Peak oil: What to expect.

As the subject of peak oil has been a topic of frequent discussion here, of late, I thought I'd share what insight I have of what we may expect should predictions of a near-term drop-off in oil production turn out to be true.

First, I think we can expect that petroleum will likely cease to be a major source of transportation fuels, as the governments of the industrialised world realise that the supply is reaching a critical point. The bulk of petroleum production, after the start of decline, will likely be reserved for industry and agriculture. We can also expect elimination of oil-burning power plants as part of our electrical generating capacity. There will be a shift to greater use of coal and nuclear power; in the case of coal, one hopes that these new plants meet clean-burning reduced emissions standards.

As to transportation fuels: a general decline in oil production is going to, quite probably, lead to large-scale industrialisation of the Fischer-Tropsch process as a source of synthetic gasoline, at least in the short term. This process produces synthetic gasoline, synthetic natural gas, waxes and paraffins, among other hydrocarbons, from the gasification of coal. It has been uneconomical to implement, but decline in oil production will make it more attractive.

Such large-scale reliance on coal is not perhaps the best of all possible solutions, but it will enable us to continue with our current infrastructure for some time while implementing longer-range sustainable alternatives.

What % of oil is used for transportation?

And I'm having a hard time locating any reliable data on the subject. I find that per-capita usage of petroleum in the US for transportation is 2.012 tons per annum. Which is roughly 570M tons, total, but what this equates to in barrels of petroleum I don't know.

and that will reduce US air quality to Dickensian levels..

Most US housing built since the oil shocks of the 1970's were not sited or oriented to take advantage of solar heating - and most were built with only the minimum required insulation.

In the northeast, most houses burn oil for heat - and most cannot be remodeled or retrofitted to take advantage of solar energy..

They will have to burn coal (or wood) once the oil tap runs dry.

If we had taken this issue seriously 30 years ago we could have made a smooth transition to the post-petroleum era.

But instead we elected morons like Reagan and Poppy and the Chimp. They squandered any chance we had to make the shift to a sustainable energy future.

and we only got ourselves to blame...

but the real problem here is a shortage of petroleum for the transportation sector, especially cars.

domestic nuclear power production.

Virtually all our domestic uranium resources have been used to support the nuclear weapons program.

The only "viable" nuclear option are breeders.

What are the consequences of the Plutonium Economy?

We would be saddled with an enormous high-level waste problem, have secure dozens of reactors vulnerable to terrorist attacks, and have to create a dictatorial big-government energy progam that would sap our liberties and our tax dollars - among other things.

not a pretty scenario...

This is just a sampling, a file that can be downloaded: www.ccap.org/pdf/feedpub.pdf

I'll google it up....

on edit: - it's ~67%

Total daily US oil consumption = ~18 million barrels per day

The transportation sector uses ~12 million barrels per day.

If there is no way to replace oil we will have all out war over the remaining resources.

We must begin to find substitutes for fossil fuels soon.

irony of all of this is the oil we need to be using to make serious changes could very well be wasted in wars.

It makes me sick.

someone should do a study on just how much fuel was used to invade Iraq.

I think it would blow your mind.

I used to work in a procurement office at Ft. Sill Oklahoma. We had to purchase everything from Playboy magazines for the barracks to all the diesel fuel and gasoline for the vehicles on the base.

It was pretty staggering how much was used. And that was in peacetime

during WWII the Germans kept their war machine running using synthetic gasoline, produced using the process I mention in the original post (Germany being lacking in petroleum resources)...short-term, this is a viable replacement for oil. In the long run, of course, it isn't, but it will buy time for development of alternatives.

Since the transport sector is so heavily-dependant on the availability of cheap oil, I can see a scenario in which certain goods are not delivered to their destinations because of the non-availibility. Imagine a food shortage across the country because the trucks can't get to the grocery stores quickly enough - that'd almost guarantee widespread riots.

Start practicing your farming skills, folks. If the peak is coming, it could get very very nasty. Grab some land (preferably AWAY from large population centers), build an off-grid/self-sufficient home, and plant some potatoes/carrots/lettuce/beans/etc. And if possible, pay-off the mortgage ASAP.. the lender could get pretty nasty in tough times and take your home away.

