Slashdot Mirror
German Military Braces For Peak Oil
myrdos2 writes "A study by a German military think tank leaked to the Internet warns of the potential for a dire global economic crisis in as little as 15 years as a result of a peak and an irreversible decline in world oil supplies. The study states that there is 'some probability that peak oil will occur around the year 2010 and that the impact on security is expected to be felt 15 to 30 years later. ... In the medium term the global economic system and every market-oriented national economy would collapse.' The report closely matches one from the US military earlier this year, which stated that surplus oil production capacity could disappear within two years and there could be serious shortages by 2015 with a significant economic and political impact."
Well, the German military does have some past experience in having to manage without petroleum. : - )
I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.
The Transition Movement is a bottom-up approach for communities to prepare for peak oil. You can find a group near you here.
People have been planning for this since the 70's. If you think gas is expensive now, wait ten years.
Profits are going to be amazing as shortage will mean name your price economics.
Ein Denkenpanzer?
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
We've been doing fine after all those.
A year or two ago I posted to some thread where I remarked that "global warming" was a self-limiting concern, because of declining oil production. I was blasted as being a selfish, ignorant &)*(&%&$$.
SO.... This is what I was talking about. The day will come (before you're ready) when you will look back wistfully at the time when you COULD afford to damage the environment :-)
Many will die, many more will suffer, when the resource depletion culls the winners from the losers. Survival will reign over "equality"...
Yes, I make dark and unsavory predictions. We have enjoyed a stunningly rich and happy 50-60 year run. Soon we will return to what the *rest* of human history has been like.
I've got a lot of my savings in oil stocks just because of things like this. I honestly can't see any scenario in which oil prices fall over the long term.
I thought their trousers were falling down.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Bah, humbug. There are vast amounts of tar sands in Canada and Saudi Arabia and probably in a few other places...
It is a problem for Germany though, since they refuse to build new nuclear power stations. For everybody else, it is not a problem aqnd I suppose France will be the next major exporter of energy - from their nuclear stations.
Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
I'm sure the hybrid tanks and APCs probably won't run into the stuck accelerator thing.
Probably.
Sean
They'll discover vast new reserves under Poland.
Nullius in verba
Seriously this is exactly what I said during the oil spill. People were shouting from the hills there should be a ban on deep sea drilling. Well when our reserves runs low the result will be drill baby drill.
The paper which can be got in German here has almost no signs of ability to think. Consider - there is DME http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimethyl_ether , which can be produced from coal/biomass, then read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synthetic_fuel, then figure out , as Gregory Clark did http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2007/12/life-after-peak.html that up to the price of 500 dollars per barrel of oil will decline the economy for only 11 percents and at such prices - DME other synfuels will spring to wide use, so it is not possible that we live in era of 500 per barrel fuel for very long time. And then - not even 11% drop will be achieved - so if 5% drop in this recession did not kill all us, how then the comparable shock will make any worse?
Check out this google tech talk on Thorium reactors; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AHs2Ugxo7-8
Some Wikipedia Articles:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molten-salt_reactor_experiment
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molten-salt_reactor
Thousands of years of safe carbon-emission free energy. Working reactors were developed and operated successfully in the 60s. Small scale reactors are currently running in India with plans for larger scale reactors. Nobody put any research effort into it back in the 60s because you can't make nuclear bomb material with it and the government wanted to go with only one design. Anyway, check out the video, it explains all the nitty gritty technical details.
Is that I get a warm fuzzy feeling deep inside when I consider that the collapse of civilization as we know it could happen within my life time.
I think we are over due for another shake up.
As I know, lot of Western Europe countries already laying out plans of going cold turkey of petroleum (first for warm distribution). In fact, Europe is more ready than US, where Obama and similar thinkers are struggling to get message out - even after bay nightmare.
It can get nasty, but we still have time to fix it.
user@ubuntubox:~$ stfu This server is going down for shutdown NOW!
At what point will it become cheaper to just turn our massive coal deposits into usable petroleum?
The Baby Boomers put all the oil into the air as CO2.
We should put solar panels on the moon, laser the power down into the Earth's atmosphere, and crack that CO2 back into liquid hydrocarbons for making plastic, releasing its oxygen for the double whammy.
--
make install -not war
Some people here are confusing 'global warming' and the 'green movement' with peak oil. You can argue all you want about whether global warming is really true or not, but Oil is limited, and we're running out fast. That is reality, face it.
The real enemies are those who scream bloody murder whenever the N-word is brought up. Mankind needs energy, and in the near future, our best and cleanest bet is nuclear power.
When I took geology in college (~1987) they were predicting that oil was going to run out by early 2000. I guess fifteen years in the future is farther ahead than they expect most people will remember.
Peak oil is a myth and there is very strong evidence of abiotic oil. See http://www.viewzone.com/abioticoilx.html for example.
The point is: he needs more caffeine.
In 15 years? We already have a dire global economic crisis right now, its roots, I believe, in the fact that global oil production has been on a plateau for the last 4 years instead of growing in step with the economy. It is only the government and Fed injection of trillions of dollars into the European and American economies that is (temporarily) masking the effects somewhat just now.
"I bless every day that I continue to live, for every day is pure profit."
To solve the problem nations would have to raise the taxes on fuel for POV's and ration gas for them. For vehicles that are used for distribution of goods like trucks they would be exempt from any higher fuel taxes. POV owners would most likely switch to public transport and those live on the edge of the economy would get rid of their cars altogether. The most important item is that goods get priority in distribution so there is no shortage of them and individuals will need to adjust to higher costs and switching to public transport.
A few years ago, someone with a lot more cunning than ours invented the term "anthropocentric global warming" so it could be shot down and firms could continue to pollute for short term profit. His arguments are accompanied by vigorous astroturfing and pseudoscience.
A few years from now, I imagined someone with a lot more cunning than I have would come up with sufficiently plausible handwaving to explain that oil reserves are infinite. Every oil firm across the globe will invent hundreds of millions in PR to spread this false claim. And the guy who started it all will be rich beyond his dreams.
Maybe that guy is you, right now.
If any of these stories about non-biological origin of oil were true, why have Russian oil fields developed in the 50s and 60s gone dry?
Why is Russia investing a lot of money to develop new fields?
Where's that "topping from below" gone?
Just curious, seriously.
A "year or two ago" you were very wrong, and are still very wrong.
Burning coal for electricity produces an order of magnitude more CO2 than oil does. Coal isn't going to run out anytime soon.
PS: No, that doesn't mean that it's perfectly OK to drive a gas guzzler. It's *attitude* towards energy that counts, and the "it's OK so long as you can afford it!" attitude is what's causing the USA to use an order of magnitude more energy per person than the rest of the developed world.
No sig today...
Ummm, you haven't finished paying for this recession yet...come back in 20 years and tell us how it went.
No sig today...
Petroleum is really convenient in terms of an energy source, but we have a whole lot of others. That means, when push comes to shove, we can find other ways of doing things. Thus we aren't likely to face a real wide shortage. Nuclear is a good example. There is lots and lots of power to be had from nuclear sources. No it isn't a 1:1 replacement for oil but that's ok, we can deal with that.
