Peak Oil

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
41

[quote]theuofh wrote:

[quote]John S. wrote:
As soon as we start drilling we will find a lot more oil. As we get more oil the cheaper oil becomes, the more money oil companies will put into alternative fuels research and the better our lives become. Isn’t life great when we follow Capitalism.
[/quote]

That book I read, ‘The Long Descent’, the chapter 2 was the called “The Stories We Tell Ourselves”. Its the myth of progress and how science is the new Jesus coming to free us from all our sins.

I’ve heard ideas ranging from back yard nuclear reactors to wirelessly transmitting energy from solar panels in space. Uranium is a finite resource too and if we won’t give it to Iran who very well could be interested in pursuing nuclear energy given all this oil crap, I wonder how many people will get a mini reactor in there backyards. I’m a radar engineer and power transmitted through space has a loss of range^2, so even if you had a massive solar area in outer space, it still probably isn’t efficient enough to beam it down to earth with enough left over to do anything. If people are worried about cell phones causing cancer, I wonder how many studies will have to be performed concerning the safety of high power rf waves. Ethanol won’t work and what happened to all the predictions of and research and development put into hydrogen power cars. That stuff was in the news, popular science, and a bunch of other magazines over 2 years ago and I haven’t heard it mentioned since.

Or the same thing could happen that happened in the 80s, where there was a big movement towards developing new energy sources, then we just drilled more oil and said well forget that its not a problem anymore.

If we have 300 years of oil left, fair enough we may have a shot, given that it stays an issue and something productive actually comes of it. But, If we are at peak or near peak, I think we may be completely fucked.

Marx’s criticism of capitalism was that it is impossible with finite resources and infinite consumption. This might be the case, however this predicament may bring up something new. Capitalism, socialism, communism, whatever may be outdated paradigms and strategies that do not fit the current model.

I’m going to end my rant there, but people have too much faith in science and technology, that may come at the expense of missing the opportunity to act at the right time.

[/quote]

Well since you quoted marx that pretty much tells me all I need to know.

Capitalism has saved this nation/the world many times. Science has always saved the day. Capitalism will create a new energy to continue the demands of the masses. HH posted an article about 6 months back talking about a nuclear reactor that could power 25000 homes and only cost each family of 4 $2500. The truth is if we did not have Government interference we would probably already have alternative energy. Hell there are companies researching Cold fusion and fun stuff like that.

We have no idea how much oil there is, we are lied to every day. We have been “close” to Peak Oil for a long time now. Hell I was shown graphs in school from 15 years ago saying we would be out by 2100. This nonsense that we are close to “Peak Oil” is a bunch of bullshit wrapped in horseshit.

42
43

[quote]theuofh wrote:

[quote]John S. wrote:
As soon as we start drilling we will find a lot more oil. As we get more oil the cheaper oil becomes, the more money oil companies will put into alternative fuels research and the better our lives become. Isn’t life great when we follow Capitalism.
[/quote]

That book I read, ‘The Long Descent’, the chapter 2 was the called “The Stories We Tell Ourselves”. Its the myth of progress and how science is the new Jesus coming to free us from all our sins.

I’ve heard ideas ranging from back yard nuclear reactors to wirelessly transmitting energy from solar panels in space. Uranium is a finite resource too and if we won’t give it to Iran who very well could be interested in pursuing nuclear energy given all this oil crap, I wonder how many people will get a mini reactor in there backyards. I’m a radar engineer and power transmitted through space has a loss of range^2, so even if you had a massive solar area in outer space, it still probably isn’t efficient enough to beam it down to earth with enough left over to do anything. If people are worried about cell phones causing cancer, I wonder how many studies will have to be performed concerning the safety of high power rf waves. Ethanol won’t work and what happened to all the predictions of and research and development put into hydrogen power cars. That stuff was in the news, popular science, and a bunch of other magazines over 2 years ago and I haven’t heard it mentioned since.

Or the same thing could happen that happened in the 80s, where there was a big movement towards developing new energy sources, then we just drilled more oil and said well forget that its not a problem anymore.

If we have 300 years of oil left, fair enough we may have a shot, given that it stays an issue and something productive actually comes of it. But, If we are at peak or near peak, I think we may be completely fucked.

Marx’s criticism of capitalism was that it is impossible with finite resources and infinite consumption. This might be the case, however this predicament may bring up something new. Capitalism, socialism, communism, whatever may be outdated paradigms and strategies that do not fit the current model.

I’m going to end my rant there, but people have too much faith in science and technology, that may come at the expense of missing the opportunity to act at the right time.

[/quote]

What you do not seem to realize is that we are already riding the tiger.

