Peak oil is when demand of oil outstrips supply or production.
Here is a look at how much oil we need to discover to keep up with our needs:
This illustrates the depletion of all hydrocarbons:
World's reserves:
Technology will not help us.Take a look at the service checklist.
"Sustainability – is it sustainable for the long term?
Bio-diesel depletes the soil unless we put some NPK back (which is also difficult without accruing an energy loss).
Gas conversions to cars will just use up the LPG faster.
A "hydrogen economy" based on natural gas will just bring "peak gas" forward that much quicker, etc.
Energy Payback — the EPR. Do you get more energy out of a device that went into making it in the first place? Have you counted all the energy costs that go into the new energy infrastructure?
Tar sands and shale oil are incredibly energy expensive means of producing fuels. (And would again contribute to the global warming crisis.)
Rare materials essential to some renewable schemes would limit the worldwide deployment of that scheme.
EG: Electric Vehicles (EV’s) hold great promise, but what are the world’s current Lithium reserves and how many generations before we experienced “peak Lithium?”
EG: Fuel cells use plantinum, and after just a few years of a fuel cell transport system we would reach peak platinum.
Volumes — are most often too low.
EG: All Australian wheat into ethanol = 9% of liquid fuels and no bread! This alarming statistic takes into account the fact that we grow enough wheat for roughly 100 million people (we only consume 20% of our wheat for our 20 million Australians.) This statistic comes from Bruce Robinson of the STC.
EG: Biodiesel... even if we managed to grow biodiesel crops without modern fertilizers and pesticides (through biofarming methods such as "crop and cow" rotation) there is just not enough arable land to grow the quantities we need. We would run out of land for food!
Some potential energy volumes are vast (just 40 km by 40 km of solar PV is all Australia's energy needs) but we have left it too little too late. In other words, our current volumes of energy from these sources are far too low... below 1% of worldwide electricity supply.
Even if there is a vast potential energy source such as solar, the following questions pretty much prevent it running what we are currently running.
Implementing the Infrastructure — is the fuel compatible with the current infrastructure? What are the issues in implementing the new fuel at filling stations? Is it easy to transport? Can it be stored easily? How energy dense is the fuel — and will you burn 90% of the fuel just to transport it to the filling station? How long will it take to implement? What other time factors are involved in converting filling stations over?
Cheap — What is this alternative going to cost society? We are not running out of oil, we are running out of cheap oil and it is throwing us into a crisis.The costs for a solar to hydrogen fuel system would currently bankrupt any nation — we may as well use the original solar electricity to charge EV’s rather than bother wasting energy making Hydrogen. What the alternative costs is extremely important, and is the basis of the peak oil crisis.
Even supply of energy — Is the energy supply constant?
The sun doesn’t shine at night, and the wind does not blow for long periods. We need a system of energy that is reliable, or the power grids start to fail. How do we adapt to the intermittent nature of renewable energy sources? What backup energy mechanisms are there? How expensive is this, and how do we adapt society to live in the new realities of more expensive energy?"
http://eclipsenow.org/facts/service-checklist.html
No working alternative energy pass that test.
You need to know the EPR and ERoEI of alternative energy. None of them compares as good as oil.
http://eclipsenow.org/facts/alternateenergy.html
7 questions you need to ask about alternatives:
http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/w ... tions.html
Thorough information about the limits of alternative energy.
http://socialwork.arts.unsw.edu.au/tsw/ ... NERGY.html
Another sites worth looking into :
http://wolf.readinglitho.co.uk/subpages/renewables.html
http://www.hubbertpeak.com/youngquist/altenergy.htm
http://lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/SecondPage.html
"Q: We'll simply develop alternative sources of energy to keep the economy going. This won't be so difficult, will it?
A: Oil is the most concentrated and convenient source of energy available to us. It is high quality energy that burns hotter than coal and wood. Energy from oil and other fossil fuels is not susceptible to the vagaries of weather in the way that energy generated from wind and photovoltaic panels is.
Alternative sources of energy are often used to make electricity, and the energy density of batteries to store the energy does not compare with the energy density of oil. (Batteries provide hundreds of watt-hours per kilogram at best compared to 13,500 Wh/kg for gasoline.) This means that it will take more weight in batteries to do the same work as a certain amount of oil.
