Please stop legitimizing Peak Oil paranoia.

[mattclearing]

The mere fact that we are running out of fossil fuels is no reason to panic.

The biggest weakness of our current leaders is that they cannot envision a world without oil.

Let's not lend their wars underlying support by giving credence to their ignorant paranoia.

When the world runs out of oil, we will all start making greater use of solar panels, wind and hydro-electic power, etc.

Life will go on.

Can we please start re-framing on this?

We don't need oil. Say it. Think about it. Understand it.

The only people that need oil are Exxon/Mobil, BP, Shell, Texaco, and their supporters in the Bush Administration.

Flame on.

:eyes:

Edited topic title for clarity.

[vpigrad]

1. Since you're agreeing with him...

why the post?

[mattclearing]

8. I mean as a source of panic.

People are constantly terrified of running out of oil, because of all the messes it will create.

The only messes will result because our Government is made up of profiteering ignoramuses who are too slow and dumb to make money off of new sources of energy rather than cling desperately to their Titanic golden goose.

We need to stop treating it as a legitimate source of paranoia and find a way to combat it.

[bpilgrim]

60. http://news.globalfreepress.com/movs/Al_Bartlett-PeakOil.mp4

http://news.globalfreepress.com/movs/Al_Bartlett-PeakOil.mp4
http://www.hubbertpeak.com/images/wakeup!!!.gif
http://www.hubbertpeak.com

more...
http://www.peakoil.net

psst... pass the word ;->

peace

[rman]

212. solving the problem is far from trivial

the problem, as so aptly described by you:
"...our Government is made up of profiteering ignoramuses who are too slow and dumb to make money off of new sources of energy rather than cling desperately to their Titanic golden goose."

So it's just a matter of reclaiming our self-governance, all we need to do is educate the masses. To do that i guess we'll need the media, which are now under corporate control, with support from the government, which has support from a thoroughly indoctrinated majority of the population.
When do we start?

[Jack_DeLeon]

2. Yeah just because...

there wont be any fuel to get food and other essentials to the market and there will be a greater number of people worldwide that will die of starvation, and the rich will survive this just fine thats no reason to panic.

[CindyDale]

3. Great post

and we need to support fuel economy and public transportation, too, not to mention putting public pressure on the oil companies.

[mattclearing]

23. Thanks.

I probably could have worded it more constructively, but no one bites a constructive and meaningful post quite the same as a flamebait post.

:D

[BlueEyedSon]

4. Consider this a flame.

I legitimize NOTHING. Do you have any idea how much basic research in conservation and alternative energy $300 billion would have bought?

Each calorie of food you eat took 10 calories of fossil fuels/petrochemicals to produce. So please, be the first to prove that you don't "need the oil."

[mattclearing]

15. Yeah, and that's a problem.

I'd rather we start pushing to address it rather than re-arrange deck chairs on the Titanic of oil consumption.

If we don't start pushing for a serious effort to wean the industrialized world off of fossil fuels, we may have to live out the worst nightmare scenarios described.

But there's no reason to believe it has to be that way.

[BlueEyedSon]

25. In case you haven't noticed, the ruling elite have enacted their

"exit strategy". Consolidate as much money & power before the global economy grinds to a halt. Then they'll be in a position to live any way they want in guarded, gated communities.

The people who are in a potential position of leadership are doing the opposite of what would be a rational approach to survivability and sustainability. Running deficits, warring for the oil (which is not working out well), giving tax breaks on $100k Hummers, etc.

I firmly believe Gore would have made progress on these issues. With the Bushies in control, it's up to us. We're losing time.

[mattclearing]

36. I agree with all of that.

And I want to beat that point like a pinata. These people are stupid and shortsighted.

They have ground the progress of humanity to a halt, and are working to take us all back to peasantry.

[BlueEyedSon]

42. It's going to happen with or without their efforts, unless there is a

concerted effort to create SUSTAINABLE mechanisms for us to continue to have access to the huge amounts of cheap energy that our "modern" lifestyle requires.

You want to know what the world will look like after the cheap oil is exhausted? Imagine 1870, only with 6+ billion mouths to feed.

[mattclearing]

53. All the more reason to invest in sustainable alternatives.

We, as humans, have continually found new ways to power our ambitions.

I know that an end to war is still probably a ways off.

But a return to the 1870's strikes me as extremely unlikely.

More likely is that some genius in another country will discover a way to harness sustainable energy and make money from it.

And our corporations will make that person very rich and spend the next hundred years trying to milk it for all it's worth.

edited for poor wording.

[sarahlee]

129. there is a term for this

re: "working to take us all back to peasantry"

corporate feudalism.

[Swamp Rat]

41. Gated communities will NOT protect them, and neither will underground

bunkers. Those places will become cemetaries.

[BlueEyedSon]

43. They own the army. Good luck on your raids.

[Swamp Rat]

47. What?

"They own the army." - No they don't... on the other hand, there will be mercenary groups for hire.

"Good luck on your raids." - MY raids? I'm a pacifist. :)

[BlueEyedSon]

50. Seems like a gate is all they will need to be protected from YOU.

:)

I'm a pacifist too, but elections are not exactly working. Not to mention that no one votes for the multi-millionaire CEOs behind the power.

[Swamp Rat]

68. Right.

I was just speaking extemporaneously with a mental image of burning torches and pitchforks, carried by millions of pissed off starving people. I could be wrong, but I don't think rich CEOs and politicos will be safe from the masses when the worm turns... unless they build space ships and leave immediately.

[BlueEyedSon]

75. They're "safe from us" already, dontcha know?

[NEOBuckeye]

80. Just let them keep on thinking that.

They aren't as in control of their own destinies as they may think.


None of us are, at this point.

[datasuspect]

163. hungry people get desperate

i'd love to see the shit hit the fan.

[tjwash]

93. There is not going to be much of an army left for them to own...

...after the mass desertions that will ensue.

Remember the french already did this, and the kings and nobles were taken to task rather harshly. They too "owned the army."

[NEOBuckeye]

74. I agree. No place will be safe for the elitists.

Although I've often envisioned mobs of millions chasing them down in the midst of a devestating energy crisis and depression, the truth is, the NeoCons' own delusional paranoia will probably seal their fates.

While it's true that the gated communities and bunkers may contain ample farmland and "lifetime" supplies of food, what happens if things don't go as planned? Famine may wipe out an entire crop, or a natural disaster (i.e. hurricane, tornado, earthquake) may strike and severely damage the compound or its method of generating power for electric, air and heat. Servant labor, which they would surely want to keep, might at some point desire to take their chances in the real world and depart, or even revolt violently and claim the compound for themselves.

The same is true for a hired mercenary army. What would stop such an armed band from turning on a bunch of paranoid old men?

Bottom line: One way or another, these people have no future. So why the hell do we continue to trust them with ours?!?

[Swamp Rat]

81. A nasty avian bird flu could literally drop in on them... for example

There's more than one way to poison the well. Never discount the ingenuity of humans, especially when they are starving and have NOTHING to lose.

[brainshrub]

5. Suuuure we don't need oil. And the Indians didn't need buffalo.

The Romans didn't need iron and Greeks didn't need wood and the Babylonians didn't need unspoiled farmland.

This whole civilization is based on petroleum. Anything made of plastic is a petroleum product.

Kinda hard to remain optimistic.

[mattclearing]

11. Your post betrays your point.

After all, there is always the next thing.

Wood isn't the power source it used to be. Neither is coal.

I think we need to start actively pushing for the next thing.

[K-W]

90. Yah, those civilizations are still thriving today!

Wanna explain your thinking on exactly how those groups peacefully transitioned to a new economic model?

[mattclearing]

142. Hey, just because it hasn't happened yet...

...doesn't mean it can't happen.

Granted, the outlook is extremely bad.

But I refuse to believe that we can't make a difference and change the way this shift takes place.

[Squeech]

6. Okay, it's not time to panic

But it is time to plan.

Do you know how much fuel it takes just to feed the country? We run a heavily energy-intensive agriculture: petroleum-powered combines and harvesters, trucks to get produce to market, and don't forget that most fertilizers are petrochemical products too. If we're truly running out, and we don't make other arrangements in short order, millions will starve.

Think also about the energy requirements to manufacture all those solar panels and wind turbines. They're not gonna just magically appear.

Yet another reason why the greatest president of my lifetime was Jimmy Carter.

[mattclearing]

12. Might as well throw Al Gore in there too.

He knows what alternative energy will mean to the world.

[NEOBuckeye]

85. So it seems, 2000 might have been a really HUGE turning point for us

Gore sure as hell wouldn't have gotten us this far into the hole for oil. He probably would have been our best shot at starting an earlier "Manhattan Project" to wean the country from our petroleum dependence.

But of course, the Bushes and the Oil Industry probably would have conspired to have had him shot.

Bastards.

[mattclearing]

151. Yep.

The main thing this country has lacked since JFK was shot is vision and the ability to see beyond the problems of the day to something better.

Clinton was great on economic policy, but I get the impression he wasn't sold on renewable energy, because it's obviously a problem worth throwing the bully pulpit at...unless all your friends are military contractors.

[Trish1168]

226. Carter's loose dollar policy was the cause of the oil shortage

Remember when they said we should conserve.....then Reagan came along and there was no need to conserve. The oil supply never changed.

Carter was a very good and very honest man....but he and his advisers were clueless about the economy.

Reagan tightened the dollar, which helped to lower oil prices.

[Coastie for Truth]

7. So, you are endorsing

Photovoltaics?

Photothermal?

Photothermal towers w/ "MHD" capture?

Wind turbines?

Biomass?

Geothermal?

Hydro?

Synthane? Syngas? Shale Oil? Tar Sands?

Fusion (and dinner with the King and Queen of Sweden, and that Presentation at the Stockholm Opera House, and the medal, and the Check, and the book signing tours) :)

Fission? - Yes Fission.

We can be much more efficient - even recycling grass cuttings or farm waste or packing house by-products with the right bacteria and enzymes, and using available computer tools to squeeze 20%-40% more mpg out of cars, and go to a "transit - transit village - town house and garden apartment - walk to work and school and shopping paradigm." We could subsidize the living hades out of transit - and tax the hades out of private cars-- and we could tax "excess lawn" to raise housing density.

Ther's a lot we can proactively do.

But - we are not going to do it until crude hits $75+ per barrel.

And, pray tell, who has been doing anything serious - beyond Lovins and Ovshinsky?Certainly no administration since Carter (and -even though he was a nuclear engineer -- he was an ENERGY ENGINEER by professional training -- MS in Nuclear Engineering - I think from RPI or Union).

[mattclearing]

76. To paraphrase the Fossil Fueler-in-chief...

I would put all options on the table.

I would then take a large portion of the Pentagon budget (however much we currently spend on this oil insanity), and give it to a blue-ribbon panel of scientists, and say, "Fix this now."

[parasim]

91. Yeah, and they could start by taking a good long look at hemp

-snip

Our current fossil energy sources also supply about 80% of the solid and airborne pollution which is quickly poisoning the environment of the planet. (See U.S. EPA report 1983-96 on the coming world catastrophe from carbon dioxide imbalance caused by burning fossil fuels). The best and cheapest substitute for these expensive and wasteful energy methods is not wind or solar panels, nuclear, geothermal and the like, but the evenly distributed light of the sun for growing biomass.


On a global scale, the plant that produces the most net biomass is hemp. It's the only annually renewable plant on Earth able to replace all fossil fuels.


http://www.jackherer.com/chapter09.html

[Coastie for Truth]

101. The science has been done

with all of the fancy Fourier Transforms and LaPlace transforms and n-th order Partial Differential Equations and SQRT(-1).

Now it's time for some dirty fingernails "engineering"

[skids]

117. You forgot one:

Metal fuel cells.
http://www.3nw.com/energy/resources/metal_fuel_cells.htm
http://www.fuelcellknowledge.org/fuelcell_basics/types_fuel_cell/metal_air.html

Oh, and don't get whiplash, but... "it's not quite dead, yet" it's just limping along very, very slowly...
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa004&articleID=00059015-99C5-1213-987F83414B7F011C

Plus the latest developments in photovoltaics are very encouraging.

My prediction is that alternative energies will be in place in time to deal with "peak oil". In other countries. Here, if this economy even survives that long, we will put ourselves in debt importing the technologies as the straggler. Man, that's one prediction I hope I am wrong on.

[depakid]

153. Where are you going to get the platinum for the fuel cells?

there isn't enough on earth to even make a sizable dent in current energy usage.

[skids]

156. Metal fuel cells run off zinc and aluminum.

Platinum is for cold fusion.

[depakid]

220. You need platinum for the catalyst

a fuel cell is not a simple battery.

http://science.howstuffworks.com/fuel-cell2.htm

[skids]

221. Not worried about it.

As the market demand increases, better alternatives will be found.

http://www.newstarget.com/004578.html

[UdoKier]

9. How will we make all the solar panels, hydro-plants, etc...

When all fossil fuels are gone? Nuclear power? I think we need to start on this stuff ASAP...