We cannot simply jump off.

So either we find a technological solution or we are thoroughly fucked anyway.

44

Oh look another thing to endlessly worry about and be fleeced from more of our money. See a pattern?

45

[quote]orion wrote:
What you do not seem to realize is that we are already riding the tiger.

We cannot simply jump off.

So either we find a technological solution or we are thoroughly fucked anyway.
[/quote]

I’m not saying we stop looking for a technological solution, but it might require more, specifically changes to lifestyle and energy use in order to give us enough time to come up with a technological solution.

Its not a matter of if we can come up with it, but how long before these technologies become commercially viable enough to distribute to the masses. Backyard nuclear reactors are probably a long way off. Cold fusion etc. may turn out to be a pipe dream. So far these technologies mentioned as solutions are the equivalent to predictions of flying cars in the 40s, fiction loosely derived existing technologies, w/o even a small-scale proof of concept or plan w/ timeframe to develop them further.

However, given the suspect credibility of and questions still surrounding the issue, no one including myself is going to make any changes to my life in the area of how much energy I use, except for maybe being more careful of turning off lights and making sure the tv is off when I leave a room.

46

Don’t worry the changes will come. When demand for oil outstrips the possible supply they will have to come. The peak oil idea is actually founded on the fairly solid fact that you can’t just pump or drill more oil once a field starts to decline. We just have to hope that our science and technology are advanced enough to help us out.

47

Some of these space based solar arrays are further along than I thought they were. I don’t know if they adjusted for R&D, launching the satellites, and maintenance costs, but the article quotes the energy produced will be 1/6th the cost of what it is currently.

I’m looking to see if any of these companies are public and if it is worth the investment.

48

Necessity is the mother of invention, not “I think this would be neat!”.

Something that provides 10-20kw of electricity but cost so many hundreds of millions of dollars(per unit) to implement would require hundreds of years to make back what it cost per kw at current prices. Or an energy company could just raise prices to half a million dollars per kw/hr.

49

[quote]SkyzykS wrote:
Necessity is the mother of invention, not “I think this would be neat!”.

Something that provides 10-20kw of electricity but cost so many hundreds of millions of dollars(per unit) to implement would require hundreds of years to make back what it cost per kw at current prices. Or an energy company could just raise prices to half a million dollars per kw/hr.

[/quote]

The 10-20kw figure is for the small scale proof of concept. I really don’t have a lot of faith in stuff like this until it is far into the implementation stage as projects get off track or encounter financial/technical difficulties all the time.

The point is, when and if oil starts to run out and become too expensive, the time will have long past to find a replacement.

Its summertime, why would you spend the time canning a bunch of fruit for the winter when it is right there hanging on the tree?

50

[quote]theuofh wrote:

[quote]SkyzykS wrote:
Necessity is the mother of invention, not “I think this would be neat!”.

Something that provides 10-20kw of electricity but cost so many hundreds of millions of dollars(per unit) to implement would require hundreds of years to make back what it cost per kw at current prices. Or an energy company could just raise prices to half a million dollars per kw/hr.

[/quote]

The 10-20kw figure is for the small scale proof of concept. I really don’t have a lot of faith in stuff like this until it is far into the implementation stage as projects get off track or encounter financial/technical difficulties all the time.

The point is, when and if oil starts to run out and become too expensive, the time will have long past to find a replacement.
[/quote]

Why?

It wil gradually become more expensive and so people will gradually shift into other other forms of producing energy.

That is much better than introducing a price shock and making it more exopensive now even though it does not have to be.

Also, R&D comes ouut of profits and so making profits smaller will only lead to less R&D.

51

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]theuofh wrote:

[quote]SkyzykS wrote:
Necessity is the mother of invention, not “I think this would be neat!”.

Something that provides 10-20kw of electricity but cost so many hundreds of millions of dollars(per unit) to implement would require hundreds of years to make back what it cost per kw at current prices. Or an energy company could just raise prices to half a million dollars per kw/hr.
[/quote]

The 10-20kw figure is for the small scale proof of concept. I really don’t have a lot of faith in stuff like this until it is far into the implementation stage as projects get off track or encounter financial/technical difficulties all the time.

The point is, when and if oil starts to run out and become too expensive, the time will have long past to find a replacement.
[/quote]

Why?

It wil gradually become more expensive and so people will gradually shift into other other forms of producing energy.

That is much better than introducing a price shock and making it more exopensive now even though it does not have to be.

Also, R&D comes ouut of profits and so making profits smaller will only lead to less R&D.

