45 replies to this topic

[Roh234]

Things are going to collapse if a viable solution isn't out there by 2040. By now with the oil shocks there is plenty of opportunity for entrepreneurship to develop a alternative and be mass produced and near universal by that date. If you think this is impossible, think computers and the internet. My parents remember how computers were widely expanded in the private sector for home use. Even though we have a bigger population, it will take a smaller amount of time to transition from oil to alternative than horses to cars.

[Logically Irrational]

I just have been seeing a pattern when a lot of the really negative predictions are coming from the same people who post crap like this. I see that it's a serious problem, but I really hate it when people only throw out doom and gloom in a situation that is clearly solvable.

[wjfox]

I just have been seeing a pattern when a lot of the really negative predictions are coming from the same people who post crap like this. I see that it's a serious problem, but I really hate it when people only throw out doom and gloom in a situation that is clearly solvable.

I suggest you read the Hirsch Report.

[Logically Irrational]

Ok, so I finally sat down and read the Hirsch Report in its entirety. It's just as well. I had been meaning to read it for a while since its such a major part of the whole peak oil discussion.

I'll start by saying that it has quite a few strengths to it. It does an excellent job of illustrating just how difficult and intense the process will be to shift completely away from oil and fossil fuels. I had never seen the figures for how long it takes for vehicle fleets and the like to turn over, and I agree that if the numbers are accurate (which I have no reason to doubt), then managing the full transition will indeed be on a scale of decades. It also lays out a solid case that market forces will not be enough to stop the decline once it begins, and neither will be advanced drilling and exploration technology. It also makes a good point on the difficulty of timing when it comes to beginning the mitigation. Starting too early could lead to wasted resources and money and overall economic damage, while waiting until the peak itself will doubtlessly lead to a major supply shortfall and economic stagnation. It's a difficult problem since the moment of peak is only truly obvious in retrospect. I'm happy that people in the government are at least acknowledging the issue and attempting to address it. So overall, I thought it does very well as a summary of the entire problem and timescale...

But...

I honestly need to talk about what seems to be a gaping hole in this entire report. I've heard it repeated before that if we wanted to avoid all the disasters that go along with peak oil, we would have had to start twenty years ago, since the process of changing transportation and utilities over to make them more efficient and such. The report goes into great detail on this point, looking at the time required to implement both retrofits to existing systems and entirely new technologies. It hits everything; cars, trucks, boats, planes, trains. Everything mentioned is overwhelmingly powered by fossil fuels. It wont help to build solar and wind for this problem since most cars need to be retrofitted or completely exchanged in order to make use of direct electricity. It will be a number of years before electric vehicles are widespread, and I accept that, the timeline says that itself (2030).

The flaw in the report is the fact that conservation, on top of mitigation, plays little to no role in Hirsch's outlook. None at all. I mean, he uses the word, but in a different context than what I'm talking about. This is all supply side talk, and it assumes that demand will stay continuous and growing. Going on this assumption, all that it looks at is how we can make the fossil fuels support the larger demand. In fact, the report says this outright:

Our focus is on large-scale, physical mitigation, as opposed to policy actions, e.g. tax credits, rationing, automobile speed restrictions etc. We define physical mitigation as 1) implementation of technologies that can substantially reduce the consumption of liquid fuels (improved fuel efficiency) while still delivering comparable service and 2) the construction and operation of facilities that yield large quantities of liquid fuels. (P. 50)

Hirsch's plan seems to be not to conserve or reduce our overall reliance on oil. It seems to look at ways that we can stretch out the existing supply over the next dew decades through retooling every car to run on less gas and building massive new refineries to increase the availability to the consumer. The report goes into how we might get more oil out of existing wells, and how to utilize the tar sands in Canada and Venezuela. Its almost as if the goal of solving the oil crisis is not to get us off oil, its to let us keep using oil in a business-as-usual fashion.