[Coastie for Truth]

20. Solar panels are made like semi-conductor wafers

or liquid crystal display (flat panel display) screens.

Crystalline by epitaxial doping of thin, large area wafers

Amorphous, polycrystalline, microrystalline by epitaxial growth of the p+ and n- layers.

go to http://patft.uspto.gov/netahtml/search-bool.html and search on "photovoltaic cell" and "fabrication" - I got 551 "hits."

We used to do that in the US -- now they do it in India, China, Korea, Israel, Japan, Hong Kong, Singapore, Taiwan.

Nowhere near as energy intensive as petroleum refining. PV generated electricity can supply the energy for the fabrication of photovoltaic cells.

[BiggJawn]

62. Not exactly a cottage industry, though.

They'd better get started now, because these epitaxial wafers don't grow amongst the turnips and sunflowers.

Maybe they can get some biogas generation up and going to help. then again, maybe not. "Oh, that stuff too expensive! Besides, we got 20 years worth of oil left, if you can afford it...."

[Coastie for Truth]

99. Actually - you can make them in an adequately equipped college lab

Even at State Univ of NY at Binghamton or Cal State San Jose.

Univ of Illinois has a very successful program for biomass fuels - from poultry process "by products."

[BiggJawn]

135. But in what SCALE?

We're talking megawatts of need here, and you're saying "Oh, we can build them in college labs, QED..."

I don't know about colleges where you live, but the labs across the mall from where I work require whomping amounts of electricity. and where, do you suppose this electricity is going to come from?

That's why they need to start NOW, and they need to do this on a HUGE scale, not any piddly "Oh we make about 35 watts worth every day in our lab"...

And have you considered just exactly how much things will change when the oil runs out or becomes so expensive only Bill Gates will be able to afford it? Think "Mad Max"...

[Coastie for Truth]

183. My point was that the technology is straight forward

Whether you are going amorphous, micro, poly, or crystalline -- the photolithographic specs are several orders of magnitude looser then for IC wafers - or even liquid crystal displays. (we are not talking sources, drains, and gates - but large area "stacked" photodiodes).

The clean room specs are 1-2 orders of magnitude looser then even for LC D's.

The electricity is going to come from the wind turbines on the Altamont Pass (where Intel gets some of its electricity) -- and then from the PV cells after we fab them.

I jog past two semiconductor fabs (Intel's Plumeria Rd and Mission College Rd fabs, Cisco's Tasman Rd fab) -- and I do ride the "Santa Teresa - North First Street - Tasman - Alum Creek Light Rail" --- past one heck of a lot of Si fabs -- and I worked in a PV fab -- and I adjuncted at an engineering school where we had both an IC fab and a PV fab. And I don't know what you mean by "whomping amounts of electricity." We use more "whomping amounts of electricity" in my "green, transit village" condo complex.

[BiggJawn]

202. I'm not questioning the technology.

Hell, I'm no Luddite, I even use an alloy seatpost under my leather saddle..:-)

What I AM questioning is the speed whith which they're NOT bringing this technology on line.

I live in Northern Indiana. The only PV/wind power you see around here are the strobe signs that say "Workzone-35 MPH" out on the interstate and some remote telemetry gizmos for the hydrological office and some utility companies.
Even the University here isn't doing anything with alternative energy. Only PV panel and wincharger you'll find around here is the telemetry pod on Vectren's gas main.

[Trish1168]

228. The issue is not electricity.....from COAL

Electricity is mostly coal generated and there is PLENTY of coal. While I think we need alternatives for environmental reasons, electricity is not the problem.

The problem is OIL! And oil is used for ALL TRANSPORTATION. All the goods in all the stores get there using petroleum. Oil is the lubrication of the economy, because as it gets more expensive, the cost of everything goes up (which is why we have inflationary pressure on us now, because the dollar is weak which makes oil prices high so the cost of everything goes up).

We'd have to change to a hydrogen economy, and this is not an easy matter. Most hydrogen produced now comes from petroleum, and this would obviously not solve our problem. Hydrogen can be produced from water using electricity, but you need the electricity source. Coal is one way, but ideally, we should use renewable energy.

Tidal currents is the most promising prospect to me and there's an experimental system being tested in NY city (at the bottom of a river). There's new solar technology wich can capture 30% of the suns energy (by including infra-red energy) as opposed to the current technology which captures only 5%. It might be possible to set up a hydrogen generator in our garages using solar power or to use the roofs of our cars to capture solar energy (the solar particles can be mixed with paint or used in fabrics)....and then we'd fill the tanks with water.

Many possibilities exist, and our next great president will put the effort forward so we can make this transition.

[Jack_DeLeon]

10. The point that we are making...

when we talk about peak oil is that we need to so something now to prepare and make sure that the transition period is less severe in terms of loss of life and whatnot.

There is no doubt that humans as a speciies would survive if tommorrow oil just magically disappeared.

However there is a great difference between humans surviving as a hunter gatherer society and us now developing the technology we will need to survive as a more advanced civillization.

[mattclearing]

16. See? That's the issue. Do you eat oil? Drink it? Breathe it?

That "loss of life" mentality assumes that wars for oil are the natural and logical result of a decreasing supply.

[BlueEyedSon]

27. Essay from Harpers: "The Oil We Eat"

The Oil We Eat
Following the food chain back to Iraq
Posted on Friday, July 23, 2004. Originally from Harper's Magazine, February 2004. By Richard Manning.
Sources

The secret of great wealth with no obvious source is some forgotten crime, forgotten because it was done neatly.—Balzac

The journalist’s rule says: follow the money. This rule, however, is not really axiomatic but derivative, in that money, as even our vice president will tell you, is really a way of tracking energy. We’ll follow the energy.

We learn as children that there is no free lunch, that you don’t get something from nothing, that what goes up must come down, and so on. The scientific version of these verities is only slightly more complex. As James Prescott Joule discovered in the nineteenth century, there is only so much energy. You can change it from motion to heat, from heat to light, but there will never be more of it and there will never be less of it. The conservation of energy is not an option, it is a fact. This is the first law of thermodynamics.

Special as we humans are, we get no exemptions from the rules. All animals eat plants or eat animals that eat plants. This is the food chain, and pulling it is the unique ability of plants to turn sunlight into stored energy in the form of carbohydrates, the basic fuel of all animals. Solar-powered photosynthesis is the only way to make this fuel. There is no alternative to plant energy, just as there is no alternative to oxygen. The results of taking away our plant energy may not be as sudden as cutting off oxygen, but they are as sure.

Scientists have a name for the total amount of plant mass created by Earth in a given year, the total budget for life. They call it the planet’s “primary productivity.” There have been two efforts to figure out how that productivity is spent, one by a group at Stanford University, the other an independent accounting by the biologist Stuart Pimm. Both conclude that we humans, a single species among millions, consume about 40 percent of Earth’s primary productivity, 40 percent of all there is. This simple number may explain why the current extinction rate is 1,000 times that which existed before human domination of the planet. We 6 billion have simply stolen the food, the rich among us a lot more than others.

More: http://www.harpers.org/TheOilWeEat.html

[rman]

132. Yes we eat oil; food production is largely dependent on fertilizer;

artificial fertilizer made from natural gas.
Also food processing is dependend on fossil fuel, and the trucks that transport food to the super markets run on petrol.

[hatrack]

147. Diesel to run pumps for irrigation, hydrocarbons as pesticide feedstocks

Fuel for tractors & farm machinery, natural gas for drying corn so that it won't spoil in the elevators, aviation gasoline for cropdusters . . . Yeah, we eat even more oil than many people think.

[w4rma]

13. Agreed, except on "peak oil". Redefine that term so it's not a disaster

waiting to happen instead of trying to illegitimize this correct term.

[mattclearing]

17. That's my point.

While the logic behind the idea of Peak Oil is essentially well-meaning and correct, it is almost always used to legitimize doomsaying apocalyptic paranoia.

[w4rma]

26. Looks good. (nt)

[quinnox]

14. I agree,

and I also have serious doubts whether peak oil itself as a theory holds any water.

But regardless, humans are remarkably adaptive and inventive, and will find something to replace it if the need arises.

[BlueEyedSon]

18. Get your head out of the sand and do some research.

Do you deny that peak oil is inevitable? ....or merely question the accuracy of current forecasts (this decade)?

State your position and site your sources, unless you are as faith-based as the Bushies. I'll check back later.

[quinnox]

35. Both

I question whether peak oil is inevitable and if not, I question the forecasts being accurate. I know there is an alternative theory that the oil supply is essentially endless, I don't recall the particulars as it was some time ago that I read it.

Also, even if peak oil is legit, there are new technologies being introduced every day and surely will be more to come to get oil out of the old reserves that was not feasible before. There is much oil left in reserves that they can't use due to technology limitations right now.

[BlueEyedSon]

37. Sources for your "opinions"?

[quinnox]

45. a book

I read about the oil industry and investing in it, it is called "successful energy sector investing" the author explains a lot about the current oil industry.

[BlueEyedSon]

51. Does the book or the author have a name?

Good luck investing.

[barb162]

67. I worked in the oil business. Here's the truth: there aint no endless

supply of oil. Beside that, the Saudi fields are wearing out fast. Real fast. Start conserving and I mean now. Your line about new technologies is completely false. This reminds me of people who think it is okay to have ten kids; that's there is no overpopulation on this planet. Don't forget, China and India want the oil bigtime now too. We have to compete now with a billion Chinese whose factories are going gangbusters. Have you heard Saudi Arabia anytime lately say they can increase production? They can't. They will destroy their fields faster if they do. GET REAL, EVERYONE.

[sarahlee]

130. Aussies taking the lead?

We could solve our energy problems in 10 years

This space age looking thing is actually a power plant called a Solar Tower. The first commercial version is set to be completed by 2006 in Australia.

It works off a very old and simple concept: hot air rises. The hot air is generated by a greenhouse effect under the collection area around the base. As the air heats up underneath, it has nowhere to go but up the giant chimney where it turns giant fan blades connected to turbines. It's so simple it's silly.

The one being built in Australia will generate around 200MW (megawatts) of electricity -enough to power about 200,000 homes. It will cost about 500 million bucks. Standard coal powered plants that generate 200MW cost around 750 million and that doesn't include the cost of mining, processing, and transporting coal.

But, of course, the biggest savings of these plants comes from the fact that they emit zero CO2 (or pollution of any kind). The cost of climate change is incalculable. But if you believe the Pentagon, it exceeds the combined wealth of every nation on Earth.

Check out the videos at the site.
http://www.enviromission.com.au/

Articles about it:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/2628361.stm
http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,66694,00.html?tw=wn_3techhead

======
Another one:
Unlimited New Energy from Sun and Water

A revolutionary new way of harnessing the power of the sun to extract almost unlimited energy from water will be a reality within seven years.

“It would be the cheapest, cleanest and most abundant energy source ever developed,” say scientists from Australia’s University of New South Wales. “The main by-products would be oxygen and water.”...

story
http://positivenews.org.uk/cgi/zyview.pl/D=articles/V=story/R=1234

====
one more
Sandia, Stirling to build solar dish engine power plant
Goal is to deploy solar dish farms with 20,000 units producing energy

http://www.sandia.gov/news-center/news-releases/2004/renew-energy-batt/Stirling.html


And an aside:
China Daily
Non-fossil energy sources, including wind, solar power and thermal power, will make up a bigger share of China's energy resources under a new bill passed yesterday encouraging use of renewable energy.

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2005-03/01/content_420450.htm

[mattclearing]

144. Fantastic.

Thanks for this. This is exactly the kind of thing I'm talking about.

Nice to know that some policy makers can look at the facts of the situation and make an effort for change.

[Occulus]

180. That's one idea, and we could recycle our trash:

Thermal depolymerization:

http://blogcritics.org/archives/2003/05/08/140006.php

http://www.mindfully.org/Energy/2003/Anything-Into-Oil1may03.htm

(I think the second link goes to a reprint of a Discover Magazine article published a couple years back.)

[Coastie for Truth]

40. It's not a matter of running into a brick wall

--it's that the costs of exploration, drilling, recovery, refining, and distribution get higher and higher -- until the old economic law of "substitution" slowly gets through our petroleum addicted skulls.

If you have an 1890's field in Pennsylvania or Louisiana - you just jump off of I-10 or I-80 onto a dirt road and drill and fractionate. But that was 120 years ago -- now you have to go to inconvenient places, and drill deeper, and inject surfactants and steam, and not just fractionate - but get out sulfur, and crack, and reform, etc.

And these added costs will come on us a little bit at a time, day by day.

[beyurslf]

19. How do you motivate the govt to begin the needed research without

"legitimizing" the idea of Peak Oil? As long as people believe we have 50 or more years left, no one will do anything.

[cthrumatrix]

201. we don't have 50 yrs.... and I think dems would be very wise to talk

about reality.

