Peak Oil *i'm going to be sick*

I just got done reading this:

http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/Index.html

see here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=1196017&mesg_id=1196017

it's been discussed here ad nauseum.

Everybody calm down. The whole collapse scenario is based on a few bad assumptions, the biggest one being that we'll keep accelerating into a brick wall.

Yes... oil is not infinite. It will get more expensive. At some point, alternatives will become more economically feasible. We need to expand those alternatives, but civilization will not collapse and billions will not die because of "peak oil".

Get a grip.

edited to fix a dumb error

eom

Peak oil is a meme that makes things like the rape of ANWR not seem that bad.

Let's do some tracking to see where these reports are coming from...

... talk about making energy decisions for the wrong reason. Grabbing oil to prevent civilization from going KABANG!!! is just the kind of overreaction that will send us in the wrong direction.

The EU, Pentagon, Union of Concerned Scientists are fighting to get proper attention paid to global warming and not so much peak oil for a reason: Allocating energy to agriculture and other essentials, and leaving people to commute on mopeds and buses is NOT the end of civilization.

But a 6C rise in global temperature, or the stoppage of the Gulf Stream IS a threat to civilization and all life on Earth. That means the greenhouse effect has got to be out major focus, instead of trying to find more of the fuels that will make the problem worse.

are for drilling in ANWR or grabbing other people's oil. Because, in our delusional dreamscape, that's a short term solution. You will find probably no more dedicated group of people trying to find a clean energy source to stop global warming as well than us psychos, here.

...all its own; people will at some point take your fear and at the same time dispense with your judgement because its not expedient. Best to push for change in energy policy for the right reasons.

I can think of MUCH more environmentally-aware groups than DU. If there are energy projects that DUers are helping with, they are awfully quiet about them.

:0

most people who are talking about Peak Oil realize that ANWR has enough oil for less than a year, so it won't help...

and "these reports" have been around for DECADES now!

I'm surprised more people aren't showing concern that this is what will happen if we don't take action.

So many seem to be saying "ah, no problem!" We'll find more, technology will *somehow* fix it.

When what we need to be saying is "holy shit, we'd better get off our fat asses and fix things NOW"

Because if we don't, the worst case scenario WILL happen.

Problem...

I am also a little concerned (politically) about why it is being promoted at this time.... makes you say, hmmmmmmm.

The bell curve of peak oil is ONLY one small factor to look at.

Expotentially growing consumption is actually a bigger worry to me (read China and India)...

The reports I have seen on peak oil take a rather negative view on the supply side... From what I know about current Gulf production (which is more than I care to), their predictions are OFF.

Peak oil is fear mongering... We must work to solve our energy problems, but let's not start popping prozac over it just yet.

I am just saying, let's examine the arguments and begin planning what can be done!

We need a REAL energy policy, not a peak oil freak out!

because the basic facts are irrefutable.

Demand is rising. The supply won't be able to meet the demand. Whether it's already happening or won't be happening for another 40 years is really beside the point. Unless you don't have children.

Me, I have children.

At the very least Peak Oil means some pretty nasty inflation, which will only get worse as the supply continues to level out, and the commodites market totally freaks out and the price goes through the roof.

Look what a little instability in Venezuela's doing to the price of oil right now.

Anyway, throughout history, when there has been really bad inflation, much chaos has ensued. Think of Germany pre WWII.

And there won't be an immediate fix for it unless we take action in advance, like NOW.

This is one case where I think a little fear is a good thing. We need to get off our asses and figure out a way to tackle this problem.

Jimmy Carter tried it and got crucified for it.

So most politicians aren't gonna touch it.

It's up to, well, us, the people. Again.

Hmmm? :)

the government needs to step up and offer some serious tax incentives so people like my landlord will see an economic reason to install things like solar heaters.

This is one case where the government has to do a hell of a lot to make changes. The markets ain't gonna do it.

...that's a typical response. Solar heating is cheaper than conventional in many cases; It can return the investment in as little as 4.5 years.

People here do not install them because they lack curiousity about real problems and don't particularly care. There is this expectation that it is up to the government, but in the U.S. that means it is really up to the big corporations to decide and they do not want to get the public started on solutions that any competitive, medium-sized company can offer... because they want to be big and monopolistic. (Hence, the hideous monstrousity called "the hydrogen economy".)

And when the markets tell you 'no' by keeping the costs higher, sometimes what we need to do is say 'yes' and pay a little more anyway.

it's a typical situation. You see most of us living in the real world. As in, get this, not rich, barely have enough money to pay our rent. The number of people in this country with the ability to make 'investments' is quite small. Here's a clue, go to your nearest major metropolitan area. Now go to its nearest poor dilapidated area, you know, where most of the people in that city live, they're not too hard to find, you'll notice a definite change in the variety of people. Clothing will change from suits and business attire to whatever will keep someone warm, and there is a decided lack of cell phones. Now stop your car on the street. Get out and tell some of these people we're going to run out of oil soon so they better get off their asses and make that 10,000 'investment' so we don't all die. Okay, let me know how it goes.

...to just say people don't care about installing solar.

I'm planning to convert my house to solar energy, but it's going to take $20-30,000 dollars to do so. If it weren't for a modest inheritance from my mother's estate, I couldn't possibly afford this expense. And even having made this decision, I'm still wrestling my way through the bureaucracy involved -- such as figuring out local planning regulations and trying to get my local power company to provide information. Beyond that, I'll have to go out-of-state to even find a licensed contractor, since there are none in my area.

Most Americans are up to their eyebrows in debt and can barely meet their mortgage, much less add another $30,000 to their debt load. Add all the other roadblocks to negotiate and you begin to understand why so few people are going this route. And don't even get me started on Homeowner's Associations and what they would probably do to block the installation of all those unslightly solar panels.

Using a solar water heater is often cheaper, for instance, with quick ROI.

And why aren't banks offering rock-bottom interest rates for financing these systems? Don't they want to appear 'green' too? How many people are asking for such loans?

You should be commended for undertaking a solar conversion (esp. if you are paying for PV electric). But my point was that it doesn't always take a sacrifice to put a sizable dent in fossil fuel use; It can be to your personal benefit.

with tax incentives and the like.

