[killJOY]

All the arguments have been gone over, ad nauseum.

Now that PO is entering the mainstream, we have the period of dueling experts.


I say, Choose your point of view and simply LIVE accordingly.

[entropyfails]

My theory is that, as long as there is no shock (like tripling of prices overnight) but a slow, steady increase along the oil plateau, then peak oil will not be the end of the world at all- it may be hard, and involve driving 600cc cars, but the markets will prevail. At least in the west.

Oh… so you don’t actually have a problem with peak oil as a theory, you just feel that economic factors will extend the plateau and that reserve discovery and production numbers have been underreported.

Honestly, everything you have said points to you believing that oil production will in fact peak and decline (i.e. no problem with peak oil theory itself), only that the discovery and production numbers have been hidden. So why did you say the following?

I have some serious problems with the theory behind peak oil and would like to hear people's opinions.

You don’t have any problems with peak oil theory. You DO, however, seem to have problems with certain characterizations about the timeframe of peak oil and perhaps the magnitude of the problem. But why did you attack a straw man in this argument?

Hopefully we will see more clarity in your further posts, especially when you post something this long.

[Backtosteam]

I really don't know what to tell you except that I agree that peak oil does not necessarily mean the world will come to an end. I also agree that oil production may plateau for many years before beginning a decline. We may not see a decrease in oil production for 25 years and then again it may start declining next year. If energy use per capita (which to me is the key indicator of our lifestyle) begins to decrease it will mean our lives will get harder. I have no idea how the masses will react to that. If people can understand the concept and adapt things may be pretty calm. If not who knows. The time frame is so unclear as nuclear and other sources may keep that curve flat (I think Duncan showed it's been flat for sometime now) for many more decades. And you're right...it's still very doable to buy property in this country and get yourself off the grid if you want.

[MonteQuest]

1) Non-proven assumptions: The basic theory of peak oil is that US oil discoveries peaked, and about 15 years later, production peaked and then declined irreversably. The main assumption is that the aggregate production of the entire world's vast oilfields will also follow a similar distribution- the peak production will follow peak discovery. This incredibly crucial assumption is the chief flaw in the peak oil theory.

Non-proven assumptions? Welcome to the forum, Shifty. We have been over all of this already. I am afraid you won't make much headway here disputing peak oil theory.

And, I am afraid you are a bit off here with your history. US oil discoveries peaked in the 1930's, 40 years later, US production peaked and went into terminal decline.

World oil discoveries peaked in the 1960's, hence the 2000 to 2010 world peak oil prediction.

Peak oil theory applies to a single oil well, a region or a country. If discoveries follow a bell curve, production, for the most part will follow a similar curve, albeit perhaps a bit bumpy, or in the case of too much technology applied, steeper. The data is enormous on all the oil regions in the world that have mirrored the Hubbert's Curve. I suggest you review some of it.

[SHiFTY]

I guess I should have put some aspects more clearly - obviously there will come some sort of midpoint in oil production- it is a finite resource. But whether the entire vast planet's oilwells in aggregate will magically follow the same model as one country (the US) is a very "easy" idea relying on a unfounded assumption IMO.

Also the figures are not there- No-one actually knows, apart from speculation, whether reserve figures in the ME are accurate, in which case you've got at least 100 years. Frustratingly, there is far too much uncertainty to know anything.

When you factor in

*the very low US$,
*gambling by hedge funds on energy prices,
*massive underinvestment in production in the late 90s-due to LOW prices,
*the number of new oil projects coming on-stream

the whole idea that the entire *world's* oil will just suddenly peak looks a bit shaky.

The strange part to me is that I can today ride down highways full of oblivious people, and the breaking point, the beginning of the dieoff, is so, so close.

Statements like this are pretty indicative of a doomsday cult, if there ever was one! Just because you really want the end of civilisation doesn't mean it will end.

The world population may be high, but its not exactly unsustainable- except maybe for the 3rd world. I doubt in western countries whether you would see much in the way of a dieoff even if oil peaked how you want it to. In any case, immunologists for years have been predicting a pandemic of something which will kill large portions of the world population.

[Doly]

But whether the entire vast planet's oilwells in aggregate will magically follow the same model as one country (the US) is a very "easy" idea relying on a unfounded assumption IMO.

Given that we don't have whole planets to test, a fairly big region of a planet is the best model we have for what may happen to the whole planet.