(FYI.. we've been in production decline since 2000 and a sharp discovery decline since the 1960's.)

become a survivalist.

There are OTHER fuel sources - they're just not all affordable right now. They will be.

The whole idea of this peak oil hysteria is that we will keep consuming at increased rates until we hit a brick wall. There's no reason to believe that. At some point, oil will become more expensive than the alternatives.

If you think the energy companies aren't interested in this, you'd be a fool. What do you think they're gonna do? Just clap their hands and say "hey, we had a good run"?

Yes, we need intensive funding and effort put into alternative fuels. That will occur. Electric cars will become more accepted. And that's all good. The sooner we get away from fossil fuels, the better. But to pretend that civiliation will collapse because of oil shortages is silly. I'm sure people thought that about whale oil, too.

however, I can see the oil companies tightening their collective grip on Washington and lobbying such that by the time we finally decide to go from expensive oil to the alternatives, it will hurt more in the process.

(And your whale oil comparison is faulty analogy; the economy back then was not so intensely dependent on a cheap supply of whale oil..)

But ignore the evidence. Ignore that 2000 was our last peak year for production. Ignore that 1962 was our last peak year for oil field discovery, noting that we've seen sharp declines in since, with those fields discovered being smaller and smaller. And ignore that China is coming-up pretty soon behind us in demand.

I don't argue with any of your facts. We are running out of oil. I give you that.

I argue with the premise underlying the panic. That premise is that all the governments, energy companies and entrepeneurs in the world will ignore a potential quadrillion dollar market until the last well runs dry.

okay.

I agree - the government won't ignore it. But the pessimist in me thinks that it'll wait and wait and wait, which will make our conversion to a non-oil economy a more painful one.

is the erroneous part of what you're saying.

that nobody is working to solve this problem? Do you believe that governments, energy executives and entrepeneurs are ignoring this problem?

not ignoring. Milking the current situation for all it's worth. Maximizing their profit at the expense of the human race, and the planet earth.

Do you really think they WANT people to start using less gasoline? Of course not. Why do you think they're selling H2's and Ford Expeditions?

And I'll ask you this -- do you really want to go to a coal and nuclear-power based future? I thought that's what we're trying to avoid!

But when oil starts getting too expensive, they're gonna be building nuke plants everywhere. And they're gonna start burning coal or wood or whatever they can get their hands on.

THAT is the point.

Depends upon oil as well. There are layers of energy consumption here. And all we need is to burn more coal and accelerate global warming.

There is one factor you leave out ... rates of change. If the growth rate of energy cost (reflected in growth of demand and reduction of supply) exceeds a certain level, it is possible that the economic systems of the world will be unable to sustain the industrial activity necessary to develop and deploy on a large scale the required alternative energy systems.

The equations used to model these situations are second order and multivariate ... the solutions to those equations are non-linear. (First order is like your speed, second order is like acceleration ... how fast your speed changes when you mash the gas pedal. Growth is not only expected to (speed) but the rate of growth is expected to itself grow (accelerate).)

The only point of the above is that time is short and we need to stop screwing around and get to work on the problem. Thus far I have been unimpressed with the accomplishments of both the public and private sector.

the shit is gonna hit the fan, deal with it

to hop on a train in the North Woods of Maine (they would stop for people on the tracks back then) and step off a train in San Diego a week (?) later.

Every little town and rural hamlet in America had train service!

And every little town and hamlet can have train service in future - the right-of-ways and rail beds still exist in many of these locales.

Electric train service will be the medium of transportation commerce in the post petroleum era.

Producing the electricity will be the problem.

However, there is no technical reason why dispersed medium-scale PV arrays coupled to hydrogen fuel cell/storage systems can't provide all the juice we need.

I seem to be the only one mentioning the dangers of inflation from the start of "peak oil".

In a society where every single element of the economy is produced, transported and advertised using fossil fuels, the resulting inflation from the supply versus demand gap is going to cause a LOT of political instability.

In fact it will be the first thing we have to deal with regarding peak oil.

big time inflation rarely leads to anything good. And in this case there will be no fix for it.

