. The fact that MIT is doing work in the area bodes well.
No, but your assumptions are effectively the same as a 4.2% annual decline rate, which is itself the same as a 6.3% annual decline rate in all fossil fuels if nuclear+renewable stops expanding.
So - mathematically - they're basically the same thing.
7% annual depletion in total energy - from a base of 30% of current production (2035-2039) - is hardly "modest".
Indeed, why would you expect total energy in 2039 to decline by 7%? Given that the major declines due to peak oil would likely have occurred before that, how can you possibly posit such a thing and call it "modest"?
Your "model" is nothing more than "let's assume there's a decline rate...hey, things decline!!" You arrive at low per-capita energy because you chose numbers that would produce that. And, since your numbers are entirely arbitrary, there's no reason whatsoever for them to correspond to reality.
Which is why I pointed out what a rapid decline rate in fossil fuels you were assuming - there's no evidence any such thing is likely, so there's no reason to believe your model has any bearing on reality.
Moreover, my objections are too pessimistic; renewables have been growing at something like 7% per year; from a 1.5% base, that pace would put them at 14% of current world energy production in 2040, making the nuclear+renewable segment equal to 26.5% of current production, or larger than the entire amount of energy you're projecting will be produced.
ASPO estimates the natural gas peak at 2030, well after oil.
Limited expandability of coal doesn't mean it will decline. Taking coal declines out of the picture already gives more energy available than your model implies.
What's your evidence that world nuclear plants are scheduled to be taken offline?
How about this list of pending applications for 28 new nuclear units in the US, or this list of the 20-or-so plants currently under construction in the world?
Moreover, it's foolish to assume that people would blithely stand by and watch their energy sources collapse without considering other options, like building more nuclear power plants - that's a choice, not a geologic constraint.
Thermal solar doesn't need silicon.
Wind can be buffered with hydro up to at least 20% of the electricity supply - look up Jerome a Paris's recent essay on that - and can be buffered with thermal solar to provide baseload. Moreover, the potential resource is large enough that we don't have to worry about running out of good spots any time soon.
So, basically, your model:
None of those assumptions appear particularly realistic, rendering your model's predictive capabilities little different than a freehand curve drawn "downish".
Back up your claims with evidence.
But he made a pretty graph. It must be true.
Congratulations Pitt, I think you finally figured out the consequences of exponential growth.
And the energy production decline rate is clearly labled on the graph, at much less than 7%.
Ding Ding Ding Ding! We have a winner!
Yes Pitt, that's exactly what I did. I spelled that out up front very clearly. The above graph is just a simple thought experiment. Given a modest decline in energy production with natural pop growth could energy use per capita really fall to pre industrial levels within out lifetimes? The answer is yes.
I never said anything about this being predictive. All I was using it for was to illustrate to Roger the difference between consumption and production.
And you're right, these number have no reason whatsoever for them to correspond to reality. Honestly I think reality will be far worse due to "above ground factors".
You were doing fine, exponential growth canard aside, untill you landed this ridiculous conclusion.
With infrastructure, a skilled population, a powerful global economy and energy alternatives of every sort at every corner, you honestly think that we'll reach pre-industrial per capital energy consumption inside a century?
Hah.
Its a pretty ridiculous thought isn't it? That's why I generated that little graph.
You don't need any sort of a disaster natural or otherwise to get to there.
And yes, outside of fossil fuels I don't see energy production expanding at anywhere near the rate needed to maintain our happy motoring lifestyles. Not to mention the happy motoring lifestyles of India and China.
And to be perfectly honest I just can't imagine a nice slow gentle decline. Its not how we humans act. We'll make it worse, much worse I'm afraid.
You appear to be operating under the mistaken impression that believing something makes it true.
You have no evidence for the belief that I have been having trouble with the consequences of exponential functions (decline, in this case, not growth). However, that belief fits in nicely with your preconceived notions, and hence you state it as if it were true.
Reality, alas, cares not a whit for your preconceived notions and cherished beliefs, and has a terrible habit of not agreeing with people, no matter how hard they wish and believe.
Like in this case - I have a math degree, regular dealings with the formal methods for the analysis of function growth rates, and a high probability of understanding exponential functions to a far greater extent than you do.
So spare me the misplaced condescension.
"Clearly" is something of an overstatement - the year labels don't appear to line up with the years they're presumably intended to represent, and the decline labels are unreadably small on hi-res monitors.
However, let's look at what your 6% annual decline from 2031 to 2040 implies:
You have - from your marginally-readable graph - per capita energy declining at a 6% annual rate from a 37%-of-current base in 2031 to 21% in 2040. Adjusting for projected population growth, that's falling from 48% of current total energy to 28%, or a decline rate of 5.8% per year.
As we've already seen - and you've blithely ignored - nuclear and renewable energy sources are both expanding. If we cast aside reality for the moment and assume neither of those expand at all in the next 33 years, they'll still provide 14% of current total energy levels, or half of your assumed total energy available in 2040.
i.e., you're assuming a 6% annual decline from at best half the sources, or at the very least a 12% annual decline rate in fossil fuel production.
i.e., you're asserting that a sustained decline rate of at least 12% that happens to oil, natural gas, and coal simultaneously is "modest", and doesn't assume societal disruptions.
Nonsense. Utter nonsense.
You've provided no evidence to back up your claim that your assumed decline rate is "modest", and in fact your assumption is incredibly pessimistic as compared to other peak oilers like ASPO.
So, I say again, your argument is circular, and hence utterly worthless.
You claimed once that you were "open to suggestions", so I suggested that you back up your claims with evidence. That would still be a very good idea; doing the research will help convince you exactly how wrong you are.