[Solon]

21. A couple of things to point out...

First, I would say that we do not, nor will not, legitamize wars for oil, for one, its a stop gap measure at best and doesn't solve the problem, and for two, it costs too much in lives and money to continue.

Second, the world is not going to run out of oil, never, its simply going to be too expensive to extract and remain profitable. Hell there are gold mines that still have gold in them, but are abandoned, because its not worth it to take them out. Same idea.

The only statement I agree with you on are your second and fifth ones, now let me address you other statements.

Oil provides 60% of the world's total energy needs, most of that is for transportation alone. Our societies are mobile now, and unfortunately, in the United States, that is in the form of the automobile. We have entire cities planned out with the automobile in mind, neighborhoods that are simply unsustainable in the long run, because they rely on cheap, portable fuel to maintain themselves. To bring up another point, jet fuel is derived from oil, where is the replacement for that, the only reason we have an airline industry at all is because of the energy density of oil, no other reason. This is why the Wright brothers used an internal combustion engine, can steam make us fly?

Now lets look at the larger picture beyond oil as a fuel, lets look at oil as a food source. Yep, that's what I said, oil as food. Believe it or not, but even today oil derived chemicals make up most of our fertilizers and pesticides for farming. So what is the consequence of more expensive and less of these two types of chemicals? Let's see, more expensive food, at least in the short run, and eventually, probably a year or two down the road, food shortages. The biggest problem is that, for years, modern agricorps have not been abiding with tried and true methods of sustainable farming like crop rotation. The consequence of that is that much of the soil where crops are grown now would more likely resemble the dust bowl if they didn't have these chemicals sprayed onto them. Unfortunately, fertilizers don't keep in the soil, and nitrates are few and far between.

Did I mention that because of the sprawl occuring now, the amount of farmland in the United States actually shrank, losing about as much land as the entire state of Deleware? The point being that sometime in the near future, either you, or you family, may lose the latest and greatest in suburban homes with immenent domain laws, to reclaim farmland, because without the fertilizers and pesticides, farmers will need more land for the same yield of a decade before.

We are hooked on oil like crack addicts to crack, my only question is, what will the withdrawal be like? While life will go on, the questions are. How will our civilization look? How many of us will be left?

[mattclearing]

29. As long as opinion is governed by people who say it can't be done.

It will look pretty bad.

I think it can be done. I think it will be done.

My prediction based on the fucktards that run this country though is that the US will fight it like we fight everything else that makes sense but spells trouble for our corporate masters.

I think we can find viable alternatives. We got past animal power. Wood is on the back burner, so to speak. Coal ain't what it used to be.

Oil is next in the dustheap of history.

The only question is how much trouble we have to go through.

I plan on questioning the necessity of oil early and often.

[Solon]

56. The thing to remember is that the solutions are more indepth than...

saying some new type of tech is "just around the corner" to save us from ourselves. For example, as far as general energy generation, that is the easiest part, we have alternatives to that that will be more viable to replace coal as well as Natural Gas, the timetable is longer in the case of coal, much shorter for NG, but it is probably the easiest solution so far.

Synthesizing equivelent chemicals for use on farmland will probably be much harder and much more expensive than petrochemical derived chemicals, but its either that or starvation. Same for plastics and other things we are used to.

Onto fuel for vehicles, to be honest, and this eis the truth, there is probably no way to save the airline industry, its already subsidized heavily because of raising fuel prices, because those fancy jets are gas guzzlers, to put it simply. The government is not going to continue to subsidize an industry wholesale, and when OPEC says they aren't going to get anymore oil out of the ground because of costs, then that is the collapse. Now small prop style airplanes may survive, if they can be successfully converted to electric or some other source, but not jets.

For cars, there are a few options, but all require a sacrifice of range. Hydrogen is an energy carrier, and has low energy density, so it isn't really viable, plus most of it is produced from Natural Gas, getting it from water is even more energy intensive. Electric is pretty much the same, considering that batteries are heavy and energy storage units rather than generators. That means the days of being able to drive 50 miles to work if needed will soon be over. This pretty much means that having a suburban lifestyle is over as well.

That's probably my biggest pet peeve, the insistance on maintaining an unsustainable lifestyle is probably going to be the biggest change that people will have to cope with. We will have to revamp zoning laws and neighborhood designs to cope with using less fuel to get to the places that we need to go to, like the supermarket. This pretty much means the death to malls, and other places that cover acres of land most of it parking lots, for cars that will become too expensive for people to drive.

The thing is, that not only do we need to look to alternative energy sources, but also we need to change our lifestyles to be less energy dependent. This will be painful for some, but it all depends on how it is handled by the nation.

To kick around some ideas, how about these, for one, have more mass transportation within and around current cities. For two, increase the population density in low population burbs by eliminating most of those huge ass yards. In addition to that, zoning laws to permit some necessary businesses within neighborhoods rather than outside them to actually allow you to take a walk to the corner grocery store again.

To give another example, international trade will be affected, big time, as transportation costs increase to prohibitive levels. That cheap crap at Wal-Mart will become more expensive, till finally, no one will go there anymore. This will not change in the short term, but I would think, as a replacement for both the jumbo jets and container ships, sails will go back in style. I don't think anyone wants to go back to steamships anyways.

[NEOBuckeye]

102. For Mass-Transit, Trains are THE Way to Go.

I never could understand what the United States' aversion was to train travel, anyway. Europe, Japan and China are into it Big Time, and reaping the benefits.

European businessmen, for instance, take the train to cover distances less than about 400 miles apart. Planes only come into play for much longer flights where the time spent on the plane would be about equivalent to that spent on a train covering a shorter distance.

Trains also have the benefit of delivering people directly into the heart of the city, which is usually quite walkable and (can be) social. Airports, on the other hand, are usually located on a city's outskirts or further out into suburbia. There's no getting to one of them unless you have a car. And people wonder why Americans are so fat and anti-social.

That is going to have to change.

[NJCher]

134. re "huge ass" yards

...low population burbs by eliminating most of those huge ass yards

Why can't "huge ass yards" be used for vegetable gardening? One wouldn't even need a lot of space (although it would be nice) to grow one's own food. Vertical gardening can produce a good deal of food, as can square foot gardening (high-yield, low space).

There's a whole movement in gardening that is called "four-season gardening" or year-round planting. A guy by the name of Coleman up in Maine or NH or someplace like that perfected it and has written numerous books about it.

Gardening solves a multitude of other problems, too, like using compost. Composting prevents trucking around a lot of yard waste.

So much of one of our biggest health problems (obesity) is caused by the overuse of fossil fuels. Rake, dammit! Americans are accustomed to revving up a leaf blower to blow a single leaf off the driveway. That's just one tiny example; there are dozens more where we use gas-powered machines to do things we could easily do ourselves and that we should do ourselves because the human body is meant to be in action, not sitting on its "huge ass" pointing and clicking.


Cher

[Solon]

214. Initially they will be turned into just that...

As people find the groceries at the store more expensive, we are going to have to grow our own food. The problem is that most people do not live on enough land to feed a family for any amount of time. Most likely city and county governments will tear down many homes and replace them with farmland. That means many people will lose there homes due to imminent domain, and many homes will become multi-family, similar to conditions in the third world. This is the burbs we are talking about, the slums of the 21st century, basically.

[mattclearing]

165. I think people will be able to deal with that.

Right now a lot of people seem to think the SUV's will work forever, that we can permanently (or at least until we are all dead) depress the price of gas through warfare, and they look the other way.

Once people start waking them up to the reality that this is not only unsustainable, but results in war in other countries that inevitably will wash up on our shores, and all but guarantees a planet out of some post-apocalyptic sci-fi movie in the next fifty years, they will hopefully come to the conclusion that something has to be done.

I'm hoping natural disasters, of the kind that make the case for global warming irrefutable, will eventually convince people that we need to change our strategy.

My lifestyle is already less dependent (no car, mass transit, etc.), and will undoubtedly be moreso as I strive to live a life in line with my ideals.

I think others should start considering whether their lifestyles are worth destroying the planet's climate over as well.

As for airflight, it will be interesting to see how people adjust to slower travel.

Honestly, it sounds like a slower, saner lifestyle. I hope we live to see it.

[CrispyQ]

30. Withdrawal is gonna be a bitch!

[Warren Stupidity]

97. bottom line:

the do-nothing (and actually worse than do-nothing) approach being taken by the planetary civilization will result in a massive die-off as the energy base for sustaining a population of 6-9b people collapses. Civilization will either survive or not, but the human race will survive with a much smaller population base and at a much lower per-capita energy budget.

Oh, yes and it isn't simply oil. There are two vital fluids: oil and water and we are running out of both.

[CindyDale]

22. Here is a link to a page about using less petroleum

http://www.stonyrunfriends.org/Committees/UnityNature/Petroleum.html

It's a Quaker site.

Another page from India:

http://petroleum.nic.in/conbody.htm

Transportation uses 2/3 of our petroleum.

Note: Really I think this will have to come from the grassroots. They will pander to us as long as we keep consuming.

[CrispyQ]

24. You're right that our current leaders have no vision

& have few or no plans for future energy sources, but the problem with the statement, "We don't need oil" is that currently we DO need oil.

I think a lot of people are complacent because they are certain the car companies already have an alternative car engine available. But they don't see the larger picture that our entire economy is based on oil. The cars we drive are a very small part of it. The factories that will make the new engines are based on oil, agriculture is based on oil, electronics are based on oil. Alternative energy sources are frequently called "derivative energy sources" because at this time, they all depend on oil.


http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/

snip...

"Big deal. If gas prices get high, I’ll just get one of those hybrid cars. Why should I give a damn?"

Because petrochemicals are key components to much more than just the gas in your car. As geologist Dale Allen Pfeiffer points out in his article entitled, “Eating Fossil Fuels,” approximately 10 calories of fossil fuels are required to produce every 1 calorie of food eaten in the US.
The size of this ratio stems from the fact that every step of modern food production is fossil fuel and petrochemical powered:

1. Pesticides are made from oil;
2. Commercial fertilizers are made from ammonia, which is made from natural gas, which is also about to peak.
3. Farming implements such as tractors and trailers are constructed and powered using oil;
4. Food distribution networks are entirely dependant on oil. In the US, the average piece of food is transported 1,500 miles before it gets to your plate;

In short, people gobble oil like two-legged SUVs.

It's not just transportation and agriculture that are entirely dependent on abundant, cheap oil. Modern medicine, water distribution, and national defense are each entirely powered by oil and petroleum derived chemicals.

Most of the consumer goods you buy are made with plastic, which is derived from oil.

All manufacturing processes consume voracious amounts of oil. For instance, the average car - including hybrids - consumes the energy contained in 25-50 barrels (or about 1,200-2,400 gallons) of oil during its construction, while the average computer consumes 10 times its weight in fossil fuels during its construction.

All electrical devices - including solar panels and windmills - make use of silver, copper, and/or platinum, all of which are discovered, extracted, transported, and fashioned using oil-powered machinery.

Nuclear energy requires uranium, which is also discovered, extracted, and transported using oil-powered machinery. Nuclear power plants also consume a tremendous amount of oil during their initial construction and continued maintenance.

Most importantly, the modern banking and international monetary system is entirely dependent on a constantly increasing supply of oil.

Thus, the aftermath of Peak Oil will extend far beyond how much you will pay for gas. If you are focusing solely on the price at the pump and/or more fuel- efficient forms of transportation, you aren’t seeing the bigger picture.

[Coastie for Truth]

32. At some point in the future, historians will say

"They actually burned fossil fuels to get energy from

C + O2 -> CO2
H2 + 1/2 O2 -> H20

instead of utilizing as a building block for other, high value add things."

There will always be enough crude, even at several hundred dollars per barrel, to use it as a building block for other, high value add things, and not waste it for its bond energy.

[mattclearing]

33. I'm aware of all that.

What I am not aware of, is how one makes the mental leap from "we are running out of a very useful substance" to "Oh, time to go kill all the people over there."

When we vocally assume wars will result, we deny ourselves the opportunity to resist.

We are just another cog in the rally to war.

[CrispyQ]

159. I see what you’re saying.

I’m sorry I assumed you were one of the many who think it’s mostly about cars. You are right that we need to make people aware that it is as much about how we think of & approach peak oil as it is about peak oil itself. And that until we change our way of thinking, we are at the mercy of those in power, whose profits lie in our current short-sighted policies.

I don’t understand how many people don’t think beyond today, especially those with children. They don't recycle, they don't care about the deficit, they don't consider the impact their personal choices have on their community & the planet. But most importantly, they don’t see how they are perpetuating the same ineffectual mind-set in their children.

I’ve got to believe they want the world to be a better place for future generations. I worry that the problem seems so huge that they are overwhelmed & don’t believe one family can make a difference. This is another attitude we have to fight – that an individual or small group of individuals can’t make a difference.

On a positive note, this & another thread on peak oil have inspired me to compose a LTTE & try to make exactly the point you made: that we need a gestalt shift in the way we thing about energy & natural resources.

Good thread. Thanks for posting!