Also the figures are not there- No-one actually knows, apart from speculation, whether reserve figures in the ME are accurate, in which case you've got at least 100 years. Frustratingly, there is far too much uncertainty to know anything.

Who is saying that you've got 100 years? Even Pete Odell, who is the most optimistic cornucopian around, talks about 60 years. USGS say 30 years until peak. And there's a whole bunch of geologists that say it's earlier. I personally think there is reason to worry.

*the very low US$,

True, the dollar is low, but oil is rising as well in terms of euros. Or any other currency you care to mention.

*massive underinvestment in production in the late 90s-due to LOW prices,

Surprisingly, high prices don't seem to stimulate a whole lot of new discoveries. Which may mean that there isn't a whole lot of new discoveries to be made.

*the number of new oil projects coming on-stream

The number of projects may be high, but aggregate barrels of oil aren't that impressive.

[I_Like_Plants]

We have a grow-or-die monetary, and thus social, system. Even a leveling off would be a hell of a shock.

[FatherOfTwo]

Fusion and hydrogen have the potential to offer much better 'energy profit and convience' if we can get the bugs worked out - and we're making strides...

Did you read the news today about the fusion reactor in France? 50 years is the earliest it could be ready for adoption. Maybe peak oil will fast track the amount of time, but by how much?
Also, I hope you are aware that hydrogen is an energy carrier not an energy source. How do you think we're going to get all of this hydrogen?

[JoeW]

Dear Shifty--

You fail to understand the real premise of peak oil theory. Let me fill in the blanks for you:

1) Oil is a finite resource (at least within a human time-frame).
2) Production started at zero, will end at zero, and will reach a maximum somewhere in between.

Assuming #1 is true, then #2 MUST be true. The mathematics of the situation demand it.

There is really no reason to dispute items #1 and #2. The real debate is over these things:
1) When will it happen?
2) What will be the impact?
3) What can we do to minimize or eliminate the impact?
4) And most important of all, whose fault is it?

JW

[Pops]

the whole idea that the entire *world's* oil will just suddenly peak looks a bit shaky.

I’m not going to the trouble of finding the link for the discovery graph but I think one of the very first responses to your post was that discoveries have been declining since the ‘70’s regardless of investment or new technology (and believe me there was lots of effort in the ‘70s and ‘80s).

That leads to my ‘scientific hypothesis’:
You can’t pump what you can’t find regardless of every effort and maybe you can’t find it ‘cus for the most part it ain’t there any more.


As far as cultish whackos being attracted to PO, the same goes for religion, Star Trek and fly fishing; so what’s your point?

[KevO]

know several people living a very sustainable lifestyle already (and loving it). If thats what you want to do, why wait?

touche!

Most people don't like to take voluntary redundancy but prefer to say,
'we're all going to be made redundant, we're doomed' and they are always right!

Going self suff before peak oil hits is voluntary redundancy.
waiting for the forced type is peak oil.
The analogies work great. those who take VR usually end up better off than those that wait and all end up having to to fight for any scrappy jobs left on the market.

Fear is the only wall

Nike

[Leanan]

I haven't completely given up on technology, but if a new technology does save us, it won't be fusion or hydrogen. Hydrogen is an energy storage method, not an energy source. Fusion, even if we do get it working (which is a big if), won't provide the EROEI of oil, never mind the convenience.

As for what we should do...I think that MSNBC article yesterday had it right. This is a problem neither individuals nor corporations have incentive to solve. If we're going to do anything, the government has to get involved.

Yes, that's sacrilege in the current American political climate. But there's no getting around it. There's not enough money to be made by conservation and alternate energy right now, for either individuals or corporations to be interested. By the time there is sufficient economic incentive, it will be too late.

[Jaymax]

if a new technology does save us, it won't be fusion or hydrogen. Hydrogen is an energy storage method, not an energy source. Fusion, even if we do get it working (which is a big if), won't provide the EROEI of oil, never mind the convenience.

It'll be Fusion AND Hydrogen.

The EROEI of fusion is probably something like at least an order of an magnitude BETTER than oil. Once operative, the reactor essentially runs on seawater - the exploration, recovery and operational effort are therefore just a tad better than for petroleum - oh and you need somewhat less than one beaker-full per person per year.

I'm really suprised by the general lack of basic knowledge about fusion on a site dedicated to energy issues.