If my landlord knew he could make a buck, or save a serious buck, by installing solar, he might do it (although knowing him I doubt it seeing as how I pay the gas bill, not him).

But that's what we need, and that's the whole point, is we need a government that will at least acknowledge the problem!

Carter did, and he got crucified. Reagan came along and said "markets will take care of everything!" and people wanted to believe it.

If the world can simply be educated about this situation, we can start to fix the problem and hopefully avoid the worst-case-scenario of Peak Oil.

If we ignore it and assume everything will be hunky dory, we're gonna be fucked.

who is a guy who would rather hire a plumber to come out and unclog the main sewer drain once every two months than spend the money to fix the problem permanently.

He's not a real forward-looking kind of guy.

so you disagree that we are close to peak oil?

so...

when do you think we will hit PEAK and please provide links.

because it is easy to understand the ramifications of being on the downslope of oil production and surely you understand that is something to be concerned about when we hit it especially if we are not making large gov investments into alternative fuel.

thanks :hi:

peace

That's hilarious.

obviously, I meant oil is NOT infinite.

.
.
.

for the oil deposits to be created ?

and that we've used 25-50 percent of known resources so far ??

And I read all five of the pages and followed some of the links at the http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/Index.html link a while back . .

It appears pretty well written and well researched to me, and fills in a lot of blanks in my previous knowledge of some environmental problems

Who would have thought it would only take us a few hundred years to pollute the Great Lakes to the point that alot of them are no longer safe enough to swim in, let alone drink ?

That was a "It'll never happen" scenario, - but it did - -

"Global warming" ? - pshaw !

Now we have icecaps breaking up, ice flows appearing further south than ever before, and even in Alaska residents are seeing alot more green than they did 50 years ago, the ice caps, permafrost are moving further north - -

Species extinction, . .

and so on

so

I think this "Peak Oil" thing deserves a close and responsible eyeball . .

Just My Canuk Opinion tho . . . .

I meant oil is NOT infinite. Sorry.

...that your message was almost all about the environment?

Peak Oil is real, but it rates a "big pain in the ass" in comparison.

Oil is no realistically infinite. There becomes a point where the little there is is too difficult to get and will not make it to where it needs to go.

Hmmmm ... "oil is infinite". You imply thereby that earth (a finite body of finite mass) is composed partly of a infinite amount of matter. How Zen of you, but rather useless if one's aim is to assess the topic.

sorry. oil is finite.

Having to correct yourself is Infinite in a heated DU thread.

:evilgrin:

how true. But one does what one can. We all make mistakes.

Just read another post of yours on the topic ... made much more sense. Agree that we have time to develop and deploy alternatre systems. But ... we don't have time to screw around. The peak oil concept is actually an old idea. We've known for 30 years we would be facing that scenario one day. We have done previous little to prepare for it, and I think that is what has people so wired.

but I really do, perhaps naively, believe in the ability of humans to solve problems when there's a buck to be made for doing so.

I've worked for 20 years in Silicon Valley.... I've worked with some of the brightest people on the planet. There are trillions upon trillions of dollars to be made in developing alternative fuels. That effort will not begin the day the last well runs dry. It's already begun.

We will all be much better off when we move away from fossil fuels. "Peak Oil" is not even the best reason why.

It is said to be almost as soothing as watching two large buildings implode while chanting 'evildoers who hate freedom' as you board the plane with your butane lighter in your pocket.

and I am still on page 2. I want to read the whole thing before I make a jusgement but. WHOA


I am telling everyone I know about it. It's mind blowing.

We do indeed have an energy problem... peak oil, however, is a myopic look at one piece of statistical information

http://www.mediarights.org/search/fil_detail.php?fil_id=05456

.
.
.

I don't think some people have checked the sources for this story - just from ONE article (one of the links in the "life after the oil crash" site)

I quote the folowing from people that appear to have VERY considerable credentials . .

From Kenneth S. Deffeyes

Kenneth S. Deffeyes is Professor Emeritus at Princeton University. Before joining the Princeton faculty in 1967, he conducted research at the Shell Oil research laboratory in Houston and taught at the University of Minnesota and Oregon State University. The coauthor of Physical Geology and the author of numerous papers, he is perhaps best known to general readers as the guide/mentor in John McPhee's series of popular books on geology, collected and republished under the title Annals of the Former World.

"Over the weekend of February 22-23, the U.S. price of natural gas doubled, from $6 to $12. West Texas Intermediate crude oil jumped from $20 per barrel a year ago to $37 on February 24. Even without a war in Iraq, there is now a major problem with the world energy supply.

World oil production may have peaked in the year 2000. Production in 2001 and 2002 was lower, and 2003 is not off to a great start. The problem is production capacity, not reserves or resources or potential. I can't say at the gas station, "Fill her up with reserves." World oil production is around 67 million barrels per day and the current unused capacity is around 2 million barrels per day, mostly in Saudi Arabia. Because of declining production in the rest of the world, opening all the valves wide open in Saudi Arabia after 2004 probably would not bring the world total back up to match the record year of 2000."

/snip/

and from: Colin J. Campbell

After finishing a Ph.D. in geology at Oxford University, C. J. Campbell joined Texaco in 1958 as an exploration geologist in South America, later moving to BP with assignments in Colombia, Australia, and Papua. In 1968, he joined Amoco in New York as regional geologist for Latin America, becoming Chief GeologistS in Ecuador in 1969. With the opening of the North Sea, he returned to England in 1972 as General Manager of the Texas independent Shenandoah Oil Corporation, before rejoining Amoco to become Exploration Manager in Norway in 1980. In 1985, he was appointed Executive Vice-President of Fina in Norway. He is now a petroleum consultant and has had commissions from the Norwegian Petroleum Directorate; Bulgarian government; European Commission; Amoco; Shell; Esso; Amerada; Mobil; and others. He specializes in oil resource assessment, having published and spoken widely. His book “The Golden Century of Oil” was published by Kluwer in 1991, and “The Coming Oil Crisis” by Multi-Science Publishing Co. in August 1997. He has co-authored several major studies on world reserves of oil and gas and their depletion for Petroconsultants as based on their authoritative data.

