[Bandidoz]

I too would like to know how Duncan is monitoring current events against his theory. Richard Heinberg mentions him in "The Party's Over" as "watching his theory play out".

I don't believe his prediction is "permanent blackouts" in 2007/2012. Rather, 2007/2012 signal the beginning of the end of 24/7 mains electricity, with a progression towards more time off than on towards 2030 after which they would then be permanent. Thus in a way he is defining "the end of industrial civilisation" as "permanent blackouts on electricity grids".

As I've said elsewhere, well-run electricity grids are able to cater for insufficient supply by means of rationing ("load shedding"), so I don't believe there will be collapsed grids and permanent blackouts as such. More like "the end of 24/7 electricity for everyone" in industrialised nations. I don't know whether or not Duncan would want to define "the end of industrial civilisation" in such terms.

[oowolf]

the latest I can find:
http://www.energybulletin.net/3294.html
bunker-time

[advancedatheist]

link

Are we re-entering the dark ages? Tue 19 Apr 2005 by JOHN BOWKER
SENIOR CITY CORRESPONDENT:

ENERGY is one talking point Labour is hoping will not rear its head during the next couple of weeks. A full-blown power failure would be a disaster for the government’s credibility - and with it the chances of an historic third term.

Like the MG Rover debacle, blackouts similar to those in the United States, Italy and the UK two years ago would be yet another example of complacency by this government. It might be why we are heading for the ballots in May; having negotiated the winter months, a spring election should make it easy to keep the lights on.

However, a report just out from PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) says we are about to be plunged into darkness again - and not just in the UK. Worldwide, populations are suffering from poor levels of energy investment and ageing power plants. The research calculates that about $12.7 trillion (£6.7tn) of investment, greater than the entire US annual economic output, is understood to be needed globally to meet an expected doubling in electricity consumption through 2030. That total raises the bar above the estimated $10tn electricity spend agreed by the International Energy Agency (IEA) for the same period.

"Blackouts are expected to become more frequent," the report damningly concludes. "Two-thirds of utility respondents believe the likelihood of blackouts will increase or remain the same, while only a quarter think it will reduce." The findings are based on a survey of 119 investors and utilities executives in 36 countries.

[MicroHydro]

"The research calculates that about $12.7 trillion (£6.7tn) of investment, greater than the entire US annual economic output, is understood to be needed globally to meet an expected doubling in electricity consumption through 2030."

This is not a peak oil comment so much as a complaint of under investment in energy infrastructure. I do not see any way that global electricity generation could double by 2030. If it does happen, it will be due to massive coal burning and a horrendous carbon release.

[Sys1]

We could do so much by just avoiding energy waste. What's the interesting of lighting an empty 100 stairs skyscrapper during the whole night?
Why not using vast windows instead of electrical radiators?
Why wasting so much in air conditionner (20°C inside a building while 45°C outside, it's really nonsense) ?
Last but not least, why building vast cities in the middle of a desert or near the north pole?

[linlithgowoil]

people waste stuff because they can i suppose. why would you tighten your belt and live cheaply if you had £500 million in the bank? its the same with energy. if its cheap, people waste it. isnt it the same with everything that is cheap?

it isnt our fault that we waste energy, it isnt really anybody's fault when you think about it.

[OverABarrel]

This is what I was trying to send to Richard But it seems that
he is no longer at [email protected] If anyone knows where it can be contacted...

************************************************************

I've come across your paper as found on http://hubbertpeak.com/duncan/road2olduvai.pdf
and read it with a lot of interest (and a lot of thrill coming down my
spine). I'm quite new in those subjects of resource depletion and
population overshoot but I think I understand pretty well the subject
now and I'm getting quite close to the conclusions of many Peak oil
advocates.

Your paper is one of the direst I could ever read on the
subject. It doesn't give any light of hope for our near future as a
civilization.

So dire that I decided to check some numbers by myself and this is
where I've got some problems.