Alternatives can provide energy, but not in the amount it takes to satisfy the growing consumption of global industrial society. This means that it will be impossible to maintain the same level of energy use we currently have. "
http://www.communitysolution.org/peakqanda.html
"It is possible to shift a modern economy off hydrocarbon dependency, though a combination of conservation technologies, renewables, changes in patterns of logistics, and other measures. However it has been calculated that a change of this magnitude requires long-term planning and incremental application over a period of some half century."
http://www.oildepletion.org/roger/Solut ... utions.htm
Fission:
Umm, fission is the technology that is promising. I can't find any disadvantages with it.
Fusion:
"The inventors of the device emphasize that it cannot generate power because it does not support a self-sustaining thermonuclear reaction."
http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/apr2005/2005-04-28-03.asp
It has not yet proven that it works.
A tritium leak:
http://www.ccnr.org/tritium_1.html
The first operational commercial fusion reactor is 2050. Unfortunately, we're not going to have a year called 2050 because:
Earth 'will expire by 2050'
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/internat ... 83,00.html
Biofuel:
"To run our cars and buses and lorries on biodiesel, in other words, would require 25.9m hectares. There are 5.7m in the UK. Even the EU's more modest target of 20% by 2020 would consume almost all our cropland.
If the same thing is to happen all over Europe, the impact on global food supply will be catastrophic: big enough to tip the global balance from net surplus to net deficit. If, as some environmentalists demand, it is to happen worldwide, then most of the arable surface of the planet will be deployed to produce food for cars, not people. "
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1357370,00.html
Even if we import it, it will increase deforestation.
"Forests paying the price for biofuels"
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns? ... 825265.400
Deforestation increases carbon dioxide emissions.
" Irrigation of farm land also increases the sodium, calcium, and magnesium in the soil. This process steadily concentrates salt in the ground, decreasing productivity for crops that are not salt-tolerant."
http://www.answers.com/topic/arable-land
bioenergy production can have potential negative environmental impacts such as acidification, eutrophication or summer smog. The production of energy crops can also have negative impacts due to the agricultural methods used.
http://www.panda.org/about_wwf/what_we_ ... /index.cfm
Ethanol:
"Study: Ethanol Production Consumes Six Units Of Energy To Produce Just One"
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/03/050329132436.htm
Without fertilizers/pesticides, agriculture will suffer.
Genetically modified foods:
"Some fear that certain types of genetically engineered crops will further reduce biodiversity in the cropland; herbicide-tolerant crops will for example be treated with the relevant herbicide to the extent that there are no wild plants ('weeds') able to survive, and plants toxic to insects will mean insect-free crops. This could result in declines in other wildlife (e.g. birds) which depend on weed seeds and/or insects for food resources. The recent (2003) farm scale studies in the UK found this to be the case with GM sugar beet and GM rapeseed, but not with GM maize (though in the last instance, the non-GM comparison maize crop had also been treated with environmentally-damaging pesticides subsequently (2004) withdrawn from use in the EU)."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_engineering
Hydrogen fuel cell:
" If we were to build a similar infrastructure to deliver hydrogen it would cost $200 trillion."
http://www.energypulse.net/centers/article/article_display.cfm?a_id=940
Wind:
"A single 555-megawatt gas-fired power plant in California generates more electricity in a year than do all 13,000 of the state’s wind turbines"
http://canadafreepress.com/2005/driessen012905.htm
"Wind power not all pleasant breezes"
http://www.energybulletin.net/3125.html
Solar:
"If you want to gather enough solar energy to replace the fossil fuel that we’re burning today—and remember we’re going to need more fossil fuel in the future- using current technology, then you would have to cover something like 220,000 square kilometers with solar cells."
