NYT climbs on the Peak Oil bandwagon

[GliderGuider]

The following quotes are from a long op-ed by Robert Semple Jr, associate editor of the Times Editorial Board. It's behind the Times' paywall, but here are a couple of pertinent paras:

When President Bush declared in his 2006 State of the Union address that America must cure its "addiction to oil," he framed his case largely in terms of national security -- the need to liberate the country from of its dependence on volatile and in some cases hostile nations for much of its energy. He failed to mention two other good reasons to sober up. Both are at least as pressing as national security. One is global warming...

The second reason is just as unsettling, and is only starting to get the attention it deserves. The Age of Oil -- 100-plus years of astonishing economic growth made possible by cheap, abundant oil -- could be ending without our really being aware of it. Oil is a finite commodity. At some point even the vast reservoirs of Saudi Arabia will run dry. But before that happens there will come a day when oil production "peaks," when demand overtakes supply (and never looks back), resulting in large and possibly catastrophic price increases that could make today's $60-a-barrel oil look like chump change. Unless, of course, we begin to develop substitutes for oil. Or begin to live more abstemiously. Or both. The concept of peak oil has not been widely written about. But people are talking about it now. It deserves a careful look -- largely because it is almost certainly correct.

The link for those who can access it:
http://select.nytimes.com/2006/03/01/opinion/01talkingpoints.html&OQ=_rQ3D1Q26pagewantedQ3Dall&OP=3101e59aQ2FQ2FuN-Q2FDtfXXDQ2Fb66TQ2F6oQ2F6.Q2FXj252X5Q2F6.D4VQ3A25cjX25DtQ24qDQ60V">The End of Oil

So there you have it. The NYT editorial board is on record that peak oil is "almost certainly correct". They are still a little fuzzy on the date, but the next six months should see enough data for them to commit themselves with confidence.

For those with an interest in the analytical and evidentiary side of the issue, check out the article linked below. It was written in response to the NYT op-ed. The chicken entrails are looking disturbingly rotten:

Why peak oil is probably about now

[gristy]

1. good article

But he makes one mistake that I noticed. The same one that too many make. Following a paragraph on tar sands and shale oil, he seems to allude to hydrogen as a raw energy source, rather than simply a means of energy transport.

...Getting at tar and shale oil require heavy, energy-intensive mining operations. And despite the serious bets being placed on the tar sands, unconventional oil won't be available in large enough quantities to make a real difference until well down the road.

The same can be said of the hydrogen energy President Bush has been touting ever since he came to office; the National Academy of Sciences says we won't see affordable hydrogen-powered cars in meaningful numbers for 30 years, if that. This does not mean that we shouldn't keep trying — future generations will not forgive us if we don't. What it does mean is that we need to look quickly for near and medium-term solutions that can help us cushion the shock when we hit the peak, assuming we haven't hit it already.

[GliderGuider]

2. Using hydrogen accomplishes two things

It moves pollution away from the point of use back to the point of production, and it gives us another "energy currency". As you point out, it doesn't give us more energy, unless we get it by solar-power-driven electrolysis. Aside from the capital costs of production startup, that process has such a low production rate that it would be a non player in reduced-energy world. Add to that the cost of building a currently non-existent hydrogen infrastructure (no matter what the source of the hydrogen is), and you're pretty much dead in the water.

We have to stop grasping at straws, and start grasping the reality of our predicament. The scale of the problem is a whole lot larger than most people can comprehend.

[hatrack]

3. And this morning? Why, an ExxonMobil ad on the op/ed page, of course!

It talked all about oil shale and tar sands and how we won't even approach peak for decades. Why, in one fell swoop, it doubled the planet's proven reserves! Amazing!

And two pages earlier was an entire full-page ad from the API. It didn't even talk about peak oil, but rather dwelt at some length on just how much money they spend on exploration and how this will assure a steady supply of oil and gas.

Now, would they be responding with full-page ads if this were some fringe theory?

I didn't think so either.