• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

More peak oil shenanigans!

Status
Not open for further replies.

Triumph

Banned
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0818-04.htm

PETTEN, Netherlands - The world could run out of time to develop cleaner alternatives to oil and other fossil fuels before depletion drives prices through the roof, a leading Dutch energy researcher said on Thursday.

Ton Hoff, manager of the Energy Research Center of the Netherlands, said it could take decades to make alternatives affordable to the point where they can be used widely, although high oil prices were already stimulating such research.

"If we run out of fossil fuels -- by the time the oil price hits 100 dollars or plus, people will be screaming for alternatives, but whether they will be available at that moment of time -- that's my biggest worry," Hoff said.

"In 10-15 years, I expect that solar energy conversion could be in competition with electricity produced from coal," Hoff said. He believes the Netherlands has the potential to cover a large part of its power needs with solar energy.
AWESOMENESS. In 10-15 years, in the Netherlands, which has been researching alternate fuel sources and doesn't rely on fossil fuels to the extent that we do(they also have public transportation, too) solar power MIGHT be in competition with fossil fuels. Maybe.

Let's see, in five years gas prices have doubled in the US, roughly. So in ten years, gas could be $10 a gallon. I'm so glad the President is about to exclude SUVs from fuel efficiency standards. I'm glad that we're effectively relying on honey from bees to run our economy and lifestyle while at the same time going over to where the bees live and pissing them off needlessly. Hey, let's knock down those nests and build you guys some good ol' AMERICAN nests. WHY DO YOU STING ME, BEES? I BRING YOU FREEDOM!

A pre-emptive fuck off to anyone who is going to disparage Common Dreams as a "leftist or liberal" source. Try disparaging the original source instead or maybe addressing the issues.
 
Raoul Duke said:
WHY DO YOU STING ME, BEES? I BRING YOU FREEDOM!
:lol Hilarious.

I wasn't aware that BushCo didn't have SUVs under the same fuel efficiency standards - or is this something recently introduced?
 
Raoul Duke said:
I'm glad that we're effectively relying on honey from bees to run our economy and lifestyle while at the same time going over to where the bees live and pissing them off needlessly. Hey, let's knock down those nests and build you guys some good ol' AMERICAN nests. WHY DO YOU STING ME, BEES? I BRING YOU FREEDOM!
:lol :lol :lol
 
bishoptl said:
:lol Hilarious.

I wasn't aware that BushCo didn't have SUVs under the same fuel efficiency standards - or is this something recently introduced?
It's an ongoing thing, to be fair. But seeing as how Dear Leader recently noted that we're gonna have to "eventually"(sooner than most are expecting) transition to using something other than oil, I find it farcical that he would continue to support this. Well, not really considering, but in a perfect world it wouldn't make sense.
 
maya.jpe


...
 
Peak Oil is a crazy theory, and it stays that. Even though it's painfully obvious that oil usage needs to be repressed, citing Peak Oil as even close to being representative of why we need to stop wasting fuel is disingenuous as its prophecy is as concrete as Nostradamus.

"Hey guys, peak oil in 1995! Uh, maybe in 1997! NO SERIOUSLY in 2000! Hasn't happened yet? What about 2007?!"

We do need to stop wasting shit, don't get me wrong. And we do need to shift to alternative fuels.

But how? When our world is dependant on oil? You can't heap all the blame on the black gold guzzling White House, as much as I'd like to, because saying to the United States "okay now we shift away from oil" is going to be one of the roughest things from both a political and logistical standpoint.

edit: As a sort of postscript, SUV's are what's wrong with America.
 
What I want to know is how I'm supporting terrorism by buying a sack of weed but I'm not when I fill up my car. I'm conservative and even I'm not that stupid ;)
 
Raoul Duke said:
...which has been researching alternate fuel sources and doesn't rely on fossil fuels to the extent that we do(they also have public transportation, too)
Whats you point? No shit they don't rely on fossil fuels as much as the US. The Netherlands is only about twice the size of New Jersey in both land mass and population and it serves as a transportation hub for all of Europe as well. Quite a poor comparison to make.
Raoul Duke said:
Let's see, in five years gas prices have doubled in the US, roughly. So in ten years, gas could be $10 a gallon.
Fantastic logic. I bet you got your masters in economics from Stern? Things are a bit more complicated - but only a bit more.
 
