[MattSavinar]

I think we can all agree that if anything is to replace even a significant fraction (10, 20, 30%?) of our oil and gas consumption, it is going to have to be distributed across the nation, and moreover, the world.

If you're waiting for renewable derived hydrogen, algae produced biodiesel, the entity pazoozoo, etc. . .to come save us, remember that we're going to need some type of system to distribute that stuff wide and far. To understand the scale of what we're talking about, take a look at this:

http://images.pennnet.com/mapsearch/all_pipe.jpgPipeline Map

Remember, this is just a map of North America. Since N. AMerica is entirely dependent on the rest of the world economy (and vice versa) we have to worry about the rest of the globe as well.

Best,

Matt

[MicroHydro]

Hi Matt,

While most of the folks on this forum would like to see humanity take steps to reduce the severity of the oil crash, those who can use a pocket calculator have given up fantasies of the current global energy use being maintained.

[ubercynicmeister]

Hi there are you THE MattSavinar of "www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net fame?

if so, I certainly enjoyed your book and have been re-reading it since I got it.

I think we can all agree that if anything is to replace even a significant fraction (10, 20, 30%?) of our oil and gas consumption, it is going to have to be distributed across the nation, and moreover, the world.

If you're waiting for renwable derived hydrogen, algae produced biodiesel, the entity pazoozoo, etc. . .to come save us,

HEY, now don't you insult the Super Advanced All-Knowing Superbeing, Pazoozoo. I'm betting on Pazoozoo - he's got a better chance of figuring out what's happening than the ECONOMISTS.

Actually the ASTROLOGERS have better chance of figuring out what's happening than the economists, but I digress.

In ANY case, Pazoozoo said to me the other day- in this strangely familiar Texan accent.... "Hey, you (he can't remember my name very well), let those Martians..."

"Uh, Oh Omnipotent One Pazoozoo, Uh, it's EARTHLINGS...."

"...stop interupting, OK, Earthlings- dammit , what's the difference? Now, you let 'em know it's OK, that their resources will be just fine, all they have to do is keep spendin' up big and generatin' massive debts and it'll be fine, there's another race of beings waitin' to take over. They're called humans."

"Uh, Pazoozoo, WE'RE the humans."

"Huh? Dang, so y'are! Well, you iz all in biiig trouble, then, bucko. Wahooo, you iz SCREWED big time. Actually, I was lookin' fer some entertainment, this will be good. Haven't had a decent mass-die-off in, OH, 65 million years."

Y'know, sometimes Pazoozoo makes me think that he's not all there, a few games short of the grand finals, but that's just to TEST MY FAITH.

I'm sure Pazoozoo will come to Our Rescue.

But only if we sacrifice goats. Anyone know any members of Congress?

remember that we're going to need some type of system to distribute that stuff wide and far. To understand the scale of what we're talking about, take a look at this:

http://images.pennnet.com/mapsearch/all_pipe.jpgPipeline Map

Remember, this is just a map of North America. Since N. AMerica is entirely dependent on the rest of the world economy (and vice versa) we have to worry about the rest of the globe as well.

Best,

Matt

Yep, we've boxed ourselves into a corner all right, Pazoozoo notwithstanding. The REAL pity is that none of this needed to be - it wasn't COMPULSORY that we do this.

No-one forced our hand. Indeed, if we'd started the "effort" to find non-oil energy sources in the 1970's , and kept it up, we would not be HAVING this "conversation".

I think that like all humans at all times in the past, we need a shock before we "wake up"...trouble is, by the time the shock has come, it's too late to do much about it.

This is one of times, but I guess i'm preaching to the choir, anyway.

It's good to see you posting here, anyway, Matt.

[0mar]

excellent map

[EnergySpin]

Is this a map of the sewer network across NA?
I propose we use this system to deliver manure across the nation .... to power this huge sewer grid and prevent instabilities, I propose we feed the NA with beans thrice a week. The natural gas (natural indeed) produced this way will provide a renewable energy source to move human manure
We can sustain agriculture in the suburbs this way
Underwater pipes could link the world and usher a new era of human understanding, based on Human (Shit) Power(TM)
Well at least this proposal is more sustainable than the H2 economy

[Petro]

Howdy Matt!

I don't get the point of this topic at all.

In the cont. US there are over 100k miles of gasoline pipelines alone. Not sure of the aggregate for petro-chems total. But, say something was invented; produced, etc., isnt it a little reassuring that at least there is some form of distribution for liquid alternatives?

[MonteQuest]

Howdy Matt!

I don't get the point of this topic at all.

In the cont. US there are over 100k miles of gasoline pipelines alone. Not sure of the aggregate for petro-chems total. But, say something was invented; produced, etc., isnt it a little reassuring that at least there is some form of distribution for liquid alternatives?

That's the point, you can't use any of this system for hydrogen because of it's affinity to water.

And how do you stop using the existing system carrying gas, oil, etc, and put the alternatives in them instead?

[MattSavinar]

Howdy Matt!

I don't get the point of this topic at all.

In the cont. US there are over 100k miles of gasoline pipelines alone. Not sure of the aggregate for petro-chems total. But, say something was invented; produced, etc., isnt it a little reassuring that at least there is some form of distribution for liquid alternatives?

how you gonna put hydrogen/biodiesel/pazoozoo and gasoline/natural gas/oil through the same pipeline?

[Sys1]

If we use solar pannels or windfarms, we can produce and use energy in the same place.

[SHiFTY]

I live in London, and we are constantly reminded of the fantastic civil engineering works that are totally capable without oil. The vast 19th century railway network, so shamefully neglected and out of favour, is a testamnet to this.

The large numbers of beautiful, massive, solid stone buildings created by hand in the last 400 odd years, again without oil, is more proof. They will easily outlive the showy, lightweight glass towers that have sprung up. The underground trains, the sewer network, many roads, stone and iron bridges are all pre-oil.

Some roads date back thousands of years; the Romans built vast dead straight roads across England with no oil.

You can build any amount of infrastructure with enough labour and most importantly, good leadership. A few more pipelines would be trivial.

[MacG]

I remain seated.

[Raxozanne]

Some roads date back thousands of years; the Romans built vast dead straight roads across England with no oil.

You can build any amount of infrastructure with enough labour and most importantly, good leadership. A few more pipelines would be trivial.

Yeah slavery will probably be a big part of the future.

[Petro]

Howdy Matt!

I don't get the point of this topic at all.

In the cont. US there are over 100k miles of gasoline pipelines alone. Not sure of the aggregate for petro-chems total. But, say something was invented; produced, etc., isnt it a little reassuring that at least there is some form of distribution for liquid alternatives?

how you gonna put hydrogen/biodiesel/pazoozoo and gasoline/natural gas/oil through the same pipeline?

LOL What's with all the Pazoozoo references? You guys watching too much Linda Blair me thinks Never mind the rest I was having a maudlin moment of utilitarian hopefulness.

[EnergySpin]

Some roads date back thousands of years; the Romans built vast dead straight roads across England with no oil.

You can build any amount of infrastructure with enough labour and most importantly, good leadership. A few more pipelines would be trivial.

Yeah slavery will probably be a big part of the future.

Sex Slavery as well Raxozanne, do not forget that. Although in our modern times both regular slavery (basic wage at Walmarts) and sex slavery is so common that it will not be a cultural shock. People even accept that , and even call their slavemaster "free economy".

[Raxozanne]

Sex Slavery as well Raxozanne, do not forget that. Although in our modern times both regular slavery (basic wage at Walmarts) and sex slavery is so common that it will not be a cultural shock. People even accept that , but instead they call their slavemaster "free economy".

Sooo true
Maybe I should go and look for some lycra gear now while its still going cheap
P.S: You can call me Roxy

Brothels were legalised in Australia just so the the government could collect tax!

[EnergySpin]

Sex Slavery as well Raxozanne, do not forget that. Although in our modern times both regular slavery (basic wage at Walmarts) and sex slavery is so common that it will not be a cultural shock. People even accept that , but instead they call their slavemaster "free economy".

Sooo true
Maybe I should go and look for some lycra gear now while its still going cheap
P.S: You can call me Roxy

Brothels were legalised in Australia just so the the government could collect tax!

Hoarding Lycra? Should't it be under the "Preparing For the Future" thread?
Do not worry though, your value will not go down if you do not own lycra underwear. And sex slavery can be either overt or covert. However I have to point out, that the destruction of the fiat economy will mean that people will voluntarily contribute to the public works. Food and healthcare for labor. Probably a better deal than working in a WalMart or a service sector nowadays; you get just enough money to afford cheap credit to enslave you further without the benefits of health care.

[Ludi]

Is a Techno-Messiah Waiter something like a Monkey Butler?

[jtmorgan61]

(Stands up)

Matt, you've ignored my email about how you misrepresent thermal depolymerization on your site. We can take it up here if you'd like.

Monte, JohnDenver and I are having a big long argument over whether coal to oil and thermal depolymerization are cheap, effectively scalable technologies that can give 40 mbd replacement by 2020. It's on the thread "Why Oil Alternative Fuels Will Fail." You should swing on over and get in on the action.

Here's a summary:

Based on the fact that 13 mbd production is slated to come online in 2007-8, that oil major ExxonMobil predicts a non-OPEC peak in 2010, that the french energy agency predicts a peak in 2012, and that the Saudis say there is no way they will meet demand in 2020, I'm guessing peak is 2012 or so. Rounded to 2010 to make it easier to work with.

Price will probably go somewhat higher than today, $80-100 barrel. It won't get higher than that because demand won't be there - several sectors of the economy would have to radically reorganize if it got more expensive, and no one can sit on years and years worth of oil because there's nowhere to store it (nor would governments let them). In addition, as I discuss below, there will be enough supply to prevent radical price spikes.

Based on the fact that a majority of insiders predict about a 2-4% decline, decline is set at 3%. Yes, some major fields are declining faster, but 1)some of them will probably be reattacked with tertiary extraction techniques 2)some of them are declining slower (U.S.<2%), and 3)new fields will still be being brought online, counteracting the fastest declining fields.

Based on 85 mbd today and another 13 mbd in 2007-8, we're going to get to at least 100 mbd in 2010. Probably a bit more, I rounded down again.

Monte cites EIA demand estimates of 120 mbd in 2020 by the EIA. I think this is a little high since they expect there will be plenty of oil and people won't find cheaper ways of doing things or even buy slightly more fuel efficient cars (and studies have shown consumer preferences alter radically when price hits $3-4/gallon, as it has in Europe).

I accept his number anyway. Demand in 2020 is 120 mbd, and supply, having declined year on year at 3%, is a bit more than 70 mbd. We need to make up 50 mbd over 10 years or so.

Oil sands and (probably not) shale combine for 5-10 mbd of production. No one's wanted to discuss this figure so far. Thermal depolymerization covers 20 mbd, and coal to oil covers 20 mbd (in reality probably one of these two will "win" the economic war and be used more heavily, but this is just an exercise).

From there, we look at the US specifically to make the numbers a bit easier to handle. We've given the US 1/3 of output capability (it's about 1/4 of the world economy, so this seems conservative). So the US will need 6 mbd from TD and 7 mbd from coal to oil.

Coal to oil: Looks profitable at $40/barrel, so it will be implemented. US has 250 billion tons of reserves. Mines 1 billion tons a year. 1 billion tons of coal, at 70% efficiency, gives 7 mbd oil (see JD's calculations). Nearly all of that 1 billion tons goes to 50% power generation. If gas (cliff in 2025, perhaps?) expands by 10% of power, and nuclear expands 10%, and renewables take up something like 5%, then coal mining needs to expand 40-60% over ten years. It's expanded 47% over the last 25, so this seems reasonable. Total price tag for these plants, including the most expensive power replacement option (all nuclear), has been calculated at $1.25 trillion/decade, or $125 billion/year. See the other thread for raw numbers.

TD: The EROEI of TD is 5.6, not .85 as you state on your site. With free feedstocks production is currently at $60-65/barrel. Price will probably come down with larger plants, but the plants will still be profitable with small plants and today's technology at $80-100/barrel. US has 4 billion tons of agricultural waste and 8 billion tons of industrial waste per year (these numbers won't go down dramatically, because things aren't going to crash, because oil prices will stay moderate). Rounding down, it's about 1 barrel/1 ton of waste, so we'd make about 12 Gby if we converted everything (some waste probably has no hydrocarbon content, but some of it has way more than 1 barrel/ton). We need 6 mbd, or about 2.5 Gby. We can easily cover that. Total cost for these plants has been calculated at $500 billion/decade, or $50 billion a year.

Can we pay $175 billion/year? The global energy industry was $3 trillion last year. That's about $750 billion/US. ExxonMobil alone made $25 billion on revenues of $300 billion, meaning that they personally spent $275 billion, or more than the total cost of these plants. And these plants will be profitable, so they will be funded by private capital. Even public spending of $175 billion/year would not be beyond the pale if it were necessary.

(As an aside, I looked at the steel industry at JD's request and determined that steel shortages for all of this building were highly unlikely - after all we are using steel that otherwise would have been used to build oil rigs or refineries, and steel demand has already peaked in most developed nations).

If we make it to 2020, we have bought more time to develop technology (We can probably buy 5 or even 10 more years with oil production technologies and improved efficiency cars - but you don't want twice the calculations, do you? ). At that point, plug-in hybrids will almost certainly be the standard car type, meaning most people won't burn any oil to commute everyday (indeed, something like 90% of trips are under 5 miles). Getting to a plug-in hybrid that covers 40-80 miles requires very few technological steps and no technological leaps. Since personal transport is almost exactly 2/3 of oil use, that's a huge savings. By 2030, it seems likely we'll either have good battery technology or have fuel cells working.

Electricity, of course, isn't really in play at all since oil is only 3% of our power generation.

Yes, the environment gets screwed in this scenario. Yes, negative cultural factors like suburban sprawl continue to mount unabated. These are bad things. But they are the things we need to focus our energies and efforts on, because oil is not going to bring society down.

[MattSavinar]

(Stands up)

Matt, you've ignored my email about how you misrepresent thermal depolymerization on your site. We can take it up here if you'd like.

Monte, JohnDenver and I are having a big long argument over whether coal to oil and thermal depolymerization are cheap, effectively scalable technologies that can give 40 mbd replacement by 2020. It's on the thread "Why Oil Alternative Fuels Will Fail." You should swing on over and get in on the action.

Here's a summary:

Based on the fact that 13 mbd production is slated to come online in 2007-8, that oil major ExxonMobil predicts a non-OPEC peak in 2010, that the french energy agency predicts a peak in 2012, and that the Saudis say there is no way they will meet demand in 2020, I'm guessing peak is 2012 or so. Rounded to 2010 to make it easier to work with.

Price will probably go somewhat higher than today, $80-100 barrel. It won't get higher than that because demand won't be there - several sectors of the economy would have to radically reorganize if it got more expensive, and no one can sit on years and years worth of oil because there's nowhere to store it (nor would governments let them). In addition, as I discuss below, there will be enough supply to prevent radical price spikes.

Based on the fact that a majority of insiders predict about a 2-4% decline, decline is set at 3%. Yes, some major fields are declining faster, but 1)some of them will probably be reattacked with tertiary extraction techniques 2)some of them are declining slower (U.S.<2%), and 3)new fields will still be being brought online, counteracting the fastest declining fields.

Based on 85 mbd today and another 13 mbd in 2007-8, we're going to get to at least 100 mbd in 2010. Probably a bit more, I rounded down again.

Monte cites EIA demand estimates of 120 mbd in 2020 by the EIA. I think this is a little high since they expect there will be plenty of oil and people won't find cheaper ways of doing things or even buy slightly more fuel efficient cars (and studies have shown consumer preferences alter radically when price hits $3-4/gallon, as it has in Europe).

I accept his number anyway. Demand in 2020 is 120 mbd, and supply, having declined year on year at 3%, is a bit more than 70 mbd. We need to make up 50 mbd over 10 years or so.

Oil sands and (probably not) shale combine for 5-10 mbd of production. No one's wanted to discuss this figure so far. Thermal depolymerization covers 20 mbd, and coal to oil covers 20 mbd (in reality probably one of these two will "win" the economic war and be used more heavily, but this is just an exercise).

From there, we look at the US specifically to make the numbers a bit easier to handle. We've given the US 1/3 of output capability (it's about 1/4 of the world economy, so this seems conservative). So the US will need 6 mbd from TD and 7 mbd from coal to oil.

Coal to oil: Looks profitable at $40/barrel, so it will be implemented. US has 250 billion tons of reserves. Mines 1 billion tons a year. 1 billion tons of coal, at 70% efficiency, gives 7 mbd oil (see JD's calculations). Nearly all of that 1 billion tons goes to 50% power generation. If gas (cliff in 2025, perhaps?) expands by 10% of power, and nuclear expands 10%, and renewables take up something like 5%, then coal mining needs to expand 40-60% over ten years. It's expanded 47% over the last 25, so this seems reasonable. Total price tag for these plants, including the most expensive power replacement option (all nuclear), has been calculated at $1.25 trillion/decade, or $125 billion/year. See the other thread for raw numbers.

TD: The EROEI of TD is 5.6, not .85 as you state on your site. With free feedstocks production is currently at $60-65/barrel. Price will probably come down with larger plants, but the plants will still be profitable with small plants and today's technology at $80-100/barrel. US has 4 billion tons of agricultural waste and 8 billion tons of industrial waste per year (these numbers won't go down dramatically, because things aren't going to crash, because oil prices will stay moderate). Rounding down, it's about 1 barrel/1 ton of waste, so we'd make about 12 Gby if we converted everything (some waste probably has no hydrocarbon content, but some of it has way more than 1 barrel/ton). We need 6 mbd, or about 2.5 Gby. We can easily cover that. Total cost for these plants has been calculated at $500 billion/decade, or $50 billion a year.

Can we pay $175 billion/year? The global energy industry was $3 trillion last year. That's about $750 billion/US. ExxonMobil alone made $25 billion on revenues of $300 billion, meaning that they personally spent $275 billion, or more than the total cost of these plants. And these plants will be profitable, so they will be funded by private capital. Even public spending of $175 billion/year would not be beyond the pale if it were necessary.

(As an aside, I looked at the steel industry at JD's request and determined that steel shortages for all of this building were highly unlikely - after all we are using steel that otherwise would have been used to build oil rigs or refineries, and steel demand has already peaked in most developed nations).

If we make it to 2020, we have bought more time to develop technology (We can probably buy 5 or even 10 more years with oil production technologies and improved efficiency cars - but you don't want twice the calculations, do you? ). At that point, plug-in hybrids will almost certainly be the standard car type, meaning most people won't burn any oil to commute everyday (indeed, something like 90% of trips are under 5 miles). Getting to a plug-in hybrid that covers 40-80 miles requires very few technological steps and no technological leaps. Since personal transport is almost exactly 2/3 of oil use, that's a huge savings. By 2030, it seems likely we'll either have good battery technology or have fuel cells working.

Electricity, of course, isn't really in play at all since oil is only 3% of our power generation.

Yes, the environment gets screwed in this scenario. Yes, negative cultural factors like suburban sprawl continue to mount unabated. These are bad things. But they are the things we need to focus our energies and efforts on, because oil is not going to bring society down.

Dude this is all great on paper, but what's happening out in the REAL world?

1. "Generational" oil war in Iraq

2. A worldwide war on terror that will "last our lifetimes" that just so happpens to take place where lots of oil is

3. Federal government on it's way to bankruptcy (not directly related to peak oil)

4. Slow motion collapse of some of the biggest/most crucial and oil dependent sectors of the US (global) economy: automobile manufacturing and air transport

5. Relentless rise in energy prices.

6. Relentless rise in demand from Chindia

7. Major loss of topsoil and fresh water (both nonrenewable resources, as in we're not making more of either for all intents and purposes)

8. Catastrophic climate change being acknowledged as a major and imminennt (inside of 10-20 years) threat by everybody not currently in a permanent vegatative state.

9. Major possiblity that the Saudi royal family will be overthrown, which will result in one of two possibilities: they hit the button on their "Doomsday Plan" (if Posner is to be believed) or a bunch of people who hate America gain control of a significant portion of the world's oil supply. In either case, we get radical price spikes.

10. Possibliity of Iran being invaded by the US, instability in Venezuela, etc . . .

11. Leadership that is, shall we say, "less than inspiring."

When your "plan" actually starts reversing trends 1-11 in a tangible, discnernable, and readily verifiable fashion, I'll start responding to your emails. In the meantime, there is simply not enough time left for those of us who don't want to be completely 100% screwed by these things to waste debating why or why not thermal depolymerization, plug-in hybrids, and Pazoozoo are going to save our butts.

So while you "plug and play" with your numbers, I'm swinging over to gaim.com to get myself a spinning composter. (Sucker looks ideal for those of us who live in apartments, but I guess that should go in the personal prep sction)

Matt

[entropyfails]

Yes, the environment gets screwed in this scenario. Yes, negative cultural factors like suburban sprawl continue to mount unabated. These are bad things. But they are the things we need to focus our energies and efforts on, because oil is not going to bring society down.

So your “plan” gets us to 2030 by turning the natural environment into oil. But what happens when after that? In your scenario, we’ll have 9 billion people or so and we’ll use about 75% of the planet’s ecosystem for food for humans, humans and their living spaces, and oil. What then? We eat the rest of the environment and have all large mammal and sea life die?

You see your plan as “saving civilization.” I see it as eating our life support system so we can hobble along for a few more years. What value does delaying the inevitable give us? Why does it make sense for us to eat our life support system that we have ALREADY overstressed beyond replacement rates?

You basically state that Peak Oil shouldn’t kill us… an Environmental Collapse should!

To most people around here, that doesn’t make much sense. You, being a true believer in civilization, do. That serves as the first and fundamental source of conflict for you around here. Secondly, you understate the difficulty of transition. Thirdly, you overstate what people say about the effects of Peak Oil. Matt never claimed that Peak Oil would kill us one week after it happened. But we all can see the problems in the 2050 range and a worsening from there out. Many other see 2020 as the starting date of instability. Others think next year.

Peak Oil doesn’t work like the Y2K insanity that happened before. It doesn’t have a “consensus date of apocalypse” to easily discredit it. It has serious, systemic, non-trivial problems with historical ramifications (Russia for one, Germany as well). I spent a lot of time trying to get people to understand that Y2K was going to be just another New Years. This, however, requires that we make changes to our lifestyle so that we don’t destroy our environment in what most of us will consider “hard times.”

In that light, welcome to the forum.

(As a post script, Matt’s site doesn’t claim that EROEI of TD is 85%, just that the efficiency of the process is 85% i.e. if we put in X amount of agricultural input to get out 100 barrels of oil, we ALSO need to have added 15 barrels of oil to convert that input. Most TD machines get this energy during the conversion process itself so the actual output of oil from X amount of inputs comes to 85 barrels. If you factor in energy use in growing the food in the first place, you may come out negative depending on the inputs. But a large percentage of the initial TD input will come from waste so we’ll see a net increase initially, perhaps even up to 10% of current oil outputs. The worry comes when people begin to see a tree as a barrel of oil and we turn to what we currently call “marginal lands” for our demand increases. “Marginal lands” is a euphemism for the rest of the environment.)