When oil prices go up, the prices on everything go up. But wages will not.

and Ronald Reagan brilliantly exploited this misery in his 1980 campaign.

it's other fuel sources.

This whole peak oil hysteria would be meaningful if oil were the ONLY possible fuel available. It's not. There are others. We need to develop more. We will do so.

Do you really think all the energy executives, all the governments of the world, all the entrepeneurs... will just ignore this?

There will be quadrillions to be made in alternative sources. Do you really think nobody will consider that until the last well runs dry?

"until the last well runs dry" of course not.

Did you read my post? I'm talking about inflation. When the supply can't keep up with the demand, there will be some pretty fucking major inflation that nobody will be able to fix because nobody will be able to increase the supply.

Of course AT THAT POINT people will start to try to provide alternate sources.

But that will be too late.

I'm glad you're such an optimist. It baffles me as to why, especially for a Democrat. Your trust in the "markets" is really, well, kind of surprising.

Right now, the oil companies are experiencing record profits due to the fact that a little US-caused "instability" around the world is keeping the commodities market freaked out to the point where oil prices are as high as they've ever been.

Do you think the oil companies are the least bit interested in calming these markets? Do you think they're at all interested in seeking alternate fuels, where the R&D costs will be fucking astronomical? No. All they want to do is string this thing along as long as they can, and keep those car ads on television so we'll keep playing the game.

I'm really shocked at the attitude on this board regarding this situation. I don't mean to be insulting by saying that, I'm just amazed that there are so many people on this board who seem to have this blind faith in the marketplace to magically fix all our problems..

but I know for a fact that many governments, energy companies and entrepeneurs are working TODAY on finding solutions.


And yes, I think oil companies ARE interested in finding alternative fuels, because if YOU know the oil's running out, they do, too.

Yes they will be living well on the remaining resources hoarded for themselves but it's gonna be a scramble for the people who fail to see
the writing on the wall.

that I think needs to be addressed. Some argue that the Peak is upon us, and because we waited so long to begin the switch to alternatives it's going to much more painful than it could've been. From what I understand it takes about 10 years to get a nuclear plant online(?). I wonder what's involved in getting the transportation sector to go on natural gas, electricity, hydrogen, whatever. And will the period of transition be accompanied by an economic depression as some think? Due to many factors - e.g., none of the alternatives to oil are as efficient.

name 3.

nuclear
coal
corn
geothermal
hydroelectric
tidal
solar
wind
wood
fusion
perpetual motion -hee hee
biomass / waste / garbage


Yellowstone National Park is aactually the caldera for the world's largest continental volcano. Iceland very successfully utilizes it's own geothermal activity to provide power, heat and hot water to it's population. I submit that we can do something similar with the underground heat in Yellowstone, provided we have the motivation to do it.

I submit that the power generated at Yellowstone could provide several cities needs for a reasonable cost and with no waste materials. BUT-- it would mean we will need to develop and mar an otherwise pristine natural environment. And, if someday the caldera blew, we'd be SOL.

Nonetheless, I would be fanatically in support of a government operation to make this happen.

...this is where I see a disconnect in your posts, and by most others who have not studied Peak Oil/Energy in depth. We are very used to thinking about things from a financial/econmic perspective, Return on Investment (ROI), etc. Market Fundamentalists say that when oil gets too expective, we'll simply just switch to a another energy source. That is flawed logic, b/c the critical aspect of energy is physics - or power output, not money.

In order to have an appreciation and honest discusssion re Peak Oil, one must first understand the crucial concept of Energy Retrun on Energy Invested, or EROEI. This is a ratio determined by physics and thermodynamics, it has nothing to do whatsoever with money or return on investment. This may help:

Economics, ROI and EROEI

"ROI (Return on Investment) means the accounting is done in dollars. If an oil well produces enough oil to cover expenses with some left over, then the ROI is positive. Some oil is too expensive to produce at the current price of oil. An economist would say that that oil would be produced if the price of oil rises sufficiently."

"EROEI (Energy Return on Energy Invested) means that the accounting is done in energy units. It is possible to calculate the energy cost of an oil well. Energy is required to make the steel, to run the drill, to pump the oil, etc. This energy is subtracted from the energy in the produced oil. If the result is positive, the energy return on energy invested (EROEI) is positive. Drilling for oil to get energy becomes pointless if the EROEI goes negative. That does not mean that oil wells will not be drilled. It means that oil will be used for fertilizers or plastics, but not for transport or heating."