""We already are in the form of the threatened U.S. invasion of the Middle East. The U.S. would be importing 90 percent of its oil by 2020 to hold even current demand and access to foreign oil has long been officially declared a vital national interest justifying military intervention. Probable actual physical shortage of all liquid hydrocarbons worldwide won't appear for about 20 years, especially if deepening recession holds down demand. But people are coming to appreciate that peak is imminent and what it means. Some places like the U.S. will face shortage sooner than others. The price is likely to soar as shortage looms, which itself may delay peak.

If the U.S. does invade there will likely be a repeat of Vietnam with many years of fruitless struggle in which the U.S. will be seen as a tyrant and an oppressor, killing all those Arabs. It can't hope to subjugate the place in perpetuity as the people don't surrender easily -- as the Palestinians have shown. So when the U.S. has finally gone, Russia and China will likely be welcomed there to produce whatever is left in the ruins."
.........................................................

There's ALOT more than one statistical information article out there
that was researched and compiled by the "Peak Oil" website . .

And THEY are not the people suffering from MYOPIA !!

I for one will be paying alot of attention

And,

anyone notice a rather drastic increase in the cost to fill up their cars lately ?

or their heating bill this winter ?

hmmm ? :shrug:

And you'll get cricket chirping in reply.. hehe..

.
.
.

silly Canuk that I am . . .

:silly:

of the overall energy picture.

There is the demand curve. Which looks scary right now...

There are many unknowns such as technological developments, etc.

It like looking at the number of murders in the U.S. in a given year 11,000 or so and running screaming into the streets... we're gonna die!

Please, let's look at the bigger picture.

I am with you on energy... I am just averse to the 'Chicken Littling' of the issue.

Energy advice from a lawyer?

His scenario will not come to pass because it makes bad assumptions. For instance, agriculture is most dependant on natural gas, and we have decades more supply of that than we do oil.

We DO have bigger problems with respect to global warming, and have to start doing the right thing now for future generations to survive.

The Germans as far back as WWII were converting coal into oil.

And what about biofuels???

Diesel biofuels, alternate electrical sources, electric and hybrid vehicles are the future.

Smarter city design... energy efficient mass transit.

Absolutely, our society will change. I might actually argue that it might be for the better!

I fear too few people really understand the scope of the problem involving a looming shortage of petroleum, especially when they refer to coal as an "easy" alternative source of energy. I doubt too many folks here really know what is involved in the mining of coal, but let me make some comments here regarding the lmitations of coal as the successor to oil. Please bear with me for this will be quite long but it is IMPORTANT that folks learn just as much and be just as concerned about coal mining as they are about the oil industry.

Certainly we have the existing technology to run most of our power plants via the burning of coal, but there's a "slight" <ahem> problem with this -- the mining of coal expends a LOT of energy in terms of petroleum, especially deep mining. Coal companies don't strip mine just because they're lazy, folks, it's because at some point you cannot get a profitable return on coal if you spend more money getting it out of the ground than what you can get for it on the market. (The same principle applies to some of the existing oil reserves.) Certainly the planet has copious amounts of coal reserves, but how much of that is "clean coal", ie, low-sulphur grade? A lot less than you think. Due to federal restrictions on the burning of "dirty coal" (high-sulphur coal which badly pollutes when burned) the mining industry has concentrated on removing whatever clean coal can be found near the surface. Any increasing demand for low-sulphur coal will require more and more deep mining, which itself requires additional use of petroleum products and is grossly more expensive, which in turn drives up the cost of power even more.

Consider that many of our exisiting coal reserves are in areas which are remote and rugged, as it is in Appalachia. In order to access the coal first roads must be built, forests cut, power lines erected. etc., not to mention the heavy equipment which must be used to extract the coal The results to the environment can be absolutely devasating, especially when the extraction method used is "mountaintop removal":

From http://www.ohvec.org/
(excerpts from link (a) below)

What is mountaintop removal?

"Mountaintop removal / valley fill coal mining (MTR) has been called strip mining on steroids. One author says the process should be more accurately named: mountain range removal. The coal industry would rather we call it mountaintop mining. We call it ecocide, because it is. Mountaintop removal / valley fill mining annihilates ecosystems, transforming some of the most biologically diverse temperate forests in the world into biologically barren moonscapes. It's hard to imagine a more egregious assault on the natural world.

"Multiple, thin layers of valuable low-sulfur coal underlie the mountains of southern West Virginia and eastern Kentucky. These seams of coal are often too narrow to be mined by traditional deep mining methods. To "mine" this coal, coal companies first raze the forests and scrape away the topsoil, usually without even saving the soil or potential lumber, let alone the understory herbs such as ginseng and goldenseal. Next, they blast up to 800 feet off mountaintops, with explosives up to 100 times as strong as the ones that rocked and tore open the Oklahoma City Federal building. Giant machines then scoop out the layers of coal, dumping millions of tons of "overburden" - the former mountaintops - into the narrow adjacent valleys, thereby creating valley fills. In West Virginia alone, at least 500 square miles of our temperate jungles, home to so much wildlife, have been permanently annihilated. Coal companies have forever buried over 1,000 miles of biologically crucial Appalachian headwaters streams.

"The blasting has ruined homes and water wells, as well as people's nerves. "Fly rock," more aptly named fly boulder, can rain off mountains, endangering resident's lives and homes. Hundreds of folk and entire communities are being displaced as homes get in the way of the 20-story-high draglines. Heavy rains can gush off the clearcut, compacted MTR sites, flooding the communities below. Coal trucks overloaded with twice the legal weight-limits are out of control, killing people and tearing up roads and bridges which taxpayers have to pay to fix.

"Mountaintop removal generates huge amounts of waste. While the solid waste becomes valley fills, liquid waste is stored in massive, dangerous coal slurry impoundments, often built in the headwaters of a watershed. The slurry is a witch's brew of water used to wash the coal for market, carcinogenic chemicals used in the washing process and coal fines (small particles) laden with all the compounds found in coal, including toxic heavy metals such as arsenic and mercury. Frequent blackwater spills from these impoundments choke the life out of streams."

Okay, so now you've gotten the coal out of the ground you've also got to transport it, first by heavy truck and then by rail and barge. Again, the petrochemical energy required to mine coal is high even BEFORE it is burned at the power plants, where you then have to deal with the deadly byproducts of coal burning.