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4287300/
Wave:
"there are only five states with good tidal flows and maybe eight states with good waves" "Waves are powered by winds and uneven solar heating, he says, and wave energy works best in ocean depths of at least 50 meters, before waves lose energy to the friction of a shallow sea bottom."
http://pubs.acs.org/cen/coverstory/8240/8240energy.html
Geothermal:
"While this appears to be an exciting breakthrough, we must remember that so far very little electricity has been provided by this form of geothermal heat, and even if successful, it will probably be decades before it is contributing significantly to the world grid."
http://www.smh.com.au/news/environment/the-power-beneath-our-feet/2005/09/26/1127586753959.html
Nanotechnology:
"A Nobel Prize-winning chemist says the impending world energy shortage requires several miracles of science that nanotechnology can help to deliver."
http://www.alternet.org/envirohealth/19812/
"Economic disruption from an abundance of cheap products
Economic oppression from artificially inflated prices
Personal risk from criminal or terrorist use
Personal or social risk from abusive restrictions
Social disruption from new products/lifestyles
Unstable arms race
Collective environmental damage from unregulated products
Free-range self-replicators (gray goo) — downgraded as a risk factor
Black market in nanotech (increases other risks)
Competing nanotech programs (increases other risks)
Attempted relinquishment (increases other risks)"
http://www.crnano.org/dangers.htm#economy
"Nanotubes Highly Toxic"
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/nanotubestoxic.php
Hydropower:
"Hydroelectric power's dirty secret revealed"
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn7046
OTEC:
"Such a small temperature difference makes energy extraction difficult and expensive. Hence typically OTEC systems have an overall efficiency of only 1 to 3 percent."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_thermal_energy_conversion
Tidal power:
"The change in water level and possible flooding would affect the vegetation around the coast, having an impact on the aquatic and shoreline ecosystems. The quality of the water in the basin or estuary would also be affected, the sediment levels would change, affecting the turbidity of the water and therefore affecting the animals that live in it and depend upon it such as fish and birds. Fish would undoubtedly be affected unless provision was made for them to pass through the barrage without being killed by turbines. All these changes would affect the types of birds that are in the area, as they will migrate to other areas with more favourable conditions for them."
http://www.esru.strath.ac.uk/EandE/Web_sites/01-02/RE_info/Tidal%20Power.htm
Carbon Sequestration:
The earth's core can heat the carbon liquid and then the carbon can slowly escape to the atmosphere.
Turn CO2 to Stone:
Requires the burning of fossil fuels which is running out.
Fertilize the ocean:
Plankton blooms could absorb all oxygen and nutrients from the ocean.
Filter CO2 from the air:
Requires the burning of fossil fuels.
Enhance Clouds to Reflect Sunlight:
It will increase droughts.
Deflect Sunlight With A Mirror:
Plants can't survive with less sunlight.
http://www.popsci.com/popsci/aviationsp ... crd/4.html
Thermal_depolymerization:
most of the waste input (such as plastics and tires) requires high grade oil to make in the first place.
http://www.spinninglobe.net/crash.htm
Also, since the method is to turn waste into oil and gas, you will still use oil and gas. It's not an alternative to oil and gas. If you continue to use oil and gas, carbon emissions will continue to go up.
All alternative fuels only supplies electricity. Fossil fuels offers plastics, fertilizers, artificial rubber, coke for metal extraction, and pesticides.
Graph taken from:
http://www.uic.com.au/opinion6.html
Chart taken from:
http://www.umich.edu/~gs265/society/nuclear.htm
Renewables do emit more CO2 than nuclear (non-renewable).
Now for storage of energy
using hydrogen:
"Recently, there have also been some concerns over possible problems related to hydrogen gas leakage. One issue, which may become more important as hydrogen usage becomes more widespread, is permanent hydrogen loss. Molecular hydrogen is light enough to escape into space. It has been hypothesized that if significant amounts of hydrogen gas (H2) escape, this may eventually cause an abundance of oxygen and a lack of water. However, it would take a lot of leakage to engender an appreciable and permanent loss-related effect. Alternately, hydrogen gas may form water vapor as it reacts with oxygen and cool, or, due to ultraviolet radiation, form free radicals (H) in the stratosphere. These free radicals would then be able to act as catalysts for ozone depletion. A large enough increase in stratospheric hydrogen from leaked H2 could exacerbate the depletion process."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_economy#Electrolysis
Also, the ocean acts as a reservoir of CO2. Less water will lead to more CO2 in the atmosphere. Plus, water vapour is also a greenhouse gas. Increased water vapour increases the intensity of storms. Now, you also have the problem of excess oxygen. Breathe in higher concentrations of oxygen will expand and blow up the brain. 100% oxygen is also highly flammable.