When you are comfortably ensconced in your mountain redoubt after the peak oil crisis, will you be letting in poor wretches who manage to find it? (at least those who have useful skills?)
 
You guys misread the original post. They are talking about solar being competition for power from coal - the single most common source of power on the entire planet - oil isn't even close. You'd have to at least cover several states in solar cells to even get close to producing the same amount of power from solar that we do from coal.
 
Phoenix said:
You guys misread the original post. They are talking about solar being competition for power from coal - the single most common source of power on the entire planet - oil isn't even close. You'd have to at least cover several states in solar cells to even get close to producing the same amount of power from solar that we do from coal.

Actually, I did catch that :)
 
But .. but .. its scientists from the NETHERLANDS! The world reknowned scientists of the world. They don't have a vested interest in alternative energies whatsoever.
 
There's got to be some other countries we can invade for cheaper oil.

Right? Right???















You guys know I'm not really serious, right?
 
sans_pants said:
do you seriously think gas would go to 10 a gallon

thats just ignorant

That`s close to what it costs in Norway now. And we`re one of the biggest oil nations in the world. :lol
 
Matlock said:
Peak Oil is a crazy theory, and it stays that. Even though it's painfully obvious that oil usage needs to be repressed, citing Peak Oil as even close to being representative of why we need to stop wasting fuel is disingenuous as its prophecy is as concrete as Nostradamus.

My god you are profoundly ignorant. Peak oil isn't prophecy, it's fucking simple physics. Go read up on it and conjure yourself a clue. Please.

We do need to stop wasting shit, don't get me wrong. And we do need to shift to alternative fuels.

Why? What you've just said is tantamount to saying we'll never run out and oil will always gush from the earth so why bother mentioning conservation? You might as well say, let’s conserve the sunshine we receive.

sans_pants said:
do you seriously think gas would go to 10 a gallon

thats just ignorant

Another one out of his depth.
 
Wiki's entry on Peak oil

The Hubbert peak theory, also known as peak oil, is an influential theory concerning the long-term rate of conventional oil (and other fossil fuel) extraction and depletion. It predicts that future world oil production will reach a peak and then rapidly decline. The actual peak year will only be known after it has passed. Based on available production data, proponents have predicted the peak year to be 1989, 1995, 1995-2000, or, according to the Association for the Study of Peak Oil and Gas, 2007 for oil and somewhat later for natural gas. This may lead to major economic consequences for the world since modern civilization is dependent on cheap and abundant fossil fuels, especially for transportation, food production, chemical industrial processes, water treatment, home heating and power generation. The Hubbert peak theory is named for geophysicist M. King Hubbert, who correctly predicted the peak of U.S. oil production fifteen years in advance. While controversial, the theory increasingly influences policy makers within government and the oil industry. The current debate is rarely about whether there will be a peak, but rather when it will occur and the severity of the post-peak effects. Even the most generous mainstream reports estimate petroleum reserves lasting no more than 100 years.

More in this link

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_oil
 
Damn it people WE WILL GET MORE OIL!













When more organic carbonic matter dies and gets converted for a few million years...

Can't you motherfuckers wait a couple mi?! GEEZ!

(investing in big oil in the year 2,000,000 AD)
 
Well, if the US military could/would develop more vechicles not so reliant on oil then the world would be a much better place as far as natural resources are concerned. A lot of military developments eventually end up in the public sector.

As it stands our reliance on oil is going to eventually be our downfall. Once that shit dries up everything will begin to roll downhill... but I'm probably stating the obvious.
 
The Netherlands uses more wind power than solar. One big wind installation generates more power than a solar field. Remember that the new wind mills have blades on them the size of an very large aircraft wing. National Geographic just did a wicked story on alternative power sources.
 
Mashing said:
Well, if the US military could/would develop more vechicles not so reliant on oil then the world would be a much better place as far as natural resources are concerned. A lot of military developments eventually end up in the public sector.