Even the "clean" burning of coal produces deadly byproducts and there are currently no technologies that can reduce the amount of mercury emissions from coal-fired power plants. "Coal fueled electric power plants are the single largest source of mercury emissions. An inventory of mercury emissions conducted by EPA found that one-third of all mercury air emissions come from coal burning electric power plants. Mercury is present in the coal used as feedstock in the utility boiler. As the coal is combusted in the utility boiler, mercury is vaporized and released as a gas. Pollution controls employed by utilities to curb other pollutants are not effective in removing mercury. At present, there are no commercially viable control technologies for mercury. As a consequence, this highly toxic form of air pollution continues to go largely unabated." (b) This is a known fact which the EPA itself has addressed thus: "EPA’s Utility Air Toxins Report to Congress - February 1998. Concludes that mercury from coal-fired power plants is of serious concern. Power plants account of about one-third (52 tons) of annual manmade mercury emissions in the country. The report states that EPA has been unable to identify any currently feasible, commercial available technology for reducing these emissions. It recommends further evaluation of potential control strategies." (c)

I'll wrap it up here by saying that coal is not the savior some would paint as the solution to the oil crisis. Certainly we can produce enough coal to fire our power plants, but coal cannot fuel our cars, our planes, our military. Coal cannot provide the agriculture industry with the massive amounts of petrochmicals needed for the fertilizers required to produce the food we put on the table, or the thousands of other plastics and chemicals which require oil and its byproducts.

I doubt there are many here who would personally profit more than moi from an increase in the use of coal and a relaxation of EPA rules regarding the mining of it, so take it from me when I say that be careful what you wish for or depend upon to save our collective asses when the wells run dry. The solution canot be found in fossil fuels, but the development of clean, alternative energy sources. The question now is, have we waited far too long? If the climate does indeed do a flip-flop on us, the energy crisis will only be massively exacerbated.

(Oh, and just in case anyone's wondering... my partner and I are in the process/planning stages of having a solar generator installed in our home. To those of you thinking of doing the same, best to start finding out now what the rules and regs are in your area for solar systems by calling the city or county engineer... some local power companies make it VERY difficult for citizens to use alternative power sources, particularly here in WV!)

References for above quotes and excerpts:
(a) http://www.ohvec.org/ Please visit this site!
(b) http://www.powerscorecard.org/issue_detail.cfm?issue_id=4
(c) http://www.epa.gov/region02/health/mercury.htm

More on coal waste and its effect on the environment:
http://www.citizenscoalcouncil.org/facts/coalwaste.htm
http://www.edie.net/news/Archive/3974.cfm
http://www.testfoundation.org/psrhg.htm

not to mention the hastening of Global Warming...

But, I suspect, given a choice between the collapse of civilization and strip-mining...

Given a choice of two evils, I think, perhaps, they would choose the lesser.

Or did you miss my point, one which I thought I had made in a cogent and thoughtfully constructed post? If you approach the exploitation of coal just as flippantly as too many have considered the exploitation of oil reserves, then I obviously have failed to communicate effectively.

Do you realize that the burning of coal *can only exacerbate global warming* and destroy the environment in the process of mining it? When you talk of the "collapse of civilization" to whose civilized way of life are you referring? Your own or people whose lives will be destroyed so we "civilized folk" like us can carry just as wastefully and blissfully ignorant as usual?

Edited to add: A correction... I see that you DO understand that the burning of coal can only hasten global warming, but I take it this doesn't seem to be much of a concern? Well, if global warming isn't a concern, or the destruction of the environment isn't a concern, or the poisioning of the air isn't a concern, I can see where the issue of "peak oil" wouldn't bother a person, either. It appears I proceeded from a false assumption.

either the collapse of civilization (Peak oil)

or stripmining....

Which would most people choose?

Of course there are alternatives! Anyone who knows anything about these issues does... I just don't want to see the energy argument framed in this fashion.

It sends the wrong message (especially to the less informed).

Even if "less informed" as you may consider it. Fear is a great motivator, and since our governments seem so unconcerned about taking immediate action it may be up to individual citizens to prepare NOW for the inevitable. For the "energy problem" lies so much deeper than the hands-on technology needed to replace our reliance on fossil fuels.

Our modern "civilzation" has for some time now been built with its dependence on fossil fuels as part of the grand design, from our homes to our factories and offices. Even if the technology were available right now, just how long do you think it would take to install the actual conversions for every building? How long to train the people who could make those conversions? How long to produce that much equipment? How much to buy it? And if you happen to live in a part of the country where wind or solar power is not a viable alternative? How many here have looked at the available maps to check out the facts?

Look at the design of our cities, and how few have efficient mass transit systems. Look how many people have chosen to live in the 'burbs, many miles from their places of employment and in communities where even simple things like sidewalks (don't get me started on sidewalks, a pet topic of mine) have been eliminated from the design for the sake of saving a dollar. I'd like to see those folks tell their homeowner's associations they'd like to turn their backyards into vegetable gardens! Hell, in many places the local power companies will throw every roadblock in your path if you even propose to install a simple solar generator in your home.

We have designed our world around a dependence on the abundance of affordable fossil fuels. Creating alternative sources of energy is only part of the solution and in some respects perhaps the one that can be most quickly solved. But implementing those new technologies will take MUCH longer, and in the meanwhile we MUST change the way we build our cities and homes and the wasteful way we live now. The changes must be wholesale. This is not just about buying hybrid cars -- everything must change, from urban planning to agriculture.

So no, I'm not going to berate anyone here for what others have branded "hysteria". I think the fear is legitimate. Fear may be the only motivator that finally instigates change, for the trick is to take the fear and then sit down and decide exactly what the hell you're going to do about the problem. NOW. From the way you live to where you live to the people you elect to office. Start reading up, start making even small changes, start making plans. Taking charge of your own future is the only way to confront the fear.

