Hijexx wrote:
] I'm curious to know, how many of you think this is even an
] issue? Is the talk of "peak oil" just Bravo Sierra or is it
] prophecy? It makes sense to me. I'm not in the camp that
] thinks it is just going to work itself out, not without
] readjusting to pre-industrial population size.

Certainly this is going to happen and I think everyone agrees that the timeframe is relatively soon. The problem is that a specific timeframe is very difficult to put your finger on and most people with an opinion also seem to have an agenda.

The conclusions that I've come to are:

1. I can't assume that gas is going to be available forever.

2. There is enough gas to last for quite some time. Decades...

3. We need to be researching several alternate sources of fuel. Are we doing enough?

1. Ethonal based fuels are renewable. They cannot replace gasoline, but they can cut our rate of intake of it. My parents home farm town in Canada has been totally dominated by corn production for ethonal in the last few years. Canada offers financial incentives to uses of ethonal mixed fuel.

2. Fuel cell technology is moving forward rapidly. Not only are these not based on fossil fuels, but they create new portable power sources that will help move robotics technology forward (batteries are the primary thing holding robotics back).

3. The U.S. Government has mandated development of electrical cars. Hybrid cars are now commonly available to consumers. This will also reduce our fuel intake. While it is mostly replacing gas with coal, ultimately I think its likely that we'll see a move to more nuclear power. Of course that has its own problems, but it may be the most viable technological option that we have.

Basically, I see a road map. I see real changes. So I'm not particularly worried.

A friend of mine has totally drunk the kool-aid on this one and basically asserts that we should just give up and start
dismantling industrial civilization. I think this is utterly wrong
for several reasons:

1. Noone really knows how much oil there is. As Decius points out,
everyone who ventures to make a prediction has an agenda. The
supply will contract as existing fields dry up but that will
just raise the ante to develop e.g. Siberia and better
technology to explore and tap other resources.
1b. We won't run out of oil overnight.
1c. There's also the matter of coal which I think is generally
agreed to be much more plentiful than petroleum.

2. *right now*, fuel cells/solar/wind/nuke/... is more expensive
than oil but its only a matter of time that tech improvements
vs oil supply contraction cause the curves to cross. Gas
is going to have to cost a lot more than $2/gallon for people
to quit driving huge SUVs.

And then there's fusion power... everyone seems to have forgotton about that one. I have a great deal of confidence that sooner or later, it will be made practical. It may be the case that you have to have a plant the size of Rhode Island for it to be economical and then ship the energy around as Hydrogen or something.

I think the key is that none of these changes are going to
happen overnight. People will change their behavior as energy
prices rise. I think this will be a gradual process.

If the oil's there in the ground, why not use it? We're going
to have to cope with running out of it sooner or later so why
not sooner?

At the end of the day, the assertion that the end of petroleum
will predicate the fall of industrial civilization is just another
crackpot doomsday theory. Humanity will show unbeilevable
ingenuity in the face of the prospect of reversion to
a pre-industrial state.

ryan is the supernicety wrote:
] Ryan-- this is really important. I really would like to learn
] more on this. Are there any good studies or academic papers
] anyone knows about? This could be the defining point for our
] generation.

That's an understatement :) There's a good link at the bottom of the article:

http://www.newsgateway.ca/by_topic_peak_oil.htm

And I have to say so far, Heinberg's book "The Party's Over" puts things in quite a sharp focus.

Tom, there's a great chapter in the book about Non-Petroleum Energy Sources. The problem with fuel cells is that they are not energy sources, they are just carriers of energy. That stems from the fact that the process of hydrogen production uses more energy than the hydrogen will yield.

And on ethanol:

"Cornell University professor David Pimentel, who has performed a thorough net-energy analysis of ethanol, found that an acre of corn ultimately yields, on average, 328 gallons of ethanol. It takes 1,000 gallons of fossil fuels to plant, grow, and harvest this quantity of corn. Additional energy must be used in distilling the ethanol. In sum, 131,000 BTU are needed to make 1 gallon of ethanol, which has an energy value of only 77,000 BTU. This gives ethanol an EROEI [Energy Returned On Energy Invested, -ed] of roughly .59, meaning a 41 percent net loss of energy.[0]

A recent USDA study came to a more optimistic conclusion: it claims that ethanol offers a 34 percent energy profit.[1] This translates into an EROEI of 1.34, still hardly an impressive figure when compared to the historic or current EROEI for oil. The practical difference between Pimentel's .59 and the USDA's 1.34 is slight. In either case, if the entire US automotive fleet were to run on pure ethanol, nearly all of the continental US would be required in order to grow the feedstock. There would be no land left over even to house the American population, let alone feed it.

[0] http://unisci.com/stories/20013/0813012.htm
[1] "Study Finds Ethanol Production Energy Efficient," ENS, 2 August 2002

Here's the positive study on ethanol:

http://www.usda.gov/news/releases/2002/08/0322.htm

The reality is somewhere in the middle probably. The math on that puts it at about break even. Once again, back in the same boat as hydrogen, an energy carrier, not an energy source.

I really recommend this book. It's getting my attention and making me think really hard about where we should go from here. I think we should all be particularly worried. The road map you see, I believe the cartographers do not see the cliffs ahead.

Ryan -- Tom, also from the article posted, you learn that the production of uranium also requires -- surprise, surprise, a great deal of petroleum. Everything we do requires it.

Hijexx wrote:
] ryan is the supernicety wrote:
] ] Ryan-- this is really important. I really would like to
] learn
] ] more on this. Are there any good studies or academic papers
]
] ] anyone knows about? This could be the defining point for
] our
] ] generation.
]
] That's an understatement :) There's a good link at the bottom
] of the article:
]
] http://www.newsgateway.ca/by_topic_peak_oil.htm
]
] And I have to say so far, Heinberg's book "The Party's Over"
] puts things in quite a sharp focus.
]
] Tom, there's a great chapter in the book about Non-Petroleum
] Energy Sources. The problem with fuel cells is that they are
] not energy sources, they are just carriers of energy. That
] stems from the fact that the process of hydrogen production
] uses more energy than the hydrogen will yield.
]
] And on ethanol:
]
] "Cornell University professor David Pimentel, who has
] performed a thorough net-energy analysis of ethanol, found
] that an acre of corn ultimately yields, on average, 328
] gallons of ethanol. It takes 1,000 gallons of fossil fuels to
] plant, grow, and harvest this quantity of corn. Additional
] energy must be used in distilling the ethanol. In sum,
] 131,000 BTU are needed to make 1 gallon of ethanol, which has
] an energy value of only 77,000 BTU. This gives ethanol an
] EROEI [Energy Returned On Energy Invested, -ed] of
] roughly .59, meaning a 41 percent net loss of
] energy.[0]
]
] A recent USDA study came to a more optimistic conclusion: it
] claims that ethanol offers a 34 percent energy
] profit.[1] This translates into an EROEI of 1.34,
] still hardly an impressive figure when compared to the
] historic or current EROEI for oil. The practical difference
] between Pimentel's .59 and the USDA's 1.34 is slight. In
] either case, if the entire US automotive fleet were to run on
] pure ethanol, nearly all of the continental US would be
] required in order to grow the feedstock. There would be no
] land left over even to house the American population, let
] alone feed it.
]
] [0] http://unisci.com/stories/20013/0813012.htm
] [1] "Study Finds Ethanol Production Energy Efficient," ENS, 2
] August 2002
]
] Here's the positive study on ethanol:
]
] http://www.usda.gov/news/releases/2002/08/0322.htm
]
] The reality is somewhere in the middle probably. The math on
] that puts it at about break even. Once again, back in the
] same boat as hydrogen, an energy carrier, not an energy
] source.
]
] I really recommend this book. It's getting my attention and
] making me think really hard about where we should go from
] here. I think we should all be particularly worried. The
] road map you see, I believe the cartographers do not see the
] cliffs ahead.

ryan is the supernicety wrote:
] Ryan -- Tom, also from the article posted, you learn that the
] production of uranium also requires -- surprise, surprise, a
] great deal of petroleum. Everything we do requires it.

For what? Transportation? What do you mean by "REQUIRE." Do you mean that the actual chemical is literally required, or do you mean that we typically employ it because its the cheapest option right now.

Decius wrote:

] It is presently cheaper to heat my water with gas then with
] electricity, but if the price of gas went up, it would be
] cheaper to heat it electically, and that power may come from
] coal, but it might also be nuclear

From the DOE:

---

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/ipp/ipp_sum.html

Five-Year Summary

For the 2001 through 2005 forecast period, electric utilities reported plans to add 44,726 megawatts of generating capacity in new units to their systems. Ninety-one percent of this total is gas-fired capacity.

In addition to adding new generators to their capacity, electric utilities reported several types of proposed changes to existing generating units for the 5-year period, 2001-2005. They proposed 55 electric generating units (19,300 megawatts) for either a fuel change, a rerating in capability, a repowering or life extension, or a combination of these. There are also plans to retire 5,247 megawatts of capacity. Projections of electric utility generating capacity, based on utilities' reported 5-year outlook of new generator additions and existing generating unit changes are presented in Figure 12.

---

Admittedly, this is a forecast. From the same page:

In 2000, the primary energy sources for US electric utilities:

43% Coal
19% Gas
14% Nuclear
12% Renewable
7% Petroleum

So basically 70% of our grid was based on fossil fuels in 2000. And 91% of the projected growth through 2005 is attributed to natural gas alone. Considering the trouble they had last year getting the natural gas reserves filled, is that really a sane energy policy?

Point being, if you think you have an option with respect to switching from gas to electric if gas becomes more expensive, and you don't think you will pay higher prices for the electricity as well, you're in for sticker shock.

Decius wrote:
] ryan is the supernicety wrote:
] ] Ryan -- Tom, also from the article posted, you learn that
] the
] ] production of uranium also requires -- surprise, surprise, a
]
] ] great deal of petroleum. Everything we do requires it.
]
] For what? Transportation? What do you mean by "REQUIRE." Do
] you mean that the actual chemical is literally required, or do
] you mean that we typically employ it because its the cheapest
] option right now.

Well, from what (little, admittedly) i have read, it is the only means by which to produce the uranium to be used. you MUST, currently, have petrol to refine the uranium (and hydrogen, for that matter). I don't know if there is a POTENTIAL to not use it, but that has yet to be seen. And with 40 years left, how quickly do you think it can be rolled out...

Hijexx wrote:
] That stems from the fact that the process of hydrogen production
] uses more energy than the hydrogen will yield.
]
] And on ethanol:

You're comparing the cost associated with fossil fuels TODAY with the cost associated with ethanol or hydrogen TODAY, claiming that the equation is weighted toward oil, and concluding that we should just forget about those other energy sources.

That doesn't make any sense.

If hydrogen or ethonal were more effecient TODAY then oil, we wouldn't be using oil.

Furthermore, if you made the exact same comparison in 1985 that you just made, you'd find that ethanol and hydrogen were far more expensive then oil and be even more convinced of your opinion.

If you compared the answer from 1985 and 2004 (there are newer studies, btw, then the ones you cite) what would you see?

The fact is that predictions about the end of the availability of oil have been consistently wrong for decades. The reason is that these predictions are made by considering the supply of oil that we are aware of today, and the techniques we have to extract and refine it today, and extrapolating that out into the future assuming that no technological advances occur.

Of course, technological advances DO occur. In the last few decades techniques for locating new oil reserves have vastly increased the amount of oil we're aware of, improvements in extraction technology have increase then oil reserves that we can access, and improvements in refining technology have stretched that oil further.

None of this should allow the reader to conclude that we don't need to worry about the scarcity of this particular resource.

However, relying on the same "if technology doesn't improve" method of extrapolating from the present tense is also non-sentical when it comes to discussing the efficiency of alternative energy sources. The questions are:

1. Are we devoting significant effort to improving alternative energy technologies.
2. Are those efforts resulting in improvements in efficiency, safety, and practicality?
3. Have we hit any clear theoretical roadblocks?

On the other hand:

] Will we continue to build what are really unnecessarily
] large homes, which we heat in the winter and then cool
] down in the summer? Is it necessary to keep building these
] large new big box retail outlets with high ceilings and
] extensive lighting?
]
] Both these activities must stop!

Is this the most reasonable, rational solution to the problem?

This is exactly what will happen when gas gets so expensive that people can't afford to use it as much, assuming that there are no technological advances, or changes in fuel sources. This IS the economic collapse that these guys are warning about. They want to prematurely increase the price of gas in hopes of cause the economic collapse they claim to fear early on. They advocate this because they LIKE the idea of an economic collapse based on overconsumption of scarce resources because it fits with their political ideology.

It is presently cheaper to heat my water with gas then with electricity, but if the price of gas went up, it would be cheaper to heat it electically, and that power may come from coal, but it might also be nuclear. In fact, for the short period of time that energy was actually deregulated in California it was possible to buy solar and wind based power for only a couple dollars more a month then the coal power PG&E was hawking.

With all these options available to me it seems clear that the economy is prepared to adapt. I can buy an electric water heater at any Sears in the country. Why? Because people are preparing.

Decius wrote:

] You're comparing the cost associated with fossil fuels TODAY
] with the cost associated with ethanol or hydrogen TODAY,
] claiming that the equation is weighted toward oil, and
] concluding that we should just forget about those other energy
] sources.
]
] That doesn't make any sense.

What doesn't make sense? BTU into a system versus BTU out of a system. The ratio of energy expended in making the fuel versus the amount of energy the fuel yields. It's just a ratio, I'm not even discussing cost. True, these numbers do change over time, and technological advances are the wildcard variable that helps to improve the ratios. But oil is the precursor for just about every form of energy we use right now. All of the equations will follow oil.

A few numbers I've seen:

Ethanol: Average EROEI ranges from .59 to 1.34
Oil: Average EROEI ranges from 8.4 to 11.1

As oil's EROEI ratio drops, the other ratios will follow.

] If hydrogen or ethonal were more effecient TODAY then oil, we
] wouldn't be using oil.

I think I understand where you are going with this now. Tell me this: When the EROEI for oil becomes 1.0, then .99, then .98, what happens? Oil ceases to become an energy SOURCE at that point, because it's taking more energy to make fuel than the fuel can yield. And the trend has been a downward slope globally for years.

Yes, technological advances could improve these ratios, but consider this:

http://magma.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0406/feature5/

Below more than a mile of ocean and three more of mud and rock, the prize is waiting. At the surface a massive drilling vessel called the Discoverer Enterprise strains to reach it. It's the spring of 2003, and for more than two months now the Enterprise has been holding steady over a spot 120 miles (200 kilometers) southeast of New Orleans in the Gulf of Mexico. The ship is driving a well toward an estimated one billion barrels of oil below the seafloor—the biggest oil field discovered in United States territory in three decades.

Tell me that drilling through a mile of ocean water and 3 miles of bedrock is an efficient discovery. Our technology allowed that to happen, true, but what is the EROEI ratio ultimately going to be for this reserve, that, if the estimate is correct, would fuel the US demand for oil for 83 days. Math on that:

1 billion / 12 million barrels per day (and that's a conservative estimate. The "naysayers" esimate is closer to 20 million.)

] If you compared the answer from 1985 and 2004 (there are newer
] studies, btw, then the ones you cite) what would you see?

I would see the obvious. That 80 to 90 percent of our total energy consumption comes from fossil fuels, and that the ratios for units of energy into the system versus out of the system are falling.

I'm sure there are newer studies, I'm sure I'll run across them, but... [ Read More (0.7k in body) ]

Hijexx wrote:
] Ethanol: Average EROEI ranges from .59 to 1.34
] Oil: Average EROEI ranges from 8.4 to 11.1

Those are compelling numbers. However, recall that the argument I made was that ethanol can help reduce our intake of oil, not eliminate it. Its part of a solution. The fact that we are expending so much energy on it indicates that we are taking the problem seriously. I've seen much more activity in the realm of alternate energy and hybrid vehicles in the past 5 years then in the preceeding 20. Its moving forward.

Not just on that level, but in terms of the way we organize our communities. One of the best ways to tackle oil consumption is to drive less. Pollution and traffic drive that interest as well. In the past 5 years massive development of Atlanta's inner city has occurred. Old unused, broken down buildings have been cleared away and replaced with neo-urbanist centers where people can live, work, and shop without driving a car. These things are taking off at an amazing rate in spite of the fact that Atlanta is the crime capital of the United States. Fortunately, a new police chief is addressing the latter problem, and hopefully over the course of a decade this will be a reasonable place to live, work, and play downtown with little need for cars.

(People don't like their cars as much as everyone thinks they do. I didn't have one when I lived in San Fran. It was a little weird for about 3 months, and then I enjoyed it. I rented when I needed one. Freedom from having a car + insurance payment is well worth the occasional trip to the car rental shop, but it has to be practical to actually live that way. That is the direction that cities ought to be driving, and many are.)

] They could, and I
] think that's what you are alluding to, but I need to see them.

Nothing dramatic on the ethanol front, but studies show that it isn't costing energy to use it.

] What technological advance is going to make deep sea drilling
] economically feasible? What technological advance is going to
] make these new extractions yield positive energy profits that
] do not decrease?

It is inevitable that we will continue to get better at that, but I agree that its only a short term fix.

] Yes. How much of our energy infrastructure has changed since
] the oil shocks of the 70's? Not much. And that was an
] artificial shortage. Think about what happens when the
] shortage is real and doesn't go away, ever. There will be no
] time to be saved by technology at that point. Tell me what
] infrastructure will be put into place at that point.

Basically, what are you proposing instead? I'll go back to my list of questions. Are we working on the problem? Its seems that we are. Should we be doing more? Well, you wouldn't be alone in saying yes:

http://www.economist.com/opinion/displayStory.cfm?story_id=2155717

Is the sky falling?