Pitt are you off your meds again?
How many times do I have to explain the premis of the chart?!?
I told you its predictive of nothing. Just a simple thought experiment that I was usingt to illustrate to the original poster the difference between prodcution and consumption.
But you just keep going ahead an attacking me. Whatever.
Circular argument. Try again.
Nonlinearly iterative argument, dependent on initial conditions. This is how complex, chaotic, and dynamical systems are studied.
What, pray tell, is the "iterative" part of his model?
There's no loop. There's nothing iterative. The model is:
1) Take current energy production stats.
2) Make them decline according to arbitrary rates.
3) Note that they have declined a lot.
Nobody studies dynamical systems like that.
Based on conversations with friends who actually do very large-scale modelling of dynamical systems, we should see something more like:
1) Take current energy production stats.
2) Apply a per-type decline rate, taking into account likely market, technological, and policy responses to current conditions, as well as feedbacks between the energy production methods.
3) Note the results.
i.e., step 2 - the actual model - needs to have substantial research, evidence, and thought embedded in it, and simply counting from 1 to 7 doesn't cut it.
In my experience, ppl who are completely unaware of any energy matters beyond their bills or pump price (or not even that), as well as ppl who vaguely associate PO with some kind of nutty doomerism, always ‘debunked’ in the past (We haven’t been blown up by nuclear power stations, pollution is down, Martians aren’t attacking, new technology comes by day by day, etc.) are quite affected by a mainstream (but only mainstream) publications on the topic. (here TV is sneered at.) They may laugh at phrases like ‘the end of oil’ - no way! - but it is obvious that it does provoke thought, and that it somehow pleases them to acquire some information, if only in the superficial sense that they can then join in conversation or say, yeah, I read that, etc. The idea of scarcity as applied to this area (energy) is after all easy to grasp; but then Europeans are perhaps more sensible and less politically influenced in ‘scientific matters’ than Americans.
So, the articles are not technically correct or ample enough. Neither are the bulletins put out by the oil lobby, parroted in the mainstream. But these people vote, and should perhaps change their lightbulbs? Or maybe realise that their grandchildren will live in a world which is different from this one?
Correct. Just like my family (oil people who should know better) listened to Newsweek, Business News (?), CERA and Jack 2-hype, it was very, very easy to disregard my non-MSM sources..
Only my price predictions have been right. And there the Saudis and refinery situation can be blamed..
Cheers, Dom
TIIO,
I beg to differ. To hell with wrapping this immense package with lots of soft wrappings and handling it with kid gloves.
I say slap the idiots upside the face just as hard as you can. This is what it takes to get their attention.
After all how do you think the MSM will report it when they go all wild eyed and the blowdried bimbo reporters lean so intently into the camera with shock and awe in their tinted eyecontacts and speak sooooo breathlessly????
They are waiting to make a major impact..but the timing is justtt nottt quiteee righttt at this time. Believe me they will when they sense blood in the water. Then begins the days of rage.
Until then let the fools wander on. I could care less about preserving their ignorant sensibilities. They don't consider mine out there on the highways where they drive with insanity reflected in the far stare and fat azzes they sit upon while taking down the last dregs of energy in the world.
No place to run and no where to hide. When the gloves finally come off, ohhhh the whining but then will come the elections and the anger will out. Then will the politicians began their rehearsed tap dances and then will we begin the final downward spiral around the toilet bowl.
You might think you can reach them with reason. You shall NOT. Each day I live in the country and on my farm I get a new appraisal of the way things are. If you live in that mess out there, like the rest of my family, then you want to be jaded and a mindless roving critter scarfing up every morsel in reach, shopping is still king,driving is still the macho thing,only an empty gas pump will shake them from their reverie. Only that and that alone.
Having to walk home,maybe in the dark, all alone. That will be the epiphany. (If they don't perish along the way.)
Then and ONLY then will the cries go out. Then will the runs on valuables and food begin. Then will the riots start. Then will the wise hunker down and wait it out. Then will nature have a chance. Then will life , real life have a possibility. Once the Hidden Ones and Blackwater is gone that is. Once honest people who dare to speak the truth once more roam the land.
Screw them and their dead glazed over tinted-contact eyeballs. This is what they created.
Airdale-I am of the Class of '57..it was in the books,it was scripted and we knew it back in the 60's but they spat on the hippies and reviled those who talked of 'back to the land' , talked of how bad the machine world was, wanted to live better and closer to something else...we knew it or sensed that it might come to this..too bad. Then the bad guys starting running things. The 'day the music died'.
The Day The Music Died...I was there..it happened.
Some shed tears but it mattered not. The long hair and tiedyed clothes were forgotten. The sandals pitched. Hitch-hiking was over. The VW buses went to the boneyards.
Everyone went out for 'super sized cheeseburgers and fries'.
Airdale
Airdale, your reference to the Day the Music Died has inspired me to take the kid gloves off, too.
The Angels Born in Hell were high on methamphetamine. This is significant.
The main reason the "counterculture" came into being was that some chemists, ethnobotanists, psychologists and other intellectuals popularized the use of consciousness-altering substances: LSD, psilocybin, and mescaline. These psychedelics removed the scales from peoples' eyes; they quickly perceived that the centralization of power (this includes petroleum power) was anti-life. The psychedelics exposed the injustice of human chauvanism and the importance of all the other "less important" life on the planet.
Access to eye-opening drugs was INTOLERABLE to those who benefit from the centralization of power. Note well that heroin and methamphetamine are still widely available, but when was the last time you read about LSD? Now, the machine doesn't like the slaves to reduce their productivity at all; they even tried to outlaw alcoholic beverages. But those that tranquilize (nicotine, alcohol, heroin) or allow more work on less sleep (caffeine, methamphetamine) are tolerated. Consciousness-awakening drugs are COMPLETELY INTOLERABLE to the machine.