[barb162]

217. actually cars use 40% in the US which is why SUVs drive me nuts

if we could get people to just drive fuel efficient vehicles, there would be a huge impact on conservation.

"Passenger vehicles use 40 percent of all oil consumed in this country. More than one-fifth of all global-warming emissions released in 2000 came from the production, transportation and use of gasoline for cars and light trucks in the United States alone."

source: Climateark

[barb162]

71. yes we are completely dependent on oil in every way

and by the way, natural gas isn't looking any better. Even now, peaker plants use natural gas in the summer. What a waste of natural gas!

[Coastie for Truth]

105. BTU's do not have to come from fossil fuels

Can come from electricity.

Electricity does not have to come from fossil fuels -- can be generated by wind, geothermal, hydro, nuke, photovoltaic.

The BTU's to refine metals do not have to come from burning fossil fuels.

And on and on and on.

Burning fossil fuels is the most inefficient way to "capture" and "use" the energy. Google on "Carnot Cycle" and "Carnot Efficiency." Wind, geothermal, hydro, nuke, and photovoltaics are not "heat engines" so the Carnot Cycle and Carnot Efficiency are inapplicable.

And don't get too depressed about the "efficiency" of photovoltaics. The honest measure is photo flux (light) in the relevant (UV) bandwidth - not total photon flux (light). Homing in on the UV bandwidth is because of the "bandgap" of the "photodiodes" that are photovoltaic cells. Also, UV goes through clouds.

=====================

"
1. Pesticides are made from oil;
2. Commercial fertilizers are made from ammonia, which is made from natural gas, which is also about to peak.
3. Farming implements such as tractors and trailers are constructed and powered using oil;
4. Food distribution networks are entirely dependent on oil. In the US, the average piece of food is transported 1,500 miles before it gets to your plate;"

Ammonia comes from nitrogen fixation. Petroleum refining is just "a" source of hydrogen for nitrogen fixation.

Farm implements are constructed using "energy" - which can be photovoltaic, wind, geothermal, or hydro electricity. They can run on various biomass fuels.

Food distribution can just as easily be electric or hydrogen produced electrically.

"Most of the consumer goods you buy are made with plastic, which is derived from oil. "

-Used to come from vegetable sources. Same "organic chemistry." Also, even at $250/barrel, petroleum would still be a cheap petrochemical feed stock - although prohibitive for generating power.

"It's not just transportation and agriculture that are entirely dependent on abundant, cheap oil. Modern medicine, water distribution, and national defense are each entirely powered by oil and petroleum derived chemicals."

Not "abundant, cheap oil" but "reliable energy" - which does not have to be fossil fuels.

"All manufacturing processes consume voracious amounts of oil. For instance, the average car - including hybrids - consumes the energy contained in 25-50 barrels (or about 1,200-2,400 gallons) of oil during its construction, while the average computer consumes 10 times its weight in fossil fuels during its construction."

Not "voracious amounts of oil" but "voracious amounts of ENERGY"- Joules are joules and BTUs are BTUs -get them from hydro or geothermal or photovoltaic or nuke.

"All electrical devices - including solar panels and windmills - make use of silver, copper, and/or platinum, all of which are discovered, extracted, transported, and fashioned using oil-powered machinery."

Not "using oil-powered machinery" but just "powered machinery" - can be electric just as easily.

"Most importantly, the modern banking and international monetary system is entirely dependent on a constantly increasing supply of oil."

You are equating "energy" with "petroleum"-- BTU's are fungible, Joules are fungible.

The issue is really "economic substitution" where "factors of production" can be interchanged as changing costs drive new technologies.

[K-W]

28. You have utterly missed the point.

Yes, when we actually run out of oil, that is exactly what will happen IF the world survives the massive wars and turmoil that would occurr during such a massive change in the global economy.

Sorry this is bigger than whats gonna heat our houses, this is about global destabilization.

[mattclearing]

31. Only because you say it is.

Don't you see that you are lending credence to a flawed way of thinking?

It doesn't have to be that way.

[BlueEyedSon]

34. Says who? You gonna change the world economy all by yourself?

[mattclearing]

38. Well, it looks like I'm going to have to do it without your help.

:D

[BlueEyedSon]

44. Saying it's so does not make it so (unless your GWB).

Please share your action plan.

[mattclearing]

49. My action plan is to exchange viewpoints with fellow DU'ers

and see if I can't provoke a bit of thought on it.

After that, it gets a little hazy.

:)

I never claimed to have a plan, and political strategy is not my strongest point.

But I refuse to believe disaster is inevitable, and like to exercise my right to speech.

[BlueEyedSon]

52. Here's a great place to start:

http://www.doomsdayreport.com/links.html

[K-W]

64. You dont have a plan, yet you are suggesting we expect a miracle?

You are going to need a little bit more than haze to do what would most certainly earn you a Nobel Peace Prize.

[mattclearing]

143. You are right there. n/t

[K-W]

59. I dont have to have my head in the clouds to work for high goals.

I can both work towards a better future and not dellude myself into thinking that all our problems will just float away.

I hope you can learn to as well, because we need people grounded in reality. The simple fact of the matter is that you have already been proven wrong. The war in Iraq is just the most blatent and heinous of a long escalation in US oil control. It is why we are in Iraq, to protect our resources.

The game is afoot, we are all in danger, and you want us to just have faith that the fundemental nature of the global economy will change because we want it to be so.

[mattclearing]

148. Funny...

I thought we were in Iraq to steal other peoples' resources.

They call it a Defense Department, but it doesn't really defend the United States, now does it? It didn't on 9/11, and it hasn't since Pearl Harbor. Didn't even do much defending then.

I want people to start talking about other possibilities realistically. I'm not blindly advocating for hope.

I'm advocating for acknowledging the possibility that the end of oil does not necessarily mean the end of the world or something akin to it. I would further encourage a discussion along those lines.

All this fatalism is a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Shouting down anyone who says that we can make a peaceful shift to alternative energy is the realm of Sean Hannity and Dick Cheney.

You seem primarily interested in flaming me and deriding my opinion. I'd love to hear a reasoned argument other than, "straw man" "can't" "wars" "millions dead".

[SnoopDog]

39. I would say that we should panic - but for the following reasons:

There are other energy sources and we need to seek out the clean and renewable sources.

The panic I see is that oil, coal, and nuclear energy are KILLING us and our earth. The panic is to immediately implement solar, wind, and geothermal today before it is too late.

You are correct - we don't need oil. But we do have to convert our oil-required engines to the alternate energies.

Not a flame-able post at all - I say good post

[mattclearing]

46. Thanks.

Our energy model is about as flawed as our corporate model.

I'd like to think both can be fixed in time to avert disaster.

[SnoopDog]

54. To be honest...

I think time is running out...

I say that because we have a fucking idiot president and government who are entrenched in the 'old-school' ways of thoughts.

Our earth is being destroyed - not the 'oh in a million years' but it is happening right now. Global warming, air pollution, water pollution, contaminated food, mercury, pesticides, etc.

All though the earth is huge, it is finite...and is subject to chemical and physical reactions that once starts will complete until it regains a 'steady-state'.

[K-W]

66. How, how can we fix them?

You are talking about monumental achievements of activism.

[BlueEyedSon]

48. That is a very good point. Some here assume that oil is inexhaustible.

I say we have used up about half of earth's inventory (1 to 1.5 trillion BBL).

In either case what will 10 more years of heavy CO2 release do to the earth's climate?

[mattclearing]

55. Agreed.

The reasons to switch now are evident to all who truly think about it.

[BlueEyedSon]

57. I don't me to be a prick, but switch to WHAT?

I'm all ears!

[mattclearing]

61. I am not a scientist.

But I am sure that there are several scientists out there that could make excellent use of grant money to come up with a viable alternative strategy.

I think pushing our government to put an amount of money worthy of the task towards it would be advisable.

People thought getting to the moon and back couldn't be done.

This strikes me as not much different.

[BlueEyedSon]

73. It took almost a decade. And a NATIONAL initiative & dedicated GovtOrg.

Write your congressmen, see if you can start something. Good luck.

Basically you sound pretty ignorant of the severity (and immediacy) of the problem, what the potential solutions are, and their limitations/costs/drawbacks/leadtimes.

This attitude of "well, the scientists must know something... they'll save us" is just bizarre (what exactly DO you think Cheney's energy task force was discussing, anyway?).

Take your interest in this issue and spend A WEEK reading all the sources you can find (it should take you no less than that with just the web). Think like a scientist. Evaluate the alternatives, understand them.

Then talk about "need" and "panic" and all that....

[K-W]

78. Apparently going to the moon turned us into supermen

capable of solving any problem if we just let ourselves get down to the wire.

[mattclearing]

145. Cheney's energy task force was discussing 9/11 and the Unocal pipeline.

They are the opponents of sustainable energy.

Do you expect me to believe they were talking about how to best start switching infrastructure towards a hybrid automobile model? How to integrate wind farms into the plains?

Give me a break.

[BlueEyedSon]

162. No, they were talking about how to leverage the US military

to secure the last few large reserves of unexploited cheap crude, in the face of looming Peak Oil (i.e. they were divvying up Iraq).

[mattclearing]

168. That too. n/t

[barb162]

58. peak oil is not paranoia. Do you have a car or use public transport

Do you think these vehicles will run on water? Life will not go on as we know it. Millions will die. Think no heat in winter. Think no way to get fresh food. Solar panels and alternate energy sources can't even come close to what oil produces energy-wise. The biggest weakness we have right now are people who are wasting oil with SUVs and large vehicles and who have their heads in the sand like you. We are dependent on Mideast oil because we refuse to conserve in this country

[mattclearing]

63. My head is not in the sand.

In fact, I would argue that people who assume millions will die rather than conceive of a better option are more likely to be picking sand out of their hair.

[K-W]

72. Straw man, and a pretty silly one at that.

You can both work for a better option and recognize reality.

Your argument is, on its face, dishonest. Aknowledging the actual crisis we face is not the same as giving up on trying to fix it, just as aknowledging the problems with our country is not unpatriotic, just as aknowledging sex isnt giving up on finding ways to insure people are protected from the dangers, just as aknowledging the terrible situation in Iraq isnt the same as not supporting the soldiers.

Look, I'm not trying to say you are a conservative, just that youve fallen into a common rhetorical trap that they tend to exploit.

[mattclearing]

82. Perhaps.

But it wouldn't be DU without some heated debate.

I've been posting nicey-nice lately for the most part.

This is something that's been bugging me lately, and I put it out there pretty obnoxiously.

If I had worded it differently, chances are the discussion wouldn't have been as interesting, and it would be on page 3 somewhere.

You are right, I suppose. My main point is that I see a lot of people acting as though they see the future.

Doomsaying has been a favorite pasttime of the human race since its inception.

And yet we continue on.

So, yeah, probably somewhat fallacious, but at least it did spark some interesting debate.

The right-wingers, they use this to shut down discussion, and wouldn't consider whether or not their argument was flawed...after all, truth isn't the goal, only lockstep compliance.

[K-W]

86. You dont make discussions interesting by antagonizing people.

Nobody is acting as though they see the future.

Open your eyes, everything that is being discussed is already happening. Nations are already planning for an endgame on oil, the US is already moving and if you dont think Europe, Russia, China, Japan and everyone else in the world who wants to be a player this century is thinking about what is going to happen to that oil you are niave. This is already happening. We have invaded a nation and are occupying it just to control its oil and we are ready to do it again.

People are already dying.

This entire thread is based on a complete misrepresentation of peoples opinions. You didnt spark a debate you are debating an opinion that doesnt exist and at the same time critisizing the very legitimate concern over peaek oil and we are trying to explain how you are wrong.

This is not a debate. We do not disagree at all, you just misunderstood what the peak oil people were talking about.

[CindyDale]

152. I don't know

Would it be less antagonistic to say that we are too lazy, undisciplined, and unimaginative to make an effort, and we would prefer to live in denial?

We are planning? Planning what? The Rapture? I don't consider that planning; I consider that giving up and living in denial.

[mattclearing]

169. I guess you're right.

Like I said, my main concern is that every time I see Peak Oil mentioned, it's in conjunction with war, death, and some kind of Mad Max-like future.

Granted, that probably is a lot more interesting than constructive attempts to change that possible eventuality.

But it turns off minds when the problem is phrased as, "The sky is falling."

No one wants to hear it. And the march to oblivion continues.

A better strategy might be to employe logic rather than fear. Fear of a nightmare future seems to be the main motivation I see in conversations regarding Peak Oil. I don't think it's very persuasive.

Remember, at least half of the country still thinks we're in Iraq because of Osama and Hussein, and because we like democracy.

They don't want to hear about any of this as it is currently being discussed.

[barb162]

79. the wars over the last gallons of easily attainable oil , the people

dying from lack of heat, etc., yes many millions will die.

Do you not think companies like BP, Exxon, have already been trying to come up with alternate energy sources? They have had thousands of scientists working on it for years. They have no desire to go out of business (no more oil) and if one of them could be the first to figure out a truly good alternate fuel, I know they would.

