The problem I'm having with Peak Oil

[jmowreader]

I know that Peak Oil is going to be a huge problem, BUT!

Take any story about Peak Oil and load it into your word processor. Search-and-replace "Peak Oil" with "Y2K Bug." Sound familiar?

I read the Life After the Oil Crash site. It felt exactly like I was reading a Y2K site.

I know I'm gonna get flamed, I know Peak Oil is gonna cause major problems, but it's almost like the Y2K fearmongers needed the world to come to an end on 1/1/00, and when it didn't they found a new thing to scare the shit out of all of us over.

[Dookus]

1. I agree with you

[Dissenting_Prole]

2. Oil Peak has been around since 1950's

Search Google for "Hubbert's Curve"

http://www.brant.net/gvmr/electric.htm

[bearfartinthewoods]

50. that's the problem i'm having

that people are behaving like this is new info.

[Kool Kitty]

3. I wasn't frightened by the Y2K talk,

but I am seriously scared of the Peak Oil problem. :scared:

[Indiana_Dem]

21. Exactly the same with me. I wasn't fearful of Y2K at all.

My way of life did not fully depend on computers. With Y2K you didn't really have to worry about food, transportation, sewage, lighting, heat, medicine, etc. We wouldn't have started wars because our communication system had broken down. We didn't need to steal communication resources from other countries.

But when geologists and scientists come up with scientific data all the way from the 1950s with varying degrees of the impact of oil depletion and its finity, and then you look around you and see how much energy we depend on and the wars and rumors of wars based around oil producing countries, it sure makes you wonder. The pieces of the puzzle begin to fit. Carter gave us the warning in 1979. Today, nobody of power is telling us anything. Instead we get talked into wars for false reasons.

Survival of the fittest doesn't mean we have to go into a series of resource wars. We can become the "fittest" if we are able to come up with alternative energies before anyone else. I don't want a race to the bottom, I want a race to the top, however difficult it may be. I appreciate the warning from the peak oil activists! Let it be an alarm for us to activate John Kerry into moving quickly in that direction before it's too late if it isn't already!!!!!

[latebloomer]

52. actually you did have to worry about most of that stuff

with Y2K. Food, unless it was local, transportation, heating, lghting, medicine, is all computer-dependent.

[Indiana_Dem]

68. I remember working at my local hospital (I'm a nurse)

that New Year's Eve night. By the time I went to work around 5pm, the rest of the world had had New Year's and nothing happened to them so I knew nothing was going to happen around me. My own dinosaur computer my dad had given me never flinched and I never did anything to prevent it from the "date".:shrug:

I'm sure the bug could've caused problems. Sorry for not sounding so concerned by it when many of you worked so hard on it. I appreciate the effort the computer techies did to prevent the occurance. Since I am computer illiterate, I just couldn't see the hype.

[SammyWinstonJack]

43. Same here

:scared:

[hellhathnofury]

4. Yeah, it's really not that surprising.

Oil isn't renewable, as scarcity increases the harder it becomes to obtain.

I don't know why everyone is running around like a chicken with it's head cut off.

[mhr]

5. Negative, Peak Oil Has Been Around As An Issue For Awhile

Do the research.

Mr. Hubbert predicted the peak in US Oil production back in the late 50s.

He was ridiculed at the time. He was proved right in roughly 1971/72 when US production did peak as predicted.

The peak oil we are discussing to day is the World peak which will occur just like the US peak did.

This is actually a very old issue totally unrelated to Y2K.

[jmowreader]

14. I know it's unrelated to Y2K

But the level of hysteria the Peak Oil website writers have is about the same.

Remember Y2K? The whole world was supposed to shut down because of the "billions of lines" of mainframe code that hadn't been updated to support four-digit dates.

Which explains why my credit card bill came in January just like I expected it to.

I'll give one example from the Oil Crash site: chemical fertilizers. Before chemical fertilizers, they used crop rotation. Instead of growing wheat every year, they grew wheat one year and peas or some other nitrogen-fixing crop the next. We'll have to go back to that kind of agriculture, and it will be better that way because the food grown in soil that was managed by crop rotation was more nutritious than the food grown with chemical fertilizers.

[maggrwaggr]

26. "opening one's mouth and removing all doubt"

how does that old saying begin?

I'm amazed how people will freely express what can only be described as ignorance on this board.

Do yourself a favor, get yourself informed, then start threads about them.

Burying your head in the sand about peak oil is like starting to drive across Death Valley on an 1/8 of a tank with the next gas station 250 miles away.

You're gonna run out of gas. It's a simple fact.

[Kelvin Mace]

30. Perfectly true,,,

I'll give one example from the Oil Crash site: chemical fertilizers. Before chemical fertilizers, they used crop rotation. Instead of growing wheat every year, they grew wheat one year and peas or some other nitrogen-fixing crop the next. We'll have to go back to that kind of agriculture, and it will be better that way because the food grown in soil that was managed by crop rotation was more nutritious than the food grown with chemical fertilizers.

Only trouble is, the crop yield is smaller. Like it or not, we are very dependent on "factory farming" for our food supply.

David Allen
Publisher, CEO, Janitor
Plan Nine Publishing
http://www.plan9.org

[rustydad]

74. The trouble is...........

.....that we grow about 8 times more grain per acre with 'green revolution' plants that are totally dependent on fossil fuel based nitrogen fertilizers. Not to mention the fossil fuel powered tractors, water pumping, distribution, cold storage, on and on. As fossil fuels peak and production declines the standard of living of those most dependent on cheap fossil fuels will decline proportional to that use. We in the US have the greatest energy use per capita of all large nations. Being at the top in this case means the fall will be the greatest....
.
.
.
.
.
.
woopeee

[aldian159]

75. except there are 6 billion people now

and were only about 1 billion at the end of the crop-rotation system.

[sybylla]

79. We won't have to go back to the old ways of farming

Diesels can run on salad oil. The problem is with everything else. But before we reach the the most critical shortage of oil and oil based products, we will go through an economic crisis like we haven't seen for 70 years. Since oil is a commodity, all it will take is the perception that we are going to run out and the price will skyrocket. We will be spending every free cent to heat our homes and get to our jobs. The cost of everything produced with oil based products will in turn skyrocket. Jobs will start to disappear because because only a few will have enough money left in their pockets to pay for anything else but fuel.

Now imagine the snowball getting bigger as we roll down the backside of the oil peak. It doesn't take much of an imagination to realize we are in deep hooey if we don't start investing in alternatives individually and as a society.

Knowledge is power. I knew that the Y2K problem was bullshit from the beginning because my job is in the tech industry and I was informed. Research peak oil. Research what happens to the price of home heating fuel when supplies are low. Research what happens when consumer spending drops to zero. Then come back and call me Chicken Little.

[still_one]

6. Peak Oil

is an excuse so big oil can increase prices!

[hellhathnofury]

8. Can you elaborate?

The less oil there is in the world, the more expensive it is. I wouldn't neccesserily say it's a big conspiracy.