Some of it is economic. The more expensive oil gets, the more alternatives are attractive. You may notice that there's been a big upswing in biofuel research and such things. This isn't coincidence or just green funding. It is the fact that the more oil costs, the more attractive an alternative is. Some of it is also just not listening to the crazies. Nuclear is a bad word in America and the green types lobby heavily against it. Well if it is that or no power, people will stop listening in a hurry and demand more plants be built. Some of it is just technological progress. We are getting better and better at alternative energy, energy storage and so on.
Also please remember that this won't be a wall, as in suddenly we can't turn the lights on one morning. It'll be a gradual thing, an increase in prices as supplies dwindle and/or harder to reach deposits are tapped. That means that there is also time for replacements, and incentive for those, as prices rise. Gradual change is something economies cope with relatively well. It is sudden change that is the real problem. So if oil production has peaked and things start sliding down, that isn't likely to be a big issue unless for some unknown reason it is abrupt and production just grinds to a halt.
One thing you may notice is that humans are pretty good at solving problems. They aren't so good at mitigating problems, looking ahead and making sure they never happen, but when a problem does happen they are pretty good and solving that problems. Thus it seems pretty likely that this sort of thing will get solved too. Supply starts going down, prices go up, alternatives are more profitable, etc, etc.
Why would you even want to?
No sig today...
1: if the oil supply is so critical, why were they burning the insanely huge leak in the gulf of mexico? GET A SPONGE!
2: looks like it might be an awesome time to get into alternative energy. SOLAR FTW!
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License.
I keep hearing that the next World Wars will be fought over resources
The previous world war was fought over oil too. After the US cut off oil exports Imperial Japan decided to invade Indonesia to acquire its oil. The British in Singapore and the US in the Philippines were on the supply line that the oil would have to travel. Imperial Japan decided to remove the British and the US from the western pacific to secure that oil supply.
Ask the oil industry then.
Everyone there apart from a few creationist psychos knows that at some point oil supply is not going to be able to keep up with demand unless there are a few incredibly major discoveries. Certainly there's coal etc but that's straying off topic - peak oil is about oil - the really cheap stuff that comes out of the ground. Once more people want it than there is oil available somebody has to miss out, that is what peak oil means. For a lot of applications that just means switching to a different source of energy, but that takes time and costs more than the cheap oil we currently have.
It's not the end of the world.
It's just a point where things are no longer so cheap and easy.
Finally!
Offworld colonies!
Or Mad Max. Pick one.
It's pretty much out there as a scientific hypothesis, but even if it turns out to be true, it's pretty much irrelevant. What matters is not how oil is created, what matters is how fast it is, and where.
How fast, because we're using it up REALLY fast. The earth is billions of years old, and your hypothetical abiotic oil has been accumulating for that long, and we've depleted much of the easily accessible oil in 100 years. In other words, we're using it at least tens of millions of times faster than it's being created, if it's being created at all.
Then there is the where; the hypothesis implies that it's happening deep inside the crust, and basically all over the place. I.E. it's not in a convenient location, nor is it concentrated. It's not that we have to drill a few very deep wells, which is already extremely hard to do, but that we would have to drill millions of them.
Now there probably is a fraction of the oil that is of abiotic origin, but you have to be seriously deluded to believe that it's going to save us from peak oil, even in the best case scenario.
I'm all for efficiency, but two points:
1) You don't avoid a global Peak Oil with direct consumption/demand-side efforts, you mitigate it's effects. Because oil will peak is a feature of oil production, the only way to actually avoid it would be to produce less, which would obviously not help the people who want to consume oil. This is not a value statement in the usual sense. Though usually "mitigate" is worse option than "avoid", in this case the opposite is true. In the long run we don't want continue burning oil at ever increasing rate, so ability to avoid Peak Oil is useless in the best case and harmful in the worst case.
2) The 70's Peak Oil was a local peak in the US. It's effects were mostly cancelled out by increased production elsewhere and globalization that brought those resources to the global market.
Computers are useless. They can only give you answers - Pablo Picasso
You can drown in a swimming pool that is being emptied.
I hope the allegory is not too much for you to grasp.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Once it costs more to use a traditional vehicle than an electric or hybrid, that's what people are going to buy without even giving it a second thought.
It's already more expensive to operate a combustion-engine vehicle than an electric one. Pennies per mile, instead of dollars. No oil changes. No gas to buy. Less moving parts, meaning fewer parts replacements. The problem is simply that the industry thrives on all these "problems", leading to our economy being based on their existence.
I've owned an electric lawn mower for 3 years now. The only maintenance I've had to do is replacing the blade because I tried to use it as a bush hog (hint: works no better or worse than a gas-powered mower would). I've saved hundreds of dollars in gas, and it's so much quieter, it's unbelievable. My wife refers to it as "vacuuming the yard". I can hold a conversation with someone while they walk next to the mower, without shouting. It doesn't spew huge clouds of smoke when I fire it up for the first time of the season. It doesn't leak oil or gas all over the place. It doesn't stink of petrochemicals, whether it's in use or not. Less fossil fuel use, less air pollution, less noise pollution...
I paid $250 for the mower, and $50 for a huge extension cord... The new blade was $20 at Lowe's or Home Depot, I don't recall which. Assuming I'd spend $5 on gas for a single mowing, I've saved more just in gasoline over the course of the last 3 years than I've spent on the mower.
Now factor in that electricity is so cheap, I actually use it to not only mow the lawn, but also to "sweep" the sidewalk afterward... makes a pretty good leaf-blower, too. And my electricity bill never even noticed... I think it might have cost me fifty cents for the whole summer.
I have an electric weed-eater, too. Works just as well as the old gas-powered one, except it's about half the weight, and I don't have to mix up gas and oil together to make it run. Oh, and it doesn't wake up the neighbors when I run it at 8 o'clock on a Saturday morning. Makes a bit of noise, admittedly, but much less than a gas-powered weed-eater. Oh, and I think I paid something along the lines of $40 for it, as compared to the hundred or so it costs for a gas-powered model.
Here, see if this link works for you; it may be tied to my location information, or something, but for me that's a link to Lowe's showing me string trimmers... $30-$70 for electric ones, $100-$240 for gas-powered ones.
Noisy, expensive, heavy, smelly, extra-work (gas-oil mix)... why would I ever want a gas-powered string trimmer again?
Oh, yeah, back to the topic at hand... So, tell me... why aren't we using electric vehicles?
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License.
Germany figured out how to convert coal into fuel, which is "sorta like" petroleum . Entrepeneurs will figure out the ways and we will continue society nearly as before.
Today we have massive amounts of both relatively easily obtained oil from oil shale. We can't get it for the price of oil at the well-head yet, but it is there in the Rockies in truly massive quantities.
Shell has shown how to get it out without mining by liquifying it with steam and pumping it out.
Methane Hydrate is a source of immense supply for use in thermal power plants, though figuring out how to safely get it to the surface has not been tried.
Many other sources exist.
Hence I agree, there is no "wall" reached in energy production. We just keep innovating. This is the likely nature of humankind until the next global cataclysm happens.
The question of how to survive a vaguely anticipated global cataclysm as generally indicated in the paleontology record is a bigger question. How do you survive if ice sheets return & cover all of Canada, Siberia, Scandanavia and Northern Europe & Russia?
Yoo do know that extracting oil from tar sands is terribly uneconmic and highly polluting, right?