Unfortunately, I couldn't find the BP statistical report
BP statistical review of world energy (1968-2000) online so I used
their current one which is the Statistical review of World Energy 2004
that can be found on http://www.bp.com/sectiongenericarticle ... Id=2018340

On page 37, there is historical data on Word Primary Energy
consumption from 1993 to 2003

As there is no "Per capita" historical data I took also the following data for the
World Population : http://www.geohive.com/global/geo.php?x ... &xsl=hist3

doing the math, it appears that there's an increase in Energy per
capita from 1993 to 2003 which contradicts the theory. Value for 2003
is also surpassing previous 1979 peak ! :

1993 :
8206.2 millions tons oil equivalent
5531001812 people
= 10.87 boe/c/year

1995 :
8533.5
5690865776
= 10.99 boe/c/year

1997 :
8864.0
5846804802
= 11.11 boe/c/year

2000 :
9059.5
6080141683
= 10.9 boe/c/year

2001 :
9156.3
6157400560
= 10.9 boe/c/year

2002 :
9464.5
6234250387
= 11.1 boe/c/year (1,83 % increase/2001)

2003 :
9741.1
6310549597
= 11.31 boe/c/year (1.89 % increase/2002 and value surpassing 1979 11,15 "peak")

I know that the time span is probably not sufficient to make any firm
conclusion on what's happening but it probably deserves some thinking
about.

It's also not clear to me what chain of events will really provoke the
permanent failure of the Electric grid. It looks to me that this is a
possible scenario for our centralized energy production scheme. But
what if we are able to build a decentralized/Meshed/localized grid
based mostly on renewable energy ? Wishful thinking ?

Best regards

[Stoic]

Hmmmm. That's interesting. Maybe that's why he's disappeared.

[Antimatter]

Interesting. I suspected that would be the case with the rapid energy use increase in china especially in recent years. Here's a snippit from his 1996 paper:

By 1996, however, I had successfully tested the Olduvai theory against numerous sets of data. Four of these tests are graphed in Figure 2. The following facts emerge.

1. On the average, world per capita energy-use reached a maximum value (i.e., a peak) in 1977.
2. The 1977-1995 rate of decline has averaged 0.90% per year.
3. Per capita energy-use will continue to decline as long as the world population growth rate exceeds the energy growth rate.
4. If the decline continues (and extinction is avoided), human societies will bottom out at the subsistence level of energy-use.

The Olduvai theory explains the Figure 2 data, but the exponential-growth theory (of mainstream economics) and the steady-state theory both fail.

The Olduvai theory cannot be overthrown (i.e., scientifically rejected) by outrage or indignation. However, it can be overthrown by either, (1) demonstrating that the four sets of data in Figure 2 are in error, or (2) by gathering additional data over the next few decades and demonstrating that the Olduvai theory cannot explain that data. In any case, the data will be the final arbiter.

http://www.dieoff.org/page125.htm

[OverABarrel]

One thing is also missing in Duncan's theory when it deals with evolution of Energy per Capita : Evolution of Energy Efficiency.

Statistics are there to prove that Energy efficiency measured in terms of Energy consumption per dollar of GDP has improved steadily over the years. See for example this chart : http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/25opec/sld022.htm

What does that means ? It means that even if "in volume" Energy consumption decreases, that decrease can be balanced by better energy utilization which at the end is what matters the most.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not an advocate of "Business as usual". Energy efficiency won't go up indefinitely and there are big disparities between countries (Developped vs Developping) but that parameter is important for one to comprehend the big picture.

[OverABarrel]

More data on the subject : This one from an official source

E.1c World Per Capita Total Primary Energy Consumption,1980-2002

http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/internationa ... blee1c.xls

Look at the bottom of the spreadsheet. Rather a "steady state" evolution of Energy consumption per Capita !

[BlisteredWhippet]

One thing is also missing in Duncan's theory when it deals with evolution of Energy per Capita : Evolution of Energy Efficiency.

Statistics are there to prove that Energy efficiency measured in terms of Energy consumption per dollar of GDP has improved steadily over the years. See for example this chart : http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/25opec/sld022.htm

What does that means ? It means that even if "in volume" Energy consumption decreases, that decrease can be balanced by better energy utilization which at the end is what matters the most.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not an advocate of "Business as usual". Energy efficiency won't go up indefinitely and there are big disparities between countries (Developped vs Developping) but that parameter is important for one to comprehend the big picture.

All other things being equal- a big "if", then what it means is the U.S. is meeting its own capacity for generation. The trend, currently, is NOT better energy utilization at the end- more users, more energy uses.

Will the U.S. force the UL to codify conservation into designs? The Internet continues to grow and consume ever more amounts of electricty. Population is increasing and with it the need for cheap energy. When the world catches up to the U.S. we will have to compete with the whole world. If Electricity is generated by Natural Gas we are already unsustainable. We would have to bring back Nuclear at an incredible rate, and I mean incredible.

At one point in this whole adventure, the Neocons are going to propose that step. And when that happens- if the Neocons are still in control- we will all be in a world of shit. We will have to work through a depression to erect nuclear power plants from one end of the country to the other. We will have to create our 100-year plan for Coal. We will have to ride bicycles for a while.

The nation's "guiding hands" will now ask us to pour more money and time into reworking the infrastructure, ironically, from the ground floor- the roads. Then, we'll see a Neocon version of the WPA (call it a private multinational corporation) to build all these plants. At some point the military will be hollowed out to supply the civilian administrative branches of local developers. This time, the federal government will not fund the program, it will be a private, possibly public company- (but employ oversight through a "security" branch like the OHS).

Basically, the guys in the white house are one guy who wins elections and one guy who runs energy companies.

The Gulf Wars are showing that remote military action just isn't cost-effective. Why should we fight for oil? If its not going to happen in Iraq, we have no alternative plan. Therefore the next neocon president will have to push coal and nuclear. People will have to choose whether or not they want a "nuclear" future- until something else can be found.

[BlisteredWhippet]

The ancient Chinese philosophical symbol yin-yang represents the understanding of the workings of the universe. This image may be illustrative as we think about the cycling of global crude oil inventories from region to region.

So far this year, oil demand growth has remained strong globally, with China and the United States vying for petroleum supplies. China’s demand growth has accelerated over the past two years, stretching OPEC production to near capacity levels, given that non-OPEC sources are pumping at capacity, if not nearing their peak.

With low spare capacity, the global supply chain is struggling to meet all needs evenly, resulting in a cycling of tightness from region to region, as price differentials attract imports into one area and out of another. As prices fall in the well-supplied area and rise in the less well-supplied area, the pattern is reversed and imports flow in another direction.

http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/oog/info/twip/twip.asp

Just more evidence the "peak" is now- the next 2-3 years. This is from the DOE guys, who must be looking at their spreadsheets and shaking their heads, "Boy, were WE wrong about the ability of industry to discover and bring new oil supplies to market!!" TWIP

[Liamj]

I'd like to think the US DOE ppl WERE looking at their stats and ruefully shaking their heads at their errors. More likely tho is that they're looking at the stats and wondering whats wrong with the world, where the error in reporting is occurring, or else marvelling at the continued timidity of JohnQCitizen (thats us).

If they were genuine they would've admitted their grevious error by now, 4? years since reality hasn't met their projections of 2000. I'd say theres just enough truth in them to make fraud/malpractice prosecution difficult, and the rest is beautiful lies.

[linlithgowoil]

i want to know how they can stand by their 2000 report which, as far as i can tell, came to the conclusion that demand would be met with supply for ever more.

i dont get how qualified geolgists can come to that conclusion. i think everyone agrees that you have to find oil before you extract it, so how do they explain the decline in oil finds since the 1960's? If we wanted to meet the projections of increasing supply forever, surely we'd actually have to find MORE oil every year - year on year, forever also.

i wonder how they are going to explain their report to government? if peak is 2005-2008 (plateau then decline after 2008), then the USGS report is around 30 years out. That is a horrendous estimate. It does just seem as if they picked the good old '30-40 years of oil left at current consumption' line peddled by the likes of Lord Browne of BP and fluffed it up into a big report. Its a report whose conclusion was likely decided first (business as usual), and the rest was written to get to that conclusion.

[Leanan]

I think they are well aware of the truth. Individual geologists at the USGS have come out and said that the "official" estimate is completely whacked, and that Simmons, Campbell, etc., are right. But the organization's "official" position is that we have decades to go before peak. I think most engineers and scientists know how to "back into" estimates. Your teacher tells you what the answer should be, and you massage the numbers and make it fit. Or you boss tells you what the cost of a project should be, and you tweak the numbers until you reach it. I suspect that's what's going on at our government agencies. They know there's a difference between the right answer and the politically expedient answer, and if they want to keep their jobs, they stick with the political answer.

[Ayoob_Reloaded]

Seriously guys, we are at the Apex of humanity right now. This is it. This is the best things will ever be for you and all your shaved-ape neighbors. We are as cordial with each other, we are as rich, we are as fat and happy, as humanity has ever been or will ever be.