" Researchers from the University of Warwick have produced a startling calculation that any move to replace the UK’s oil burning vehicles with greener hydrogen powered cars and trucks would require the erection of 100,000 new wind turbines or 100 new nuclear power plants."
http://www.physorg.com/news1471.html
Using batteries:
"There are severe limitations of the storage batteries involved. For example, a gallon of gasoline weighing about 8 pounds has the same energy as one ton of conventional lead-acid storage batteries. Fifteen gallons of gasoline in a car's tank are the energy equal of 15 tons of storage batteries. Even if much improved storage batteries were devised, they cannot compete with gasoline or diesel fuel in energy density. Also, storage batteries become almost useless in very cold weather, storage capacity is limited, and batteries need to be replaced after a few years use at large cost. There is no battery pack which can effectively move heavy farm machinery over miles of farm fields, and no electric battery system seems even remotely able to propel a Boeing 747 14 hours nonstop at 600 miles an hour from New York to Cape Town (now the longest scheduled plane flight). Also, the considerable additional weight to any vehicle using batteries is a severe handicap in itself.
In transport machines, electricity is not a good replacement for oil (Jensen and Sorensen, 1984). This is a limitation in the use of alternative sources have where electricity is the end product."
http://www.hubbertpeak.com/youngquist/altenergy.htm
Although electric cars like tzero has proven to work with personal transportation, note the amount of raw materials needed to build cars from scratch for massive large scale distribution.
Raw materials needed for alternative energies are depleting:
Copper:
http://www.kitcometals.com/commentaries ... 2004p.html
Lead:
http://www.kitcometals.com/commentaries ... 12004.html
Helium:
http://pubs.acs.org/isubscribe/journals ... 6chem.html
Silicon:
http://www.wired.com/news/planet/0,2782 ... ry_related
Phosphorus and potassium:
And stocks of important minerals, such as phosphorus and potassium, are quickly approaching exhaustion.38"
http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/w ... g_oil.html
Platinum:
http://www.theminingnews.org/news.cfm?newsID=800
rhenium:
"There are limited applications of rhenium due to its shortage and the high cost of production."
http://www.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca/education/ele ... /re_e.html
Most metals:
http://www.purchasing.com/article/CA436066.html
http://www.tdctrade.com/report/mkt/mkt_041102.htm
http://www.nealloys.com/pdfs/InsiderOct0405.pdf
Also, the materials from landfills will be lossed too:
"they permanently remove various raw materials from economic use. All of the energy and natural resources (such as water) that were used to produce the items "wasted" are lost."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landfill
Now, for depletion of renewable resources:
Trees:
If deforestation continues at its current rate, the world's tropical rainforests will be wiped out within 40 years.
http://travel.howstuffworks.com/rainforest5.htm
Arable land:
http://dieoff.org/page40.htm
Fresh water:
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/hea ... 825281.500
Species:
http://www.well.com/user/davidu/extinction.html
Because the development of alternative energies need fossil fuels to extract and transport raw materials, they will be more expensive.
How do I know they need fossil fuels?
"use some of the world's remaining fossil fuel reserves as an investment in renewable energy infrastructure such as wind power, solar power, tidal power, geothermal power, hydropower, thermal depolymerization and biodiesel "
http://www.unexplainable.net/artman/pub ... 1589.shtml
"Critics argue that if conventional oil and natural gas become more expensive, alternative energy source development and increased technological efficiency research will become more expensive to the same degree."
http://www.unexplainable.net/artman/pub ... 1589.shtml
"People tend to think of alternatives to oil as somehow independent from oil. In reality, the alternatives to oil are more accurately described as "derivatives of oil." It takes massive amounts of oil and other scarce resources to locate and mine the raw materials (silver, copper, platinum, uranium, etc.) necessary to build solar panels, windmills, and nuclear power plants. It takes more oil to construct these alternatives and even more oil to distribute them, maintain them, and adapt current infrastructure to run on them."
http://lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/SecondPage.html
"the fact that the components require substantial amounts of energy to manufacture and the probability that they can't be manufactured at all without the underlying support platform of a fossil-fuel economy."
http://www.informationclearinghouse.inf ... le8380.htm
"Phosphorus Is currently mined using oil." "Potassium is currently mined using oil."
http://www.eclipsenow.org/facts/consequences.html
Experts say we're about to run out of oil. But we're nowhere near having another technology ready to take its place.
http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature ... 0_401.html
"A prominent physicist warns in a new book that the world is running out of oil and we’re not doing anything to stave off the coming crisis"
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4287300/
""What people need to hear loud and clear is that we're running out of energy in America," said Bush in May 2001. "We can do a better job in conservation, but we darn sure have to do a better job of finding more supply." He added, "We can't conserve our way to energy independence."
http://www.reason.com/rb/rb072104.shtml
Oil production could peak next year:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/feature/ ... 50,00.html
"The chief economist of Morgan Stanley recently predicted that we have a 90 percent chance of facing “economic Armageddon.”
http://www.airliners.net/articles/read.main?id=81
"So who are these nay-sayers who claim the sky is falling? Conspiracy fanatics? Apocalypse Bible prophesy readers? To the contrary, they are some of the most respected, highest paid geologists and experts in the world. And this is what's so scary."
http://www.silverbearcafe.com/private/peak_oil.html
"alternative energies are simply not capable to replace fossil fuels at the scale, rate and manner at which the world currently consumes them. The public, business leaders and politicians are all under the false assumption that oil depletion is a straightforward engineering problem, but humankind’s ingenuity is unlikely to overcome the basic facts of geology and physics. Fossil fuels allow us to operate highly complex systems at gigantic scales. Renewables are simply incompatible in this context and the new fuels and technologies required would take a lot more time to develop than available and require an abundant fossil fuel platform from which to work.
http://www.airliners.net/articles/read.main?id=81
"In 1992, both the US National Academy of Sciences and the Royal Society of London warned in a joint statement that science and technology may NOT be able to save us:
"If current predictions of population growth prove accurate and patterns of human activity on the planet remain unchanged, science and technology may not be able to prevent either irreversible degradation of the environment or continued poverty for much of the world."
"The future of our planet is in the balance. Sustainable development can be achieved, but only if irreversible degradation of the environment can be halted in time. The next 30 years may be crucial."
Never before in history had the two most prestigious groups of scientists in the world issued a joint statement!"
http://www.eclipsenow.org/facts/Humanity-stressed.html
About global warming:
"Thousands March in World Cities for Action on Climate Change"
http://www.livescience.com/environment/ ... hange.html
"In 1995, 2,500 climate scientists serving on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change issued a new statement on the prospect of forthcoming catastrophe. Never before had the IPCC (called into existence in 1988) come to so unambiguous a conclusion. Always in years past there had been people saying that we didn't yet know enough, or that the evidence was problematical, or our system of computer simulation was subject to too many uncertainties. Not this year. The panel flatly nnounced that the earth had entered a period of climatic instability likely to cause "widespread economic, social and environmental dislocation over the next century." The continuing emission of greenhouse gases would create protracted, crop-destroying droughts in continental interiors, a host of new and recurring diseases, hurricanes of extraordinary malevolence, and rising sea levels that could inundate island nations and low-lying coastal rims on the continents."
http://www.eclipsenow.org/facts/Humanity-stressed.html
I think Peak Oil will eventally solve global warming since after peak oil, people will not consume as much.
I haven't mentioned hydrocarbon alternatives (hybrid, tar sands, coal, natural gas, oil shale, methane hydrates) because generally, they all will worsen global warming. Also, they are non-renewable; they will eventually peak too.
"But the total production of all hydrocarbons (oil plus gas, both conventional and non-conventional) is likely to peak fairly soon, probably around 2015."
http://www.oildepletion.org/roger/index.htm
Natural gas is likely to peak a decade after oil peaks. Coal is expected to peak by 2035 if we use kerosene as an alternative. Take a look at this graph:
Graph taken from:
http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/w ... _peak.html
If you look at this site below:
http://www.uwsp.edu/geo/courses/geog100 ... nkNetE.htm
you will understand that the remaining conventional oil reserves simply cannot be harnessed because the EPR of oil will be negative.
In short, technology won't help us through the aftermath of peak oil. This also includes any new technology whether promising or not.
Worse, we are running out of time to develop alternatives:
"World Running Out of Time for Oil Alternatives"
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0818-04.htm
IMPORTANT: This does not mean that we should stop developing alternative energies. We should continue to develop them until we can't (when it's too expensive or the resources to build them runs out) because they do have the ability to generate electricity. My point is that they will not help peak oil because they can't be implemented on a large scale.