 | Tech Talk: A Review of North American Future Oil Production | The Oil Drum | 2011 ASPO-USA Conference: Day 2 |  |
Five Misconceptions About Peak Oil
Posted by Robert Rapier on November 15, 2011 - 5:18am
I recently attended the annual ASPO conference in Washington, D.C. This was only my 2nd ASPO conference; the other one I attended was in 2008 in Sacramento. There were many familiar faces, some of whom I had previously met and some I only knew by reputation. The mood seemed remarkably calmer than in 2008. That year, oil prices were just coming down from record highs, a pair of hurricanes were causing spot gasoline shortages, and the economy was headed into the toilet. The general mood was that things were rapidly unraveling. Three years later, the long-term outlook isn’t really any different, but I think some who predicted imminent doom are starting to change their views on how things are going to play out.
I noted during one of my talks that I don’t even like the term “peak oil.” That is because there are a number of misconceptions and negative connotations associated with it. I prefer to talk in terms of resource depletion and a supply/demand imbalance that includes multiple elements – all of which combine to keep upward pressure on oil prices. So what are those misconceptions about peak oil? Below are the ones I think are most common.
Misconception 1: Peak Oil = Running Out of Oil
This one is surely the most common. Many articles that seek to debunk the notion of peak oil start with that premise, and then respond by highlighting historical instances where someone influential suggested that we could be running out of oil. In fact, anyone concerned about peak oil will readily acknowledge that we are going to be producing oil for a very long time, and when we stop there is still going to be a lot of oil left in the ground.
So what then is the definition of peak oil? In its simplest form, peak oil means that just as oil production in the United States peaked in 1970 and began to decline, so shall global production do the same. Once you get past that basic premise – one in which there is near-universal agreement once people understand that is what you mean when you say “peak oil” – there are many different opinions of exactly how events will unfold. The would-be peak oil debunkers are only addressing their arguments at one of the ways some people think this will play out, and then declaring that they have debunked peak oil.
Misconception 2: Peak Oil Beliefs are Homogeneous
The beliefs among people who are concerned about resource depletion cover a wide span. There are those who believe that a peak is imminent, followed by a catastrophic decline. Included in this group are people who have vocally and (to this point) wrongly predicted dates and catastrophic consequences as a result of peak oil. These are the real targets of those who claim that peak oil is nonsense. What they are really arguing against – but perhaps don’t say due to misconceptions about peak oil beliefs – is that the idea of imminent, catastrophic decline is nonsense. But that isn’t the same thing as arguing that peak oil is nonsense. (Just to clarify, I am not saying that I think this view is nonsense, but I don't view it as the most likely outcome).
But there are also people who believe peak oil will inevitably lead to cleaner environments, closer communities, and healthier food. Then there are those who believe that peak oil will lead to a dirtier environment as we become more desperate for energy and turn to more oil sands and coal to replace declining oil supplies. There are people who believe peak oil will be a minor inconvenience because there are plenty of sources capable of replacing oil. And there are those who believe certain elements of all of the above.
Misconception 3: Peak Oil is a Theory
It is also common among those attempting to debunk peak oil to refer to the “peak oil theory.” As in the previous example, this paints with a very broad brush. When someone describes peak oil as a theory, what they are really referring to is the belief that a production peak is both imminent and the results promise to be catastrophic. I doubt that’s the majority view, and I would estimate that the percentage of people holding that view has declined over the past five years as some of the catastrophic scenarios failed to materialize as quickly as envisioned. But peak oil itself is an observation, not a theory.
Misconception 4: Peak Oil was Dreamed Up By Big Oil to Inflate Prices
In fact, most of the major oil companies argue that oil production will not decline for decades. This has been the public view of ExxonMobil and the American Petroleum Institute. But within oil companies, there have been some executives who have publicly expressed concern that oil production could not grow to the levels projected by various agencies. I am unaware that this is the official position of any major oil company, but I would submit that the reason some executives expressed concern is because they are concerned.
Misconception 5: Peak Oil is Denied by Oil Companies Worried about Alternatives.
This view is the flip-side of the previous misconception. The idea is that if oil companies acknowledge peak oil, governments will redouble their efforts to develop alternative fuels, hastening the end of Big Oil. There are two flaws with this reasoning. First, from my view inside the oil industry, most people in the industry deny peak oil for the simple reason that they have either never given it much thought, or subscribe to one of the misconceptions. I frequently had conversations with people about peak oil in which the response was “They have been saying that we are running out of oil my entire life.”
The second flaw in this argument is that I have never seen anyone in the oil industry express anything resembling worry over the alternative energy industry. They may be annoyed at mandates that force them to do something they don’t want to do (like blend ethanol) but then they can respond by getting into the business themselves. In fact, I have yet to see an alternative energy scheme that Big Oil wasn’t already working on: Algae, cellulosic ethanol, pyrolysis oil, butanol, solar – oil companies have major efforts in every one these areas (and have been working on them for years). It is just that in most cases, they don’t publicize and hype those efforts because they aren’t out trying to raise funds. It is just a part of the basic research that oil companies do. The scientists and engineers that work at oil companies aren’t just sitting around basking in the final days of the age of oil – a very common misconception. They are thinking about what comes next, and investing to make sure that when it does come, the oil companies are in the position to provide it and profit from it.
Conclusions
I think as far as peak oil goes, most of us can agree that just as it did in the U.S. in 1970, global oil production will inevitably decline. The points of contention are the timing, the steepness of the decline, the impact on the global economy, the impact on the general population, and the ability of other energy sources to fill the supply gap. Some believe it will be a non-event, and some people believe it will be catastrophic.
What do I believe? I have always viewed peak oil as supply struggling to keep up with demand, which will keep oil prices at recession-inducing levels. I think that we will probably eek out a bit more global production (this depends on whether the global economy picks up any steam in the next few years), but I will be surprised if the world gets past 90 million barrels per day. I believe that shale gas and oil sands production will continue to rise, and global carbon emissions will continue their upward march.
I still believe in the Peak Lite scenario; in fact I think that view has been validated. I also believe that my view on the Long Recession is supported by the state of the economy as well as the continued strength in oil prices. As far as the consequences of peak oil, I believe that what we are seeing now with respect to the economy is a prelude to what we will see for the next few years. I expect a slow squeeze on western economies as developing countries continue to raise their standards of living – keeping fairly constant upward pressure on oil prices and making life difficult in oil-importing countries. I believe we have entered the long recession, but if the economy shows major strength within the next couple of years I will concede that at least my timing was too early.
I do not expect a massive die-off of the population, as I reiterated to several people at the ASPO conference this past week. In fact, my mind can’t even begin to entertain that scenario. I understand the basis of those who believe in this scenario, but I believe that we will show great resilience in the face of great challenges. We still have a lot of discretionary oil consumption that can be cut, and we have shown some responsiveness to high oil prices. The world won't look like it does now; I think Jeff Rubin is correct that our worlds will get a lot smaller.
It won’t be a picnic; I expect the economic situation to further deteriorate from here and I think a lot of people are going to suffer (and I recognize that a lot of people are suffering now). But of course I have always been an optimist…
Postscript
This essay was originally published on my blog, and was republished in several locations. Based on the comments I received, I have modified parts of the essay to provide more clarity around certain points. But I will elaborate here on a couple of points. Some people misinterpreted my comments about those who believe in an imminent, catastrophic decline. What I wrote was that this is the view that those anti-peak oil articles ridicule and attempt to debunk -- as if this view is representative of peak oil, period. I personally don't ridicule that point of view; it is one of many possible outcomes. But it is not, in my opinion, the most likely outcome.
Many seemed to equate "Peak Lite" with "peak oil will be a minor event." That is not remotely what the Peak Lite scenario is all about. I came up with this scenario when we were debating whether 2005 was the peak. It occurred to me that maybe there was far too much emphasis on a physical peak, and then the aftermath of the peak. After all, what happens after a peak? There is not enough supply to meet demand. I reasoned that we would see this and the associated impacts before we necessarily saw a physical peak. When I first started writing about this, I envisioned a scenario in which global demand growth outstrips the growth in supply, so that even if supply could still grow the market behaves as it would in a peak oil situation. So I used "Peak Lite" to denote "Effective Peak" -- which is not to imply that the impact of peak oil would be "Lite."
The Long Recession phrase was obviously inspired by The Long Emergency. I reasoned that since high oil prices frequently precede recessions, peak oil would likely mean a recession without end. The reason is that demand usually falls during a recession, supply creeps up, price falls, and the economy recovers. In a Long Recession, supply doesn't creep up, and therefore prices remain high -- stalling a recovery. I think that's a pretty apt description of the situation in which we find ourselves.
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.
How about this idea: "resource depletion" (with oil at the forefront) is analogous to a force stretching a rubber band -- the "rubber band" itself being the world financial system, which might "come apart" fairly suddenly
-- See, EG, the two graphs at the end of http://ourfiniteworld.com/2011/10/19/kidding-ourselves-about-future-mena..., about how world food prices coincide with oil prices, & how riots coincide with food prices
Good morning, Dave and Robert,
I like the rubber band analogy!
Personally, I consider myself to be a very well informed layman but I claim no expertise, except in agriculture and in the art of observing humans.
I am gradually morphing from a doomer to something closer to a Peak Lite pov myself, insofar as the medium term time frame is concerned.
But speaking as a generalist, and an avid reader of history, and especially the history of wars and empires, I'm afraid the odds of hot resource wars are pretty high.
Once they start in earnest, anything can happen, as acknowledged in this essay.
Some would say that we are already at war, and we are,obviously, but not in any truly serious fashion-the wars we are currently engaged in are not very serious in terms of economic hardship,death tolls, etc, even in the countries where we are engaged, compared to any war where the countries involved go at it tooth and nail.
There were DAYS in the American Civil War,WWI, WWII, and other wars that resulted in as many casualties as we have suffered all the way thru Afghanistan and Iraq for instance-and no major city in eiter country has been utterly destroyed by fire bombing, etc.
If we are lucky enough to avoid too much fighting, the long resession scenario does seem likely to play out for a good long while.
We might even avoid the long term crash that still seems inevitable to me, if we were to institute "tough enough" policies of conservation, efficiency,austerity, and population control.
We might discover ways and strategies that work well enough to turn the corner, the odds against this are not hopeless.
Anybody who doubts this would do well to read a recent issue of National Geographic that describes how the women of Brazil have alomosy overnight freed themselves of centuries of conditioning to have large families, and nowadays have very small families as a rule.
It might be possible that the rising generation of kids will turn their backs on the car culture, and ten years , ot twenty years, from now, the ultimate personal status symbol might be the possession of a net zero energy home.I have friend whose teenage boys are not interested in cars-to me this seems almost miraculous.
But as I see it, the implementation of "tough enough" policies will come in piecemeal fashion, too little and too late, to avoid a major crash of the population at some point.
We are simply too fragmented to work together to the extent necessary, and our evolutionary heritage does not include the necessary incentives to cooperation on such a scale.
But "miracles" do happen!
There was a report in the respected medical journal The Lancet some years ago that performed a statistical analysis of excess deaths from all causes in Iraq in the five years after the 'liberation'.
The figure they came up with was over one million, out of a population of about 20 million. Most due to failure of medical care and malnutrition. The report was condemned and dismissed universally by Western politicians, and defended to the hilt by the scientific establishment.
The US has not suffered seriously in resource wars yet. Other countries have not been so lucky.
I agree that the Iraqis have borne the brunt of the suffering and I don't seriously question the figure of a million excess deaths over five years.
I will point out that they suffered huge casualties during the period that Hussien was in control of the country that dwarf this one million.
The problem with a situation such as the one in Iraq is that the fighting never stops due to ethnic reasons and the lack of a well established tradition of law.
In countries such as Germany or Japan or American south during the Civil War , when the fighting stopped with surrender or occupation, it ACTUALLY STOPPED.
It is my personal expectation that there will NEVER be peace in Iraq until one of these scenarios comes to pass:
The country is partitioned, and the various ethnic factions are mostly seperated; or until a particular faction succeeds in gaining control and using methods suitably brutal to suppress rebellion by the other groups;or until the country is occupied by a country with the will to brutally put down rebellion by simply killing as many people as it takes ;or until by some miracle, the local cultures evolve to the point of tolerating each other.
I'm not holding my breath waiting for any of these to come to pass.
"I will point out that they suffered huge casualties during the period that Hussien was in control of the country that dwarf this one million."
That's the point - these were excess deaths over the "baseline" when Saddam was in control: 1 million+ more people died than would otherwise have died,
Peter.
Indeed. Saddam may have brutally murdered tens of thousands, and kept tens of millions living in fear, but for actual deaths, nothing beats a breakdown in medical care or sanitation. Pestilance is by far the strongest horseman. Thst is why bombing civilian infrastructure is a crime against humanity.
All the more reason to avoid going to war if at all possible. Even "good" wars aren't all that good. Many folks enjoyed "Saving Private Ryan". But most don't know the Allies killed 40,000 French civilians in the frist few weeks of the D-day landing. Had to kill the German troops so had to hit the towns they were they were posted. Unfortunately the towns also held the civilian population.
IMHO we should have tried more alternatives to invading Iraq particularly since we knew it wasn't a unified population in the first place. It's rather easy to kill a tank sitting in the middle of the desert. But that obviously didn't win any peace. I doubt the future for many of the Iraq people holds much better promise.
It is quite obvious that invading Iraq was a US goal in the first place (especially in order to balance the Saudis "allies" with respect to oil and influence in the region), and then a lot of "over optimism"
I had reports (from a major Republican contributor who is a family friend) during the 2000 election (when Bush was posturing as an isolationist) that an invasion of Iraq was planned (when opportunity allowed) prior to Bush taking office.
Paul O'Neill (multi-billionaire Republican ex-Treasury secretary) reported that discussion of Iraq invasion occurred in Cabinet meetings prior to 9/11.
Norman Schwarzkopf (Republican ex-general who stumped for Dole/Bush) reported in his pre-9/11 memoirs that Cheney (then SecDef) wanted to takeover all of Iraq during Gulf War I and was dissuaded by Bush Sr, Colin Powell (then Chairman of the Joint Chiefs), Schwarzkopf, and Jim Baker (Sec State). I personally recall Cheney making this quite clear in a radio interview during the wrap-up of GWI when he voiced tepid pro-forma support for the GHWB administration's party line.
Yes, also a quite "bold" declaration about it recently by John Bolton :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uFbpKKOEnAE
But anyway, the history of the middle east since WWI and the fall of the Ottoman empire (and even before, first oil field "discovered" in the region in 1855 (in Iran)) is painted all over with oil interests and western interventions...
Hi benamery21
You have probably seen this.
http://www.energybulletin.net/node/559
Published Jun 8 2004 by London Institute of Petroleum, Archived Jun 8 2004
Full text of Dick Cheney's speech at the Institute of Petroleum Autumn lunch, 1999
by Dick Cheney
"By 2010 we will need on the order of an additional fifty million barrels a day. So where is the oil going to come from?... Oil is unique in that it is so strategic in nature. We are not talking about soapflakes or leisurewear here. Energy is truly fundamental to the world’s economy."
old Dick the font of truth and reason as always, lets see crude production was about 76MBPD in 1999 so we must need 126MBPD today...oh he was talking to the Institute of Petroleum at a wet lunch...
that is being a bit unfair. If he wasn't talking about a 50MBPD net increase and thus was including new production needed to be brought on line just to keep world output flat he might have even been a little light on his estimate-assuming he was shooting for a somewhat lower oil price than we have today.
So that is 1 million deaths, in what was basically a revenge attack for 9/11, which Iraq had nothing to do with. Nearly 3,000 Americans died in 9/11, so for every American death, Iraq has paid with around 333 lives. If Iraq was to get revenge on the same scale, that would mean killing 333 million Americans. More than actually exist. That is how messed up Iraq is right now, and the scale of the atrocity in a way hopefully a few more people can understand.
You know that quote in the film The Untouchables: He sends one of yours to the hospital, you send one of his to the morgue.
Imagine if instead it was: Someone over there sends one of yours to the morgue, you send 333 from that unconnected place over there to the morgue.
It is so over the top it is unbelievable.
There is some debate about that. Sure large scale army versus army stopped. But you had lychings and KKK activity for the better part of a century. Today we would consider this stuff to be low level conflict, which seems to have become the norm now.
I'm not sure if the people of Fallujah would agree with your statement about no major cities being destroyed.
I view the lynchings and associated terrorism to be no more than a continuation of the pre-conflict behavior in the south. Perhaps just another justification of why going to war is commonly such a policy failure.
How much worse would the world be if we had simply let the south seceed? There is some evidence that they would have eventually failed economically if left alone. The efficiency of the slave economy was pretty pitiful and the entire US was becoming a pariah nation because of slavery. A boycott may have finished them off pretty quickly.
A boycott wasn't a realistic option. Cotton was King. The American South generated 75% of world supply. Absent a Union blockade, the rest of the world would happily have bought it at prices which would have kept the Confederacy prosperous. If secession had happened without the Civil War, the two countries would have wound up at war down the road: Among other things, control of the Mississippi would have been a major problem.
two countries would have wound up at war down the road
Once the right to secession was established why stop at two countries? Texas may have decided to have its realm, the west coast might have formed another, those powers may have fought a northern industrial alliance over control of Rocky Mountain region minerals. Who is to say? I won't give a value judgement on whether the world would have been a better place down the road if the South had been allowed to secede, but it certainly would have been a much different place, likely quite different at this very moment.
The USA was not becoming a "pariah" nation in the mid-19th century. And the talk of an international boycott at that time is absurd. In fact, there was considerable support in both England and France for giving major support to the Confederate states, or even going to war on the side of the rebels after the South's surprising military successes in 1862 and early 1863. Many have written that a significant victory for the South on Northern soil would have resulting in full-blown support and assistance from England and France. It was only the loss at Gettysburg that turned the tide (and that battle was a close call for the North).
In pre-war negotiations, the leadership of the South was fully supportive of a gradual end to all slavery, but with full compensation to all of the Southern farmers who would be giving up their slaves. And there were many in the North who were leaning toward to a partial compensation plan as the price of avoiding war. But Northern industrial interests worked behind the scenes to make sure that the funding for such a compromise would never happen.
Do you have some sources for that 2nd paragraph?
At the top they have access to the smartest people in the world, and they have the inside data on peak resources. I think that some up there may be starting to "get it". Almost certainly the smart people up there keep abreast of developments and analyses looking for a balance between profitable paths and stable paths. I think the work of many in the peak resource sciences does help to enlighten them. In the past they may have favored profit, but if they start seeing the big picture, they might conclude that it is in their best interest (and in the mutual best interests of others) to act to favor stability irregardless of monetary cost in preventing or delaying contagion or a Seneca effect collapse.
Many of the people at the top are probably very concerned and thinking about ways to preserve stability. I think they are smart enough to try to avoid any types of escalation where war with any BNC exchange occurs is a likely losing proposition to everyone. They may rattle sabers for psychological effect especially on the periphery, but the MAD of the major powers will likely prohibit that from coming into play. The super rich may have super yachts that can go to sea on or go to remote areas followed by their dedicated oil tankers, and the governments may have their underground shelters, but if they really need to do that then the status quo will be gone, and they will likely face degradations and losses of technology and modern benefits over time that will almost assure that their children's future would within a few generations be a totally agrarian one, with little hope of a rebirth of the industrial age for tens if not hundreds of millions of years until the earth can make more fossil fuel.
If the governments and financiers realize that resource wars (where infrastructure and resources are likely to be lost and may likely never be replaced) is a lose, lose path forward, that may prevent them from taking the path of war. But how does one manage from the top a structurally forced contraction of the economy for stability, while preserving the status quo? I think that austerity measures was the less risky path for them to take but they likely knew that it would only work well for a while.
If an austerity approach doesn't work well, TPTB will likely try to implement command economies. But doing so in a heavy handed way during a period where there is a concurrent structurally forced contraction due to declining inputs may lead to a collapse/Seneca scenario if the general population doesn't buy in. And if the financial system becomes unstable and quickly crashes then high unemployment could easily lead to a collapse/Seneca scenario. So maybe an approach where the truth is revealed, with assurances of stability, food, clothing, and shelter are guaranteed, but where discretionary spending is somehow limited, could get buy in from the general population and preserve stability while ZPG or negative PG is implemented, and while a Manhattan sized project to develop fusion, renewables, and alternates is put in place. If America, Russia, China, Saudi, Germany, England, etc all get on board for it, they might get buy in. But if if just looks like a NWO without heart and just a financial narrative, the chances of buy in from the general population will be low. A compelling narrative would help to get buy in, and help a stable transition.
The recent concerns of the militaries about economic affects does indicate that some of the important actors are getting it. And anybody with inside data for major oil fields that might be declining soon or are already declining is probably well aware of the anxiety of their customers, and thinking forward to what the future will likely hold. After all, the super rich does have the business mindset and that mindset does concern itself with forward looking statements. We just need to expand their forward looking concerns past profits and more toward relative benefits and stability.
But there are risks in changing the economic narrative from growth to a call for conservation and stability. Actions that would promote stability (at the cost of the perceived need to have growth) would affect business models. The existing debt and credit business models would be affected by the paradigm shift.
If contraction does become structurally forced due to resource constraints and changes to the status quo become large enough, then the TPTB may be willing to risk a paradigm shift favoring stability. But they would likely wait until the push back to a paradigm shift is perceived to be similar in scale and scope to the effects of growing austerity before acting.
I don't think that rationing gets us there alone. In a way isn't austerity just a form of rationing that attempts to preserve the status quo while hiding the weakness in the debt and credit markets being forced by resource constraints? Eventually, the top of the pyramid may attempt a restructure that is based on the truth and a realistic and constructive assessment.
"Many of the people at the top are probably very concerned and thinking about ways to preserve stability."
I do think there's cause for optimism in terms of leadership from the top, but there's also cause for pessimism. If there's hope from 'the top' it feels in some ways to be the kind of hope that you feel when rolling dice - a matter of complicated interactions forces and pressures that amount to luck.
I think 'at the top' means any number of things, especially in today's top heavy economic system where the ultra-rich are increasingly unaccountable to the responsibilities and disciplines that may have been required to create their wealth to begin with. Many pragmatic folks take for granted certain values and ideals that the uber wealthy simply don't need to . In our compartmentalized, technologized economy, wealth accumulates unevenly and rapidly, and there's no guarantee that it collects around the most pragmatic, responsible, or capable people. I know they're demonized already, but look at the Koch brothers - they inherited massive mechanisms of wealth production, with enough skills to keep it, yet they live in an insular bubble of misinformation. And they have the means to promote it publicly on a massive scale. Rupert Murdoch is another highly public example - immorality and power rewarded by wealth.
I'm not guessing when I say that there are many other uber-wealthy individuals who inherit and keep their wealth and power, but haven't the slightest idea of how to use it responsibly, or of what its use and impact are, to the rest of the world or planet. The structure of power and influence 'at the top' is by no means a system of selecting the most intelligent or well meaning people. In fact it seems to often favor the creation of vindictive, insular, irresponsible, and even plain old crazy individuals.
Add to this the emerging reality of automated technologies for war and security, and I think there's a good argument to make that the ultra-rich will have a better incentive to protect their own through systematic control, rather than reform. In this scenario, the impending problems of resources and population continue on their intractable path, and rather than taking the unpopular and inconvenient project of reforming civilization for everyone, the rich and powerful simply invest in the means to weather the storm. Then the status quo continues, but with technological controls put in place piece by piece, and with each new crisis allowing for more stark division between class, as the system gradually (or suddenly) fails all but the most well defended. There's plenty of precedent for this in history - the feudal era for example - but near future technology will provide the means for an unprecedented barrier or protection around who have access to it and those who do not. Who doesn't dream of surviving a human catastrophe to emerge into a mostly empty paradise of wealth and plenty, with your technology and class intact - for the ultra-rich this must seem like a real possibility in the near-ish future.
It could also be that by 'at the top', we're not talking about the ultra-rich and their minions and handlers, but instead we mean the military or civilian leadership of our democratic nations, or possibly we're talking about the shadowy uber-thinkers in and around the strategic organizations like the pentagon, or DARPA, or military/corporate leaderships, or even thinkers and planners within entities like oil cos or IBM, Microsoft, Apple, Google or etc. This is a better bet IMO, but there's a problem in that for every bright, hopeful effort towards a better future by an idealistic young company, politician, or strategist, there's an established oligarchy of interests that have been playing the game for longer, and for whom the establishment of money and power really sets the reality of what is actually done in the world since it pays for their existence in terms of maintaining its own.
So I think there is some possibility that the powers 'at the top' could come to their senses and build momentum towards real reform and sustainable life on our planet through positive, incremental steps. But it seems likely, given the history of civilization and empire, that a very narrow, self-serving set of human interests will determine the outcome in a contest for ultimate control - and that most people will be on the losing side.
It's probably too late. It was back in the late 70's/early 80's that humanity had a chance to address the problems. We could have made a push for population stabilization, financial reform, and alternative energy. Most of the knowledge and the means to do so were already there.
But we decided to double down, and burn as much as we could, breed as much as we could, and print as much money as we possibly could.
Alot of wealth has been created in the past 30 years, but it's a genuine question how much is real vs. fictional. If we are lucky, then the wealth we've created cushions the blow. For example the infotainment complex keeps people happy and pacified in their homes, and the internet allows the spread of information and helps to faciliate creative responses to our predicament. This very website being a prime example.
Still, my feeling is that none of this is sustainable. Sustainability is not a buzzword, it's something that is either there or isn't. And my gut tells me that everything that we are doing now is simply not sustainable.
OS:
I'm of the opinion that wealth is all fictional, and that's why it has real power :)
No way is current BAU sustainable - my gut says your gut is correct. But if I were the type to place bets, it would be on the next revolution in tech to rapidly change BAU, in a relatively short, epochal time period. Like shorter than a generation. It's just difficult to say what the nature of that epoch will be: brutal and apocalyptic, or warm, fuzzy and inclusive. IMHO, in spite of history, it wouldn't surprise me if it was the latter. That's how much faith I have in emerging Tech as a completely unprecedented phenomenon. Esp communications tech - ie as you say, the infotainment complex. And that's simply because it is capable of producing a purely abstract form of wealth with a miniscule and shrinking foot-print vis a vis the planetary biosphere.
That's the real issue of sustainability - how to support the wealth creation of 7-8-9-10 billion. The more abstracted into virtuality wealth becomes the better our chances.
Wealth is a surplus, it isn't value. A surplus of gravel is of little value just as a surplus of leaves or dirt.
Modern industrial wealth is a surplus of a banking product called money. Because banks are useless and produce nothing of value, their aim is to convince everyone that their product and nothing else represents value. By exercising this claim, nothing (money) is given value (by way of artificial scarcity) and everything else's value is destroyed. The idea of substitute value is central to popular culture which is a form (and the parent) of advertising.
Substitute value is where the idea of the thing has greater appeal than the thing itself. Substitute value requires users to crave goods that become tiresome the instant they are obtained, leading to an endless chase for a potential good that can actually provide the promised satisfaction.
Advertising is manufactured dissatisfaction, it's the central activity of commerce. Without advertising few people would desire anything. This is because the normal state for humans is to be content. The way to unravel industrial economies is to ban advertising or permit freedom from it.
Industrial economies cannot survive unless people are constantly buying 'goods' they do not need. Right now industrial economies cannot survive repriced inputs that do not allow profits and diminish collateral values of companies.
Industrial economies destroy value. That is their purpose, by doing so they monopolize the production of substitute values. Our crisis is taking place because our economies have run out of easy values to destroy, they have been too successful. Economies have turned on themselves leaving a vacuum. A good example of false value are the thousands of apartment and office buildings containing millions of apartments standing empty in China. They do not exist for any purpose other than to destroy prior claims on ancestral lands that would be visible if the original buildings were allowed to stand ... and as instruments to steal money of 'investors'.
WE seem to have a Mexican definition stand off.
What is "wealth"?
Irrespective of how you view that word, "well being" is another noise bite we can chomp our teeth around.
What is the state of our "well being"?
Is our sense of "well being" real or fictional or both?
__________________________________
edit: more links for "well being" here and here
well-being can be a form of wealth. why not? if you can have a surplus of it, then it can be wealth.
if you believe you're well off, then you have a surplus of well-being, even if you're poor as dirt. And if you agree that it's a fiction of sorts that has a real value, then that's consistent with what we're both saying.
I would say our sense of well-being is both fiction and reality - industrial production simply doesn't generate reality with the same sense and style as fiction - at least not yet. That's why they sell us the fiction that we're better off with production.
In days of old, one might say he/she is "wealthy" if:
1) Lives on and owns fertile land that produces abundant crops
2) Has healthy stock of domesticated animals to exploit
3) Has a well built house to live in
4) Has a loving family to support him/her
5) Has friendly/ supportive neighbors as opposed to enemies
Today, most of us are much more dependent on the community/ society we live in than on the Good Earth
Wealth is a function of what society we live in and how they "value" us (determine what we deserve to have or not have)
This is a pretty interesting idea to me. I think you are right about it.
I think I understand what you mean, although I'd like to read what your idea of value is. People "value" wealth - why, if it doesn't have value? Obviously you have a definition here - I'm not disagreeing with it. I take it that you mean "real value", as different from "perceived value".
And that's where the subject gets slippery, since I think it is hard to make a difference between the two at the practical, "real" level of life. Take a nutritious diet (guaranteed for your entire life), and a painting by Van Gogh as objects with real and perceived value respectively. Given the choice between the two, there's a question of which you would take - one Van Gogh - a painting of flowers - could provide not only a nutritious meal every day, but also a lavish lifestyle, since it is worth millions of dollars. In practical terms today, it makes more sense to accept the painting.
But you say that our problem is with the production of false values as a replacement for real value - if we eliminate the Van Gogh, and focus on getting a real, nutritious meal, every day, not just for ourselves, but for everyone, then that is real wealth, not just a surplus, false wealth. Therefore, China tears down it's false buildings and returns lands to rightful, ancestral owners - and rightfulness is taken as a real value that becomes a focus of society instead of monopolization of ownership.
This is a grand outcome! But how to go about making it happen? I'll propose a solution: it must be done by creating a "perceived value" around "real value". If real value, as we've defined it here, were perceived as superior to fake value, then there wouldn't be the problem in the first place. But, ironically, we've created the same situation that we rallied against in the first place - perceived value has replaced real value. We say: the perception of wealth moves people, the value of wealth sustains them - it is an unavoidable paradox that one relies on the other. Therefore the two - real, and perceived value, are impossible to separate. To get back in agreement with your statement, which I do agree with, no matter what we perceive as real value, wealth is a surplus of that.
"A surplus of gravel is of little value"
I pay quite a lot for gravel. On price per ton maybe it doesn't look expensive, but when you add up the tons you actually need, that is a different matter.
Hello tehchromic
re: "It could also be that by 'at the top', we're not talking about the ultra-rich and their minions and handlers, but instead we mean the military or civilian leadership of our democratic nations, "
Indeed. (Please see below.) It's here now.
That said, people in "democratic nations" can stop the "military or civilian leadership." Let it be known to every elected official, including the President, that we protest the use of a federal agency to plan, (help supply weapons and equipment for ?) and coordinate attacks on civilians.
Especially at 1AM.
http://www.countercurrents.org/cole161111.htm
Police Crackdowns On OWS Coordinated Among Mayors, FBI, DHS
By Juan Cole
16 November, 2011
Juancole.com
Oakland Mayor Jean Quan let slip in an interview with the BBC that she had been on a conference call with the mayors of 18 cities about how to deal with the Occupy Wall Street movement. That is, municipal authorities appear to have been conspiring to deprive Americans of their first amendment rights to freedom of assembly and freedom to petition the government for redress of grievances.
