Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
9 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Peak Oil Production and Long Term Energy Crisis
JustinC
Member (Idle past 4844 days)
Posts: 624
From: Pittsburgh, PA, USA
Joined: 07-21-2003


Message 1 of 9 (196839)
04-05-2005 3:30 AM


I just read an article in "Rolling Stone" by James Howard Kunstler entitled "The End of Oil." It talks about how we are now just about to reach, if we have not already, peak oil production and how this is going to dramatically effect are lives, in the short and long term. As we all know, the price for a barrel of oil has gone up 20 dollars in about a year, and it doesn't seem like this inflation in prices is going to stop anytime soon, barring finding new vast oil fields somewhere.
This doesn't look good for our country, and the world economy in general, since at the base of almost every luxury Americans enjoy is oil.
The article paints a bleak view about the future, and I tend to agree. What future energy supply can possibly replace oil as the major source of energy? What energy supply can support the amount of energy we use today? Solar and wind power would have to be scaled up to an unimaginable degree, and according to this article, "biofuels" consume more energy in their making than they produce. Nuclear seems to be the only viable option at this time, but how large is the supply of uranium and plutonium and how long will that last?
So I have a couple of discussion questions:
1.) How do you feel about the future of American and society in general, in the near (30 years) and far (100 years) future?
2.) Considering the rate of energy America uses today, are we living at the most luxurious, secure, and leisurely time in human history?
3.) How serious is long term "black out"? Will we find a way to pull through it unscaved?
4.) Should we be worried about this right now, and fight for legislation that will conserve oil so we can have a longer buffer period for the transition to the next energy source?
I don't want this thread devoted to just those four questions, so feel free to make any point about this topic in general.

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Alexander, posted 04-05-2005 6:41 AM JustinC has not replied

  
Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3974
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 2 of 9 (196845)
04-05-2005 3:55 AM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

  
Alexander
Inactive Member


Message 3 of 9 (196863)
04-05-2005 6:41 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by JustinC
04-05-2005 3:30 AM


Hi Justin,
You've got a lot of questions in there, and I'll see if I can't answer a few.
Economists and pundits alike have been predicting oil shortages almost since the discovery of oil. Considering that proven oil reserves are still on the rise (although after the Shell scandal, you can definitely question these numbers), we are not in danger of suddenly running out anytime soon. The IEA is projecting a peak in world production in 2037 or later (agagin, these numbers are debatabe.)So maybe Tte right question to ask is, are we going to run out of CHEAP oil in the near future?
The answer to this is probably yes. You should note that oil prices reflect more than pure supply and demand. The prices for light crude that are usually quoted in the news are subject to large price swings, and now come with a substantial 'terror' premium built in. That being said, the demand for oil is rising dramatically, and will probably accelerate as China and India modernize. Jim Roger's short book on commodities mentions that China has accounted in 37% of growth in oil consumption since the year 2000, and projections have them growing at a compound rate of 9% over the next decade. Thats a lot of pressure on prices right there. As for supply, you never know if there is another Texas or North Sea strike waiting to be found, but its pretty unlikely. We can always find more oil (or even make it from coal), but its going to be costly, and of lower quality.
I don't know as much about alternative energy, except that its a lot more expensive than any hydrocarbon power source. I see solar and wind technology as being a stopgap measure; they are useful only until our technology improves. But, that isn't to say we shoudln't invest in them for the short- to middle-term. The political will just doesn't exist. I hate to sound like a conspiracy theorist, but there are too many entrenched interests within oil to make alternatives politically viable. The only thing that I can see overpowering this stumbling block is a $5 price at the pump.

'Most temperate in the pleasures of the body, his passion was for glory only, and in that he was insatiable.'

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by JustinC, posted 04-05-2005 3:30 AM JustinC has not replied

  
contracycle
Inactive Member


Message 4 of 9 (196864)
04-05-2005 7:00 AM


Of course people have been predicting an end to oil, becuase it is a non-renewable resource. It's eventual end was inevitable - the only question is how pressing a concern it is. And as we have consistently seen, the concern is constantly avoided and consumption not only contyinues, but increases.
quote:
'Super spike' fears push oil price to $56 a barrel
Larry Elliott
Saturday April 2, 2005
The Guardian
Fears that oil prices could double to more than $100 a barrel sent tremors through the world's energy markets yesterday, pushing up the price of crude and threatening fresh increases in fuel bills for consumers and businesses.
After prices fell earlier in the week, a report from Goldman Sachs predicting that the cost of crude could reach $105 a barrel in a "super spike" helped push them above $56 a barrel in New York last night.
The end of "cheap oil" is in effect the end of the oil lifestyles we know. That will mean that only the rich can drive and fly. The industry association of airlines is already predicting losses of $5.5 billion due to cinreased oil prices.
Claims to hitherto untapped resources have mostly been debunked. For example, the oil-bearing shale which is often touted as being a future reserve is unlikely to be extractable in a useful manner. I think we con confidently expect the social order we grew up with to be radically reorderd bby the end of the century.
"Its the end of the world as we know it
And I feel fine."

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by Alexander, posted 04-05-2005 9:05 AM contracycle has replied

  
Alexander
Inactive Member


Message 5 of 9 (196878)
04-05-2005 9:05 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by contracycle
04-05-2005 7:00 AM


Hi Contra,
The $105 report from Goldman is a pretty inflamatory analysis, and was probably written and released to evoke a particular response in the oil markets. Note also that 56 bucks a barrel isn't pricier in inflation-adjusted terms than a barrel at the height of the 70's oil embargo.
As for oil prices changing our lifestyles, take a look at Western Europe. They have endured oil prices much higher than in the U.S for decades, but maintain a similar amount of GDP per head. There are a lot of cheap cars out there, and they will start to look mighty fine if oil prices head skyward. As we have seen before, few things motivate Americans to change lifestyles, but sustained economic pain will do it.