The slaves will be kept tranquilized, in debt, and shorn of civil liberties.
OK, I've said it, let the meat grinder commence.
PLAN, PLANt, PLANet
Errol in Miami
cheap oil
The National Geographic cover story last year called it the End of the Era of Cheap Oil - a much more difficult position for CERA to challenge.
Razr: I don't think they will challenge- they will just reframe it. In 1998, a long term oil price of $5 was the cornucopian "cheap" price for oil. In 2007, a long term oil price of $30 is the cornucopian "cheap" price. Up 6X in nine years. I remember listening to an interview with Jim Rogers on financialsense ( I think it was in 2004). He predicted that $20 oil was gone permanently. At the time it was a bullish prediction. Here in 2007, you have "cornucopians" admitting as much.
Agreed - but the reframing from supply "never run out" and "large, untapped resources of asphalt" to "at what price" creates a more level playing field. W
When XYZ oil announces the latest Jack 2, folks won't be as easily seduced by a gazillion barrels they'll began to ask about the likely price.
I MUST ask, does anyone, anywhere, believe there will be “a world without oil” in our lifetime, or in the lifetime of our children, EVEN if you believe in impending Peak Oil?
Look at some of the comments where people talk about Money and precious metals being useless and trading bullets/toilet paper or the ever wacko 'learn to life off the land forraging and scrounging for food' position. (Wacko because the carrying capacity of wild land has been calculated at 130 acres per person and, well, the land VS people ratio isn't all that favorable to the land.)
So yes, it seems some people DO believe it.
And hell, man could extinct itself as a species via the rather well developed sharp pointy sticks we now have to wage war. So the oil would exist, but the observers would not.
Roger...thanks for not insulting me, my usual lot here at TOD.
By the way, Rapier is on the hunt for some sort of ethanol process he says will revo that segment. I guess he is "pro-ethanol" now. Claims the new process promises to radically alter landscape. All hail RR if it works.
The Fossil Flatheads will be proven right! Fossil oil consumption going into flatline mode right now (or nearly). Up only 0.7 percent last year (BP stats) and alternative fuels and conservation just gaining traction now.
We are seeing Peak Demand at more than $60 a barrel. Either the price comes down, or the consumption.
It is a fascinating time to watch oil. We are transitioning to a post-fossil oil world, w/o recessions or depressions. We can get to a more prosperous and cleaner world.
No recessions or depressions, but a pretty big war in the Middle East.
I know, I know ... it's not about oil ...
Sorry, but I have tried to engage you on several earier threads by requesting that you support your positions. Typically silence ensues.
Your forecasts of quantity demanded appear to be uniquely your own. You predict competitive alternatives to oil and then you yell "timber" and predict prices to drop below levels at which these alternatives might be viable. You miss the point that $60 isn't that expensive given what a barrel of oil can do, and the costs and scaleability of alternatives ... or the high costs of costs of replacing current production with production from ever more servere environments. Then you ignore what happens when your expected price collapse occurs. Hint: quantity demanded rebounds.
There may be answers, but don't expect to find those answers at $30 per barrel.
BTW, where did the bit about "no recessions" come from? If inflation [in the form of irresponsibly rapid credit expansion -- and Greenie's / Brenanke's automatic response] ] was the key to economic nirvana, Argentina would have been converted into paradise long ago.
One can have quite a party on just a few trillion in new debt, but the debt must ultimately be serviced or defaulted.
Perhaps from the fact that there hasn't been a recession yet, that the world economy is growing well, and that even the US economy looks to be recovering from its slow Q1 (based on April/May economic data).
Or perhaps he was simply expressing a hope. Tough to say.
The debt of major countries - such as the US - is paid back on a regular basis, by issuing new debt. So long as the country doesn't borrow more than it can pay for - and the US's debt as a fraction of GDP is no larger than it was in the mid-90's - then there isn't really a problem.
Think of it this way, who's deeper in debt:
They all have debt equal to 60% of their yearly earnings, so in a very real sense they all have the same level of debt. Focusing only on the absolute number is misleading, since it fails to take into account the ability to repay.
Stating that debt as a percentage of GDP is the same as the 1990s and therefore not troublesome is disingenuous at the very least. You can review this graph yourself but clearly the periods of lower debt to GDP ratios enjoyed better economic growth than periods of high debt to GDP ratios. The Bush Sr. recession came at the top of the Reagan debt buildup. The growth of the 1990s came as we reduced debt. The growth of the Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, and Nixon years came during periods of declining debt, not growing. The sole exception to this was the Ford/Carter era, which was impacted by rapidly increasing energy costs. Even the Reagan growth started at the lower end of the debt to GDP curve and petered out when it reached the top (in the Bush Sr. recession). Likewise, the debt now is approaching the debt to GDP ratios of WWII without any major war in progress.
This is not the wisest course of action. Additionally, to what economic data are you referring when you claim the economy is recovering from a slow first quarter? I am unaware of any such data at this time. At best the economy seems to be flat.
Finally, the question of what a nation can pay back is of concern to its lenders (often other nations) and that perception right now is not good, hence the weakening dollar. The US would be far better served to reduce the current debt than grow it yet again and in fact the strong economic growth of the 1990s is often at least partially attributed to the fact that we were reducing our debt rather than increasing it.
Ghawar Is Dying
The greatest shortcoming of the human race is our inability to understand the exponential function. - Dr. Albert Bartlett
Why? That you believe so does not make it true.