An EROEI of 200 was achieved with some oil wells 50 years ago. Oil wells in deep water currently achieve an EROEI of less than 5. All of the aternative energies have less than 5 as an EROEI, and some are negative, like nuclear power. Wind and solar have positive EROEI, but like oil. Same goes foy syntetics oil. My point is, we simply need to reduce consumption, and spend trillions on new infastructure. I don't expect a die-off, but I do expect stagnation and much more hardship. Two decades from nil will eventually be needed almost exclusively for food and industrial uses, with aircraft being the only mode of oil-based transportation, and rather expensive too...(I can't envison a coal powered ariplane..)

The Critics of Impending Peak Oil

Richard Heinberg, author of "The Party's Over" deconcstructs the typical attack by critics of the Hubbert-Campbell line of peak oil estimation.

1. There remain sizable undiscovered reserves of oil.

2. Humans are progressively becoming more adept at exploiting oil resources.

3. The market will always find replacements for scarce resources like oil.


Heinberg promptly undermines these claims.

1. “Where is all this oil hiding? A few hints would surely cheer geologists who have spent decades applying the most advanced techniques to the problem of locating petroleum wherever it exists and who, on average, are finding ever smaller field each year.”

2. “Yes, new technology may enable us to increase the amount of oil extracted from any given field—perhaps, in some instances, even doubling the ultimately recoverable percentage. But for the most part, Campbell, Laherrère, et al, have already accounted for such technology-based reserve growth in their estimates. Moreover, it is important to understand that technology rarely offers a free ride; there are new costs incurred by nearly every technological advance. In the technologies involved with energy resource extraction, such costs are often reflected in the ration of energy return on energy invested (EROEI) … In the early days of oil exploration, when we used simple technologies to access large, previously untapped reservoirs, (in the 1930s, the decade of greatest discovery in the U.S., 300 barrels of oil were recovered per foot of drilling) the amount of energy that had to be invested in the enterprise was insignificant when compared with the amount harvested. As oil fields have aged and technologies have become more advanced and costly, that ratio has plummeted (to 10 barrels per foot).” This phenomenon has been repeated world-wide as stocks approach and pass peak in various countries. In the end, “increased efficiency means nothing unless we are actually reducing the amount of petroleum extracted and burned.”

3. “Suffice it to say that substitutes, to be successful, must pass certain tests… When industrial countries began switching from coal to oil, the substitute was very noticeably more energy dense. Lomberg suggests that industrial societies will deal with petroleum shortages by switching back to coal, but that means returning to a resource that is substantially less energy dense and thus unsuitable for supplying society’s vastly increased energy needs. He also mentions natural gas—but is there enough available to substitute for oil? Again, we will address that important question in detail in the next chapter; for now, it is enough merely to point out that North American production may be peaking by the time this book is printed.”

My friend Jeff wrote this...


"The last 25% of the total on global Peak Oil "bell shape" curve becomes much harder to produce as it will involve pumping, negatively affecting the EROEI (Energy Return On Energy Invested) factor for oil. The vast majority of geologists agree that improvements in recovery technology in the next 30-40 years will not alter this figure significantly. The real problem is with consumption.

"Shale oil is probably not going to be a factor. Even though there are potentially tens of billions of barrels recoverable in the U.S., the EROEI factor of shale oil is way too low (0.7) to be useful. It takes too much energy to produce the equivalent energy from shale oil. EROEI is a term that means Energy Return On Energy Invested. Simply stated, it is a complex ratio today that means about the same as in ancient times, that if a tribesman had to spend more time gathering firewood than she could usefully stand in front of it to keep warm and cook food, she needed to find another energy source more easily obtained; i.e., she expended more energy engaging in wood gathering than in energy return for the needed functions. When this problem arose in ancient times, folks just packed up and moved to a new forest.