In other words that we need to consider such an option is proof that we are starting to defer to despearate measures to deal with our energy adiction.
The time for figuring out how we are going to provide for energy needs is now. Burning things is not an option (and here I include nuclear energy given how limited , dangerous and rare the materials involved are).
The only viable solution is energy derived from the Sun (solar, waves, wind, etc), from waste (all kind of biological waste could be used) or by natural events that release energy anyway (geotermal) and , most importantly, best energy efficiency.
Anything else is just thinkering in the edges.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Energy supply is an issue of national security. Global warming is just one aspect of the problem and may be a sideshow compared to our serious need for reliable energy supply. This is why alternative energy is a national security issue. That means wind, solar, nuclear, geothermal, biofuel, and all of the alternatives. It also means electric cars, so we don't depend on petroleum for our transportation. We should set petroleum aside for use as petrochemical feedstock and not burn it for heat and transportation.
We need to get serious about this. Natural gas won't be far behind oil in reaching its peak. Coal quality is already getting worse and worse. The days of extracted fossil fuels are numbered and the national security implications are growing.
We can either become energy independent based on renewable alternatives or we can prepare for endless war over dwindling supplies of extracted fossil fuels. This is not just an environmental problem. It is an issue of national survival as a great power.
If all the deniers of peak oil would have the decency to commit suicide once they've been proven wrong, that could go a long way to alleviating the demand that makes post-peak oil such a downer.
You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
Your problem, sir, is one I refer to as "reading comprehension failure"; possibly compounded by some things I call "dumb as a rock" and "willful refusal to be educated", but let's take one thing at a time. I'd rather think you didn't have time to read the material, or look it up, than think you were just too stupid to comprehend it.
Please allow me the privilege of raising your awareness level.
For instance, try this link. It should lead you to a wiki article on breeder reactors, along with a nice little news article about India's new reactor projects. Note: projects, plural; as in more than one.
Your reading, at this point, may enlighten you to the concept of a "sealed breeder reactor", which produces far fewer waste products than conventional reactors, is easier to control, and should it have a "meltdown", the effects are much less pronounced than "conventional" reactors (as in, the nearest 30 miles aren't irradiated, and nothing blows up).
A little further reading may grant you the information required to understand that thorium is hugely more prevalent than you seem to currently believe, and is actually easier to produce at a fissionable quality than uranium. As a matter of fact, one way to produce uranium is to put thorium in a breeder reactor. Ooh, look, a two-for-one deal!
So, it's cheaper, easier, and safer... a direct contradiction of your uninformed statements of "fact".
Yes, reactors of many types have been built. The problem (and my point) is that none of those experimental reactors built have delivered the safe and inexpensive power that was promised.
Worse, none have even shown that the respective technology has the potential to become safe and inexpensive.
Conclusion: Once you have a basic understanding of the topics you so vehemently protest, perhaps then we will listen to your meandering bullshit.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License.
The estimates are that the cheaply available fissile material will be gone in about 70 years at the current rates of production.
True, but extremely misleading. Nuclear power is energetically profitable even with very expensive fissile material. Nuclear power plants consume astoundingly small amounts of fuel - a pound of uranium generates as much energy as 400,000 pounds of coal. A 10% increase in the price of coal makes a big difference to a coal plant. A 10% increase (or even 10000% increase) in the price of uranium is negligible to a nuclear plant. The energetic and financial cost of nuclear fuel is miniscule compared to the overhead costs of operating a nuclear plant.
A lot of people (including you) have no real idea just how much nuclear fuel the Earth contains. If we allow breeder reactors (which President Carter banned for political reasons related to nuclear weapons), uranium fuel will last for billions of years at current rates of consumption. Even if you allow for a drastically increased rate of consumption, it's still enough for several hundred million years.
What's most striking about the calculation in the link above is that it is so simple. It's not like oil reserve estimates where governments can fudge the numbers, and even the experts disagree. Anyone can take a sample of seawater and check the concentration of uranium.
These figures are with presently proven technology. No assumptions about future technology are required.
Most of western Europe has a hefty tax on gas/diesel that leads to the move of smaller vehicles and rail systems. OTH, USA has a very small tax on it, to the point where other subsidies on Oil (ignoring the 'subsidy' of military) pretty much wipes it out. And then you have nations like Venezuela, China, Brazil, India, Iran, Saudi Arabia, etc that actually HEAVILY subsidize their oil.
The West, mainly none EU nations, needs to put on a slowly increasing tax on fuel. In addition, use part of that tax to build up railroads as well electric cars. This approach is far better than spending money later on the military.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
To use nuclear in a vehicle would mean converting its energy into drive. With nuclear this means using the heat generated by the reaction to heat water to produce steam
Nuclear subs have the capability to run for 15-20 years without refuelling. But it is the crew who need refuelling, the food supplies will only really last about 2 months.
So you think that as soon as we run out of fossil fuels, all the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will magically disappear?
I assume you mean "the carbon dioxide levels will return to pre-industrial levels" - after all, if it all disappeared plants would be in big trouble.
That depends entirely on the definition of "as soon as."
If you mean within the lifetime of your average mayfly, nope.
If you mean within the lifetime of your average person, possibly but I'm not optimistic.
If you mean within the lifetime of human civilization, probably, assuming we don't kill ourselves off or get blown away by an asteroid or something in the next few hundred years.
If you mean within the lifetime of this solar system, certainly.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
is that like closet space, our ability to burn fuels has increased directly with the capacity we can produce, and we have come to rely on that fuel and its availability. I agree with the idea that when it starts to run out - and those who have it naturally raise the price through the roof - the economies of the world that rely on that fuel (i.e. us in the first world), will suffer the most as we lose our standard of living and eventually reach the standard that the rest of the world experiences at the moment. Along the way millions will likely die, although that will start slow and increase over time I am sure.
At some point the US and other powers will decide that they deserve the existing resources more than anyone else does, and start taking them militarily. I can easily imagine this being the Casus Belli of a few new conflicts.
China wants control of the Yellow Sea and all its resources already. Expect China to start getting very bellicose in the east, since their economy is just starting its boom big time. I think its going to be ugly out there in a few decades.
"The first time I got drunk, I got married. The second time I bought a chimpanzee, after that I stayed sober" Arian Seid
They need to set required standards for automobiles that ensure they are extremely efficient with regards to both fuel consumption, and pollution. Smaller cars only. Ban the manufacture of vehicles over a given size for personal transport. Ban the operation of any other cars.
Then we can just recycle all the fucking Hummers and huge cars from the 80's and earlier. Put Buick and Lincoln out of business until they produce something small and fuel efficient. Same thing with the Ford F25000 trucks etc.
A limited amount of those vehicles could be produced for commercial use I suppose, and of course we need transport trucks and all that, but in North America we seem to have little interest in actually putting our money where our mouth is when we talk about saving the environment and making real changes. Only a handful are really doing so - and the rest of society is not helping the process.
Oh and yeah, I am completely in favour of Nuclear Power. Its needed and I am sure we can find a way to make the end results cleaner and safer if we try harder.
"The first time I got drunk, I got married. The second time I bought a chimpanzee, after that I stayed sober" Arian Seid
Today we have massive amounts of both relatively easily obtained oil from oil shale.