[/quote]
good point. Greater efficiency and various replacement (or bridge) technologies will also extend the life of [pick your favorite non-renewable]. There is no need to freak out. There is plenty of money in renewables right now and it appears to be growing pretty rapidly. When there is no longer good money to be made in Telecom, that’s where I’ll be heading.

There is also the possibility of growing too fast. I got to witness the telecom bubble first hand. People were shoveling money into companies that had never turned a profit or proven they could deploy a competitive product. This was a huge set back for companies that did survive and did have viable product to offer.

The company I was with went from 40 to 250 employees in what seemed like an instant. We had no immediate need for these people but were concerned resources would not be available when we needed them if we didn’t enter the hiring frenzy immediately. Managers hired bodies just to fill reqs they had while they had them. We burned through $120M in a few years and we were small.

SuperComm (industry trade show) was an enormous spectacle of new companies announcing new products. This year it was no bigger than the local shows in the Midwest. 90% of the companies remaining were here before the bubble.

There was a tremendous sink hole of productive labor and resources for years. Telecom picked engineers, executives, accounting staff, sales staff, managerial staff, etc. from every industry imaginable. We also drove up prices for labor, commercial space, consumable materials, etc. We diverted drooling speculative investors from other industries and technologies. It was all a tremendous waste.

I believe this is the greatest threat to the renewable cause. Our monetary policy almost demands a perpetual state of bubble building, and renewables seem to be hot right now. The fact that it was only easy money that fueled the telecom bubble was fortunate. Had large sums of gov’t money been thrown at specific technologies, we could be much worse off. For the most part we have been able to weather the competing technology battles and the best technologies have been adopted. I don’t think renewables will have such as easy go of it. When politicians pick the winners, there is a very good chance we all lose, with large amounts of money and resources being diverted from the most viable technologies in the process.

52

[quote]dhickey wrote:
I believe this is the greatest threat to the renewable cause. Our monetary policy almost demands a perpetual state of bubble building, and renewables seem to be hot right now. The fact that it was only easy money that fueled the telecom bubble was fortunate. Had large sums of gov’t money been thrown at specific technologies, we could be much worse off. For the most part we have been able to weather the competing technology battles and the best technologies have been adopted. I don’t think renewables will have such as easy go of it. When politicians pick the winners, there is a very good chance we all lose, with large amounts of money and resources being diverted from the most viable technologies in the process.
[/quote]

This is very interesting stuff, that I had never considered, especially relating it to the telecom stuff which happened when I was too young to understand or care about.

What about the role of government and non-profit money spent funding research in academia, that may lead to these technologies becoming commercially viable?

I see your point, just like corn subsidies, where government funding can drastically alter the way things are. I still think a lot of these technologies are a long way off from ever being implemented for the betterment of mankind, and require some funding that industry may be unwilling to provide giving the unprofitable, speculative, and rather grand nature of some of these programs. I could be off base here, and there may be enough investors to bank roll some of the research, but it doesn’t seem like anybody with any brains would invest a lot of money in these technologies that will take a long time to mature; if government pays for some of the R&D and the viability and profitable nature of some of this things appears, would that not make it more attractive to industry and investors?

Nuclear is another issue, as it will require a lot of changes in policy to get raw materials, get permission to build, and all the other groundwork that needs to be paved. Nuclear is very expensive now too, and I don’t see a lot of industry push towards that either.

53

[quote]theuofh wrote:

This is very interesting stuff, that I had never considered, especially relating it to the telecom stuff which happened when I was too young to understand or care about.

What about the role of government and non-profit money spent funding research in academia, that may lead to these technologies becoming commercially viable?
[/quote]
I would rather keep my money. If individuals would like to make donations or investments (and they do), I am all for it.

You would still have the problem of bureaucrats deciding what projects were funded. Bureaucrats spending someone else’s money. In theory, I would say someone spending their own hard earned cash would be a bit more diligent. I also think market style bubbles are applicable to research. The easier money is to come by, the more projects good or bad. Fewer dollars = more competition = equals focus on the most promising projects…hopefully.

I am going to make a broad and unfounded assertion here, but let’s see how it flies. If we look at the most important discoveries or inventions in the history of man kind, I would guess most of them did not receive public funding.

Raising money is not impossible. People do it all the time. Ben Franklin was a master. He got people to volentarily contribute to build roads, fund a fire dept (the first in the country I believe), fund a police dept, etc. When community leaders wanted funding for public works in Philly they didn’t force taxes on citizens or businesses, the called Ben. His autobiography is a really good read if you have the time.

