The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Sleepwalking over the oil peak > Comments

Sleepwalking over the oil peak : Comments

By Michael Lardelli, published 5/11/2007

The major parties won’t talk about peak oil until they have to, but a liquid fuels crisis is closer than we think.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 8
  7. 9
  8. 10
  9. All
I remember something called the Y2K bug, when the world's computers were due to crash in the year 2000 and cause global chaos because of a problem in the way that computers were put together. It never happened, partly because the problem was grossly exaggerated and partly because the prophets of doom were successful in convincing the small number of people who's computers were at risk to act.

So it is with peak oil. We have activists warning that we're going to run out of food and suffer from other catastrophes, when the more likely reality is that responsible people will take sane, calm decisions that will allow them to cope with a slow but steady reduction in liquid fossil fuel availabilities which are slowly but steadily increasing in price.

The current alarmism over peak oil is yet another attempt by well-intentioned but misguided people to motivate the community to undertake largely unnecessary actions in the name of protecting the environment or the foundations of our society or some other motherhood-type cause. Fortunately, we have leaders in the community, government and industry who will put the extreme rhetoric aside and make the necessary decisions to allow us to cope with the eventual but gradual shortage of oil and concomitant higher prices.
Posted by Bernie Masters, Monday, 5 November 2007 10:10:08 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
There's a big difference between Y2K and PO though...individual companies knew they were each under considerable risk of Y2K-related failures, and acted accordingly (and most started well before the media beat up the story). With Peak Oil however, most companies and individuals don't see themselves at great risk (of course, most aren't even aware of the risk). But the net effect of a large number of people having their fuel budgets stretched to the limit, or of genuine oil shortages actually biting can only be damaging to the economy.
Worse, there is very little indication at all that anyone has started preparing for the eventual reduction in oil availability. Most of the steps that can be taken would have a multitude of benefits, and unlikely to be harmful even if oil production doesn't peak for another 3 decades.
Posted by dnicholson, Monday, 5 November 2007 10:32:24 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Oh Bernie;
What you say is correct if a couple of things were true.
First that the politicians would acknowledge the problem.
Second that this was the year 1990.

Read the Hirsch report; we need decades to adapt, it is not something
that can be overcome in months.

A friend of mine, a physicist at Macquarie, has a friend who is well up in
a world wide oil search company. He says Australia is in much bigger
trouble than many overseas countries due to our size and lack of
prospects of finding more oil.
Posted by Bazz, Monday, 5 November 2007 10:35:52 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
No peak oil is not the dream of some misguided do gooders. The date may be wrong the mechanics of the decline may be wrong but oil is finite.
Equally our planet is finite and calculations by sober scientists have shown we are living beyond earth’s means.
Sure such cries are ages old Malthus or even further back regularly repeated so far our technology has allowed us, well the developed world to overshoot and indeed some measures are increasing, life expectancy et cetera others declining land per person etcetera
Each is true.
Natural Capitalism, which equally is not to be found on political web sites, integrates and adds system management to ideas of a number, Lovins, Wuppertal Institute, Factor Ten Club et cetera all run by hard headed scientists seeking a way to continue current living at current standards. N.C. argues for example that Capitalism only looks at through put on the basis that resources are infinite, as one declines a replacement will be found. True so far except for disposal, a suggestion of The Club of Rome 1972, and water. Sure there is the ocean but so far not enough non polluting energy to power a world system.
Soon despite the claims of genetic engineers not enough land.
I fear peak oil is real and we remain in denial t least the public do the Americans Chinese Russians British governments et cetera all have plans, usually involving war since might makes right in to days lexicon.
I cannot find the data as to how many of the measures suggested by the above have been implemented.
Houses can be energy neutral or suppliers, cars are in design reducing their call on oil, each will reduce emissions.
Population, since population times consumption means more pollution, waste and diminution of resources, is all but central to current economics. Doubtless the stronger will, unless armed like Korea, will be penalised.
So the world progresses and I have not even mentioned the born again who believe in a second coming and are prepared for others to die to achieve the aim. Like Iraq!
Posted by untutored mind, Monday, 5 November 2007 10:37:36 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
‘Sleepwalking over the oil peak’. Indeed we are Michael. Great article.

Wow! There’s a hell of an upheaval on the way. Peak oil, or more specifically, the rapidly rising price of oil and then its shortage of supply, are going to have profound effects on our society.