[mattclearing]

84. You think they would tell us about it?

For all we know, they could be sitting on it, and wetting themselves thinking of the profits they will make on the way down the oil curve.

[barb162]

107. I know some Phd types who work at BP research. Trust me, if they

could find something to get us off our dependence on oil, they would NOT be sitting on it. I also worked in the oil industry. There is a very finite supply of oil. Oh and forget oil shale, that's been tried a thousand different times and ways. It takes more oil and /or other energy to extract the oil than the amount in it. We really are running out of oil and the alternate energy forms won't do the trick. Solar panels over your entire house and yard probably wouldn't give you a tenth of the energy you need for heat. This does not even deal with the problem of getting fresh fruit from CA to Indiana in winter. Life will change as we know it. Things we take so for granted today just won't be there except at a hugely increased price unaffordable to most of us. Then pretty soon after that it won't be available at all.

There's a reason the oil companies are no longer building refineries. They are not going to spend billions on something that won't be needed in a few more years as oil supplies dwindle. Very smart thinking

[mattclearing]

160. Interesting.

If we are forced by lack of oil supply to start living in a sustainable way, I have to say that's not the worst case scenario by any means.

But if there's no way to power my computer, I will freak out.

Then, I will go outside and ride a bike somewhere.

I suppose it's not the worst that could happen.

[SnoopDog]

88. I would tend to disagree with you there...

Unfortunately, companies could care less about humans and what they do to the earth. They indeed could have already have developed new energy - they sit on it because oil is already in place raking in the cash.

And actually, new energy is already available. It is called solar, wind, geothermal energy. It is just a business thing... Once it is implemented, such as solar cells, the energy is free (save maintenance) so therefore no money for them.

Perty soon, people will realize they cannot eat drink or breathe money.

[barb162]

108. see my post 107

[SnoopDog]

113. I only trust reality....

I and you do not know everything that goes on...

[barb162]

115. let me know if anyone finds any fields as big as the Saudis. Fields

that size and quality haven't been found in over 20 years now even though the oil companies have been scouring the planet. And the Saudis are being really cautious the last year or so about their reserves. Not good.

Reality?

[SnoopDog]

116. My bad...What I meant to say is..

I believe that there are 'other than' oil/coal sources that we can utilize. Sorry I was not talking about oil.

Basically, I believe our scientist have developed other energy sources that we can use...

[barb162]

120. alternate forms, like wind and solar will help, no doubt about it

the problem is they can nowhere near replace oil. I know we will have to use nuclear again bigtime and we will still run into trouble.

[SnoopDog]

123. Where there is a will....there is a way.

Lump nuclear with oil/coal - all will kill us off.

Humans do have that ability to invent. I disagree with your 'nowhere near replace oil' - 'we have not yet invented all there is to invent'!

[barb162]

128. World's Seven Largest Economies (G7) Admit They Have No Idea How Much Oil

World's Seven Largest Economies (G7) Admit They Have No Idea How Much Oil Is Left - Issue Emergency Call for Transparency at DC Summit

A Challenge to the Flat-Earth, Abiotic Oil Advocates and Cornucopian Economists - It's Now or Never

by
Michael C. Ruppert

© Copyright 2004, From The Wilderness Publications, www.fromthewilderness.com. All Rights Reserved. May be reprinted, distributed or posted on an Internet web site for non-profit purposes only.

WASHINGTON, Oct 1 (Reuters) -
Group of Seven finance ministers and central bankers met at the tightly guarded U.S. Treasury building over lunch and were to work through the afternoon before a dinner with Chinese counterparts that has currency reform on the menu.
snip

There is "a recognition that oil resources are scarcer than was thought a few years ago," the official said. "We agree there is a need for more transparency on the potential supply of various areas."
snip

OCTOBER 4, 2004: 0800 PDT (FTW) -- Oil has broken $50 a barrel. Financial pundits such as T. Boone Pickens have said that we will see $60 oil before we see $40 oil again (if ever). In the G7 and around the world from the Philippines, to Brunei, to Scotland, to New Zealand, to China, to Thailand, to Japan, to Britain, to the US, many nations are either urgently looking at and discussing impending economic collapse, blackouts and food shortages. Others are already experiencing blackouts, brownouts, power cutbacks, or projecting possible lethal power outages this winter. Economic concerns may very soon be pushed aside by issues of simple survival. China's food production has been plummeting for years and overall the entire planet is yielding less and less food which requires ten calories of hydrocarbon energy for every calorie eaten.
snip

In various forms and degrees, panic may ensue. Resource wars over Peak Oil and scarcity began officially on September 11th 2001 and they are now proliferating through a multitude of "proxy" wars from Southeast Asia, to the Caucasus, to West Africa (Nigeria and Equatorial Guinea among others), to Georgia, to Chechnya.
For all those critics who charge that there is an abundant supply of abiotic oil, or oil produced ad infinitum from the earth's mantle we ask, "Where is it?" They have argued that we Peak Oil activists have all been shills for oil companies seeking profits and for markets seeking greater gouged returns. The G7 has just admitted that the world economy is threatened today, not tomorrow. How does it benefit oil companies or markets if no one can buy their goods and services, or if there is no power to use them with? Now is the time for these critics to produce their vast limitless energy resources, because the G7 has just admitted that everything's falling apart. (As if we hadn't noticed.) That's what these "critics" argued would happen when the time came: there would be some magic switcheroo, and a new energy source would be unveiled.

[barb162]

118. I meant to ask what reality is to you. Is reality 25 bucks a liter

at the pump?

[Name removed]

223. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[BlueEyedSon]

65. Don't forget GROWING the food. Each acre is 30x more productive now

than 200 years ago because of diesel-powered machines, petrochemical fertilizers and oil-based pesticides.

As a result of our intensive style of agriculture, the topsoil is depleted to the point that all that fertilization is now NECESSARY to grow anything.

:(

[Deja Q]

89. But that's okay... isn't it true that we're wearing out the farmlands?

And that it's also true that when farm land is bulldozed to make a house and parking lot that the land cannot be reclaimed for farming? (I heard that somewhere and it sounded bogus, but who knows...)

[CindyDale]

95. Couldn't pasture be used to grow soy, for example?

I've read that vegetable proteins such as soy are much more efficient than animal protein.

[barb162]

109. another really pleasant thought. Yes people just don't get all the

ways we need oil

[BlueEyedSon]

136. Well, I keep trying to tell them!

[SnoopDog]

69. Maybe one day, vehicles will run on water...

Thats the part where people who have their heads squarely on their neck think and implement inventions that change the world.

We need to implement changes TODAY - not tomorrow or in ten years. We may not have that much time...

Am I a doomsday kinda of guy? No, fuck no. Our present, status quo, stay the course, actions represent the true doomsday scenario...

[mattclearing]

70. Thanks for that.

The fact is that no one will know if we assume that the only logical outcome is death and destruction.

[K-W]

77. You miss the point entirely again.

Nobody is saying we should assume death and destruction.

Simply that we should recognize the extreme risk we are running of death and destruction while we try to steer towards a different outcome.

You are arguing with a strawman.

[SnoopDog]

83. Forgive me...what is a 'strawman'?

[K-W]

92. It is when you mischarecterize someone's viewpoint

and then argue against that false viewpoint, rather than the actual opinion of that person.

[SnoopDog]

98. thanks...

[barb162]

111. that's been going on a lot at DU lately (also red herrings)

[mattclearing]

154. Did I mischaracterize the viewpoint, though?

Seems to me you are still certain that wars and death and destruction are the only likely outcome of our current situation.

Maybe I acknowledged your straw man argument too soon.

[Deja Q]

87. Read this and change your mind:

http://www.odci.gov/cia/publications/factbook/print/xx.html

Oil - production:
75.34 million bbl/day (2001 est.)
Oil - consumption:
75.81 million bbl/day (2001 est.)


Sounds real to me.

[barb162]

199. I didn't notice any " no oil shortage" types respond to this tidbit

PS sounds real to me too.

[NEOBuckeye]

94. Awsome thread, guys. Please, check out the DU Peak Oil Group.

I'm glad to see these discussions finally taking place out in DU's mainstream. The topic of Peak Oil and Energy is by no means going away. Quite the contrary, it's of paramount importance NOW, and will only become more so in the days and months ahead.

Check out and post in the group. We need to talk this up, Big Time.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topics&forum=266

[Kazak]

96. Inner-city infrastructures...

designed for mass use of bicycles would get us a long way, me thinks.

But, gee, I can't figure out why we have such a big problem with obesity.

:crazy:

[SnoopDog]

100. Not only do we have to implement physical changes...

We will need some massive behavioral changes as well.

We are a lazy, self-centered, want-want-want, who gives a shit about anybody, who gives a shit about our environment, screwed up society..

Not you or me mind you... but many many others.

Walking - biking - talking - thinking - helping others - what a concept!

[Strelnikov_]

103. Looks Like We're Too Late To Avoid The Hard Landing Anyway

Should have re-elected Carter.


Hirsch, R.L., Bezdek, R.H, Wendling, R.M. Peaking of World Oil Production: Impacts, Mitigation and Risk
Management. DOE NETL. February 2005.

From summary of above in latest ASPO Newsletter:
http://216.187.75.220/newsletter51.pdf

. . .

To explore how these technologies might contribute, three alternative mitigation scenarios were analyzed: One where action is initiated when peaking occurs, a second where action is assumed to start 10 years before peaking, and a third where action is assumed to start 20 years before peaking.

Analysis of the simultaneous implementation of all of the options showed that an impact of roughly 25 million barrels per day might be possible 15 years after initiation.

Because conventional oil production decline will start at the time of peaking, crash program mitigation inherently cannot avert massive shortages unless it is initiated well in advance of peaking.

Specifically,
* Waiting until world conventional oil production peaks before initiating crash program mitigation leaves the world with a significant liquid fuel deficit for two decades or longer.
* Initiating a crash program 10 years before world oil peaking would help considerably but would still result in a worldwide liquid fuels shortfall, starting roughly a decade after the time that oil would have otherwise peaked.
* Initiating crash program mitigation 20 years before peaking offers the possibility of avoiding a world liquid fuels shortfall for the forecast period.

Without timely mitigation, world supply/demand balance will be achieved through massive demand destruction (shortages), accompanied by huge oil price increases, both of which would create a long period of significant economic hardship worldwide.


Note: I did some quick googling, could not find the full report. If anyone runs across a link to the full report, a post with the link would be appreciated.

[Extend a Hand]

104. I agree

we can get by without oil...but it will necessitate massive changes in the structure of our society. We won't run out of oil overnight and we cannot change our way of life overnight. Some will weather the changes brought about by an oil-shortage far better than others. And as usual the poorest members of our society are the most likely to get screwed.

Since our government refuses to (publicly) acknowledge the possibility of a problem, it seems highly unlikely that any large scale changes will be made in time. (I think they *have* privately acknowledged the issue and that's why they are camping our army out on top of Iraq's oil reservoir).

Currently, mass food production and distribution is very dependent on oil. Better be planning for an alternate food supply-- Giant Eagle might be running kind of low.

The process of producing solar panels requires petroleum products. Better have that alternative energy supply in place while it's not cost-prohibitive.

Our economy is so inextricably linked to an abundant and cheap supply of petroleum that the us dollar is often referred to as the petro-dollar. Might want to consider some alternate investments.

Personally, I have already started planning to reduce my dependence on oil. I don't think I have waited to late-- I hope not at any rate. It's probably going to take our family at least a year to have all our ducks in a row. And you know what? In the unlikely event that Thomas Gold's theory of abiotic (renewable) oil turns out to be correct-- so what. Have I converted to a cleaner, greener, more healthy lifestyle for nothing?

[SnoopDog]

110. What have you done in preparation of reduced/no oil?

[Extend a Hand]

119. The first I had ever heard of peak oil

was right before christmas. After reading about it ... my husband and I had been wanting to make a lifestyle change anyway... we decided that we would build a solar house in or near a self-sustaining/farming community. We took a trip over Christmas to look at property and solar homes. We have decided to build an enertia home http://www.enertia.com . We are currently working on getting our house in ready-to-sell condition by the end of the next school year(May 2006). We would like for our son to finish up in the school that he attends before we move. A city girl, I have never done much gardening but my in-laws have a large organic garden and bought me a subscription to organic gardening for christmas. I am going to give it a small try this spring(wish me luck :) ). We have not yet moved our investments but we are looking into it-- We do already have some money invested in international stock funds.

[SnoopDog]

121. Thats cool. I do wish you luck - you will succeed!

[Coastie for Truth]

112. Do you mean "cheap supply of oil" or

"cheap supply of energy" which, with some creative engineering, could be non-fossil fuel.

Since you mentioned "Giant Eagle" - I will assume you are close to Carnegie Mellon and Univ of Pittsburgh -- which turn out some really good engineers.

<>

[Extend a Hand]

124. Currently ...

a cheap supply of oil = a cheap supply of energy.