[okieinpain]

33. yeah, I wonder if the oil companies are going to help bush,

and lower the prices. or are they going to panic and try to make as much money as possible before bush goes down.

these companies have to know that high gas prices are not going to help bush, so I wonder why they are shutting down refineries for maintenance. very interesting

[kysrsoze]

87. They don't have that kind of control anymore

OPEC is intent on raising prices and restricting oil supply. This is for two reasons:

1. They don't trust Bush et al to work in their best interests, so they want them out.

2. They also know their reserves are steadily decreasing and becoming progressively more expensive to utilize, while demand continues to grow in the U.S. and other up-and-coming countries like India and China.

[billbuckhead]

7. Different paradigm. There is a finite amount of oil

Y2K was overhyped one time event.

[ochazuke]

16. Another difference between Y2K and Peak Oil

Because of the hype, we prepared for Y2K. It took a year or two and got the job done. Some were preparing many years in advance.

With the oil supply, the only preparation we can do is conserve and switch to alternate supplies of energy. But that takes decades.

Unless Peak Oil is overhyped and the masses become seriously concerned, nothing will be done til it's too late. May already be too late, I don't think we can know.

So, ironically, the exaggerations were the ticket to salvation, plus the belief in those exaggerations.

[Kelvin Mace]

31. I wrote my first article

about Y2K in 1994. I came across the topic in a posting from alt.comp.risks from '92. There was pleanty of time to "fix" the problem and the problem was "fixable"

No amount of money can change the fact that there is only so much oil in the ground. And long before that oil is gone, it will take more than a barrel of oil's energy to extract a barrel of oil.

David Allen
Publisher, CEO, Janitor
Plan Nine Publishing
http://www.plan9.org

[Pobeka]

9. No, it doesn't sound familiar, at all.

Y2K was about things we could fix, and were obviously fixable with a little programming effort. The effort was miniscule, when compared to running out of the energy we run our whole world on.

The reason to get excited now, is that in order to research and develop new energy sources, guess what we need? Yup, we need energy for R&D. So the time to develop viable alternative energy resources that work at scales large enough (either distributed or generated locally), is now, while we have our old energy sources to do it.

This is not a trivial programming exercise. Y2K was trivial, in comparison. It got a lot of attention, rightly so because if the Y2K fix was not taken, lots of stuff (services) would have broken.

[Elidor]

10. No, you make a good point

No flame here. I worked for a y2k magazine and website. I remember the hysteria.

I think we can adjust our lifestyles. It won't be pleasant for many people. But it can be done.

There is also "The Coming Super Depression That Will Make the Great Depression Look Like a Picnic," and apocalytpic visions such as Harry Harrison's Soylent Green and Skyfall. There is a place - a neccesity even - for worst-case scenarios in public debate, but too many people take them at face value and stop thinking critically after digesting them.

[ferg]

18. peak oil is a slow process

It's not as if oil will immediately disappear, causing a massive catastrophe.

So gas and oil prices go up, and people switch away from SUVs because they're too expensive and then start moving towards cities and using public transit because of the expense.

Granted, the transition would be smoother if we started working on it now, it's not as if civilization dies in a year.

[maggrwaggr]

28. the first thing we'll see is massive inflation

because everything, and I mean everything, in our economy, world-wide, is tied to the cost of oil.

Then what you'll see are the rich staying fat and happy while the poor get more and more poor.

When the poor start dying of mass starvation we'll have a ton of trouble.

Meanwhile, the rich folks will complain about how expensive everything has gotten, but they'll still be living pretty well until the poor people slit their throats.

[jpak]

59. No - it is not a slow process!

US oil production has been in free-fall since its peak 1973.

and it will decline to a trickle by 2020.

The same thing will happen to global oil production once the peak occurs.

The transition from peak to bust will be rapid.

[arcos]

11. You can't compare the two...

With Y2K, there was an specific date for the disaster and programmers started to prepare several years before. With peak oil, we are either about to peak, or peaked already, and until it is starting to get the attention of the mainstream press.

With Y2K you really just had to patch computers and they would be prepared. Are you going to patch every single car? every single plane? every single ship? every single thermic power plant? every single fertilizer plant? every single plastic plant?

We just don't have a solution. Y2K was fairly easy, you just had to run the program or change the equipments. With peak oil, you have to develop a whole new technology.

[Elidor]

12. re: Are you going to patch every single car?

No, we're going to patch every single American lifestyle. Whether we want to or not. If I promise you that you'll live right through it, you can sue me if I'm wrong.

We will learn to live with less cars, less planes, fewer chips and power plants and plastics. And it might even be a good thing.

[arcos]

15. well...

I'm pretty sure I'll live through it, but a lot of people won't. And yes, everyone will need to learn to live without oil, there's no other choice. But to pretend that it won't change society and civilization is nonsense. It will, and it will change A LOT.

And yes, I agree... it will end up being a good thing. But it will be a very hard process.

[Elidor]

19. Agreed. It will be hard.

The sooner we as a nation start making the hard choices, the less severe the change will be.

[tedoll78]

23. I have the feeling that there will be mini-die-offs.

Think about all of the fertilizers and food produced as a result of oil products. Now imagine food shortages at grocery stores. Riots. People fighting over the limited supply. I can see it very easily. People leaving the cities in search of food and water.

Y2K scared me not one bit. The evidence wasn't really there; it was mostly conjecture. Peak Oil does scare me a bit. I found-out about it on Friday and spent all weekend long reading about it; the data looks solid, which I hate to admit. It might not come as soon as many predict (maybe 2015 instead of 2007? Who knows?), but the limited nature of our oil supply is undeniable.

Before I found-out about Peak Oil, me and my partner had been planning to build a completely self-sufficient farm in an isolated rural area when we graduate. Totally off-grid, several water wells drilled, solar-powered, wind power-supplemented, with chickens, a nice garden, etc etc. My dad (the architect) is in the process of designing it. After reading about Peak Oil, I'm beginning to think that the farm idea looks excellent..

(One thing about solar panels.. you need oil to make them. Yup. Which means that once the population begins to accept this concept, their price will go up and only the wealthy will be able to afford them.)

When it comes, it will be gradual. We'll plateau (if we aren't already.. we last "peaked" in 2000), and then slowly come down from that peak. Hell, we'll probably get desperate enough to drill in Alaska. Sucks. And we'll bully the rest of the world so that we get what we unjustly percieve as "our fair share" of the supply. It'll slow the descent, but we, the junky, will need to get off of this chicken..

[davekriss]

34. Your Farm Idea

Sounds like an excellent idea. If I only had the means ... !

A difference in opinion, however. The ride up Hubbert's peak started slow and gently rolled up to the peak. New discovery kept pace with rising demand. Once past the plateau, however, the math changes quite a bit. Demand continues to rise as places like India and China increasingly adopt western lifestyles while new discoveries fall, meaning the rate of extraction grows exponentially and the downward slope of Hubbert's Peak looks more like a cliff with a hard-landing. Terms like global carrying capacity come in to play.