Peak oil is vastly more important than climate change, or the end of the mining boom or the drought or rising interest rates.

When prices rise and/or shortages really hit us, everything will change. The price of food and commodities will greatly increase. Supply lines will be cut. Inflation and unemployment will blow out. Law and order will collapse. Our lives will become very very much harder.

We are so totally addicted to and dependent on oil.

We really need to immediately go on to the equivalent of a war footing nationally, and work as hard as we can towards developing alternative fuel sources, improving efficiency in usage and developing an overall sustainable society.

The very existence of our society as we know it depends on it.

.
I couldn’t more strongly disagree with you Bernie
Posted by Ludwig, Monday, 5 November 2007 10:37:41 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
An excellent article, Michael... thanks. I was having difficulty sleeping anyway. So... the end is nigh. Soon we 'modern' humans will discover that the realities of life are droughts and floods, times of plenty followed by starvation and death, war and peace... In the "West" for the last half century we've enjoyed the most peaceful, bounteous, years in human existence. Soon we'll pay the same price the rest of the world had been paying for our gluttony, because that's the way closed systems work; gross imbalances self correct. It is going to be very, very unpleasant.
Pass the cyanide capsules.
ybgirp.
Posted by ybgirp, Monday, 5 November 2007 10:53:48 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
otoh, the sooner we run out of oil, and then coal, the sooner we can, will or must reduce population.

there's going to be a sweaty bit for awhile, but 200 years from now, the survivors will gather around the campfire and tell folktales of flying humans, able to talk and see great distances.

the kids won't believe it, entirely, but there will still be wreckage to support the claims.
Posted by DEMOS, Monday, 5 November 2007 11:00:14 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Excellent article. None of the major political parties seem to have heard of peak oil much less doing anything about it. They also seem to be interested in adding new roads when more rails / public transport will serve us better.

All industrialized nations are in serious trouble, I'd even suggest it was probably to late; oil has peaked and its down hill from here on in. We needed to be doing something about twenty years ago. We don't have the luxury of a slow steady decline in oil.

Bernie (and anyone who's interested),

Have a look at: http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net -- there are also lots of good books on peak oil (e.g The Last Oil Crash, The Long Emergency etc).

I'd also suggest that "sane, calm decisions" are very, very unlikely, anyone think going to Iraq was a good idea ("Oh look" he said in a cynical tone, "the biggest oil users on the plant have hoved off to bring democracy to the third largest oil deposit on the plant...")?

We have seen the start of the energy wars and unless there is a dramatic change to the way we live then we'll see more.
Posted by Charger, Monday, 5 November 2007 11:08:24 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The double whammy will be 'lack of liquids' both fuel and water. That will create all kinds of compounding effects; for example even if the farmer could get irrigation water he may not get enough oil-derived fertiliser or be able to drive his produce to market. Some urban elites have said they will drive a Prius and all will be well; that option may not be available to battlers who struggle with a long commute from the outer mortgage belt to modest paying jobs in town. Another compounding effect will be the way we'll use currently plentiful coal to replace oil while pretending that the climate problem can wait.

Meanwhile Costello still thinks Australia needs more people. Maybe the momentum will carry over to retail this Christmas. However if $100 oil is here to stay I think everything will change fairly soon.
Posted by Taswegian, Monday, 5 November 2007 12:34:49 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Bazz, you say “we need decades to adapt.” Of course, if we don’t have decades, then we will perforce adapt more quickly. Cf an article in today’s Australian on the Nazi Blitz of London, whih gives an indication of our capacity to adapt rapidly.

Michael, a bit flippant, but I wonder if many of the people worrying about peak oil are the same as the we-must-stop-using-fossil-fuels global warming alarmists? Silver linings and all that.

More seriously, my understanding is that there are substantial quantities of oil which remain untapped because of cost of extraction/limitations of technology. Declining supplies and rising prices will make such oil more viable and accelerate technological development.

However serious such long-term issues, we can’t let them dominate our daily lives, we’d be in constant despair. And so often they are misguided – e.g. the Club of Rome forecasts around 1970 that we would have mass starvation and no resources within 20 years or so, and the fact that serious scientists even in the advanced global warming camp admit that our understanding of the processes at work is very limited.