And once you have fusion, and virtually unlimited low-pollution, low-cost electricity, you can produce large amounts of low-pollution, low-cost hydrogen.

The caveat is of course, the peak, and consequences, will be upon us before theese technologies are ready.

--J

[Leanan]

The EROEI of fusion is probably something like at least an order of an magnitude BETTER than oil.

No, it isn't. The U.S. Dept. of Energy estimates that, if we ever get it working, it will have an EROEI of 24. That is less than Middle East oil.

I, too, used to think fusion was the answer. Heck, I almost became a nuclear engineer, so I could help make it happen. (Went with mechanical instead, since at the time, no one was hiring Nuke E's except the Navy.) But fusion won't be the answer. As the joke goes, it's the energy of the future...and always will be. I seriously doubt we'll ever get it working, and if we do, it can't possibly replace oil.

[Jaymax]

No, it isn't. The U.S. Dept. of Energy estimates that, if we ever get it working, it will have an EROEI of 24. That is less than Middle East oil.

Please provide sources. EROEI is not a term that has much acceptance (for fairly good, if not quite valid reasons, debated elsewhere on this site).

The logic simply does not stack up - the energy investment required to recover oil is clear (we ignore the energy invested over millenia to manufacture the oil, of cource) - the energy required to fuel a fusion reactor is also clear.

[Caveat - if you're including the energy generated by the fusion reactor to maintain the reaction, you've fallen into the classic EROEI trap. This is not a relevant factor, as this energy is internal to the system, and would not otherwise be available]

One could include reactor manufacturing costs - certainly the EROEI for ITER will not be effective. But then, I'm sure the first coal fired research power plant was rather expensive as well.

Please produce either logic or citations to back your assertion, because on the face of it, it's nonsense.

--J

[Leanan]

The EROEI estimate comes from this site:

http://www.ofes.fusion.doe.gov/

They used to have the info on an HTML page, but now it's only in Powerpoint form.

This page has the info in HTML form:

http://www.melbourne.indymedia.org/news ... omment.php

We have been working on fusion for decades, and have spent billions of dollars researching it. Still no dice. It didn't take that kind of effort to master coal, natural gas, or oil.

[Jaymax]

The PowerPoint and HTML I found at:

This page has the info in HTML form:

http://www.melbourne.indymedia.org/news ... omment.php

... talks about the EPR of Fusion at 24. EPR is the Energy Payback Ratio.

And it clearly shows that Fusion has the BEST payback of all the power-station energy production methods compared, beating gas by a factor of five, and also beating coal, fission, and wind.

Your citation unfortunatly seems to be making the exact opposite argument to the one you're trying to support. A useful site though - and the mathematical formulae for EPR will be sometimes useful in discussions around the validity of EROEI.

As for the amount spent on fusion research, US I think is about $250m/yr recently, UK is something like £25m/yr. While we might have amounted to a few billion over a few decades, there is no argument that fusion research has been well funded for virtually no results.

It has been extremely poorly funded, for significant, albeit slow results. To the point where we are now ready to build what amounts to a technology demonstrator.

Coal and Oil were certainly easier to master than Nuclear. Then again, Fire was easier to master than electricity - the argument is meaningless if it does not consider the potential benifits, as well as the cost side of the equation.

--J

[nth]

The PowerPoint and HTML I found at:

This page has the info in HTML form:

http://www.melbourne.indymedia.org/news ... omment.php

... talks about the EPR of Fusion at 24. EPR is the Energy Payback Ratio.

And it clearly shows that Fusion has the BEST payback of all the power-station energy production methods compared, beating gas by a factor of five, and also beating coal, fission, and wind.

Your citation unfortunatly seems to be making the exact opposite argument to the one you're trying to support. A useful site though - and the mathematical formulae for EPR will be sometimes useful in discussions around the validity of EROEI.

As for the amount spent on fusion research, US I think is about $250m/yr recently, UK is something like £25m/yr. While we might have amounted to a few billion over a few decades, there is no argument that fusion research has been well funded for virtually no results.

It has been extremely poorly funded, for significant, albeit slow results. To the point where we are now ready to build what amounts to a technology demonstrator.

Coal and Oil were certainly easier to master than Nuclear. Then again, Fire was easier to master than electricity - the argument is meaningless if it does not consider the potential benifits, as well as the cost side of the equation.

--J

holy shit! another BiGG

Geez, this is uncalled for.