Nevertheless, this analysis clearly demonstrates that the key to mitigation of world oil production peaking will be the construction a large number of substitute fuel production facilities, coupled to significant increases in transportation fuel efficiency. The time required to mitigate world oil production peaking is measured on a decade time-scale. Related production facility size is large and capital intensive. How and when governments decide to address these challenges is yet to be determined. (p. 6)

Of course its going to be expensive and time consuming to do all of that, but the report's claim that it will take ten years to significantly improve fuel efficiency is ridiculous. If I'm going by personal oil usage, I can quadruple my fuel efficiency every time I carpool. If it gets bad enough, everyone on a street can get together, pool their money, and buy a moving van or something that once a week goes to buy groceries for everyone. I could have infinite fuel efficiency if I bike everywhere (which I more-or-less do already). These solutions might not work for everyone, but it will save a ton if everyone does it, as they are apt to do if gas is $7 a gallon. The report itself points out another major area of waste.

In the short run, much of the burden of adjustment will likely be borne by decreases in consumption from discretionary decisions, since 67 percent of personal automobile travel and nearly 50 percent of airplane travel are discretionary.

What if we cut out all that and just used the gas for food delivery and other essentials? How about telecommuting. The timeline has that becoming fairly common in the first world at least by the early 2020s. You've got the increasing share of the economy IT holds. More and more jobs today have to do with digital products which only rely on oil through the electricity needed to power the computer (and the machines that made the computer itself, but I'll get to that later). In fact, I'll just link to IEA's Saving Oil in a Hurry document. There's a lot that can be done. It wouldn't be fun. In fact, it would be a very difficult transition, and one that probably wouldn't really take hold until crunch time. There would be voices of dissent to be sure, but look back to the US or Britain in WWII. That was a crash program like never before, and the majority of people were behind it. I doubt that the elimination of excess luxury will lead to anarchy (though the separation between rich and poor is a topic for another thread). If "free Europe from fascism" was a successful rallying cry, then I'm sure "Don't let you and your family starve" will work as well.

Now of course we're getting into the economic problems from all of this. It would seem that all this decreased consumption of fossil fuels would wreak havoc on the economy. However, if skyrocketing prices means no one is spending money on oil at all, then that's money that can be spent back into the economic system on other things. Unlike the oil industry, where money tends to flow out of the country, this would be largely internal and benefiting the people providing the goods and services.

Now there's the problem of how oil powers the entire production process of most goods and foods. There's also the question of where people will get money to buy things if the job market has collapsed. The answers to these problems I believe are actually interrelated. The main reason that manufacturing and food production are so heavily reliant on fossil fuels is mechanization as a result of the green revolution. If a company can no longer be profitable because their machinery has become too expensive to operate, they can have people do it. This would obviously be at a reduced profit, but consider this simplified scenario:

Say I owned the largest farm, food packaging, and distribution center in a town. Before peak oil it was staffed by a small number of people needed to operate the combines and trucks and machinery and what not. Everyone in town can afford my food because they have their own jobs and cheap oil makes food cheap to produce. But peak oil hits and the economy stagnates. Not only are people loosing their jobs, but my farm is now so expensive to operate that I'm hardly able to sell my produce. I can't sell out of town at a profit anymore either because I have gasoline trucks. The solution? De-mechanize my business. By hiring a large number of people to work my farm, I keep the process moving and also create a group of people with income to buy my food. Of course, other companies and industries would be doing this so it wouldn't be just my own money that's getting paid back to me. It's hard to simplify the entire situation down like this, but do you see where I'm coming from?

So now there's a population post-peak that relies on much less oil and has money to pay into the economy. Their jobs may be harder, and there would be reduced luxury for a time, but civilization is far from collapsing.

This leads me to another issue I have, though it primarily has to do with the report's use today. The possibilities of renewable energy seems overlooked, and I think I know why. The Hirsch Report came out in 2005 if I'm not mistaken, with most work done in 2004 or so. Knowing this, consider graphs like this:

It seems like Hirsch fell into the old trap Kurzweil talks so much about. The fact that most people view technological progress as linear as apposed to exponential. You can tell that the report doesn't have a solid grasp of what renewables would be capable of.