I do live in a relatively low-resource, protect the environment manner, not on ideological grounds or because I’m terrified of what may be, but because it seems like common sense. If more people did so, many projected problems would be mitigated. But for Australia as a whole, we’re small players on a global scale and will have to be adapters to whatever befalls. As an economist, I’ve been stressing for the last 20 years that economic and other policies should be directed at increasing our capacity to cope with, to make the best of, changing circumstances. Change is the one constant, and too often Australia’s people and politicians try to deny change rather than to embrace it.
Posted by Faustino, Monday, 5 November 2007 1:22:47 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
In addition to the Oct 2007 Energy Watch Group report stating that oil production peaked in 2006,
http://www.energywatchgroup.org/Reports.24+M5d637b1e38d.0.html
here are three more made within the last month:

Ex Aramco Executive, Sadad al-Husseini, peak production plateau now and overstated recoverable reserves, Oct 2007
http://www.davidstrahan.com/blog/?p=67
http://www.davidstrahan.com/blog/?p=68
http://www.energyintel.com/om/program.asp?Year=2007
and a graph from the presentation here
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/3190#comment-259196

The Oil Drum, Oct 2007, peak production plateau now
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/3064

Colin Campbell's ASPO Ireland Nov 2007 newsletter
http://www.aspo-ireland.org/contentFiles/newsletterPDFs/newsletter83_200711.pdf
page 6 Campbell discusses the possibility of a peak plateau rather than his predicted peak of 87.3 mbd (excl refinery gains) in 2010
"A depletion based Peak may not of course be reached if high prices hold down demand, delivering more of a plateau than a peak"
and
"It can now be said with absolute assurance that Hydrocarbon Man will be virtually extinct this Century"
Posted by Tonye, Monday, 5 November 2007 1:51:08 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I failed to mention Natural Edge, patrons Ninian Stephens and Ian Lowe, the Australian version of these institutes
Worth looking at even just to counter the banality of the current election, auction sale? Liitle in the way of a plan for our future other than more of the past-pity! Natural Edge offers, it is up to us.
Posted by untutored mind, Monday, 5 November 2007 3:31:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Good concise summary Michael-thanks for taking the time.
G'day Bernie - hope you are right but that's the rub-the decline will not necessarily be slow or gradual, particularly for Australia.
Some of the leaders in the government,community and industry are concerned which is why they have had an inquiry into the Liquid Fuels Emergency Act. Joe public doesn't know about it because they don't want to spook the precious "market" and God forbid people might start spending and consuming less.
I looked at Y2K and decided in the words of Benny Hill that it was a load of old cobras according to the research I did. I've done the research on peak oil and I'm concerned.
Australia imports liquid fuels from 45 nations. In the 10 months from Dec 06 to Sept 07 we spent $A18.75 billion. Our main suppliers are in decline and have rapidly growing domestic consumption.Top 3 suppliers of crude are Vietnam,Malaysia and Indonesia.
Imports could dry up rapidly - calm decisions won't cause alternate supply to materialise. Remember we are in the most competitive sector of the world.Have a look at the globe, we and NZ are down here all alone. Long way down the supply chain.
Aust Govt holds no petroleum stocks.Commercial sector hold only 39 million barrels. We have rapidly increasing consumption and population.
I don't know how old you are Bernie but I remember the punch ups in the fuel queues in the 70's, current population is not nearly as laid back.
That was a temporary political shortage this is a permanent geological shortage.
We are up against some heavy hitters to try and secure supplies.
space constraints prevent me going in to further detail.
Be prepared - best wishes.
Posted by fungible, Monday, 5 November 2007 8:06:11 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
If Australia were to act intelligently, it should build a rationing system now. There exists a well thought out model called Tradable Energy Quotas www.teqs.net
It is the only system that is a direct rebuff to the doom and gloom arguments.
Posted by Michael Dwyer, Monday, 5 November 2007 9:17:32 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The sooner Labor:

- wins

- considers the peak oil problem

- retires its temporary vote magent - Peter Garot

and

- formulates realistic pro nuclear policies (to address the peak oil energy shortfall)

the better.

