« Do Kick the Elephant | Main | The Evolutionary Advantages of Nearsightedness »
June 20, 2005
In Sum, PO in a Nutshell
If you didn't catch it, read my intro post below. There's also some links in there to primers, etc.
This post, however, will be an attempt to sum up a pretty complex topic.
Hubbert's Peak is reached when demand for oil exceeds production and supply.
Let's be clear, peak oil is not about running out of oil. However, there is a finite amount of oil in the earth. At some point, we will have taken half of it. That is Hubbert's Peak.
So, peak oil is about the end of cheap oil. Cheap oil has bred a lifestyle of convenience and excess, especially in America that is going to be difficult to maintain once the supply begins to shrink and will perhaps worsen the already growing class divide that exists in the United States.
The less oil there is available, the more expensive and treasured it will be. Competition, if not war, over resources is likely.
Combine this idea with increasing demand from modernizing countries like China and India, and you have the recipe for disaster. I am reminded of a quote:
"A third of humanity doesn't want to ride bikes anymore; that has profound geopolitical implications."
--Anne Korin, the co-director of the Institute for the Analysis of Global Security (May 1, 2005)
Every geologist, except those who subscribe to the abiotic oil premise (that the Earth generates oil as if it were blood), subscribes to the notion of peak oil. The real question is just when peak oil will occur.
Some believe that it may have already happened. The problem is that there is no way to know for sure until well after the peak has happened. Why? Because oil reserves are some of the best-kept secrets in the world.
Kenneth Deffeyes, author of Beyond Oil, as well as most of us over at The Oil Drum, believe the empirical evidence shows that the peak will occur sometime towards the end of this year.
The "realists," including international energy financiers such as Matt Simmons believe that Peak Oil will occur in the next couple of years.
The unrealists, especially politicians and the USGS, talk about Peak Oil being 20 to 50 years away.
So to recap – peak oil is going to occur; that is agreed. When it will occur, can’t be proved until we are actually on the downhill slope of the peak.
What about all those alternative forms of energy? Fuel cells? Solar? Wind? Corn gas? Waste power? I'll post on that later in the week, but those alternatives lack the scalability to make a huge dent in demand for energy. Many of those technologies are also years away from implementation.
Also, the structure of government is such that they will not respond to peak oil until it is too late. We need to invest in alternatives as soon as possible while we have the resources to do so. Investment and cooperation after the peak, after realizing the problem, is too late to do anything about it.
It is not rational for politicians to address problems until they are present. Those who study politics will attest that politicians will wait to build the wolf trap until the wolf is at the door.
The problem is that the stuff to make the wolf trap is out in the workshed.
Next up, a post on consumption from my colleague Ianqui.
June 20, 2005 in Energy | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c572d53ef00d834584cf069e2
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference In Sum, PO in a Nutshell:
» Support Robert Parry and left journalism, please. from technopuritanism.net
Robert Parry offers instructions on supporting left-wing media. He says that 'media reform', i.e. protecting PBS and media ownership laws isn't enough anymore. The left must build its own information infrastructure so that REAL JOURNALISTS CAN DO THEIR... [Read More]
Tracked on Jun 21, 2005 12:58:20 AM
Comments
The problem isn't so much peak oil, but global warming. Crude can be made from tar sands, and natural gas can be made from Coal, both of which are very abunant. The problem is that environmental consequences would be totally unacceptal. Unfortuantly those in washington don't belive in an environment.
Posted by: me | Jun 20, 2005 7:02:37 PM
me: I wish I could agree. The technologies needed to scale in that kind of technology to supplement the petroleum economy in a meaningful way are years away.
I agree with you that global warming is an important problem, and the two problems are very much tied together with many people of similar mindsets. In fact, I advocate over at TOD tax increases and direct investment in research for alternative clean energy sources. But, we need to do it NOW.
The problem is that we need petroleum to get us to those alternatives: it takes petroleum to conduct the research on alternatives. If we wait much longer, the supply will be too tight (and will continue to tighten) to find alternatives efficiently.
You're also correct that government doesn't understand the problems...because the problems are not visible or pressing to them, it is unfortunately rational for them to behave the way they do. That is notion of the tragedy of the commons and free ridership that I speak about in the post.
Posted by: The Oil Drum (profgoose) | Jun 20, 2005 7:17:59 PM
Actually if we really pushed it, through breeder reactors and converting coal into gasoline, the technology does actually exist to satisfy our current demand for oil...it just needs an investment in the infrastructure to make it happen.
The problems with that are 3 fold; first we're not fixing the problem only delaying it until we run out of coal, secondly global warming, and third and to me most important; the cost goes throguh the roof.