How does an individual tackle the problem in a way that won't seem overwhelming? As I had stated earlier, my partner and I are already in the process of installing solar. We deliberately bought a sturdy, older brick home in town (at a fraction of the cost of a suburban home) with a generous backyard where we have an organic garden planted with non-hybrid veggies. A simple modification to the downspouts allowed us to install rain barrels for a constant supply of water. Our older home already had a cold storage/pantry room in the basement, and we are teaching ourselves how to can and preserve our own foods. We bought a bicycle, which is fine for toodling around town. We've installed additional insulation, had the fireplace recently inspected, and are planning to buy a hybrid vehicle. And our mortgage is less than most folks pay for rent.

The trick is to PLAN, then do what you can. Don't make choices that will inevitably bite you in the ass, like living out in some burb with a couple of SUVs in the driveway and not enough ground to grow a tomato.

Anyway, that's my two cents, for what they're worth.

Edited to add: I did forget one other alternative: if you're a fundie, just kick back, relax, and wait for the Rapture. ;)

>>But implementing those new technologies will take MUCH longer...<<

As example of just how long it can take to get people to change their homes and their technology, I offer the town of Boyce, Virginia. Three years ago they finally passed legislation to require indoor toilets in all residences. Funding was provided to aid homeowners with the upgrade, but compliance was compulsory.

And just in case you're wondering why this isn't a no-brainer, there was significant opposition to this action. Some homeowners did not want to install indoor toilets.

So, if in the year 2000 there are still house in the United States without indoor plumbing, just how long do you think it would take to install an entire new system of energy for heating and cooling? Time is running out, our window of opportunity is probably measured in decades (if we're lucky), and we have not even begun to seriously address the solutions that are available. Most of them are inadequate (even solar panels require petrochemicals for production) but they would help the situation somewhat, yet even these steps are only hypothetical.

Make no bones about it. Just a partial conversion to an alternative source such as solar can cost in the neighborhood of 20 grand for a modest home, even if you can find someone in your area who knows how to install it properly -- and that's a big "if". How many of today's families, maxxed out on their credit cards and mortgaged up to their eyebrows, could afford to make the necessary conversions to alternative energies?

We are all about to pay handsomely for the collective greed which is the achilles' heel of unbridled capitalism. We wanted the biggest homes, biggest cars, all the latest toys, everything at our fingertips and convenience. We refused to limit the size of our families yet made no plans for the future we would leave to our children. Yes, we thought the party would never end and we could just belly up to the all-you-can-drink oil bar. Well this party's just about over and the bartender has made the last call.

Make the changes you need to make starting TODAY. That may mean downsizing to a smaller home, a smaller car, teaching yourself how to grow your own food or making your own clothes (old tredle sewing machines CAN still be had). Use the money you'll save to pay off a mortgage and upgrade your property to accomodate an alternative energy source. If you're going to wait around for salvation from outside it will be too late. Take control and take action on an individual level. Your children's lives and futures may depend upon it.

This person has obviously formed an opinion they are not willing to let go of no matter how well you lay out the relivant facts. Sad. It truly is.

I pretty much came to that conclusion myself.

http://www.overpopulation.com/faq/people/paul_ehrlich.html

This kinda stuff goes around from time to time. I'm not saying "don't worry, be happy" I'm just saying Don't Panic... :)

...and no doubt big problems for us.

But civilization will not come crashing down over this. There are bigger fish to fry.

The environmental destruction caused by our current system isn't a "big fish" to you?

The social injustice caused by a world where only the rich can have oil and the poor are left to choke on the fumes doesn't concern you?

The fact that global warming caused by our consumption of fossil fuels isn't a "big fish"? Hope you don't live in Florida, it's gonna be underwater some day.

More wars in the middle east over oil and tens of thousands of people getting slaughtered because of it is a "small fish?"

The fact that Bushco is a bunch of oilmen, the fact that we invaded a country that has the 2nd largest reserves of oil in the world, the fact that a Bush is in the white house at all is not a "big fish" to you?

I really don't understand what "bigger fish" there are?

This is the issue facing mankind. All other issues are related to this one. All of our social and economic and political issues of our time are caused due to the fact that we live in a world based upon the consumption of fossil fuels!

The fact that you can sit here and type instead of being out tending to your crops and your animals speaks to the fact that we live in a world dependent on oil.

I think everyone here agrees that fossil fuels suck. We need to get past them.

That doesn't mean that we all agree society will collapse when those fuels become expensive.

I believe alternatives ARE being developed, and as the problem comes into focus, will be devloped even faster. And that's good.

We both agree that there is a basic problem: oil is running out.

The difference is that *I* believe that problem will spur a drive for solutions.

YOU believe it will lead to societal collapse.

I think people will realize that there are trillions upon trillions of dollars to be made in a solution, and will therefore try to find one. You seem to think we'll just drive head-on into a wall and then give up.

Alternatives ARE being developed right now, but not fast enough. No one knows for sure, but it seems we may have peaked in 2000, so we have 10 years or less left before oil becomes very, very expensive. Are we going to be ready in 10 years?

that just won't happen.

I don't understand the desire for panic here. Where's the pleasure? Saying "I told you so" while society collapses?

We will address this problem. It is far from the biggest problem facing mankind.

it will just be too expensive to extract. And that's what peak oil is about, not running out... but peaking.

And that could happen in 10 years if it turns out to be true that we peaked in 2000. That is yet to be confirmed.

Oil will not be too expensive to extract in 10 years. Is that better?

I just don't understand the desire to panic over this issue. People act like it's a big secret and nobody in a position of power knows about it.

I guarantee you the energy companies are much more aware of this problem than we are. So are governments. So are entrepeneurs.

But I do acknowledge there will be rough times ahead. I respect your choice of not believing it is an imminent problem, but please read post #47... odds are, we are peaking right now.

I've read a lot of the threads on this issue, too. I really do understand the argument. I think it's based on false premises.

If oil went scarce tomorrow, we might see the problems anticipated by the "peak oil" theorists. But it won't happen tomorrow. It will take decades, if not centuries. In that time, I believe governments, corporations and entrepeneurs will address the problem.

Basically, there are two options for such entities: observe the collapse of civilization or make quadrillions of dollars. I think they'll go for the latter.