Pete
Posted by plantagenet, Monday, 5 November 2007 9:39:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Fungible is spot on. Australia is in very poor bargaining position
when bidding for oil supplies.
There is another factor Fungible did not mention.
All our oil companies have their head offices in the US or Europe.
Can you imagine their HOs allowing the Australian subsidiaries to
outbid them in the market ?
I do not know the mechanism of the tradeable scheme but there is a
method that would use the new Medicare card.
Everyperson would get an annual ration. When you buy petrol your card
is swiped and the litres of fuel is deducted from your ration.
If you think you have more ration than you need you could sell via the
same system to someone who bids for your excess.
It would require changes to the banks computer system to retransmit
the data to the government fuel management computer system.
It would not be a programming job as complicated as the credit card
system.

Getting the politicians to come clean with the public is the main problem.
Some do seem to be aware as shown by the NSW State Government that is
mothballing their old buses instead of scrapping or selling them.

An indirect relative is in the bus manufacturing business in Europe.
Delivery times for new buses are getting very long due to a surge
in ordering.

However the RTA in NSW does not study future petrol costs when planning major roadworks.
The Minister does not even know what the International Energy
Authority does, he had not heard of it.
RTA does a growth study on traffic and project it forward not taking
into account increased petrol costs.
Posted by Bazz, Tuesday, 6 November 2007 6:20:39 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Bazz,
If you have a link to any work done on rationing, I will be interested.

It is inevitable that rationing will be introduced when the SHTF so if the govt were to pick up a really good model, like TEQS.NET, it would hold society together and save a lot of suffering.
Posted by Michael Dwyer, Tuesday, 6 November 2007 6:55:31 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Plantagenet,

Nuclear power is not going to help, we'd need to be building plants now and not in ten years time (and does anyone want a reactor in their back yard? I thought not) -- in any event nuclear power is a derivative of oil, not an alternative.

Uranium has to be mined (using oil powered machinery), transported (using oil powered trucks or trains).

Construction of the reactor is done using oil powered trucks, cranes, lifting equipment, powered compressors and the construction crew probably drives to work.

The equipment used to build the reactor also consumes oil when built as well. The pc the architect uses is also built using oil by products ; the work forces lunch arrives in an oil powered truck etc etc etc…

In short you can't really get away from oil. Our entire way of life is dependent on this one commodity.

This presents a problem in that any alternative to oil needs oil to make it in the first place.

Is there a solution? If we took action NOW, maybe. Given most political parties haven’t heard of peak oil and would like to build more roads, the answer is most likely “no”. There are some good points on Lifeaftertheoilcrash.net (goto Home and then follow the link for page two) on why rationing may not help the situation.

To sum up (From Matthew Savinar’s site http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/SecondPage.html)

"Is there any reason to remain hopeful?"

As far as the fate of society or the world as a whole, the most honest answer is "no." Our political processes are entirely controlled by massive corporations in the petroleum, defense, automotive, agribusiness, construction, and media industries. Most of the responses to this situation that would be favorable to you and me (such as mass transit and large scale urban gardens) would be at odds with the interests of these corporations. Thus, there is little realistic hope they will ever be aggressively pursued. The end result is likely to be a large scale societal collapse not unlike what happened to the Roman, Viking, Mayan, and Easter Island societies.
Posted by Charger, Tuesday, 6 November 2007 9:14:18 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Over thousands of years, human societies have had to face countless challenges, some natural, others human-caused. Putting aside war and disease as examples of things that communities or civilisations could not cope with, I'm not aware of a single natural commodity which has run short over that time such that the people affected by that shortage were severely affected by it. I view the lessons of history as being crucial in understanding how the world will cope with the inevitable shortage of liquid fossil fuel, but I challenge any of the people who have provided posts to this article to give me examples of similar situations that have affected large populations in one or more places around the world.

Why do I believe that changes will be slow and gradual, allowing us to come up with workable solutions to the many problems arising from a shortage of oil? Because as oil runs out, the price will go up, so that people will economise (Australians trade in their cars every 5 years and I expect them to buy much more fuel efficient vehicles, for example) or they will change their behaviour (catch public transport rather than drive their own cars) or they will find alternative sources of fuel (biofuel or oil from oil sands).

Climate change poses far more serious and difficult-to-manage problems than peak oil, thanks to a drought having an immediate impact which, if repeated for just 2 or 3 more years, can have consequences which are too short-term to be able to find long-term solutions to.
Posted by Bernie Masters, Tuesday, 6 November 2007 9:19:00 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pete Plantagenet (and KAEP, wherever you've got to)

Nuclear power cannot substitute cheaply for oil. Nor can it make electricity cheaper. In Australia, coal is the cheapest source of electricity, because the capital equipment already exists. The only good reason to abandon coal is to reduce greenhouse pollution.