I do still have some hope that some bright soul will come up with a cheap alternate energy supply that will allow us to easily replace oil.

But it doesn't seem like there is much that promising in the pipeline-- maybe those sterling(sp) engines?

But since our gov't keeps throwing away our $$$ on oil wars rather than investing heavily in alternate engery sources, I'm not holding my breath.

BTW, I'm in Ohio about three hours from Pittsburg.

[Coastie for Truth]

125. If one believes the promoters' hype

The cost of wind turbine electricity is "competitive" with local (natural gas, coal) sources in some regions. Out here, the Altamont Wind Turbines (between Oakland CA and Stanislaus County - of Gary Condit and Scott Peterson fame) are competitive with natural gas.

Also, I have heard from dissident and insurgent energy engineers that the West Virginia Wind Turbines are "competitive" with old coal plants (but they kill migrating birds).

Photovoltaic is now reported to be competitive with high cost, small distributed and co-gen plants (competitive with the diesel generators they fire up on a hot, humid Friday in August).

Some utilities are installing photovoltaic systems (PV cells, batteries, processing) for "off-grid" customers that their state PUC requires them to service.

And the "product engineering" is just begining. So, hope is not lost.

[BlueEyedSon]

137. I'm from CMU. And a really good engineer.

And I haven't heard/seen a satisfactory solution/workaround for Peak Oil.

[Coastie for Truth]

166. Me too (from CMU)

Nuke has environmental issues with the Depleted Uranium.

Synthane/Syngas is a very temporary and very dirty fix.

There is some very good work at University of Illinois (Yuanhui Zhang)on farm waste (with just the enzymes and bacteria already there), and some very good work poultry processing waste (specific enzymes and bacteria).

And, or course, grain and sacchromyces cerivisae for ethanol.

Realize - no one "fix" is a permanent, 100%, long term fix. Any gasoline "substitute" or "additive" is going to rely on very smart fuel injection, timing, and digital valve lifters (this is discussed frequently in IEEE Spectrum's special automotive electronics issues; and the fall SAE meeting in Dearborn).

But, all of these "fixes" are temporary, high cost fixes (we have to pay a price for our delay) until we can get to a clean, renewable energy energy and society.

Post "Three Mile Island" - I think we are looking at "clean" electricity - photovoltaic, wind turbines, geo thermal, hydro. We pump it around on Cu wires -- and use it for ev's or to generate H2 by electrolysis.

1 BTU = 1 BTU and 1 Joule = 1 Joule --
just that 1 Joule from electricity gives you more at the drive wheels then 1 Joule sitting there in hydrocarbon bond energy ---- no matter where it comes from - solar, geothermal, burning fossil fuels. And, at some point in the future we may learn that fossil fuels have much higher value as a chemical feed stock then as a fuel (that always bugged me as an undergrad and as a working engineer -- spent many hours at Skibo discussing "the meaning of life" and "the value of hydrocarbons as a fuel compared to hydrocarbons as a feed stock."

As to thermo - I was a thermo "TA".

[barb162]

114. although I hate (REALLY) to say this, it isn't Bush or Clinton or any

big time politician who isn't levelling with us. The presidents know we are/were running out of oil. But the American people want to keep driving their gas guzzlers and SUVs and just keep pretending that life as we know it will keep on going. Well it just isn't. Any politician who tells it like it is will be booted out because people in this country don't like facing the music. It is easier to boot out the party that tells you what you don't want to hear. Clinton and Bush should have been telling us that we should have mandatory fuel-efficient cars and transport. Also, turn the damn heat down in the houses in winter and turn up the temp in summer. We are also running out of natural gas. No one wants to hear this. It is way easier to boot their asses out of office. The American people wallow in their ignorance.

[Extend a Hand]

122. You are right. All I know to do is

to plan for an oil shortage personally and to try to raise awareness of the issue with people that I know. Some of my friends already think I'm a little nuts. At least I'm lucky that my in-laws are supportive.

[barb162]

126. well, I do the same. I drive a very fuel efficient car and I really

watch where/how I drive. I don't do fast starts. I combine trips and plot the route to save gas. I turn the heat down and things like that. I recycle all I can. I feel it is my duty to conserve all I can.

When I try to convince others of the impending energy shortage I mostly get funny looks but then I will say when is the last time a major oil field was discovered? I will ask them what the quality of the Iraq oil is. Is there water in it from pumping improperly? I ask them why Shell lowered its reserves a few years ago. Of course they never know the answer to any of this stuff. Then I tell them. A lot of people (typical American head in sand syndrome) will just say oh we'll find more oil or another energy source. People in this country cannot seem to accept that oil is a finite resource and they have fantastical thinking and amazing ability for denial: "they'll" invent something. A few, very few, will look further into it and start seeing the light.

I would love to see SUVs banned; to me they are a symbol of our energy waste.

[benburch]

106. The Paranoia and Panic is because we KNOW our "leaders" will do nothing.

Until it is far too late nothing will be done by the Grand Oil Party.

This is why you should be very afraid.

And those rich bastards will have heat and light and food and gated communities while we all die of exposure and starvation.

[Name removed]

127. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[mattclearing]

141. You don't know anything about me.

And the substance of your post suggests a lack of knowledge about anything else.

Kinda hateful. I've been respectful with my opinion. Would it be too much to ask you to do the same?

[depakid]

150. Perhaps I should have been harsher

because this is a seriously harsh topic for anyone with even a modest understanding of it- which you obviously don't have.

"Opinion," yours or anyone else's- means little or nothing- Peak oil is not about "opinion" it's about an irrefutable scientific fact that's going to have severe economic repercussions sooner rather than later.

NONE of the possible alternative energy sources have anything close to the EROEI (energy returned on energy invested) of oil- and before you say nuclear, note that uranium has a peak, too estimated at around 25 years at present usage. Even every single technology mentioned on this thread all put together won't replace anywhere close to the amount of energy (in all its various forms) that the world gets from petroleum today- much less what we'll be using 10 years from now.

To say that people who recognize what is occurring are "legitimizing paranoia" is simply an ignorant statement- and to think that other energy sources can even begin to replace the vast amounts of energy that petroleum has granted us these last 150 years- not to mention petroleum derivatives, is to fundamentally misunderstand the nature and the scope of the problem.

I suggest that you do a little reading on the subject (along with some basic science) and recognize the fact that many of the current projections do not take into account the rising standard of living (and hence demand) in China, India, South East Asia and other developing countries.

By 2030, the world is going to be a vastly different place- due not only to petroleum depletion, but fresh water shortages due to depletion of aquifers, contamination and salinization.

There's no "great technological fix" on the horizon this time. No green revolution. Just a one way ticket to a concept called entropy.

[BlueEyedSon]

170. EROEI & don't forget "energy quality" of a source

I have seen some references to "EQ", but nothing definitive. It goes something like this:

Why is gasoline (as an example liquid hydrocarbon) so popular (vs natgas, paraffin, electric, compressed air, flywheels)? Think about this:

1. Packs extremely high calories/mass.

2. Liquid at standard temp & pressure. Easy to pump, easy to contain means easy to refuel whatever is using the energy (i.e. your car)

3. Getting the energy back out of gas is relatively easy (combustion).

4. Not too dirty.

Compare that to big old batteries or coal. Imagine your house heat running on coal (granted, because a house is stationary, natgas is as suited to that application as a liquid).... or your house electric running on a tiny nuke in the basement (talk about dirty!).....

[Strelnikov_]

177. Yep, Thermodynamics Is The Part They Always Ignore

There may be 100's of years of fossil energy in tar sands and coal, but we will use nearly as much energy 'harvesting' it.

Peak oil is just one part of the end of 'dense' (re: cheap) energy resources, which includes natural gas and coal.

[mattclearing]

171. I'm not saying our current lifestyles are sustainable.

In fact, I suspect it is highly unlikely that we will continue to live the way we do.

I do think we can have something akin to our current lifestyles with some planning and some sensible prioritizing by elected officials and corporate heads.

In fact it will probably be a blessing when distance and cost become insurmountable factors in feeding ourselve and producing goods. We will be forced to becomd self-sufficient.

Worse things have happened.

[depakid]

222. They aren't, that's for sure.

Here's what one Australian scientist Ted Trainer has to say about it in an article discussing the use of biosmass (a good idea):

Light green people heroically refuse to attend to this kind of analysis, preferring to reinforce the message everyone in consumer society wants to believe, ie., that with a bit more effort to recycle and more technical advance, and more use of the magic words "sustainable development", the environment and other problems can be solved without us having to think about reducing our over-consumption, or scrapping the growth economy.

This is why I do not believe consumer-capitalist society can save itself. Not even its "intellectual" classes or green leadership give any sign that this society has the wit or the will to even think about the basic situation we are in. As the above figures make clear, the situation cannot be solved without huge reduction in the volume of production and consumption going on. This means radical and far reaching change in the direction of simpler ways, frugality, self-sufficiency, non-material pursuits and satisfactions, cooperative systems, locally self-sufficient and self-governing communities, and zero growth economies.

http://www.energybulletin.net/3389.html

On "the math" of alternative energy sources:

http://www.arts.unsw.edu.au/tsw/D74.RENEWABLE-ENERGY.html

[mattclearing]

234. Well, it's impossible to given the current situation.

The government refuses to admit what the wars are about. The media refuses to blow their cover. The rest of the world is working under the radar as well, no doubt because the global corporate media is mostly globalized between the UK and US, both of whom are clearly working together.

It creates a bit of a quandary for people who want to raise the issue and be taken seriously.

Most people think, "If it were happening, the news would be reporting it." The election, the decreasing oil, and the fact that the Republicans get a free pass on some of the most ridiculous policies ever invented, all clearly show that not to be the case.

People currently won't take individuals' word for it. They will only believe it when the Washington Post, New York Times, and CBS/NBC/ABC/FOX television networks tell them that we are running out of oil and it's time to start seriously cutting back.

And they certainly won't take it as it is currently being framed, as a doomsday scenario. It sounds crazy...people tune the Peak Oil story out the second they hear "wars for oil," "over-population," "millions dead," "the media don't want us to know," or any other obvious catchphrase that immediately tells the person listening that you are crazy.

That's kinda what this post was meant to be about. Perhaps when I have built my positive board karma up a bit more, I will post a new message about how to better address the crazy factor.

The basic idea would be, "How do you convince people that their consumption is out of control when the signs are still less than obvious and the media refuse to do the math for them?"

[this_side_up]

131. Is or will China start to

grow hemp (they have a lot of land and workers)
and be the world's supplier of bio-diesel?

[cthrumatrix]

139. China and others are all positioning for Oil --- that's what the US is

doing as well....it won't be pretty.

[rman]

133. Are you saying the leaders are panicing and paranoid about peak oil?

That's news to me, last time i checked they are ignoring oil depletion.

In fact there's a lot of reason to worry about peak oil. As you probably know it isn't so much about "running out of oil" but rather about oil based products getting ever more expensive. That would not be much of a problem IF we'd already have alternatives in place, but we don't have alternatives in place. It is going to take a lot of time and energy (which we're running out of) to make the transition to alternative sources of energy.
Sure life will go on. But for most people it won't be as comfortable as it used to be, which will be a big problem for those who aren't rich. If nothing else, food shortages will cause life not to go on for more then a few people.
Think about it - the economy, the entire western civilization, is almost entirely dependend on oil as a source of energy.

[BlueEyedSon]

138. It's not about "products getting more expensive" either.

That is an over simplification, and not what peak oil is about, its MUCH BIGGER.

It's about what happens when the demand for a mandatory commodity outstrips its supply (imagine if oil was was as indispensable as air).

What happens to the price is one thing. But there will be geopolitical shocks (The Iraq war was one - not "freedom on the march") and global economic upheavals.

[CindyDale]

140. We once had the greatest public transportation system in the world

http://college.hmco.com/history/readerscomp/rcah/html/ah_072007_thetwentieth.htm

I heard that it was once possible to travel all the way from New York to Boston on local trolleys and streetcars.

Public transportation and more efficient automobiles, along with conservation, would at least allow us to fit in with the rest of thw world better and perhaps live according to international law, so we wouldn't have to spend all our time and energy trying to convince ourselves that we are not thugs. Then maybe we'd have some time to work on other solutions.

There are so many things we could do. Using less animal protein and more vegetable protein is one more way we can economize on our land use, and we would be more healthy, too.

We have known about this problem for as long as I can remember and certainly long before that, but it's still not too late to change. At least, we could show our goodwill by making a significant effort.

[mattclearing]

155. It seems there has been a conscious shift in public policy...

...since corporations got more and more control of our government towards this free-for-all against sensible energy.

You see it all the time...Christ, you're seeing it here...people shouting down anyone who mentions alternative energy.

I don't own a car. I ride the Metro around town. I take taxis. I'm willing to try new things personally.

I think most people would be willing to try a different way of life if someone in power gently eased them into it.