"The prediction that it will peak—that is to say the crisis will come when we reach a peak when half the oil has been used up—that prediction quantitatively is unquestionably true. But the quantitative question of when the peak will occur depends on extremely undependable numbers. The so-called proven oil reserves as reported by various countries and companies around the world are often just guesses and they’re often not even honest guesses. Among those who would analyze those figures, some have predicted that it will come as early as this year; others, within this decade. It could possibly be in the next decade. But I think that’s about as far as you can push it. "

David Goodstein, physicist and vice-provost at the California Institute of Technology

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4287300/

There are zillion other experts who will tell you similar things.

Well, if we presume a zillion is somewhat greater than a million, you'd be wrong. There aren't a million such people in the world.

You quoted one person. That does not mean there's a consensus among people who study this. In fact, a physicist may not be the most respectable resource on this issue.

But it probably doesn't matter to you. From everything I've read in the "peak oil" threads, it's a matter of faith. Either you believe the world and/or civilization is ending in 40 years due to "peak oil", or you're a naive schmuck.

I think human civilization may end in the foreseeable future. "Peak oil" is not anywhere near the most likely cause.

could get out of hand and end civilization.

Maybe the next "civilisation" will spend more of its time in the
"growing & learning" phase and less in the "expand, consume, conquer" one.

Dookus...

"I think human civilization may end in the foreseeable future. "Peak oil" is not anywhere near the most likely cause."

...Well, I hope not too, but I should warn you not to underestimate current events regarding Peak Oil. First, "Peak Oil" is not a theory based on "faith", it is based on physics and the laws of thermodynamics. The US went through these disruptions when the lower 48 states reached peak oil production in 1971. This was not a happy time for most Americans.

More importantly, you should take note that over the past 11 months and 3 weeks, between 11,000 and 55,000 Iraqis, mostly civilains, have been killed, with many thousands more wounded and suffering. Likewise, over 550 US soldiers have been killed, and many thousands horrendously wounded, both physically and pyscologically. ***These people died party due to the Bush administration's understanding of the imminent Peak Oil phenomenon, and the emergence of the euro as a threat to the dollar's monopoly role in international oil sales.***

What Americans need to understand - and quickly - is that Iraq is only the beginning of the oil and oil currency warfare. Energy is a life and death issue, and the desire for oil was the top reason Hitler invaded Russia - in a desperate drive to reach the oil wealth in southern Russia. This started the most deadely fighting in WWII, and this goal was Hitler's downfall.

Likewise, the geological and macroeconomic forces that brought us to this place have not gone away, and failure to compromise by the US gov't could likely lead to a global conflagration with the application of nuclear weapons as a plausible possability, or the collapse of the dollar to prevent the US from graping 67% of the world's remaining oil reserves (a figure which is surely overestimated). Such events are unlikely to begin unfolding until after the 2004 elections, but I can assure you based on my research this is a possability. The acknowledgement of Peak Oil is driving U.S. geostratgy (and that is one of reasons why Cheney's 2001 Energy Task Force documents most not become public knowledge).

The 2003 Iraq war is only the opening act if the neoconservatives stay in power beyond 2004. Iran, Saudi Arabia, West Africa, and Venezuela will provide the follow-up acts - if the neocons stay in power. Here are some excerts from my upcoming book.



*****
(book description)

The invasion of Iraq may well be remembered as the first oil currency war. Far from being a response to 9-11 terrorism or Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction, Petrodollar Warfare argues that the invasion was precipitated by two converging phenomena: the imminent peak in global oil production, and the ascendance of the euro currency.

Energy analysts agree that world oil supplies are about to peak, after which there will be a steady decline in supplies of oil. Iraq, possessing the world's second largest oil reserves, was therefore already a target of U.S. geostrategic interests. Together with the fact that Iraq had switched to paying for oil in euros -- rather than U.S. dollars -- the Bush administration's unreported aim was to prevent further OPEC momentum in favor of the euro as an alternative oil transaction currency standard."


**********

“Our liberty depends on the freedom of the press, and that cannot be limited without being lost.” – Thomas Jefferson

It was with the immortal inspiration of Thomas Jefferson in which this book was written. It was my own sense of patriotic duty to express dissent and inform others that our current military-centric geostrategy could ultimately result in our economic failure. The U.S. citizenry must become cognizant that monetary maneuvers away from the dollar by the international community indicate they will not tolerate a unilateralist United States that employs militant Imperialism to gain control over the world’s largest energy supply and deny self-determination to sovereign nations regarding their choice of an oil export currency. The 2003 Iraq war and subsequent U.S. occupation has thrust our nation on the precarious path of Imperial overstretch and economic decline.

This analysis of current U.S. geostratetgic, monetary and energy polices suggest the 21st century will be much different from the 20th century - with one possible exception. The first half of the 20th century was filled with unprecedented levels of violence and warfare on a global scale. It is this author’s opinion that the opening two decades of the 21st century present challenges that could unfortunately result in unleashing another period of potentially catastrophic human suffering and destruction. In order to avoid such a deplorable fate, more than any other nation, my fellow citizens of the United States will need to accept and undertake certain sacrifices for the betterment of humanity. In essence, to avoid profound tragedy in this new century, we must once again begin to live within our means regarding fiscal and energy policies.

The Founding Fathers of the United States declared the most fundamental and patriotic duty was to be an informed citizenry. Hence, this book was written purely out of my own sense of patriotic duty in an effort inform readers in the U.S. and abroad. The purpose is to stimulate much needed debate in our society, and hopefully in the policy making arena as well. Only an informed and motivated citizenry can compel changes within the decision-making apparatus of their governments. It is my hope that citizens of the U.S. and the world community will begin an open dialogue regarding the complex issues discussed in this book. This text will conclude with suggestions regarding multilateral policies for monetary and energy reform. While many of these suggestions are imperfect, this book represents my humble endeavor to inform others in the hope that the beginning of the 21st century will be a more stable, sustainable, and less violent period than the opening decades of the previous century. Humanity and morality demand nothing less.

******

FYI: If you a lot of spare time to read, this info might help...
http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/RRiraqWar.html

Don't get me wrong, I want to be optimistic. I'll be more optimistic if the world agrees that this is the biggest challenge facing mankind probably EVER.

If we can all simply agree on that, then we can move forward.

Right now, our current government is trying to pull the wool over our eyes, so the oil companies can continue to make record profits (check their earnings for the last few quarters).

It's fucked up, and we won't get ANYwhere by denying the problem.