There is no *energy* shortage. Petroleum is in decline; energy may never be as cheap again as it was in 1999; but at the prices we pay in 2007, alternatives are abundant.

Present-day profligacy with liquid fuels is *good* news in one sense, because it is easy (and will save more money than it costs) to reduce consumption.

Providing effective public transport to suburbs which currently rely on cars is an instant winner. Substituting rail for road haulage and commuting, and grid electricity for liquid fuels as the energy carrier for commuter transport and freight, poses an infrastructure challenge but offers huge efficiency gains.

Chemical processes have been known for a century which can convert almost any carbon-bearing material (such as firewood or coal) via 'syngas' (CO + H2) into clean-burning synthetic alkanes. This technology is viable with a liquid fuel price anywhere over $US40 per barrel, and is in everyday use in South Africa and Germany. Cheaper crop-based liquid biofuels are expanding rapidly.

Those of us who are married to our cars or have become addicted to aviation may suffer, but efficiencies are available here too. Providing we don't drop the ball in the short-term 'special period', we will afford electric cars and fuel cells and sufficient biofuels to fly efficient aircraft.

Many of the answers (and some elegant pipe-dreams) are here:

http://www.oilendgame.com

In the long run, we can adjust very easily to declining petroleum supplies. But we must not lose sight of the climate problem as we scramble for the easy solutions to peak oil.
Posted by xoddam, Tuesday, 6 November 2007 9:46:06 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Great article Michael, and soooooo true - and soooooo ironic in the light of David Fagan's arrogant responses to me yesterday (5th Nov 2007):-

http://www.kimspages.org/Novembe52007fagan.htm

As people may or may not know, David Fagan is the editor of Queensland's "Courier Mail" (a Murdoch publication). Ironically, as I also informed David Fagan this morning, "The Press & Journal" (Scotland's oldest daily newspaper), carried an article (5th Nov 2007), based on the info I sent David - info he has (without explanation), openly labelled "Un-newsworthy."
Posted by KimB, Tuesday, 6 November 2007 10:47:09 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
G'day Bernie,
Have you read Jared Diamond's "Collapse"? Personally I think Chapter 13 on Australia should be read by everyone.
I think the average age of the Australian vehicle fleet is somewhere between 12 and 15yrs - can anyone help with this?
There are probably significant numbers of people who have recently bought 4WD's and large 6cyl vehicles as a result of the current affluence and easy credit.As oil prices rise and petroleum imports contract trade in values of these vehicles are likely to take a hammering.I am not so confident that with increasing utility costs,rising interest rates,expensive liquid fuels,skyrocketing rentals,falling stock markets etc that folks will find it so easy to update vehicles.
Try suggesting to people(particularly young males) that they might consider not buying a new 4WD/people mover and keep their current car until plug-in/hybrids are available and see the looks you will get.
Completely agree that climate change is the no.1 worry but the real tragedy is that we will be hit with climate change/peak oil in the same timeframe.Cheap,feely available liquid fuels would have made accomplishing the infrastructure changes needed to combat global warming much easier.
Oil sands are an environmental disaster and contribute greatly to global warming.There is increasing evidence that biofuels are not environmentally friendly. Have you looked at the scalability problems with these fuels?
The newspapers yesterday had an article about the closure of two biodiesel plants and the cancelled development of another.The combined annual output of the 2 plants was 140 million litres. Joe public would be mightily impressed with this. I did the maths and found that being generous with the calcs this annual output could meet Australia's liquid fuel requiremnts for 8hrs.
Yes people will change their behaviour but only when alternative solutions are available and affordable.Have you read the Hirsch Report - the authors don't think the transformation will be quick or easy.Yes we must economise,localise and grow some of our own food but it's not going to be a smooth ride.
Posted by fungible, Tuesday, 6 November 2007 12:04:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Michael Dwyer;
No sorry there are no links of which I am aware to systems
for rationing fuel. The only thing I have read is the ASPO Transition
Protocol, which could be used to implement an Australian rationing
system. You will never hear politicians talk about it until there are
three KM petrol queues.