What used to be termed the “not-in-my-back-yard” (NIMBY) principle has evolved into the “build-absolutely-nothing-anywhere-near-anything” (BANANA) principle, which is increasingly being applied to facilities of any type, including low-income housing, cellular phone towers, prisons, sports stadiums, water treatment facilities, airports, hazardous waste facilities, and even new fire houses. Construction of even a single, relatively innocuous, urgently needed facility can easily take more than a decade. (p. 46)

What about affordable, localized renewable energy? And for the record, I'm not advocating that we just sit back and relax and let the market fix everything. It will play a role in it, along with government action concerning conservation and the like. We will have to take action, ideally before the fact, just like the report says. This all ties down with my underlying problem with this report. Despite everything it proposes, it ignores the fact that we don't need oil. We may be in a position where the transition will be difficult, but its far from impossible.

Anyway, its getting late over here, so I should probably stop before my response starts becoming incoherent (too late perhaps). Hopefully anyone reading this could discern the points I'm trying to make. I know it's long, so it may be hard to quote and respond to. I wasn't going for a filibuster. I've got a good amount more to say on this one.

[tornado64]

There's a nice TED-talk to this topic: http://www.ted.com/t...for_energy.html

[wjfox]

Scary article...

http://www.theoildrum.com/node/9343

[wjfox]

[kjaggard]

I'm in a playful mood so read this in soap opera meledramatic tones.

Bamboo is both a carbon sink, and a decent replacement for much plastics. As are some things like dried gourds and similar raw materials that we used to use.
But even besides that are things like:
http://news.softpedi...ls-127667.shtml
tires and other industrial rubber materials:
http://www.msnbc.msn...g/#.UBSCj6PwRGk

To power transportation howabout turning atmospheric CO2 into methane via introduced current.
http://www.scienceda...20727144534.htm

How will we generate electricity?
Maybe: http://en.wikipedia....Breeder_reactor
http://www.guardian....dioactive-waste

Not to mention renewable sources.

But what about our agriculture which relies on so much fossil fuels?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mCCN4nq7BlQ&feature=related
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NCmTJkZy0rM&feature=relmfu

I know there are some who think it's all or nothing and for those folks it probably will be when oil is on the way out. I see it as a bit like the whole Y2K thing. So many people thought the world would end and the nuclear missiles would all launch and power plants would melt down and... yet here we are. Does it require some changes? yup. Funny thing about that though, a whole lot of us are gonna be having lots of free time now that jobs are gone. What shall we do about that, suppose I could grow all the food I need, and secure power and transportation and water sources for myself. But If I understand things properly that won't come near full time employment hours... hmm, maybe I could show my neighbors how to do the same. And make some crafts on the side, and paint from time to time. Write some books. Go to swap meets and thrift stores.

Oh I know I can power up my next generation solid state solar powered laptop computer and hook it to my 3d printer and create things.

[Logically Irrational]

Surprised to see this coming from George Monbiot. Still, it's impressive that if he thinks he's wrong about something he'll come right out and say it.

http://www.guardian....oil-we-we-wrong

Still not good though.

[wjfox]

Surprised to see this coming from George Monbiot. Still, it's impressive that if he thinks he's wrong about something he'll come right out and say it.

http://www.guardian....oil-we-we-wrong

Still not good though.

http://www.theoildrum.com/node/9292

[Logically Irrational]

Hmmm. Well, no one ever accused peak oil of being a simple issue I suppose. I'm gonna have to look into this a bit more.

[wjfox]

The next great oil crisis

A McClatchy computer analysis suggests that proven reserves of all of the world’s primary fuels are likely to diminish much faster than the EIA and the IEA have suggested, raising questions about how long mankind can continue to increase consumption of finite resources.

Researchers at the International Monetary Fund, while not yet speaking for the fund, predicted in May that rising oil demand would drive prices to nearly $200 a barrel, “permanently,” within a decade.

The world must accept “the outlook for flattened oil supplies” and “the reality that the era of abundant cheap oil is over,” said Sadad Al Husseini, a former No. 2 executive for Saudi Arabia’s national oil company, Aramco.

Read more here: http://www.miamihera...oil-crisis.html

[Craven]

Faster the oil runs out, faster we have to deal with it. It won't be easy, but I say later it happens uglier it may get.

[Dramatism]

Oh gosh, the reality is coming. We will survive this, but it will have to get worse first. It's terrible how much we now have to spend on oil and food. I remember going to the grocery store as a kid and our food would cost a hundred dollars. Now, we barely buy anything and it's that amount.

And the sad thing is, I'm young so I won't die first. Sooner or later, I will be around to deal with the aftermath... Even if I can buy a car that utilizes alternative energy, it doesn't mean this won't affect me.

[Lily]

Oh gosh, the reality is coming. We will survive this, but it will have to get worse first. It's terrible how much we now have to spend on oil and food. I remember going to the grocery store as a kid and our food would cost a hundred dollars. Now, we barely buy anything and it's that amount.

And the sad thing is, I'm young so I won't die first. Sooner or later, I will be around to deal with the aftermath... Even if I can buy a car that utilizes alternative energy, it doesn't mean this won't affect me.

Yeah, I can totally relate to that. I've always helped my mother to buy groceries, and I remember that when I was in elementary school, we could buy much more stuff to get the cart full and would pay an amount much smaller than what we have to pay now. It's especially bad when it comes to fuel (gas you americans call it?). It's incredible how much a litre of petrol costs nowadays!

I have to disagree with something you said, though. I don't think it's a sad or bad thing you'll live long enpough to see peak oil, and the aftermath. Of course, it will be hard times, but I can't relate to the thought of wanting to die before. I want to live as long as possible, and I am fairly positive humanity will find ways to overcome this - and pretty quickly, too. If there's really a necessity, we'll put everything we have into finding an alternative. And we will, eventually.

Edited by Lily, 13 August 2012 - 08:03 PM.

[Dramatism]

Oh gosh, the reality is coming. We will survive this, but it will have to get worse first. It's terrible how much we now have to spend on oil and food. I remember going to the grocery store as a kid and our food would cost a hundred dollars. Now, we barely buy anything and it's that amount.

And the sad thing is, I'm young so I won't die first. Sooner or later, I will be around to deal with the aftermath... Even if I can buy a car that utilizes alternative energy, it doesn't mean this won't affect me.

Yeah, I can totally relate to that. I've always helped my mother to buy groceries, and I remember that when I was in elementary school, we could buy much more stuff to get the cart full and would pay an amount much smaller than what we have to pay now. It's especially bad when it comes to fuel (gas you americans call it?). It's incredible how much a litre of petrol costs nowadays!

I have to disagree with something you said, though. I don't think it's a sad or bad thing you'll live long enpough to see peak oil, and the aftermath. Of course, it will be hard times, but I can't relate to the thought of wanting to die before. I want to live as long as possible, and I am fairly positive humanity will find ways to overcome this - and pretty quickly, too. If there's really a necessity, we'll put everything we have into finding an alternative. And we will, eventually.

I'm not exactly saying I want to DIE. That's drastic. I want to live much much longer. I'm just saying it will be really tough to live in an economy worse than it already is. My dad was layed off a few years ago and that was stressful. He was lucky enough to find another job in town in his field. I'm secure for now, living with my parents. But I'll be going to college, and eventually supporting myself.

What I'm saying is, once I have a secure, well paying job in five years, I'll be okay. But it won't be fun to watch the world slowly crumble before it can be glued back together. And we both know that glue won't be insta-dry. I want to retain my quality of living. Until this recession, my life has been untainted by too much hard times. I was lucky enough that 9/11 didn't affect me, for example.

[GNR Rvolution]

http://www.newscient...o-peak-oil.html

Sent from my Nexus S using Tapatalk 2

[wjfox]

Saudis may not have oil to export by 2030

If the headline doesn't concentrate the world's efforts to find alternatives nothing else will. Saudi Arabia, the world's largest oil exporter, could become an oil importer by 2030, according to analysis by Citigroup's Heidy Rehman.

It appears Saudi Arabia consumes a quarter of all its production. In fact, on a per-capita basis, the kingdom is using more oil than most industrialised nations.
And it's going to gorge itself on even more as demand for electricity soars.

http://blogs.aljazee...oil-export-2030

[wjfox]

[Matthew]

Can you imagine what would happen if it ran out next month. No more oil.

We would totally have to switch our automobiles over to electric.