That graph says nothing about GDP growth rate. I have no idea how you think it supports your claim.
However, let's look at the situation. Based on your graph we can roughly speaking consider the last 20 years as "high debt" and the previous 20 years as "low debt". The average debt levels are - from the source data for your graph - 61.4% for the "high debt" period and 37.5% for the "low debt" period.
From the BEA GDP statistics, we can calculate the average yearly growth in GDP (in inflation-adjusted dollars) for those periods:
37.5% debt: 3.0% per year
61.4% debt: 3.1% per year
Please, I encourage you to download those spreadsheets and calculate those numbers for yourself.
So your claim is, in fact, the precise opposite of reality. Dare I hope you'll check your facts before spouting off next time?
Nonsense. And nonsense refuted by your own link.
US debt was over 120% of GDP in 1946, and is under 70% now. Moreover, it's increasing only slowly - it's projected to increase by only 0.5% per year between 2006 and 2010.
Why are you making claims and then offering as evidence stats that say the exact opposite of your claims?
Then you must have carefully avoided financial news. There was:
Among others.
Does that mean the US economy is going ahead guns blazing? No. But it does mean that indicators are improved from the very poor first-quarter showing, and it's unlikely we'll see as bad of a result in the second quarter.
By who? Based on what evidence?
It seems rather more likely that debt was falling in significant part due to the booming economy, rather than vice versa.
Of course. And right now the US's interest payments as a fraction of tax receipts are lower than they've been in many years - about 40% lower than during the late 90s - suggesting that the US is having no trouble at all paying.
At last, something we agree on.
The current level of debt is fine given current economic conditions, but a lower level of debt would be better preparation for the coming retirement of the baby boomers.
(Edit: changed GDP growth rates from non-compounded to compounded; no effective change to the argument.)
The holders of US Treasury debt have changed, and so has the maturity profile. Both for the worse.
The GNP has changed fro the worse as well. Less manufacturing, less exports and more unstable discretionary services.
Alan
Repay with what? You must realise that the definition of what counts towards GDP changes over time. And do you really think that increased spending on credit means a booming economy?
Here's your little exercise again...
Who's deeper in debt:
A guy earning $50k/yr with $30k of debt?
A guy earning $50k/yr + 25K on credit card with a total of $45k of debt?
A guy earning $100k/yr + 50K on credit card with a total of $60k of debt?
You think the US economy is not in recession? Come on, get serious...
"You can never solve a problem on the level on which it was created."
Albert Einstein
You really think that you have personal insight into the economy that professionals dont have?
That you think that it is puts you in the loony toons department.
What, do you think all economists agree about the state of the economy? Grow up.
The US has a total personal, private and government debt of 36 trillion. Plus you have unfunded obligation debt through Social Security, Medicare, etc. of a further 46 trillion: that's $375,000 per household, up from $165,000 per household in 2000 - or so says the US Comptroller General. You think a little growth in GDP can support more than a doubling of real debt in the last 7 years? Heh. Dream on. There is more to economic health than GDP or the stock market...
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/03/01/60minutes/main2528226.shtml
"You can never solve a problem on the level on which it was created."
Albert Einstein
A "recession" is generally defined as "a decline in a country's real Gross Domestic Product (GDP) for two or more successive quarters".
The US has, at the moment, zero successive quarters of GDP decline. Moreover, economic indicators suggest the US economy improved in April and May as compared to Q1.
So, no, I don't think the US economy is in recession - all available evidence says otherwise.
So, why do you believe the US economy is in recession? What evidence is that belief based on? Remember, simply believing something doesn't make it true.
And what is your evidence for the claim that the majority of the increase in US GDP recently has been due to "spending on credit"?
Net household worth has been increasing, despite the low GDP growth and housing collapse of Q1 2007.
My post above your one - the reply to Dezakin - answers you and gives the evidence. The US comptroller general is currently trying to get this message out.
That definition is flawed and therefore irrelevant.
"You can never solve a problem on the level on which it was created."
Albert Einstein
We are teetering on the edge.
In the US we already have the beginnings of a collapse in house prices. The UK is sluggish and everyone expects the next step as downwards. Oil supply looks constrained, relative to demand, at the tail end of this year and the beginning of next. Confidence in the dollar is poor, countries are dropping it.
And we have elections next year.
As the financial good times begin to unravel, as oil price shocks hit home, the idea that there really is a sea change in the offing and large scale actions need to be taken will gain traction. Politicians will seek to grab hold of the issue and claim a set of policies to deal with it (to get themselves elected).
The question is no longer how do you convince people that peak oil is real. Reality will do that job. The question is how you direct and guide policy down acceptable and effective lines?
We need a peak oil policy pack.
Anyone agree?
I think it can be agreed that TOD'ers are on board with the idea that PO needs to be tackled and I think that your suggestion is reasonable.
I wonder, however, whether the politicians will conclude it is political suicide or not to call peak oil instead of something else.
I wonder if they will not, instead, choose to start a war somewhere and blame some "foreigners" for their misfortunes.
I really hope we are smarter than that.
War for oil is a policy tack. Its one of the possible tacks you can take when you recognise the issue. To forestall it requires an alternative that is acceptable. You can see the search for that in ethanol, hydrogen, etc.
Politicians will not announce the reality of the problem until they have a workable solutions, or they are force to by events. The issue is not acceptance, its the creation of an acceptable solution.
Or if it will get them good headlines..
That's part of an acceptable solution. Anything that smacks of the hair shirt will get bad headlines and therefore won't get accepted.
Key is crafting something that will look good in the newspapers and on TV.
...acceptable solutions.
But until light rail and hanging our clothes out side to dry are acceptable the price of energy must go up to force the issue.