Our current government is wholly dishonest about it. What we should be saying, (but no one will, because the rest of the World will go apeshit) is:

"Basically, American people, you have a choice. You can drive a smaller, less-powerful car, use electric stoves powered by solar panels, wind, and hydro-electric power, and not have wars and global warming and countless meaningless dead."

"Or, you can have your SUV's for the remainder of your lifetime, ensure that the current leadership continues their path of destruction, and the world and your children and grandchildren will live in a world much less livable than the one you know."

[CindyDale]

161. I agree completely

but they are not doing it. We will have to start on our own.

[gulfcoastliberal]

207. Not to mentin all the JOBS such projects would create...

They would be economic dynamos. Good paying jobs and improving infrastructure to something sustainable.

[radwriter0555]

146. the Peak Oil myth is a MYTH. We're not running out. It's the oil co scam

to keep you all scared to vaguely support the US New Americanazi quest for world domination and power in oil rich countries with oil as the control energy force.

[mattclearing]

149. Even if we aren't running out...

...it's still a dirty energy source.

But thanks for your nod to anti-paranoia.

:D

[BlueEyedSon]

164. You are wrong on 2 counts.

1. Peak oil is real. Read the rest of this thread for clues on how to get a clue.


2. IF Peak Oil was a scam by the powers that be (oil guys in the WH), and being pushed on the US public as a rationale for global wars, why aren't the FAUX news guys reporting on it everyday? Why no infomercials? Not even a teeny blurb in the NYT!

Peak Oil is a SECRET. It is the REAL reason we are in Iraq building 14 permanent bases, rather than all the BS reasons (WMDs, Saddam, 9/11, freedom, blah blah blah) they have heavily (and somewhat unsuccessfully) hyped for years.

[radwriter0555]

174. Yeah, that's why the oil cos are so worried about it, it MUST be real!

The reason we're in iraq is to keep the oil from the market to keep the opec prices gouged and wildly profitable.

There is no oil shortage, and never will be, especially with advancing technologies that will render the dependence on fossil fuels obsolete LONG before we "run out". THAT is what the oil cos fear the most; that we will soon no longer be dependent on fossil fuels.

You seem to not have noticed bush's sabre rattling at the cos who are advancing their futuristic technologies, like NORTH KOREA AND IRAN and installing and RELYING on nuclear energy instead of fossil fuels?

Stop reading and listening to propoganda from oil cos and just watch what's happening and apply critical thinking to the entire scenario.

[BlueEyedSon]

175. "There is no oil shortage, and never will be"

Would someone else like to jump in here? I'm out of patience.

[barb162]

185. You and I both.

Some posters here are in total denial. Show facts to them and they deny or ignore them. I think when you show the simple fact of how much oil is being used daily on this planet TODAY and how much is being produced today, there is already a shortage. The peak is here. Still they deny. Next year when there is more demand and even less being produced, they will still deny it. There is an amazing ability for denial, isn't there. Five or ten years from now, when the price has doubled or tripled and there are shortages that are killing people, these same people will say, how did this happen? Why didn't "they" do something about this? Denial, denial, denial.

Yep, to everyone in denial: keep driving your gas guzzler SUVs and then whine that Bush went into Iraq becaue of oil, whine about why are we so dependent on Mideast oil, etc. Don't conserve. Waste oil like there is a limitless cheap supply. Take a 4000 mile summer vacation in your 15 mpg SUV this summer. And when prices keep rising at the pump, keep on whining. And keep on blaming "them" and don't look in the mirror.

[barb162]

187. Actually, the reason we are in Iraq is because Bush knows this country

has an insatiable need for oil and that this country cannot function without it. Heaven (or something) help this country if the Saudis decided, for example, to turn off the spigot for a few months. It would make the Great Depression look like child's play. No food in the groceries stores, no way to get to work, firemen couldn't get to your house because they'd have no gas in their trucks, etc. Civil disorder, riots.

You perhaps need to stop reading propaganda from the pie-in-the sky types who think that because all was well yesterday, all will be well tomorrow. Because oil was cheap last year, it does not follow it will be cheap next year.

I do agree with one thing you write and that is the return of nuclear power. The aversion to it by many in this country will have to be overcome. The choice will be: do you want heat, electricity, etc., or not.

[BlueEyedSon]

188. On the problems of Nukes:

1. A fuel material and process which is inherently dangerous to the environment & man. Can reactors be designed to be breech/meltdown-proof? Maybe.

2. Trucking of fuel and waste. When the hot stuff is outside the reactor, it is at greater risk of being dispersed in the environment. The trucks frequently go through large population centers (because thats where the big roads are) even if the reactors are somewhere safer.

3. The Waste. No one wants it ("NIMBY").

4. Non renewable. Just like oil, there is a finite amount of suitable radioactive material in the earth (although it was produced by an entirely different mechanism). I hear we have about 25 years till "Peak Uranium" (sorry, no link).

5. (new, since 9/11) Great "terror" target for a suicide attack.

6. (new, since 9/11) Risk of "terrorists" getting some fuel and or waste for a dirty bomb.

7. Really expensive in dollars and ERoEI, if you factor in the total cost of ownership including all the above (construction, waste disposal, armed guards, SAMs...)

[barb162]

192. oh I totally agree, there are big problems with nuclear power

all as you set forth here. And it isn't limitless either. Energy in all forms will become way more expensive, especially about five years out from now. The natural gas situation is also one that is very frightening...we are running out of that too and that's a pretty clean source of energy. Supplies of natural gas barely were adequate last year. Coal is dirty, even the clean form of it, although a lot of people don't know that.

I wish we would do something like the Europeans do, 5 bucks a liter...tax the hell out of gasoline. It tends to force the great mass of people to drive the more fuel efficient vehicles or take public transport. Can you imagine, though, if any politician in this country, proposed that? It would never get through. Americans like their big vehicles and cheap gas. The world is going to change soon and there is going to be one hell of a lot of crying.

[Nordmadr]

157. What source of energy are you going to

use to make all those solar panels and hydro electric facilities? Where are you going to get all the energy and resources to retrofit and entire world economic system based primarily on oil and coal? What energy source are you going to use to make those pesticdes, fertilizers and fuels to produce the crops to feed the billions of people of the world? Where are you going to get your plastics? How are you going to produce your medicines?

You are ignorant. Educate yourself.

Olaf

See my posts here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=1278541&mesg_id=1278630

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=266&topic_id=320&mesg_id=320

[MadHound]

158. So, if I'm reading you right

You do believe in the reality of Peak Oil, but you just don't want the country to panic because it will lend the government credence in conducting their wars for oil, and besides, market forces will smoothly make the switch over to renewable resource and everything will be peachy. Is the correct?

I think that your premise is a bit flawed. First off, while I agree that big oil, and the government it is currently only thinking of an oil economy, the wiser among them are already making preparations behind the scenes for a world without oil. The Bushco pig farm in Crawford is completely wired with renewable resources, solar and wind. The same is true for the Dick's ranch in Wyoming. I also know of other rich, well connected families who have already converted to renewables, or are doing so currently. Those in power, those in the know, are already preparing for their own well being. Why shouldn't the rest of America do so?

In addition, one doesn't make the transition over from one major energy source to another overnight, or even in a decade. Witness the transition from steam to gasoline at the turn of the twentieth century. It was a process that took roughly twenty years, and quite frankly, most people cannot afford the rampant inflation that peak oil is going to bring about during that transition period. If we allow Peak Oil to reach the point of being an uber crisis as you propose, the economy will be wrecked, perhaps irrepairably, and many people will suffer and die during that transition period. Our economy, our society is completely infused with oil, and if prices of oil increase, so will the price of everything else.

Part of what has brought us to this pass is that we have collectively engaged in short term thinking. Peak Oil was being discussed twenty six years ago, and if we had started to switch over to renewable resources then, half of our energy needs would be being met by renewables by now, probably more, given technological breakthroughs in the industry.

We need to start publicly addressing the issue of Peak Oil immediately, both individually and collectively. Otherwise the only ones who will be prepared are the rich and well connected, and they will happily let the rest of society go down the tubes. After all, as the Great Depression and other such crisises have taught us, what is an economic disaster for most of our society is simply considered to be a big buying opportunity for the rich few.

As far as fanning the flames of war by publicizing Peak Oil, I understand your fears. But that is a contingency that can be taken care of with education and legislation. Of course it would require the type of leadership that is willing to stand and fight, rather than bow down before corporate America. I would suggest that we direct our efforts towards bringing responsible leadership back to America,

Remaining quiet about Peak Oil, no matter what the reason, is irresbonsible. Rather, let us educate the public about what is coming, in order that we ease the pain of transition, and are able to plan our future, rather than simply reacting to crisis after crisis. Foresight and planning is what will get us through this looming disaster, no reliance on the tender mercies of market forces.

[mattclearing]

167. I think you have me right.

I'm not sure where I advocated for the allowing of Peak Oil to become an uber-crisis.

I think my phrasing placed me in opposition to a lot of Peak Oil proponents, when I actually share many concerns.

I believe the transition needs to be made, beginning immediately.

You are right that it should be publicized.

My main beef is that it is generally pushed as a doomsday scenario, which no one wants to hear, thus negating the effort to draw attention to a legitimate problem.

Your note that Bush and Cheney both use solar power should be headline news. I had no idea.

That could wake a lot of people up.

[MadHound]

172. Well, if we allow markets and government to control how America

Approaches peak oil, it will be a doomsday scenario, and I think that this is what many people are screaming about.

If market and political forces are allowed to have their way, America will continue to be addicted to oil, even as the last drop is pumped out of the ground. Switching over to renewable resources is an anethma to them, for once you buy a set of solar panels, or a windmill, there is nothing else you need from corporate America, unless the weather destroys your panels or windmill. No more hundred dollars a week for a depleted resource, just the ocaissional battery replacement.

Thus, if we don't scream loud and long now, we will be going over the cliff, for oil is intertwined with our entire society, from the gas you used to get to work, to the plastic keyboard you're typing on now, to the food you will eat at lunch. All of these things, and much much more needs to begin that transition phase to renewables now. And apparently, judging by our society and others in the past, the only way to get people to pay attention to anything is to scream doomsday. Is it over wrought? Perhaps, but it is the only thing society listens to. Is it untrue? No, for if we continue down this road, it WILL be doomsday for just about everybody, excepting those who were smart enough, and had the money to plan ahead.

Think about it. Any urban area has only enough food to feed the population for three day at any given time. And our food supply is heavily dependent on oil, both for fertilizers and transport to market. Thus, when Peak Oil hits, any given city is three days away from food riots. And that is just one component of the Peak Oil Doomsday Scenario.

Society only responds to those that scream loudest and longest. If we want to have any organized response to this dire crisis on the horizon, we had all better start screaming, otherwise we could very well be dead, or wish we were.

[BlueEyedSon]

173. Two points (excellent post BTW):

1. Why are the rich/"energy cognoscenti" gearing up? Because the shit is coming. Could you or I make the same preparations? Personally, I have neither the acreage nor saved capital to make my home (and my entire life, including vehicles) run sustainably and "off the grid". I think the conclusion is that it is not feasible for all US citizens to be provided for, energywise, in that way (nevermind the rest of the world population!). (Why are the rich not making a public fuss over P.O.? Discuss.)

2. There are things that market forces cannot do/provide/create/change. I'll give you an example of something that the market cannot do. Ubiquitous, high quality, early-through-highschool education. Is it mandatory for the proper functioning of a modern society? You betcha. Does it work if run on profit motive? Nope. Why? Lots of reasons. But the one that coincides with the PO problem is lead time. US companies look forward only 1/2 to 3 years.

[MadHound]

176. Actually, there are many things people can do to prepare,

Especially if you own your house.

Food: Food is not only transported using fossil fuels, it is grown using fossil fuels. Start growing and storing your own food. If you have your own house, a modest backyard garden can provide you with fresh, frozen and canned fruits and vegatables year around. Grow organic, using natural fertizlers. If you live in an apartment, generally there are people looking to rent out garden land, or you can join a food circle or food co-op. Bone up on canning and other "old fashioned" methods of preserving food. Go in with a local farmer for a side of beef, hog, etc.

Heating: Wood heating has come a long way since the advent of the Franklin stove. You can now get exterior wood furnaces(cheaper on the insurance) that you can hook up to forced air, or radiant whole house heating systems. You can also buy a wood stove or furnace that comes with a catalytic converter, which cuts emissions by eighty to ninety five percent, while consuming less wood, since the converter also acts as a heat source.

Solar: You can put up a bank of 2KW worth of panels for aprox fifteen thousand dollars. While this might sound expensive, you can put it on your mortage more than likely, and it will pay for itself within fifteen years, at the current price of electricity. In addition, solar panels have a life span of forty years, so there is an additional twenty five years worth of electricity.

Wind: Windmill placement requires aprox three acres, though I've seen them on one acre lots also. Price is again aprox fifteen thousand, but it too can be built into the mortage. Again, the payoff period is fifteen years, and since windmills last much longer than solar panels, your energy profit can last the rest of your life.

Fuel: Buy a diesel car, retrofit the fuel lines with metal lines, and make your own biodiesel. It is cheap, clean, and easy to make.<http://search.barnesandnoble.com/bookSearch/isbnInquiry.asp?sourceid=00412886846282821982&ISBN=0970722702&bfdate=03-03-2005+11:08:21> This book I've linked to is a great starting place for making your own fuel.

For those who live in apartments, or rent houses, things could be a little trickier. It requires that you work with your landlord, and convince them of the monetary advantages of going with renewables. Do your research, and then hit them where it really counts, in the wallet. If they see a monetary advantage in going with renewables, they'll do it in a heartbeat.

[BlueEyedSon]

178. You certainly have your ducks in a row!

I need a diesel AWD station wagon. Recommendations?

My lot is scarcely bigger than my home (picture a townhouse). I live in NJ & from my roof the southern exposure is shaded by huge large-leaf maples on my neighbor's and borough property. Not ideal for solar.

If i had $15k extra, I have a curtain wall which is fairly well rotted and needs replacing. :(

[Strelnikov_]

179. (Most Of) The Rich Got There By Using Insider Information

Why would they alert the masses and start a run on resources, and profits?

They probably figure they can hire protection when the time comes.

A reading of the French and Russian revolutions would provide them some insight into how poorly this strategy will work during societal upheaval.

[BlueEyedSon]

182. (my point exactly!)

[Strelnikov_]

215. Why Are Rich Investors Now Buying Up Midwest Farmland?

Here in Iowa, I am seeing frequent articles on how 'non-traditional' investors are buying up prime midwest farmland. That is, top-rung (re: rich) lawyers, doctors, executives.

Wonder if they know something?

(Midwest farmland will still be productive in a post-peak world due to rainfall/fertility. The marginal areas, such as the high plains, will be the problem).

[barb162]

200. um, they probably have their houses built on the Riviera, Switzerland, etc

or their own islands in the Caribbean alrady. When they have to move they'll move fast to where things will still be safe and sound.

[hatrack]

181. This just in: OPEC projects oil as high as $80 within two years

Relax, my fellow lobsters. The water is NOT, I repeat, NOT becoming warmer. Have no fear. Continue swimming as usual and do NOT climb out of the pot. That would be just crazy.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20050303/b...

KUWAIT CITY (AFP) - Prices of crude oil could surge to as high as 80 dollars a barrel within the next two years but such a level would not last long, OPEC (news - web sites)'s acting secretary general was quoted as saying.

"I can affirm that the price of a barrel of crude oil rising to 80 dollars in the near future is a weak possibility," Adnan Shehab-Eldin told Kuwait's Al-Qabas newspaper.

"But I cannot rule out (the possibility) of oil prices rising to 80 dollars a barrel within the next two years," he said on Thursday.

"If the oil price rises to this level for one reason or another -- for example, interruption of supplies from a producing nation by one to two million barrels a day -- it is not expected to continue for long," he said.

more...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x1280637

[mattclearing]

186. The rising price of oil in the short term may get people's attention.

They can turn to the Administration and wonder what happened to the cheap oil we were going to get from Iraq.

[rman]

196. Oil price will also rise in the long term

Decline of production due to depletion will force reduction of market demand because of high price; it's not that less people need oil (-based products, including such things as food), it's just that more and more people will no longer be able to afford it. Please explain how this will not cause big problems, how it is not a reason to seriously worry about peak oil.

[mattclearing]

210. Read the whole thread.

I'm not saying worry isn't warranted.

My main point is that proponents of Peak Oil often sound to me like chicken littles.

No one wants to hear a doomsday scenario...it is a terrible communication strategy.

[rman]

213. But there will be doomsday if we don't do anything

If not that, then what is the reason why it is warranted to worry?

Also it doesn't look like we'll be able to do anything about it any time soon.

If you think we can, then please do tell us how.

I.e. what would be a better communication strategy?
How can we get the government to take the problem seriously?
How can we awaken the masses?

[mattclearing]

216. When crude hits $60, maybe people will wake up.

Ultimately no one will care until they can't afford to fill their SUV.

The dollar is falling.

Gas prices rising and dollar value falling together means that a lot of people will be extremely angry in the next year or so.

I'm starting to think that will be the only real catalyst...very few people will probably listen until it's staring them in the face.

[rman]

218. By the time it stares us in the face, it is to late.

If we wait until people can't afford to fill their SUV before we start doing something, it'll be to late. Mobility is a major factor in the economy. Once mobility starts declining due to fuel shortages, we're in deep trouble. This has nothing to do with being paranoid, but there is a very serious unavoidable problem looming in the near future.

[Coastie for Truth]

190. This is well above the "break even" point for all sorts of alternatives

1. Synthane and syngas from coal (environmentally dirty)
2. Oil shale and oil tar sands (not quite as dirty)
3. Drilling for oil "everywhere"

Link: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/03/business/03houston.html
Expensive - NIMBY (I grew up above a coal mine)

4. Ethanol
5. Bio-mass
6. Chemically processed bio mass - to convert poultry processing waste and farm waste into motor fuel.
7. Electric cars - again.
8. Some very serious thinking about detached homes on a quarter acre of green grass - without side walks - far from transit -- VERSUS town houses and garden apartments in transit village with sidewalks, within walking distance to transit, shopping, schools, etc. We might even have a "Paradigm shift."
9. Wind turbines - even off of Hyannisport, even adjacent to bird migration paths.
10. Photovoltaics.
11. Hydro.
12. Geothermal.
13. Per President Carter - turning our therm stats down in winter, up in summer, and dressing accordingly.


I don't care whether you call it "Peak Oil" or "Cartel" or "Vanilla Ice Cream" -- it portends major "paradigm shifts" in our oil gluttonous life style.

[barb162]

203. yeah, supplies a little tight, huh?

[chlamor]

184. When the House is On Fire

Pull the alarm. And you are right we can live without oil the problem is that all of our infrastrucure is dependent on the mega oil industry and there are no viable short term solutions on a large scale and the long term solutions need time to be put in place. Add to this the fundamental fact that the military uses more oil than any entity and their unlikely to scale down and the US consuman is unlikely to make DRAMATIC changes in life and institutions like colleges-hospitals-pro sports and other benign aspects of our society use GOBS of petrol-LNG and it adds up to radical things coming. It could be fun too.

[buzzard]

197. Could you provide a link to this thanks.n/t

[chlamor]

227. Both Graph/Images Come From

www.dieoff.com

Try this for the bottom one:
http://dieoff.org/page125.htm

And the top one comes from same website. Try page 224.htm

Let me know if that is what you want and if you need these images I can find the exact URL.

[buzzard]

230. Thanks that is what I wanted I hadn't seen that site.n/t

[barb162]

204. great graph (but I am missing the fun part)

[Coastie for Truth]

189. Interesting Op Ed by Victor Davis Hanson

Link to post: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x110337

Link to op-ed:
http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/opinion/11039277.htm

Discussion of oil as it relates to the war in Iraq.

[BlueEyedSon]

191. Link from google needs no reg:

http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&lr=&tab=wn&ie=UTF-8&q=%22No+oil+money+for+terrorists%22&btnG=Search+News

[BlueEyedSon]

193. Interesting, but BS

"The invasion of Iraq was not to loot its oil treasure, but more likely to cease the recycling of its petrodollars that went to terrorists and weapons procurement."

No WMD.
No link to terra.
HELLO???

We went into Iraq for 3 reasons:
1. Peak oil
2. Dollar Hegemony over crude (vs the euro)
(1+2 means we need lots of bases in the Mid East, and we got kicked out of Saudi Arabia)
3. Political capital for a "war president"

[Coastie for Truth]

195. Didin't say that I endorsed Hanson

just that this was "interesting" - he is giving Bush credit for IQ and foresight that Bush lacks.

[Spinoza]

194. When the world runs out of oil

urbanites will all starve. There are far too many people for an oil-free world.

[cthrumatrix]

198. therefore...we SHOULD act. Keeping people ignorant is not the

answer.

[rman]

205. "There are far too many people for an oil-free world." - not true

Not true in principal, at least.

Of course we're much to late in preparing to make the transition to alternative energy sources. So the transition is likely to be painful for many people. Probably many people will die and more will suffer. It's interesting to note that the end of the oil age won't make much of a difference to the poorest of the poor - they're already independent of oil as an energy source. Also it won't be very painful for the super wealthy.

But alternative energy sources could provide enough energy for the world population, if we could increase over-all efficiency of energy use by a factor of 10. That's a lot, but it's feasible. One important factor would be a policy to produce locally as much as possible - that will greatly cut down on energy used for transportation.
Up till now there was virtually no motivation to improve efficiency by any significant amount, because oil was cheap and seemingly endless in supply. Just going on that it stands to reason there's a lot of room for improvement.
Also not having a small minority of people in effect confiscating a disproportionately large amount of wealth, would go a long way towards having more available to the rest of humanity.

[barb162]

208. I agree. We are overpopulated and when there's no oil, you can't get

a delivery truck to the cities. Back to horses.

[rman]

206. Nymex Crude now at 54.4, up 1.35

DON'T PANIC!

[barb162]

209. whahhhhhhhhh (tearing at hair, frothing at mouth...in seizure)

okay, I'm better now

[rman]

211. minutes later, up another 0.05

www.bloomberg.com/energy/

[BigBearJohn]

219. We already have companies releasing new engines that use compressed air

[cthrumatrix]

224. good we need renewable energy and screw the big oil cabals that own

govt.

[BlueEyedSon]

231. How many PSI per gallon?

[rman]

232. yeah, and compressing air doesn't cost any energy, right?

-

[Trish1168]

225. You make a good point

I think people see the high prices of oil, and the media misrepresent the reasons by suggesting its mostly about supply and demand issues. While there's no doubt that the supply is retreating at a time when demand from China has taken off, that's not to suggest there isn't plenty of oil remaining. The caspean sea oil (the reason for the Afghan and Iraq wars) is plentiful. The oil fields in that region exceed what Saudi Arabia had started out with.

The price of oil will go up for us, not because of supply/demand, but because the dollar is losing value. The oil crises of the 70's was the direct result of dollar devaluation. The Saudi's raised the price of oil to the true value of the dollar (so as not to get screwed). The same is happening now. If you look at a graph of oil prices in gold (instead of the dollar) the price of oil has been flat.

But then, its easier to blame the Saudi's than to blame the president for poor fiscal policy.

We do need alternative fuels. Oil will run out and we are causing global warming (I refuse to say climate change). A hydrogen economy is possible. Its gonna be hard for these powerful Texas oil people who have pulled the strings in government (ie. Vietnam) for way too long to give up their power.

They won't have a choice in the long run.

[Strelnikov_]

229. Caspian Region Has Not Panned Out As Hyped

Much Ado about Nothing -- Whither the Caspian Riches?

http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/120502_caspian.html

At a recent event hosted by the Associated Press and the Harriman Institute, Steven Mann, the director of the State Department's Caspian Basin Energy Policy Office stated that the Caspian Sea contains only 50 billion barrels of proven reserves, a far cry from the EIA's projections. "Caspian Oil represents 4 percent of the world's reserves. It will never dominate the world's markets..."

Likewise, a study published in PetroStrategies last July stated that the Caspian Sea contains only 39.4 billion barrels of proven oil reserves. The study, conducted by consultants from Wood MacKenzie, criticized IEA figures for the region as being severely inflated and unrealistic.

The study states that oil production from the Caspian region should peak at 3.8 million barrels per day (bpd) by 2015, but be considerably less if the region remains politically unstable. Future discoveries might result in a production plateau extending beyond 2020.

. . .

Even the EIA has revised its report on the Caspian region, stating that although it is not another Middle East, it is... "comparable to the North Sea in its hydrocarbon potential."

[rman]

233. we don't just need alternative fuels, we need alternative energy sources

A "hydrogen economy" as an alternative to the "oil economy" is *not* possible, simply because hydrogen is not a source of energy. The big difference is that it does not require (human) investment of energy to make oil, but it does take a lot of energy to make hydrogen (there's no such thing as a hydrogen-field).
So in the end the question is, if oil is no longer available as an abundant source of energy, then what can replace it?

[mattclearing]

236. Good call on "Climate Change."

I henceforth resolve to stick with global warming as well.

You are right about dollar devaluation. While my understanding of thermodynamics and energy harnessing models is somewhat limited (though less so than when I started this topic), my financial understanding is well-developed, and you are spot on with dollar devaluation being misinterpreted in the major media with regard to pricing goods, particularly oil.

The possibility of an Argentina-style dollar collapse seems to escape most people, but amazingly the Washington Post acknowledged the possibility as very real in an editorial the other day, something that should scare the hell out of everyone.

[Zhade]

235. Not a flame, but you're not fully informed.

The sources you suggest simply cannot replace oil as we use it today. So far, nothing we have comes close to the realized potential of oil.

I fully agree that we need to not encourage oil wars, but it's simply wrong to assume we can wean ourselves off oil with the technology we currently have.