Actually, shales are predominantly a source of Natural Gas. The permeability (measurement of ability to transport) of shales is so small due to the tight pore space, that very few liquids actually make it to the wellbore. Its much easier for the gas molecules to make it to the wellbore.
Speaking of natural gas, I believe that's what we'll be running our vehicles on in the upcoming years. Combustion engines only require a few modifications to burn it and we have abundant sources in all the new shale plays being produced right now. Reservoir estimates indicate we have a 200 year supply of natural gas.
Charming man. I wish I had a daughter so I could forbid her to marry one. -Arthur Dent
Because nobody makes an extension cord THAT long
That made my think of trolley cars. Some kind of car-train hybrid. I wonder if we could wire up our roads or at least our major highways with overhead high voltage lines made to power vehicles equipped with some kind of wire arm in order to either switch off the battery power or charge the batteries while you drive. Or maybe we could build a kind of "third rail" recessed into the road where vehicles could stick in some kind of wire. I wonder if there is some reason that we could not power our cars the same way we power many trains. Of course maglev monorails on every highway would be nice if we had cars that could adapt to them. This would be a beautiful system and we wouldn't need to rely on new battery technology. It would also have a nice feeling of "living in the future". Like the glass domed cities and flying cars that people in the 50s thought we would have by now.
Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
They need to set required standards for automobiles that ensure they are extremely efficient with regards to both fuel consumption, and pollution. Smaller cars only. Ban the manufacture of vehicles over a given size for personal transport. Ban the operation of any other cars.
Really, all you have to do is hold drivers accountable for something more closely akin to the actual cost of fuel and the market will take care of this without any further intervention. Stop using military intervention to secure oil, that's the first step. Initiate a tree-planting project to fix the released carbon, tax fuel to pay for it. Et cetera.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
The peak oil theory is way overrated. Note: I'm not saying that peak oil hasn't occurred or won't occur soon. No, you're missing my points. Here they are:
1. There will be no world war over resources, as so many chicken littles believe. People in China pay the same price for oil as people in the US. Yes, theoretically Saudi Arabia could give itself a deal on oil, but then what would happen? (I mean, have you ever really thought this through?) Production would shift from the higher cost area to the lower cost area. Since Saudi Arabia doesn't have the capacity to manufacture the world's stuff, they realize that it's in their best interest to charge China the same price as they do themselves for oil usage.
2. As peak oil occurs, behaviour will change dramatically. Production will become more localized to reduce shipping costs. People will accumulate in cities where transportation is cheaper. Cars will get smaller. Houses will get smaller. People won't fly half way around the world and will (shock) actually use video conferencing instead. The world consumes SO much oil on such things of little imprtance, that actual oil usage could be stretched for thousands of years.
3. As the above point #2 starts to occur, biofuels and other substitutes will become economically feasible. Already wind power is making a serious dent in the global energy market. Brazil has a massive ethanol industry, and large parts of Africa will probably follow.
Peak oil is way overrated. It will not lead to the end of civilization. Shit, we've only *had* oil for a tiny fraction of human existance. Yes, the world will change as oil decreases, but life will go on, and happily so.
Oh, I wish people would stop whining already.
Thorium Reactors consume existing radioactive waste leaving only non-bomb-grade short-term (~100year) waste behind. The sooner we accept that nuclear is again vaible and that the new reactor designs are safe, the sooner we can stop spilling blood over oil.
Graphite foam batteries have a higher energy denisty than any existing lithium-based battery tech, and are perfect canidates for short to mid-range electric vehicles (ie: 80-90% of most driver's needs).
Microturbines enable us to far more efficently convert power from existing fuels...for those longer-distance trips.
Then there's bio-gas engines, stirling heat-engines, tesla turbines, wind turbines, and other centuries-old technologies.
The world is not coming to an end...it's just changing.
Just releasing a statement like that makes futures immediately more valuable. Any oil they already own is immediately more saleable at increasing profits; if they're trying to actually get out of oil, this is exactly the sort of statement they would want to make to get the most money for the oil they still have in reserve.
"Stratigraphically the origin of agriculture and thermonuclear destruction will appear essentially simultaneous" -- Lee
Ton's of oil in the USA, but the enviro-nuts won't let anyone drill for it!
Its really quite simple to understand.
If there really is such a concern then either we have very stupid politics and governments and military failing to realize we had better figure out alternatives as in like 20 years ago. Oil does have its use as a lubricant, rather than a fuel. And as a lubricant its use goes much further. Now about plastics.. I think we probably have enough to create an floating island. In other words there is apparently plenty of this plastics material we created that nature cannot digest but we can recycle.
what else is oil used for that we absolutely cannot live without but this FUD says we will have to?
Bottom line, where the hell is the alternative that should have already been developed and implemented?
So its either stupid government or FUD.
Maybe its both.
I don't know where you get the idea that oil is subsidized in Brazil, maybe you are thinking of ethanol, but I don't think that is subsidized either, just cheap to produce.
In group behavior: 'because they're evil/morons/sheep/crazy' is not 'insightful' it's 'oversimplified'
The only real, long term solution is using renewable energy.
Renewable? Can you give an example? Are you talking about wood?
Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
Thank you for your interest! I'm actually working on a number of projects simultaneously, but my big project is Mana. It's also the one that is the furthest away from being ready, because I want to use my experience with the other projects to make Mana really good - or at least avoid as many painful mistakes as I can.
The idea for Mana is to take a look at the programming languages already out there (if you take a look at my (outdated) resume, you will see that I know quite a few, and I've looked at more) and combine some of the good ideas into a single language. To give some examples:
- Common Lisp offers extremely powerful abstraction mechanisms, effectively allowing you to grow the language to fit your task, until implementing your program becomes practically trivial. Garbage collection, higher-order functions, macros, and a regular syntax make this work, so Mana will have these, too.
- Haskell and OCaml allow a lot of errors in programs to be detected at compile time. This is made possible by well thought-out type systems and static type checking. Numerous Haskell programmers have had the experience that, once the program makes it through the compiler, it does what you wanted it to do. I would like Mana to also have this ability. Perhaps this can even be extended to handling of errors that can occur at run time, so that a program that makes it through the compiler is guaranteed to not crash (i.e. everything that can happen invokes a code path in the program where the program handles the situation).
Mana is not much more than a rough sketch at this point. In terms of (sub-)projects that are actually useful right now, there is the Voodoo programming language, which has a compiler, as well as a few (as yet unreleased) projects building on it: Antimony, which is basically a set of libraries and utilities to build compilers, and Diamond, which is supposed to become a Ruby-like language with a compiler that can handle enough of the language that I can compile the Voodoo compiler to native code. That's what I'm currently working on, whenever I have time and energy.
In case you would like to discuss about these projects some more, please contact me and we can continue the conversation by email.
Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
We already have fuel taxes. That is not the answer. If oil truly is being subsidized then we should stop it immediately. Otherwise, we should try to transition to nuclear power as a medium term solution and spend some money on scientific research to come up with long term (100+ year) solutions. More taxes are never going to automagically solve any problems. Some degree of energy subsidies toward non-fossil fuel alternative energy might be worthwhile however. The reasoning for this is that the free market tends to only adjust for current conditions. If Peak Oil happens too abruptly, faster than we can build nuclear (and maybe some solar and hydro where feasible) power plants, then we will be in big trouble. We know that Peak Oil is going to happen. We just don't know when. So it may make sense to be a bit more prepared for it by subsidizing the alternatives. Needless to say, we shouldn't be building any more oil burning generators. All new non-nuclear power stations should be coal or natural gas. Although coal is cheaper.
Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
a) Just wait till we really begin to see peak oil (peak fossil fuel actually). In 10-15 years, a litre of Petrol will probably cost as much as an entire truck of petrol does today.
b) I'm extremely curious to know why you say that nuclear energy is "extremely polluting".
c) Thorium is not rare. Australia and India have huge deposits, enough to last more than 100 years, as do several other countries, even if you adjust for future growth patterns. Thorium based reactors are a reality - they are already operational in India, and larger ones are being designed. There is a discussion on this topic on this very same page.
EU did not do that. They simply raised the tax on fuel SLOWLY. More importantly, they let everybody know that they were going to do this. So, why not simply follow the same, and make intelligent use of the tax? Such as moving us to electric or simply balancing our budget?
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
I mean, I've been hearing about this stuff for what, 20 years ? Eventually, one of em has to be right. ,and who live 30 miles up a dirt road, and depend totally on a truck built with parts from all over the world and mideast oil to get to a food store with food from all over the world - they are gonna move a little closer to town, or they will become really independent.
As to the "catastrophre"
In my neighborhood, people drive chevy suburbans half a mile to the supermarket for a bottle of bottled water, which you can get free from the tap (here in boston, we have pretty good water)
oil gets more $$, people will change their behavour. For example, Those people who want to "get away from it all" and be "independent"
those incredibly wasteful people who take private jets ? gone
etc
The real problem is overpopulation.
"thorium reactors" this may be true, but today, in 2010, there are NO actual operating thorium cycle reactors, and therefore, as a matter of fact, we don't really know how well they would perform, assuming they actually could be built economically. as they say, in theory, theory and practice are the same, in practice they ain't beyond this, there are two other significant issues with any nuclear power proposal: a, the associated technology (eg, how to handle high level waste safely) can serve as a cloak for related activities in bomb making; you just can't get away from this (eg, if you have a thorium reactor, you need emergency technology for dealing with very hot waste; this same technology, or related technology, is critical to bomb making, but is very rare, and hard to obtain and hide if you don't have a large civilian program) b) ther are better alternatives; nuclear power is an intelligence test: if you say yest to nuclear, instead of solar/wind, you fail (and don't give me that crap about fundamental physical contraints on solar/wind - people who say stuff like that are just ignorant)
"no reactors" no commercial reactos, there are a lot of small RnD scale thorium reactors, or at leat that is what i get from the wiki page on "thorium fuel cycle" which has what looks like agood list of thorium reactors
Burning coal for electricity produces an order of magnitude [doe.gov] more CO2 than oil does. Coal isn't going to run out anytime soon.
But coal will run out eventually. IIRC estimates are that coal will be too expensive due to a decreased supply in something like 50 years. That is not nearly enough time to turn the Earth into Venus. Of course if my livelihood depended on government grant money for research into the approaching armageddon of Global Warming I'm sure I would think differently so as not to have to get a job working at McDonalds or something.
I didn't realize that coal produced so much more CO2. If that's the case then switching to electric cars might actually lead to more CO2. Almost 50% of US electricity comes from coal. Only 1% comes from oil. More CO2 may actually be a good thing for the Peak Fossil Fuel problem. The more CO2 we have the faster our trees will grow. The faster our trees will grow the more renewable energy we can get from tree farms (aka forests).
Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
In the medium term the global economic system and every market-oriented national economy would collapse.
The 'global economic system' of supply and demand is precisely what PREVENTS economic collapse whenever there is a shortage of a commodity, be it oil...copper or coffee or titanium or whatever. A diminished supply leads to higher commodity prices which both reduces consumption and allocates the diminished supplies to those willing and able to pay the highest price while others search for acceptable alternatives. This global economic system of supply and demand has worked successfully many times in the past for oil as well as for hundreds of other commodities ranging from apples to vanilla. Besides, reduced oil production will make everyone's carbon footprint smaller which is a good thing for global warming, so Al Gore should be celebrating.
actually, the Germans (and others) developed liquid hydrocarbon fuels (kerosene, etc.) from coal in the 19th century, so hardly a Nazi innovation.
sadly, we have coal and shale oil for centuries of fuel production.
"thorium reactors"
this may be true, but today, in 2010, there are NO actual operating thorium cycle reactors, and therefore, as a matter of fact, we don't really know how well they would perform,
WRONG: There exists plenty of R&D thorium reactors; so the physics have been proven. One excellent example is we've proven that the energy from one (1) tonne of thorium is roughly equal to 200 tonnes of uraniumm, or 3,500,000 tonnes of coal. The point is, we have a measured energy output from real-world reactors - not just fluffy academic theories.
assuming they actually could be built economically.
Yea, because shedding blood over oil is so economical.
as they say, in theory, theory and practice are the same, in practice they ain't beyond this, there are two other significant issues with any nuclear power proposal: a, the associated technology (eg, how to handle high level waste safely) can serve as a cloak for related activities in bomb making; you just can't get away from this (eg, if you have a thorium reactor, you need emergency technology for dealing with very hot waste; this same technology, or related technology, is critical to bomb making, but is very rare, and hard to obtain and hide if you don't have a large civilian program)
Thorium scavenges plutonium, thereby acting as an eco-cleaner that eradicates this terrible scary waste you hint at.
Here's a recent article:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/7970619/Obama-could-kill-fossil-fuels-overnight-with-a-nuclear-dash-for-thorium.html
b) ther are better alternatives; nuclear power is an intelligence test: if you say yest to nuclear, instead of solar/wind, you fail (and don't give me that crap about fundamental physical contraints on solar/wind - people who say stuff like that are just ignorant)
I have no idea what this "test" is you speak of, but the idea of solar is a joke. We can always hope to break, but simply cannot ignore established laws of physics - no matter how much we might want to. You want us to ignore physics? Let me know what happens when you leap off a cliff...damn silly laws of physics...
I believe that a day will come, which enables us to effectively break established laws of physics, but until that day, I do not want my children's blood shed over a purposeless war intended to control corporate-sponsored energy options. Especially when strong alternatives exists, even though puppets like you continue to ignorantly spout otherwise. Speaking to ignorance - maybe try lifting that veil of your own, and do some in-depth independent research - instead of just fumbling around with a half-assed read of a wikipedia article.
When it comes to solar, we cannot hope to harness a fraction of this planet's needed transportation related energy needs, let-alone the other energy needs. We're better off using the same square-acreage and growing food, or even growing biofuel.
Now, wind, there's interesting potential there; I live in Portland Oregon, USA - there's a huge number of expanding wind farms just east of me, and our biggest issue is the fact that our current electrical grid is struggling to carry all of this new power.
But our wind farms will not keep New York running overnight...nor help the east-coast survive a cold winter.
Maybe the only small apartments in his town are subsidized units for low-income people. This issue was actually addressed in an Ayn Rand novel, I can't remember exactly which one. In the novel, some entrepreneur was able to screw the NIMBY zoning zealots, and build a SRO (Single Room Occupancy) in a nice area. Of course, it was a Rand novel so it was occupied by people of a wide variety of income brackets and classes who simply chose to live simply. In reality, such housing tends to get occupied by drug addicts who are *really* motivated to save so they can get every last fix, or prostitutes. Thus, it's really hard to find such housing in an acceptable state of quality here.