Before the ride up the slope we had about 1.8 billion humans roaming the planet; we now have over 6 billion; and the forecast is we will have about 8 billion as we teeter at the brink. If we have not structurally and radically reorganized ourselves by then (which could be as soon as 2007 to 2015), then over the next several decades nature will reorganize us for us. Expect massive strife, wars, and die-off.

Now, observe current events. What steps are Western leaders taking to help radically reorganize food production patterns, cities, transportation, promote alternate fuels, and to promote a less-consumptive lifestyle? Not many, right? Instead we see the USG military boot and CIA black shoe land square in oil rich territories around the world -- the Caspian Basin, Iraq, Venezuela, Colombia. The number one priority on Bush's agenda (as recommended by PNAC) is attempting to expand the military footprint in all the world's resource rich regions. Bush falls asleep with visions of militarism and empire dancing in his mind (with thumb in mouth, of course).

The question is, as other nations also understand these global "hard limits", how long will it take before they start firing guns of their own? Bush's strategy to protect the free flow of oil to favored constituencies and allies is likely to degrade into tension and war once oil hungry nations around the world feel threatened. WW3, the big one, is that much more possible.

A good thread running on another board (urban75) has been runnng for 7 or 8 month's ago and is filled with interesting links and analyses. It's worth a skim: http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=45251

[tedoll78]

35. Thanks so much!

I'm still learning, and ready to adapt my future plans for this probability..

[SammyWinstonJack]

45. "I'm pretty sure I'll live through it, but a lot of people won't."

I read that the population of the World will be reduced to 500 million? Not very good odds of being able to "live through it."

[KissMyAsscroft]

17. Y2K was a joke.

The whole concept was idiotic.

[rman]

41. y2k was pretty serious

it wasn't much of a problem only because people worked hard to fix it.

[mopinko]

13. yup

we heard all this stuff in the 70's. it was all bogus. the thing that is bugging me is the trotting out of the chinese- the slanty eyed bastards are gonna be using up all of OUR oil.
don't get me wrong, i fear for our planet. but paranoid, scapegoating is not gonna win any arguments. and alternative technologies are in ALL the pipelines. so chill people.

[Ready4Change]

20. I'm a programmer who worked on Y2K.

I and the rest of my team crawled over every line of code in our systems. It was a very real problem. We put in an ungodly number of hours to fix that thing. We worked late nights and a few weekends. We tested the snot out of it every which way till Sunday. We didn't charge a minute of overtime because we knew what was on the line. Our systems are business critical. They die, and our department crashes to a halt. Send 1,000 employees home for the weeks or months it would take to get working again.

The big night came. We crossed our fingers. The programs all worked.

And what did our users say?

"Gee, that Y2K problem was pretty over blown, eh?"

:mad:

Few months later, we find a report that doesn't work right. Turns out it's a bit of Y2K we missed. (It was obscured by some weird code. Hard to explain.) I work late on a Friday night to get the report working for the user to run first thing Monday morning. Report runs fine.

And what does the users boss say?

"No one else had any Y2K issues. How the hell did you screw up on a little thing like that?"

:grr:

And now YOU'RE telling ME Y2K was a fart in a pan, so Peak Oil, a TOTALLY unrelated issue, is ALSO going to be no big thing?

Y2K would have screwed us all over, except for a h*ll of a lot of good hard work put in by a lot of unappreciated coders. And those coders aren't going to be able to do squat about Peak Oil. That's going to take politicians making the right decisions a decade in advance. And that means YOU have to start riding THEIR *sses on the issue.

Or are you expecting someone else to save you this time around too?

(On edit, I thought about toning this down, but I'm just not in the mood.

BTW, I'm now unemployed because that place figured their systems worked so good they didn't need anyone maintaining them. So much for incentive to do quality work, eh?

:nuke: )

[jmowreader]

22. I also worked my ass off on Y2K

I got sent out to check all of my customers' systems to ensure there would be no Y2K interruption. Wore out two sets of tires in the process.

Burned loads of midnight oil.

Got ripped up one side and down the other because one of my salesmen had decided our computers weren't Y2K compatible and I wasn't agreeing with him, and I had to spend three days proving they were. (They were all Macs.) About two days into it, I told him that if he was so fucking worried about a computer that had always been Y2K compliant not being Y2K compliant, he could get me a new one. Didn't work and didn't shut him up, either.

Read the initial post for comprehension again.

[Nay]

37. And my hubby worked HIS ass off on Y2K

It wasn't a fake thing, folks. Just because the fix worked, doesn't mean there weren't a whole bunch of people slaving away behind the scenes. There were.

[robertpaulsen]

81. C'mon jmowreader, admit it! You love the flames!

Count me as another person who thought the Y2K predictions were not going to pan out. But you must have thought there was some truth to some of the predictions, otherwise why work so hard to stop something you didn't believe in?

Perhaps Peak Oil won't reduce the planet's population to 500 million, perhaps it will. But I hope some of the apocalyptic language on that site doesn't make you think that the problem just doesn't exist. There is a finite amount of oil on this planet. How and when we adjust to the eventual depletion will determine whether Peak Oil will be an inconvenience, like Y2K, or a disaster like the Black Plague. I believe it will be somewhere in between the two, which is bad enough. However, the more our government ignores it, the worse the problem is going to get.

[jmowreader]

94. Well, that explains the Nomex underwear...

The only way to minimize the problems Peak Oil is going to cause is to run off the Oil Administration.

Dick Cheney has gone on record saying conservation shouldn't be part of any national energy strategy. Bush has already run three Texas oil companies into the ground. (How in hell do you do that? A Texas oil company will make money if it's managed properly and if it has a geologist who can find oil. Apparently Bush had neither going for him.) And Chevron named an oil tanker the Condoleeza Rice.

By doing this one thing--running off Bush--we've solved at least half the problem.

[Elidor]

24. Excellent points

y2k wasn't more of an issue because many people did take it very seriously and a lot of resources were put into fixing it.

You didn't charge overtime? You got screwed.

[Ready4Change]

27. Yah, and that was back when...

Yah, and that was back when you COULD charge overtime. :)

Sorry for the rant. But Y2K is a thorn under my skin. It's like they brough in a wrecked car, said they wanted it fixed tomorrow, I bust my can and make it perfect, and then they complain that it doesn't look any better than it did when it was brand new.

Sorry, sorry. Shouldn't get myself going again.

(Geez, I AM a bit touchy on this! Whew! :crazy: )

[denverbill]

48. I'll ditto that. Y2K was a real problem.

It was only thanks to programmers efforts that major problems were avoided.

Frankly, considering the millions and millions of lines of code involved, I was very very surprised we didn't see more problems.

IMO, a lot of the 90's tech boom was due to businesses upgrading PC's and operating systems with Y2K compatible software too.