Bernie Masters said;
but I challenge any of the people who have provided posts to this
article to give me examples of similar situations that have affected
large populations in one or more places around the world.

Well thats the point Bernie, there never has been a similar situation.
We have built a 6 Billion plus population on the cheap energy of oil.
Now it is going away, what happens to that population ?
No one has yet come up with an alternative that is anywhere near as
capable as oil.

A telling article I read was about how long it takes a farmer with a
cultivator & tractor to work over a 100 hectare field and how long
it takes with a horse and smaller cultivator.
Similar comparisons were made for harvesting and bailing.
People have done some remarkable work on this problem and the result
is that we will need about 100 to 500 times the number of farmers we
now have.
It was an interesting article it went into how in the 19th century
farmers used two steam tractors and wire cables to pull ploughs back
and forth accross fields. There were contracting teams that went from
village to village doing this work.
In case you are not aware, the steam tractor looks like the steam
roller that used to be used in roadwork, but instead of a roller
in the front it had two iron wheels and power take offs.
Posted by Bazz, Tuesday, 6 November 2007 12:10:57 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Bernie compares peak oil "alarmism" to the Y2K thing. Let's get something straight.

Y2k did not happen — because governments and big business:-

* listened to the warnings...
* about a "VIRTUAL PROBLEM" WITH COMPUTER CODE...
* that was easily fixed with a little money...
* just in time.

By the time Y2K ticked over the "geeks" were quite content with the situation. (My dad worked for IBM). Of course the "nutters" stored up tinned food and ammo for the Y2K apocalypse that never came.

Peak oil is exactly the opposite.

* We have not listened to warnings...
* about an energy crisis in the REAL WORLD OF PHYSICS and CHEMISTRY (not some silly computer code)
* requiring a vast "war-time" EMERGENCY ECONOMY BECAUSE IT'S INCREDIBLY EXPENSIVE to prepare for the post oil era...
* and we have already missed the deadline which was 10 to 20 years ago! (See the DOE sponsored Hirsch report)
* This time the geology "geeks" are anything but content!

Now Robert Hirsch is a smart cookie, with a fusion prototype reactor named after him. His report to the US DOE reads...

"Oil is the lifeblood of modern civilization. It fuels the vast majority of the world’s mechanized transportation equipment – Automobiles, trucks, airplanes, trains, ships, farm equipment, the military, etc. Oil is also the primary feedstock for many of the chemicals that are essential to modern life. This study deals with the upcoming physical shortage of world conventional oil -- an event that has the potential to inflict disruptions and hardships on the economies of every country.
From the Introduction, page 8."

See his current thinking...

http://globalpublicmedia.com/interviews/615
Posted by Eclipse Now, Tuesday, 6 November 2007 12:12:30 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
PEAKOIL is not just any Y2K style problem for humanity. It is a THERMODYNAMIC manifold subtraction/augmentation(AS) problem. These problems exist throughout the Universe on 3surface-manifolds with an entropy-differential-metric and negative-curvature RICCI flow dynamics.

Like the formation of Atlantic basin hurricanes, the mathematical solutions to the evening out of entropy after 'AS' operations culminates in a time series of catastrophic events(eg a hurricane season) along vectors of strong entropy gradient.

Further, using a fairly simple TEPA (Thermodynamic-Endpoint-Analysis) technique the initial and final points of these catastrophic events on the manifold can be reasonably well predicted.

I can't go into detail here but suffice to say Australia's coal/gas/Uranium reserves (40% world reserve) represent massive thermodynamic Endpoints that will attract PEAKOIL hurricanes.

Now PEAKOIL hurricanes will be homologous to real hurricanes. Only it won't be sea spray and tides that are tossed around and battered, it will be 9billion(2025) humans battered around by guns and hammers. A global Rwanda. Its endpoint will be about 2billion population. When per-capita-energy consumption will match Earths surface capacity.

Claims that climate change is a worse threat?

One, Oil will peak within 2 decades and claim 7 billion lives.And unless you have lived through a cat5-hurricane or stellar-supernova you just will not understand the suddeness or intensity of such a thermodynamic event.

Two, climate change will take place over 100 years and maybe a few million people would be killed.

Three, after the 2025PEAKOIL dust and body parts settle, there will be no climate change threat because 70% of the world's polluters (bothe greenhouse gas and wastewater emisions) will be dead.