I wager, his student housing was either on-campus (and thus barred to outsiders) or was subsidized housing that he qualified for at the time; but no longer does.
Builders here assume that if you can afford to live in non-subsidized housing, you want something bigger. The aforementioned zoning zealots may also stand in the way of approving plans for truly affordable housing. Remember, almost everybody is leveraged on their house in the US. Contrary to what they might say, nobody wants affordable housing because it translates to lower property values. This is especially bad when you are leveraged--it amplfies profits and losses. We saw the profit amplification during the boom, and now we are seeing the loss amplification.
The best answer may be some form of exchange-traded non-leveraged REIT. AFAIK it doesn't exist. This is one of my pet ideas... I digress...
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
In Brazil there are heavy taxes on fuels.
As an example, I just paid today R$2.25/liter to fuel my car. Doing the conversion to USD and gallons, that's about US$4.95/gallon. Electricity is also more expensive and taxed here - I pay about US$0.38/kWh.
You are partially right. However, oil is cheap because it's easy. You drill a hole in the ground and suck it out. You don't have to put much effort into it.
i.e. You get a lot of energy out for very little energy in.
The alternatives are not like that. You have to put a lot of energy in to get some more back out. For oil, you used to get 100+:1, now I believe it's down around 20:1 and falling as it gets harder to find. GoM disaster as an example.
Shale oil for example is down to low single digits, 3:1, 5:1. Ethanol is probably negative or barely positive.
What this means is that a much larger percentage of our budgets, economy and civilisation are simply going to be concerned with producing energy. 20% - 30% of everything everyone does will be energy production related.
Deleted
Nazi Germany reached 144 kb/d (thousand barrels of oil per day) with CTL employing slave labor. Took them about 12 years to reach that level, too; of course the bombing campaign being waged against their country didn't help. Sasol in South Africa produce about 200 kb/d with CTL - notice how this tech is popular with the politically odious? The Sasol 1 plant is the largest CO2 point source in the world. China planned to crank out a few hundred thousand barrels of CTL, but found this would take a few million barrels of water as well, and have scaled back their ambitions drastically. This, from the world's largest coal producer. RSD hasn't "proved" anything about processing oil shale with their Mahogany project, which was a very small scale pilot. For every 100 kb/d of oil extracted via their Vinegar process you'll need about 1-1.5 GW of electricity, for one thing. Would be better to just power vehicles directly with that juice.
Uh, I think it's time to put a *bit* (just a bit) more effort into finding an alternate energy source, even if oil isn't going to run out in the next few years. For one thing, it's going to eventually run out. That much is certain. It's better to be prepared than wait until the problem becomes a disaster (though, since these are humans I'm talking about, they certainly will wait until it becomes a disaster). Another thing is that oil pollutes the environment (which is very important, far more so than money) and isn't viably renewable, so we should be using clean, efficient, and renewable energy sources, anyway, not saying "drill baby drill!"
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
The Sun outputs at each second more energy than the whole Earth produces at one year. We must learn how to tap into this massive energy source and forget oil.
The first ticket would be to point out this is a heart we live on not a earth and when the BP gets too high a heart well, explodes. Peak oil. That's stupidarity. See the problems a single misspelling can cause? Get me to the rainb asap! It's gonna blow!
Oh, yeah, back to the topic at hand... So, tell me... why aren't we using electric vehicles?
Range. See the reviews of the Tesla for an example. 5 or 10 years from now, it won't be a problem, both because of changes in technology and because of societal changes of people having electric vehicles. But, for now, range is a killer. I have to drive once a week about 40 miles each way, with no guarantee of a charger at the far end. So, I can't do it. I'd love to get a Nissan Leaf, but it's '100 mile' distance is likely not going to be 80 real miles in real conditions. But, still, I'm waiting....
The more people I meet, the better I like my dog.
Seriously, do some research on the abiogenic origin of oil.
Petroleum is NOT dead dino carcasses rotting into liquid, it's instead a natural geological function much like natural gas. This was known decades ago by the Russian scientists but was never accepted into other western lexicons.
A good book on the subject is "Black Gold Stranglehold", everyone should read it.
Libertas in infinitum
"Incredibly" is in the dictionary, but if you don't want to look it up I can change that line to "major discoveries beyond everyone's wildest dreams".
I wonder where the steam comes from? Time for http://www.theoildrum.com/ !
OVERSHOOT
Inelastic demand.
The entire reason peak oil is a problem is because the alternatives all come at greater time, economic or social cost.
That is the ONLY reason why people are worried about peak oil.
In many cases switching to another energy source is a difficult, time consuming and expensive thing. In other cases it's just time consuming (eg. methane or other gasses for transport), which means that attempting to convert a very large number of things at a crisis point would be a major problem.
The "just switch when it runs out" idea is a real manifestation of the joke about an economist in a crashing plane waiting for somebody to turn up with parachutes for sale.
How exactly? Please show your working.
That's right, you don't have the faintest clue and don't understand why industries and governments are worried and are offering rebates for such things as switching cars to LPG.
I think you've blundered into the wrong place if you have the cut-rate clueless economists attitude that "when the price is right the magic engineers will fix it all for us". Well this place is full of engineers and we can't afford to believe in magic.
Nobody can click their fingers and solve this instantly. King Canute tried to make that clear a very long time ago when he took his court to the shore and said something along the lines of "see - I cannot command the tide to stop".
100-mile-there-and-back range is nice until you have to spend 2 hours in stop-and-go traffic for the "there" and "back" part
Spoken like someone who has never driven, or even ridden in a hybrid or full EV. When you stop, the car is off. The only things still making any noise, or moving at all, or lighting up, are the radio, the climate control system, and the headlights (if driving at night). It was actually rather startling, and took some getting used to, when driving a hybrid... pull up to a stop light, and 3 seconds later, the combustion engine shuts off. It fires back up again when you take your foot off the brake and apply the accelerator. In other words, stop-and-go traffic has a minimal effect on your driving distance, due to the fact that you're only using the electricity as motive force when you're moving.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License.
I have to drive once a week about 40 miles each way, with no guarantee of a charger at the far end.
Are you seriously going to tell me that you can't figure out how to put a 50' extension cord in your trunk?
Or maybe you're trying to say that you drive out into the woods every week, where there's no electrical power at all?
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License.
Actually, I'm driving onto a military base, and it's pretty much out in the middle of nowhere. And it's not my building, and have absolutely no control over whether or not they will let me plug in. Which is the point: you don't have a guarantee of a charger at the far end.
Can you guarantee that I will be able to plug in someplace else? For how long will I be able to charge and at what rate?
Part of the societal changes is that chargers will become available in a wider range of locations, but for now, no.
The more people I meet, the better I like my dog.
World-wide, wind barely provides 2% of the world's energy needs. Solar power provides some fraction well under 1% of the world's energy usage. So, are you saying that we should ignore wind & solar because, as you say "...until you have, say 2 or 5% of the country's energy coming from something, you don't know how well it will work as a viable utility..." Talk about a straw man's argument... How about seriously considering the proven R&D behind Thorium-based power technologies, before blasting it out of the water...just like you expect of solar and wind power prospects, that have already proven themselves to have lower yields & in some cases higher hazardous outcomes.