I see no ability to use forethought on this issue.
What annoys me about this article is that it is poorly researched and writtenI counted eight errors without trying very hard. A half decent critic would tear this to shreds.
I think peak oil is sooner rather than later. However, poor reporting is better than no reporting only if it leads to the truth of the matter.
The lead in the article, for someone who really knows something about Peak Oil, is misleading. That would have been more accurate:
I really do not understand "getting the word out" about PO or any other energy issue.
Been there, done that, and faced the ridicule. It is really not rocket science to connect the dots yourself. I am here for my own edification, and have been making preparations for the last several years.
People simply will not change, or "get it" until energy becomes unavailable.
Case in point:
RR did a piece some months ago about his friend in Colorado living in a "green" home. Part of his natural gas usage was for the clothes dryer. The man lives in a desert climate! The general populous will not hang the laundry until the lights go out or the gas truck has no product to deliver.
I know the article was about PO, but all of these energy issues are all interconnected.
Oil, electricity and natural gas are all way too cheap and readily available to spur any real change. For now.
Sandor you are 100% correct. I feel the same way and have quit talking about it. The message is not well recieved and you face the ridicule for trying to warn them.
I thinking keeping a low profile would be best at this time.
According to a report in May 2007, a wide-ranging sense of gloom has been detected in America.
People can't yet put their finger on it.
"Ann Bailey, 69, a retired school secretary in Broken Arrow, Okla., is a conservative who believes the country is on the wrong track. She cites a widespread lack of honesty, plus immigration, gasoline prices and Iraq — where a son and grandson are serving."
"Those who think the U.S. is heading in the right direction tend to be white male Republicans in strong financial situations who say they sense a solid economy and are satisfied with the country's leadership."
One commenter writes:
Cowboy leadership keeps the herd moving along the asphalt runaway toward a prosperous future.
(click to enlarge).
Yeah, but those are cattle and we are "people". We're all hat and they aren't that much. We're "special". It won't happen to us.
A person needs to take away only ONE thing from this article published by the Independent.
That is the statement by Campbell that "when I was the boss of an oil company I would never tell the truth, that was not part of the game"..
This says it all. Clean hands?
Just out on the Beeb:
Shell to sell North Sea interests
Included in the sale are interests in the Tern oilfield
Shell and Esso have announced they are putting their joint interests in a number of North Sea oilfields up for sale.
These include the Cormorant Alpha and Cormorant North, Tern, Eider, Kestrel and Pelican fields.
Shell said "many" of its 400 onshore and offshore staff who are affected are expected to transfer to the new buyers.
A planned expansion of its Aberdeen operational headquarters has been abandoned as a result of the decision.
Aberdeen University oil economist Professor Alex Kemp said Shell appeared to be selling its mature fields, which are not producing a lot of oil, to companies which specialise in late oilfield life.
A similar strategy has been adopted by BP on several occasions.
Shell and Esso have also confirmed they are in negotiation with Fairfield Energy for the sale of their interests in the Dunlin cluster of fields.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/north_east/6752123.stm
Oil, oil everywhere, but not a drop to be had
One reason ASPO had to push the peak oil date forward three years was because of offshore & deep offshore discoveries. There are numerous prospects that are known to hold oil after successful wildcat wells; these cannot be developed because of no spare deep ocean rig capacity. The day rate for deep sea drilling rigs was $400,000 a day recently and one drilling company spokesperson projected the rates might go to $600,000 a day. Drillers were leaving the U.S. Gulf of Mexico for higher rates in other trends. New rigs are under construction, new oil fields take millions of years to form.
The U.S. government does not own its own drilling company per se. They did retain Halliburton for oilfield services in Iraq with no bid contracts. It seems the U.S. wanted to develop Iraq's oil industry and then allow oil companies to bid/or no bid on blocks and fields there. After being investigated for corruption, Halliburton decided to move its corporate headquaters from the U.S. to Dubai. The net contribution to the U.S. treasury from the U.S. efforts to develop oil interests in Iraq are less than $0.00. Another series of failures and a government deeper in debt.
http://www.halliburtonwatch.org/news/dubai.html
Boy this reads like doomers are us!
When canning you can reuse lids and you can reuse rubber seals - I was raised that way. My wife, PHD Bio-chem, however takes a different viewpoint; but then biochemists seem paranoid about what they can't see!
I'm a fan of eating grains (which store well) and have recently discovered that oatmeal is easy to make with cracked oats (aka steel - cut) soak them overnight, bring them to a boil and your done. I've been toying with using a motor and pestil for breaking up nuts and seeds for food; but I've not done that for baking bread yet (I do a lot of sour-dough whole-wheat).
I can't help but reflect upon Indian and China (Mexico too?) - ovens are exceedingly rare - cooking is done on a hot plate/flame; which means flat breads and the like.
But that's thinking about the too distant future. We've got a hell of a bumpy road before we get there; our population is just too high.
One thing that has jumped out at me with recent posts is how unusual the posters here are. I too, when I look at hummers, monster homes, SUVs, supersized bodies think of gluttony, waste and disgust. But I know lots of immigrants and that is what they yearn for. They want the life, that some of us are turning away from.
So I'd like to put forth the point that we need to focus on the society we want; not on what is bad. I can't make smokers stop by shouting "drug addict" at them and I can't turn the unwilling towards a sustainable lifestyle. I can only move in that direction myself and take the willing with me. Passing peak will ensure that we're followed.
But that's being passive. Active methods involve rationing; carbon limits on each person. They would also be more fair.
Extra taxes burden those who are near the edge. We still have enough fat in our system to temper the descent (although I hate that word as we're ideally moving to a more equitable, just, sustainable, community based society).