This is one situation where I think a little fear is a good thing.

Because we don't WANT a coal/nuclear future. Do we?

just a gut feeling? :shrug:

peace

but a lot of experts will tell you the same thing... not a zillion, though.

Yes, maybe it is a matter of faith... as I said, I respect your choice of not believing in it. I don't believe the world is ending, or even civilization is ending. It will change, and will change a lot... maybe "the end as we know it", but not the end altogether.

The issue of peak oil itself is not as threatening.

They are related but different issues.

.

Thermal Depolymerization

It seems like every few days somebody discovers the peak oil problem, panics, and posts their panic here. I think the peak oils theorists want to see the collapse of Western civilization and a return to the stone age. None of the theorists ever mention Thermal Depolymerization. And the first commercial sized plant recently went online in Carthage, MO.

Fellow science people – Please forgive the oversimplifications here, but space is limited.

A polymer is a chain of carbon and hydrogen atoms. Think of hydrocarbon or of carbohydrates. Same thing, just depends on which you want to say first. Under heat and pressure the chain can be broken into the desired lengths. The result is oil. The chemical process has been known for decades, but until recently it has taken more energy to work the process than it was worth. Now the process can be done at 85% efficiency. For those that don’t understand that, it means that it uses only 1/6 of the energy produced to run the process itself.

In practical terms that means the all carbon based trash and garbage and waste can be converted into pure water, oil, carbon black, fertilizer, and assorted minerals. This process will handle sewage, agricultural waste, old tires, medical waste, toxic wastes, (Except radioactives.) and most household garbage.

In Discover Magazine, May 2003 issue there is a lengthy article about it. Please remember that Discover is a reputable scientific magazine. It is available online only through subscription. The article states that the agricultural waste in the USA is enough that if it were processed in this manner, it would eliminate the need for any oil imports.

Detractor from this technology have attempted to shoot it down without success. One “scientist” calculated the available energy in the carbon/oxygen reactions and said that it would not be enough and that therefore TDP would not develop enough energy. He left out the energy from the hydrogen/oxygen reactions and the fact that there are about twice as many hydrogen atoms in the polymers as there are carbon.

Since the main source of input for TDP would be agricultural waste, the real source of energy is solar. The crops in the field gather solar energy, and by photosynthesis, store it in the plant itself. We harvest a tiny part of that energy as food, and waste the rest. TDP process that waste into oil.

So we have the technology to efficiently gather, process, and distribute solar energy and to do it using today’s distribution methods. It will arrive to you in a familiar form – OIL.

BTW – TDP is COMPLETELY POLLUTION FREE. In fact, it cleans up pollution since it’s input is TRASH & WASTE. It would almost completely eliminate the need for landfills, sewage treatment plants, and toxic waste sites as all of those would become valuable sources of oil.

Further, TDP helps fight global warming as, unlike fossil fuels, it does not introduce NEW carbons into the atmosphere.
And the oil produced by this process is cleaner burning too, as it is cleaner oil.

More information is available at http://www.changingworldtech.com Of course, it isn’t “Chicken Little” alarmist material, but is instead hopeful material so many will reject it. However, since the plant is designed to operate at a natural profit, then there should be lots of commercial investors. After all, how much natural profit does a landfill or a sewage plant make?

So the “Peak Oil” problem has been solved. As fossil oil does indeed become more scarce, then the profit from a TDP plant, (They can produce oil for about $16 per barrel, as well as sell the other products too.) will increases, creating more interest in the immense profits that will flow from such plants. No gov’t help really needed here.

Nor or the plants expensive to build or operate. The material for a TDP plant is old fashioned refinery type plumbing. Pipes, valves, boilers and that type stuff. The workers, except for a few chemists and other specialists, will only need the same level of education as a modern refinery worker.

So Chicken Little can calm his ruffled feathers on this one. When combined with other sources of alternate energy, we won't be short of energy. There are other serious world problems for him to worry about, like diseases, and a coming one world gov’t, but that is a different matter.

The following discussion relates to food production (specifically calories produced via agriculture), but the concepts are applicable to whatever goes into the TDP intake chute. In other words, TDP can help recapture some otherwise "lost" energy. I encourage you to read the whole piece. Looks like you have to cut and paste the link (remove the semicolon and space after the amper), DU mangles the URL.

http://www.evworld.com/view.cfm?section=communique&newsid=5000

<snip>

The common assumption these days is that we muster our weapons to secure
oil, not food. There's a little joke in this. Ever since we ran out of
arable land, food is oil. Every single calorie we eat is backed by at
least a calorie of Oil, more like ten. In 1940 the average farm in the
United States produced 2.3 calories of food energy for every calorie of
fossil energy it used. By 1974 (the last year in which anyone looked
closely at this issue), that ratio was 1: 1. And this understates the
problem, because at the same time that there is more oil in our food
there is less oil in our oil. A couple of generations ago we spent a lot
less energy drilling, pumping, and distributing than we do now. In the
1940s we got about 100 barrels of oil back for every barrel of oil we
spent getting it. Today each barrel invested in the process returns only
ten, a calculation that no doubt fails to include the fuel burned by the
Hummers and Blackhawks we use to maintain access to the oil in Iraq.

<snip>

There is another energy matter to consider here, though. The grinding,
milling, wetting, drying, and baking of a breakfast cereal requires
about four calories of energy for every calorie of food energy it
produces. A two-pound bag of breakfast cereal burns the energy of a
half-gallon of gasoline in its making. All together the food-processing
industry in the United States uses about ten calories of fossil-fuel
energy for every calorie of food energy it produces.

<snip>

I addressed that issue. You are counting ONLY food calories. Food calories are only a tiny part of the total plant calories.

And you are counting only food productive arable land. There are lots of plants that grow that are not food plants but are great solar collectors, and grow in "poor" soil & little water. TDP will process "weeds" just fine.

Why not just put a solar cell there, the inbound radiant energy is fixed. The conversion % efficiency is the primary variable.

Harvest is but once (ok, maybe thrice) per year.

Before you say "problem solved!" calculate how much land (and water, and fertilizer, and pesticide, and gasoline) would need to be dedicated per one percent (say) of US yearly petroleum replaced by TDP oil.

...energy for transportation. Photosynthesis does.