NUCLEAR POWER

But then the picture turns more complex, according to Heinberg. “The costs for nuclear-generated electricity (1.8¢ - 2.2¢ / kWh) are operating costs only, including fuel, maintenance, and personnel…such figures omit costs for research and development, plant amortization and decommissioning, and spent-fuel storage. Fully costed, nuclear power is by far our most expensive conventional energy source. Indeed, total costs are so high that, following the passage of energy deregulation bills in several states, nuclear plants were deemed unable to complete, and so utility companies like California’s PG & E had to be bailed out by consumers for nuclear-related “stranded costs.”

Heinberg ultimately argues that nuclear power is a dead end solution. “Industrial societies have, in energy terms, been able to afford to invent and use nuclear technologies primarily because of the availability of cheap fossil fuels with which to subsidize the effort.”

DIESEL


"Diesel is about the most under-engineered internal combustion fuel source around. That is changing. Improved engineering is set to invoke vast change on the perception of diesel as an alternative propulsion over gasoline. It has many more advantages for distribution and storage as well. It is far less volatile than gasoline.

Through improved injector, electronic and combustion techniques, diesel will far surpass gasoline in fuel efficiency and emissions reduction in the next five years.

Installing a propane injection system will add 25% more power and 30% better fuel efficiency to a factory vehicle as well. These technologies totally blow the anti-SUV crowd out of the water. At least where diesel technology is involved. The current generation Volkwagen diesel with the Sturman injectors will get 65-70 mpg with virtually zero emissions in the next two years.

That is just one example. There are many others. However, the big changes will not occur until we can reform our government and political system. The Republicans and the Democrats have failed and are failing us in dramatic terms. We are going nowhere fast. Soon we will not have the global security or energy to go anywhere."

For a while, I earned my living as a truck driver. I saw first hand what our transportation system looks like and it's not pretty.

A high percentage of the loads I hauled made no sense. I remember hauling paper towel from South Carolina to British Columbia and bottled water from Montreal to Chicago. I hauled auto parts from Mexico to Michigan, parts that used to be made in Ohio.

If the cost of transportation increased 10x we'd reverse the trends toward remote manufacturing and long supply lines. Local production would begin to make sense again. The value of our labor, which is now in decline, would increase.

For the sake of argument, let's say that the transportation cost of a 1 lb grocery item is $00.03 over a shipping distance of 1000 miles. If the cost of shipping increased 10x that cost would rise to $00.30. However, if a similar product was available within 100 miles that product's shipping cost would still be $00.03.

What we have now is a system where, because of absurdly low transportation costs, both of these manufacturers can compete for each others market share.

So, if the cost of transportation started to significantly increase we'd begin to see a return to local and regional manufacturing. The major reason we ship so much stuff such long distances is that the cost of transportation is currently insignificant to the cost of the manufactured item.

That a hydrogen (from ethanol) fuel cell engine was made small enough to fit in a car. We definitely should be focusing our resources on that.

Ethanol is produced via our usual energy-intensive agriculture methods. It is energy (ERoEI) negative, or at best, neutral.

Hydrogen is not an energy source, but rather an "energy carrier". Producing hydrogen fuel requires the input of energy.

Sorry, no free lunches here.

Here is part of it


Fuel Cell Components & Function
A fuel cell is a device that uses hydrogen (or hydrogen-rich fuel) and oxygen to create electricity by an electrochemical process. A single fuel cell consists of an electrolyte sandwiched between two thin electrodes (a porous anode and cathode). While there are different fuel cell types, all work on the same principle:

Hydrogen, or a hydrogen-rich fuel, is fed to the anode where a catalyst separates hydrogen's negatively charged electrons from positively charged ions (protons).


At the cathode, oxygen combines with electrons and, in some cases, with species such as protons or water, resulting in water or hydroxide ions, respectively.


For polymer electrolyte membrane (PEM) and phosphoric acid fuel cells, protons move through the electrolyte to the cathode to combine with oxygen and electrons, producing water and heat.


For alkaline, molten carbonate, and solid oxide fuel cells, negative ions travel through the electrolyte to the anode where they combine with hydrogen to generate water and electrons.


The electrons from the anode side of the cell cannot pass through the membrane to the positively charged cathode; they must travel around it via an electrical circuit to reach the other side of the cell. This movement of electrons is an electrical current.