The net upshot is that Australia must PBR-value-add and export its Uranium as BMP (Best-Management-Practice) to forestall TEPA gradients not only directed against this country but ultimately those directed at others as well.
This solution will work well for a few decades. Sufficient time to perfect GEOTHERMAL laser-drilling technologies that will completely replace fossil fuels with essentially inground nuclear power.

My advice?

Don't wait for that knock on the door. Push hard for Australia wide Total-Nuclear-Industries now!

And remember, if its not PBR(Nuclear condom), its NOT ON!
Posted by KAEP, Tuesday, 6 November 2007 1:12:33 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
...and the winner is "Efficient"! In many ways.

KAEP,

Your millenarian certainty that "peak oil will kill 7 billion people" would be touching (almost Marxist), if your holocaust scenario weren't so obscene and so misguided.

While people require energy to live comfortably, it's a non-sequiteur to claim that massacres are the inevitable response to a shortage (and that the shortage will only be solved by killing off the people).

Peak oil certainly poses a problem: a shortage of the liquid fuels that are readily usable in the present-day stock of internal-combustion engines.

Nuclear fission and the Earth's interior heat can't solve that problem. You can't turn them into liquid hydrocarbons.

Solutions to the liquid fuel shortage require eliminating wastage (cheap and simple: we just drive cars less, and use more efficient vehicles), adapting our transportation to use other energy carriers like electricity or (maybe) hydrogen, and substituting other feedstocks for mineral oil. The technical transitions are already in train; perhaps not fast enough to solve the problem altogether (vegetable-oil-based biodiesel is not the miracle cure some have hoped for; there are better ways), but the potential definitely exists.

We may suffer one decade of rationed petrol and grounded flights, but not two. The technological solutions are too cheap and too easy for that to be necessary.

We aren't about to start murdering people for "demand destruction", in 2025 or at any time. Deaths already occur where crops and incomes fail, even in Australia, but mostly for the world's poorest agricultural workers (and this equity problem is associated with high oil prices -- we're burning "their" oil, as Lardelli wrote). But this isn't news, its the same non-news that we've grown numb to since 1945 as populations have soared. Peak oil might change the quantity, but cannot affect the quality, of abject impoverishment.

The mass death scenario is not racial violence and limited mobility fuel, but failing agriculture and mass starvation, to which climate change will probably contribute more than peak oil, starting *now*, not 2100. "Total nuclear industries" wastes money and energy, where the real soultions are efficiency and equity.
Posted by xoddam, Tuesday, 6 November 2007 3:30:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Charger and xoddam

Thanks for the replies.

Charger - Oil (and LPG) powered TRANSPORT will continue to be the most technically efficient way to extract and move alternate energy sources (eg. uranium and coal) that are for NON-TRANSPORT uses. But its also the case that a great deal of oil is needed to make and transport wind power setups and solar cells. Given this I don't understand why uranium should be singled out and immediately dismissed as a long term energy source.

My main concern is that peak oil is so serious that political parties (like Labor) should not rule out alternative energy sources for purist reasons. Purity may win elections but compromises after elections are what governing is all about.

Pete
Posted by plantagenet, Tuesday, 6 November 2007 11:37:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pete,

A proper reply to your post is always much longer than yours. At least KAEP hits the word limit!

A summary of the 500-word screed I attempted to post is:

* There is no shortage of energy overall, just the liquid hydrocarbons that are ideal for transportation.

* The shortage can be addressed. There are other sources for hydrocarbons besides fossil fuels.

* Petroleum will never run out altogether; demand must fall to match supply, through sound management and/or high prices.

* Substituting electricity (and, maybe, hydrogen) for liquid fuels is a major part of the solution. These can come from any energy source -- nuclear, coal and renewable energy must be compared on their individual merits.

* Mining actually prefers electricity to internal combustion engines for safety reasons. In remote locations (such as uranium mines), this is presently provided by trucked-in diesel, but renewables could cut costs substantially at today's diesel prices.

* It is easy and cheap to substitute electricity for diesel in heavy rail haulage in all but the most remote locations.

* Nuclear fission cannot play any role in addressing the liquid-fuel shortage that can't be filled as well or better by other stationary energy sources.