Likewise, A Homeland Security official let it slip in a phone interview that the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security had been strategizing with cities on how to shut down OWS protests. The FBI is said to have advised using zoning ordinances and curfew regulations, and to stage the crackdown with massive police force at a time when the press was not around to cover the crackdown.
oh yea totally. they ought to make a show of sitting down and engaging with them - it would spark a real political middle - but they're afraid of being perceived as weak. No-one wants to make a show of compromise with that end of the middle class. They think it's a losing ticket.
"It might be possible that the rising generation of kids will turn their backs on the car culture....."
Now we are getting to the rub. Americans are their cars. It is not our fault as individiuals, it is because of Hollywood and Madison Avenue.
How can someone still justify running around and around in circles at faster and faster speeds with the imminent threat of a spectacular crash? That's the attraction of NASCAR. Why do we care so much about hundreths of a second? Because they are amplified through our culture into Billions of Dollars.
What exactly are all the Chinese people saving for anyway? A better life, surely, and for most of them that life includes a personal vehicle. One where you don't have to pedal, and you don't get wet or sweaty using it.
Somone once pointed out to me that the stories we tell ourselves is how we think about problems. What I mean is, Aesop's fables are short lessons on how to understand and deal with the world that can be passed on through word of mouth.
We are in desperate need of some new stories. The ones we have now don't fit reality anymore.
AS a lifelong automotive enthusiast I can assure you that the car culture we all grew up with is, at least in the US, fading away. Look at the statistics of young people getting their driver licences for example. And I acknowledge that its a good thing. When I was very young cars were incredibly cheap and easy to fool around with. Now they are expensive, troublesome and complicated. People do identify with the freedom and world-expanding that cars provide but an increasing number see their bicycles in that same light.
Years ago there was a writer of hiking books who observed, wisely, that your appreciation of the world was inversely proportional to the sophistication of your mode of travel. Walking is best to enjoy the world, biking probably next.
It may be true that young people are beginning to defer buying a car mainly due to the Great Recession (as you pointed out, cars are very expensive these days); however, I would not read too much into a very recent --and tiny-- micro-trend. If you look at per-capita car data going back to 1900, (link below) we are still at or very near an all-time peak of cars-per-person. It would take a sea-change in mindsets, buying patterns and transportation to significantly reduce America's car dependence. It's just too ingrained in our culture, infrastructure and the way communities have been built for the last 100+ years.
Perhaps TODers all live on self sufficient family farms or in high density transit-oriented cities with ample alternatives, but for your average Joe, not having a car would make getting to work, shopping, or running the most mundane errands impossible! Peak Oil may eventually force us into a completely new paradigm, but probably not for a good long time. I'm sure most Americans young and old (assuming they give the matter any though at all) are counting on tar sands/shale, fracking, ethanol, fission (and maybe fusion) saving BAU.
http://www1.eere.energy.gov/vehiclesandfuels/facts/2010_fotw617.html
I don't personally know of a single farm family that doesn't own a truck of some sort, or both a truck and a car, excepting few old folks who can no longer drive.There are no Amish in my immediate nieghborhood.
My friends kids who didn't care for cars have gotten cars as a matter of necessity, but delayed the purchase as long as they could.
I agree that we are gut hooked on cars, can't function without them, as we are currently organized.
But this new generation might be willing to change that a lot faster than we think-and ready to adopt much smaller, cheaper, more efficient cars faster than we think for good reasons.
A guy who wants to treat and impress his girl-or vice versa-has a lot of extra options if his car payment is small-a few hundred bucks extra every month can pay for a nicer address, nicer clothes, nicer furniture, leaves more for meals and entertainment in general...
Yair...are "cars very expensive these days"?...seems to me basic transportation is more affordable in Australia now than it has ever been. A Hyundai Getz is around thirteen grand and others similar.
I also don't agree with comments about troublesome...todays basic vehicles are very reliable. I have a '89 1800 cc Hi-lux that had a plug change last year because it seemed that after twenty odd years and a couple of hundred thousand kilometers it seemed like a good idea...nothing wrong with the plugs as far as I can see.
All the little truck has had is tyres and brakes and a new oil and filter every Christmas if it needs it or not....still running the original air cleaner element which gets cleaned and light checked every six months or so.
Agree with your point on overall reliability, especially the asian brands, though maintenance headaches are still a problem with many domestic brands/models. As the saying goes, "your mileage may vary". On affordability, though, it looks like a mixed picture. The average inflation-adjusted cost of a new U.S. car has stayed mostly flat over the last 30 years, while imports soared in price from 1970-1999, then dropped back a bit (though still 2X what they were in 1970).
http://www1.eere.energy.gov/vehiclesandfuels/facts/2008_fotw520.html
True.
"Only 43% of all 16- and 17-year-old Americans were licensed in 2002, the last year for which statistics were available, according to the Federal Highway Administration and U.S. Census Bureau. In 1992, that figure was nearly 52%."
That article is from 2004, so the current economic trouble plays no role in the observed decline. As of 2010, the licensing rate has fallen to about 38%. America is changing.
"How about this idea: "resource depletion" (with oil at the forefront)..."
Agreed. Robert's article, while apt, focuses on oil, when oil is perhaps only the most glaring example of the rapid depletion of most of the resources necessary to maintaining the global civilization we see today. It is the convergence of "peak everything", the systematic, massive scramble we are witnessing to extract and exploit virtually everything of value that our planet has to offer, while using same planet as our garbage bin, our toilet - the end game for growth. This process is ongoing, proceeding rapidly in an historical sense, and to suggest that it will play out slowly, gently, is optimistic at best,, naive IMO. Resilience takes many forms ....
Exactly...even the alternatives to oil are facing real constraints.
As a followup to "Global oil risks in the early 21st century" (Energy Policy, Volume 39, Issue 12, December 2011 pre-print version) the same writing team has begun work on assessing how well CTL could provide significant liquid fuel to make up for oil's decline. We want to know how likely Hirsch's best case adaptation scenario is given the most likely constraints operating that are non-geopolitical (I know, I know: hoarding will occur, as will resource wars, but those are really hard to model well so ours will be a best-case scenario as well):
Which would be comprised of the following:
(See Peaking Of World Oil Production: Impacts, Mitigation, & Risk Management for details on why Hirsch selected those adaptation strategies.)
Early in the research we discovered this paper:
Coal liquefaction policy in China: Explaining the policy reversal since 2006
and it turns out that water constraints are largely the culprit for their change of course (with water contamination coming in close behind).
DCL and ICL explained:
Our suspicion is that water constraints (both in quantity and the populace not accepting contaminated water, at least in developed regions) are going to play a large role in almost every region we will examine. Our other early hypothesis is that credit-constraints will slow deployment of CTL, as well (see the Global Oil Risks paper for our thinking behind that).
Thanks for that, Andre. This aspect of Peak is what I deal with the most; folks suggest substitution without acknowledging that there are previous claims upon the resources required. I call it my robbing-peter-to-pay-paul conundrum. CTL may be worth considering in a world where lots of water and coal are just laying around to be exploited, but this certainly isn't the case. Blowing up more mountains for ever-decreasing-quality coal, or diverting fresh water from already depleted rivers and aquifers doesn't buy societies much growth, not for long. Same with diverting agricultural resources to producing biofuels... though these things may give folks the illusion that at least something is being done.
Our time of adapting the world to our needs grows very short. The ONLY logical conclusion is for humanity to adapt to environmental/planetary limits, something we lost a couple of million years back.
Best hopes there's a garden left to get back to.
You're welcome.
I forgot to mention that the coal rich regions in the world don't have the rail or pipeline capacity, either. Lots of infrastructure will be required before CTL can ramp up in any material way.
In my view we are looking at many decades of worldwide economic contraction, followed closely behind by forced population reduction.
In brighter news, my new girlfriend comes from Portland, one of the safe landing spots I chose in my research three years ago. :-)
Edit: whoops thought you were Scott...been a long time since I've posted here regularly :-)
Southern Illinois is one of the exceptions. Lots of coal, lots of water in the Mississippi and Ohio, ready access to finished product pipelines that stretch across the Midwest. If I were looking for someplace to try to build a million bbl/day CTL capability, it's one of the places I would look first. At some point, the US has to start looking at regional rather than national solutions.
Just to satisfy my curiosity, can you name the other two? I have an ongoing book project that argues about why some places would be better than others, and am always interested in what other people consider.
We haven't looked closely at each region yet but my first reaction is, "Isn't that water already allocated to some other purpose?" In other words, even if there is "lots of water," that doesn't mean it's available for CTL.
As for a safe landing spot, I'm still partial to some parts of Canada not necessarily for the weather (though the southern regions have a long enough growing season) but because the population is generally more collaborative when dealing with societal problems. For one thing, if my GF and I stay together for the long term, I'd like her to have access to the Canadian health care system. It will certainly face difficulties, no doubt about that, but it seems more likely that we'll fight to keep some key aspects of universal health care as long as possible. (I'm a Canadian citizen currently living in San Francisco.)
I'm toying with the idea of living six months in Canada and six months in the U.S. — as long as the border stays relatively easy to pass through.
Kunstler shares his views on safe landing spots in episodes 91 and 92:
http://kunstlercast.com/shows/kunstlercast_91_long_emergency_us_tour_par...
http://kunstlercast.com/shows/kunstlercast_92_long_emergency_us_tour_par...
Here is his take on Portland:
http://kunstlercast.com/shows/kunstlercast_131_portland_oregon.html
Sorry, Jeff, I know you would normally pipe in here to tell people how terrible the Pacific Northwest actually is! ;-)
A million barrels is just under 130 acre-feet. Assume (WAG) that you need four bbl of water plus the coal to produce one bbl of liquid fuel. A million barrel per day CTL operation would need just under 190,000 acre-feet of water per year. If you have storage, which is feasible -- consider that Lake McConaughy in relatively flat Nebraska holds over a million acre-feet -- then during most spring floods Illinois could divert the necessary water from the Mississippi or the Ohio and people would be happy that they were taking it. Building the storage and diversion might be a very sizable engineering job, but my own opinion is that if you're down to large-scale CTL, you're already pretty desperate.
In other regions of the US, particularly in the West, then yes, water allocations are a very significant consideration. That's perhaps the main reason that I would go for Illinois if I were picking a site.
That assumes that CTL is a good candidate for replacing oil. It's not. Hirsch was massively unrealistic.
Instead, greater efficiency (carpooling, more efficient ICEs, hybrids, etc) and electrification are the sensible replacements, and both are eminently practical, affordable, scalable, etc.
Well, it might not in fact be a good candidate. To his credit he didn't assert that it would completely replace oil, as evidenced from the wedges in his graph.
And you and I have gone 'round lots of times with this topic...I think the substitutes that you advocate are wholly unrealistic, not least because we won't have a rich enough society to afford your alternatives.
90% of cars are purchased on credit and when credit tightens again (which it will), car sales will collapse, as will home sales, which are also primarily purchased on credit.
When the current crop of car companies fail, smaller companies with less overhead will arise but they will not produce the highway capable cars that we are making now. I see a significant discontinuity in how our cars will look. I figure we'll have neighborhood vehicles and lots of motorcycles, just like other parts of the world.
credit he didn't assert that it would completely replace oil, as evidenced from the wedges in his graph.
He badly overemphasized CTL and GTL, as well as other liquids. He didn't even consider EVs.
we won't have a rich enough society to afford your alternatives.
It's certainly possible that we'll screw up our economy, but not because of a lack of oil. You've noticed that the world economy has grown 20% since 2004, while oil has been pretty flat, right?
90% of cars are purchased on credit and when credit tightens again (which it will), car sales will collapse
Credit is just a symbolic form of exchange. Physics and real energy are far more important, and they're in our favor. I can't imagine why a single passenger SUV at 12 passenger miles per gallon can't be replaced by two people in a Corolla at 70 passenger miles per gallon, then a Prius at 100 passenger miles per gallon, then a Leaf or Volt at infinite miles per gallon. The same applies to manufacturing, shipping, etc.
Credit is a limitless resource. The world has gone through many bubbles and credit crises in the past.
Have you read "This Time Is Different: Eight Centuries of Financial Folly" yet??
We are facing a fundamentally different situation than in prior credit bubbles, namely because even if we get another credit bubble (which is possible), it will be much much smaller and constrained resources will make your utopia of everyone driving EVs fail to materialize (and the resource wars and the hoarding and the social disruption that comes with contracting economies, etc. etc.). That's because we will be on the downslope of virtually every resource, something you routinely are unable to grasp.
Are you paying any attention at all to what's happening in Europe and in the U.S. with both the Tea Party and Occupy movements? The people are getting restless, which is exactly what makes sense when high expectations fail to materialize. Notice the hatched areas in the slide below:
The legend says, "Periods of great social upheaval"
we will be on the downslope of virtually every resource
Well, we won't be on the downslope of exergy (useful energy). Or of iron, or aluminum, or silicon. We'll have to find substitutes for most uses of copper, certainly, but they exist.
Virtually every resource? You need to be more specific.
I think we will. Anyway that statement cries out for an explanation. But you supply none. You need to be more specific.
Ron P.
Ron,
The silly thing here is that, as Aangel notes, we've discussed this many times. I'm sure you've seen my comments along these lines many times as well.
So...this is a very long discussion, and needs to be broken down into details. Do you want to start with efficiency, FF (oil, coal, NG), renewables (wind, or solar) or nuclear?
Here's my basic summary, to get us started:
Do we need oil?
Nah.
Again, there is this puzzling assumption that oil can't be replaced, that it is somehow magically necessary for industrial/modern civilization. Oil has been cheap and convenient for the last 100 years, but the industrial revolution started without it, and modern civilization certainly will continue without it.
• 130 years ago, kerosene was needed for illumination, and then electric lighting made it obsolete. The whole oil industry was in trouble for a little while, until someone (Benz) came up the infernal combustion engine-powered horseless carriage. EVs were still better than these noisy, dirty contraptions, which were difficult and dangerous to start. Sadly, someone came up with the first step towards electrifying the ICE vehicle, the electric starter, and that managed to temporarily kill the EV.
Now, of course, oil has become more expensive than it's worth, what with it's various kinds of pollution, and it's enormous security and supply problems.
• 40 years ago oil was 20% of US electrical generation, and now it's less than .8%.
• 40 years ago many homes in the US were heated with heating oil - the number has fallen by 75% since then.
• 50% of oil consumption is for personal transportation - this could be reduced by 60% by moving from the average US vehicle to something Prius-like. It could be reduced by 90% by going to something Volt-like. It could be reduced 100% by going to something Leaf-like. These are all cost effective, scalable, and here right now.
I personally prefer bikes and electric trains. But, hybrids, EREVs and EVs are cost effective, quickly scalable, and usable by almost everyone.
Sensible people won't move to a new home to solve this problem. That would be far, far more expensive than replacing the car. It makes far more sense to buy an EV and amortize it over 20 years at a cost of less than $2k per year (about the amount they'd save on fuel), versus moving to a much higher cost environment (either higher rent or higher mortgage).
• As Alan Drake has shown, freight transportation can kick the oil-addiction habit relatively easily.
We don't need oil (or FF), and we should kick our addiction to it ASAP.
The only reason we haven't yet is the desperate resistance from the minority of workers and investors who would lose careers and investments if we made oil and other FFs obsolete.
Some might ask, what about our current debt problems?
Debt is a symbol, a marker - what matters is the underlying productive capability of our economy, which will be just fine. Could we screw up the management of our economy, and go into a depression? Sure. But it's not likely.
Don't these transitions take 50 years?
The transition from kerosen to electricity for illumination took roughly 30 years. The US transition away from oil-fired generation took very roughly 20 years. The transition away from home-heating oil was also faster than 50 years (though uneven).
The fast transition from steam to diesel locomotive engines is illustrative. There were a few diesel locomotives in use in the U.S. during World War II but steam dominated in 1945. However, the steam locomotives had been very heavily used during World War II, and they all wore out at approximately the same time the first few years after 1945. When steam locomotives wore out, they were invariably replaced by diesel in the mid 1940s. By 1949, almost all steam locomotives were gone. There were still some steam locos made in the late 40's, and they were still in service in the 50's but dwindling. The RR's also relegated the steamers to branch line and switcher use - replacing the most used lines with diesel first as you would expect. Cn rail retired its last steam engine in 1959.
Other, very slow transitions are not a good guide to the future. For instance, the transition from coal to oil could be very slow, because there was no pressure - it was a trade up, not a replacement of a scarce resource. Many transitions occurred because something new & better came along - but the older system was still available and worked just fine. Oil may become very expensive very fast and that would provide us an incentive to switch over much more quickly.
On the other hand, we can point to many energy transitions that were sideways or down. Going from wood to coal was a big step down: harder to find and transport, dirtier - a pain in every way. Coal's only virtue was it's abundance. The transition from EVs to ICEs took a while - only when ICEs started to electrify did they become competitive. And, of course, we hid the external costs of oil from consumers: freeways (built by "engine" Charley Wilson after he went from President of GM to Secretary of Defense), pollution, overseas wars, etc. I'd argue that ICEs were never better than EVs - they just appeared that way.
On the other hand, EVs are better right now. They have better driving performance (better acceleration, better handling), and lower total lifecycle costs.
Unfortunately, we have more than 50 years worth of things we can burn for electricity. Fortunately, it doesn't look like we will. For instance, coal consumption in the US dropped 9% last year, about half of that due to loss of market share.
The transition from heating with wood to heating with coal took a lot more than fifty years. Electrification of the U.S. from small beginnings in the late nineteenth century to finishing rural electrification during the Great Depression took at least forty years.
Sure. These involved an enormous amount of infrastructure. On the other hand, EV/EREV/HEVs are manufactured on the same assembly lines as ICE vehicles, and roughly 75% drivers in the US have access to an electrical plug where they park.
If we mobilized all our resources as we did in World War II with the single objective of getting off fossil fuels as fast as possible, wouldn't the transition still take at least twenty years, and probably longer than that?
It would be much easier than that. A transition to EVs requires only a change within the automotive industry (for most drivers).
But are we actually seeing any replacements of oil?
Consumption in the US has fallen by 10% in the last 3 years (while GDP has recovered to the point it reached when oil consumption peaked in 2007), and it continues to fall. Production has risen (both C&C and all liquids), and net imports have fallen by 25%.
Didn't past transitions occur in a environment of growth, when making new investments was a good idea, and banks would lend?
The transition from horses to rail occurred mostly during the Long Depression from 1873-1890. The move from horses to tractors and automobiles continued at a very good speed during the depression, as did general electrification. The transition away from oil for electrical generation accelerated during the 1979-1981 recession(s), and CAFE standards rose.
"A transition to EVs requires only a change within the automotive industry (for most drivers)."
What? Assuming a magical, massive increase in electrical generation and grid capacity, perhaps.
EVs require much less energy than ICEs, and the US grid has quite a lot of underutilized capacity at night (it's a real problem for wind and nuclear generation).
The current grid could handle the conversion of 3/4 of all light vehicles to electric.
It isn't the capability to build out the power grid that will be rate limiter. It is the crappy storage density and cost of batteries. It good batteries magically appeared (in the shape of pink ponies I presume), then we could build renewables (and grid stoarge even) faster than the old ICE cars go away (with maybe 20year lifetimes).
I'm following battery research somewhat and I'm quite optimistic. Current Li-Ion tech use six carbon atoms to store a lithium ion in the anode. This makes energy density very low. Researchers have been looking into using silicon instead to keep 4 lithium atoms for every silicon atom. That would be an improvement of lithium density of a factor of 24 (although 10 is more realistic considering overhead). Now, there is a problem related to the silicon rapidly losing its capacity to store lithium when charged/discharged, and researchers are trying to mitigate this with different strategies. To me, a few of these strategies shows quite a bit of promise.
The Leaf then might switch a 330 kg battery pack with 160 km range with one that weighs 100 kg and yields a 500 km range.
Citations? (please)
Here is a fresh article that says precisely that and references a new strategy with silicon between graphene sheets to get the silicon idea working. This seems to be an improvement compared to a silicon/carbon nanocomposite idea. Another strategy involves silicon nanowires.
Nothing would change the world like a really good battery!
"A limitation of lithium-ion batteries, though, is the amount of energy they are able to store. Researchers have identified silicon as a material that can store 10 times more energy than conventional technology, but it swells more than three times its volume when fully charged then shrinks again during discharge.
This swelling and shrinking, according to the DOE, quickly breaks down the electrical contacts in the anode, rendering the battery ineffective. This sent Gao Liu and colleagues at the Berkeley lab looking for an anode that can stay in contact with lithium-storing silicon particles.
They ended up developing a polymer that does just this. The new anode can absorb eight times the lithium of current designs and, in more than a year of testing and many hundreds of charge-discharge cycles, it hasn't broken down."
http://futureoftech.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/09/23/7923474-battery-tech-...
Nick and Jeppen, Thank you both for these interesting links
Your welcome!
Yup!
rate limiter..is the crappy storage density
The storage density is good enough. The perfect is the enemy of the good.
and cost of batteries.
Reductions would be good, but again, they're good enough. The lifecycle cost of a Volt or Leaf is competitive.
For a very, very small portion of the market. The majority of cars (and trucks!) are still ICE because neither the Volt nor the Leaf serve much of the market.
In the case of the Volt, people will increasingly less be able to afford it. It meets the average car price ($33k for 2010) only because of a subsidy. It's likely the subsidy won't last much longer.
The Leaf may fare better as people move downmarket, but it's far from cheap ($28k), especially when a Nissan Versa is less than half the price.
Of course both car companies will fail during the first few years of extended contraction. Perhaps a new set of investors will purchase the plans and factories and start producing them again. The new set of dealers that arise (after the current ones go bankrupt) will need to carry models from several brands if they want to offer any selection to the customer.
For a very, very small portion of the market.
No, for most of the market. The savings from reduced fuel consumption and maintenance pays for the extra capital cost. For instance, a Nissan Leaf is competitive with the Nissan Versa (without the subsidy), despite the much smaller up front cost of the Versa. Now, if you can only afford an e-bike, that's what you should get.
The majority of cars (and trucks!) are still ICE because neither the Volt nor the Leaf serve much of the market.
No, it's because EVs are still new. These things take time.
A person who can afford a Nissan Versa can't afford the high upfront cost of the Leaf, no matter the lifecycle cost. The cost of the Leaf has to come down a lot before it has decent market penetration. In the meantime, its high price for what you get (79 miles of range, according to the EPA) just isn't competitive with cars that cost half as much and go 250 miles...and can keep going just by filling up within 10 minutes.
The Leaf is for the very, very small portion of the populace who need a car but stay within their city limits. A tiny market due to range and cost limitations. I'm sorry you can't see that. It seems pretty obvious to me.
EVs have a very long way to go. I personally think the gas-electric plug-in is a great compromise. Unfortunately, they are way too complicated and, in the case of the Volt, still very expensive.
In any case, the car industry is going to be turned on its head this decade and both companies are going to go bankrupt. We'll see which vehicles they will continue to produce on the other side of the tumult.
A person who can afford a Nissan Versa can't afford the high upfront cost of the Leaf, no matter the lifecycle cost. The cost of the Leaf has to come down a lot before it has decent market penetration.
If the median car price is about $30k, that means that half of all cars sell for more than that, right? In other words, half of all new car buyers can afford to pay more than $30k, right? Probably 75% of all car buyers currently choose to pay $20k or more, right?
The Leaf is for the very, very small portion of the populace who need a car but stay within their city limits.
90% of all driving is within that range. Now, I agree that most people don't want the inconvenience that a 79 mile range involves (though, to be fair, 100 miles is achievable by very careful driving, as opposed to "typical" driving). The point: if fuel becomes very scarce, either due to rationing or price, 90% of mobility is achievable with a Leaf. And, of course, Better Place has a solution for pure EVs.
I personally think the gas-electric plug-in is a great compromise. Unfortunately, they are way too complicated
No more complicated than a hybrid Prius, which has both electric and gas drive trains. The Prius is much more reliable than the average ICE on the road.
in the case of the Volt, still very expensive.
Of course - production volume is still low, and GM has chosen not to subsidize early production (which is much more expensive, due to a lack of economy of scale). A Volt saves money on the battery - it won't cost any more than a Leaf in the longterm.
Right back to what I said in the beginning: the combination of the price for just 79 miles plus its high cost means there is a very, very small market for the Leaf. Most people will choose the Versa so that they can go beyond the 79 miles when they need to (for the weekend, etc.).
Unlike previous conversations with you, I no longer have to make predictions because the current sales numbers make my point: Nissan expected to sell 20,000 Leafs in 2011 but they are going to miss their mark by a wide margin: as of Sep. 1 they had sold only 6,168 out of the 12,000 they allocated for the U.S. (http://www.greencarreports.com/news/1065722_aug-electric-car-sales-nissa...)
The Volt hasn't even sold 1000 yet (as of Sep 1).
Last time I checked, ~8000 vehicles compared to annual total sales of 15 million is exactly what I said: a very, very small market.
Why aren't people flocking to the Leaf if it is so competitive? It's not and no matter how many time you repeat that it is doesn't change that fact. It has to improve a lot to compete with ICEs. Maybe the battery technology you pointed out will give it 300 miles...THEN we may see some real sales, especially if there is fuel rationing.
However, at the risk of repeating myself, these designs are going to be short lived. When Nissan and GM go bankrupt and aren't bailed out next time (a likelihood), we'll have to wait for the next crop of smaller, nimbler companies to release their products.
Your article says:
"It's about the supply, stupid
As we've noted several times (here and here, for instance), it's not lack of demand for Volts and Leafs that are keeping their sales low. It's lack of supply.
(So don't believe everything you hear about how "electric cars are a FAILURE !!!" in, ahem, certain portions of the media.)
Nissan can only build 50,000 Leafs this year and next, and that's the supply for the entire world--not only the U.S. (and now Canada) but also Japan, the rest of Asia, and Europe. And that's before the devastating impact of the earthquake and tsunami that devastated Japan in February.
Chevy plans to build up to 60,000 Volts and Opel/Vauxhall Amperas next year, up from a maximum capacity of 16,000 this year.
Lengthy waiting lists
Both cars have lengthy waiting lists, and at the moment, neither car is available throughout the U.S. Chevrolet says the Volt will be available--at selected dealers--throughout the country by the end of this year; Nissan says the Leaf will be available nationwide by the end of next year."
I'm just quoting....
No, I don't think it's just supply, regardless of what the author of that article said.
If Chevy can produce 16,000 units in 2011, why hasn't it sold at least 10,000 of them by now? It's sold under 1,000.
If Nissan has allocated 12,000 cars for the U.S., sales by Sep 1 should be at ~9,000. Instead, it's running behind (though doing better than the Volt).
The worldwide market for cars is approximately 50,000,000 so 50,000 Leafs is 0.1% of the worldwide market. Like I said, a very, very small part of the market.
Also, if another car company were to come out with their own EV soon, it's doubtful the market would expand because the specs would likely be the same...it would just cannibalize sales from these two manufacturers.
They seem to be reasonably nice, expensive vehicles for what one gets. I do agree with you that they'll get better. But the idea of everyone driving EVs anytime soon is daft. The car age is at its apex -- it's all downhill from here.
Besides, these companies will be lucky to be operating after the next financial meltdown. When the dealers go out of business, the number of purchase points will dramatically reduce, too. The emergent car companies will have to build a new dealer network, which will take time.
Andre', I think this has been an unfair comparison.
The economy is in turmoil, and people are scared. Spending behavior is naturally going to lean towards familiar, might I say Conservative choices, especially since it's a choice between a new 'type' of car for consumers to consider, a barely tested fresh model, against established technology with gas that is still being kept in 'reasonable' ranges.
I don't anticipate the economy recovering.. frankly I don't have any inclination to predict anything about it.. but I do think that events will unfold that will change this equation in the near future.. and while far fewer will be in a position to buy any car, there will be more reasons than ever to look to Electrics, which at least is a true 'flex fuel' and can be filled from a range of sources.. The Volt and such are still pre-post oil, and are early stabs at this..
Bob
I completely understand that the economy is in turmoil and that people lean toward the familiar...but aren't you helping me make my point?
For years I have been predicting all these things and that, including every factor, EVs were going to have a tough go of it. Nick seems to believe that we are going to all be driving EVs or some sort of hybrid and that the economy is going to keep rolling along, albeit at a slighter slower pace. I think that's daft. He seems to be part of the crowd that Kunstler makes fun of often, the "How do we keep driving at any cost?"
The products aren't competitive yet except for anything but a very small portion of the market (I think Nick's logic doesn't apply to many people) and by the time the gasoline shortages start the economy will have tanked some more and car sales will plunge — which we already saw happen once. It isn't rocket science to see how this is going to play out. We've had recent history to look at.
When Nissan and GM go bankrupt, do you think they'll get a bailout (again, in the case of GM)?
Yes, Andre', it's definitely a set of issues that depends highly upon many shadowy assumptions and underpinnings..
RE: Bailouts and GM, etc.. no, there will be other EV offerings coming, just the same.. but I actually think as we get poorer, we'll see an even bigger upsurge in EV conversion kits and conversion shops, since a wide range of vehicles can be pretty easily converted for some $2k-$15k..(including all the way down to Bikes and Motorbikes) so for those (and I note that there ARE many) who use vehicles in a very local range, this will become a more common form of EV seen around, while many others will start to recognize that their only option will be to ALSO become a 'short ranger' somehow. But it's a change that is hardly visible from where we stand even today.. that offering as it is right now is barely a blip on the screen, since the Denialists on TV are adamant and unquenchable, and the Gas is still flowing like it's happy hour. Of course, on top of that, many more will be walking, thumbing and biking with increasingly tattered shoes.
I don't end up at the same place that Nick seems to, though we're often headed in the same general direction.
Vive la difference!
I just plugged a few new-found gaping holes in my Basement's rim joist, so I'm content for the day.
Bob
A Prius can be converted to a plugin very easily later, when you need it. A Prius at $24k and a plugin conversion at $3,500 is less expensive than the average price of a new car.
Hybrid conversions of conventional ICE vehicles:
http://www.xlhybrids.com/hybrid-conversion-technology
part of the crowd that Kunstler makes fun of often, the "How do we keep driving at any cost?"
Of course, I make fun of Kunstler often, and so does he: he calls himself a clown, or somesuch, IIRC.
And, I'm not promoting driving. In fact, I only drive about 1,000 miles per year myself - I prefer electric trains and car-sharing ( www.zipdrive.com , etc).
The products aren't competitive yet
Well, we can go around and around on this, but I think the numbers are pretty clear: savings of $1,500 per year add up quickly.
I don't think it's just supply, regardless of what the author of that article said.
Sheesh - it was your article. Do you have any evidence besides sheer speculation?
If Chevy can produce 16,000 units in 2011, why hasn't it sold at least 10,000 of them by now
Because the production was backloaded in the year, and Chevy wanted to supply demos to all of the dealers first.
It's sold under 1,000.
Actually, the article says "The August numbers brings the Volt total to 3,172 for the year, plus 326 more last December, when the first Volt was also delivered." The 1,000 number, seen early in the article, is a typo. You really should read the whole article.
If Nissan has allocated 12,000 cars for the U.S., sales by Sep 1 should be at ~9,000.
No. Again, production was backlogged, and delayed due to an earthquake you might have heard about.
Sheesh - it was your article.
It's not my article, I just needed the numbers from it.
Do you have any evidence besides sheer speculation?
Yes, see below.
Because the production was backloaded in the year, and Chevy wanted to supply demos to all of the dealers first.
Ok, we'll see if they hit their target of 16,000. But even if they do, it's a tiny market until the product improves. The tax subsidy helps...sales will be better if the subsidy stays in place. If it doesn't and GM doesn't respond accordingly, sales will decline further.