.......


Fuel Cell Systems
The design of fuel cell systems is quite complex and can vary significantly depending upon fuel cell type and application. However, most fuel cell systems consist of four basic components:

A fuel processor
An energy conversion device (the fuel cell or fuel cell stack)
A current converter
Heat recovery system (typically used in high-temperature fuel cell systems used for stationary applications)
Though they are not discussed here, most fuel cell systems include other components and subsystems to control fuel cell humidity, temperature, gas pressure, and wastewater.

Fuel processor
The first component of a fuel cell system is the fuel processor. The fuel processor converts fuel into a form useable by the fuel cell. If hydrogen is fed to the system, a processor may not be required or it may only be needed to filter impurities out of the hydrogen gas.

If the system is powered by a hydrogen-rich conventional fuel such as methanol, gasoline, diesel, or gasified coal, a reformer is typically used to convert hydrocarbons into a gas mixture of hydrogen and carbon compounds called "reformate." In many cases, the reformate is then sent to another reactor to remove impurities, such as carbon oxides or sulfur, before it is sent to the fuel cell stack. This prevents impurities in the gas from binding with the fuel cell catalysts. This binding process is also called "poisoning" since it reduces the efficiency and life expectancy of the fuel cell.

Some fuel cells, such as molten carbonate and solid oxide fuel cells, operate at temperatures high enough that the fuel can be reformed in the fuel cell itself. This is called internal reforming. Fuel cells that use internal reforming still need traps to remove impurities from the unreformed fuel before it reaches the fuel cell.

Both internal and external reforming release carbon dioxide, but less than the amount emitted by internal combustion engines, such as those used in gasoline-powered vehicles.

Energy Conversion Device - The Fuel Cell Stack
The fuel cell stack is the energy conversion device. It generates electricity in the form of direct current (DC) from chemical reactions that take place in the fuel cell. The fuel cell and fuel cell stack are covered under Fuel Cell Components and Function.

Current Inverters &Conditioners
The purpose of current inverters and conditioners is to adapt the electrical current from the fuel cell to suit the electrical needs of the application, whether it is a simple electrical motor or a complex utility power grid.

Fuel cells produce electricity in the form of direct current (DC). In a direct current circuit, electricity flows in only one direction. The electricity in your home and work place is in the form of alternating current (AC), which flows in both directions on alternating cycles. If the fuel cell is used to power equipment using AC, the direct current will have to be converted to alternating current.

Both AC and DC power must be conditioned. Power conditioning includes controlling current flow (amperes), voltage, frequency, and other characteristics of the electrical current to meet the needs of the application. Conversion and conditioning reduce system efficiency only slightly, around 2 to 6 percent.

Heat Recovery System
Fuel cell systems are not primarily used to generate heat. However, since significant amounts of heat are generated by some fuel cell systems—especially those that operate at high temperatures such as solid oxide and molten carbonate systems—this excess energy can be used to produce steam or hot water or converted to electricity via a gas turbine or other technology. This increases the overall energy efficiency of the systems.


and more

http://www.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/fuelcells/how.html

Started being used in 2002

http://www.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/fuelcells/pdfs/33639.pdf

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 has already gone 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. 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.

neglected to mention it, though.

And as far as the Fischer-Tropsch process I mention for other fuel synthesis...apparently it's already being implemented as well, as a significant source of synthetic diesel fuels.

You wrote: "Such large-scale reliance on coal is not perhaps the best of all possible solutions, but it will enable us to continue with our current infrastructure for some time while implementing longer-range sustainable alternatives."

Or perhaps it won't "enable us to continue... for some time" or the time necessary, as the burning of coal will only accelerate global warming. We may rob Peter to pay Paul, but eventually we'll pay the piper instead, especially if we're talking about turning to coal as an alternative on such a massive scale.

I thought that's the future we're trying to avoid here.

If oil gets too expensive, people will burn everything they can get their hands on including trash, trees, asphalt, charcoal.

Right now Haiti is almost completely denuded of trees because its inhabitants who have no other way to make money cut down the trees, burn them, and sell the charcoal for the people in the towns to make cooking fires.

Not a future I'd like to see.