As it stands our reliance on oil is going to eventually be our downfall. Once that shit dries up everything will begin to roll downhill... but I'm probably stating the obvious.


dont worry the whole world is going down with us
 
Doesn't an aircraft carrier require a gallon of fuel to move 1 inch or something? I remember being on a jet airline on the way to LA from Vancouver and the pilot said the plane was going to be consuming as much fuel on the trip as it would to fill and run your car for 10 years.
 
Most of the US carrier fleet are Nuclear powered. Which brings me to my other point however. Nuclear power will become increasingly attractive when fossil fuel runs out.

Of course, the environmentalists will cry about it, but they bitch about everything.
 
Deku said:
Of course, the environmentalists will cry about it, but they bitch about everything.

Yeah, if I were an environmentalist, I'd bitch about bad stuff happening to the environment as well. Because if I were an environmentalist, I'd have an interest in having a good environment, thus, if there is a problem with the environment, I'd bitch about it.
 
Matlock said:
Peak Oil is a crazy theory, and it stays that. Even though it's painfully obvious that oil usage needs to be repressed, citing Peak Oil as even close to being representative of why we need to stop wasting fuel is disingenuous as its prophecy is as concrete as Nostradamus.

"Hey guys, peak oil in 1995! Uh, maybe in 1997! NO SERIOUSLY in 2000! Hasn't happened yet? What about 2007?!"

We do need to stop wasting shit, don't get me wrong. And we do need to shift to alternative fuels.

But how? When our world is dependant on oil? You can't heap all the blame on the black gold guzzling White House, as much as I'd like to, because saying to the United States "okay now we shift away from oil" is going to be one of the roughest things from both a political and logistical standpoint.

edit: As a sort of postscript, SUV's are what's wrong with America.
Wow. Tons of scientists disagree with you, as does someone who used to be on Dubya's energy task force. Really ignorant, Matlock.

Trust me, if there was a way out or wiggle room, I would be all for it. Peak oil is very real.

But just looking at what has happened and the political climate of the region where most of the oil is left, I'd say $10 a gallon in ten years might even be a conservative estimate. There might not even be gas stations pumping fuel in ten years if things go as bad as I think.

Guileless said:
When you are comfortably ensconced in your mountain redoubt after the peak oil crisis, will you be letting in poor wretches who manage to find it? (at least those who have useful skills?)

People will have to pass competency tests, as well as test negative for diseases, hereditary or otherwise.
 
Triumph: It's more the indecisiveness on "when" and the constant shuffling forward that bother me about the theory. Calling out that the sky will fall in 2006, 2007, et al when it could be a hundred years down the line is equally as dumb as saying it'll never happen.

We need to curb fuel usage, but pointing to a "near future" again and again and again that keeps shifting with the oncoming years is the wrong way to make evidence towards that claim.

In short, we need to concentrate more on "how do we wean ourselves from the beast" more than "Okay, when are we really fucked?"
 
Matlock said:
Triumph: It's more the indecisiveness on "when" and the constant shuffling forward that bother me about the theory. Calling out that the sky will fall in 2006, 2007, et al when it could be a hundred years down the line is equally as dumb as saying it'll never happen.

We need to curb fuel usage, but pointing to a "near future" again and again and again that keeps shifting with the oncoming years is the wrong way to make evidence towards that claim.

In short, we need to concentrate more on "how do we wean ourselves from the beast" more than "Okay, when are we really fucked?"
It's generally accepted that it will happen sometime between 2005 and 2010. Really, we're not going to know until afterwards and to me the scary part is that all the recent price increases might even indicate that it has already happened.

As far as it happening a hundred years down the road? That is very optimistic thinking with demand continuing to skyrocket and no new major reserves being found since the North Sea find in the early 80's or so. Even if China and India weren't increasing their demand every year, at our current wasteful rate I doubt we could go more than 15 years without really feeling the pinch. But unfortunately for us China and India do exist, and they most definitely have a growing demand for what oil there is.

Finally, I laugh at anyone who says "we'll find more" or "we'll invent our way out of it". Oil is most definitely a NON-renewable resource. And the first two LAWS of Thermodynamics(these are laws, not theories) directly fuck with the idea of "we'll invent our way out of it!" Hydrogen economy my ass.