[maggrwaggr]

25. I'm shocked you would make this comparison

because you are either deliberately trying to bait people or you're breathtakingly ignorant. I don't mean that as an insult, simply a fact.

Y2K was just a computer thingy that might shut down computers. Big fucking deal. Stuff would shut down. So what.

There is only so much oil in the earth and we're going to run out of it. BIG fucking deal.

One is a "maybe a few garage doors won't open" the other is "mass starvation and the end of civilization as we know it"

I can't even believe you posted that.

[muriel_volestrangler]

38. "end of civilization as we know it"?

This is the hyperbole that the original post is objecting to. They acknowledge it as a 'big' or 'huge' problem, and then you say, that if they really believe that, it's "breathtakingly ignorant". I really would like a proper analysis of the economics and demographics before I can believe the predictions of nine tenths of the world's population dying. So far, all I can find is people quoting each other on that.

A few weeks ago I asked someone on this board whether they could explain the reason that some people predict a (downward) 'cliff' in oil usage, when Hubbert's theory (which everyone is using to say we're at peak oil usage now) describes a gradual decline in oil usage. I never got an answer; perhaps you could explain this?

[Ready4Change]

53. Steep cliff in my opinion

The back side of the Peak Oil curve will be steep, in my opinion, for the following 4 reasons:

1. The front side was gentle because growing demand was matched by growing discoveries and growing production capability. Those things worked together. The backside will be steep because discoveries will cease, production will decrease (because all the easy to obtain oil will have been drawn), and yet demand will continue to grow.

2. The front side was gentled because we were discovering new sources with exponentially improving technologies. At this point we've found most all there is. No matter how technology improves, it can't find what isn't there.

3. Demand will continue to grow because population is growing faster than ever. It took us several thousand years to increase our population to 2 billion in 1930. In the 70 years since we've added over 4.5 billion people. That population increase, while facilitated by agriculture backed by oil fueled industry, is really due to social factors which will continue that population rise well past the point of sustainability.

4. The pressures from increased population are magnified by the rapid industrialization of many of the worlds most populous nations. China and India are both industrializing rapidly, and their thirst for oil will make the USA look thrifty. Thus demand isn't just growing. It's exploding, and at the worst time possible.

In my opinion the only things that can lessen the steepness of the back side are extreme developments of alternative energy sources right now, or an early LARGE die-off of population. As I'm no fan of genocide, I'd rather develop alternative energy sources.

However, even assuming Kerry wins, and assuming he promotes massive alternative development, and assuming Congress and Senate back him up, I've read that many learned people dispute how well even fully developed alternatives can replace oil.

In the long term ( say a century from now) most think alternatives can exceed the current energy delivery of oil. But in the near term mostly smaller percentages of current oil energy delivery are estimated.

That percentage of oils' energy which alternative can match over the next couple of generations equals pretty much how many of our excess of 4.5+ billion people can survive.

The deaths of billions sounds drastic, but the really BIG disaster scenarios from Peak Oil come from the idea that alternatives will be far harder to develop once oil is gone. That's because the rapid pace of technological development comes from our large, oil fueled, industrial base. Without oil you loose industry. Without industry you loose all the materials needed to advance research quickly. So, if we don't develop alternatives in the few decades of easy oil we have before us, developing alternative to replace oil's energy may take centuries instead of decades.

Sorry for the long post. I just hadn't seen anyone adress your question yet.

[maggrwaggr]

73. thank you for your intelligent post

I'm just shocked how uninformed people at DU are on this subject.

[muriel_volestrangler]

77. thanks for your reasoned response

much better than some hysterical things you see. I'd dispute your point number 3 - world population increase, in absolute terms, has just started to decline; but point 4 may make that irrelevant. However, I'd argue that the first people to be hit by an increase in oil prices will be the developing countries, trying to get more for their industries (or individual use - but I think the increase in price may put running a car out of reach of anyone who can't afford it already). Tough for them, of course; it may be their increase in GDP all goes towards obtaining useful energy, while the developed world has to give up luxuries it's had for some time.

There will undoubtedly be an increase in price - but that will make it economic to extract the harder-to-get oil, so supplies shouldn't face a sudden drop just because the easy-to-get wells run dry. At the same time, the alternatives will become more attractive - and I think that will include nuclear. I fear it will also include coal, causing more pollution and CO2 problems. Transport will be the biggest problem area - maybe hydrogen fuel can be sorted; maybe there will have to be a fundamental change in Western lifestyle, to use electric-powered mass transport.

I'd like to see how much of the input into modern agriculture has to be oil or gas, and how much is just because they're the cheapest choice at the moment (eg is using biodiesel feasible - or would you use more inputs than you get out?) Do you know any figures on that?

[Ready4Change]

91. World population, etc...

Thanks, btw. I wasn't sure if I sounded like I was ranting. :)

I'm not sure what population "in absolute terms" refers to. I'v been looking at places like this population clock which shows steady growth in the worlds population. (Which I thought was higher than this? Oops.)

The rise in oil prices is due to both increasing demands and the need to extract harder to get oil. There is a point at which people won't be able to pay the costs needed to extract oil, but that point is vague because some people have more money, and some entities may insist on making more or less profit, regardless of need.

I also agree that the rise in price may make developing alternatives look better. I'm considering a solar installation at my home, and as NG prices rise solar is looking better and better. I also share your concerns regarding coal. We can burn it cleaner now than ever, but it's still a dirty way to get electricity.

Finally, I don't have figures regarding agriculture and biodiesel. I've a friend who looking into it (on a lark) and says there seems to be a viable path to a biodiesel economy. 2 issues. First, it's not happening right now because fossil oil is relatively cheap. Second, the energy gain is thinner, so it's doubtful we could ever return to todays energy levels on biodiesel alone.

[muriel_volestrangler]

93. World population increase is starting to slow

by "absolute terms", I meant the new number of people per year; you could also measure it in relative terms, eg "increasing by 1.1% per year" or whatever.

Here's figures from the UN ( http://esa.un.org/unpp/ ):

world population in thousands
     people     increase
1955 2,755,823
1960 3,021,475  265,652   8.8% 
1965 3,334,874  313,399   9.4%
1970 3,692,492  357,618   9.7%
1975 4,068,109  375,617   9.2%
1980 4,434,682  366,573   8.3%
1985 4,830,979  396,297   8.2%
1990 5,263,593  432,614   8.2%
1995 5,674,380  410,787   7.2%
2000 6,070,581  396,201   6.5%

It's still rising, of course, but the estimates of where it will level out have come down recently. Some are saying 9 billion, some more.

[Ready4Change]

95. Ah, you meant the rate of increase.

Thanks.

That also points out a misperception on my part. I thought the rate was increasing, not decreasing. My bad, and thanks for the correction.

[maggrwaggr]

70. The demand is rising, the supply is dropping, duh.

in your car as you're trying to drive across the desert. You're only equipped to drive. You don't have water, you don't even have good shoes, you don't have sunscreen, you don't have any food.