But then the rich have already moved their cash offshore and the jobs follow the cheapest labour. I think that we'll find that we're not much different than central or South American countries - when times turn down the big corporations will flee this place. They're not based here, taxed here and have no obligation to us here.
We, the people, must provide for ourselves and ensure that we have a government that serves our needs, not the corporation.
We, the people, must provide for ourselves and ensure that we have a government that serves our needs, not the corporation.
Good luck with that. The corporations (which can and have brought some very wonderful things to man) as a problem have many ills. Which ones, by solving them, "fix" the problem?
Human Greed, A currency that needs to expand via credit, the corporate person concept, on and on and on. Somewhere upstream in the comments on this article was the 'when I was a CEO I lied' comment - so basic truth so an informed consumer exists.
So many problems WRT corporations. Which one(s) do you fix?
The article has been picked up by MarketWatch, Hamilton Spectator, and Groovy Green.
And here's a response to the article from Science Blogs:
Peak Oil, Again
Also picked up by Truthout.
Well, Colin Campbell admits to lying and yet you all believe him as if its the word of god. Not buying it. How many times is he going to put off peak? Now its 2011?!? Gimmie a break. He is lying again to please his masters.
Just look at exports. It doesn't matter how much oil is produced so much as how much is EXPORTED. WT has tried to tell you this but nobody is hearing it.
By the way, the US is in deep trouble this summer. Once Iraq blows up and the US military is about ruined then watch Iran/Russia/China move in and take over in the ME.
If we attack Iran it will only make it that much worse.
I think the people who are complaining about the woeful factual inaccuracies in this are missing the importance of it.
It is full-page page 1 in a newspaper with influence well beyond that suggested by its circulation. The fact that they are willing to lead with it indicates that the message is getting out in the British MSM in a way that I would have been surprised at a year ago. Yes, it's going to be spun and misunderstood. The big difficulty is people are still going to be focusing on when oil runs out in global terms, instead of the more imminent and intimate end of cheap oil on them as families and communities.
But the elite in the UK will, it seems, have a harder time than the US in directing the public away from the root cause o the coming problems, which can only be a good thing.
I agree.
I got this weird sense of relief that finally PO was on the front page of a Major and respected Daily Newspaper.
Watch the rest follow:
Sun:
PARIS SHOWS HER TWIN PEAKS!
Daily Mail:
PEAK OIL - WILL IT AFFECT YOUR HOUSE PRICE?
GRAUNIAD:
TORIES HID PAEK OLI FER YERS WEN IN GOVVERMINT
TELEGRAPH:
ODELL DISPARAGES PEAKISTS: OIL IS ABIOTIC. GO BACK TO SLEEP
Hey Dumgogler - I love it!
Good point, Lanterne.
I wonder if the North Sea depletion might have awakened some in the British press?
Of course I doubt if Rupert's papers would do a story like this ...
Maybe, Maybe not.
But Ruperts rag does do stories like this:
Why we must break with the American crazies
Anatole Kaletsky Times: 15th June 2007.
When Gordon Brown returned from his fact-finding tour of Iraq on Monday, he proclaimed the importance of learning from our mistakes but also of looking forward instead of backward. Did this admission hint at a shift in Britain’s foreign policy when Mr Brown takes over in ten days’ time?
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/anatole_kaletsky/art...
Good Article, Rupert must have known about this before it got to print.
Good article, and one which should alert more of the general public.
I just have a question about the coal issue. It says, "There are still an estimated 909 billion tonnes of proven coal reserves worldwide, enough to last at least 155 years."
I figure that most likely, to come up with 155 years, people just take the amount of "proven" coal and divide by how much we use each year and figure that the number is 155 times that.
That's fine and dandy, but with the oil supply faltering, to make up for the difference, I can easily see, say, 3 times the present yearly amount of coal being used in the near future. Wouldn't that bring it down to 50 years? And that assumes a constant supply. I don't think coal is just like oil, but I would assume that there must be some sort of "Peak Coal", too. Would that then come less than 25 years in (since we've already used a lot of coal already).
Then figure that there are different grades of coal, with the highest grade (Anthracite) being the most scarce, and the lowest grade (Lignite) being the least scarce, and add to that the fact that countries have been revising down their "proven" reserves, and it looks to me like that 155 year figure just turned into 10 years until peak.
Please correct me if I'm wrong. I'm not an expert and want to know more about this.
That is essentially correct. Please note that all coal reserve figures coupled with lifetimes expressed in years are always qualified by the phrase "at current rates of consumption". If you triple the rate of consumption, you reduce the reserve base by two thirds. So yes, increase consumption rates will exhaust a reserve sooner.
The only case where we have huge reserves is nuclear and nuclear comes with a variety of issues that are constantly debated. It is my personal opinion that there is no possible way to ramp up sufficient solar and wind power in time to cover the loss of fossil fuels or sustain base loads thus civilization must turn to nuclear power. Many problems in the nuclear industry are self-imposed, such as the waste management problem, about which Joseph Somsel wrote eloquently almost two years ago.
There are additional issues with nuclear as well and there are varying opinions about nuclear but regardless of opinion, I personally feel that in order to avoid a catastrophic collapse, we must turn to nuclear power given current population and limitations of alternatives. In short, we must take the bad with the good or else we face an even worse scenario.
Ghawar Is Dying
The greatest shortcoming of the human race is our inability to understand the exponential function. - Dr. Albert Bartlett
I totally agree with you about nuclear. I believe it will serve as a cushion. But this 10 year to peak coal I don't buy.