Also, the time to "wean ourselves from the beast" was probably 15 years ago. We just got more addicted instead. Gentleman, make your time. :(
 
Here's the critique for Peak oil (mostly a critique of the predictions) from Wiki.

Critique

Few would deny that fossil fuels are finite and that alternative energy sources must be found in the future. Most critics instead argue that the peak will not occur soon and that the form of the peak may be irregular and extended rather than a sharp logistic curve peak.

In 1971, Hubbert used high and low estimates of global oil reserve data to predict that global oil production would peak between 1995 and 2000. This peak did not occur. However, it should be noted that other events that occurred after Hubbert's prediction may have delayed the peak, especially the 1973 energy crisis, in which a decreased supply of oil resulted in a shortage, and ultimately less consumption. The 1979 energy crisis and 1990 spike in the price of oil due to the Gulf War have had similar, albeit less dramatic effects on supply. On the demand side, recessions in the early 1980's and 90's have decreased the demand and consumption of oil. All of these effects would theoretically delay peak oil.

The implications of the model are controversial. Some petroleum economists, such as Michael Lynch, argue [3] that the Hubbert curve with a sharp peak is inapplicable globally due to the differences in oil reserves, political and military leverage, demand, and trade partnerships between countries and regions.

The United States Geological Survey estimates [4] that there are enough petroleum reserves to continue current production rates for 50 to 100 years. A year 2000 USGS study of world-wide oil reserves predicted a possible peak in oil production around the year 2037. That is countered by an important Saudi oil industry insider who says the American government's forecast for future oil supply is a "dangerous over-estimate."[5] Campbell argues that the USGS estimates are methodologically flawed. One problem, for example, is that OPEC countries overestimate their reserves to get higher oil quotas and to avoid internal critique. Population and economic growth may lead to increased energy consumption in the future.

Further, the USGS reserve estimate appears to owe as much to politics as to research. According to the Energy Information Administration of the United States Department of Energy, "estimates are based on non-technical considerations that support domestic supply growth to the levels necessary to meet projected demand levels. [emphasis added]" (Annual Energy Outlook 1998 With Projections to 2020).

Critics such as Leonardo Maugeri point out that Hubbert peak supporters such as Campbell previously predicted a peak in global oil production in both 1989 and 1995, based on oil production data available at that time. He claims that nearly all of the estimates do not take into account non-conventional oil even though the availability of these resources is huge and the costs of extraction, while still very high, are falling due to improved technology. (A drawback to this position is that heavy oil sources will never be as profitable as current light oil sources, both in production rates and energy gain.) Furthermore, he notes that the recovery rate from existing world oil fields has increased from about 22% in 1980 to 35% today due to new technology and predicts this trend will continue. According to Maugeri, the ratio between proven oil reserves and current production has constantly improved, passing from 20 years in 1948 to 35 years in 1972 and reaching about 40 years in 2003. Also according to Maugeri, these improvements occurred even with low investment in new exploration and upgrading technology due to the low oil prices during the last 20 years. The current higher oil prices may well cause increased investment (Maugeri, 2004).

According to professor James H. L. Lawler, a modular plant, integrating several well proven technologies into a new system, could recover almost all the oil left from primary and secondary recovery, while at present economic recovery, only half of the oil or less is being recovered from a reservoir. [6] Thus, the world's reserves of oil could virtually double in a stroke. His process promises a recovery rate in excess of 95%, though consuming about 3% of total initial reserves for operating energy requirements. Therefore, massive additional amounts of oil could come from already known sites.

There are many other attempts to predict oil production. One example is that the global conventional oil production will peak somewhere between 2020 and 2050, but that the output is likely to increase at a substantially slower rate after 2020. A continued rapid increase in oil production requires an increased exploitation of non-conventional sources (Greene, 2003).

As of June 2005, OPEC has admitted that they will 'struggle' to pump enough oil to meet pricing pressures for the fourth quarter of the year. It is expected that the summer and winter of 2005 will bring oil prices to a new high; some would say this is a prime example of demand starting to outstrip supply. Others could blame it on various geopolitical forces in the regions where oil is produced. One other explanation for the rising oil prices is that it is a sign of too much paper money and not too little oil. In this view, dramatically higher prices of all commodities and U.S. real estate indicates rising inflation.
 