I've said it once, so I'll repeat again: solar is a joke. Every square meter of the earth's surface, when exposed to direct sunlight, receives a peak of 1000 watts (1 kilowatt) of power during the day. Over the course of an entire "perfect" day, you're realistically looking at no more than ~5KW of raw sunpower hitting the ground. That's assuming a clear sunny day... This is the raw energy available for harvesting, not some thermodynamics or technical efficiency smoke & mirrors. Sure, in THEORY, only 4% of the world's deserts (which cover about 35% of our landmass) need to be coated with solar energy collectors...but have you ever looked at where those deserts are, and compared that to where the energy-consumers are? The LAWS of PHYSICS do NOT enable us to harvest enough power from the sun, where that power is actually needed, to meet the world's existing let-alone growing energy needs. Solar has its purpose in specific and local/regional use-cases, but not as a general energy source.
As for all that military stuff & weapons hints you keep making. Sounds like you still need to research what a thorium reactor really does. Either that, or start citing specific concerns that are still a valid issue with Thorium reactors - otherwise you're just fearmongering.
And it's not just the cost of buying _oil_ (or gas), it's the cost of every single thing you need and want ...absolutely nothing is untouched by the cost of oil at this point in our economy.
look sig is kool
Nothing touches oil and gas for concentrated portable joules...its excellent properties are the reason we now have 6.7 billion people, an amazing technological superstructure and a global warming problem. So far, nothing comes close to the cheapness of petroleum and gas, and NEG is everything. (Net Energy Gained)
The good news in all this: the solution to global warming and over-population is peak oil!
look sig is kool
It appears that moderators have misunderstood my comments as being a wholesale endorsement of using hydrocarbons to excess... my main point was that consumer usage will drop, thereby potentially STALLING a peak oil crisis. Not avoiding it completely.
Remember, those solar collection estimates are based on current photovoltaic technologies and their current efficiency. There are already some experimental solar technologies that are at least 2x as efficient as existing cells, and one company is on the verge of producing solar shingles that can be used on any roof where regular shingles are used.
Still, you're right that the laws of physics impose an upper limit on what we can collect - you can't get more out than you take in ( > 100% efficiency). But if NYC were able to collect just 10% of the solar energy falling on its land area, that comes to about 750,000,000 sq. m x 500W/day = 375,000 MW. The city uses about 12 MW in electricity every day, so there's plenty of energy available even if gas and oil were to be replaced with electrics.
There are really only 3 true sources of energy that we can use - solar, geothermal, and nuclear. All the other alternatives are converted solar energy. Relying on solar evaporation to power wind + hydro, or putting it through photosynthesis and harvesting the biomass is inevitably going to be less efficient than just converting it directly to electricity.
Think of solar, geothermal and nuclear as our "income" and fossil fuels as the "trust fund" we've been burning through. Sooner or later the surplus will disappear and we will have to live within our means. If 5kW/day is all we get, then that's all we can spend.
"Slow down, Cowboy! It has been 3 years, 7 months and 26 days since you last successfully posted a comment."
Oops, sorry to reply to my own post - but I meant to write that NYC uses about 12,000 MW per day, not 12 MW!
"Slow down, Cowboy! It has been 3 years, 7 months and 26 days since you last successfully posted a comment."
Intresting link about new tech, but it was established by an earlier poster that we can't consider the "theory" stuff...so let's put aside that unproven technology for a moment and look at what the Real World can actually do Today.
Under perfect conditions the Earth receives no more than 1 kW/sq-meter.
This means that my 1kW/sq-meter reference is not limited by our technological level. This means that if solar panels were 100% efficient, and operated under perfect conditions, then the maximum that anyone can hope to draw is 1kW per square meter of solar collectors...period.
Perfect conditions would effectively be high-noon on a clear day. At any other time in the day, the Sun’s rays are perpendicular to the ground. The actual amount decreases as the angle of the Sun’s rays vary from perpendicular. Any cloud cover is going to further reduce the amount of energy that is hitting the surface of the planet.
On a typical "perfect" day, one could hope to collect maybe 5kW of power per square meter. Throw in clouds, rain and other typical factors (such as panel cleaniness & existing peak 20% panel efficency levels), and now we're dropping averages to somewhere well under 1W per square meter per day over the course of a typical year.
So, you're right, using current and emerging technolgies (none of which have been proven to consistently exceed ~20% efficency), if we were able to cover somewhere around 20-30% of the direct-sun-facing surfaces of New York with solar panels, then current energy needs would be met. Let's put that into perspective: less than 1% of New York's current direct-sun-facing surfaces are covered by roads/asphalt. Multiply that coverage by 20 or 30; covering 20-30% of the state, and you can now visualize what solar panels would mean as a primary energy source.
I've said it once, so I'll repeat & clarify again, as a general or broadly-utilized energy source solar is a joke; solar has its purpose in specific and local/regional use-cases only.
Geothermal (damn, forgot that one earlier), wind & nuclear are where the math starts to yield more realistic options.
One more critical point - all of this math assumes current levels of energy consumption. They do NOT factor in the huge spike in consumption that'll occur when vehicles and environmental/housing systems are powered solely by electricity alone. If we even start trying to GUESS at those resulting power requirements, and that shoves solar so far out of the picture, our grandchildren will mock our consideration of it...
"(at the time, I was racking up debt, which I am now paying off)."
Not to quibble too much, but if you were racking up debt, you were not living sustainably. Since generating an income requires an energy input, your lack of income was suppressing your energy footprint.
This is an excellent analogy to apply to the topic at hand; Since generating an 'economy' requires an energy input, any lack (or _decline_) in energy-income will suppress the economy's energy footprint. That is to say, either replace that free-energy-input or get smaller, simpler, less mobile, less luxurious, et al.
Peak Oil is a slave labor force on steroids that is agitating to organize...
look sig is kool
The US started drilling for oil earlier. Like late XIXth century. There used to be rich oil fields in Romania and Indonesia during WWII. Today the supply has mostly dried up as well. Saudi Arabian fields were supposedly only discovered after WWII. This production shortfall will be offset by extracting lower quality fuel like tar sands or oil shale.
They used various ways to come up with stuff that was "sorta like" petroleum because they were having to manage without petroleum. The way they managed without petroleum was to come up with ways to make stuff that was "sorta like" petroleum. So, as I said, the German military *does* have some past experience in having to manage without petroleum. This was because of Germany being without petroleum.
Sheesh.
I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.
The problem is there is no parachute on the plane for the economist to buy. There is only a parachute if somebody gets it ready. We won't have one ready until after the first plane crash has happened.
You cannot rely on magic engineers to solve the problem instantly - we need time to put infrastructure in place.
"Vetroleum"
http://puregreencars.com/Green-Cars-News/Technology/john_rivera_claims_he_can_produce_limitless_fuel_from_farm_waste.html
There is no other, available now, backward compatible, sustainable, environmental, socially expedient technology out there, and Vetroleum needs to be backed by every government in the world - buying out the patents and making the technology public domain, if necessary.