Keypoints:
1. Coal will not increase threefold in one or two years, like you are assuming. It will increase smoothly through the years. Just this will rise the 10 year lifespan;
2. Coal may have problems like oil is having today as soon as 2020 / 2030. But by then more than one major newspaper headline about oil supply and real problems in life will have changed the usage of energy. Will it be enough? Not one knows.
3. Nuclear is no silver bullet. To substitute oil entirely there would be needed thousands of new power plants, and an entirely new fleet and energy infrastructure for transportation / oil-dependent industry;
4. I believe there is one damn good silver bullet hidden from view for more than a century, always dismissed as "cute" but not effective. Totally not true. I am talking about an Electric car .
What's best about electrical cars is:
- less mileage-equivalent than anything else out there by a long shot;
- no maintenance required (and how many people are in the autoparts sector?);
- you can mainly charge it at night when electrical demand is way below production (and thus it wouldn't demand more power at all ).
Currently only elite electrical cars are allowed to enter the mainstream spin, but when Big Car sees that either they do electric or let economy die, they will choose the only viable option.
By then, we will see their engineers as saviours of mankind. Or else as pimps that have enslaved us for decades.
My two cents
Grid connected (3rd Rail or overhead wire) electric rail is more efficient than EVs for 4 reasons.
1) No battery losses (in & out)
2) Order of magnitude lower rolling resistance vs. rubber on concrete (or asphalt till that disappears)
3) Regenerative braking (feed back into line vs. battery that has upper limits on how much it can accept in charging mode).
4) Aerodynamic losses are less/pax typically
The main advantage is that no new technology is required ! In wide spread use TODAY in Europe and Japan.
Best Hopes for electrified rail,
Alan
Dear AlanfromBigEasy:
I live in Europe, and I see those wires. You claim these are more efficient than EV. Of course they are. But you are confusing apples for oranges.
1. Wired transport is Mass Transit. Period. You can't have first person transport with that. I am a proponent of Mass Transit. But our economy is not directed that way, even here in Europe. We have suburbs too.
2. Wires are costly. Imagine building an entire infrastructure in the whole world with wires on top. Unthinkable. Unreliable. Unflexible. Currently, they are posited in key roads of key cities. "Mass Transit".
3. If you stick to Mass Transit, which is a good urban design tool, you'd have to destroy the houses which won't be connected with MT. Hundreds of Millions. I don't see that.
4. A good answer must come with various responses. I see a future where MT will be more common, because car pollution will be less intensive and people are more driven just to walk and use buses in cities. But I also see a future where cars could be non-pollutant and energy efficient. You can't beat the flexibility of the "car", so people will continue to use them if that's economically possible. Tesla Motors proves it is very possible indeed. They just happened to start in the high end of clients. Good strategy to get more money. They plan to make a van in 2009 $50.000 pure electric. Still expensive. But they want to make things less and less expensive. Scale will help with that.
(Japanese automakers are technologically even more advanced, but their models are way out of taste (8 wheels?).)
So, if you come about with trains, TGV, mass transit and EV cars, why will we need oil?
One big problem is in the air though: how will airplanes solve the equation is smth I still don't have a clue.
What is needed is a 4-tier system:
1. Short-distances up to a couple of miles (neighborhood): Walk/bicycle/scooter
2. Slightly longer trips for shopping, entertainment, house of worship, etc.: NEVs + neighborhood shuttle buses (biodiesel-powered)
3. Suburb to CBD or cross-town: metro commuter rail (electrified)
4. Intercity travel: long-haul passenger rail (electrified)
Essentially I agree, WNC, but in addition to biodiesel buses we can also do trolleys, another turn-of-the-century technology that is proven. It will not fit every situation but where it fits we should use it as it will free biodiesel for those situations where it is needed.
Ghawar Is Dying
The greatest shortcoming of the human race is our inability to understand the exponential function. - Dr. Albert Bartlett
Another turn-of-the-century tech... you're referring to the 19th to 20th century tech, right?
It depends upon the city.
New Orleans can function well with streetcars only (plus bicycles & walking + occasional work cars/trucks). The smaller French cities and towns (down to 100,000 population) do well with trams with stops every 500 m (0.3 mile) or so.
Another observation from France. They typically take a busy bus line, take two traffic lanes (one each direction) from rubber tires and build a tram line in 3 to 4 years from concept to ribbon cutting. Ridership increases 26% (avg) immediately and unit costs go down.
Manhatten would benefit from E-W streetcars feeding the largely N-S subway lines. Washington DC would like to build 40 miles of streetcar lines to 1) feed DC Metro and 2) to connect neighborhoods for local travel.
IMO, the same will be true for Miami once they build their 103 miles of elevated "subway".
Trolley buses use considerably more electricity than streetcars (rubber/concrete vs steel/steel) and do nothing that streetcars cannot do (except hills with 10% grade or thread narrow streets with lots of parked cars). But they are cheaper to install.
My ranking (by capacity)
1) 4 track Rapid Rail (subways)
2) 2 track subways
3) Light Rail (lots of grade separation)
4) Light Rail (minimal grade separation)
5) Streetcars on own ROW
6) Streetcars in mixed traffic
7) Regular 40' buses (hopefully trolley)
8) Short buses
Commuter rail serves a very useful niche but does not fit into the list above.
Most large cities will need 3 or 4 of the above to make a comprehensive mass transit system. Mixing high volume transit with stops every mile or so with streetcar feeders (with stops every 3 blocks) is a near ideal situation IMO.
Hope this helps,
Alan
BTW: UK build trams lines suburb to central city (stops every 1.5 km). France serves the central city first (stops every 0.5 km) and then branches out. France has been more successful but both have a place post-Peak Oil.
Wires are costly. Imagine building an entire infrastructure in the whole world with wires on top. Unthinkable. Unreliable. Unflexible. Currently, they are posited in key roads of key cities. "Mass Transit"
Wires cost about $2.5 million/mile for simple cheap ones.
I do NOT think it is "unthinkable" ! I think it all the time :-)
But bicycles will still be needed, I agree !
"Key cities" ? Like Mulhouse (pop 111,300) ? First tram line opened in 2006, three by 2012.
Or Grenoble (pop about 250,000) 50 km of tram lines open, being built or planned. And bicycles being pushed to replace cars.
Best Hopes for tram lines in small towns,
alan
Well, I was not only referring to the "wires" themselves. There's a lot more to it than wires. But mainly people will not want to adopt a 100% mass transit life. Sorry, people but you're missing the point. We could imagine a 100% life of non-waste, van-pooling, MT, and all the thematics you want, but people will also want to drive to their cottage-house. They will want to drive to the beach. They will want to drive to work, specially if you have to switch 4 times of MT transport.
I don't see the end of personal transport. And unfortunately, I can remind you that we already have the infrastructure for it. All that is missing is the reliable wasteless car.
These are two totally different applications. Mass transit is not isomorphic to personal transit. For a start it has much higher infrastructure costs. In lower population density areas trollybusses are much more economical than electric rail.
And its still often a big loser. Not many will take the bus or train if they have the resources for a personal transit option unless the bus or train is clearly superior; It ocassionaly happens with bad traffic and parking, but when we look at it honestly its fairly rare.
Luisdias,
I was simply pointing out that he had the general concept correct but I did not agree with his specific numbers. His understanding is basically correct - increase consumption rates lowers the overall lifespan of the remaining reserve. Your observation that it will "smoothly" increase is however, fraught with assumptions that cannot be proven or disproven yet. A sufficiently harsh oil spike could cause coal consumption to easily increase by 50% within a 5 year span or even more. We just do not know yet.
But the key issue is that lifespan of a reserve is dependent on its consumption rate therefore you cannot just say we have X years reserve unless you qualify that with a specific rate.
It has, however, been shown that we could expect peak coal in as little as 3 decades if consumption grows radically and we attempt to use coal to fill in for existing liquid fuel transport. The only way to avoid that is to re-engineer our transport systems more efficiently, as Alan Drake has so often argued.
Ghawar Is Dying
The greatest shortcoming of the human race is our inability to understand the exponential function. - Dr. Albert Bartlett
That's fine. But I didn't see that disagreement in your response. I corrected his numbers in case someone just read it and your agreement and start panicking about it.
All I can say is "Daaah?". A fifty percent increase in 5 years is an awesome number, but nevertheless is NOT a threefold increase within a YEAR. If such numbers would apply it would mean a threefold increase in 13 years or so. That obviously trumps peak coal "within 10 years". So 13 years comparing to one year I would say it is "smoother".
But 50% in 5 years for 20 years... that's a hell of an assumption there. I wouldn't bet on it. But I agree with you there, who knows?
>1. Coal will not increase threefold in one or two years, like you are assuming. It will increase smoothly through the years. Just this will rise the 10 year lifespan;
I suspect that coal will be consumted in-situ as a stop-gap to declining natural gas. It much more cost effective to burn underground, add some water to produce water-gas to keep those gas-turbines cranking out megawatts for ACs and other wasteful consumption uses.
>3. Nuclear is no silver bullet. To substitute oil entirely there would be needed thousands of new power plants, and an entirely new fleet and energy infrastructure for transportation / oil-dependent industry;
Not to mention than minining and enriching uranium is energy intensive. Add on that their are only about a dozen sites world wide that offer economical recovery of Uranium ore.
>4. I believe there is one damn good silver bullet hidden from view for more than a century, always dismissed as "cute" but not effective. Totally not true. I am talking about an Electric car .
BS. Batteries require heavy metals and other refined chemicals that must be perodically replaced. Not to mention the steel, plastics and other building materials used to construct the car. When Oil and gas go into deep depletion you can kiss private transportation for the masses goodbye forever.
Lets not forget about how oil and gas are used to manufacture petro-chemicals (Plastics, fertializers, pesticides, and virtually every material used in modern products). Its also used to heat homes. make domestic hot water, and virtually all critical industrial processes.
BS back. Batteries are built today for every friggin car. For every friggin laptop, for every friggin cellphone. You have any idea how many batteries are built today? You tellin me this is not possible for cars? That's a completely oversized assumption. What about the steel? The plastics? Aren't they used today? Do you even know how much oil is used by them? And compared it to the usage of fuel we nowadays have? Simple maths: Had we all electric cars working today we would not need 40 mbd, period. Do you even know the amount of waste in other fields?
So the oracle that is you inform us. I have been told similar stuff about y2k. The world was about to end. I was so frightened by it that I even didn't do anything about it. I've been told so many similar shait this life that all your rants just seem to me the panic expression of little freaked minds out there.
Suggestion: don't eat all the freaked conspiracy nuggets message out there. They don't "know" anything more than you do actually. They just make a hell of a show of it.
Electric cars in the form of NEVs are perfectly feasible transport modes for relatively short distances and low speeds (i.e., a travel radius of up to one or two dozen miles or so, at a top speed of 35 mph -- in other words, on city streets). It is when you try to power a couple of tons of metal at 70 mph for hundreds of miles between recharges that the project starts to enter the realm of fantasy. Anyone that needs to get to someplace hundreds of miles away - or across town quickly - would be better served by passenger rail running convenient routes on convenient (i.e., frequent) schedules. Not only is it more energy efficient and inexpensive, it is also safer and allows for more productive use of the traveler's time.