'Most temperate in the pleasures of the body, his passion was for glory only, and in that he was insatiable.'

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by contracycle, posted 04-05-2005 7:00 AM contracycle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by contracycle, posted 04-05-2005 9:31 AM Alexander has replied

  
contracycle
Inactive Member


Message 6 of 9 (196880)
04-05-2005 9:31 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by Alexander
04-05-2005 9:05 AM


quote:
The $105 report from Goldman is a pretty inflamatory analysis, and was probably written and released to evoke a particular response in the oil markets.
See, there's the excuse-seeking behaviour I identified. Do you have any basis for assuming that this was specifically inflammatry, and thus manipulative? Are these people prine to hysterical exageration? No they are not.
there is no basis for leaping to the apologetic assumption that these estimates are inflammatary. They are in line with predictions going back 40 years. It is the deniers who have the explaining to do.
quote:
As for oil prices changing our lifestyles, take a look at Western Europe. They have endured oil prices much higher than in the U.S for decades, but maintain a similar amount of GDP per head.
I'm in Western Europe. And yes, we do have substantially higher prices, which is precisely why America's pursuit of cheap gas at a time of global shortage looks grievously irresponsible and stupid. But we are buying oil at the same rate you are - the difference in price is due to taxation, which is in part used to support social services - so it is not as if at-the-pump prices necessarily reflect the impact of an increased oil price.
As for comparisons to the 1970's, there sare so many differences I cannot see the comparison. The 70's problem was solvable, if you could out-last it. This problem is not solvable; we are not going to be able to wait it out.
In my opiinion the circumstances are also different from the 70's such that the economy is more brittle, and more susceptible to serious shocks, but thats rambling far afield.
quote:
There are a lot of cheap cars out there, and they will start to look mighty fine if oil prices head skyward. As we have seen before, few things motivate Americans to change lifestyles, but sustained economic pain will do it.
I know, but the short-termism and stupidity inherent to capitalism are not my problem. Lets not forget that in this time of oil shortage, the US has seen the rising popularity of the hummer and the SUV. I would much rather see some intelligent decision-making.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Alexander, posted 04-05-2005 9:05 AM Alexander has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by Alexander, posted 04-05-2005 12:23 PM contracycle has not replied

  
Alexander
Inactive Member


Message 7 of 9 (196934)
04-05-2005 12:23 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by contracycle
04-05-2005 9:31 AM


Hi Contra,
I apologize for no one my friend. Any chimp can point out a dozen scenarios that would result in a thousand bucks a barrel. I just find it awfully suspicious that Goldnuts would toss that gem into a report, but the point isn't very relevant.
When you say "those people", you are presumably referring to commodities analysts and Wall Street in general. If so, please note that hysterical exaggeration is endemic and contagious on the Street.
As for the 70's, the only comparison I made was to the price of oil. From what I understand, the structure of the US economy is in a far better position to absorb changes in the price of oil and mild supply shock (also not really a relevant point). What we're interested in isn't high prices or supply shocks, but an end to oil.
I think short-termism is an unfortunate side-effect of democracy, rather than capitalism. Then again, a command-economy could simply redirect investment and restrict the energy supply. But I have faith that a market economy and a developed futures market will send the right signals when oil scarcity becomes a problem.
Also I forgot to ask before, does anyone know how much uranium is in the Earth's crust? I know its one of if not the rarest element, but beyond that I have no idea.
Contra, where are you from in Europe?

'Most temperate in the pleasures of the body, his passion was for glory only, and in that he was insatiable.'

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by contracycle, posted 04-05-2005 9:31 AM contracycle has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by DBlevins, posted 04-05-2005 12:46 PM Alexander has not replied

  
DBlevins
Member (Idle past 3775 days)
Posts: 652
From: Puyallup, WA.
Joined: 02-04-2003


Message 8 of 9 (196939)
04-05-2005 12:46 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by Alexander
04-05-2005 12:23 PM


Uranium
The amount of readily available Uranium (ie. it's not so deep its still practical and not overly expensive to mine) is about 10 years worth if world electricity generation was totally nuclear. I'll look for the citing as I have been doing research on the 'peak oil' issue for about 2 years now.
(edited to add) There are such things as breeder reactors (France has a few) but then the issue of waste storage becomes readily apparant. And since there are few places with the capacity and safety to hold very high level nuclear waste for thousands of years...(wishes he could post the glow in the dark mice for effect )
This message has been edited by DBlevins, 04-05-2005 11:55 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Alexander, posted 04-05-2005 12:23 PM Alexander has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by JustinC, posted 04-05-2005 4:41 PM DBlevins has not replied

  
JustinC
Member (Idle past 4844 days)
Posts: 624
From: Pittsburgh, PA, USA
Joined: 07-21-2003


Message 9 of 9 (197002)
04-05-2005 4:41 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by DBlevins
04-05-2005 12:46 PM


Re: Uranium
quote:
The amount of readily available Uranium (ie. it's not so deep its still practical and not overly expensive to mine) is about 10 years worth if world electricity generation was totally nuclear. I'll look for the citing as I have been doing research on the 'peak oil' issue for about 2 years now.
So would it even be worth developing a new generation of nuclear power plants?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by DBlevins, posted 04-05-2005 12:46 PM DBlevins has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024