Without oil there is no photo-voltaic solar, no modern agriculture (fertilisers and pesticides come almost exclusively from by-products of the petroleum industry), no mining. It took 50 years and 2 world wars to build the petroleum economy and infrastructure, and hydrogen is only in its infancy. Vetroleum bolts onto the existing oil industry with little change to any infrastructure. It makes farming more cost effective and CO2 neutral, too.
According to the German report, we have 15 years, according to the US one, we have as little as 5 years. Hydrogen is not going to be wide enough spread in California, let alone the rest of the world, in 5 years. Vetroleum could be rolled out in 5 years if we start now. It could also end all those oil wars in the Middle East.
"I hope you like Guinness, Sir. I find it a refreshing substitute for, er... food." Col. Jack O'Neil, SG-1
The problem is there is no parachute on the plane for the economist to buy. There is only a parachute if somebody gets it ready. We won't have one ready until after the first plane crash has happened.
I already explained why this is wrong.
No, you gave an opinion that was swinging on the breeze on a misplaced bit of thread attached to the compound interest formula or something. I've done my best to draw your attention to reality without success.
Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
No, you gave an opinion that was swinging on the breeze on a misplaced bit of thread attached to the compound interest formula or something. I've done my best to draw your attention to reality without success.
The only problem with your assertion above is that no, you don't do what you claim. The bottom line is that you imply, without much in the way of evidence I might add, that once cheap oil is used up, then the cost of transportation will go way up and stay that way no matter what. I merely point out that there are many, well-developed technologies out that in themselves would keep that from happening. Some of those technologies (the biofuels, for example) are already operating on a large scale sufficient to soften the impact of any oil price shocks, contrary to your assertions.
In addition to that, we also have the traditional means of cushioning oil shocks such as the US's strategic oil reserve (which can buy us a few months of time in case someone does something really extreme, like nuke the entire Middle East) and price signaling (that is, raising the cost of oil and its derivative products does reduce demand for oil).
So to summarize, we have short term means to cushion price shocks and long term means to keep the cost of transportation pretty close to what it is today. This is what we have, not some fantasy. I tire of your claims that you represent "reality". Provide some of this "reality", namely, evidence. Then we'll have something to talk about.
However you are incorrect because they are chemically, thermodynamically and thus economically more difficult WHICH IS MY ENTIRE POINT.
Hard things do not suddenly get easy to do by MAGIC. It takes time and effort, and a "few months" or even a few years are not enough - hence forward planning instead of pretending that there is no problem because the magic engineers will solve the problem.
That is what I'm trying to tell you and why people are worried about peak oil - there is nothing to indicate otherwise at this point. You are basing your argument on blind hope and extrapolating things such as ethanol that will not scale globally without a major increase in cost. You are the economist hoping a parachute salesman will fly past while your plane is crashing.
However you are incorrect because they are chemically, thermodynamically and thus economically more difficult WHICH IS MY ENTIRE POINT. Hard things do not suddenly get easy to do by MAGIC. It takes time and effort, and a "few months" or even a few years are not enough - hence forward planning instead of pretending that there is no problem because the magic engineers will solve the problem.
It's not much of a point. First, you still don't provide supporting evidence. Second, being more difficult doesn't mean much. Modern society is far more difficult to maintain than a hunter/gatherer level existence, yet we somehow manage. There are many similar examples in modern society (mail, mass produced foods, etc) that are far more complex than earlier analogues, yet we manage. Keep in mind that oil production itself has been getting more difficult since some point in the 50s to 70s (the cheapest oil prices didn't occur then but much later in the 90s). Yet that hasn't made a bit of difference to the price of oil. More difficult doesn't even mean more expensive.
Second, you don't seem to have a clue how long it takes to build infrastructure when society really wants it. I think we could build a full blown oil synthesis or biofuels infrastructure capable of supporting the US within two years, for example. There are a number of examples prior to and during the Second World War of infrastructure building that while not usually oil-based, were of a similar scale and complexity and done on the same sort of time scales. For example, Nazi Germany's rise to power involved industrialization and militarization over a period of roughly six years (including development and deployment of brand new military technologies). Similarly, the USSR's movement of most of its industrial infrastructure over the Ural mountains (basically done over a three year period, if I understand correctly). To be blunt, both feats are far more complex and difficult than building synthetic oil/biofuel infrastructure to replace the oil that the US imports.
That is what I'm trying to tell you and why people are worried about peak oil - there is nothing to indicate otherwise at this point.
"Nothing to indicate otherwise"? I already pointed out several times evidence that indicates otherwise. So once again, you are wrong.
You are basing your argument on blind hope and extrapolating things such as ethanol that will not scale globally without a major increase in cost. You are the economist hoping a parachute salesman will fly past while your plane is crashing.
Here's my "blind hope":
1) Historical evidence of modern societies accomplishing goals of similar or greater complexity and difficulty in a few years.
2) Numerous replacement technologies (several which are literally drop for drop replacement for fossil fuel oil), many which are already deployed on a scale which would mitigate any sudden declines in oil production.
3) If the price of oil rises, then the pool of proven oil reserves increases. Things like tar sands and heavy crude reserves become economical to extract.
3) Historical evidence that modern societies cope well with sudden scarcity and emergencies. This includes rapid changes in the behavior of people and businesses to accommodate any sudden problems.
4) We're already working to address the problem.
You can keep pushing your lame argument, but as I see it, I'm the one providing reasoned argument, lists of evidence, etc. You're the one saying without evidence that I'm being blindly hopeful, even though I have yet to see any sign you understand the oil industry or the field of currently available oil substitutes.
When I saw that BP had abandoned an oil well that ended up spewing 100,00 barrels of oil into the ocean per day, as it was deemed not profitable enough, and that I know for sure there are 27,000 of these same abandoned oil wells in the gulf of mexico alone, I know this to be BS, and just another way for the oil companies to try and use media to inflate the oil prices, I guess they just do not care we are still in recovery of an economic crisis, and that the bottom line is that 50 billion PROFIT a year is not nearly enough for them to have all the stuff they want in life, and just making the poor get poorer....so don't buy into the hype, we are no where near out of oil, and even if we got there one day, we have solar and wind and so many other options, we would have a grace period for transitioning, and then would continue our little routine using a diff. power source....even have biofuel avail now...so convert your car's engine and voila, problem solved.
Look up "peak oil" just about anywhere and you'll see the evidence - you are the one pushing the radical view that if we do nothing it will all sort itself out remember.
Since you are pushing the radical view it is up to you to provide evidence for that radical view.
By simply outlining the problem listed in a lot of places I just subjected to piles of bullshit from an idiot that advocates going through life doing nothing and let fucking magic sort it all out for him.
Look up "peak oil" just about anywhere and you'll see the evidence - you are the one pushing the radical view that if we do nothing it will all sort itself out remember.
I have done that already. You have any other arguments to make?
By simply outlining the problem listed in a lot of places I just subjected to piles of bullshit from an idiot that advocates going through life doing nothing and let fucking magic sort it all out for him.
It's not magic to me. Maybe you should learn a little about the subject rather than merely treating it as magic?
Looks like a belief in magic to me - complex stuff as simple as easy stuff with nothing but hand waving and no hard work - ABRACADABRA! You don't even have a clue how liquid fuel was made from coal or you would not be pushing this so hard.