Matlock said:
Triumph: It's more the indecisiveness on "when" and the constant shuffling forward that bother me about the theory. Calling out that the sky will fall in 2006, 2007, et al when it could be a hundred years down the line is equally as dumb as saying it'll never happen.

First an outline of peak oil. An oil well must be kept under pressure in order to extract oil from it. When a well is first tapped the oil geyser gushes out of the ground due to the pressure. Over time and continued extraction this pressure begins to decline so measures such as pumping gas, water or air into the well to maintain the pressure must be taken in order to extract oil. Eventually, at about the point when the well is half depleted, the costs of extracting further oil rise and the amount of oil that can be procured from the well over a set period of time declines indefinitely. This is an example of production peaking for one oil well with peak oil being the cumulative peak production of all oil wells globally. Global peak oil is reached when production can no longer match consumption, that is to say that if global demand is 90mbpd and the physical maximum amount of oil that can possibly extracted from all oil wells is 90 mbpd then the peak is effectively reached. From that point on the production will gradually, inevitably decline while demand inevitably increases.

Now as was pointed out the timeframe of a global oil production peak is most likely within the next ten years. This is the timeframe most independent studies have suggested; some suggest production has already peaked, others have said the end of 2005, others have said 2007 and yet others have said 2013. There are other wildly optimistic figures from organisations such as the USGS, which put out the hilarious figure of 2037 which runs contrary all common sense. The stark reality is that this isn't some far off illusion, this is certainly very soon.

We need to curb fuel usage, but pointing to a "near future" again and again and again that keeps shifting with the oncoming years is the wrong way to make evidence towards that claim.

Correct. And you curb fuel usage by taxing it and putting the revenue into public transportation and alternative/efficient fuel subsidies. The problem is people have got such a short sighted and blinkered, 'I want my oil to be cheap' mindset, that any attempt to implement such policies will meet with popular resistance. Now Europe is well ahead of the game here, but the world’s largest oil consumer, the US, is the one that really needs to be doing more to curb usage and encouraging alternatives like mass transportation and fuel efficiency.

In short, we need to concentrate more on "how do we wean ourselves from the beast" more than "Okay, when are we really fucked?"

Now the reason people are running around saying we're fucked is because we really ARE fucked. The reason is simple; the entirety of modern western civilisation, its past development and its present and future prosperity is based upon cheap access to available energy. Why the massive population boom of the last few hundred years and incredible leaps in terms of technology, medicine and living standards? Oil. This is the resource that allowed us to grow and harvest massive amounts of crop to feed our populations, develop advanced materials and other vital consumer goods and use means of mass transportation and rapidly transport people and goods such as food stuffs. The reality is that modern society is so dependant on oil and that the production peak is now so close that the time to wean ourselves off oil has well and truly come and gone. There is now simply not enough time to replace the mammoth oil dependant infrastructure of modern society, a process that would take decades and cost enormous amounts of finance capital as well as being technically questionable in terms of feasibility. Why people are so serious and alarmist about this issue is that we really are plainly fucked.

When you begin to constrain the supply of the very thing that society is wholly dependant on you begin to create the conditions for all sorts of social upheaval. Recession, depression, wars, rationing, mass inflation, civil unrest, power struggles, mass poverty and so on. No one is saying this will happen overnight, but what I believe will occur is that the current oil price, driven by speculation and supply limitations will inflate to a point the market can no longer bear (say $US100), demand will ease, recession will set in and the price will back off and plateau for several years. As it becomes clear that supply is struggling to meet demand and oil prices begin to trend upward, the recession will deepen until eventually even the reduced demand of the recession outstrips available supply and oil prices finally skyrocket. Then begins to emerge all the nasties I mentioned earlier, depression, war, civil unrest etc.
 
Incognito said:
gas in norway converted to american dollars is currently $6.56/gallon. far cry from $10.

Well, that`s the absolute cheapest possible. Plus I did the mistake in using the british gallon which is almost 1 litre more (US and UK using different kinds of gallon ? WTF? Litres people! ;) )

I`d say it`s almost exactly 7 dollars on average per US gallon right now.

sans_pants said:
ok what the hell does that have to do with anything, besides nothing

Just pointing out that some of us are closing in on 10 dollars. Which is pretty funny/ironic I think since we produce so much oil ourself. (Norway is the third biggest oil exporter in the world.) Sure lots of the cost is taxes but still..
 