People do it all the time. The first 7 years of my telecom career were spent at companies that burned investment capital at a pretty rapid rate. 7 years, two companies, never profitable. The fist company I was with is still in business and has never turned a profit in almost 15 years.

possibly. Investors may also flock to particular projects for the hope of large politically motivated gov’t grants, rather than the viability of the project. At a minimum it would skew an otherwise pragmatic decision. Like it fucks with market signal by picking winners and losers, it would do the same here.

Many would have you believe that lifting bans and legal barriers on Nuclear would immediately spur development of new sites. I don’t see any reason to dispute this.

You won’t see an industry push if artificial barriers are put up. This is the destructive power of artificial barriers.

54

Well, there is already a good bit of grant money going towards R&D of alternative energy sources. There is also a quash on some of the technology that currently exists. It will be held until it becomes economically feasible to release and commercialize it.

Energy and the technology behind it is a commodity. A company can’t flood a market with it, lest it cut its own profit and possibly put itself out of business.

It seems kind of crooked, but companies are ethically obligated to act in their own best interest. They are not an altruistic endeavor. By holding on to these technologies, they ensure their own existence and the development of future advancements. A saying of utilitarian ethics is- “Build a better moustrap and the world will beat a path to your door.”. What is not said is “But Don’t Spring It Until The Mice are Hungry!”.

55

Peak Oil is not a myth. When it happens is a matter of speculation, but the days of easy extraction are over.
As a result, previously unprofitable ventures like oil sands in Alberta become attractive despite higher capital expenditures. The result is a higher price passed along to the consumer. This would occur for no other reason than supplies are running out. Sorry, its not as easy as drill a new well. That has been done. Maybe they can recover some material from older resevoirs and wildcats with new technology but nothing of any merit.

People seem to look at this as a black and white issue “NO OIL!” or “THESE HIPPIES DONT KNOW WHAT THEYRE TALKING ABOUT IM BUYING A HUMMER”. Oil is running out, but their is still a place for it, and the energy efficient economy will be a mix of oil, natural gas, nuclear, and renewables. Renewables are too locally oriented and not cost effective on a large scale to be a sole source. However they are a nice addition to the grid.

Natural gas is basically the technological and economic bridge to energy independance. We have the worlds largest reserves and another field was just uncovered off the coast of Louisiana, the Davy Jones. Look at Exxons recent purchase of XTO, and Exxon is very conservative in mergers and aquisitions. Currently, the Barnett, Marcellus, and a few other shale fields are just beginning to have their potential realized. Natural gas is much more friendly to the environment, and is converted to Liquid with relative ease to be utilized in fuel for vehicles. Local fleet based vehicles would benefit from this the most in the short term due to the shortage of LNG pumps at the moment.

56

It looks like the Europeans learned a lesson the US is probably going to learn shortly, unless there’s more factors involved:

Also, I’m suprised a lot of these environmental groups who are worry about climate changed haven’t used peak oil as a scare tactic to get more of their goals accomplished. I could see a lot of people freaking out if some of this stuff was headline news.

57

Probably because of the long history of crying wolf with this argument.

And it hasn’t been just oil. The Club of Rome (if I recall the name correctly) was decades ago making a huge deal of how we were inevitably running out of everything, such as metals. They had all kinds of predictions of which much was made, but none proved remotely right.

There’s already a futures market for commodities. This is a place where people who put their money where their mouth is make their predictions, as opposed to ivory tower thinkers and those with political agendas.

Even more importantly, every entity that owns things such as oil fields or mines is on an ongoing basis making decisions as to whether to produce and sell product today, or hold off and instead produce and sell it any number of years from now. If their analysis is that the latter will be more profitable due to expecting scarcity at that date, self-interest will have them adjusting their output accordingly.

58

The Club of Rome was contemporary to Hubbert and the initial peak oil theory. They sponsored MTI to do a big computer simulation to attempt to predict the future course of industrial civilization. It resulted in the publication of “Limits to Growth” in 1972, which I think is what you are referring to.

Given the difficulties and more extreme means required to harvest some of the existing or future sources of oil, halting or declining production in order that it will be worth more, therefore cutting revenue, may hinder the building/maintaining of infrastructure necessary to harvest future sources, like the tar sands or deep offshore wells. Maybe they are acting in self interest by continuing production and oil hasn’t been cheap lately either.

One oil company has also already made a shift to nuclear in response to what they viewed as a peak oil threat:

59

The plot thickens:

http://www.postcarbon.org/press-release/85743-obama-administration-cops-to-likelihood-of

60

This is the reason for the NWO in my opinion. To seize control of the oil supply and dramatically reduce the human population so that only intelligent, rational people will occupy the planet and be able to use as much oil as they want.