The 1,000 number, seen early in the article, is a typo.
Fair enough. I was reading quickly. It doesn't alter my point. It doesn't look to me like they will hit their targets. Here is another article that is more recent:
http://www.wired.com/autopia/2011/10/chevy-volt-sales-fall-short/
"General Motors has repeatedly claimed a sales target for 2011 of 10,000 units for the plug-in hybrid Chevy Volt sedan. But, nine months into the year, they’ve only shipped 3,895 off the lot. In fact, in September sales numbers, released an hour ago, GM sold only 723 Volts. Will GM fail to meet its own sales predictions?"
This article claims a target of only 10,000 vehicles. I have no idea which is correct (10,000 vs 16,000).
It looks like it sold better in October:
http://www.mnn.com/green-tech/transportation/stories/october-was-a-great...
Leaf sales were not great, bringing the total to 8,066 until November 1.
Look: there is nothing "wrong" with these numbers. New products that aren't very good don't sell that well except to real enthusiasts. Sales will improve over time but first the products have to improve — a lot.
However, by the time the products are ready, the companies will be bankrupt from crashed car sales.
Well, if you want to ask a fair question, you might ask why GM and Nissan can't ramp up production faster. There are reasonable answers, but it would be a fair question.
The first article you reference is a superficial article, done with no research - they admit it themselves: "So what does all this hand-wringing mean? Who knows. It could mean there’s very little desire for such weird, new technology. Or it could just mean GM’s still working the kinks out of the supply chain."
The second article above says: "Now that General Motors has ramped up production of the Chevy Volt, sales are following suit.". Sales are constrained by supply, not by demand.
It's sold over 5,000.
(For reference, the Leaf has sold 8,000.)
"For instance, Peterson said one dealership in Minneapolis has 21 Volt orders pending, and its allocation was three Volts."
All available evidence suggests that demand is exceeding supply, at least so far.
And your evidence for this claim is?
The only evidence you've presented so far in this discussion has been evidence against your position; everything else has been unsupported opinion. From an observer's perspective, that's a strong sign of a weak argument.
"Right back to what I said in the beginning: the combination of the price for just 79 miles plus its high cost means there is a very, very small market for the Leaf. Most people will choose the Versa so that they can go beyond the 79 miles when they need to (for the weekend, etc.)."
Very very small - like the entire percentage of the population that owns two vehicles, for starters? Most of us don't drive two cars "for the weekend", so we take the ICE. There's an awful lot of middle class with two $40k cars in the driveway, one of which most likely stays under 75mi/day, and rarely leaves town.
Nick's argument breaks down (for the time being only) however, on the lifecycle cost - $3 gas is just too cheap for most drivers. Here's how it came out for me: I can buy a Civic for about $300/mo/5yr, or a Leaf for $600. I found the break-even point to be when gasoline is $5/gal, and electricity is $0.16/kWh - fuel costs hit $350, and electric cost was around $50, making up the $300/mo. Now you can argue it keeps saving you $300/mo forever, but while we're talking BAU, we're all supposed to exchange our rolling stock every 5 yr and start over (although the math would then suggest that you could buy a used one for 'free' [$300/mo loan, $300/mo fuel savings]).
Worse as far as breaking even, those #'s were vs. a 15mpg SUV. Using a 30mpg civic, gas would have to hit $10/gal. I'm of the opinion that $10/gal will cause enough demand destruction to make the whole conversation moot, but then I'm more of a doomer myself. 'Course if the BRICs steer clear of the demand destruction, I can conceive of them remaining robust enough to drive things thru the $10 range. That's the real trillion dollar question, ain't it?
For the number junkies:
Let's say I average 50 miles @ 5 days / Wk
Miles/mo: 1040 mi/yr: 13000
ICE:
gal/mo@15mpg 69.3333333333333
$/mo @ $/Gal: 3.75 $260
$/mo @ $/Gal: 4.5 $312
$/mo @ $/Gal: 5 $347
$/mo @ $/Gal: 6 $416
$/mo @ $/Gal: 8 $555
$/mo @ $/Gal: 10 $693
gal/mo@30mpg 34.6666666666667
$/mo @ $/Gal: 3.75 $130
$/mo @ $/Gal: 4.5 $156
$/mo @ $/Gal: 5 $173
$/mo @ $/Gal: 6 $208
$/mo @ $/Gal: 8 $277
$/mo @ $/Gal: 10 $347
Leaf:
EPA mpg: 34kWh/100mi 0.34 kWh/mi
$/mo @ $/KWh: 0.12 42.432
(TEP 2012) 0.16 56.576
$0 63.648
0.2 70.72
0.25 88.4
0.3 106.08
0.5 176.8
I think you can lease a Leaf for $350 - that might be your best bet.
Also, I think TEP's standard prices are lower than $.16/kWh, and you can lower them for night time to less than $.10.
http://www.tep.com/Green/Home/tou_weo.asp
In which case I expect owning one to be 'free' within the next two years - perhaps they will max out their production lines sooner than later...
75% of Americans with a commute of less 40 miles aren't a "very,very small portion of the populace", and if you ran that number to 80 miles of commuting (a reasonable range for the Leaf) than you encompass more than 75%. Which isn't a very small portion either.
With a median car price of nearly $30k in America, that means they also fit within the budget of half the people buying cars without even breaking into s sweat. You might have a better chance arguing that not enough people have garages rather than not enough people can use them or afford them.
Yes, but you're missing the point. If I can for half the price buy a car that has three times the range and can be filled up for extended trips with just a 10 minute fuel stop, people will choose the other car — and are doing so.
When battery technology improves, EVs will have a better chance. Right now they are a niche vehicle. That's how almost all new products start their life.
I would agree that a pure EV with a 100 or less mile range is a niche vehicle. On the other hand:
1) we should be clear that sales are currently supply constrained - we don't know how large the niche is.
2) The niche may be larger than one might expect, given that
a) many people have multiple cars in their household, and are happy to use an EV for short range driving,
b) many people recognize that oil is far more expensive than the price at the pump - I know many people with relatives in Iraq/Afghanistan who are fiercely determined to buy EVs, and are champing at the bit to buy one - they're among the thousands of people on waiting lists to buy a Volt or Leaf.
3) It's misleading to focus the discussion on pure EVs: people who don't like the range limitation can buy a Prius, a plug-in Prius, or a Volt.
" and if you ran that number to 80 miles of commuting (a reasonable range for the Leaf)"
80 miles would cover me, even with an after-work errand. But the 80 Miles has to include headlights on both ways, 10 F going into town, 25 F coming home, windshield wipers/defrosters running, and driving through snow. Worse case conditions with the Leaf is about 45 miles range. Not quite good enough. But creditable for a first try.
In the summer, well there is this.
http://www.zeromotorcycles.com/zero-s/specs.php
On the other hand, we can point to many energy transitions that were sideways or down. Going from wood to coal was a big step down: harder to find and transport, dirtier - a pain in every way
????????????
a couple paragraphs up you are talking the quick conversion of locomotives from steam to diesel--it had been a long time since steam was wood fueled by 1950. There were still huge forests of trees about the rail lines--especially on the northern transcontinental lines--when they changed from wood to coal.
You are missing the huge advantage of coal.....huge....... HUGE
ENERGY DENSITY (which by the way makes it easier to transport, much less energy involved in the process)
So much wood was used to make charcoal to smelt iron that wood became hard to find in the manufacturing regions, replacing charcoal was where coal use first took off. I think Heading Out covered this pretty well early in his coal tech talk series...it is worth reading.
How much freight could trans-ocean steam shipping have carried if wood rather than coal fired the boilers. You might argue 'well that was a step down from sail'--but economics of the times certainly didn't see it that way.
You do get into spinning your yarn of the future, and that's fine but don't change the past. Coal was not a step down from wood when talking industrial capability and that is the line of reasoning the rest of your arguments follow.
Energy density is not near the small thing you make it out to be--it is what gives fossil fuels the edge they have achieved. It will be worked around, storage systems will improve but to dismiss the work nature has done storing solar energy into fossil fuel as you just did takes almost all credibility from your arguments.
By the way in dismissing coal as you did you wrote the industrial revolution almost completely out of existence and certainly have erased the British Empire glory days from the history books. Quite the feat for a couple lines. A couple more lines and global temperatures will have stabilized a couple degrees below where they now stand and the world's population will be back under a billion
?- )
Luke,
Coal replaced wood in the UK because, as you note, the UK had 600 years before reached Peak Wood. Coal was a miserable way to provide space heat for buildings (London fog was more coal pollution than weather, and it killed a lot of people), and it's impurities made iron smelting very difficult (at least until coke was developed). It's higher density was counterbalanced by the distance required to get it: coal mines weren't nearly as local as forests. In the UK, the early transition to coal was a big step down, forced only by a shortage of wood. Accounts of that period, as covered by Heading Out and others, are what I relied upon.
Now, the later expansion of coal consumption for transportation might be a different story: anthracite coal is certainly denser than wood: about 30 MJ/kg, vs 15-20 for wood. On the other hand, charcoal is about as dense as anthracite, and wood and lignite are about equal. Keep in mind that rail first developed in the UK, where wood was far too scarce to fuel trains. The use of coal in the US may have been more a question of momentum of design than a conscious choice not to use wood. I don't know for sure how well wood and charcoal would work for steam engines - I'd be interested in seeing a good analysis and discussion.
Nick your 'grasp' of history is truly baffling, you certainly have not deeply internalized the importance of the concept of energy density to our civilization. None of the English industrial centers could have grown to near their size if only the use of coal for space heating is eliminated-that does not touch its biggest contributions-powering the steam engine and smelting iron.
Here is an exercise for you. Calculate how much wood it would have taken to heat the London metropolis alone through the years it actually was heated by coal. Then calculate how far Londoners would have had to go afield to get that wood as time went by (we are assuming the same population growth which is of course RIDICULOUS because it couldn't have occurred without coal but for this exercise we will just assume no one else needs the wood in an ever expanding circle around the fast growing London). Now calculate the forage and food crops that would have been needed to power the wood gathering and transport to the ever farther away London. Now calculate the acreage that would have been required to produce that food and forage--that of course pushes what forests there were even farther away so we really get a vicious circle here.
You seem absolutely clueless about the central role coal and its ENERGY DENSITY have played in the industrial revolution and the ensuing population explosion. WAKE UP, or at least TAKE OFF THE 3D GLASSES-we don't live on Pandora mining unobtanium. We live on earth as it is. There was no getting our species to where it now is without, huge, accessible, energy dense deposits of coal. It wasn't a mere convenience-it was one of thee critical building blocks. It just doesn't happen without such an energy dense fuel source--case CLOSED. Sure the early switch to coal before the day of the steam engine (developed to its useful form so it could pump water out of the the coal mines by the way) was not near what came after--but once those to elements became inextricably joined the world had changed in a way it had never, ever, ever changed before.
Again this time a little louder ?- )
FOSSIL FUEL WAS NOT JUST A LITTLE CONVENIENCE-IT WAS THE ONLY THING ON THIS PLANET THAT COULD HAVE BROUGHT US TO WHERE WE ARE NOW-FOR BETTER OR WORSE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Unless you understand that ♪ way down inside ♫ you have no way of fathoming just how difficult the dilemma we now face is. ENERGY DENSITY is god awful important to every species on this planet and we have dug and drilled into a heck of an energy dense fuel source. That has allowed us to dominate the landscape of the world in way we never otherwise would have. We have jumped light years technologically in a very short time because we dug into these fuels and these jumps may allow us to move beyond fossil fuel as a more or less intact civilization--that is the central point doomers/cornucopians are contending--but none of what we are discussing here happens without coal having come on the scene in the way it did when it did.
Luke,
I'm making a distinction here between the early transition and later growth. The early transition happened because of a scarcity of wood - wood was greatly preferred. Now, when we look at iron smelting, and steam engines, I'm not sure which would be preferred if wood were just as plentiful. Certainly anthracite is denser than plain old air-dried wood, but what about charcoal? What about that godawful coal pollution?
Calculate how much wood it would have taken to heat the London metropolis
Sure. This goes to the abundance of coal, and the scarcity of wood. Again, I agree: wood was abandoned because there wasn't enough of it. But, that was it's main virtue: wood was much cleaner, and charcoal just as dense.
I'm not clear on what we're disagreeing about...
Now, as to whether fossil fuels were necessary at all: no, I don't think they were. Now, certainly economic growth from the years 1700 - 2000 would have been different if we had to develop truly efficient wind and solar power sources, and develop electricity and batteries, etc. Slower at the start, with less energy surplus to work with, but accelerating faster than one might think as the development of renewables got higher priority than they did in our actual history.
"Studies have shown that the invention and development of the railway in Europe was one of the most important technological inventions of the late 19th century for the United States, without which, GDP would have been lower by 7.0% in 1890. In the 1880s, electrified trains were introduced, and also the first tramways and rapid transit systems came into being. Starting during the 1940s, the non-electrified railways in most countries had their steam locomotives replaced by diesel-electric locomotives, with the process being almost complete by 2000. During the 1960s, electrified high-speed railway systems were introduced in Japan and a few other countries. Other forms of guided ground transport outside the traditional railway definitions, such as monorail or maglev, have been tried but have seen limited use." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rail_transport
A reduction of 7% by 1890 isn't that large.
Could we have eventually produced as much energy with renewables? Definitely.
You keep calling coal abundant an wood scarce. What good would have come from the abundance of coal if it were only half as energy dense as wood. ENERGY DENSITY and its importance is what we a disagreeing upon.
You keep talking of the energy density of charcoal--that is inextricably entwined with the acreage needed to produce the charcoal-ENERGY DENSITY
Now, as to whether fossil fuels were necessary at all: no, I don't think they were. Now, certainly economic growth from the years 1700 - 2000 would have been much slower if we had to develop truly efficient wind and solar power sources, and develop electricity and batteries
Yeah in a world where copper wire grew on trees just like spaghetti does
Much slower doesn't begin to describe things-with no rapidly expanding industry and cities you get a very limited exchange of ideas and little impetus for mechanical innovation. Like I said we don't live on Pandora and your alternative scenario is that far off the wall. It has nothing to do with what is here, and all of your ideas of what might have been here come from your being able to live here now because fossil fuels were used to get you here. And remember, slaves or their equivalent powered advanced civilizations before fossil fuels emerged--each imploded and eroded in time. It took food to power the slaves, fields to grow the food and forest and soil always suffered.
What good would have come from the abundance of coal if it were only half as energy dense as wood.
That would have been inconvenient, but not overwhelming. Trains and ships would have required a lot more space for coal. Lignite isn't any denser than wood. Peat has roughly the kind of density you're talking about - did you see the recent TOD article about Holland's rise as an international power due to it's use of peat?
energy density of charcoal--that is inextricably intwined with the acreage needed to produce the charcoal
I'd say that's confusing two different things. The joules per gram of charcoal is a whole different issue from the acreage needed, though sometimes people do use the same word - as in, "solar insolation is low density".
The major problem caused by the productivity of forests is scale: they just couldn't produce enough.
with no rapidly expanding industry and cities you get a very limited exchange of ideas and little impetus for mechanical innovation.
No question the industrial revolution would have been greatly slowed down. But, please note that it started before the widespread use of coal. The Renaissance, the invention of the scientific method, the discovery of the New World, the discovery of electricity - all of these happened before coal was in widespread use. Water powered the first industrial weaving looms in the UK. Regarding communication: the Pony Express was mighty fast, and scientific journals that centralized and disseminated progress predated rail.
Too often TOD mythologizes oil in particular, and FF in general. Don't overestimate the importance of fossil fuels. The've made an enormous impact, but they weren't necessary before, and they certainly won't be in the future.
I'd say that's confusing two different things. The joules per gram of charcoal is a whole different issue from the acreage needed, though sometimes people do use the same word - as in, "solar insolation is low density".
[edited for clarity and tone]
no the confusion seems to be on your part--you have to compare the great acreage and amount of man hours needed to produce that energy dense charcoal and the not so very great acreage and man hour total needed to 'produce' the comparable unit of coal (or the peat for that matter) that nature has already condensed. We are talking energy density of the entire fuel input system-thus the exercise I gave you, I'm looking forward to seeing the results ?- ) Remember all additional man hour requirements add food and fodder acreage and on and on.
Yes we slowly built upon the past and things were picking up a bit by the seventeenth century--no doubt the printing press and mercantilism had done a great deal to help things along-of course the Peat article you cite shows how much the precursor to fossil fuel moved that along. Lignite is not what powered the industrial expansion, but if it had it would have moderated the pace. None of the minerals needed to power the advanced renewable energy society you envision would have been available in sufficient quantities to have been more than novelties without the use of fossil fuels.
You totally underestimate the rate of change fossil fuels have brought about and how that has exponentially increased the knowledge base. There is no extrapolation of the rate at which the knowledge base was increasing before fossil fuels entered the scene which is anything other that pure science fiction. The Library of Alexandria had the calculations about the solar system Copernicus gave us within its walls. Shit happened and that knowledge was lost and the whole thing had to be redone nearly from scratch.
The science you talk of going forward was in part searching out mechanical advantages and powerful fuels--it wasn't going to bypass fossil fuels for renewables...at least not on this planet. Discussing how things would have been if it had is a great topic...for a sci-fi novel.
We are talking energy density of the entire fuel input system
We started with a talk about the benefits of energy transitions. My point: the "user experience" for wood was much better. The average Englishman would greatly prefer to use wood to heat his home. Iron smelting worked rather better with charcoal. The English were forced to use coal, an energy source they regarded as vastly inferior, because they couldn't get enough wood.
None of the minerals needed to power the advanced renewable energy society you envision would have been available in sufficient quantities to have been more than novelties without the use of fossil fuels.
Windmills can be made out of wood. Iron, copper and concrete were produced before fossil fuels. That's pretty much all you need to build a windmill and a grid. You can make an electric motor with wood and copper. No need for any fancy rare earths.
You totally underestimate the rate of change fossil fuels have brought about
Well, we should dig up a table showing the rate of growth of both GDP and scientific knowledge from 1700-1750. I think we'd find that it was significantly lower than the rate of growth of later periods, but not as low as you think.
The science you talk of... wasn't going to bypass fossil fuels for renewables
Why the heck not? Franklin was working with electricity and capacitors in 1752 (before the industrial revolution got started), and the modern battery was invented in 1800. Electric trains were in service only 80 years later.
Windmills can be made out of wood. Iron, copper and concrete were produced before fossil fuels. That's pretty much all you need to build a windmill and a grid. You can make an electric motor with wood and copper. No need for any fancy rare earths
scale, scale scale. The Upper Great Lakes Tribes produced copper for a long time--wonder how big a grid that would have built. There is no reason to progress much with the tech you speak of if the quantities of minerals available without fossil fuel use would have only outfitted a the equivalent of a couple, a dozen or even a few hundred noble's estates. Remember is took iron to mine and transport other ores as well as itself. Again scale, scale scale and coal made that scale possible
Well, we should dig up a table showing the rate of growth of both GDP and scientific knowledge from 1700-1750. I think we'd find that it was significantly lower than the rate of growth of later periods, but not as low as you think.
sorry you have to go back quite a bit farther. The Newcomen engine was introduced in 1712 and the race was on. And yes Newton and his contemporaries did advance science near immeasurably by then, but again you must go back further, back to the beginning of the English transition to coal you mention in your first paragraph. By the time Newton came along the drive to improve coal technology was a strong all pervasive current driving its share of the English 'conversation.' Academia was hardly immune to its push--sorry Newton is already tainted by coal ?- )
Why the heck not? Franklin was working with electricity and capacitors in 1752 (before the industrial revolution got started), and the modern battery was invented in 1800. Electric trains were in service only 80 years later.
Well we are going in a circle--ENERGY DENSITY including the broader sense of ERoEI is why not. The stored energy was pretty much just laying there, it was just too easy to pick up up and burn it, the preference for wood disappears very rapidly when any of the industrial processes start to scale up. There was no going from wood renewables to renewable electric power sources without picking up that easy to use stored solar energy that was laying on the ground first. We are hunter/gathers first remember.
You may hate coal, but the cliometric accounts of its unimportance were a passing fad from the 1980s. The never did stand up to the light of day.
scale, scale scale.
hmmm. I saw a chart produced by the EIA showing the relative size of wood and coal (and other energy sources) in the US over the last 200 years. I'll have to find that again. I kind've think you'll be surprised by how late it was that coal surpassed wood - let me see...
I think you'd be surprised by how much copper was produced before coal got big. Was it Sweden that financed it's empire with copper? Columbus's ships were hulled with copper.
The Upper Great Lakes Tribes produced copper for a long time--wonder how big a grid that would have built.
A fairly large one, if desired. The copper pits found along the 120-mile Copper Range of the Michigan Keweenaw Peninsula held many tens of thousands of tons of copper. Much of the copper was almost pure, and was mined with very simple techniques.
The Newcomen engine was introduced in 1712
Sure. The question - was Franklin's work on electricity in 1750, or Volta's work around 1790 dependent on that? I don't see a reason to think that they were. The Industrial Revolution's start is generally thought to be 1760 or later - the idea being that before that the IR didn't have a major impact on life in general.
The stored energy was pretty much just laying there, it was just too easy to pick up up and burn it, the preference for wood disappears very rapidly when any of the industrial processes start to scale up.
Sure - I can certainly understand why coal was used. I'm arguing that if coal hadn't existed then economic/technical/industrial progress would have still occurred, though certainly in a different fashion - growth in the 1760-1900 period would have been slower.
A fairly large one, if desired. The copper pits found along the 120-mile Copper Range of the Michigan Keweenaw Peninsula held many tens of thousands of tons of copper. Much of the copper was almost pure, and was mined with very simple techniques
I'm quite aware of the Keweenaw copper, I lived in the county to south for several years.
But I'm sorry to burst your copper bubble. When electrification took off in earnest, which is what is required for your dream high tech world, Kennicott Mine was a huge player. We were NOT going to drag copper out of a place like Kennicott-and we drug it out of some dandies-without fossil fuels. It takes a lot of copper to wire the masses and it takes a critical mass to get wiring in the first place.
By the way, it's worth the long gravel haul to McCarthy if you ever do get to Alaska. After hand tramming across the river to the town bicycle out to the remains of the glacier, the mine and moonscape of tailings piles--impressive monuments all.
hmmm. I saw a chart produced by the EIA showing the relative size of wood and coal (and other energy sources) in the US over the last 200 years. I'll have to find that again. I kind've think you'll be surprised by how late it was that coal surpassed wood - let me see...
Of course we used/use a lot of wood fuel. It's a large country with huge forests. What you need to look at is when the metropolises went from wood to coal fuel. Without the cities you do not get the innovation or the exchange of ideas needed to push science and tech forward. The cities needed all the wood that could be railed to them for building (and it took forests of wood to hold up the rails). If that wood had to be used for fuel in the cities city growth would have been radically constricted. As a matter of fact using wood for fuel in the less densely populated regions where transport and storage were not an issue freed up more coal for what coal (later partially supplanted by gas) could do better. That allowed even faster coal fired industrial growth and created an even larger critical urban mass. My arguments do not allow for the subtracting of wood from the equation but they demand the addition of fossil fuel.
Sure. The question - was Franklin's work on electricity in 1750, or Volta's work around 1790 dependent on that? I don't see a reason to think that they were. The Industrial Revolution's start is generally thought to be 1760 or later - the idea being that before that the IR didn't have a major impact on life in general
That's the trickiest part to clear up. Coal had freed many, many hands from the land long before the Industrial Revolution really took off, as peat had done somewhat earlier in the low countries. Fossil fuel allowed the critical clumping of people to occur. An unprecedented growing of the trades classes occurred. So before the IR had a major impact on life in general coal (and to a lesser extent peat) already had facilitated unprecedented growth in the classes of people not directly tied to the land. Of course other factors were very important not the least the printing press. The Dutch golden age fueled by peat actually lends quite a bit of credence to the criticality of coal to later tech development. It is very hard to extract the fuel and know what would have happened without it in the science/tech world
Sure - I can certainly understand why coal was used. I'm arguing that if coal hadn't existed then economic/technical/industrial progress would have still occurred, though certainly in a different fashion - growth in the 1760-1900 period would have been slower.
I am not going to grant that the progress would have been sustained. Without fossil fuel wood would have been the only high density portable fuel available in quantity. The tech/industrial process required population density, people freed from the land, and this required a concentration of fuel. The logistics, the manpower, the food and forage land requirements of a wood powered world would have conspired against critical junctures being achieved. Exhaustion of timber would have choked metropolitan and idea growth in region after region. Important meetings of the minds would never take place, because the minds never came into being in the lesser peopled world. Timber/land exhaustion cycle had been plaguing civilizations since they began--I don't think a few ideas in a few journals would have been enough to keep that cycle at bay without a new, abundant, high density fuel.
The steam turbine was a novelty in ancient Greece, it became useful in coal powered England. Who is to say Volta's and Franklins works wouldn't have suffered the same delays before finding application in a less urbanized fossil fuel free world, and of course like I said before fossil fuel had likely already helped enable the likes of Franklin's and Volta's works in the first place. A high tech Numenor just doesn't look to have been in the cards for real earth, we needed fossil fuel to add enough heat to the crucible to get the reaction to take place.
We were NOT going to drag copper out of a place like Kennicott-and we drug it out of some dandies-without fossil fuels.
Well, we agree that fossil fuels are not essential to copper mining as a general thing - at the current time, at least, we could mine copper entirely with electric equipment, right?
it takes a critical mass to get wiring in the first place.
That doesn't quite make sense to me - Edison started quite small in NYC and other places, and expanded incrementally.
What you need to look at is when the metropolises went from wood to coal fuel.
It looks like that happened in large scale around 1830, in the US. Coal was only discovered in the US in 1790, so it couldn't have had much impact on Franklin.
more later...
Well, we agree that fossil fuels are not essential to copper mining as a general thing - at the current time, at least, we could mine copper entirely with electric equipment, right?
No. At least not enough of it to amount to much. Lots of steel tools and equipment used to mine, smelt and transport copper. How are you going to build the electric arc steel plants to produce all the steel needed to mine, transport and smelt copper? Have you been around any heavy construction at all? Put that heavy construction in a remote area--where the copper is, how do you develop the mine completely electric? The fossil fuel component is huge these days. If you try to replace all the fossil fuel used to make cement, steel and whatever the demands on electrical production skyrocket. We don't even have batteries that could run a lot of heavy equipment. Hard wiring it all would be possible, but that creates a greater demand for copper. Look where the hell the proposed Pebble Mine is. The world of the nuclear battery powered remote heavy construction site is not yet a reality--and that world for some time to come would still have a large fossil fuel component in its makeup
This requires big picture systems thinking--you can't keep getting lost in individual particulars and make any sense of things. You can't keep pulling little pieces out and say we could do this or that. The electrical generating facilities have been and contiunue to be built with a huge fossil fuel input. That isn't changing anytime soon. You can't cherry pick out a couple little parts and say it could be all electric.
That doesn't quite make sense to me - Edison started quite small in NYC and other places, and expanded incrementally.
Edison built this in a gas lit, coal powered rail and ship connected world full of steel smelted by using lots of coal. That allowed NY to become what it was. It allowed the networks it was connected to become what they were--all that is the critical mass I spoke of--Edison did not appear on the scene until that was in place. You can't imagine this into happening in a smaller less connected world in the first place without turning the exercise into sci-fi.
It looks like that happened in large scale around 1830, in the US. Coal was only discovered in the US in 1790, so it couldn't have had much impact on Franklin.
Coal already had a major impact on English Iron production by Franklin's time. He lived in an English colony. It is impossible to speculate what sort of commerce there would have been if all English iron and a good part of English wood fuel had to imported from the Baltic and then extend that to how the English colonies would have developed. Franklin's work on electricity didn't bear much fruit until quite a bit later--people kept tinkering with electricity but coal kept energy prices down in the interim. Removing its contribution to the English economy without some extensive work on how replacing it with wood would affect the entire economic structure is a bit more complex than plugging in and pulling out a couple GDP numbers. Certainly the farther you go back the less influence coal had, but something about growing England with its abundance of good port access with much less home grown fuel looks a bit shaky. If English commerce is substantially reduced because of fuel needs sucking up a lot more of the available shipping and fuel costs sucking up more of the English economy, what European country steps up to shrink the Atlantic in the way England did? How does all that affect the world, does it even include a chapter that allows an Edison or Faraday to enter the scene. It's all sci-fi like I said before.
Well I'm off to suck up some jet fuel, have a good Thanksgiving.
How are you going to build the electric arc steel plants to produce all the steel needed to mine, transport and smelt copper?
Why would that be harder than building coking steel plants? I'm not suggesting that we do it overnight - it could be done as steel plants are replaced - by attrition.
how do you develop the mine completely electric?
Have you been around underground coal mining? You can't use ICEs, for fear of methane explosions.
Much mining, especially underground, has been electric for some time - here's a source of electrical mining equipment. Caterpillar manufactures 200-ton and above mining trucks with both drives. Caterpillar will produce mining trucks for every application—uphill, downhill, flat or extreme conditions — with electric as well as mechanical drive. Here's an electric earth moving truck. Here's an electric mobile strip mining machine, the largest tracked vehicle in the world at 13,500 tons.
If you try to replace all the fossil fuel used to make cement, steel and whatever the demands on electrical production skyrocket.
Sure. Just do it over several decades - invest in wind turbines instead of oil, NG and coal. It wouldn't cost any more.
Hard wiring it all would be possible, but that creates a greater demand for copper.
Aluminum would work just fine.
remote heavy construction site ...for some time to come would still have a large fossil fuel component in its makeup
And that's ok. As Robert notes, we aren't running out of oil for a very, very long time to come - just peaking.
The electrical generating facilities have been and contiunue to be built with a huge fossil fuel input.
And so we replace them one piece at a time. We don't have to do it all at once.
You can't imagine this into happening in a smaller less connected world in the first place without turning the exercise into sci-fi.
And that FF world grew slowly, just as an electric world would have.
Coal already had a major impact on English Iron production by Franklin's time.
It would be interesting to see numbers. A little bit of research doesn't turn up good data on charcoal vs coal inputs in early English iron production.
It's all sci-fi like I said before.
Well, of course it's a hard problem to analyze. And, I'm not suggesting that coal didn't have an enormous impact, or that it didn't speed up economic growth. My question: was it necessary in the long run? I don't see why.
If that wood had to be used for fuel in the cities city growth would have been radically constricted.
I'm not quite following that. Why did urban residents need coal, and not rural residents? Urban buildings would need slightly less heat, all else being equal.
Coal had freed many, many hands from the land long before the Industrial Revolution really took off
Well, not directly. Farmers still used horses. Are you suggesting that there wouldn't have been enough manufacturing to produce iron plows?
On the general idea of scientific progress - I think if you look at the period of 1300-1700, you'll see a fairly steady rate of progress that didn't depend on fossil fuels. There's no reason to think that wouldn't have continued. I'll grant that the IR speeded things up.
Your first paragraph needed a better response than I had time to give--I wanted to ski at least one unlit trail before I headed for the lights. Crispy but it warmed steadily while I was out.
anyway here goes:
We started with a talk about the benefits of energy transitions. My point: the "user experience" for wood was much better. The average Englishman would greatly prefer to use wood to heat his home. Iron smelting worked rather better with charcoal. The English were forced to use coal, an energy source they regarded as vastly inferior, because they couldn't get enough wood.
Okay I see where you are trying to say you were headed--but remember I responded to the section below
On the other hand, we can point to many energy transitions that were sideways or down. Going from wood to coal was a big step down: harder to find and transport, dirtier - a pain in every way
For starters how was coal harder to find when they couldn't get enough wood? You are claiming both now.
The step down also was only an apparent step down. The fuel itself was superior but the technology hadn't caught up to it yet (I'm not counting the emissions but I believe people with the sanitation habits of the day had much greater problems than nasty coal smoke). A better designed coal stove was a huge step forward in home heating. Far less energy and space needed to deal with transport and storage of the winter heat supply. Of course the coal stove needed lots of cheap iron. Good thing coal's initial inferiority to charcoal for smelting was hardly an insurmountable problem. The tech caught up and coal's energy density led to iron production that exponentially outdistanced anything that could have ever happened just using charcoal to smelt iron.
Using that parallel you could actually get much more traction for you transition argument by stating that "when the tech catches up to the 'new' (we've been riding solar, wind, tidal and geothermal forever) fuel sources we are tapping in greater quantities daily is will leave anything we could have ever done just relying on fossil fuels in the dust." Wishfully rewriting the past only takes away from the strength of this argument. Fossil fuel was a very big player getting us here, and there is no way our species was going to pass it up along the way.
For starters how was coal harder to find when they couldn't get enough wood? You are claiming both now.
Well, go back to the whole paragraph. I was saying that the only virtue of coal was it's abundance. It couldn't be found locally - one had to travel quite a distance to mine it, which was inferior to the local forest (if only the local forest could produce enough wood).
So, the English of the time preferred local wood...but it wasn't available, so they went with coal. No contradiction.
The step down also was only an apparent step down.
Well, the English of the time had strong opinions about it - they weren't happy.
The fuel itself was superior but the technology hadn't caught up to it yet
In part this is true - I was focusing on the early transition.
I'm not counting the emissions but I believe people with the sanitation habits of the day had much greater problems than nasty coal smoke).
They may have had other problems, but they really, really disliked the nasty coal smoke. And, with good reason.
A better designed coal stove was a huge step forward in home heating. Far less energy and space needed to deal with transport and storage of the winter heat supply.
But what about charcoal (setting aside the supply problem, of course)?
coal's energy density led to iron production that exponentially outdistanced anything that could have ever happened just using charcoal to smelt iron.
Sure. There wasn't enough wood.
Using that parallel you could actually get much more traction for you transition argument by stating that "when the tech catches up to the 'new' (we've been riding solar, wind, tidal and geothermal forever) fuel sources we are tapping in greater quantities daily is will leave anything we could have ever done just relying on fossil fuels in the dust."
Well, I think we can make that argument as well.
Fossil fuel was a very big player getting us here, and there is no way our species was going to pass it up along the way.
I agree.
There is a over simplistic modelling of history when it come to the take up of coal usage in the UK. Urban centres were the both the chicken and the egg for large scale coal use and geography was everything. You had the combination of resources astride convenient transportation links [rivers and what not] combined with the synchronically of having pre fossil fuel industries grow in these areas.
It was luck. I dispute the market forcing model of scarcity. I really do. There is often an impression of inevitable progress up some preordained path of technological evolution.
The simplification I see as useful is there was a concatenation of factors [including socio-political] that made the UK the low hanging fruit for take up. It was the ease of coals accessibility not its difficulty that should be noted here. Moreover its co-located with Iron ore sources effectively made "industrialisation" cheap with a high ROI [money and energy]. The medieval wood shortage thing is true but importing wood from the Baltic region started earlier. what would the counter factual be if there was no coal?
So, you're thinking that coal may not have been essential to a growth path to an industrial society very roughly resembling what we have today?
That's what I'm thinking.
No.
Show me a industrialized society that booted up to steam on wood and had some staying power?
That's not what I'm suggesting. I'm suggesting a transition from wood and water power to technically improved wind, solar, water, etc. I'm not aware of any that tried this path - they didn't need to, because fossil fuels were available.
It's an Interesting idea I have had myself[among others] but I[we] think is unlikely. Why? Because we should of seen evidence of societies located away from easy accessible FFs go down this route in the Past. A possible rebuttal is it would take longer and no society was able to reach industrial break out before FFs interceded from outside sources. The problem here is that various low density energy technologies have existed in the past some on quite ambitious scales and these technologies have never combined to producing anything closely resembling the FF industrial revolution or a credible precursor.
My feeling is we have far less overt control over events than we imagine and those early industrialists were in a somewhat unique position historically. The RELATIVE increases in power and influence the age of steam gave them unprecedented ability to bend society and history to their will compared to what had been and what is now, where despite being immensely more sophisticated the surrounding paradigm is so complex this new found power is just lost in the noise of day to day concerns. The Irony is..I think those early industrialists never realized the potential of their position to mould the future. "Just imagine if they knew what we knew now "type of deal.
Perhaps the universe doesn't offer us moments like that too often?
Geography is destiny
Low tech renewable energy couldn't compete with low tech fossil fuels.
IOW, I think it's unreasonable to expect 17th century Spain to develop electromagnetic generators for their windmills.
On the other hand, low tech renewable energy would have eventually evolved to high tech. It likely would have taken longer than it actually did, due to a lower working social energy surplus. OTOH, the time between development and implementation would have been shorter. E.g., EVs would have progressed much more quickly.
Yes but it beggers the question how long do you have to wait?
For example the western Roman empire had large scale water power and growing scarcity of wood? And a lifespan measured in centuries. Did not go any where
I think the simple answer is that it required the centuries of scientific work between then and the 1800s.
It required the Renaissance, and the development of much more sophisticated (if hand crafted) manufacturing, etc.
You couldn't expect the Romans to develop electricity.
Yes it seems unlikely.
Is the renaissance or the enlightenment possible without coal? Pre steam industries and manufacturing are becoming more dependent on high temp processes centuries before they get to the enlightenment for instance
Sheffield became a centre of steel production from the 14th cent on. It was co-located with fast flowing water Iron ore and coal. If I remove coal what happens?
Pre steam industries and manufacturing are becoming more dependent on high temp processes centuries before they get to the enlightenment
Any idea how much of their pre-enlightmenment high temps came from charcoal vs coal? Same question for Sheffield steel?
I've done some googling - the wikipedia article on crucible steel suggests that historically it was done with charcoal.
I believe that is correct and for a considerable time after the wide scale introduction of coal for fine work but you have just placed a industrial limit on there activities and by inference the amount of variation and specialization in processes. Because substitution is an issue when it comes to domestic use. Think about it if there is no coal for domestic use? Which is why it is dangerous to isolate single technological processes separate from the socio-historical context.
which brings us back to why can we not see the advanced civilisations that never had access to coal
13th England was no more advanced than a lot of other places?
you have just placed a industrial limit on there activities
Yes.
and by inference the amount of variation and specialization in processes.
I'd say that's a softer limit - over time, and with a large/wide enough base, very specialized things can develop.
Think about it if there is no coal for domestic use?
I'm not sure what you mean.
13th England was no more advanced than a lot of other places?
Well, it's not clear why England was slightly more competitive than other European countries, but the difference wasn't great.
If the coal isn't there for domestic use the charcoal isn't there in quantity for hand steel craft, scarcity of wood. A supposed reason for using the coal in the first place.
yet the counterfactual of inevitable progress built around other low density energy technologies is identified with progresses in manufacturing technology which in part we both agree will be limited in development by the abundance of charcoal production
which in turn will be effected by domestic cooking and heating demand
yes
Yes, if coal hadn't existed we'd have been limited in ways we weren't - progress in manufacturing and transportation would have been greatly slowed down.
"Well, we won't be on the downslope of exergy (useful energy). Or of iron, or aluminum...."
Invoking systems thinking, I have to disagree. Aluminum requires bauxite, a finite mineral (~2.5 tons per ton aluminum produced), oil (~200kg heavy oil per ton produced), natural gas (24kg), fresh water (3.3 cubic meters), etc. This is the European model; global models use even more of some of these finite resources. http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2010/1256/pdf/ofr2010-1256..pdf
Peak bauxite
Assuming flat or increasing production of aluminum assumes continued availability of these inputs or, again, substitution (see my robbing-peter-to-pay-paul concept, above).
I submit that this conundrum applies to virtually all industrial and agricultural production. We'll have neither the means nor the economic capacity/incentive to continue current levels of extraction or processing of even abundant resources (whatever they may be).
Iron:
One suggestion for the stabilized demand for steel in the US is substitution: aluminum for steel in cars, etc. As for ore quality declining; similar to oil, the amount of energy required to make use of these resources is increasing, ultimately reducing the available amount of exergy.
Aluminium and iron is at 8% and 5% of the Earth's crust. If there's ever a peak in these materials it'll not be due to their depletion.
Recycling and improved extraction and refining techniques will likely hold the energy use per ton at bay forever.
"Aluminium and iron is at 8% and 5% of the Earth's crust. If there's ever a peak in these materials it'll not be due to their depletion."
Huh...the USGS seems to disagree, at least regarding aluminum (bauxite). Perhaps you should check folk's links? As for iron, it's not depletion, it's the costs involved in extracting and producing it in terms of money and energy. There's a lot of gold in the oceans I'm told....
Perhaps you should check your own links? From your USGS document:
"The alumina content of bauxite ores ranges from 31 to 52 percent, averaging about 41 percent on a production-weighted basis (International Aluminium Institute, 2009b)."
Look here for abundance of elements in the Earth's crust.
Efficiency improvements has likely outpaced the rate at which ores get worse.
There are a lot of sources of aluminum besides bauxite.
Of course, it's not at all clear that we won't see peak aluminum demand before we see peak bauxite.
And, finally, there are a lot of metals besides aluminum and iron. Have you looked at how much magnesium can be extracted cheaply and easily from sea water?
It's clear that I don't share your, nor jeppen's, optimism or hubris regarding planetary resources and our right to exploit them for short term (generational) gain. I'm a firm member of Catton's school of overshoot; whether we deplete our necessary resources now or in a hundred years, the result will be the same. I, for one, realize that to participate in this ongoing madness is doing a disservice to our offspring of the worse sort (not to mention other species).
Trample mindlessly upon the Earth to others' peril....that's our lot it seems.
You lost on the specifics, so now you're generalizing to make a strawman that you can beat down. Iron and aluminium is really, really abundant, the fourth and third most abundant elements in the Earth's crust, respectively. Forget about them ever being a problem. This is neither optimism nor hubris, this is simple geology.
It will not. In the peaceful, educated, rich world of 2111, finding substitutes, recycling and agreeing on good governance strategies will be easy. This is THE crucial time in human history. If we can sustain another 100 years with improvements, we're good for a million years.
What we're doing globally regarding growth and improved standards of living is overwhelmingly for good, especially for our offspring.
"You lost on the specifics, so now you're generalizing to make a strawman that you can beat down. Iron and aluminium is really, really abundant, the fourth and third most abundant elements in the Earth's crust, respectively."
Abundance and availability aren't the same thing, and generalizing our overall situation isn't a strawman; it's real, here and now.
"What we're doing globally regarding growth and improved standards of living is overwhelmingly for good, especially for our offspring."
So you submit that infinite growth on a finite planet is good, or even possible? You submit that raising the 'standard of living' (= increased consumption) of an expanding human population is sustainable? You submit that accomplishing these things by permanently displacing thousands of other species is good? These certainly aren't strawmen; they are real, ongoing, and accelerating.
"In the peaceful, educated, rich world of 2111, finding substitutes, recycling and agreeing on good governance strategies will be easy."
I so wish I could believe this, that our species can turn it's back on what history has shown us to be, suddenly becoming wise, caring and thoughtful, en masse.
Catton, part 5 of 5
That anyone can submit that 'we'd be good for a Million years' already says enough for me to let it go. Even if he just means 'in terms of Steel and Aluminium', I have to call that abusive extrapolation.
That our undermining of the Fisheries and the Atmosphere isn't enough on its own to give Jeppen pause with statements like this is simply baffling.
Oh, you wanted room one-twelve, right next door, there you go..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wdoGVgj1MtY (all in good fun... God help us.)
In this case it is.
Again, you lost on the specifics, so now you try to widen the debate to be right on something else. In a way, you're moving the goal posts.
We don't have infinite growth. We have 4% this year and 4% next year, probably, and this is good. This may continue for a decade or ten or more, and will likely be good then too. It may turn sour (net negative) at some point, but that's for our kids to decide.
It seems so.
No, that's bad. But the net effect of growth is good.
Today, the 20-year-olds outnumber the 50-year-old by 2:1. Women are often powerless. With improved education, straightened population pyramids, better incomes and some gender equality, you'll see that things change.
But, the good ores are becoming scarce. Sure we could find a way to produce at high cost small amounts of these materials and do that forever. But producing them at high volumes and low cost, that might not be possible.
Sorry to be blunt, but what about 8%/5% crustal content don't you understand? We cannot ever run out of good ores for iron and aluminium! We're not talking about gold or even copper here!
Jeppen,
How exactly and at what price do you expect to extract this 5% of the crust? Otherwise I can also say that there's lots of iron in the sun or in the earth's core ... but that's no use to anybody. Only where geology has accumulated hematite, magnetite, siderite, and goethite in high enough concentrations can we make any useful use of it.
So let's look at current proven reserves. From the US Geological Survey , there are about 230 billion tons of useful iron reserves worldwide[PDF ref]. Yearly mine extraction is 2.4 billion tons (in 2010). (add to that the consumption from recycled steel too).
So far so good. We get a R/P ratio of about 95 years (if you take the economically recoverable reserves at todays price it's 75 years).
Now let's add some exponential growth for good measure (you wouldn't want Africa, Latin America, and the 2 billion poor to miss the party).
at g=4% growth (7% is a typical figure for steel growth, but let's take it easy) ... that's:
production_at_year_t = 2.4*(1-(1+g%)^t)/(1-1-g%)
so 29bn in 10 years
71bn in 20 years
229bn in 40 years ...
So yes, I think there is some concern in spite of the 5%/8% crust abundance.
Iron consumption is mostly driven by Chinese capital investment, at the moment. That will decline sharply in the near future. We could easily be at peak demand for iron right now.
On the other hand, there comes a certain point where mining companies stop bothering to document reserves: a R/P ratio of 95 is more than enough to stop looking for more.
First, your formula makes no sense whatsoever. If yearly mine extraction is 2.4 billion tonnes, then at 4% growth, we'll get:
2.4*1.04^10 = 3.6bn in 10 years
2.4*1.04^20 = 5.3bn in 20 years
2.4*1.04^40 = 12bn in 40 years
Global population is supposed to peak at some 10 billion, the per-capita stock of steel in use in Western countries amount to 7 tons. Thus means 70 billion tons would suffice to saturate the world with steel at Western levels. Then we'd only need to add the amount of steel that is lost and unrecycleable. The US net steel consumption is some 120 millon tonnes, or 0.4 tons per capita, so 4 billion tonnes/year to scale to the world.
That is, saturate with 70 billion tonnes and then replace 4 billion tonnes per year, and this should be enough for the world. This means, at 230+ billion tonnes of reserves, we should be good for 50 years or so. Then we find more, recycle more, use more efficiently or substitute. Or, as always, a combination.
The first answer is easy: recycling. Aluminum and steel recycle beautifully, and essentially 100% of the steel from cars, for instance, is recycled. Recycled aluminum takes about 5% of the energy required to smelt new aluminum, and of course needs no mining.
Most of the current peak in demand for these is due to capital investment in China, which won't go on forever.
More later...
"and essentially 100% of the steel from cars, for instance, is recycled."
From my link:
...and:
...approximately 31% of all aluminium produced in the United States comes from recycled scrap...
That's just the US. It seems we're going to have to do a lot better at recycling stuff.
Sure. Of course, we have very little incentive to do so now.
Don't forget that there's a big difference between recycling inputs and outputs. 100% of car steel is recycled, but that doesn't mean that 100% of new cars are made from recycled steel.
"That assumes that CTL is a good candidate for replacing oil. It's not. Hirsch was massively unrealistic."
CTL completely replacing oil? No. CTL keeping the trains and tow-boats running? Very doable. But the capital cost is not trivial.
I agree - CTL is certainly doable.
But, the CO2 emissions are high, and economies of scale require very large and risky projects. Very few investors are going to pursue CTL in the OECD. Some that might have internal customers, like rail companies.
The problem with the term "Peak Oil" is it's logically equal to "the horse has left the barn." In other words, the true, real turning point passed a long time ago. So people are left with an implicit contradiction: declining oil production is a disaster for the economy but the world knew a long time ago it was inevitable and irrevocable.
In a video interview (in French), Jean Laherrère is saying that when they wrote the scientific american paper with Colin Campbell, he asked him why he was using "peak oil" and not "oil peak" (as a contraction of "oil production peak"), as it seemed more "natural" to him, and that Colin answered no both are valid "peak oil" is the concept, "oil production peak" the event or something like that (would have to watch again to be sure), and that at that time "peak oil" and "oil peak" were used more or less interchangably, and that for instance internet searches would return around same amount for both.
Not being a native English speaker either (and also french), would be interested to know what TOD people think, "peak oil" sounds more "punchy" to me, but also maybe more mysterious in some ways, not that it changes much for sure ...
There is almost an Omerta that exists regarding oil reserves and production. Robert Hirsch's own experience with the concept of Peak Oil is a good example of this. He didn't come across the concept until quite late -- 2004, I believe -- which is surprising given his experience and expertise. When he did begin to try to discuss it with others, he was continually ignored or dismissed. Needless to say, one can ignore reality only for so long, and only at one's own peril.
Nice synthesis. A couple of years ago Thomas Friedman was a speaker at an event I attended and I had a moment when he signed my copy of "Hot, Flat and Crowded." I asked him why he didn't include peak oil in his books and discussions. His face tightened with a frown and he said, "As a concept its just a little too squishy." This certainly is true as you explain here.
For most people, discussions about biophysical thresholds, including fossil fuel depletion, fresh water availability, loss of biodiversity, climate change, and more, are very hard for people to get their heads around. Thanks for removing a little PO squishiness.
Robert, great article and it deserves the wide circulation it is getting. Anyway, concerning #2: Peak Oil Beliefs are Homogeneous, no they definitely not. In fact most of us who believe peak oil is upon us differ greatly in what we believe the consequences of peak oil will be. You and I are no exception.
That last sentence speaks volumes about why you believe as you do. A massive die-off is just too horrible to believe. Therefore we must believe something else because something so absolutely horrible can even be allowed to enter our minds.
That is an expression of faith. And it is likely correct, we will show great resilience... but that will simply not be enough. The world is deep, deep into overshoot. Overshoot, in any species, always leads to collapse. The human population would collapse in a matter of a few decades even if we had an ever increasing supply of fossil fuel. However the decline of petroleum, the lifeblood of the economy, will greatly hasten the process.
I have long been a student of the effect of the human race upon the planet. We, as a species, are competing with every other species on the planet for territory and resources. And we are winning... big time. Our great brainpower has given us a tremendous advantage over all other large species. We are driving them, literally, to extinction.
Our handiwork is causing deserts to expand, rivers and lakes to dry up, ocean fisheries to be depleted, rain and dry forest to disappear, topsoil to be depleted and other disasters. No Robert, there will be a die-off and peak oil will not be the culprit. The culprit is in the nature of the species, peak oil will only hasten the process.
Ron Patterson
Hi Darwinian,
I'm afraid the odds that you are right are pretty high, but I don't believe they are one hundred percent.
I can think of a number of scenarios whereby we might "luck out" and experience a gradual decline in our numbers, but unfortunately the odds of any of them coming to pass are very low.
I know -I'm probably just grasping at straws too!
The timeline is an important part of this discussion that is missing.
The timeline is missing for a very good reason, it is unknown. It is impossible to say exactly when a trigger event may happen or what that trigger event may be. Will oil prices get so high that they cause a collapse of the economy, similar but even more dramatic than the collapse in 2008? Will that tip the dominoes to falling? Is there a black swan in the near future?
These things are simply unknown. But that should come as no great surprise, the future has always been unknown. But there are some things we do know. We know that overshoot, in any species, has always led to collapse. As far as humans go, it happened to the Mayans and the Easter Islanders and several other cultures that found themselves in deep overshoot. There is no reason to believe it will be different this time.
We just don't know when.
Ron P.
true, but all of us have different implied time lines (even if they are not stated) when we consider or make predictions about outcomes. You and Robert may both be right.... it could be just a matter of timing.
No, we both cannot possibly be right. Robert says he expects NO massive die-off. I take no to mean never, or at least not in this century. I am saying there definitely will be a massive die-off in the near future.
f I had to guess I would say that the economic collapse that began in 2008 will become a total economic collapse by the year 2020. But that date could slip 5 years either way. However that is only my WAG.
Of course that begs the question as to what I would consider "total economic collapse". That would be, to my mind anyway, when the government cannot pay its debts, or pays them with worthless dollars. And that means the debts owed to social security recipients, medicare and other such government obligations.
Anyway I think things are currently a lot worse than the government stats would indicate. For instance the official unemployment rate is 9% and falling. Shadowstats says it is about 23%... and rising.
Ron P.
I don't think anyone disagrees that we will be hitting peak population soon. I think the disagreement is over the slope and extent of the decline. If everybody stopped having kids now, and medical science stopped advancing, would that be a 'die-off'? Without a dramatically higher death rate, I don't think folks would see that as a die-off, although it would be. Even if the death rate doubled (in Russia the life expectancy for men dropped by about 25 years after the Soviet Union collapsed), I don't think most folks would see that as a die-off (too gradual). Major social failures resulting in death rates 10X normal, or a collapse with 90% plus of the population disappearing in the first 2 years is about what people are probably thinking by die off. I think the odds of that happening by 2025 are roughly nil. I see it is a possibility down the road a piece.
Ron,
I tend to agree with your view. The fact is we are at the top of the conventional oil peak right now and yet the population keeps on expanding. What we have seen is a smearing of peak oil as NGL's have grown and expanded the "oil supply" for now. Conventional oil remains stubbornly at 72-74 million b/d. Coupled with the distorting effect of biofuels which in the main have been a conversion process of fossil fuels, and of course there is the oil sands production.
http://scitizen.com/future-energies/time-to-worry-world-oil-production-f...
Eventually the ducking and diving will be laid bare and the reality of Peak Oil will loom large, if it has not already. The problem lies fairly and squarely in the producing and consuming nations, especially those who do not recover the full value (or even the cost) of oil consumption. Conservation is anathema to these nations as a culture of entitlement has taken hold. The curse of oil is going to be especially tough on the ME countries.
Many of these countries are showing alarming population increases and even more alarming growth in consumption. Fast forward 20 years and Saudi Arabia will be exporting a fraction of what it does now - the true export land model.
Moreover the real effect will be seen in the EROEI in new oil discoveries, be it offshore Brazil, the Artic, or the South China Sea. What the west will see is rampant fuel poverty. It has already started and it will only get worse, and I will predict that with it will come with an increase in population. The poorer the people become the more they will reproduce, until the collapse occurs. It might sound perverse but look at the poor countries. As budgets become strained medical care and education will come under pressure.
THANK YOU Ron.
I think part of the problem is the "Fat and Happy Syndrome," or the "View from the Ivory Tower."
It is very hard to even "entertain those scenarios" when living comfortable lives - the threats seem so distant. Our political leaders have suffered from this same myopia for decades. No wonder they were so quick to say, "No one saw this coming!!" - the could not entertain such thoughts.
"Gradual Decline/Plateau" or Rapid Phase Changes (samsam b) that lead to "unimaginable" consequences...
(... Lehmans, Katrina FEMA, Fukushima, ... )
EDIT -----
Here is an example of "Views from the Ivory Tower" v.s. "Views from the Trenches"
Hugh Hendry was right (his fund is at the top)- Jeffrey Sachs missed Greece and the European crisis because Jeffrey was safe and comfortable in his "ivory tower," while Hendry was in the trenches using "real people's money."
From your Straw Dogs quote:
Neaderthal, Denisovan, Meet Homo sap....
"Robert, great article and it deserves the wide circulation it is getting. Anyway, concerning #2: Peak Oil Beliefs are Homogeneous, no they definitely not."
Thanks, Ron. Maybe in the future, we can just respond to the would-be debunkers with "Ah, you suffer from Misconception #2" and link them here. :) I have seen that happen in the evolution debates with the PRATTS: Points Refuted a Thousand Times.
"That last sentence speaks volumes about why you believe as you do. A massive die-off is just too horrible to believe. Therefore we must believe something else because something so absolutely horrible can even be allowed to enter our minds."
I don't think most people really give this enough thought. We have seen famines and tragedies before, but now imagine that you know the people starving to death. They are brothers, sisters, sons, and daughters -- repeated billions of times. It is too tragic to comprehend. I have often thought about how horrible the Black Death was in Europe, but a billion plus person die-off in which people are starving to death would be even worse.
I'm puzzled by your second reply. It appears to me you are implicitly asserting Humanity does not consider or care what the consequences of its behavior are. This is a significant statement given the tools at Humanity's disposal and the size of its population. Seven billion unbalanced people don't have a positive future, any way you look at it.
Bmiller, I did not get that impression at all. I think Robert knows people would be very concerned if they had any inkling of what might befall humanity because of overshoot and resource depletion. But they don't give it any thought because they haven't a clue and would deny it even if they did. But as he said, it is too tragic to comprehend. It is best to attribute such predictions to ignorant doomsayers and chicken littles. It can't possibly happen because we live in the age of technology and they will figure out something. After all, they always have.
Ron P.
Yes, the main argument against a dieoff of many billions in the coming century boils down to "it's too terrible to think about". And indeed, in aggregate it'll be the nastiest event and biggest loss of human life for all time. The number of humans who will not get a chance to live - their lives made impossible due to decisions we fail to make now - will dwarf that number... but those folks at least won't suffer.
Certainly, the whole "dieoff" connection as the inevitable downside curve of dirt-cheap energy, industrialized ag, cheap shipping, peak roads, and the green revolution is something that makes the "peak resources" concept hard to get across, because the clear implications are horrific.
Still, when it is discussed, the burden of proof must logically fall on those who imagine an 8-10 billion population to exist without the stuff that sustains it today. Water, fuel, fertilizer, sanitation, complex extractive economies, roads, etc.
Perhaps as a practical matter in some contexts, "peak resources" needs to be discussed with a gentlemen's agreement not to mention "peak people", just as those who use quantum mechanics are discouraged from speculating on what it may imply about reality. I think Galileo operated under some such arrangement with the church.... it was alright to solve problems by positing that things acted as if the earth were the center of the universe, just not to state it as a conclusion.
Maybe "dieoff" is too stark a word and we need a good euphemism.
But that's the reality. The timing is uncertain but bounded. A plane runs out of fuel, it doesn't maintain altitude. Every species in overshoot has always crashed when the surplus food ran out. Humans are exceptional in some ways, but we aren't magical beings.
Why is it important to discuss it at all? I'd say because all horrible future scenarios are not equivalent. "dieoffs" aren't fungible, yet they are treated that way when we discuss the concept at all. A future where 6.1 billion starve is not equivalent to one where 5.9 billion people starve; looks like a rounding error, but it's 200 million deaths by starvation. Likewise, a planet with surviving fisheries and non-radioactive farmland is preferable to one without them, even if only 100 million humans survive. Nihilism/neglect now is an indulgence those future folks will have to pay a terrible, lingering price for.
That jetliner that ran out of fuel might be able to land anywhere in a 100-mile radius. Some spots would be less of a bummer than others. But the plane will wind up on the ground somewhere in that radius inside the hour. Recognizing that is a first step to having survivors.
There's a probabilistic range of outcomes still, and the degree of suffering, privation, destruction, etc are dice yet to be thrown, and utterly path-dependent on what happens before then. Seems to me that this should be our society's overriding focus. But our well-evolved mental stress-prevention heuristics cause us to not think about it, or to create alternative narratives, just as we deal with the knowledge of our personal deaths.
When we are able to look at this, really look at it and plan though it hurts to do so, we will be sneaking up on deserving the "homo sapiens" moniker.
I think the confusion about "peak oil" is primarily the same thing: misunderstanding which serves an evolved cognitive purpose. It may not matter what we call it...
cheers
Hello greenish,
I'm greatly heartened by this comment of yours:
re: "Why is it important to discuss it at all? I'd say because all horrible future scenarios are not equivalent. "dieoffs" aren't fungible, yet they are treated that way when we discuss the concept at all. A future where 6.1 billion starve is not equivalent to one where 5.9 billion people starve; looks like a rounding error, but it's 200 million deaths by starvation. Likewise, a planet with surviving fisheries and non-radioactive farmland is preferable to one without them, even if only 100 million humans survive. Nihilism/neglect now is an indulgence those future folks will have to pay a terrible, lingering price for."
Exactly.
I also like your examples.
My "drumbeat" has been two-fold:
1) To the extent there's a cultural/human behavior component to the "problematique" of "dieoff" - there are ways to address it. Each individual can take a step.
We (humanity) have learned so much about ourselves. www.cnvc.org, www.gordontraining.com, www.walkyourtalk.org, and so forth. Many examples. Men, as a group and as a generality, in particular, have a special role to play. This sounds paradoxical, but isn't. The larger culture is linked to what we (those privileged enough to sit at a keyboard without fear of immediate attack) , see as violations of human rights. Address the way one's own culture operates, and there's a ripple effect. http://www.mencanstoprape.org/, http://cfpeace.org/
http://globalspin.blogs.time.com/2011/08/03/rape-as-a-weapon-of-war-men-...
2) Likewise, there are scientific tools at our disposal - many of them. For scientists and those who've had the privilege of education to drop the ball...because "die-off" incredibly emotionally difficult...This means all the more reason to explore the above tools, and others as well, for assistance with ways to integrate the emotional difficulty.
For those with the privilege of a scientific education, not to mention career, to "drop the ball" leads to the "die-off" of the scientific endeavor itself. (Also Tragic.) So, another example here: www.oildepletion.wordpress.com. It can be done.
I like those resources - I've tried to use the ideas in Nonviolent Communication for a while.
I've found something called Focusing useful: http://www.focusing.org/fact_sheet.asp
I'm more with Ron, Peak Lite, is technically achievable, but could be derailed by the psychology of masses and demagogues. If economic pressure and distress increase, this could create a fertile field for the wrong sorts of political movements, and the response of some societies may be highly disfunctional because of this. If a major military power goes rogue, that could be very bad.
Now if RR and/or myself were handed the reigns of power, we could probably quide us through the Peak Lite scenario. But, thats not going to happen.
I agree that Robert has made a very good summary indeed, thank you Robert!
However, I'm with Ron in the relatively rapid population-reduction scenario. I don't see how we can avoid it. We are part of a large system, we're running low on non-renewable resources and we are — essentially — not doing a darn thing about it. The bulk of the citizenry of the planet and 99.999999% of all politicians are still enthralled with the "growth is necessary to address our problems" myth. While we should be rationally, methodically reducing our planetary impact, they want to step back on the gas! It would be comical if it weren't so tragic.
Here is Scenario 1 from Limits to Growth:
And perhaps more relevant to this is discussion is Scenario 2, in which resources are magically doubled:
This doubling can occur via setting the initial conditions higher OR it can occur via technological improvement. Either way the result is the same: a slight delay in the peak followed by an even steeper decline rate.
When examining population in particular, we have the following options:
From my studies, it appears we are heading for Option D since we don't seem to be purposefully choosing any other option.
This is probably been pointed out before but the likely outcome in the real world would be significantly WORSE than what the scenarios imply because World3:
Given humanity's history, I think that societal upheavals will cause the down-slope to be quite rapid.
World3 doesn't include renewable energy of any kind.
Sheesh.
Wow, thank you Ron for summing up my own view(s) very nicely.
In 7 weeks it will be my 4th year anniversary of being peak oil aware enough to have started reading TOD.
Strange how my perspective on PO has changed- how i have changed.
I have given up the notion of *surviving* a collapse- leave me out of the doomer/survivalist camp please!
I have given up the idea that global warming will be arrested before collapse or that anything can be done to thwart the inevitability of ecological devastation (perhaps UNLESS our future includes a massive pandemic/die-off of humans)
Anyway, since becoming PO aware, the biggest change is becoming more focused on health and fitness as a means of:
1)enjoying the present and immediate future more fully- both physically and mentally- prior to collapse/decline.
2)dealing with health care issues that may come up in the future as institutions unravel.
3)Offset the costs of poor health.
4)Better cope with the physical stress of collapse/decline.
Other than better health and fitness, i have nothing to add as to what people should be doing with their time- gardening, fixing stuff, putting in energy conservation remedies, building bikes, advocating for public transit, etc.
Thanks again to everybody- and especially you Ron- for these 4 years of education.
Good luck to us all- especially other species!
Jeff
Look at it from a biologists viewpoint. If you showed a graph of human population growth from 1800 to the present to a biologist, and didn't tell them what animal it represented, what would they say? I'm pretty sure they would say that collapse is imminent. Biologists have studied population dynamics for a while now. Has any case been documented where an animal population grew exponentially in such a way and didn't collapse? I doubt it. Its almost an ironclad rule that collapse is inevitable after such a growth pattern. Are humans so fundamentally different from other animals that collapse can be avoided?
Sure.
Except for Africa, humans have already chosen to reduce their fertility below replacement level - that's a really fundamental difference.
A bit of good news since in many places in the world life is once again going to become nasty, brutish and short.
We'll all get to watch as the list of failed states unfortunately increases in number:
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/06/17/2011_failed_states_inde...
"Chosen to reduce their fertility"? Surely you jest. In sub-Sahara Africa the death rate has increased dramatically due to Aids. Nevertheless their population growth is still the highest in the world.
Population Dynamics of Africa November 09, 2011
Despite such a very high death rate sub-Sahara Africa still has the highest population growth rate in the world. In sub-Sahara Africa women do not choose anything, they just have babies.
Nick, if you have a dramatic claim to make you should post a URL to back it up. Simply posting your opinion or belief as fact usually don't work all that well, especially when what most people believe is wrong far more often than not.
Ron P.
You misread him. He meant the world, ex-Africa, is below replacement. I don't think that's quite true, either, but I take his point that reproduction is voluntarily declining in large parts of the world with the most resources, and that this is not the behavior of yeast.
Yes I did and Nick please accept my apologies. But you are still terribly wrong. Asia still has a population growth rate of greater than one percent.
Go here: Population Growth Rate Click on almost any nation. The vast majority of them have a population growth rate of greater than 1%. Afghanistan for instance, has a population growth rate of 2.8%.
The world has a population growth rate of 1.1%. Remove Africa from the mix and the world is still growing in population at near 1%. So you are still wrong nick.
But wait: You said Fertility Rate Still most nations outside of Africa has a fertility rate far higher than the replacement of level of2.1. Afghanistan has a fertility rate of 6.42.
Ron P.
Wikipedia says: "In developed countries sub-replacement fertility is any rate below approximately 2.1 children born per woman, but the threshold can be as high as 3.4 in some developing countries because of higher mortality rates.[1] Taken globally, the total fertility rate at replacement was 2.33 children per woman in 2003."
The most recent list of fertility rates by country, compiled from the CIA world factbook 2009, 230 states and sovereign territories are listed, of which only 107 have a fertility rate above 2.3. Here's all countries with a population of above 5 million:
The world as a whole is likely to attain replacement fertility rate in 5-10 years and then drop below.
For some interesting forward looking considerations on how peak oil might affect economic models, this is an interesting read :
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/observations-engineer
Here's an excerpt :
Looking forward to the coming years, what are the reasonable expectations for housing and many other aspects of the world economy if oil production does at some point start to decrease as projected by the Hubbert Curve? Is the banking business model of providing 30 year home loans at risk? One might think so.
Actually, Michael, Robert, I'd say I've become more pessimistic about 'imminent doom', not less.
I've never focused on the physical peak, but more the systems of which oil is a part and how the whole fits together and 'warps' as we move into a post-peak world. In the past I thought that the financial markets wouldn't be much of an issue - the games they play swept away as reality strikes.
However, with the GFC and the impact of their financial fraud, it's become obvious that not only is the rot deeper and dirtier than could have been foreseen from outside - they also have zero morals and a firm grasp on the nose of government. Rather than being jailed for their crimes, they got bailed out; left free to continue to pay themselves bonuses. Even when countries are going under because of the actions of the finance community, they seem untouchable.
Lots of people talk about the actions, beliefs and inadequacy of governments - but we have to face facts, they aren't running things. The people that call the shots sit on pile of cash, and have no morals at all. These people WILL run the world into the ground to make the last dime, and they WILL run away and let the rest burn. They'll even boast that this is what they'll do.
As such I think you have to reconsider how things will play out.
There won't be the alternatives, the transition, build out of new fields, CTL etc. unless they make money off it, discounted against future risks and with a high enough RoI.
Consider the world as a company: profitability is low, workforce is fractious, debts are high. Do you, as a banker, invest to bring in new technology to give it a questionable chance? Or do you 'downsize' the workforce and liquidate your assets; breaking it apart for scrap value?
You already know the answer to that, don't you?
Garyp, great post. I agree with everything you say except... well I will get that later. But I also am more pessimistic. And so is Joseph Tainter. Sorry, I can't seem to find the video where he stated such but he said exactly that.
I must confess I was a doomer long before I ever heard of peak oil. I have followed the population explosion and the rape of the earth for almost 50 years now. I always knew that overshoot would eventually bring on collapse and die-off, I just had no idea when. Now I have at least a vague idea, give or take a few years. ;-)
Now to where I disagree with you. You seem to blame someone for our predicament. Please correct me if I am wrong but that is the impression I get. I however, don't blame anyone. It is just the nature of the animal, the human animal. It is in our nature to look out for number one. And that holds true whether we are on the bottom of the heap or on the very top. It is just our nature. And if you, or I, were the ones on top, I doubt seriously that we would behave any differently.
Ron P.
Ron,
I'm not particular blaming someone.
I'm one of those that piped up saying I disagreed with Tainter because he said that complexity HAD to result higher power demands - because from a scientific viewpoint, that's not proved or necessary true. I tend to think that there IS, or WAS, a way out of driving off the cliff; the possibility existed to sort things out and transition in such a way that civilisation, at the standard we currently see, could be sustained - if with some pain in the short to medium term.
However.
'Could' isn't 'will'. I don't think collectively we are smart enough to take the path that leads to our survival. It's not that there is the evil mastermind, or even illuminati type groups, getting together to plot evil deeds. Instead I think it's worse. I think there are lots of individual agents, mechanically following personal, short-term rules of thumb, strategy and goals - and that the net effect is an anti-moral rush to destruction. On the large scale we aren't intelligent individuals, we are rule-following agents (watch "All Watched Over by Machines of Loving Grace" for a biased viewpoint on the issue).
Bankers and financiers have taken the opportunity to control and slant things such that they win, and implicitly control things. From a close up viewpoint there is nothing wrong with this. They are doing their job, looking out for No.1 and optimising their environment. Pull back however and their actions count as 'evil' - acting anti-morally such that millions die so they can end up with $748m rather than $747m. Where does responsibility cut in?
No point in blaming the individuals, although they should be made to pay for the societal crimes (moral jeopardy). Rather blame the system and drivers, blame the way things are connected such that money counts, and society doesn't - and if possible look at how they can be redirected before too much damage is done.
Ron,
Here's the link http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6x8y3qF0YYQ
Jump to 3 minutes in
Yes, that's it. Thanks a million. This is also the video where he says he has problems with the sub-title of Diamond's book "Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed". He said societies don't choose they are confronted with circumstances.
I have other problems with people who use and overuse the word "choose". But that is another story for another time.
Ron P.
Speaking from the perspective of nearly 40 years in the oil industry (I started just about the time US oil production peaked), I can say that these five points are all highly valid. I would commend Robert on a very informed and realistic article.
I would also say that Peak Oil is not really an insoluble problem if you are prepared for it. The problem in the US and Europe is that they are not prepared for it, and are scurrying around applying stop-gap solutions that are highly unlikely to help much.
I was in the Canadian oil industry, and got involved in oil sands research. Eventually, after Canadian governments spent a billion dollars doing research, they got an in-situ production method of production working and Canada increased its proven (actually "established" in Canadian terms) oil reserves by 170 billion barrels. $1 billion investment, $1.7 trillion in new oil reserves (at current prices). Not a bad rate of return.
In addition, I got involved in civic politics and helped get some alternative solutions going. As a result of my efforts and those of many others, my former home town (Calgary) has a very successful wind-powered electric train system and one of the largest bicycle path systems in North America. So, despite being the oil capital of Canada, Calgary has the peak oil issue covered.
Of course, now that most of Canadian oil production comes from the oil sands, the nay-sayers say, "That's dirty oil". But, what are your choices? As my mother used to say, "You can't make an omelet without breaking eggs". If you try, you'll just end up with nothing from breakfast. The US and Europe are moving toward the "Nothing for breakfast" solution to peak oil. Canada is well prepared, but it can't bail out the rest of the world.
The current UK government is certainly not prepared for PO. Today they are discussing cancelling a rise in the tax on petrol and diesel fuel. They are unlikely to do this, because the government is desparate for the tax income, but I guarantee the expressions 'peak oil' or 'resource depletion' will not cross a politician's lips during the debate. At best you might hear 'energy security'.
100 MPs are threatening to vote against the government over this.
[edit]
One honourable exception may be our sole Green MP, Carline Lucas.
Having been there a few years ago and done a bit of consulting work in the oil industry, I would agree that the UK government is not prepared for peak oil, and is actually in a state of denial about it.
For the UK, peak oil is a reality, not a theory. UK North Sea oil production peaked a decade ago and is now in a state of steep and irreversible decline. This was highly predictable if you have all the geological and production data, which the UK government does, so it should have come as no surprise to them.
I guess they just don't want to talk about it. A more rational approach would have been to plan for constrained oil supplies and start rebuilding the rather extensive but archaic British train system with the latest, state of the art technology; converting the double decker buses to electricity, promoting bicycles and walking, and doing innumerable other things. It's a cozy little country with a lot of people so all of these things are highly practical.
I don't see any sign of this happening, so it appears they are taking the ostrich approach: Stick your head in the sand and hope the threat goes away. (Ostriches don't actually do that kind of thing but it's a useful metaphor for governments).
Yes and no.
Whilst they don't as a whole have a grasp of peak oil, they do:
OK, they aren't perfect, or even as far along as they should be, but they aren't as ostrich-like as some.
There has in fact been quite a lot of representation to the UK government over the issues of oil depletion so I'm not sure they are totally in a state of denial although the general population certainly are.
Positive indicators are the continued push for more higher mpg standards (EU driven?), lower emissions, punitive excise taxes on inefficient vehicles and policies which are reported to have reduced car usage by 25% in Greater London over the past decade (better public transport, less friendly roads).
It looks likely that there will be no new motorways and focus is on improving the worst elements of the rail network plus attempting to build a high speed backbone. Dedicated cycle lane provision is generally integrated into any road improvements which actually get funding.
NEP-F covers transport fuel shortage and details how the government would prioritize fuel supply if (when) demand exceeds supply.
The now defunct fuel escalator (RPI + duty on fuel increase annually), effectively replaced by market forces.
Generally long term policies which have reduced the attractiveness of personal transport and formed a toxic formula of charges which is starting to initiate demand destruction, if only by accident instead of policy.
One comment on the BBC site shows how people are missing the point
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-15730087
Monthly income £1000 (rounded)
LESS monthly costs
Fuel Purchases £ 300
Insurance £ 50 (ball park £600pa)
VED £ 10 (£120pa B class)
Service/MOT/Tyres £ 50 (£600pa low except for new)
Car lease/finance/depreciation£ 150 (B Class typical finance plan)
So out of the quoted approx £1000pm take home £560 (56%) is being drained on personal transport/convenience. I've ignored car parking, cleaning, extraordinary costs as the stated income seems lower than expected but the point is how long will somebody work 35 hours a week for what is effectively £20 a day (£2.60p/hr!) before realizing it's time to either move or find local employment.
HOw can they spend £ 300/month on fuel???
That would be about 200 liters per month, right? 10 liter per work day?? They must be driving something very inefficient...
Easy,
B class car may get 55mpg but with congestion/cold starts etc say 40mpg. Average commute say 20 miles each way so about 5 litres a day 5 days a week plus trips for shopping etc pretty easy to burn 200+ litres a month, at £1.40 a litre.
It could be a lot worse - if they bought a cheap oldish car the lowest cost are large engined petrol ones that would be lucky to clear 25mpg commuting. The eqivalent diesel may give mid to high 50s but the capital cost will be double and the mileage and trim quality much worse as carefully used diesels are rare. I work with someone who is peak aware and spends £10 a day on fuel to get to/from work as he just won't buy something economic despite the obvious savings.
But, he said he's paying "over £300 every month just to get to work".
So, at £1.40 a litre that's 214 litres per month to get to work. 40mpg would be about 11 miles per liter, so that's 2,354 miles per month, or 188 miles per workday!!
Nick,
Don't forget that there are 4.546 litres in an imperial gallon, so it's more like 8.8 miles per litre - 1,883 miles a month or just under 90 miles a day (for about 21 working days a month).
I'm having to do 70 miles a day, so it's seems quite probable to me (although I'm averaging 75 mpg by driving like a granny).
Yeah, I assumed a US gallon, and divided by 10 instead of the proper 20 or 21 work days per month. simple math...
So, you're spending about £1,500 per year on gas. How much does a Nissan Leaf cost in the UK??
Prices start at £25,990
Wow. That's more than $40k, at current conversion rates. I wonder why so high? How much is a Nissan Versa, for instance?
UKTony, if I got £20 a day I'd be extremely happy. As things are, my four-member family gets cca £18 a day (all things considered and added), and I have to cover everything, including personal transport with it (one gallon of petrol is cca £5.45 here and now). And I'm middle class here, in Hungary. And I don't feel I'm poor. It's all about expectations and approach.
Rocky,
I don't agree with the premise that Canada is well prepared.
First, the building stock in Canada demands large amounts of natural gas for heat (and cooling). Province's building energy efficiency standards are disappointing at best given the challenges of declining natural gas production from the WCSB and the need to zero our carbon emissions by 2050 (for all intents and purposes).
Most of our cities have succumbed to urban sprawl, with poor mass transit systems since municipal councils focused on cars and highways for the suburban commuter. And most suburban and exurban municipal councilors are hostile to bicycle commuting. the Mayors Ford of Toronto practically ran on an anti bike platform.
So in the Rest Of Canada(ROC) cars (more likely a truck or SUV) and the gas that fuels them will remain a dependency that people won't shake easily, for reasons economic and the tyranny of commuting. Too many Canadians are "locked-in" to a high energy demand because of the home they live-in, where their home is, how far away their work is located, and because they only have one commuting option.
And of course since we continue to completely ignore the need to address climate change in Canada, we are unprepared for the constant environmental and economic drain that will have on us. Maybe some folks in Calgary think there well prepared, but to believe that they are ignoring the precariousness of their water supply.
Cheers,
Andrew
Canada has large amounts of natural gas for heating purposes. The fact that production is declining just means that exports to the US will be reduced - assuming that the large reserves of shale gas in NE BC aren't developed faster than conventional production declines.
Building standard could be improved, but are better than the US and most of Europe. Most Canadians have access to public transit, although the quality of service could be better. Mayor Ford is Toronto's problem, at least until the next election. And who said Canada has to have zero carbon emissions by 2050? Certainly not the Canadian government.
The bottom line is that Canada has vast energy resources of all types. Ontario may have a problem due to its low energy resources in comparison to its rather large population, but most of the rest of the country is underpopulated and well endowed with energy resources.
In fact the per capita Canadian use of Energy is higher than the US one I think, and even the per capita oil use (to be checked)
One thing that skews Canadian energy statistics is that the energy industry itself is a very heavy user of energy (the old EROEI concept) but a lot of the produced energy goes to export. Canada exports large amounts of oil, natural gas, coal, uranium, and electricity.
Also, there is a difference between "energy" and "petroleum". 60% of Canada's electricity production is hydroelectric and 15% nuclear. Electric heating is rather common in Eastern Canada because of the large amount of cheap hydro available.
And, over and above that, Canada is a country of huge distances - it's the second biggest country on Earth - and it's extremely cold in winter, so people use very large amounts of energy for transportation and heating.
You say a major die-off is unlikely. But what about places such as east Asia and south Asia, where agriculture is greatly dependant upon fossil fuels, where every square inch of land is already utilized, and where people already eat fairly low on the food chain?
I have traveled across India, and a large portion of that country is rural and fairly self-sufficient. They are mostly vegetarian, which means they need less land. On the other hand, you don't see many fat Indians. They are already eating pretty low on the food chain, but I think a large portion of that country survives peak oil because their lives aren't heavily dependent upon oil now.
Having been in the region, I would agree that agricultural production in India is not particularly dependent on oil.
The real victims of peak oil will be American farmers. The American farm industry is hugely dependent on fossil fuels - they never would get the crop yields they do without energy-intensive chemical fertilizers and fuel guzzling machinery.
India will probably not be hurt as badly, first because they do not use as much fertilizer and machinery, and second because in subsistence agriculture there are huge opportunities for rationalizing the farming sector and improving the productivity of farms. Most of the farmers will become factory and office workers, with a large increase in their productivity. With improved technology, the remaining farmers will have no problem maintaining and increasing farm production - even in the absence of increase in energy use.
Of course, this rationalization will devastate the US factory and white collar workforce because they will have to compete with former farm peasants willing to work for much less money, but I guess that's life.
'm sorry to disagree, but India will be massively hit. They were the first and greatest benefactors of the 'green' revolution, with oil powered pumps irrigating land, pesticides allowing monoculture wheat to drastically increase yields, etc. The Indian people thrived and multiplied for 40 years before finally easing down their family sizes. They are horribly in overshoot, the water table is so low in their breadbasket Punjab they keep needing deeper wells. Once PO makes diesel and pesticides unaffordable, their crop yields will collapse.
Indian culture will survive, but a lot of the people will not.
Ralph, have you been to India? There are massive populations in big cities that will be in deep trouble, but a great deal of India is rural with little to no dependence on fossil fuels.
Wanna bet some money on it? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Revolution_in_India
They did use (overuse) a bunch of natural gas derived chemical fertilizer, if not the big old tractors and other things that people associate with industrial farming. Just because they have a donkey instead of a tractor doesn't mean they are petrochemical free.
What are we betting money on? That a great deal of rural India is not heavily dependent upon fossil fuels? Can you show me in the link where it says that isn't the case? I have driven across India and seen many rural villages that had little dependence on fossil fuels.
On the other hand, without a doubt India benefited from the Green Revolution. 20 million people in Mumbai wouldn't be possible without it. After all, India does have industrial agriculture to feed all of those people. But that doesn't contradict my point that a lot of India is still living a relatively fossil fuel-free existence.
Green Revolution in India Wilts as Subsidies Backfire
Robert, I have never been to India but I have read a lot about Indian agriculture. I think one can gather more facts by reading people who have studied their agricultural system in depth rather than just visiting the country and looking around. Lester Brown actually lived in India early in his career and has returned there many times. So I will yield to his expertise.
Falling Water Tables, Falling Harvests
India is heavily dependent upon fossil fuels for pumping water, drilling new wells and even hauling water to the many villages whose wells have run dry. In addition they use almost as much fertilizer per hectare as does the US. Fertilizer production and delivery is heavily dependent upon fossil fuel.
But the point to take away is that India's agriculture, due primarily to falling water tables, is already on the verge of collapse. Now if, on top of all that, their fertilizer bill goes sky high because of a shortage of fossil fuel, and they cannot pump water from their very deep wells that have not run dry yet.... they will indeed be in deep trouble.
Ron P.
India is teetering on agricultural collapse.
Plus, there is already a bidding war for phosphate and other nutrients.
http://www.farmgateblog.com/article/the-us-farmer-is-not-the-only-one-bi...
If 15% of Indian food relies on mining groundwater, and 60% is irrigated, then 3/4 of irrigation comes from rivers, right?
Yes, and your point is?
When the Rivers Run Dry: Water--The Defining Crisis of the Twenty-first Century<.a>
Or perhaps you may be wondering what damage using river water for irrigation does. Are you familiar with what was once a fishery that produced so much fish that it once fed millions of people with fish and employed thousands in its canneries. And is now nothing but a small salty puddle that nothing but tiny brine shrimp lives? Watch the Aral Sea disappear in this time lapse photo.
The History of the Aral Sea
The rivers that fed the Aral Sea were dammed and the water diverted to grow crops.
I could show you a similar story concerning Lake Chad in North Africa, once the size of New Jersey but now a small mud puddle because rivers that fed it that fed it were diverted for crops.
And you thought river water cost nothing? Or did you? But iff you were aware of the tremendous cost of diverting river water for crops then please accept my apology.
Ron P.
Those are interesting examples of the value of river water.
I was really thinking more of the question of whether that supply of river water was going to go away, in the same manner as fossil aquifers.
I fear water will be their Achilles heal. They have been getting by in part by the large scale mining of ground water. And that unsustainable process will soon come to a stop. So a major challenge is ahead for them. And it won't help that this groundwater depletion challenge will be coincident with the peak oil challenge.
When oil goes over about $100/bbl, PV becomes cheaper than diesel for pumps, so I would think that PV & electric pumps would replace diesel irrigation pumps.
In the US some pivot systems run off the grid (which of course can be wind/solar powered) and increasingly they're powered by photovoltaics. http://farmindustrynews.com/mag/farming_super_solar_pump/
Farmers will pass on their costs, so long as they can get the petrochemicals they need to stay in business.
More than likely, tptb will make sure farmers are adequately supplied for a good long while by imposing draconian rationing on other sectors of the economy.
When that no longer works.......
This is a a minor quibble in terms of the big picture of course.
As to whether there will be enough petroleum for the masses of India and China to switch from subsistence farming to urban manufacturing with the remainder switching to modern industrial style agriculture, my personal guess is that there will not be enough.
Any large increases in farm productivity must result from a combination of only a few possible changes in the technology-increasing energy use, which has been at the root of most progress for the last century, involving mechanization and fertilizers mostly;improved pest control, mostly dependent on the same petrochemicals, but in very modest quantities, compared to fuel and fertilizer;improved conventional genetics , meaning selective breeding and hybridization;irrigation, etc.
The only really new technology, which may or may not soon result in greatly improved yields, is genetic engineering.It WILL become an essential part of the mix regardless of the risks and political opposition for the same reasons that we WILL burn all the oil and coal we can put our hands on.
Biological pest control technologies might also mature into truly effective practical technologies, but probably not as quickly as genetic engineering.
Any other hopes of greatly increasing, or at least maintaining, production, depend on us being able to do things that require across the board changes in the way we not only farm , but also in the way we live.
Such changes are generally well understood, and anyone interested in them can read all about them at any of the various transition town type websites.
I agree with RalphW. Looking at Earthtrends database
http://earthtrends.wri.org/searchable_db/index.php?theme=8
it looks like India is not far behind the US in terms of absolute quantity of fertilizer used and also in fertilizer intensity. While it's true that on a per-capita basis India's fertilizer use is less than the US by a fair margin, I don't think they would escape fairly widespread problems as depleting fossil fuel puts on the squeeze in the years ahead.
I guess I'm mainly thinking of inputs associated with the Green Revolution (eg inorganic fertilizers and pesticides) and the energy needed to pump irrigation water from deep aquifers. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Revolution_in_India
We may fare better because we waste so much right now and we eat so much higher on the food chain.
An appropriate survival algorithm might be amount of chernozem soil per capita multiplied by amount of sunshine and (appropriate) rain per year. I would say that India is problematic in two out of the three variables.
Actually, although these are highly populated places they are exactly where agriculture is NOT heavily dependent on fossil fuels. They have a large agricultural population because they need all those people to work the land.
We are the ones with massive fuel inputs on farms with few hands. So it is western agriculture that will be most affected. Our per capita resource usage is shockingly higher than Asia. A much smaller die-off in the West would free up the same resources as a massive die-off in Asia.
Or maybe we can just learn to live on a fraction of our current usage.
How about something like :
- Peak oil isn't a theory in anyway but a high school level banality
- The US went through its oil production peak in 1970
- This has more or less been hidden to the US population (it's easier to talk "Arab Embargo" and the like, somehow)
- Above is one of the reason why, not only is "peak oil" still labeled a theory by many Americans, but almost as many still believe that the reason for US declining oil "production"(extraction) is due to "tree huggers regulations" and that opening ANWR and a few other places would be sufficient to go to pre 1970 levels (the sky being the limit)
- The US has one of the lowest gas tax in the world (and not by a little amount) as well as one of the most innefficient cars fleet
- But nobody will do anything about it, that's for sure, just wait for the collapse that is coming soon, that's just life
When talking to people about peak oil the conversations always turns to alternatives. How can we keep it going with alt. fuels. its the wrong argument. Peak oil is set to accomplish what we cannot, it is set to limit our growth and impact upon the Eco. No specie ever limited its own growth deliberately ,always they are constrained by their environment in one way or another. We have also shown a clear lack of restraint, with tech(info) and oil we have been able to bypass all restraint to human growth and now our smashing success threatens the entire biosphere. Peak oil is our limit and it couldn't have come soon enough. Peak oil may bring much pain and suffering but it is ultimately our salvation, peak oil . . amen.
There is a strict accounting of this world should you believe in a accountant or not.
Hi ex-addict.
re: "No specie ever limited its own growth deliberately ,always they are constrained by their environment in one way or another."
Humans - certain numbers of them, a sub-group of them - have done so.
This means...
"Humans - certain numbers of them, a sub-group of them - have done so"
they have?
deliberate self-regulation of population to manage its impact on the eco? who has done this?
if we could do this collectively then humans could take a much stronger hold of their fate. witch is really what all this knowledge and information seeking is all about. to take our fate out of the hands of chance(god) and into our own.
deliberate self-regulation of population to manage its impact on the eco? who has done this?
Heck, it gets better than that: the Japanese and Italians have reduced their fertility rates to 2/3 of replacment just because they felt like it - they weren't even responding to an awareness of pending environmental limits.
Based on the recent auto sales in China (I believe around 20 million this year) and to a lesser extent in some other parts of the developing world, and the development of a strong car culture in these places (new auto factories, auto dealers, service stations, et cetera) the shift away from oil in the OECD could be accelerated from what one would otherwise expect. These economic changes can happen faster than one would expect. For example, a substantial portion of the manufacturing base of the Midwest USA disappeared in the ten years from 1973 to 1982. Neighborhoods in many Midwestern communities similarly depopulated. I wouldn't be surprised to see miles driven in the USA, for example, dropping by an annualized rate of 2% to 4% (which according to Tom Whipple, if I correctly recall his work),would correspond to an annual price rise for fuel of twice that in real dollars). After ten years, there'd be a whole less driving in certain areas/regions and possibly no drop or increases in others. Anyway, that's what my crystal ball is showing now.
Very nicely done, Robert, not that we'd expect anything less from you.
I agree with your comments, especially the fact that misconception #1 is the most common. I hate having to battle that one over and over, but it seems to be immune to our collective efforts.
I would add a couple of details to this overall discussion...
I've run into many of my fellow enviros, some of them extremely committed, who will argue without qualification that peak oil will be a good thing because "it will force us to use less oil and emit less CO2". (The split you refer to in #2.) My point is not that people "believe" different things in this regard, but that their stance is almost always based on ignorance. When I tell a green friend that a shortage of oil and ensuing high prices mean more pressure to turn coal into liquid fuel, at a very high CO2 cost, they often refuse to accept it. When I point out that running cars on CNG isn't the techno-enviro miracle they assume, they once again refuse. (I did an analysis of the three main variants of the Honda Civic: ICE, CNG, and hybrid and found that the CO2/mile emissions decline in that order -- the hybrid beats the CNG vehicle. Details here: http://www.grinzo.com/energy/2011/09/01/cng-vehicles-a-cheap-shiny-new-b... )
Another detail that drives me nuts is the confusion of production capacity and consumption. To illustrate: World oil output has been rising very slightly recently. Assume, for the sake of this example, that we suddenly get very serious about "leaving oil before it leaves us", and demand drops fairly rapidly and consistently over the next 20 years. Would we then say that we hit peak oil in 2011/2012? I would say yes, since it's nearly always expressed in terms of production, with no attention paid to the interaction between production and market conditions, and production clearly declined. Would that orderly but rapid shift away from oil mean that all the angst over the last few decades about peak oil was so much balloon juice? Of course not. It would merely mean that, like Y2k, we had a very real and very serious problem and we took the necessary steps to avoid its consequences.
For coal-to-liquids to be feasible, coal supply would have to greatly increase. That may not be possible because finite resources are interconnected. For example, mining companies have faced tire shortages the past few years because of supply constraints on rubber. As oil supply decreases, the availability of synthetic latex decreases (all things being equal). This is just one example in a complex world that depends on global capital flows. I wouldn't project too far in the future based on linear ideas.
Rubber prices
We need only stop using coal for electricity and start using it for CTL instead. Wind power could be used to create electricity, hydrogen and process heat for coal replacement and liquefaction.
"I agree with your comments, especially the fact that misconception #1 is the most common. I hate having to battle that one over and over, but it seems to be immune to our collective efforts."
An analogy I thought of is personal productivity. Each of us will see our productivity peak during our lifetimes. That productivity peak often occurs in our 20s and 30s and then we live for decades after that. But when it begins to decline doesn't mean we are "running out of life."
I've often thought of that analogy too.
Whether or not you are "running out of life" depends on the environment you find yourself in during the Post-Peak (age ~ 30).
An individual in a functional, growing society might have it easy.
An individual in a dysfunctional, collapsing society might not have it so easy. He may in fact find he is "running out of life" quite quickly.
(ie. it all depends assumptions that rest on what you might refuse to imagine)
Well, harumph! Ye whippersnapper!
Actually I remember when I was in my 20s working as a carpenter on one particular job doing trim work. There were a couple of old-timers (50s & 60s) working the same job. These guys would cruise through the day giving the appearance of effortlessness while I struggled with each step of the way. They had things thought out and they spent little wasted effort because they knew exactly what they were doing, ending up getting more done than I did with less effort.
Recently I did a remodeling job on my house. Hired a couple of youngsters to help and the tables were turned.
So there is a lot to be said for experience and know-how.
BTW excellent summary of PO.
Robert,
The latest research suggests that growing experience and wisdom generally more than balances out a decrease in thinking speed and memory ability.
We do get better as we get older.
"The latest research suggests that growing experience and wisdom generally more than balances out a decrease in thinking speed and memory ability."
So that would seem to support the plateau theory of personal productivity. We rise to a level and then stay on a plateau for decades. :)
:)
To make the analogy better, maybe I should have said "more than balances out a depletion...
Peak intelligence lite...
Hi lou
I'm trying to talk about the difference between past tense ("We have run out.") and present tense (gerund, I believe it is), i.e., "We are running out." So, when you say,
re: "...a shortage of oil and ensuing high prices mean..."
Is a "shortage of oil" happening - in the present tense or, in your projected present (something you anticipate in the future, and you believe this warrants a conversation) - because...we are *not* running out? If not, then what's the cause? What is the reason or reasons?
Or, is the "...shortage of oil and ensuing high prices mean...": because we are running out?
The "rationing" of oil and oil products by price began several years ago. This is causing enormous pressure on the "fractional reserve banking system" worldwide.
The sovereign nations attempts to maintain "liquidity" of their banking systems by "bail outs" will come to an end shortly (Europe does not have a useful banking structure capable of sustained support!).
This can result in a very rapid flash crash of the financial system (computers!!). The resulting panic could result in "control by force" and the "Long Emergency" at the point of a government gun!
Just a thought!
DAD
Great post!
It is so much easier to have a meaningful discussion here, when we are not picking apart a cornucopian main stream article.
As for 'peak lite', I would have to say, don't get fooled by the plateau. I mean, so far the plateau has caused 3 years of high oil prices at the same time as an economic recession that is only minimized by governments borrowing my unborn grand children's future earnings. The weakest governments are starting to fold. What happens when we finally loose the battle to hold the plateau production? Nobody is going to buy a billion dollar rig to drill a five dollar hole.
This exaggeration sums up the net energy argument very well. It is taking a lot more energy investment to get the same quantity of energy back out (that is what plateau means, same amount of energy back out). Some of that investment may be building new cities in the Middle East instead of building new drilling rigs, but from a purchaser point of view it does not matter.
Peak Lite may well equate with Peak Net Energy which is the point of maximum oil based energy delivered to society.
Once past peak net energy, the oil sector demands more investment to produce the same energy output. Some other sectors of society must be canibalized to pay for that increased investment. Thus we have a recession in the non-oil sectors. Because money sloshes around in our economy, the sloshing causes prices to spike (people spend loan money and savings to bid up the price) and the dip (bankruptcy and destruction of loan money means a sudden drop in consumers). Then we get recessions even in the oil based sectors.
As Eastex says: Eventually society cannot hold the plateau. The destruction of other sectors to pay increased prices reduces total demand and we have "peak production" = peak oil.
Peak Net Energy first. Peak Production "soon" afterwards.
Increased efficiency may postpone the plateau by allowing higher oil prices if it exactly matches the cost increases of production. But if efficiency is too slow to grow, then production will drop due to recession. If efficiency increases too fast, then production will drop due to over demand. I am guessing efficiency will improve too slow in the US while our government is gridlocked. But production costs are rising very fast. I am not sure efficiency could possibly keep up even with a unified vision.
Thanks Robert for your thoughtful perspective.
On the oil industry perspective, see:
"World peak oil production still years away"
Brian Towler, University of Wyoming, Laramie Wyo.
Oil & Gas Journal Nov. 7, 2011 pp 90-97
"Peak world oil production rate depends on economics and is unlikely to occur before 2018, and risking oil prices and technological developments may further delay this peak
Towler reviews Hubbert's equations and their applications, with the assumptions that additional drilling can increase global production. He does observe that with US reserves of only 10.35 years,
What he does not seriously consider is that prices > $85/bbl push the US back into recession. See publications by James Hamilton etc.
Furthermore, "still years away" fails to address the major investment and delays required to develop alternative fuels. See the Hirsch Report.
David,
we tackle some of the likely constraints to adaptation in our paper Global oil risks in the early 21st century.
We use the UK Industry Taskforce's work to project the likely peak:
Using Hubbert's work is a very good start but this close to the peak we can simply count up the production expected from new projects, subtract annual decline and see that mid-decade amounts fail to match up.
aangel
Compliments on an insightful paper from first glance. (Mostly) clear graphs.
Your Fig. 4 is a very important message.
Please check your Figure 3. Several blocks come up blank for me.
e.g. left most blue (= OPEC?); blue between "other conventional" and "venezuelan"; blue between "arctic" and "biofuels"; and blue upper right.
In Fig. 6 when Indonesia falls into importing, recommend changing from green to bright red and relabeling that portion as "imports".
I don't see any discussion as to the width of bars in Fig. 3.
Any explanation?
Hi, David. Thanks for the compliment.
Yes, Figure 4 is very important. It comes from the UK Industry Taskforce on Peak Oil:
http://peakoiltaskforce.net
Sorry about the difficulties you're experiencing. Let me see if something got lost in the print process. I can't change the paper now as it's gone to press so those colors unfortunately will have to stay the way they are.
In the meantime, the width of the bars represents volume of production in mb/d.
Then I guess "we" means the Western Economies, since you said developing countries will keep growing? But do you realize the latter dominates the world economy today? Global nominal (inflation adjusted) GDP growth since the start of the oil plateau is approaching 20%. So, at the end of the day, does it matters that USA/EU lags a little bit while the others are catching up? I find it quite natural.
It depends upon whether the population and the political process in those countries act as if it were natural. Or if they look for scapecoats to attack!
I would agree with the peak-lite scenario but for two things:
1) The delicacy of product supply chains
2) The prevalence of nuclear weapons and materials
I'm fairly sure that when petroleum fuel gets expensive enough and demand is inelastic enough, export economies will start to fail due to lack of profit. The knock-on effect on supply chains worldwide will cause not just economic, but real-world shortages. Yes, people are clever. Cubans, for example, have kept cars from the 50s running, but you won't keep a computerized car from 2010 running by being ingenious. To make a sudden shift to natural gas or coal oil will be extraordinarily difficult after significant supply chain breakdowns. Worse, such breakdowns are like dominoes. Problems in one area cause problems in many areas. Expect a sudden, rather than a slow decline here.
In addition, as Fukishima taught us, it takes a constant supply of external power to keep nuclear plants running safely. Nobody seems to be rushing to fix this, nor will they until power becomes very intermittent, after which, it is likely to be too expensive and too late. There are also quite a few nuclear weapons in the USA. What happens when the power goes out and there's no back-up and no money for maintenance? Nuclear weapons are expensive and difficult to maintain as it is. If there's even a mild social breakdown, these could be stolen or decay, poisoning the surroundings, or both. When the Soviet Union fell, we were there to help them with this issue. Who will help us, and will we let them?
"I would agree with the peak-lite scenario but for two things:"
Peak Lite simply boils down to "We will start to see peak oil impacts before we necessarily see a peak in oil production." I don't really see how either of the points impacts upon that scenario.
FOR ALL
As expected a nice variety of well thought out views. Of course, most here understand it amounts to preaching to the choir. Now here's the real challenge for whoever wants to accept: now make the same point using none of the vocabulary we've all just read.
I would guess that 97% of the public really doesn't understand concepts such as reserves, flow rate, regional peak oil, global peak production, resource limits, etc, etc. They might understand such terms in general but not the implication to the future. I work with some folks who have a basic understanding about the oil patch but, except for the professionals, can't really grasp much of what has just been offered here. We've all seen the reports of the relative ignorance of the general public: the majority can't name the two countries the US borders, can't name the oceans off the east coast of the US, can't name the vice president of the US (Dick something, right?), etc.
But if a goal is to communicate some sense of PO to these same folks we have to be very selective in our language IMHO. I would offer that financial terms would be the most effective. Almost none of them understand "refinery margin" or "mcf". But they all know what they pay for a gallon of gasoline. But it won't be simple given all they hear about speculators pushing the price of oil up, tankers steaming in circles waiting for prices to rise, those dirty Arabs jacking the price up, etc.
I know it sounds patronizing but how would anyone explain PO to a 7 yo kid? I figure if we can't do that then how can we get Joe6Pack on board? And if we don't then how will the voting public push the politicians in the right direction? If that can't be done, and done very quickly, then we can sit back and applaud ourselves for having the best team on the field even though we lost the game.
And no, I don't have a very good idea myself.
For me the best (or at least one way) to explain it, for anybody that has a basic understanding of integrals (or at least that understands that production is a certain amount of barrils per day) is to say :
- let's suppose(or accept, whatever) that the amount of available oil on earth is finite.
- then whatever the production curve, the consumed/extracted amount up to date T is the area below the production curve from 0 or beginning of extraction to T
- as this area is finite the prod curve starts at zero, ends at zero
- then whatever way you move or change the production curve, as if it was a string constrained by the area below having to stay the same, there is always a top point in this curve
Something like that ...
Note : in a pure mathematical sense you have to put constraints on the curve, or more precisely say that it is the average of the function on any non null interval that tends to zero and goes through a maximum, otherwise you can define counter mathematical "pathological" examples (curve with spikes getting higher but thiner still making a convergent serie for the integral, but without any max level, this of course making no sense with respect to oil or ressource extraction in general)
I would bet everything I own that well over ninety percent of the citizenry of the US doesn't know what an integral is.Probalby half of the other ten percent might understand the concept well enough to get the point.
But only a small fraction of that five percent will be willing and able to think well enough for themselves to take the implications seriously.
Not taking that bet.
I like the idea of using a video game. Maybe something like Sim City where players can choose how to build their own civilization, and deal with limited resources. The relevant mathematical models can be programmed into the game, and the players can become familiar with the problems that we face in real life while playing.
Civilization 5 is great for that. Should be played by every political leader to get a feel for the larger picture.
http://www.civilization5.com
That game looks like a lot of fun. I'll have to give it a try.
It's loads of fun.
Be careful, though, it's known to be extraordinarily addictive. I would look for a local Civilization Anonymous support group before you purchase the game.
"By the time I got to the Industrial Age, I was a full blown junkie."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Br1BWPWEdlQ
"Oh goddam Montezuma. You push and you push and you push and then YOU PUSH TOO FAR. And then I have to rain ICBM's on your Aztec arse."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ccn9V8V10q4
Enjoy!
Too bad most folks are busy playing this stuff. Perhaps they'll be better prepared for what's ahead,, at least mentally ;-/
I have tried this before. I think it boils down to pictures (because nobody has time for a thousand words).
I just returned from my quarterly visit to the Houston office, where I show my face and they continue to pay me. The company(NOV) is very proud of it's history. Pictures decorate the halls, which show men standing on the rotary table of a wood framed derrick from 1905. This image says "simple people using simple tools" and therefor I will pay them a reasonable amount of money to get the oil from 800 feet up to the surface. Now, contrast that with today. Show a picture of something like the Hibernia offshore oil platform. It says something more akin to "moon shot".
So, my three part image wood show a picture of old technology = $10 oil. Current technology = 100$ oil. and, future technology with a big question mark = $?
ROCK, appreciated.
The answer of how to explain it offsite is probably to say:
"We're running out of oil" -- in other words, language that we would not, and probably should not say.
In some ways though it isn't a problem of explaining peak oil to a 7 year old - explanation is only one component of helping to spread an understanding of PO, and not always the most critical one. Not everyone has to understand PO as a problem for dramatic changes to take place that provide a solution to PO.
In some ways this is a problem of media and aesthetics that is the same for the entire sustainable, reality-based community. It can be expressed like this: how do you create a participatory spectacle out of a solution, instead of simply expounding on a problem?
So, for example, if we had 'everyone' in a room, and could explain the finer points of PO in lengthy terms until we were sure that all minds understood, would we have done better for our cause than to convince the same people that it's 'cool' to bike to work? Sure, it's debatable, but I think that it is an important to make in terms of bigger picture strategies for shifting cultural and economic realities.
In as much as PO is seen as another abstract "sciency" threat to status, or BAU, it's going to be a tough sell, no matter what your wording. It is a paradox. Yet for people concerned with the reality of the situation, it's gotta be accepted and worked with. Again, it's a problem of media and aesthetics. People have to see the solutions to problems of PO as beneficial to their status, even if they're completely unaware that the problem is a threat to what they consider to be their fixed way of life.
So for myself, as a citizen, I replaced my front lawn with garden boxes a few years ago. I occasionally hire local hands to work the garden with hoes and rakes, or I work it myself, while other people push lawnmowers or landscapers. There are a growing number in town who do. People notice, but they don't see a loss of status in someone voluntarily toiling for food, they see a project that makes my yard stand out, and that means something symbolic. Occasionally a conversation will result: someone will have questions about why I've turned my lawn into a garden, and I start talking about how lawns are the largest agricultural suck on fresh water, and how fresh water is running out. Friends want to know what I do with the vegetables - I offer them something pickled. People pay attention - they see something more valuable than a lawn. They hear about shortage in terms of a positive activity that can potentially improve their individual status in the most conspicuous of places: the front of their house.
I also keep chickens and bees. I happen to live in a relaxed and progressive community where this kind of activity is already somewhat acceptable, so it works for me. Other places are more uptight. In places like these, a backyard garden is better, or some other conspicuous activity that conserves or takes sustainability into account. Biking to work, etc. What you do, your friends find out about, and they tell their friends. The better informed will understand what you are up to, and endorse or defend you against the status quo. Information spreads, new quotients for status become established.
This is a micro-scale solution, but it illustrates the point of how to engage in conversations about PO. It's not about explaining PO in clear terms, it's about introducing ideas about sustainability, diversity, and limits to growth as a spectacle of improved status.
If you have an oil company, you may not be able to preach to other people in your industry about PO and stay friends, but you may be able to make decisions that are incrementally better for the environment than others, especially ones that are conspicuous. I don't know what the aesthetics and culture of drilling are about specifically, but there are always symbolic activity or actions that form the culture of an industry - these can express tacit acknowledgment of sustainability or limits to growth - maybe using solar panels for some small power source where others burn gas. Maybe some small money can be allocated towards non-profits/local gov't that specifically leave a drill site in better shape than it was before.
These are the little wedges that will shift conversation, and eventually lead to endorsement of the solutions, if not the problems of PO.
"how do you create a participatory spectacle out of a solution, instead of simply expounding on a problem?"
I think they had that figured out in the movie, "Logan's Run".
Chrome - "We're running out of oil". And that's exactly my point. Broadcast that statement in Houston, the OIL CENTER OF THE WORLD, and at least 75% of the population would call you a fool or a liar. And easily proven: gasoline is alomost down to $3.05/gal at our cheapest stations and their are no lines. Obviously we're not running out of oil. In fact with gasoline prices falling we must be finding more than ever.
And don't try to qualify your statement now: this 7 you just showed you how wrong you are so there's no point in listenting to what you have to say...na na boo boo.
Just out of curiousity: have you ever argued with a p/o 7 yo? LOL.
hah! noo not that I know of. It's not beneath me though :)
Chrome - I know my proposition may sound elitist to some folks but I interact a great deal more with the lower 50% of our citizens than the country club set...neighborhood bars/cheap diners. And I enjoy holding forth with these folks. I don't really know how to express the level of ignorance I see. And it's more than just lacking knowledge but the gullibility is truly astounding. I'll skip the details but I've put out some of the most ridiculous statements about resources and they typically buy them without question. Combine that with politicians who understand this and are willing to pervert the truth in order to get elected and it seems very hopeless at times.
And when PO starts to really cause serious pain to many I expect it will be more like dealing with a room full of p/o 7 yo's than rational adults. When my daughter was 7 and not mad I could have a fairly productive chat with her. But when she was p*ssed for whatever reason there was no rational discourse...I just learned to stay out of her way. LOL.
well Rock, not really, it sounds like a better time to me that's all, but I appreciate both ends: elitism runs up and down the scale so, as long as you know that there's nothing to hold against anyone.
No need to tell, I know it well enough. Country club or greasy spoon, both are the comfort lair, so to speak. You can't argue with a troll in it's lair - it already knows everything in there. You've got to draw it out into the clean air and light where it can see new things. Show it something new and shiny, and once it wants that, then you can bargain it off its other thing. IMO, and this is conjecture on my part, that's how the 7yo works as well. A few tears might even work to advantage, if there's a clear and easy way out of the mess. That's got to be shown to folks with repetition.
You can't argue or even reason or ration: this is where the hard facts as determined by our sciences fall apart - when they advance through the mysterious portal of the human mind. They meet their match. IMO when culture abandoned allegory and superstition as incompatible with technical, terminal reality, we lost a lot of leverage that might have come in handy about now.
This is where I tend to disagree with the pure secular view. I see the logic of superstition making sense as an applied science. The scary, mysterious, unknown - we used to refine our knowledge of these things in order to get what we wanted. Now that everything is a rational argument, we've lost our power of persuasion. What else can get the bulk of humans to stop and turn on a dime? The pols and everyone else are going to work it anyway, so why this reliance on facts and data to reach truth? There are faster methods.
There's probably 75 or 100 million Americans who refuse to believe that oil was the core motivation at the root of the Iraq invasion.
There's probably at least 50 million Americans who still wouldn't believe in the theory of Climate Change even if 6 feet of snow fell on Phoenix.
PO has already crashed our economy and held it at bay for 3 years and counting. The public still sits around talking about which bank or agency should be blamed for it.
There are no secrets in the story of PO. TPTB don't need to hide it and they couldn't if they tried. There is more than enough denial and misdirection of blame to keep PO off the front page indefinitely. I don't know exactly what the Rush Limbaughs of the world will blame for all the coming problems, but I'm pretty sure it won't be anything as complex and rational as resource depletion.
HI Rock,
re: "Broadcast that statement in Houston, the OIL CENTER OF THE WORLD, and at least 75% of the population would call you a fool or a liar."
Then, you say, "Who's the 'we'?"
We are running out of oil.
re: "Just out of curiousity: have you ever argued with a p/o 7 yo?"
Time for my favorites: www.gordontraining.com, www.cnvc.org. Lots of free stuff there, BTW. (Supported by the worthy excesses of global industrial civilization. Sigh.) Anyway, "argument" - it's only words, as the song says. Empathy, emotional connection, mirroring (back the emotions and needs). That's the most real. To a seven year old. (And to most of us, most of the time.)
Example: "You must want X really a whole lot!"
Not to tell you anything. You obviously did a great job. :)
Just for future reference. (Grand-kids, perhaps?)
Aniya - I can understand the "we are running out of oil " pitch. Unfortunately as others have pointed out it's easy for the cornucopians to corrupt the concept. Might be hard to believe but a great many in the oil patch don't get PO. The engineers, geologists , geophysicists and upper management do. But we're a minority. The folks in the field are very ignorant of the situation but it's not difficult to understand why PO seems such a disconnect from their world. They work their butts off 12 hours a day for 1 or 2 weeks straight. They see firsthand many $millions being spent. The completion hands see hundreds of $million of production come on line. But that's the problem IMHO: they are too close to the process to see the big picture.
But even the general population in Houston sees the financial gains in the oil patch today. The salesman signing up one oil patch hand after another for a new big V8 pick up gets the same impression: the oil is flowing and there's plenty more where that comes from. As they say everything is OK as long as everything is OK. The obvious problem is when matters are no longer OK and there was no prep for those times. After you rear end that car it's too late to put your seat belt on. Maybe a couple of near misses might motivate a change in your behavior. But maybe not if you just blame the other guy. As we stumble down the PO trail we've seen various "other guys" blamed for price/supply problems. As long as TPTB and the MSM harp on those "other guys" (speculators, etc.) it will be difficult for folks to see the real problem.
Hi Rock,
I've been thinking about this conversation, and I hope you'll read what I plan to post (in a minute) below.
Imagine there is a cookie maker called BJ. His cookies are so delicious that all the kids want to eat are his cookies, but his cookies become so popular that he can't make them fast enough so the cookie sellers have heaps of kids with all their allowance money wanting to buy his cookies. Since there aren't enough cookies to go around the kids start offering more and more money for to buy BJ's cookies. Some kids just use more of their allowance money to buy cookies and others have to leave with less cookies than they wanted whilst other kids can't afford to buy anymore cookies.
Now the sellers of other stuff like toys and games are getting upset. Because kids are spending so much of their money on cookies they can't buy as many toys and games and they have to let their workers go because they can't afford to keep paying them. They go to BJ and ask him why is he not making more cookies and charging so much for them because it is putting them out of business. BJ tells the game and toy makers that he can't make cookies any faster because he doesn't have enough of the secret ingredient to make more and he can't sell cookies without it. BJ explains to them that the secret ingredient is something that he found in a huge store room in the desert. He can't bring it out of storage any faster and as more and more of his secret ingredient is used up it gets harder to get more out of storage so he has to employ more and more people to go get it. BJ explains that he is at peak cookie, which means he cannot make cookies any faster than he already is!
S - Response from the majority of Americans: Obviously "BJ" (Belallada Jahibidad?) is just another Arab crook that has a whole warehouse full of cookies that he won't sell so he can keep charging those high prices. And then to make matters worse some Jew speculator bought truckloads of BJ's cookies and has them hidden in freighters circling off NYC waiting for cookie DT's to kick in so they can gouge those kids when they start begging for their cookie fix. Even the cookie delivery company is messin' with the kids: they have a pile of cookies hidden in a barn in Cushing, OK. But we don't really have to worry: we have a salt dome in S La. filled to the brime with cookies and as soon as the president gets serious about running for re-election he'll send us all we need.
Silly, eh? But how many of us have already heard such analogous "explanations".
R - What is it with Americans and conspiracy theories? I swear the Easter Bunny could be described as 'big chocolate tryin' to control people'. What is it about your education system that it produces some of the brightest people the world has even seen as well as the most soul sucking ignorance?
It probably has something to do with the fact that our most expensive aircraft carriers are absent from our harbors being attacked, our presidents get shot multiple times with single bullets, our trade buildings collapse in perfectly straight demolitions from nothing more than office fires, planes hit our Pentagon and don't leave any wreckage, our CIA officials have admitted to faking Bin Laden videos, our Department of Defense chose the day before 9/11 to announce that they've lost a couple trillion dollars, our presidents fabricate evidence to justify unnecessary wars, etc.
S - The short (and not fully serious) answer is: American TV. Don't have a link but many have seen reports about the public's common inability to separate TV "facts" from reality. Not sure what you watch but "conspiracies" are a very common theme from political/police dramas to comedies. I have only one net work show I'm hooked on...."Person of Interest". Theme: the govt has a super computer that can ID potential threats. Designed to thwart terrorists. But it also picks up domestic threats against citizens but won't interfere with those deadly situations for fear of reveling the technology. So the guy who wrote the software teams up with a bad *ss he uses as the muscle to protect the innocent and/or pop the bad guys. I like the muscle...no "stop or I'll shot"...just blows them away without mercy.
As sure as the sun will rise tomorrow sometime in the next year or so a big chunk of the public will believe such a system really exists and you'll never convince them otherwise. Just like the story reported on another thread that a poll found the most common expectation for our energy future hinged on dilithium crystals...a fictional energy source from the "Star Trek" TV series. I didn't see the original poll but, sadly, it's not difficult for me to believe.
R- The funny thing is that bad *ss kind of reminds me of you in a way, maybe that's why you like it? He isn't your usual action hero, he's an old hand like yourself 'just doing his part'. He isn't your typical full of testosterone/adrenalin action hero. Don't hate me when I tell you that J.J. Abrams or the screenwriter for Armageddon is the executive producer! I have an American TV fetish you see, I download Dexter, True Blood, Walking Dead, Breaking Bad, Person of Interest, Ringer and a few others.
S - I could sense you were all right. LOL. My wife and I are both big fans of BB. WD and PoI are a little too rough for her taste but she'll watch if she's around...but closes her eyes a lot.
I'm not that blood thristy but I do have a strong "eye for an eye" attitude. And like many I have an aversion for folks who can work the system and hold themselves above the law.
The American psyche has a deeply-held mistrust of its govt that is difficult to overstate. That helps lend itself to believing in conspiracies. Our founding fathers tried to dream up the healthiest govt they could imagine, and they still never really trusted their own brainchild very much once they were finished.
The size of the country is probably part of it too. Compared to most other countries the USA has a larger & more elaborate Federal govt and agencies. IMHO the amount of corruption, secrets, and conspiracies probably all increase exponentially as the size of a govt goes up. And nobody questions whether the US govt has epic amounts of corruption & secrets.
The American psyche has a deeply-held mistrust of its govt that is difficult to overstate.
It was a lot more trusting before the last 30 years, in which conservatives starting with Reagan campaigned against government.
Compared to most other countries the USA has a larger & more elaborate Federal govt and agencies.
Are you sure about that? Have you looked at the numbers? The US government spends a much smaller percentage of the US GDP than do the governments of almost all other OECD countries.
IMHO the trust that existed after WWII was gone by the 1970s. Watergate finished the job that the 1960s assassinations started. Reagan and his followers certainly didn't help though.
When it comes to the size of the US govt, I was speaking about the whole thing rather than proportionally measured against the population. It's a big hunk of govt.
IMHO the way we have the country divided into 50 little states shifts more power to the top than you might see in a land mass divided differently. Europe or Canada comes to mind. Having fewer/larger "states" tends to keep more of the power in the hands of the state govts.
S - Unless matters have changed the Swiss are a good example. Beyond national defense the cantons had the real day to day power. I don't know many Swiss so I'm not sure how well that's been working but I suspect the locals are more satisfied than not.
the way we have the country divided into 50 little states shifts more power to the top than you might see in a land mass divided differently.
I think Europe is now regretting the fact that there is no central fiscal policy, and not really a central bank in quite the same way as the US.
I think Jeff Rubin is correct that our worlds will get a lot smaller.
So - I think the question is, can we replace oil for shipping?
Sure - long distance land shipping can go by electrified rail, local can go by plug-in hybrid truck1, and water shipping can find substitutes for oil.
Rail is efficient and can be electrified. Local freight can go by plug-in hybrid truck1. Water transport is even more efficient, and can find substitutes for oil.
Substitutes for oil for water shipping? Pshaw, you say.
No, really. Substitutes include greater efficiency, wind, solar, battery power and renewably generated hydrogen.
Efficiency: Fuel consumption per mile is roughly the square of speed, so slowing down saves fuel: in 2008, with high fuel costs, most container shipping slowed down 20%, and reduced fuel consumption by roughly a third. For example, Kennebec Captain's ship carries 5,000 cars from Japan to Europe (12,000 miles) and burns 8.5 miles/ton of fuel at 18.5knots, for a total of about 1,400 tons of fuel. At a 10% lower speed of 16.6 kts, the ship burns 21% less fuel (about 300 tons).
Size brings efficiency: the Emma Maersk uses about 320 tons of fuel per day to carry 220,0002, tons of cargo, while Kennebec Captain's ship uses about 60 tons to carry about 23,000 tons (see here ), so the Emma Maersk uses roughly 60% as much fuel per ton.
Other substantial sources of savings include better hull (I've seen mention of "axe cleaver" designs - anyone seen details?) and engine design (very large (3 story!)marine diesels can get up to 50% thermodynamic efficiency), and low friction hull coatings (the Emma Mærsk saves about 1.3% with special paint, and bubbles work too).
Container shipping fuel efficiency rose 75% from 1976 to 2007, in an era of very low fuel costs.
Finally, reduction of oil consumption brings a kind of reverse-Jevons efficiency. Currently, some 34% of shipping tonnage worldwide is devoted to transporting oil [source http://www.unctad.org/en/docs/rmt2006_en.pdf , p.16]. If we reduce oil consumption, we reduce the need for shipping. Similarly, world coal trade was about 718Mt in 2003 [source http://www.worldcoal.org/bin/pdf/original_pdf_file/global_coal_market_price(01_06_2009).pdf , p2], at the same time as total world trade was 6,500Mt, so that coal was 11% of world seaborne trade by weight.
Wind: kites mounted on the ship's bow have been shown to provide 10-30% of ship's power - this is cost effective now. See an early article the leading company, Skysails, a followup article showing a commercial implementation, and the Skysails website. These are retrofits: it is likely that far more wind power could be harnessed if the ship were designed to accommodate kite assist (stronger more integrated ship structure to tug upon) rather than merely retrofitted with it.
It's astonishing what can be done with modern materials, computer-aided design, and electronic control systems, to turn the old new again.
Solar: The first question is: is it cost effective? Sure - it's just straightforward calculations: PV can generate power for the equivalent of diesel at $3/gallon (40KWH per gallon @40% efficiency = 16 KWH/gallon; $3/16KWH = about $.20/KWH, or $4/Wp, which large I/C installations have already surpassed.
Ships, trains and planes are outside all of the time, so they'll have a decent capacity factor. Grid tied systems have to deal with Balance of System costs, but a panel in a vehicle should be able to eliminate most costs: it's manufacturing, which is far more efficient than grid-tied systems that require field installation; redundant support structures; and dedicated power electronics. If a vehicle can add a panel for $1 per Wp, and get just 5% capacity factor, it could achieve $.15/kWh.
Let's look at the Emma Mærsk . With a length of 397 metres, and beam of 56 metres, it has a surface area of 22,400 sq m. At 20% efficiency we get about 4.5MW on the ship's deck at peak power. Now, as best I can tell it probably uses about 10MW at 12 knots (very roughly a minimum speed), 20MW at 15 knots, and 65MW (80% of engine rated power) at 25.5 knots (roughly a maximum). So, at minimum speed it could get about 45% of it's power for something close to 20% of the time, for a net of 9%. Now, if we want to increase that we'll need either higher efficiency PV, or more surface area from outriggers or something towed, perhaps using flexible PV. You could add a roof, or you could incentivize 10% of the containers to be roofed with PV - they could power ships, inter-modal rail, inter-modal trucks...
Here' a fun example of a boat that's 100% PV powered, here's a company selling a general approach, and here's a nice pure-electric
"Solar-powered sails the size of a jumbo jet's wings will be fitted to cargo ships, after a Sydney renewable energy company signed a deal with China's biggest shipping line.
The Chatswood-based Solar Sailor group has designed the sails, which can be retro-fitted to existing tankers.
The aluminium sails, 30 metres long and covered with photovolatic panels, harness the wind to cut fuel costs by between 20 and 40 per cent, and use the sun to meet five per cent of a ship's energy needs.
China's COSCO bulk carrier will fit the wings to a tanker ship and a bulker ship under a memorandum of understanding with the Australian company, which demonstrates the technology on a Sydney Harbour cruise boat.
"It's hard to predict a time line but at some point in the future, I can see all ships using solar sails - it's inevitable," said the company's chief executive, Dr Robert Dane.
Once fitted, the sails can pay for themselves in fuel savings within four years, Dr Dane said. They don't require special training to operate, with a computer linked in to a ship's existing navigation system, and sensors automatically angling the sails to catch a breeze and help vessels along." Source
Batteries: Large batteries could provide most of the remaining power needed, to be recharged at frequent port stops, as used to be done with coal 60 years ago (that's why the US wanted the Philippines' military bases, and why they're not needed in the oil era). Let's analyze li-ion batteries: assume 20MW engine power at a cruising speed a speed of 15 knots (17.25 mph) or 20MW auxiliary assistance to a higher speed, and a needed port-to-port range of 2,000 miles (a range that was considered extremely good in the era of coal ships - the average length of a full trip is about 4,500 miles (see chart 8 ). That's 116 hours of travel, and 2,310 MW hours needed. At 200whrs per kg, that's 11,594 metric tons. The Emma Maersk has a capacity of 172,990 metric tons, so we'd need about 7% of it's capacity (by weight) to add batteries.
So, li-ion would do. Now it would be more expensive than many alternatives that would be practical in a "captive" fleet like this - many high energy density, much less expensive batteries exist whose charging is very inconvenient, but could be swapped out in an application like this. These include Zinc-air, and others. It should be noted that research continues on batteries with much higher density still, as we see here and here, but existing batteries would suffice.
Here's a hybrid car carrier from (who else?) Toyota.
Refrigerated storage/transport could go via electric rail, which can certainly be low-CO2; refrigeration can always be made more efficient with better insulation; and there are "reefer" units that are "charged" on land, using grid power, that don't need any inputs from the ship during transit.
Continued here: http://energyfaq.blogspot.com/2008/09/can-shipping-survive-peak-oil.html
Nick,
All of the things you discussed assume an intact supply chain providing raw materials and finished technologically advanced products at affordable prices. It's a chicken and egg situation. Once oil prices increase enough, supply chains break, and until they're replaced with some of the solutions you discussed, that may be a long time coming.
It's possible that we might implement some of this, if people and governments were thoughtful enough to plan ahead and prepare on a massive scale. I'm just not seeing much evidence of that, at least not in the USA and Europe.
Once oil prices increase enough, supply chains break
Short term measures would work to get through a transition: Water shipping can just reduce speed by 20%, and reduce fuel cost per mile by 50%. Diesel could go to $250, and we'd just see a reduction in speed. Trucks can do the same, though the effect isn't quite as large. Trucks can retrofit aerodynamic improvements quickly and easily (though some have already done it, and the effect isn't enormous).
Both rail and trucking combined consume about 10% of oil in the US - if oil prices rose, they'd just pay the going price. Personal transportation, which accounts for 50% of oil consumption in the US, which be the area that would see big reductions.
I'm not an engineer, but it seems to me that with the advances that have been made in shipsize and designs and diesel engine designs that coal powered ships could essily be built that would serve just fine.
I know that diesels have been run on pulverized coal successfully, and that pulverized coal can easily be moved thru pipelines in a slurry.
Ship sized diesel engines are big enough and looked after by well enough trained people, as opposed to truck and car engines, to be practical coal burners.They run for long periods at steady speeds, etc, and space for auxiliary controls, etc, would not be at a premium in an ocean going ship, compared to a highway vehicle.
The loss of cargo space due to the extra space occupied by the coal could be offset by traveling slowewr, and by further enlarging the ship overall.
Coal stockpiles could be located well back from precious dockspace if loaded through a slurry pipeline system.
At this point, I would like to slip in a relevant question, but somewhat off topic:
Several years ago, I read about small closed cycle turbine engines designed to run on the waste heat in the exhaust stream of big diesel engines.`
At that time, it seemed that there was a good possibility these turbines would turn out to be economically useful as energy scavenger devices. (They were NOT turbo chargers used to pack in combustion air.)
Has anybody heard anything about them recently?
Yair...OFM,way back Perkins were playing with the concept for auxilliary drives such as A/C and charging...I'm looking for a link.
Cheers
Paul Nash posted a link on this here in the recent past as a response to something I wrote.
Five annual "Yergin Gap" charts follow, showing the gaps between where we would have been at the 2002 to 2005 rates of increase, versus the actual data in 2010 (common vertical scale). Daniel Yergin, in 2005, predicted a 3%/year rate of increase in productive "capacity," and the shaded areas on all of the following charts would have consistent with a 3%/year rate of increase in production.
(Note that there are some significant discrepancies between recent EIA data and other data sources, e.g., JODI & BP, especially regarding Saudi Arabia).
EIA Total Liquids (including biofuels):
http://i1095.photobucket.com/albums/i475/westexas/Slide1-18.jpg
BP Total Petroleum Liquids:
http://i1095.photobucket.com/albums/i475/westexas/Slide06.jpg
EIA Crude + Condensate:
http://i1095.photobucket.com/albums/i475/westexas/Slide05.jpg
Global Net Oil Exports (GNE, BP & Minor EIA data, Total Petroleum Liquids):
http://i1095.photobucket.com/albums/i475/westexas/Slide07.jpg
Available Net Exports (GNE less Chindia’s net imports):
http://i1095.photobucket.com/albums/i475/westexas/Slide08.jpg
I would particularly note the divergence between the first chart, total liquids, showing an average increase of about 0.4 mbpd per year from 2005 to 2010, and the last chart, Available Net Exports (ANE), showing an average volumetric decline of about one mbpd per year from 2005 to 2010.
CERA, et al tend to focus on the total liquids data while ignoring the GNE & ANE data. Since Yergin is now calling for less than a one percent per year rate of increase in total liquids productive "capacity," which is similar to what we saw from 2005 to 2010 in the EIA total liquids data (+0.5%year), it seems to me that Yergin is, almost certainly without realizing it, in effect predicting a continued decline in GNE & ANE:
http://www.energybulletin.net/stories/2011-10-24/daniel-yergin-massively...
Daniel Yergin Massively Reduced His Energy Estimates
And two scenarios for GNE & ANE out to 2020:
Top 33 Exporters' Production declines at 0.1%/year from 2010 to 2020 (and ANE fall from 40 mbpd in 2005 to 21 mbpd in 2020):
http://i1095.photobucket.com/albums/i475/westexas/Slide10-1.jpg
Top 33 Exporters' Production declines at 1.0%/year from 2010 to 2020 (and ANE fall from 40 mbpd in 2005 to 15 mbpd in 2020):
http://i1095.photobucket.com/albums/i475/westexas/Slide11.jpg
So we've reached Peak Yergin
Or Yergin hit Peak Optimism in 2005.
that's true too
"But peak oil itself is an observation, not a theory."
I'd say it's closer to a fact, or maybe a law. Or better yet, a model.
It's a linguistic accident that causes the word "theory" to be used by science to describe theories that have been so well established that they are now laws. And it's a shame because the rest of the world understands 'theory' to mean unprovable, uncertain, and permanently potentially false. Evolution is a law, for example.
But I'm not sure if PO is quite on that level because I'm not sure there is any real underlying doubt about PO that a theory would need to explain. The underlying theory of PO might be 'the conservation of mass', which is so established and accepted that we do not think of it as a theory (the law that the mass of an isolated system remains the same over time).
The abiotic theory stands to undermine the application of 'conservation of mass' theory to PO by asking if sub-surface oil is really an isolated system. But any hypothesis doesn't stand up to testing, so it's bunk.
So in the sense that PO represents an applied theory of what is really going on down there underground, balanced against the facts of what is really going on up here, in order to understand how much longer we can expect to burn oil, that complicated picture is closest to the meaning of a 'theory'. But really it's more of a model.
It is important to get these terms right, as it helps deal with misunderstandings as well as active campaigns of misinformation. When doubts arise as to our near term future due to phenomenon such as recessions, or shortages, then theories get made to explain them. Our model can be trotted out again and again to explain what is happening, and hopefully our PO theories will adhere more closely with the overall model that we have developed, as time goes on, so as to improve the validity of PO realists in the public discourse.
So, an observation might be "Crude Oil production peaked in 2006", with the theory stating: "Peak oil has passed" with the hypothesis being "oil production will never rise above 2006 levels", with each year being a test case. It's just a theory. But as we use it her on TOD, PO is a general model that describes and predicts the time frame and usage, and gets refined over time as data fills the model. The theory might fail, but the model improves.
As an overall theory PO simply explains the limits on oil as a resource by describing an isolated system (relative to the timescale of our usage) and therefore expresses the underlying law: the conservation of mass - and that should probably not be questioned, although I wouldn't put it past certain cornucopian idealists these days.
Maybe many here can start using the term "peak resource sciences" in their materials as a better terminology with improved connotation.
I would say peak oil is just the application of a very basic Mathematical theorem if you take the basic physical hypothesis that oil on earth is finite, that is all.
(and then of course there are all the modeling or heuristics around how production follow discovery and the like, that can get much more complicated)
Personally, I like the term, "Peak Oil Theory."
But I'm willing to accept that this may simply be an artifact of my own sloppy thinking.
But the value of scientific "theories" lies largely in their abilities to support specific predictions. And there have been a number of good analyses based upon "Peak Oil Theory" which have made specific predictions that seem to be coming true; the relationships between limits to production, price and overall economic activity. So, from my perspective, I'm okay with the terminology we have been using.
Jabberwock,
yea I think PO Theory is OK. IMHO it describes what people do here, which is theorize about when the epoch takes place. Model is a good word though because it's much less assailable than 'theory', from the outside. "Theory" implies some doubt as to whether or not PO is a reality. No-one credible doubts PO, not here or elsewhere. But the majority of people learning about PO are not yet credible themselves, so they look to credible sources. If they hear 'theory', they're more likely to be confused or unconvinced. PO Model on the other hand opens with the right assumption: not if it exists or not, but how it plays out based on data.
But I'm not advocating for a change in terms or how people talk here or elsewhere. I'm just sayin is all! Just trying to strengthen the language.
I agree that the linguistic accident is a shame, but I think it also simply points out the fact that Americans simply haven't been well educated enough in science to understand the nature of a "theory."
OTOH, general relatively is generally understood to be a theory, and most people don't have a problem with accepting it. I think it's when there's a conflict of interest (peak oil -> "bad things happen, I better ignore it or deny it") such as with PO theory when people start grasping at straws.
Baikalic
Yep, and some will never understand it properly - but we oughta try, even if it is only because of the inverse relationship between fertility and education.
What really gets my goat is the education of students in proper Science, but only in the interest of having them be more capable of arguing against its determinations. I've had arguments with young adults who have developed an encyclopedic knowledge of Scientific facts and errors, and can define the scientific method perfectly, but only to support absurd, ideological conclusions.
Of course modern Science is always ideological as well, although it pretends not to be - that's one of it's most effective characteristics but also maybe it's biggest failing. But it's conclusions are not absurd, at least in contrast to the alternatives. But it is too literal IMO. Modern science seems to have unlearned the lessons of the ancient science of mythology and superstition, which was much more handy in managing masses of skittish people when push came to shove. Secular culture applies reason and statistics where it needs to apply authority and absolutes.
Isn't this already happening? Not much to debunk there.
Earl - Not that it's the definitive parameter but to support your point: Texas produces about 30% of all the NG in this country. And a coal-fired power plant is currently under construction literally on top of a Texas NG field I'm developing. At the least those investors are betting with their check book where they think the future lies. Whether we like it or not.
In many states -- I can't say about Texas specifically -- the electric generators have to assume some of the risks for fuel price volatility. Over the last decade, NG prices have been both very high and very low, and the generators have to make guesses about the next 30 years.
I know Texas has some cases where the coal-fired plants are owned by the same firm that owns big Texas lignite mining operations. These were the ones making the biggest fuss about the EPA's new Cross-State Air Pollution Rule, because the tougher SO2 rules meant they were going to have to switch from local high-sulfur lignite with low costs and very reliable delivery to low-sulfur Wyoming coal, with much more variable costs and sometimes erratic delivery. Anyway, their business model is strictly coal-fired electricity; they don't even consider NG.
Or they could put in pollution controls, eh?
In 2010 Texas generated 411.7 million MWH of 'net generation,' more than any other state, and about 10% of the U.S. total. 45.4% of that was natural-gas-fired, 36.5% was coal, 10.0% was nuclear, and 6.4% was wind (the remaining sources are all less than 1% individually). Outside of Texas, the remainder of the national mix was 21.6% gas, 45.7% coal, 20.6% nuclear, 1.8% wind, 7.0% hydro, and 1.5% wood, waste and other biomass (the remaining sources are less than 1%).
The proportion of generator mix is important to several factors, including fuel cost variability, supply risk, and grid operation parameters. As you can see, Texas is more than twice as reliant on natural gas as the average state, and less reliant on coal (despite being the largest consuming state).
It may also have occurred to some folks in Texas that if they burn gas in powerplants they can't sell it to the rest of us. That's a double hit when gas price is high: having to pay more than the U.S. average for electricity (briefly more than California, and don't think folks in the CA power industry didn't laugh about that), and losing the sale value of the gas outside the state.
The 30-Year Update to The Limits to Growth (TLTG) has a World3 model run (Figure 4-11) for: "the world society proceeds in a traditional manner without any major deviation from the policies pursued most of the twentieth century."
The projections from 2002 on show a peak in industrial output around 2014, initially falling off faster than the rise, down to 1900 levels by 2100.
Food production shows a broader peak at about 2012. Population peaks around 2025.
Increasingly inaccessible nonrenewable resources and economic constraints are given as the major reasons for the peak in industrial output.
TLTG showed similar projections back in 1972. Nothing has been done to prevent the scenario from playing out as they have indicated.
Edit: What are the misconceptions regarding the peaks projected by TLTG?
Misconception 6.
NGLs = Oil Total Liquid Petroleum Products are still increasing therefore the oil supply is still rising.
The thing with Peak Lite is that you are assuming some kind of BAU to prevail as in the kind of massive state control that governments enjoy nowadays. If you go back sixty years and look back you will see that governments at that time used to be much smaller and wielded much lesser power over their populations. This rise in power has been due to rise in technology such as computers, surveillance and increased manpower, all of which are functions of increasing use of FF.
Ultimately you have to move troops from place to place, provide rations and salary to them to maintain some kind of control. This is again accompanied by states spending massively on welfare so that they don't appear totalitarian. In a world of declining net energy this structure is simply not feasible. Governments will have to cut massively on spending everywhere and risk losing control. IMO this in essence is the perfect recipe for disaster since it's the governments monopoly on violence that maintains the semblance of peaceful society that we see all around us.
At least from the Asian perspective I expect to see an increase in insurgencies and rebellions due to the lack of an all empowering and protective nanny state.
If I look back 60years, I see the heyday of Stalinist Russia (and conquered parts of Europe), ans the Keyday of Maoist China. It those not inconsiderable portions of the world the local government/party had a great deal of power which it could wield arbitrarily over pretty much anyone it wished to. Outside of North Korea, I don't think anything like that degree of control exists today.
I don't see net per capita energy getting nearly as low as it was sixty years ago in those places.
That is a specious argument. Periods of turmoil have always existed throughout history. You are mixing politics and system dynamics.
What I am saying is that governments today have the ability to airlift thousands of troops within minutes to remote areas, monitor your activities through satellite, track every financial transaction on the planet etc. Did this kind of control exist 60 years ago ? The political climate has changed in the places you mentioned not to mention that there is increase in prosperity, which is why there is more peace. That doesn't mean state power has gone down. As far as Russia goes, Orlov himself has mentioned how local governments started acting independently once FSU broke up.
And how long do you think it will take China to go back to Mao days if unemployment goes to 30%.
"I don't see net per capita energy getting nearly as low as it was sixty years ago in those places."
Per capita energy use in the USSR and several satellites was quite high (just look on the oil gaz production curves on mazama science for instance).
It was also very wasteful, a guy that used to go in the USSR quite a lot was telling me that for instance, you could sometimes have shortages of matches, so that people would leave their gas stove running 24/7 in order not to use matches ...
Don't forget that stalinism/communism was also a "glorification" of industry and technology.
And if places like Cuba have less energy today, it is also because their energy needs were subsidized by the USSR, same for North Korea.
And by the way the main "weapon" used by Reagan to bring the USSR down, was to stop (more or less) some gas pipelines projects from Russia to Europe, as well as to push the Saudis to increase their oil production starting 85 86 (oil glut counter oil shock), in order to cut USSR foreign currencies revenus (and it worked, revenus cut 2/3).
These are perfectly well documented historical facts.
China is another matter.
Yves,
I am currently working in Russia, and I can tell you the Russian thermostat is still in use, ie open the window when the heating is too hot. This is because the community heating from the hot water radiators don't have any control valves. A very robust and reliable system but not very efficient.
It maybe that I am working in an oilfield town but the roads at peak hour are totally clogged with V8 Land Cruisers and other large SUVs, mainly imported 2nd hand Japanese right hand drives. Fuel runs about a 1 USD/litre, which I consider cheap.
The Russians have plenty of low hanging fruit if they so wish to cut back, but the population in my eyes don't see need at the moment. It will take a big education program and price signals to change that.
"The thing with Peak Lite is that you are assuming some kind of BAU to prevail as in the kind of massive state control that governments enjoy nowadays."
It seems that no matter how many disclaimers I put on it, people are determined to misunderstand what is meant by Peak Lite. Once more, it simply boils down to "We will start to see peak oil impacts before we necessarily see a peak in oil production." I fail to see how that assumes BAU. It doesn't even say that there won't be a massive die-off. It just says that even if oil production eeks out a few more barrels and sets a new record, the effects of peak oil are already here. I can't figure out why people continue to misunderstand that.
Misconception 7 (and counting...)
The impacts of peak oil will be homogenous. Wrong.
Grave danger arises if we consider that the impacts of peak oil will be spread uniformly around the oil-consuming world. In times of shortages the people/nations with oil will keep hold of it to sustain civil order internally, while those without oil will get none regardless of how brightly the barricades burn or who is in the Big House.
We see this already, for example as in Russia which needs oil at $120 a barrel next year to balance the books and keep the mobs who were angry at fuel costs and food prices early this year off the street next year. We saw it in Egypt where the transition from exporter to importer toppled the regime while its neighbours looked on and prayed that their own disenchanted masses didn't notice. Wrong again.
I have asked my own country's multi-national oil suppliers about their distribution policy in the face of an excess of demand over supply at any cost. Will they allocate a uniform share of the available oil to all customers? Will they allocate based on say transport costs, or previous buyer history? Will they allocate the remaining oil to favorites first and the devil takes the hindmost? All have answered that they do not have any 'allocation policies' at all. Some suggest that 'the market will settle it',
So unless you are living in a country with decent export volumes today, or very solid supply agreements (South Korea for example has some supply agreements in place for the next 100 years!) then you will be out of luck.
As oil supplies become unable to meet demand commercial private company managers sitting at desks half the world away will make decisions about allocation, and individual nations will simply blink out. Their neighbours will be concerned only that next door's resulting internal strife and hordes of energy refugees are able to be contained at the border without requiring the allocation of too many scarce resources (fuel for gunships, gunpowder, lead etc).
Think Mexico, quite soon.
Remote island nations with no national supply agreements or clout will simply vanish from the global stage to go quietly through their own unravelling, untroubled by any embarrassing aid shipments or relief efforts from afar.
As these little nations blink out their imports cease, foreign manufacturing declines, and the economic and social pox spreads. Likewise (as in Libya) any oil production they may have had will also run into strife, removing that morsel from the global table.
Second-to-last to go will be the major importers with comparatively strong supply agreements, China, India, USA, Japan, Germany, France, Italy, UK etc. With the abrupt shutdown of these nations of course go all their nuclear power plants as well; their Fukushima Perfume wafting where ever the wind blows, the scent of those bad ideas lingering for several half lives of the worst of the worst. Millennia..
Last back to the stone age will be the present oil exporters. As global supplies tighten these will of course become prime places for all oil-using industries and for energy refugees; both of which will exacerbate the rate of closure of their rising internal demand with their own falling supply.
IEA et al already predict that Russia and Saudi Arabia will be using all the oil they produce by around 2025. That is the end date for the rest that even the most optimistic readers of entrails must accept. 2025. So by that date the rest of the world is already rubbing sticks for fire and throwing stones at each other, and the current exporters will not be far behind. 2025; my youngest grandson will be just 16; what a world I am leaving him.
I just cannot see it working out any other way.
"IEA et al already predict that Russia and Saudi Arabia will be using all the oil they produce by around 2025."
I read those more as "eye openers" statements based on current evolutions than predictions. It will for sure not evolve/end up that way, oil/gas is also the main revenu source of KSA and Russia, and KSA isn't producing any mercedes or even refineries and all other products currently bought using their oil revenus to keep their population quiet, not to forget fed (they in fact dropped all their agricultural projects due to water aspects : more expensive to do some agriculture with oil based desalinized water than import the food/grain from oil revenus).
Russia is different but similar aspects also valid (not to mention Russian Oligarch placing their money in the "west", buying football clubs, or real estate in London or the riviera).
And then there is also China.
As to how it will turn out not sure ..
Nothing to add really, just an observation...
Since first visiting here four years ago, I've noticed the "tone" of commentary here appears to have moved from technical banter to one of almost-resignation. Four years from now: The Oil Doomers?
I do know that my fellow Joes and and Janes will NEVER get it.
Regards, Matt
FWIW, I think a lot of creative and 'technologically hopeful' discussion gets regularly salted with scorn, sometimes fittingly as being too cornucopian, but often enough for all the rest as well.
It works (sadly) just as well as the 'Fair and Balanced' news does by driving their car on 'One part Energy and One Part Friction' as if they're supposed to be supplied in equal measure.
EDIT: - Tough Analogy, my using the car there, since a very similar one, but not the same, is the Analogy that says we need to slow down a lot.. and we do. But my critique of the approach insisting on 'equal parts positive and negative in our plans and conversations' is a very tricky balance, and in this frightened atmosphere, almost any expression of courage, hope, options and cooperation can get quickly lumped in with the 'Absolute Cornucopianism' .. .. Hey, Baby in the Bathwater there, swim!.. swim hard! Don't give up!
"to one of almost-resignation."
Well, it's important to put our energy in a place that's likely to make a difference and not just be swept away by the forces of a contracting economy. That might look to some people like "resignation" but I would assert that it's simply having a powerful relationship with circumstances as they are, not as we wish them to be.
For instance, I think Nick's push to have everyone drive EVs is plainly a waste of money and time given the rapid economic contraction I foresee. Building public transit, teaching household resilience and growing food, stop telling kids to get ready to use "the wave of the future — computers" when the economy will have little use for those skills that won't be fulfilled by experienced people out of work, these are the things we should be doing.
But it all starts with relating to the future as Great Depression II — The 100 Year Version rather than a little dip that we'll rapidly recover from. Greer believes that we're heading into a new Dark Age and when I really look it's a hard argument to refute. I foresee 80% of the institutions of higher learning in the U.S. closing by 2020. When unemployment reaches 30%, the students are just going to dry up.
"I foresee 80% of the institutions of higher learning in the U.S. closing by 2020."
I imagine we'll see more of this as colleges compete to survive: 5 colleges slashing tuition
This is just the beginning and is a natural outcome of overproduction.
Whenever a sector creates a glut, the factories slash prices to stay in business. Sales continue to decline as market conditions deteriorate, however. They might slash prices some more but eventually cash flow is insufficient to meet fixed costs and the factory closes.
overproduced product == educated people
changing market condition == a specialized economy that is rapidly generalizing as a debt bubble deflates and non-human resources become expensive
factory == college or university
The best investment would be to short the private colleges.
OTOH, the tuition differential between private/public colleges is closing fast. I think the big decline is likely to be in the State U's -especially the non-flagship campuses, as the middle classes get priced out. Of course there may not be many opportunities to short them, although real estate around university towns might be a place to start looking....
Hi Joe! We each have to take from this forum what we can believe and accept at the time. As the quote in the side-bar says "..we are entering a period of consequences." Personally I am quite upbeat about my own chances as together with my family we are working hard on providing us with a sensible 'retirement property' with all possible preparations made there for the coming interesting times. Our most important preparations are mental and spiritual; even if our haven is denied us on the day we will be OK.
I suggest that what you see 'here' is not resignation (which implies a sense of defeat) but rather acceptance of the new conditions that will beset us. With that acceptance we are then able to start making the 'other arrangements' necessary for our safety.
It does mean that we are having to work double-shifts. I do my Business-as-usual-work during the day to keep the business-as-usual-money coming in. But at other time we are working the second shift planning and executing the things necessary to build a future that is as good as we can manage before economic, resource or other dark forces bring the inevitable change to our nation's door. I wish I had a few more people helping us build our lifeboat, but I can only do what I can. Good luck!
Hey Nigwil,
Well done on putting in the hard yards (even if the black swan arrives, that can't be a bad thing).
Unfortunately I'm stuck; have been for quite a few years. Even though I'm married to a math-science teacher who gets compounding growth/finite resources are a fundamental issue, she refuses to accept any possible consequences. So all three kids get their braces (teeth) at $5k a pop, the 14yo gets his three week trip to Germany next year (another $5k), etc... That is, it's BAU for Mr & Mrs Average.
I guess my point is, when you're on your own there's nothing to be done (we don't have the land for a decent-sized vegie patch, for example) and - at least in Australia - bringing up Peak Oil or such around the barbeque is pretty well a no go zone. Can't imagine that changing unless another GFC occurs; even then I'm doubtful. Of course by then, it'll be too late anyway.
The only ray of hope I have for my long-term future (and for the wife and three kids) is that by the end of next year all our personal debt will be squared away. Surely TPTB in this country can't stuff things up that quickly...
Regards, Matt
I’d like to see some discussion of the extent to which this peak may be natural and unavoidable, rather than the deliberate result of agendas which seek to destroy capitalism and/or technological society by placing as much of the remaining supply as possible — especially that in Western countries — permanently off-limits and making up un-called-for “environmental concerns” as a way to marginalize objections to those policies.
This is not some crackpot conspiracy theory — it comes directly from the openly published agendas of environmental groups and the UN, of which those quoted here are typical.
I also believe it is unfair to blame oil consumers for the results of wars, even given the dubious notion that the wars were fought to obtain oil, if the consuming country has plenty of oil in the ground but is prevented by greens from producing it.
There are over six years of exactly this discussion on this site. Everything said now has basically all been said already.
I recommend that you look through the archives.
A good place to start is:
TheOilDrum.com Archive 2005-2010
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/7191
Best of luck in your research,
André
You might want to start by checking the quotes on the website you referenced. I think you'll find that they are generally either fake, or being misinterpreted.
Hi Robert,
Thanks for sharing your views and your considerable experience.
I'd like to address what your article calls "Misconception #1" because I have a differing POV, and I'm hoping to expand the conversation. I realize this is a tricky undertaking, since we just have "words" (like the old song says, substituting collegial TOD friendship for romance WRT my intentions, http://www.lyrics007.com/Beegees%20Lyrics/Words%20Lyrics.html)...
So, taking a deep breath, (and humming!) - I'd like to give it a try:
1) I can understand (and greatly empathize with) your frustration (shared by many of us) with the conversations and articles where, as you say:
"Many articles that seek to debunk the notion of peak oil start with that premise, and then respond by highlighting historical instances where someone influential suggested that we could be running out of oil."
2) To propose some common language, I'd like to quote the Oxford English Dictionary WRT the phrase "to run out":
Quote:
http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/168875?rskey=jsDsvq&result=1#eid246621404
to run out
1. intr.
(a) Of water, sand, etc.: to flow out of the container, part, etc., which contains it; to leak out.
Examples:
1974 Pop. Mech. Sept. 63/2 Any water which comes in over the gunnels can run out through the self-bailing drains.
2000 M. de Villiers Water i. i. 11 A child had opened the stopcock on the tank and the water had all run out.
Endquote. (Please note the second example sentence is using the past tense.)
3) re: Robert says:
"In its simplest form, peak oil means that just as oil production in the United States peaked in 1970 and began to decline, so shall global production do the same."
Is it fair to say the following:
A) "Because the earth and all its resources are finite, the global supply of oil began to deplete, i.e., started running out, the moment the first oil well went into production."
B) "Oil production in the United States peaked in 1970 and began to decline, because oil was always running out - since the supply is, as always has been, limited and finite."
C) "In the beginning of taking oil out of the ground and using it, there's a whole lot of oil and it's easy to lose sight of the fact that the supply is finite."
D) "Once we reach what is called a "peak" in production, it's much easier to see that the supply is finite and limited."
E) "In its simplest form, 'peak oil' means that we now see and, more importantly, experience the effects of the fact that the supply is finite and limited, and we have always been running out."
F) "Just as the United States began to look outside it's national borders for new supplies of oil once 'peak of US oil' drew closer, and the US began to import this oil from outside it's national borders, so the entire world tries to find new supplies once the peak of global oil is closer, and/or perhaps upon us (as a whole)."
G) "We - as a total global population of 7 Billion people" - are running out of oil. We always have been, from the beginning of oil production and when there were far fewer of us."
H) "Since we are past, at, or near 'peak oil', "we" - the entire global population, now experiences much more directly that we are running out. The problem we face is this: Who is the "we"? Some of us may not experience "running out" firsthand very soon. Others of us will - and already have."
4) Re: “They have been saying that we are running out of oil my entire life.” (Sorry I can't seem to find the quote source at the moment. Let me go ahead and use it, for the sake of argument.)
A) How about this:
"Yes, "they" have been saying that - and it's true. You personally may not be "running out." In the bigger picture of where oil is found, who finds it and who gets it, "we" - all humanity - is running out. This only became obvious when people began to think about two facts and one conclusion: 1) the supply is limited, in terms of the planet; 2) It's very useful stuff and humans have used to make oil-eating machines and devices, which we (humanity) then became dependent upon. Hence, the result is global industrial civilization. Note the word "industrial." Conclusion: 3) We now have many more humans and machines, i.e., end-users for oil, than we have supplies in total and this is now obvious."
5) Re: Back to you statement just prior to your definitional statement:
Robert says:
"In fact, anyone concerned about peak oil will readily acknowledge that we are going to be producing oil for a very long time, and when we stop there is still going to be a lot of oil left in the ground."
1) It seems to me, in light of studies such as this following one - not saying I like it, nor necessarily agree with every aspect of "it" - (Note: My VHO-view is that the conclusions of this study are a BAU trajectory. I have the view that the trajectory BAU is subject to deliberate and positive modification.)
I merely present it as what appears to me to be a sound, comprehensive overview of the topic of "peak oil."
In any case, here's the reference: http://www.global.ucsb.edu/climateproject/papers/index.html.
So, in light of studies such as the above, (although this is really one-of-a-kind, correct me if I'm mistaken) - it is does *not* seem to be a fact one can "readily acknowledge" that...(as you say)..." that we are going to be producing oil for a very long time."
2) Robert says: (second half of sentence):
" and when we stop there is still going to be a lot of oil left in the ground."
A) Yes, let's assume there is still going to be a lot of oil left in the ground.
Now, the "issue" I have with this is that...I kind of wonder what the utility is of saying this in the context of the sentence as a whole.
Do you see what I mean?
There may be a lot left. Can "we" (Again, who's the "we"?) get it out of the ground? Apparently not, as far as my understanding of production methods tells me.
Or, am I mistaken about this?
So, I guess my question is: Are you trying to say that there's a chance new and/or yet-to-be-invented production methods will facilitate much greater oil extraction in the future than has previously been the case?
6) If we're still hanging in here - and thank you - I'd like to add this:
Re: Robert quotes: "In its simplest form, peak oil means that just as oil production in the United States peaked in 1970 and began to decline, so shall global production do the same."
How about this: "And, the problem we - humanity - faces at this time is that global production decline is a much bigger deal with many more and much larger implications than is the US production decline."
2) To propose some common language, I'd like to quote the Oxford English Dictionary WRT the phrase "to run out":
That definition is not really the definition we are talking about. When we say "run out of oil" we don't mean that it runs out of the ground. We mean: run out: 1. To become used up; be exhausted: Our supplies finally ran out.
Now, the "issue" I have with this is that...I kind of wonder what the utility is of saying this in the context of the sentence as a whole.
The issue is simply this: We will never run out of oil. So those who characterize peak oil as "running out of oil" are fighting a straw man. Most of the people who argue against this straw man have the viewpoint that peak oilers literally believe we won't have oil for much longer. In fact, many believe it's going to be very rough on the back side of the curve, but oil is still going to be produced.
Robert,
Semantics aside, your general POV leads to the above conclusions. In our little world of folks who comment on this subject, we have the Cornucopian's, declinists, and doomsters. Your position appears to be in that middle group. The question is: how does one arrive at that conclusion? And, what are the consequences of an "expert" giving this prediction?
Also, the problem is far more complicated than just PO - it is a confluence of PO/GW, plus an array of other extractive shortages, degradation of the ecosphere, species extinction, etc. Obviously, humans are the single cause of this predicament and the only species on the planet that has the ability to reverse the damage.
Why would well meaning, knowledgeable people want to propagate a fairly optimistic message as underlies your post? It seems to me that there is the potential for a lot more pain than "going to be very rough on the back side of the curve". Not sure what "rough" means but it implies something manageable. I think what Aniya is suggesting is the idea that humanity could actually be facing some very serious consequences - including various types of collapse and perhaps significant die-off.
Aniya has previously argued that we need some respected entity to perform an in-depth, rigorous, scientific study of PO for the US government. Only the NAS seems positioned to do this - and yet, to date, they have only touched upon the subject. Most folks on this forum dismiss this suggestion with a variety of rationales - none of which make any sense to me.
I argue that we have still failed to sufficiently define the problem in a manner that can be explained to the general public along with trusted scientific credentials. I realize that "trust" and "government" are difficult words to use in the same sentence - so, whose fault is that?
Here is my suggestion: spokespeople in this field (like you, who I sincerely believe have the best of intentions) stop offering any specific predictions and, instead, demand that our government (here in the USA) focus our best scientific minds on the analysis of this problem - think the effort to develop the atomic bomb or fly to the moon.