I have had the experience of walking around a major city with $1000 in my pocket, and the freedom to do as I chose with it. I appreciate just how rare that experience is in the world.

And I realize that I may have that experience again, but I better have it fairly soon.

No joke. This is the top of things. If you live in Europe or North America, you live in the biggest Athens there will ever be. Walk into a library and just wonder in awe at the collected wisdom on the shelves all around us, and know that millions of children are being raised by Pokemon cartoons. There is so much within our grasp, and rather than studying the philosophy of Aristotle or the mechanics of biology, we focus our collective energies on Tom Cruise's dick and how it may/may not cross the Tropic of Capricorn on some little hottie's personal globe.

From this day forward, and for the rest of our lives, our abilities and aspirations are necessarily cut down like winter wheat. This is the decline of humanity and the rise of the cockroaches and sharks.

Tonight, I have decided to post a list of three books that every peak oil person should read IMO. I decided to read them to recognize the behaviors described within and to avoid people who manifest their secrets. Maybe I should have been practicing their dark arts. We shall see... we shall see.

1. The Prince, by Machiavelli.
2. The Art of War, by Sun Tzu and Pin Tzu. Even the slimmest volume that goes by this title is worth its weight in gold.
3. The 48 Laws of Power, by Robert Greene.

The way down is the antithesis of the way up.

[jato]

Art of War:

2. When you engage in actual fighting, if victory
is long in coming, then men's weapons will grow dull and
their ardor will be damped. If you lay siege to a town,
you will exhaust your strength.
3. Again, if the campaign is protracted, the resources
of the State will not be equal to the strain.

4. Now, when your weapons are dulled, your ardor damped,
your strength exhausted and your treasure spent,
other chieftains will spring up to take advantage
of your extremity. Then no man, however wise,
will be able to avert the consequences that must ensue.

5. Thus, though we have heard of stupid haste in war,
cleverness has never been seen associated with long delays.

6. There is no instance of a country having benefited
from prolonged warfare.


Iraq?

[Zentric]

What, no Orwell?

I read the Prince in high school. A fairly ruthless prick he was. I've read the art of war and it so happens I do have it in the tiniest hand book. Both extremely relevant in our time. I'm totally unfamiliar with the 48 Laws of Power, though it sounds just as cheery in any case.

About your pointing out how we are about to go over the falls in a barrel, I'm not myself convinced that we have even a barrel to break our fall. But you have alerted me now to take careful notice of things, just before they change forever.

You're a downer, man.

jato: you just inspired to consult my Sun Tzu.

[Ayoob_Reloaded]

Art of War:

2. When you engage in actual fighting, if victory
is long in coming, then men's weapons will grow dull and
their ardor will be damped. If you lay siege to a town,
you will exhaust your strength.
3. Again, if the campaign is protracted, the resources
of the State will not be equal to the strain.

4. Now, when your weapons are dulled, your ardor damped,
your strength exhausted and your treasure spent,
other chieftains will spring up to take advantage
of your extremity. Then no man, however wise,
will be able to avert the consequences that must ensue.

5. Thus, though we have heard of stupid haste in war,
cleverness has never been seen associated with long delays.

6. There is no instance of a country having benefited
from prolonged warfare.


Iraq?

18. All warfare is based on deception.

19. Hence, when able to attack, we must seem unable; when using our forces, we must seem inactive; when we are near, we must make the enemy believe we are far away; when far away, we must make him believe we are near.

20. Hold out baits to entice the enemy. Feign disorder, and crush him.

21. If he is secure at all points, be prepared for him. If he is in superior strength, evade him.

22. If your opponent is of choleric temper, seek to irritate him. Pretend to be weak, that he may grow arrogant.

23. If he is taking his ease, give him no rest. If his forces are united, separate them.

24. Attack him where he is unprepared, appear where you are not expected.

25. These military devices, leading to victory, must not be divulged beforehand.

26. Now the general who wins a battle makes many calculations in his temple ere the battle is fought. The general who loses a battle makes but few calculations beforehand. Thus do many calculations lead to victory, and few calculations to defeat: how much more no calculation at all! It is by attention to this point that I can foresee who is likely to win or lose.

Which side uses the Art of War?