Mashing said:
Well, if the US military could/would develop more vechicles not so reliant on oil then the world would be a much better place as far as natural resources are concerned. A lot of military developments eventually end up in the public sector.

The US military is known to be testing fuel cell vehicles in a "trial in the desert" sense. Its limited to some transport vehicles and Humvees, but its good that they are working on it already.
 
Phoenix said:
The US military is known to be testing fuel cell vehicles in a "trial in the desert" sense. Its limited to some transport vehicles and Humvees, but its good that they are working on it already.

Even then, the amount of fuel consumed by the US military has got to be a blip compared to the amount of fuel consumed by civilians and industry.
 
Raoul Duke said:
It's generally accepted that it will happen sometime between 2005 and 2010. Really, we're not going to know until afterwards and to me the scary part is that all the recent price increases might even indicate that it has already happened.

...

Finally, I laugh at anyone who says "we'll find more" or "we'll invent our way out of it". Oil is most definitely a NON-renewable resource. And the first two LAWS of Thermodynamics(these are laws, not theories) directly fuck with the idea of "we'll invent our way out of it!" Hydrogen economy my ass.

Oil is NOT a fundamental need of a modern society, it is a want based on the cheaply available internal combustion engine. Outside of automobiles, the world can actually do with a lot LESS oil than it consumes today. The point that you don't get is that oil is actually a far smaller percentage of what the world uses for energy than things like coal.

elecmix.gif


As a percentage of what we need - oil is actually pretty trivial. We need so much of it because our cars are dependent on it. 10-20 year solution? Turn them into predominantly battery powered hybrid vehicles fuel'd by small corn-based biodiesel engines. Why? Because you can draw power out of the nations power grid via alternative sources including increased usage of nuclear and relatively quickly wean yourself off a need for oil.

The sky isn't falling, the world is not coming to an end and their are attainable solutions within reach if we get someone with a clue in charge of the nations energy policy.
 
SteveMeister said:
Even then, the amount of fuel consumed by the US military has got to be a blip compared to the amount of fuel consumed by civilians and industry.

I dunno. The M1Abrams gets 0.5MPG (not a typo) and the most fuel efficient of the fighting vehicles, the Stryker, gets around 6.

During the march to Iraq, they consumed obscene - almost criminal amounts of fuel :)
 
Haha. Owned.


But then how will he use his 15 acres of mountain top land if there is no inevitible Armegeddeon?


Internet: Giving voice to all the kooks of the world. One message at a time.
 
Phoenix said:
I dunno. The M1Abrams gets 0.5MPG (not a typo) and the most fuel efficient of the fighting vehicles, the Stryker, gets around 6.

During the march to Iraq, they consumed obscene - almost criminal amounts of fuel :)

But that doesn't happen every day, whereas every single day, hundreds of thousands of diesel 18 wheeler trucks that get 6-7mpg per load, plus countless low mileage trucks and vans used by businesses, millions of cars and trucks driven by civilians, thousands of civil and commercial aircraft flights, lawn mowers, and construction equipment are used pretty much continuously throughout the daylight hours. I can't imagine there's even a close comparison. It'd be interesting to see a comparison! :)
 
I've asked my friends this question before, but how much per gallon/litre will gas have to be before people in North America actually start changing their driving habits and that?

People will bitch, but it's all superficial, they'll still be lining up at the gas stations pumping away.
 
Don't worry about peak oil, this guy at a cocktail party told me the world would end in 2013 anyway based on some system devised by the Incas. On the off chance that this oil apocalyptic theory is the real one, I am VD-free and was quite the shot with a .22 at YMCA camp in the late 80s. It's probably like riding a bike.

I am very familiar with Mad Max, Fallout, and Alas, Babylon. I would be an asset to any ragtag band of adventurers trying to make it in a post-apocalyptic world.
 
Peak oil isn't necessarily the point where we literally run out of oil, but the point where the energy needed to extract the oil supercedes the energy benefit of the oil.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom