[spot5050]

We are staggeringly inefficient in our use of oil. Transport, heating and cooling of buildings can all be done less wastefully.
Given that it's been speculated that oil production will decline at about 2% per anum after peak, has anyone tried to estimate how much of that 2% will be offset by efficiency improvements driven by higher oil prices?
If we can be 1.99% more efficient per year, it puts rather a different spin on the whole thing.
(Hello btw, I'm a new poster here.)

[nocar]

Thank you, Spot5050, that is what I think. We will be fine for quite a while.
Also we throw away lots of food, and cut of the fat, and only eat the choicest parts of animals anyway. People used to eat tongues, hearts, livers, kidneys, marrow, etc. So it will be a while before we starve.

[Tyler_JC]

I think we can increase efficiency by about 20-30%. After that, the increase in efficiency won't balance out the energy investment.
Here's the main problem, our economy won't survive that kind of change. If people bought less stuff, someone would be out of a job. If we drove less and bought fewer cars, GM and Ford would be hurting. Motel 6 and Holiday Inn need wasted travel to stay in the black. The stock market can't handle a decrease of any kind without a violent downward swing.

We may survive, but the economy may not. If the economy crashes, so would investments in efficiency. That's the basis of the fast crash scenario.
Also, oil production will hit a plateau. I think we may try to keep it there for as long as possible. The only way to do this is to damage existing wells with water injection and other methods. We may fall off of a production cliff when several large reserves finally give out.
Finally, will Exxon be able to raise the billions needed to build new wells if XOM drops to 58 cents a share?

[spot5050]

>our economy won't survive that kind of change. If people bought less stuff, someone would be out of a job.
I take your point tyler, yes expensive oil destroys jobs, but obviously the search for efficient use of energy would create some jobs thereby offsetting some of the pain.
Hi nocar, do you know of anyone who has tried to quantify an efficiency offset?

[julianj]

Amory Lovins
Winning the Oil Endgame postulates Poweringdown the US, saving 50%+ oil.
Free book download:
Winning the Oil Endgame
I think there are several flaws in this idea, but its a whole Ghawar more positive than the current policy.

[spot5050]

Thanks for the link. I've read the summary and it sounds interesting, but it does sound rather "managed". The world doesn't work in that cooperative way. The last line of the summary says "Together we can end oil dependence forever". Hmmm.

People are selfish and countries act to further their own selfish interests, not cooperatively.

I don't mean to sound like i'm not grateful for the link, it was interesting, just not what i'm looking for.

[0mar]

Adaption for millions does not mean survival for billions.
Current society is unsustainable. Peak oil just happens to be the first of a host of problems that is set to culminate soon. Peak [___] will follow if we solve peak oil.

[spot5050]

Hi omar,

sorry to be blunt but this thread is about efficiency and how that affects depletion. It's not a general thread about peak [____].

[nocar]

Hi Spot, there is research group named Environmental Strategies Research Group attached to Stockholm Environmental Institute and Stockholm University that has done work along these lines. You can probably contact them through [email protected].

[Brandy]

I think the Economy will survive if we became a little smarter and energy efficient. Europe is a lot more energy efficient, and they manage quite well. It means that big companies have to start thinking in different ways. Companies adapt, those who don't go down, and others will grow. It's dynamic. A permanent oil proce of 60 dollars pr. barrel will force industry to consider what to do in order to stay in business.