The nearest gas station is 100 miles away, and it costs $50 a gallon.

Yes, it's going to be "the end of civilization as we know it" because everybody is so fucking ignorant about how oil is used for EVERYTHING and I mean EVERYTHING in our society.

It's used to make food, deliver food, purify water, transport us, keep our lights on, and literally run our entire civilization.

Our civilization as we know it now, cannot run without oil anymore than your car can run without gas.

And yes, technically we won't run out, it will just get so expensive no one will be able to afford it.

Do you know what has happened in countries where massive inflation takes place? Usually chaos, political instability, followed often times by dictators and war. Think Nazi germany.

The simple fact is this:

The demand for oil is going up.

The supply is going down.

It's going to get more expensive on an exponential level.

If you can't get your head around this, well I feel sorry for you.

[muriel_volestrangler]

78. Thanks, but when I wondered about an economic analysis

I was referring to the real world, not to one of your metaphors.

Have you any figures that aren't wild guesses and extrapolations?

[maggrwaggr]

96. how much oil do you THINK is in the ground?

when do you think it's going to run out?

Where do you think it comes from?

It's very easy to find the information you're asking for, I shouldn't have to hold your hand.

[muriel_volestrangler]

97. so how come your estimate of inflation

is 100% to 1000%? You can't even give the order of magnitude?

I'd like something done by a professional economist (or several, preferably) on how they think the world economy will react to decreasing oil.

[maggrwaggr]

103. well, gee, let me consult my crystal ball and tea leaves.

Do you remember 1973? The price of oil went up, and so did everything else for many years thereafter.

Everything in our society is dependent on oil for its production and delivery.

If the cost of oil goes up, the cost of everything goes up. If there's actually not enough oil to go around, the price is gonna go WAY WAY up.

Exactly how much is anybody's guess, professional economist or otherwise.

[davekriss]

102. You must've missed my post above

#34 I think.

(On edit: I corrected the post number. Let me add that the "cliff" is based on a pretty well understood model -- I'll dig up support and link later.)

[jmowreader]

57. More like "one is maybe the entire world commerce system comes to a halt"

Have you ever heard of EDI?

The Electronic Data Interchange system is how the entire supply channel orders product.

Let's say you want a window. You pay me for the window. I send an EDI request to Andersen. Andersen sends EDI requests to the lumber company, the vinyl company, the glass company, the rubber and aluminum companies, and the welding supply store that sells them the argon. Those companies send EDI requests to their suppliers. And on and on. Then when the window's done, Andersen sends an EDI request to the trucking company to have it picked up and hauled to Fayetteville.

If EDI collapsed due to Y2K, let's hope you had some food in the cupboard; the American food supply is about 95 percent dependent on EDI. Only farmer's markets could survive if EDI collapsed.

I cannot run my department without EDI. My biggest vendors are International Paper, Georgia-Pacific, Louisiana-Pacific, GAF, Owens-Corning and W.R. Bonsal. None of them are capable of accepting a non-EDI order. I literally cannot pick up the telephone and ask for material to be shipped, because we pay by EDI too. I couldn't drive to the International Paper mill with a check in my hand and get a load of wood. I couldn't go to the GAF shingle plant in Goldsboro with a briefcase full of cash and get a load of shingles. They cannot go outside the EDI system because they're not set up for it. I could substitute any industry and any vendor for the ones I just named and still be accurate.

I think that if EDI collapsed, at least two million people would die. Hospitals order through EDI too, and if they ran out of dialysis supplies in an EDI collapse, or heart attack drugs or whatever, and if the drug companies didn't have a contingency plan for an EDI collapse (they probably do now), people would die before the supply chain could be reestablished. Add to that the instant food shortage caused by no one being able to order wholesale quantities of food...

[Kelvin Mace]

29. Okay, let's look who reviewed

the critical book discussing "peak oil" and what was said.

The book is published by Princton University Press,

"Deffeyes has reached a conclusion with far-reaching consequences for the entire industrialized world. . . . The conclusion is this: in somewhere between two and six years from now, worldwide oil production will peak. After that, chronic shortages will become a way of life. The 100-year reign of King Oil will be over."--Fred Guterl, Newsweek

"A most readable handbook. . . . If is right we have, at most, two or three years in which to prepare for yet another price shock, and to accelerate our move away from oil as fuel. The strength of the book lies in its solid background and well-explained basis for that single prediction."--Stuart Young, Nature

"Deffeyes makes a persuasive case. . . . This is an oilman and geologist's assessment of the future, grounded in cold mathematics. And it's frightening."--Paul Raeburn, Scientific American

"An important new book."--Robert Kuttner, Boston Globe

"The story behind Hubbert's analysis--is told with engaging wit, humor, and great insight. . . . Deffeyes writes with the taut reasoning of a scientist and the passion of someone raised in the industry. . . . His background is ideal for the subject, and the book is a gem. . . . Read Hubbert's Peak."--Brian J. Skinner, American Scientist

" experts . . . worry that the global peak in production will come in the next decade. . . . A heavyweight has now joined this gloomy chorus. Kenneth Deffeyes argues in a lively new book that global oil production could peak as soon as 2004."--The Economist

"A persuasive prophecy. Hubbert's story is important and needs to be told. I suspect that historians in years to come will recognise Hubbert's Peak as a historical turning point."--Tim Burnhill, New Scientist

"An ideal freshman reading assignment in any geology course concerned with energy, geological resources, public policy, general science applications in our modern world, or similar topics. All teachers, from high school through graduate level, in all natural sciences, political science, government, business, and engineering courses should read this book and encourage their students to consider its ramifications in their fields."--C. John Mann, Journal of Geoscience

"This book . . . should be read . . . by all politicians, by all students, no matter what their discipline, and indeed by anyone concerned about their grandchildren's welfare. Reading Hubbert's Peak is the intellectual equivalent of bungee jumping, being simultaneously exhilarating and terrifying."--R. C. Selley, Geological Magazine

"Deffeyes, using Hubbert's methodology, shows that the trajectory of world reserves is closely following the pattern of U.S. discovery and depletion, with just a few decades' lag. Drilling deeper, in more remote locations, and with more elaborate technologies won't tap reserves that don’t exist. . . . America's energy policy needs to tilt away from oil and in favor of conservation, new technology, and domestic renewables. The time to act is now, before the next wave of gas lines and rationing is upon us."--Robert Kuttner, Business Week


Y2K was hyped as doomsday by a fringe. The people discussing "peak oil" are not on the fringe, they are very much in the mainstream of science.

David Allen
Publisher, CEO, Janitor
Plan Nine Publishing
http://www.plan9.org

[HydroAddict]

32. I'm one of those programmers who fixed Y2K data problems

Mostly just data engine upgrades, and it was fixed. Every now and then, a few interface changes. But ya know what's funny? I still have a few clients who didn't bother ($), and are still running pre-Y2K software, they just work around the bugs, still!

As other posters have stated, it was fixable, unlike oil depletion. So it's apples and oranges. You can't just patch and old oil well and have pumping at necessary levels.

BUT, the good news is, like Y2K, there are workarounds. My favorite idea for this revolves around a hydrogen economy (not too popular an idea these parts). I've stated before, by combining various environmental energy collection technologies (solar, wind, geo, wave, lightening), on off-shore hydrogen factories, we could easily power the world.

The catch is that we still have to overhaul our energy infrastructure and build some initial factories via a Manhattan or Apollo type initiative. Once privatized, think of the jobs, REAL jobs, this will create.

And, dammit, if we have to drill ANWR, the oil better be used for this project, not just to lower gas prices a few cents, and guzzled up by Ah-nuld's newest Hummer.

[Dissenting_Prole]

42. Even if hydrogen wasn't just a battery...

nothing will be done until the oil is in decline, which also means the economy will be in decline. It will be more expensive to build the hydrogen infrastructure, and there will be no money to pay the employed.

Aside: will slavery return to the US? I think it's possible. According to Richard Heinberg, author of "the Party's Over", we each have 300 energy slaves working for us every day. Who is going to replace those energy slaves?

------------------------------------------------------------
THE END OF SUBURBIA: Oil Depletion and the Collapse of The American Dream
http://www.brant.net/gvmr/electric.htm

[meow mix]

36. jmowreader pretty much has his finger on the pulse of "oil issues"

i dont think he is denying the reality of the potential situation, more likely just noting how certain people readily latch onto the idea.

[rman]

39. what's wrong with "latching on to the idea", if it is about a huge problem

And isn't saying that peakoil is like y2k (much hype, not much of a problem in practice), contrary to saying "Peak Oil is going to be a huge problem"?

[mikita]

40. the interesting parallel to me is...

that during the Y2K time frame, the mountain folks in my area who were acquaintances if not close friends, laughingly assured me that if the going got tough, they would be visiting me to take my meat and other grub. No matter that I'm vegetarian and live on "twigs and berries" as they would say. So I'm sure the throws of peak oil will provide some interesting times at least.
:wow:

[snippy]

44. "Peak Oil" is not a problem.

In the 1890's scientists and engineers at Standard Oil "proved" that there was no oil in Texas. They were wrong. Technology increases the amount of oil found and the amount recoverable every day. This will be true for a long, long time. Because of technology Canada now has more recoverable oil than Saudi Arabia ever had.

[mhr]

46. Tar Sands Have A Net Negative EROEI Which Means

It will take more energy to extract the oil than the process will yield.

When one is running out of energy, projects that cost more in energy than they provide will not be popular.

Tar sands are a red herring at this point in time.

[snippy]

47. How would it be possible to run out of energy?

It would take many, many millennia before the world could run out of energy and even then one would have to assume no technology advances. It is true that it takes far more money, time, water and energy to extract tar sand oil than conventional drilling, but that affects the cost not the supply. The energy used to extract it is slightly less than it yields. In the future, technology will change these facts dramatically.

[Solon]

56. Objection...

As you say, we will not run out of energy, however, what is the point in harvesting the tar sands if it leads to a total net energy loss, wouldn't that energy be better applied more direct alternatives, that are less polluting? Also, technology can only do so much, as it is technology has only streamlined a process of extracting oil out of existing oil fields and has NOT led to a major find in over 3 decades. You cannot rely on technology to violate the 1 and 2nd laws of thermodynamics, that is impossible.

[snippy]

98. Why would there be a "net energy loss?"

The extraction of tar sand oil does not require more energy than it yields. That is why so many companies are in the business of extracting it.

[Ready4Change]

60. Oil is comparably free right now.

Peak Oil means that as oil supply begins to decrease, oil demand continues to increase, to the point that demand outstrips supply. That will cause prices to skyrocket, first out of the reach of the poor, eventually out of everyones reach.

In the end, there's not much difference between being out of oil and being unable to afford it. Either way, you aren't getting the benefits of the energy within that oil.

Keep in mind that oil is really millions of years worth of solar energy compressed into a handy material that can be stored in drums. As long as the sun shines we won't run out of energy. But we won't have access to large amounts of energy all at once. Oils instant delivery of large amounts of energy is what runs our cars and produces and delivers food to billions, and is what will dissapear once we can no longer afford it.

[IrateCitizen]

69. What in the h-e-double hockey sticks are you talking about???

Keep in mind that oil is really millions of years worth of solar energy compressed into a handy material that can be stored in drums.

I'd like to know where you got this crazy idea, because the last time I checked the reason that oil was so useful as a fuel is because it's carbon-based -- therefore it can easily be converted to heat.

Last time I checked, there wasn't any carbon in sunlight. However, if you want to talk about the merits of the photovoltaic cell and how photons from specific wavelengths of light can induce metals to eject electrons across a potential (thus providing energy), then I'm totally game.

[aldian159]

76. oil, coal and natural gas

come form fossilized remains, hence the term fossil fuels.

Millions of years ago, plants took in sunlight and then died. A few of them died in such a way that they became oil, coal and natural gas.

Ergo, the gas you used to drive to the store was simply sunlight. The plant that formed the oil used sun to live.

[IrateCitizen]

83. Yeah, it also used carbon dioxide and water...

... but we're not attributing the energy contained therein to either of those compounds.

I'm well aware of what the term "fossil fuel" means. I'm also familiar with the term "carbon-based economy". Are you?

I'm not denying that energy from sunlight was used by these plants to instigate photosynthesis, which in turn allowed them to process water and carbon dioxide and minerals into their own fuel. But to say that this means that the energy that you use to drive your care is "simply sunlight" is just plain beyond ignorant.

If you can produce for me the mathematical equation by which you convert photons into oil, then I'll believe you. But being someone with a decent background in physics, I'm relatively certain that such an equation has never existed. If it did, it would be incredibly easy to convert our engines and generators from fossil-fuel driven to solar, and we wouldn't even be having this conversation.

[DrWeird]

90. Sure.

CO2 + H20 + hv + organisms --> biomass --> --> oil reserves.

Being someonewho has a decent background in organic chemistry, I see nothign wrong with the origional statement.

[Ready4Change]

89. My understanding

Oil is plant matter, cooked over time under immense pressure. It's carbon was gathered in plant materials as they grew using sunlight as energy. Remove sunlight and you've got no plants. No plants, no trapped beds of decaying plant and animal matter to be eventually cooked into oil.

If that energy doesn't come from sunlight, where DOES is come from?

[maggrwaggr]

71. well, you're simply wrong

I wish everyone would take a simple high school physics class.

And learn about the laws of thermodynamics.

There is no energy to be claimed out of tar sands if it takes more energy to get it out than what you get out of it!

I am astounded at the ignorance on this board.

[snippy]

99. It does not take more energy to extract it than it yields.

That is why companies are in the business of extracting it.

I am astounded by the arrogant ignorance on this board.

[maggrwaggr]

106. "It would take many, many millennia before the world could run out"

care to back that up with some facts?

Most experts seem to disagree with you.

If you have some of this miracle technology up your sleeve, perhaps you could share it.

[snippy]

108. Read what I said . . . "before the world could run out of ENERGY."

Energy and oil are two separate things. Oil can be used to produce energy but it is not the sole source of energy. There are many, many other sources of energy. Some of these sources are known as
"renewable" sources. Other sources exist in such abundance that it would take thousands of years to run out. One of these sources is an element called "hydrogen." I do not have the time to explain this to you further, but there are many resources available to learn more about such things as "energy" and "hydrogen."

[maggrwaggr]

109. and where do we find this bountiful supply of hydrogen?

The universe consists of energy. There is no shortage of energy.

There is a big shortage in the energy that we can use to run our civilization.

If you want a nuclear power plant in your backyard, fine. If you want a coal burning power plant down the street, fine.

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

Hydrogen currently is not a resource that we can use to run things. It costs too much energy to extract it from seawater.

There's this thing called "net" energy gain. If it takes more energy to extract the hydrogen than the energy that you get from using the hydrogen, then you're using energy, rather than gaining energy.

[Petrodollar Warfare]

111. (snippy) EROEI for tar sands is 0.7...

...which is very low, considering oil is now about 5. The other big problem with tar sands is that it requires 5 gallons of fresh water injected into the sand to seperate and produce 1 gallon of oil. In order for Canada to extract their large amounts of oil from their tar sands, they would need to convert Lake Erie or perhaps Lake Michigan into a toxic oil-based sludge lake. So much for fresh water and fishing.... Not sure that anybody would want to destroy the enviroment to that level to extract energy with a 0.7 EROEI...not sure what Venezuela is doing at the moment, but they have some heavy oil they are processing.

One note to show the current insanity re Oil: In 2003 Canada reported their tar sands as part of their oil reserves, so now they are ranked just behind Saudi Arabia! Ridiculous politics to somehow make OPEC think they are not on control...when every geologists knows the 5 states in the Presian Guld have the most reserves, exactly how much is less than what is reported, but Canada's response to the Oil & Gas survey is frankly - absurd.


The problem that I see on this subject is that too many people are 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."

[megatherium]

110. A colleague of mine worked for the synfuels project

in Montana in the late 1970s. (He is a geologist.) He says they had completed the leg work needed to show that it would possible to secure energy independence within 20 years, at $40/barrel. The Reagan administration put an abrupt end to this Carter-era initiative; my colleague went into academia. Thanks, Reagan.

[treepig]

49. there definitely is plenty of unwarranted fear-mongering

associated with peak oil.

first, there are plenty of alternate sources of energy if the political will existed to develop and exploit them. here's a link with an overview of many of the options being developed:

http://www.cea.fr/gb/publications/Clefs44/contents.htm

second, we will never run out of oil per se, since it can be made from biological sources (do a search on "anything into oil" or consult either of the following threads were there is discussion of oil production in algae:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x5066

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x4500 )

third, as far as fertilizers go, they're mostly made from natural gas, not oil (of course, there is also the peak natural gas problem, which may or may not be as urgent as the peak oil problem depending on who you listen to). in any event, as supplies dwindle, less will be used for combustion and more will be used fof more urgent purposes, such as fertilizer. alternatively, crops will be grown that require less fertilizer - although it's not a popular option on this board, genetically engineered crops will provide a big step in this direction.

[Dissenting_Prole]

92. as for natural gas

Energy consultant Steve Andrews stated in an interview at the 2003 ASPO (Association for the Study of Peak Oil and Gas) conference that the North American natural gas crisis is more urgent than the peak oil crisis.

Don't count on natural gas to make your fertilizer (or hydrogen for that matter).


THE END OF SUBURBIA: Oil Depletion and the Collapse of The American Dream
http://www.brant.net/gvmr/electric.htm

[ChavezSpeakstheTruth]

51. Peak Oil reminds me of Thom Hartman's "salt water conveyer belt" theory

The theory that global warming can cause a new ice age in as little as 2 years. It's fascinating and horrifying.

http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=17711

[John BigBootay]

54. Reason for vigilance--

and reason to conserve and move to alternatives. Not reason for fear of "mass extinctions."

[cmf]

55. The oil is going to peak, but the outcome depends on our reactions

There is a finite amount of oil in the world. This we've known since the beginning of the oil age. It's non-renewable. And yes, oil does power much of civilization as we know it. We're going to reach peak production soon, and what happens next depends on how we deal with that. We can either curb our consumption to fit the declining oil production curve while developing renewable energy sources, ignore the problem by applying band-aids, or we can fight for the remaining oil left in the world. The second and third scenarios are the scary ones.

No matter what, it will result in a drastic shift from today's lifestyles. If you're under 30, you might as well get used to the idea of living in a much simpler way.

[jpak]

58. M. K. Hubbert published his method for predicting oil production in 1956

He accurately predicted that lower-48 US oil production would peak in the early 1970's.

(MKH was a Shell Oil geologist...)

In 1974 Hubbert predicted that world oil production would peak ~1995 (the so-called Hubbert Peak).

In 1986, using the methods developed by Hubbert and updated oil field data, Gever et al. (Complex Systems Research Center Univ. of New Hampshire) published Beyond Oil: The Coming Threat to Food and Fuel in the Coming Decades,

They predicted the Global Hubbert Peak would occur at the turn of the century (~2000).

My point here is that the concept of "Peak Oil" is not a new one and not associated in any way with Y2K nut cases...

and it's too late now to do anything about it...

[Ready4Change]

62. It's never too late to "do anything about it."

However, the longer we late, the less effect our actions will have.

[ButterflyBlood]

61. I think it might be a problem but...

nowhere near the level the site claims.

the site claims the Earth's population will shrink from 6 billion to 500 million. yeah right.

[Ready4Change]

67. Population in 1930 was 2 billion.

By that time a lot of oil was being used for agriculture. Tractors burning oil. Trucks moving produce. That sort of thing. But even if we say that we could have fed those 2 billion without oil, we now have 4.5 billion MORE people to feed, and those mouths are largely dependant on todays abundant energy supply for food and water.

The idea that post oil population would drop below 2 billion comes from the idea that, when a large percentage of a population dies from a major stress event, that die off tends to continue past the new point of sustainability. In human terms, you don't just have people quietly starving. You get riots as starving people try to eat, you get wars as poor nations try to survive. You get plagues from overburdended and understaffed medical systems, and from piles of bodies to great to dispose of in a sanitary fashion.

Personally I think 500 million is too extreme. I think we will make some progress in alternative energy sources, and that will increase how many we can support in the near term. But I can easily see us loosing half our current population before our children turn things around.

You're free to call me overly grim. I hope you're right, too.

[maggrwaggr]

72. the numbers as far as population die-off don't really matter

what matters is that any die off occurs at all.

What matters is that civilization as we know it HAS to change.

Burying your head in the sand is not helpful. Throwing the baby out with the bathwater because you don't agree with a statistic is not helpful.

The bottom line is oil is finite. The demand is going up. The supply is going down.

When this hits, we're gonna have inflation in the 100% to the 1000%. The sky's the limit.

Everything that happens at that point will be due to the massive inflation and not necessarily the physical fact that there is not enough oil to go around.

There will be oil, but nobody will be able to pay for it. So only the rich will get it. The political turmoil that will result is what we need to be frightened of.

[Nederland]

63. The Question is WHEN

Yes, Peak Oil is real. The problem is, nobody can tell you accurately when its going to hit. Peak Oil advocates will go on and on about how Hubbert correctly predicted the production peak for the US. However, the situation was very different. US oil production was an open book to Hubbert because he worked for Shell and had access to as much data as he needed. The worldwide oil situation is very, very different. OPEC countries are very secretive about how they calculate their reserve numbers. When one considers the fact that it is in their interest to make it seem like oil is more scarce than it really is so they can make more money on it you realize that they may in fact be lying. Couple this with the fact that Peak Oil advocates have for decades been saying that production peak was "just around the corner" and you just have to wonder just who is in on this little conspiracy.

Is the world going to run out of cheap oil someday? Yes. But anybody who tells you they know when is lying...

[rucky]

64. If people are worried, they should learn to adapt & be more self-reliant

instead of trying to turn back the clock at this point. Doomsday scenarios never play out as dramatically as doomsayers paint it out. If you really want to DO something about it, face the possibility that it could become a reality, raise awareness, and mentally & physically prepare yourself.

Freaking out never convinced anyone, made anyone feel better, or solved any problems. ever. but neither has denial.

[tom_paine]

65. No flames, but this is apples and oranges

Y2K was an exculsively "human" event involving very little actual scientific method and data to either determine it's existance (or lack thereof) or it's effects.

Think about it.

Peak Oil involves hard data and statistics. While one might argue about their interpretation, the factual collection of the hard data is there and is something not associated at all with Y2K.

To simplify: One events was supposed to occur in Cyberspace, the other in the Real World, and all that implies.

Apples and Oranges. And I'm a scientist (not environmental, though) so I know of what I am speaking.

[Marius]

66. Peak oil is already going on...the question is WHEN to worry...

that we'll run out of oil. Now, as a geology student, I've heard many different numbers on how long oil is going to last us. One professor of mine said oil will last for another 50 years. Another one has said it's going to last 100's of years. Another professor has said that oil is almost gone and we have to worry now. I don't know which figures to believe, but I'm going with the first professor and guessing 50 years. We still have oil fields here in the U.S. (mostly under national parks--I don't think we should disturb them unless we really have to...and even then, we could angle-drill under them to avoid ruining the nat'l parks.)

Another thing we could do TODAY is to find alternative energies. I'm all about solar, wind, and water power powering our houses and buildings. Hopefully we can get an administration who gives a damn about our current state of affairs and the lack of oil and does something about it. To me, this is one of the highest priorities.

[mobuto]

80. Peak Oil is a myth

Sure, at some point, we'll begin to run out of oil. However we're nowhere near there. People have been predicting this crap for thirty-five years. The real problem today is overproduction, not lack of supply. And if present supplies dried up, which they haven't done nor is there indication they will soon, there are vast quantities of oil tied up in forms that are not commercially viable at present prices. But if oil prices should rise to where its profitable, there's enough shale oil in Colorado and Canada to last for hundreds of years.

[charlie]

82. Oil prices would have to rise monstrously

before shale oil is viable. Shale oil comes from oil shale -- rock. It has to be mined and processed, and it's not friable like coal. It takes tremendous heat and an enormous amount of water to create (create, not extract) oil. The refuse it produces has a mass that is equal or greater than the original rock, so there's a problem with disposal as well as poisoned water leaching into the surrounding area. Oil companies have blown billions chasing the shale oil dream and haven't come close to cracking it yet.

[IrateCitizen]

85. If energy spent > energy gained, there's no point.

That, not price, is the issue with tar sands. You simply expend more energy extracting it than you gain from the final product.

[charlie]

86. That's true

The problems I listed make it unlikely that developments in the near term would ever make shale oil a viable fuel. Just pointing out to mobuto that it's been tried many times over decades.

[IrateCitizen]

84. The shale oil or sand tar does you no good...

... if it costs you anywhere close to as much energy to extract the oil as you get by extracting it. It's not a question of economics, it's a simple question of energy spent vs. energy gained.

Furthermore, how do you ignore the effects of an emerging China and India on the economic scene? What do you think will happen to demand as China follows much the same development path as we did (heavy reliance on oil and auto transportation vs. energy efficiency and public transit)? Do you think that over 1/4 of the world's population suddenly seeking a standard of living equal to the Industrialized World's will have no effect on oil supplies or prices?

[maggrwaggr]

104. I'm amazed how many people on this board insist on keeping their

heads in the sand about this.

I've known this was coming since 1980. I figured back then we had about 40 years before the shit really hit the fan.

People who are completely ignorant about oil production and the laws of thermodynamics are posting their opinions that somehow, this just isn't gonna happen.

It's just bizarre to me.

Demand is growing. Supply can't grow with it.

It's not a question of if, but when.

Get used to it!

This is probably the greatest challenge ever faced by mankind, and people insist on ignoring it.

It should be a MAJOR issue of the Democratic party.

(by the way I know this looks like I'm ranting at you, Irate, but I'm not, I'm agreeing with you by ranting here.) :)

[treepig]

107. the topic of this thread was "peak oil" not "peak energy"

so discussion of using the tar sands to prevent running out of oil would appear to be completely legitimate.

if people want oil, they'll get oil - that's not a problem.

sure, the methods used may veer into wacky territory, but that's not really the issue here. for example, there are proposals to build nuclear power plants to provide the huge amounts of power needed to extract the alberta tar sands (see http://www.wcr.ab.ca/columns/editorials/2003/editorial021003.shtml ,. interestingly, the power plants would be built in neighboring saskatchewan).

more information on the tarsands here:

http://csf.colorado.edu/bioregional/2002/msg00134.html

[bpilgrim]

105. if you believe oil never runs out

peace

[LiberalPersona]

88. The Y2k bug

Was not really that big of a problem though. And all it took was a code fix that could be done quick and easy. We're talking about a problem that requires a complete overhaul of society and its habits here. Y2k did not require something that widespread for a solution.

[Deja Q]

100. We reprogrammed computes to fix Y2K. People might have lost $ otherwise

Oil is too profitable and other energy sources aren't cost-efficient.

So let's fix the fuckin' problem; get rid of money. It's proven that money is the root of all evil...

[Sliverofhope]

101. Any discussion of this, pro-or-con, pleases me

I do declare this thread... kicked.