The technologies to satisfy our consumption of petrol for roughly the next 50 years (that's when we'd run out of coal if we used it to supplement our oil drain) do exist. But it would not be cheap. Not in any sense. It would be horrifically expensive.
Posted by: Balta | Jun 20, 2005 7:46:28 PM
I agree with that Balta...it's going to get terribly expensive (both at the individual and corporate level) and, worse, we need to push it for it not to drastically affect our quality of life.
Lives will change over this, and not for the better, unless we address this quickly. Other issues will pale in comparison, sadly...because cheap oil has been the basis for economic growth, which is the key to the democratic system we enjoy.
What do you think happens when oil gets really expensive? People lose jobs. People get hungry. People look to government and are willing to give up their rights and freedoms.
And, if that happens right now, that means government power and growth on the right...there's a word for that...anyone...anyone?
Posted by: The Oil Drum (profgoose) | Jun 20, 2005 10:00:31 PM
Roughly what percentage of energy consumption is taken up by the internal combustion engine, and what by energy production? The higher the latter, the more difficult the long-term problems would seem to me, although perhaps it doesn't really matter much.
Posted by: Scott Lemieux | Jun 20, 2005 10:06:29 PM
Seems to me that nuclear is our best option to tide us over until fusion comes on line. The new nukes(pebble bed reactors) are safer, are more efficient with less waste and are being designed to aid cogeneration of hydrogen using excess heat. Hydrogen will work if we throw some money into existing research using nanotechnology to overcome the storage issue. Oh yah, the waste from nuclear--well, a couple Yucca Mountains sacrificed is a small price to pay. I'd bet within a hundred or so years we'll have figured out how to decommision the waste anyway. We can't pussyfoot around anymore about being paranoid about nukes.
We'd better get to work on the new energy economy now! Oh, I forgot who was still president.....
Posted by: Steve Mudge | Jun 20, 2005 11:12:13 PM
Scott: well, it does matter, but I'm going to hit your question from the complete oil consumption angle, not just the combustion engine, because there's also fuel oil and jet fuel to consider in the equation.
The US consumes about 17mbpd. The world consumes on the order of 84mbpd. The world supply right now is 84mbpd. Google "T. Boone Pickens" for more on that story.
However, oil demand is not constant, it is steadily rising, especially with China and India growing as they are. If you had a basic macroecon class in college, you understand that if demand doesn't keep up with supply, prices are going to go up, and perhaps quickly.
Also, remember, that means that the cheap oil comes out of the ground first, then the expensive oil comes out.
So, these days, of an average 42 gallon barrel (which after refining yields a little more than 44 gal of fluid) of oil, about 40-45% of it becomes gasoline, and another 20% becomes fuel oil, and the rest becomes jet fuel (9% or so) and other petroleum derivatives such as plastics and agricultural aids (pesticides, etc.).
So, the short answer: it's a pretty high number.
How the oil gets used to generate energy is a completely different story.
Here's a link to a picture that demonstrates petroleum usage in the US. It's pretty self explanatory.
Posted by: The Oil Drum (profgoose) | Jun 20, 2005 11:15:13 PM
Sorry to disagree, TOD (profgoose), but we need to do that investment yesterday.
For one thing we're already consuming 20.5 million barrels of oil a day, not 17 mbpd, 13 of those millions being imported.
We've more or less wasted a quarter century already by abandoning the renewable energy elements of Carter's 1977 energy plan (but we paid out billions in subsidies for coal liquefaction and oil shale production).
Shortly after I left the Solar Energy Research Institute when Reagan officials cut the budget and purged the "soft path" people, when oil prices plummeted from their 1980 peak, I wrote an editorial that ran annually in one form or another for eight years. Essentially, I argued that we should boost federal gasoline 5 cents a gallon each year, and put all the money into renewables/alternatives R&D. If Washington had followed my advice, by now we would have had $1.6 trillion to spend on such efforts - $125 billion this year alone.
Instead, the Bush Administration this fiscal year is spending a fourth as much (inflation-adjusted) on renewables as was allocated in Carter's last budget (1981).
As recently as a couple of years ago, when those of us blogging about peak oil were considered doomsayers and otherwise logical people argued that we had ample supplies for a century or more. Now, when
blogging on the same subject, nearly everybody wants to give you a link to info on Hubbert's Peak.
I suppose that is good news, except that everybody has his pet answer: biodiesel, fission, fusion, ocean thermal, photovoltaics, wind, coal-to-gas, coal-to-oil, orbiting solar mirrors. There is no single magic energy source.
Me, I vote we invest in a lot of these arenas and see what works best. Because we face $100 oil perhaps as soon as this time next year, we're already past the time when we could make a gradual transition to the era of expensive petroleum. Our first emphasis in the States, therefore, ought to be a renewed interest in simple conservation. Doubling the average vehicle mpg would be a good mandate, for instance.
Ooops! Like Steve Mudge, I forgot who the (vice) president is.
Posted by: Meteor Blades | Jun 21, 2005 12:03:32 AM
*laugh* Hi there MB. Your disagreement is welcome.
Hey, sure, you're right. Many (including myself on some days) would argue that it's too late for investment to make a big difference, but massive R&D&I could make the landing a bit softer perhaps? There's no magic bullet, but we've gotta try something instead of just pushing forward on the stick...
As for the consumption numbers, there's some play depending on where you get numbers, true?...(and I'll admit that silly me went to the EIA for a quick reference...)
Over at The Oil Drum, I've been hitting the oil consumption tax again. I agree, demand has to be destroyed somehow. In a couple of days I'm going to post on the little things we can do, and some of the big ideas that are coming down the road.
By the way, we're still considered doomsayers, I hate to tell you.
Posted by: The Oil Drum (profgoose) | Jun 21, 2005 12:25:56 AM
and looking back at the EIA document, they have 19mbpd. I mistyped it. Thanks for the catch...
Posted by: The Oil Drum (profgoose) | Jun 21, 2005 12:27:16 AM
Agreed Meteor Blade on any and all alternatives--only thing about coal/hydrocarbon solutions is the greenhouse issue. Solar/wind would definitely help provide electricity and would be useful for small, isolated areas for hydrolysing water if indeed the hydrogen economy comes about. But nukes provide a zero emission energy source that produce exponentially larger amounts of energy which I tend to think we'll want/need more of in the future.......
Posted by: Steve Mudge | Jun 21, 2005 12:55:28 AM
Steve, nuclear power would be fine with me...but until you can get folks over the NIMBY problem and the stigma, I doubt that any US legislator will allow a new nuclear plant in their backyard, at least not until we're over $100/bbl.
Posted by: The Oil Drum (profgoose) | Jun 21, 2005 1:11:38 AM
The American Petroleum Institute states:
Total petroleum products delivered to the domestic market in May: 20,913,000 b/d; same month in 2004 was 20,209,000 b/d.
Steve, I'm less opposed to nukes than I used to be - if the new reactors are really as inherently safe as is claimed for them, if terrorist diversion of nuke materials can be resolved, and if financing won't be the disaster it was for the last generation of U.S. nukes.
Before we go that route, however, we can make an immense difference by conserving. And we can put up wind turbines - currently the most economical and quickly built of the renewables - in lots of places with minimal environmental impact.
Ultimately, switching some larger portion of our electricity generation to nukes may be a good idea, but it won't do much for the transportation sector, where most of our oil now goes, until electric vehicles are better developed.
Posted by: Meteor Blades | Jun 21, 2005 1:23:29 AM
The oil companies run the govt
Posted by: jr | Jun 21, 2005 3:37:03 AM
Meteor--conservation is an absolute necessity, I agree. But we also need to think long term about our energy situation today, since it takes at least 7 years to get a power plant built.
Wind power is economical-(I'm going to put a 400w windmill in my place at the desert) but I think on a mass scale you'll have a worse problem with NIMBYs. There's a surprising amount of negative sentiment about wind farms already. But like Oil Drum says--when oil hits $100/bl people won't be so resistant--nudge, nudge!
The transportation issue with nukes would be resolved using hydrogen as the fuel source(hydrolized by nuke power). I know there's a lot of skepticism whether hydrogen will work. I'm just old enough to remember JFK and his can-do attitude--there was no question that we would put a man on the moon: that vision and quest for the unreachable would do us well. Not to mention that if we create the technology first we can sell it to the rest of the world.
Posted by: Steve Mudge | Jun 21, 2005 10:04:49 AM
If PO is now or in the next two years attitude is irrelevant. Hydrogen will not happen because we will no longer be able to afford the infrastructure change required. IMHO, we will have to develop many alternatives, rather than just one or two. Wind power will happen because it will be cheaper than the others once we build the component factories. It also requires construction expertise on a much lower level than a nuke or a refinery.
The R part of R&D is also irrelevant at this point. If the tech does not exist now in some form that can be developed right now you might as well forget about it. To me this means coal gasification, wind power, gas to diesel, some biodiesel, and maybe tar sands make the cut. To my knowledge nobody's even built a demo pebble-bed nuke yet, let alone a full-sized power plant.
When you're talking long schedules, limited experienced construction availability, and gigantic investment requirements, and since we need it yesterday, you pick something you know will work and go with it.
Posted by: Tim | Jun 21, 2005 11:09:31 AM
What we're really going to see as a result of oil getting more expensive, is a 1970's Detroit style decay of car-based cities like Atlanta, Houston and Los Angeles.
Posted by: Horatio | Jun 21, 2005 12:35:48 PM
both good points Tim/Horatio...urban sprawl is death, imho.
as for the "R," I rather agree that it seems futile. However, if, while we have the petroleum at our disposal, we can find some technologies to ease the transition, it's worth pushing for. Otherwise, here we come (technologically adjusted) 19th C., eh?
Posted by: The Oil Drum (profgoose) | Jun 21, 2005 2:20:28 PM
Steve/Meteor/Tim,
Check out the Arbeitsgemeinschaft Versuchsreaktor in wikipedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pebble_bed_reactor
It was active in '66.
Posted by: William Bollinger | Jun 21, 2005 4:57:25 PM
wow power leveling
wow power leveling
wow gold
wow gold
wow gold
wow gold
wow gold
wow gold
Warcraft Gold
Warcraft Gold
powerleveling
powerleveling
powerleveling
powerleveling
wow gold
wow gold
World of Warcraft Gold
World of Warcraft Gold
powerleveling
powerleveling
power leveling
power leveling
wow powerleveling
wow powerleveling
wow power leveling
wow power leveling
powerleveling
powerleveling
power leveling
power leveling
wow powerleveling
wow powerleveling
wow power leveling
wow power leveling
wow power level
wow power level
wow power level
wow power level
world of warcraft powerleveling
world of warcraft powerleveling
world of warcraft power leveling
world of warcraft power leveling
World of Warcraft Gold
World of Warcraft Gold
World of Warcraft Gold
World of Warcraft Gold
warcraft gold
warcraft gold
gold warcraft
gold warcraft
gold wow
gold wow
Cheap WoW Gold
Cheap WoW Gold
buy wow gold
buy wow gold
World of Warcraft Gold
World of Warcraft Gold
Posted by: zsdzgfsd | Sep 2, 2007 3:11:20 AM
托盘
托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
木托盘
木制托盘
纸托盘
木塑托盘
托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
钢托盘
木托盘
钢制托盘
托盘
塑料托盘
托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
木托盘
南京托盘
南京钢托盘
上海托盘
托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
木托盘
南京托盘
南京钢托盘
上海托盘
托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
木托盘
纸托盘
南京托盘
上海托盘
北京托盘
广州托盘
杭州托盘
成都托盘
武汉托盘
长沙托盘
合肥托盘
苏州托盘
无锡托盘
昆山托盘
托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
木托盘
纸托盘
南京托盘
南京钢制托盘
南京钢托盘
上海托盘
北京托盘
托盘
托盘
托盘
托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
塑料托盘
塑料托盘
托盘
塑料托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
铁托盘
托盘
钢托盘
铁托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
托盘
钢托盘
铁托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
托盘
钢托盘
铁托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
托盘
托盘
钢托盘
钢托盘
铁托盘
铁托盘
钢制托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
塑料托盘
托盘
钢托盘
铁托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
托盘
钢托盘
铁托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
托盘
钢托盘
铁托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
托盘
钢托盘
铁托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
托盘
托盘
托盘
钢托盘
铁托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
铁托盘
塑料托盘
木托盘
木制托盘
纸托盘
木塑托盘
柱式托盘
波纹托盘
镀锌托盘
南京托盘
上海托盘
北京托盘
广州托盘
托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
铁托盘
塑料托盘
木托盘
木制托盘
纸托盘
木塑托盘
柱式托盘
波纹板托盘
镀锌托盘
南京托盘
上海托盘
北京托盘
广州托盘
托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
铁托盘
塑料托盘
木托盘
木制托盘
纸托盘
木塑托盘
柱式托盘
波纹托盘
镀锌托盘
南京托盘
上海托盘
北京托盘
广州托盘
托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
铁托盘
木托盘
塑料托盘
木塑托盘
柱式托盘
波纹板托盘
镀锌托盘
南京托盘
上海托盘
北京托盘
广州托盘
托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
铁托盘
塑料托盘
木托盘
木制托盘
纸托盘
木塑托盘
柱式托盘
波纹托盘
镀锌托盘
南京托盘
上海托盘
北京托盘
广州托盘
托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
铁托盘
塑料托盘
木托盘
纸托盘
木塑托盘
柱式托盘
波纹板托盘
镀锌托盘
南京托盘
上海托盘
北京托盘
广州托盘
Posted by: peter.w | Sep 16, 2007 9:46:19 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.