Why would well meaning, knowledgeable people want to propagate a fairly optimistic message as underlies your post?
Well, the average person would not consider my expectations of the future "optimistic." It might only be characterized that way among this group. For instance, I don't believe most people will be able to afford to fly, and the airline industry will totally collapse. I see little likelihood of keeping those planes flying on biofuels. The average person can't imagine that.
I believe that standards of living are going to decline for a very long time, and people are going to have to use a lot less oil than they do now. There won't be a choice; they won't be able to afford it. Mobility like we enjoy today is going to vanish. Again, the average person is not expecting anything like this.
If we look out in time, many people who predicted peak in 2005 were expecting imminent chaos. Remember that Matt Simmons was predicting an imminent natural gas disaster, and was confident enough on his projections of declines that he bet on a $200 average oil price for 2010. So things haven't been quite as bad as Matt envisioned. But they have been bad; the global economy is a mess and is teetering on disaster. But if you look around us, life for most people is not drastically different than it was in 2005.
Now if we look to 2020, I expect it will be clear to everyone (even Yergin) that oil has peaked, and we may be putting austerity measures in place. In any case, I expect we will continue to see the same thing we have seen over the past 5 years. Unemployment will be very high, any president who is elected is going to face problems that he can't solve, and our expectations about the future will totally change.
My vision of the future by most measures isn't good, and if the government thought it would play out like this they would probably be willing to attack this problem with vigor. But just because I don't expect a massive die-off doesn't mean I expect that we simply tighter our belts and work through this.
Mobility like we enjoy today is going to vanish.
Electric vehicles of various kinds are the primary solution for ground and water transport, not biofuels. Why won't EVs work?
I agree that PO will reduce economic growth significantly over BAU expectations, but I really see no reason why oil won't be replaced in fairly straightforward ways over the next 50 years.
Electric vehicles of various kinds are the primary solution for ground and water transport, not biofuels. Why won't EVs work?
They won't work at that scale at which we currently consume oil until that level comes down significantly. For instance:
Source: http://theenergycollective.com/geoffrey-styles/69090/breaking-our-oil-ad...
In the long run, I agree that electric cars will be responsible for a large chunk of our transport, but not at the mobility levels we enjoy today.
Robert,
That article doesn't say that EVs can't scale up. It just says that we'll need to replace a substantial percentage of ICEs with EVs to make an impact. That's kind've self-obvious. Note that the author says: "I suspect EVs [will] turn out to be the long-term solution to our transportation needs..." (words rearranged for ease of reading)
On the other hand, it's misleading: half of all miles driven come from cars less than 6 or 6.5 years old, so it won't take that long for new and better vehicles to make a difference.
We have 230M light vehicles on the road. EVs currently get about 3 miles per kWh - if you do the math, you get a need for about 110GW to power the whole fleet. That's not much - it's only 25% of current generation. 75% of that can come from night time charging right now, and could easily be provided by wind and nuclear over the next 25 years.
Robert,
I agree with many of the statements you make but not with the conclusions that moving to mainly electric transport will compromise mobility levels.
1)I accept that biofuels will not be able to replace much more than 10% of present oil consumption and with virtually no saving of energy use.
2)in the future conventional and tar sands oil may only account for 10% of present oil consumption
3) even with improvements in batteries EV's may only have a little more than 200 miles electric only range and costs may mean that most people will only be able to afford vehicles with 100 miles electric only range.
That means that if most ICE vehicles are replaced by PHEV's, about 20% of VMT could still occur with biofuels/ oil based fuels, or more than this if a significant number of households have an EV as a second vehicle for city travel and PHEV for intercity transport.
The real question is how quickly PHEV's replace existing ICE vehicles versus how quickly oil production declines.
It seems that the two important considerations at present are the improvement in existing ICE vehicle fuel economy and the ability of vehicle manufacturers to ramp up EV and PHEV production.
Historically the vehicle manufactures have made major transitions in re-tooling in less than 10 years( for example switching sedans to station wagons or sedans/wagons to SUV's). It would seem reasonable IF demand continues to exceed supply for at least 10% of vehicle sales to be EV/PHEV by 2015 and >50% by 2020, with the balance ICE vehicles having 50mpg fuel economy.
While this wont do much for oil demand before 2020, each year after 2020 about 5% of VMT would be EV/PHEV( say an av 250mpg liquid fuels basis) and 5% VMT ICE vehicles(50mpg). This should give yearly reductions in liquid fuel use of 7%(2.5% savings from ICE and 4.5% from EV/PHEV).
This is assuming no reduction or increase in VMT.
Much higher oil prices would would result in larger savings due to households using high mpg or EV/PHEV in preference to low mpg vehicles, faster retirement of low mpg vehicles, car pooling and a shift to mass-transit/ walking/cycling etc.
I suspect that vehicle manufacturers could re-tool much faster than they did to meet demand for SUV's perhaps in less than 5 years rather than 10, providing demand for EV/PHEV continues to exceed supply.
It's worth noting that Business As Usual includes a plan for US CAFE MPG to improve by 50% by 2016, and 100% by 2025.
That's BAU, and assumes only moderate market penetration of EVs.
There is no reason whatsoever to believe penetration rates will be that high given that most of the world will be in turmoil from unemployment, civil unrest and lack of credit.
We know what happens when credit gets cut off: car sales plunge because 90% of cars are purchased on credit.
We know what happens when societies have high unemployment: there aren't enough people with money to purchase goods like cars AND, at least for a while, the people get very restless.
The U.S. labor market was already rapidly changing for various reasons...and now high-priced oil is going to make it even worse:
Here is one projection from York University for what happens to Canada, another industrialized nation, were economic growth to stop in 2015:
Now you can only imagine what it will be like with significant and prolonged contraction.
We are living in a unique time and the current conditions aren't going to last much longer...if you aren't planning for a serious discontinuity in our economic future, I think your projections are going to be profoundly wrong, like this, ahem, unlikely forecast from Boeing:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/17/business/global/17boeing.html
Who on TOD believes these numbers? We all know they were based on a price for fuel that isn't going to happen which is in turn is based on fundamentally flawed numbers put out by the IEA and EIA.
My prediction? 50% chance Boeing asks for a bailout sometime before 2015, 100% chance by 2020.
Aangel,
Not me! Just to support your basic contention with a little personal antidote: Around the year 2000, I was party to a high-tech, venture-capital fueled IPO in the logistics sector. The basic business case was pretty solid and dealt with real-world movement of goods about the surface of the planet. It could have been a pretty reasonable, long term business operation - instead, it crashed and burned in a few years. Unlike a lot of goofy dot-com stuff at that time, this business delivered an actual value in the physical world of moving tangible goods around. The problem was unrealistic projections based upon fantasy assumptions about growth, technology adoption, and all sorts of rosy thinking. It morphed from a solid little service provider to a high octane, stock-price driven frenzy of Excel based projections of future profits. Millions of dollars poured in and more millions were taken out in stock options and other creations of the financial world. Engineering and quality were shuffled to the back row as slick Power Point presentations ruled the day. And, then it crashed due to poor quality, cost overruns, missed deadlines, etc. A few folks made lots of money; many were left holding the bag.
What did I learn: most business forecasting is pure BS. Sometimes the forecasts are correct because the winds are blowing favorably and it would be hard to miss. Sometimes the companies involved are really honest - these are getting harder to find. Most often, business forecasts, like the Boeing one, are meaningless. They are driven by quarterly reporting to share holders, massaged by marketing folks, molded by executives fearful for their jobs, and almost never taking into consideration the common good of the community or the planet.
Rules of Rationality Club
1) You can't fool Mother Nature
2) You can't fool Mother Nature
3) You can easily fool Mother's Homo un-sapiens
... especially if you appeal to their sense of exceptionalism (a.k.a. vanity)
... and their never-satiated greed
... and their belief in authoritative pontification
... by persons of noble breed
... namely those who speak deep & slow
... and sprinkle numbers into their power pointed show
... as if the sound of their phony calm
... and the numerology in their lucky charms
... is the bell toll of sound logic
4) Only irrational people join this club (Rationality Club)
5) Repeat rules 1-5 (twice a day)
Hi, Dave. Yes, unfortunately, I've seen these pie-in-the-sky business projections all too often, too.
But the people inside get all caught up thinking that they are going to come true and see $ signs in their eyes. It's sad to see solid businesses fail because of this kind of thinking.
Mind you, it's sad to see a solid species like ours do the same thing. How many people honestly think the planet can support 12 billion people? Lots do. But some of us know that the ecosystems are already near breaking and climate change is going to arrive faster and stronger than many of us thought just five years ago.
We know what happens when societies have high unemployment: there aren't enough people with money to purchase goods like cars AND, at least for a while, the people get very restless.
Over the last 3 years the unemployment rate has been 9-10% and many would argue another 10% are under-employed. New car sales have been 8-10 million per year because there are >120million people with jobs.
Your thesis seems to be that people wont adjust to permanent high oil prices by replacing low mpg vehicles with high mpg or EV or will not be able to purchase any new or used vehicles because no credit will be available.
If very high oil prices cause an extremely deep depression (>20% unemployed) some purchases will continue, and most likely EV and PHEV 's will be in high demand exceeding capacity for at least the next 5 years( until capacity is in the millions units/year).
If oil prices range from $100-200/barrel the US may stay in a recession and vehicle sales may decline somewhat but again expanding EV/PHEV capacity will be the limitation.
What happens to the airline industry is not really relevant to car sales. The economy can function without any airline traffic, but considerable road and rail transport is essential.
This is where I think you are making a significant error. Vehicle sales are, in my estimation, going to plummet at one point. The current crop of car companies will fail and the current EV and Hybrids will stop being produced. A new set of companies will arise but they will have to make much simpler cars that are less expensive.
We are just at the beginning of downward wage pressure and still in front of a major worldwide economic discontinuity i.e. another Global Financial Crisis. Except that we won't be able to bail ourselves out because too many sectors of the economy will be impacted next time and we've likely reached the limit of debt load.
When unemployment hits 30% (roughly what it was in the Great Depression), then 40%, then 50%, the number of people with jobs will be much less, credit will be almost non-existent and if the U.S. defaults on its debt OR hyper inflates it away (one or the other is going to happen because we know that it can't be paid back without growth), the car industry across the world will collapse.
In my view, your projections have zero possibility of coming to pass. Before the GFC in 2008, it was reasonable to make the argument that there was a remote chance my views wouldn't come to pass. Now, however, we know exactly how this is going to play out because we've already seen it happen once. Our fragile economic system will experience rapid collapse to a much lower level of economic activity.
Again...it's certainly possible that we'll screw up our economy, but not because of a lack of oil.
There's lot of evidence: e.g., the world economy has grown 20% since 2004, while oil has been pretty flat.
My prediction? 50% chance Boeing asks for a bailout sometime before 2015
Remember: Hamilton's work applies to oil importing US, not to the whole world. For example:
"Airbus SAS and Boeing Co. finished the Dubai Air Show neck and neck on contracts, in an event dominated by Boeing’s biggest-ever order...Boeing left with an order from Emirates for 50 777-300ERs valued at $18 billion at list price and pulled in another for two 777 freighters from Qatar Airways Ltd. worth $560 million. "
We are living in a unique time
Have you read "This Time Is Different: Eight Centuries of Financial Folly" yet??
Hi Robert,
Thanks for your reply.
It might be easier to take some of the quotes from people you're talking about, and then we could talk specifics.
Meanwhile, since you didn't quote the people you're frustrated with, I'm responding to your point, as you state it.
1) I'm willing to accept your definition "We mean: run out: 1. To become used up; be exhausted: Our supplies finally ran out."
There is a difference between past tense and present tense. There's a difference between a process currently underway, and one which is finished.
A says: We are running out of oil.
Robert says: "We will never run out of oil."
A's question is this: Who is the "we"?
Same question holds for this: "peak oilers literally believe we won't have oil for much longer."
Is not ELM about "Who is the 'we'?"
2) I believe perhaps I did not communicate well WRT my point that you quote here: "Now, the "issue" I have with this is that...I kind of wonder what the utility is of saying this in the context of the sentence as a whole."
I was referring to your saying that there will be plenty of oil left in the ground when we're through - i.e., through extracting the oil we can actually get. (Yes?)
I was questioning the utility of that, in the context of the facts of oil depletion.
To say, there will be oil left.
But, we cannot extract it.
What is the utility of this point?
I asked if you are trying to say there will be a new extraction technology. I didn't see that you responded to this question.
In other words, are you trying to say that there will be a new extraction technology, so that the oil that is there and we now think we cannot get (when we're done) will then be available? And we will be able to get it?
Hi Aniya;
I do appreciate your desire to clarify the language, but in this case I think it is more a debate played with semantics and rhetoric, not hard-definitions.
The Misconception has allowed detractors to keep pretending that "PEAK OIL" is supposed to mean 'The Tank is Empty', which they can quickly refute, and say 'Look, No PEAK, there's still oil. I can still get gas. (So Stop Lying to us.)'
Think about how many people out there will push their gas tanks to the end of the reserve, when the 'GAS' light has been on for 10, 20 miles (I always heard I had 30) ... betting that there will be a station out ahead somewhere to save the day, since so far, there usually has been one.
That is "Running Out", for people.. and that is when they think they actually have a problem to deal with, and not before.. certainly not anywhere near a half tank.. it's a very tough picture to paint with a proper sense of alarm.
I Think the analogy I would try to push would be the one that paints Peak Oil like Asthma ('Peak Breathing'), since it is the flow rate of Oil that waters the economies of the planet, and the constriction of it really can even now show countries getting winded and blue in the face.
Not at all easy to find the right, quick way to explain this all.. as my brother says, 'There's a lot to be said for Brevity.'
Best Regards,
Bob
Global Asthmatic Oil Syndrome (GAOS) --what we are starting to suffer from (gasping for gas)
Has a nice ring to it and gets the desperation part of the message across. Good one Bob.
Thanks..
The 'cartoon version' that I haven't drawn up yet (!!) is folks standing in the 'rising tides', comparing notes on who still has TWO NOSTRILS up, who has merely 'ONE NOSTRIL TO THE WIND', and others, who are measured by how many lengths of straws now connect their nostrils with the surface.
(It's important that they all regard this range of conditions as 'Perfectly Normal and To Be Expected')
The Misconception has allowed detractors to keep pretending that "PEAK OIL" is supposed to mean 'The Tank is Empty', which they can quickly refute, and say 'Look, No PEAK, there's still oil. I can still get gas. (So Stop Lying to us.)'
Thanks, Bob. This paragraphy really says it better than I did.
While we are having a semantic discussion, I have to say I see Aniya's point still. Her rhetoric did give me some additional insight.
I think the difference in point-of-view, to me, is that Bob & Robert are having an argument with Yergin, and Aniya is maybe more in the 'explaining to a 7 yr old' mode. I mean, the problem, as she says, really is that "we are running out of oil". Sure, when Yergin comes back and says "but we're pumping more each year!", you can still say, "that doesn't mean we're *not* running out". 'Running out of gas' in your car is a relative problem, it's not absolute either - if I'm driving on the interstate, running out of gas might mean I can't make it 100 miles to the next town (i.e. 5 gal left), but if I'm in town already, it could mean, "I probably can't make it another block to the next Texaco". You've also got to define 'we' here - the USA is certainly going to define running out differently from MENA, who are going to 'run out' at a different number of 'gallons in the tank' from a village of people in S.E. Asia who do subsistence farming on river water and are relatively near the source. So, I don't know, "running out" isn't a bad first-level explanation to Joe 6pk, he's not exactly going to have a copy of Yergin on his bedside table. I fully understand the argument has to proceed past that point with those of us who are somewhat aware of the more intricate details, but the first level problem is that we are 'running out' of ANE's, no? Perhaps the strict definition of 'peak' (vs. 'inadequate flow levels to support economic growth and debt/fiat currency') is more the semantic issue?
Steve
Hi Bob,
Thanks.
re: "The Misconception has allowed detractors to keep pretending that "PEAK OIL" is supposed to mean 'The Tank is Empty', which they can quickly refute, and say 'Look, No PEAK, there's still oil. I can still get gas. (So Stop Lying to us.)' "
1) The "tank" is not empty - yet.
2) The day there are shortfalls in a particular region, then "the tank"(s) will be empty. Those tanks, for those people. (Quote ELM, here.) Another version of this is: well, OK, there's oil/gasoline - and an unemployment rate of X. (Insert Hirsch quote). Lots to be had, if one can have it. But one cannot.
3) They will be surprised, perhaps? "Nobody warned us!"
I'm not trying to play with semantics.
I'm trying to say that "We're running out" is what's going on.
Hi Aniya;
I'm afraid I was unclear when mentioning 'semantics'. I'm definitely not accusing you of playing with them. What I'm trying to convey, is that In the PUBLIC SPHERE, where Peak Oil is daily misrepresented and dismissed out of hand is where the Semantics are at play and need to be understood, I believe. It's critical to know just as well 'What they are hearing' as much as the justifiable definition behind 'What you are trying to say'.
This is one of the reasons I think Science-minded folk can have so much trouble in the PR realm. Definitions take a back seat to Perception.. the sands are shifty, so stating it even in absolute concrete terms is still no guarantee of getting the right message across. My wife is the 'Purely Literal' one in our relationship, and this catches us up again and again. In an extreme example, I asked her something about 'the left side of the car' once, and she said 'Left side? -- looking from where?' (And no, she's not an idiot.. but in 3-d Computer Graphics terms, I was on an Object Coordinates system, and she was on the Global Coordinates, I suppose.)
The distinction between 'Fuel supplies are running out' and 'They have run out' is negligible in the public's ear, which is to say that there's no talking about Running Out until that Gas Light has been on for a couple miles, even though you've been running the stuff out all along.
To try to get across to those who haven't got it yet, 'Hey, this is a real concern.. listen up!' When we're talking about a 'Global Gas Tank' that has volumes of liquid fuel in it (plus 'alternates') that is so far beyond any one average person's conception as they know it from their daily needs.. it just doesn't compute. (and I don't think They're Idiots, either..) They are worried about the Mortgage bill that they mailed right on the edge of the deadline, they're trying to sort out Candidates, or .. and they have left the Major Systems Thinking that tells them how all the stuff in the shopping bag got all the way to their town for someone else to worry about. Too overwhelming, and it seems to be hanging on ok for now.. and worst of all "We'll Cross that Bridge when we Get to it.." (ie, 'Ask me again when we're REALLY running out, otherwise, don't wake me up until it's an emergency! I need some sleep.')
So yes, Aniya, we ARE running out. But framing it in those terms makes it too easy for others to turn that into "Those screamers are back at it again, don't mind them, everything's fine.. we're just barely at Half-time!"
We have to learn what can get through and actually be heard, just like the OWS organizers and Move-On are having to learn what succeeds from our old Protest/Activist Models, and what needs to be rethought and experimented with. As my brother likes to quip about an imaginary relationship, "You never told me you couldn't communicate!"
Hi Bob,
Thank you. You're right - I read into "semantics" more than you intended! :)
Let me see if I understand your points:
1) It's important to know what "the public" perceives by a message and/or use of terms, such as "peak oil."
2) The framing "we are running out" is not a useful one.
Fair enough?
I'd like to reply:
Point two, to take them in reverse order: Here's how it appears to me:
1) "Peak oil" is a subset of depletion that began on day one, - or "running out of oil" that began on day one - of oil extraction.
I think what Robert was trying to say is that the subset "peak oil" is not equivalent to the larger set we can label "oil depletion is continuing apace." (so to speak.) or, label "oil is running out."
However, he said it in such a way that he took the "subset" out of the larger set. (To say it's a myth.) Rather than locating PO within "oil depletion."
It may be - *may* be - more clear to say:
"Yes, "peak oil" says we're running out. That's not the main thing it says, though. It also says, and you're so right, that there's a lot of oil around. There's oil in Alaska! For sure some oil there.
The problem is: It was finite to start with. It still is finite - and now there's less of it. We, the world, humans as a whole use a whole lot of it - a lot more of it all the time, if we want to keep growing the global industrial economy. So, having some amounts, even large amounts - even Alaska! - left is still *not* as much as the entire world wants to use. (We "ain't seen nothin' yet" - in terms of what the world wants to use.)"
Anyway, my two cents is that the problem is not in the distinction between "is running out" and "They have run out." It's more in the issue of the resource being limited to begin with: do people understand this? And then, the fact that the world - as we in the industrial north experience it - is based on a whole lot of oil use (that cannot continue).
Maybe I should have said this in reply to Robert:
I agree quite with the effort to address the perception of "the public"/pundits/talk show personalities.
It's frustrating and difficult. I applaud the effort to understand public perception and address it.
And I'd like to add to the effort. I also think it requires a little more conversation to clarify Robert's point one.
One idea might be to take a representative list(using quotes) of those things people say (that Robert objects to) - and brainstorm some ways to address them.
And have fun while doing so. (Bob would support this part!)
It's so easy to sound oppositional. My goal is a "telling of the story" that is 1) truthful/or representative of the facts and 2) works.
I personally had a disastrous conversation with a Rush Limbaugh fan. It started out fine until I made the mistake of saying "Oh, you must listen to Rush Limbaugh!" - in reply to him saying "There's a lot of oil in Alaska, but the liberals won't let us get it!"
Big foot in mouth on my part - it personalized it (unintentionally) and I lost that person, so to speak, when we had been in sync (of sorts) until then.
Hi Bob,
I hope you'll come back to read, as I've been thinking about this exchange and posted again, below.
It took me some time to be able to articulate (to myself) exactly what my "issues" were with the formulation of Robert's argument, and - more important - what the commonality is, and where we can go from here.
The issues are important enough to consider carefully, IMVHO.
That's why we're here - yes?
A recent study forecasts a continued increase in world oil demand. But after 2020, the study states, that demand will drop sharply. By 2035, the study states, the world demand will be under what it was last year. Resource for this article: New study predicts world oil demand will peak in 2020.A lot of countries are trying to reduce their dependency in oil due to its high price.
You might want to look at some of our net export charts up the thread:
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/8585#comment-850639
And an article on Peak Oil Versus Peak Exports:
http://www.energybulletin.net/stories/2010-10-18/peak-oil-versus-peak-ex...
I don't really see a conflict between the ideas of ELM and Peak Demand.
I think that non-Chindia importers are being priced out of the global oil market faster than they can implement energy conservation measures, which, in my opinion, is why Brent averaged $97 in 2008, versus $112 through October, 2011. Of course, the other way for demand to fall is because of a contracting economy.
Well, this requires looking at complex details.
Oil consumption can be reduced by simple conservation; demand reduction; efficiency; and substitution.
Conservation is just reducing what you do: perhaps the convenience of popping out to the store daily isn't quite worth the gas, and you shop every other day instead. This is inconvenient, but often not a big deal: one uses gas where it produces more value than the current price, and if prices rise one drops activities of lesser value.
Demand reduction (aka a shift in the demand curve) might be caused by economic contraction. That's painful, although the contraction isn't necessarily caused by the oil prices.
Efficiency is cheap: moving to a more efficient car may cost very little over the life of the car. In fact, a Prius is cheaper than the average new vehicle.
Substitution is often also very cheap. Moving from kerosene to electricity was an improvement in every way. Moving from oil-fired generation to coal, gas and nuclear was generally an improvement and large cost reduction. Heating oil's replacement by efficiency, NG and heat pumps is generally an improvement in quality of life.
EVs (hybrids, PHEVs, EREVs and puree EVS) have a lifecycle cost which is as low or lower than ICE vehicles, and have much better handling and performance.
The US has reduced net imports by 25% in the last 4 years, while GDP has recovered to what it was 4 years ago. In general, the US economy and consumers are far better off for the 25% decrease in Net Imports:GDP.
Hello again Bob and Robert, lou and Rock
Given the gravity of the issues we are facing, I’ve given some thought to this exchange, and I’d like to try this: Regarding point #1 of Robert's presentation:
1) It is true, in a strict sense, that there is not an equivalency between “peak oil” and “running out of oil.”
My understanding is that “peak oil” is an important turning point in the story of depletion/”running out”; PO is an indicator of “running out” – one with many shocking and emotionally difficult implications.
To try to put it in a sort of logic framework, I’d call PO a “subset” of “running out” or depletion. As jokuhl/Bob puts it – the tank is half full.
2) As I read Robert’s argument, it says the same thing as my first sentence above, namely, PO does not equal “running out.”
3) However, the argument (Robert’s argument) then takes an unexpected (to me) turn, because it reads as though A) Having made the claim that the “PO equals running out” is a “myth” or, as I’d re-state it: a falsehood,
B) The argument appears to back up this claim by saying that “running out” is, itself, a falsehood.
Three reasons are given: 1) There’s a lot of oil left, still; (this is implied, although not explicitly stated in what follows, namely...); 2) “We” will be producing this oil for a long time; 3) even when “we” can longer produce it, there will still be some left in the ground.
Where my views coincide with Robert’s argument is in the assumption of there being a lot of oil left; this is an assumption which I take to underlie the argument that we will be producing it for a long time. (I see it as follows: There is a lot of oil left in context of the trajectory of oil depletion or, in the process of "running out.")
This assumption is the critical issue.
What is the best use of this remaining oil?
Is there any way to change the BAU trajectory so as to achieve any number of goals we might deem worthy – i.e., lessening suffering, retaining any features of what we call “civilization”, etc.?
Also, we can ask: What are those goals?
Clifford Wirth, a professor emeritus of public policy (U.New Hampshire) put forward the idea of having the National Academy of Sciences look at global oil supply, impacts (of decline in production) and policy options. A few of us took up this idea, which is explained further here: www.oildepletion.wordpress.com. (Please note: we need to re-open and/or re-locate the petition; help most welcome.)
It is very similar to an idea proposed by Martin E. Hellmen, a professor emeritus of electrical engineering (Stanford) regarding the risk of nuclear war and nuclear terrorism. This risk is also one that, it seems to me, greatly increases with the advent of PO, hence, is also relevant, as is the approach. Both are real and urgent topics,
http://nuclearrisk.org/petition.php
What I’d like to ask both Robert and Bob, lou and Rockperson and everyone else:
Could you possibly - please - lend support to our efforts - constructive criticism is welcome, as is any support for helping us in any way.
Aniya,
If you're still here that is, the above is basically correct.
"Peak Oil" is a socio-economic concept.
It refers to a time when we, as humans with finite economic and other resources and while operating under a free market basis, can no longer afford to extract oil from the Earth's crust at a greater global production rate than the last largest one we achieved.
Some people wrongly believe that PO is "geological".
Geology however does not put constraints on how crude oil may, from a scientific perspective, be obtained.
It is our socio-economic systems and current technological capabilities that put these constraints into place.
Imagine that a super-race of aliens came to this planet with no concern for what they left behind and no limit on energies they expend for squeezing out the last drop of oil from this planet's crust. In that case, "geology" would not constrain them at all. They would take apart this planet rock by rock and sand particle by sand particle until they had gotten it all.
From an energy efficiency angle, that would be stupid of course. They could instead get way more in the form of hydro-carbons from the larger gaseous planets of our solar system, i.e. Jupiter, Neptune, Uranus.
In that sense, "we" are a very long way from "running out" of hydro-carbons because we have not even begun to tap into the astronomical amounts available in our solar system.
But then again, it's never been about "running out".
It's always been about what we can socio-economically extract.
Hi step.
Yes, I'm here (when I can be.)
This discussion is interesting. (I must say I wish I could garner some attention on my final points, however!)
Anyway, I'd like to respond to your comments. You actually are packing a lot in here, and I think we need to be careful.
1. When you say: "If you're still here that is, the above is basically correct."
It is correct in the sense of logic, which is the sense I intended to use.
I see it (not to repeat): PO is a "subset" of "depletion"/"running out" - so, it's not the case the two are equivalent. One "maps" completely to the other (as a "subset") - the other does not map completely back. We had depletion from day one, and "peak" or different versions of peak - with, well, "peak." Peak appears to be a one-time only "event" - (bumpy plauteau, whatever), given current set up - technology that you mention.
BTW: One of my sort-of nits with Robert - although I passed over it in interest of addressing what I see as the more important point, anyway - his sentence about "peak" - isn't really a definition. Not sure he intends it to be. But saying: peak means just as US peaked, so will world peak - doesn't explain peak. Anyway, let me still leave that.
Also, I could've sworn Robert said something about "straw man" in his first reply to jokuhl (always cool!) Bob. Anyway...
2. "Peak Oil" is a socio-economic concept."
IMVHO, it's more accurate to say: PO is *both* a geological concept and a socio-economic concept. Let me try to elaborate:
A. There would still be limits, even if the earth's crust was thin and the entire remaining inside (as you allude to with space-alien analogy) was filled with oil.
So, it's more helpful to start with the physical limits, and then we can turn to the thermodynamic limits, which is what the socio-economic limits are connected with - (are they not?)
B. re: step says: "as humans with finite economic and other resources"
Yes. Now, let's see: One of the most important of the finite resources is energy. This ties into the both the general limits: physical, and the limits of the laws of physics. Yes?
The limits themselves are what the issue is. Although, I will say: one can speculate on taking away one limit, for eg., we can speculate: OK, given infinite energy! - then what? Well then, again, there are limits:
1) to the other resources on our dear, little planet and also,
2) WRT the laws of physics. http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2011/07/galactic-scale-energy/
C. re: Step says: "while operating under a free market basis..."
Well, I question this. My question is: One - how free is the market?
Two - under a different "system" - let's take a total command economy. As long as the economy is industrial and based on oil - you'll still be constrained by the physical and thermodynamic constraints. I actually question whether there's that much difference between a command economy or a different kind of economy and the one you call a free market basis, as long as the idea is: more, more more.
Now, we can imagine - and, in fact, propose and try to work for - greatly limiting the extraction rate. So, I can imagine a concerted effort (that is de facto the same as a command economy, global) to limit extraction.
Of course, the more humans constrain extraction, the more is left. Maybe.
Wups. The "maybe" kind of bothers me, as I just thought of it.
In other words:...we then run into another issue which is: no matter how you slice it, the current extraction technology is part of a system: materials, people, machines (that eat oil and also use electricity-based inputs) - to keep the extraction technology functioning. So,in other words, and this didn't really hit me until just now: eeeek. We can imagine that a "forced limitation" can possibly have the same outcome as the continuation of BAU on the current trajectory, which I intellectually (not emotionally) see as a collapse trajectory.
Do you see what I mean? Minimum operating level - to keep the extraction system going. I suppose it depends on who the end-users are. (ASIDE: Let's assume we're trying to minimize human suffering, as another premise. Then, we need some levels to do whatever "renewable" switch *may* or *maynot* be possible - before I divert on that, let me just say - I've asked it hundreds of times: can we switch to an electricity-based, global industrial infrastructure; if so, how.)
3. Anyway, before my circuits blow up, let me try to tackle this:
step says: "Geology however does not put constraints on how crude oil may, from a scientific perspective, be obtained.
It is our socio-economic systems and current technological capabilities that put these constraints into place."
A. I question again, you're saying that geology does not put constraints. I believe it does.
B. re: Technology capabilities. Are these not also a function of scientific knowledge?
I believe so. The scientific understanding may force recognition of 1) A limitation, in theory, of particular technology extraction methods; so there's that limit.
2) And then, we get the unknown future - with scientific breakthroughs.
Terrific! But the potential of continued scientific advancement, which might alter the scientific assessment of technological capacity, itself is a process - an undertaking, as it were - that requires the continuation of a system: persons, with education, with funding/food, etc. and lots of spare time (to spar/converse with each other when not otherwise occupied) in order to propel forward the "advance" of science, which may or may not be on the horizon.
So, just to say:
step says: "But then again, it's never been about "running out"."
Yes, it has been. It's been about both: 1) what is there and 2) what we can get - and they are inter-related.