You are asking for an energy balance figure for TDP-from-biomass, and I don't believe there is one calculated yet. Typically biomass is turned into automotive fuel via fermentation (ethanol) or transesterification (biodiesel). There is a LOT of discussion in bio-energy forums right now about how efficient TDP will be (it looks like it will be best for converting wastes that cannot be processed by the former two).

three years ago. It was an engineering project for a solar car race. It looked like a surfboard with a little bubble dome on top for the driver to see out. Really cool.

I'm sorry for the tone, however, I am rather jaded about our supposed "Free Market" and how it would solve such a problem. The market is resistant to change as a rule, and doesn't react to problems 5 or 10 years down the road, but one year, or the next quarter at most. I would say that the government has to play a key role, because the market is not driven by humanitarian or altrustic reasons, only profit, and short-term profit at that. Also the grip that oil companies have on energy supply will stifle any competition until oil becomes prohibitavely expensive, and then buy out these companies. Never mind the fact that by the time they actually get around to investing in a new supply infrastructure it would be at high cost due to the dwindling supply of oil that would be required to build such facilities.

Another note, our lifestyle in the U.S. is NOT sustainable, it is too energy expensive, and there is no "magic bullet" that can change that.

Faith that politicians will look further than the current election cycle.

Note that this technology was not developed by the gov't. Gov'ts ALWAYS invest in obsolete technoloy as there are votes in obsolete technology, but no votes available in new technology. Jobs to "protect" in the old stuff, no definable workers in the new.

If an oil company can produce oil cheaper than its competitors, then it gains a strong market advantage, make more money, and becomes more powerful than the others. TDP will be able to do exactly that. Once proven, they will want to develop the technology for their own profits rather than squash it.

And companies do look further than just the coming quarter. Why do you think the tech companies pour so much money into R&D programs that won't pay off for years? It is gov'ts that are short sighted.

IMO, Peak Oil is a threat to westernized economies; global climate change is a threat to the entire ecosphere, including non-industrialized indigenous societies across the world, plant and animal species, and the like.

IMO, Peak Oil implies a decline of agribusiness as we know it in the west; global climate change implies a decline in your ability to grow corn in your own back yard.

IMO, Peak Oil implies a decline in industrial fisheries operations due to increased costs; global climate change implies a non-viability of a multi-generational brim and sunfish pond on your own family's land.

Of course, if you are lucky and rich enough to do so, non-native species can be imported. Others--including the world's indigenous populations--will not be so fortunate.

This is not to say there is nothing to peak oil or that it's small potatoes. I'm with you in terms of viewing it as a concern. It is to argue, however, that global climate change is the world's--as opposed to its industrialized subset--biggest problem. IOW, if we posit for a moment that there is no such thing as global warming and that the oil peak is just around the corner, it will matter not a whit to tuna populations, Inuit communities or Americans living in self sufficiency. IMO, however, global climate change--even w/out a peak oil scenario--has ramifications on all of these, including a likely "peak oil proportioned" impact on western style economies.

You're obviously unaware that even many Inuit communities are closely tied to the oil industry. In fact, some Inuit tribes are among the most vocal proponents of drilling in ANWAR because they are employees of the oil industry and their residents would prosper.

There are very few Americans who are self-sufficient; the vast majority can't even get to the local grocery store without a car. And the rest of the world is trying to follow our dysfunctional model. China is going through an explosive growth in auto sales and oil usage, even to the point of banning bicycles from some cities.

And many third-world countries are dependent on the high yield agribusiness of the industrialized nations to feed their people.

Make no mistake, if oil stops flowing freely, only a few pockets of indigenous peoples will escape unscathed.

Peak Oil hits and the Inuits in isolated fishing villages such as Illiminaq, Greenland are going have their lives disrupted just as much as the suburbanites that drive to their CPA and IT jobs in downtown Atlanta.

Likewise, someone in Montanna living totally off grid, raising their own lifestock, gardening, canning etc. for the last 15 years is going to feel the peak oil's repercussions every bit as much as the autoworker in Detroit.

As I said, I am concerned about PO. And no doubt western nations feed many many people via agribusiness. I just disagree that it is the biggest threat facing the world. GCC has the same potential of starving agribusiness reliant people world wide as PO does.

And the larger point is that oil withdrawal will effect more *all* oil-dependent cultures more dramatically, whereas global climate change will see the most addicted cultures histories of exhorbinant use ***inflicting damage across the entire planet.***

Oh, the world's flora and fauna? No doubt they'll both fare equally well in either a peak oil *or* global change scenario.


edited to ad "clues" below and clarify point:

Global warming is killing us too, say Inuit

The Inuit people of Canada and Alaska are launching a human rights case against the Bush administration claiming they face extinction because of global warming.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,1104241,00.html


Inuit threat over global warming

The Inuit people of the Arctic say their human rights are being violated by countries who refuse to sign up to international action on global warming.

They are now exploring legal ways of linking human rights and climate change to put pressure on nations such as the US to cut greenhouse gas emissions.

Spokeswoman Sheila Watt-Cloutier said the problems faced by her people should be a warning to the rest of the world.

http://www.climateark.org/articles/reader.asp?linkid=27681


Global Warming Melts Inuit’s Arctic Lifestyle


Here, 400 miles (640 kilometers) north of the Arctic Circle, global warming is not a theory that is debated among scientists, but a reality of everyday life. Sea ice is thinning, and disappearing. Indigenous animals are moving farther north. And melting permafrost has loosened the ground enough to weaken foundations and cause homes to lean. This, plus rising sea levels, threatens to displace an entire community.

<snip>

Among the most alarming changes is the disappearance of native species. Caribou, long a staple of Inuit diet, are falling through once-solid sea ice. Polar bears are moving farther north, as are seals, who need the shelter of pack ice to give birth to their young.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2000/12/122900inuits.html

whether Peak Oil or Global Warming has disproportionate effect on this or that area/community since we're facing a convergence of BOTH. And that convergence of catastrophes will probably create its very own synergy, to the detriment of us all.

Shoe, meet Gothic.

You must have some kind of psychic connection with ShoeDog. No sooner does his thread peter out than yours with practically the same title pops up. It couldn't be coincidence, it must be karma.

IBTL