* In the case of hydrogen, it's much cheaper to make it chemically from a combustible feedstock (like gas, biomass or coal) than by high-temperature electrolysis which is how it would be made using nuclear or solar energy.

* And a repetition: stationary energy sources must be compared on their own merits, which have little or nothing to do with Peak Oil. Those have been discussed at great length elsewhere.

* Nuclear fission deserves consideration. It will compete with coal on the merits of its lack of greenhouse pollution and with renewable energy on the strength of its reliability.

* In the long run, a diverse supply of renewable energy will prove far cheaper and more reliable than nuclear power.

* It is my opinion that pursuing nuclear fission technology is a waste of money and leaves a toxic legacy.
Posted by xoddam, Wednesday, 7 November 2007 12:13:18 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
xoddam,

I agree with most of your points however... oil is not just transport, its our way of life. The problem is we aren't going to have the time to put alternatives in place. A sudden shortage of oil will damage the economy which will then reduce our ability to make electric cars (or trains), mine uranium or build wind turbines. The money to re engineer the transport system (which our economy depends on) may not be there if we go into a recession brought on by an oil crisis.

The point of the article has highlighted the major parties lack of interest or awareness in what is a serious problem (I did a search on the Australian Democrats site too, at least they gave a speech on Peak Oil) -- there is no political will to do anything. Everyone seems to assume it will be business as normal.

Its not going to be.
Posted by Charger, Wednesday, 7 November 2007 12:57:24 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
xoddam and Charger

To be succinct ;) I agree with (or see the validity of) most of what you guys are saying.

Like Charger I'm pessimistic. The two major parties are not doing anything about the increasing oil use or dependence although such parties are only capable of gradual solutions to gradual problems for electoral reasons and because of their incremental mindsets.

- those apparitions the urban 4WDs have been allowed to appear with their 4 litre turbos without any energy overuse and abuse studies.

- the Government has actually subsidised excessive oil use by subsidising the 6 cylinder car industry. The three "Australian" car manufacturers have continued to rely on their 6 cylinder products with low prices routinely subsidized by billion dollar annual bailouts from the Government. Without this 6 cylinder subsidisation oil saving foreign sourced 4 cylinder compacts would be even more popular (and rightly so).

We can expect a Labor Government to be even more determined to subsidise the (industrial heartland - marginal seat) car industry of 4 litre Fords and Holdens and strangely upsized 3.8 litre Mitsubishi guzzlers (the smaller Lancer is also oddly uneconomical as well).

I've downsized from a 3.5 to (an inexpensive) 1.8 myself to be onside with the angels :)

Pete
Posted by plantagenet, Wednesday, 7 November 2007 2:40:15 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pete,

I'm with you on the cars -- I don't understand the rationality behind a 4wd (unless you are 4w driving) and I can see more bailouts of the car industry coming unless they change and do it rapidly.

You'd have to assume that the vast majority of Australians have not heard of Peak Oil either.

Assuming there is some led time then people will eventually be forced into buying cheaper to run cars; I went from a 4.2L v8 (complete with worked heads, cam shaft and 4 barrel carby) to a Subaru and cut my fuel bill in half.

Having said that my four cylinder starts to look uneconomical at $1.40 a litre.
Posted by Charger, Wednesday, 7 November 2007 2:53:49 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Charger & plantagenet,

Oil is not existentially "our way of life". Technology depends on it *now*, but that's a temporary and treatable condition. Why shouldn't people rely on a useful resource at the peak of its production? What matters is that the world manages to reduce demand gradually as the supply decreases.

Australia has enough low-hanging fruit that I'm confident we can do so cheaply and quickly.

Short-term price elasticity of petrol demand is poor. But demand for aviation responds rapidly to changes in price, while longer-term purchasing and planning decisions (bus routes, vehicles, railways vs motorways) make automotive fuel price elasticity much greater in the long run than the pessimistic view indicated by short-term studies.

Of course there is a lot of uncertainty here. Hirsch's scenarios are likely close to being correct; the real cost of peak oil mitigation could be very high if supply were to begin a sustained decline before any move were made to address demand.

But it isn't true that no effort has yet been made. Countries such as Germany and Sweden are serious about reducing oil demand and greenhouse pollution, while China has committed to double the energy-efficiency of its economy, albeit without compromising growth. A couple of years ago Pakistan converted its vehicle fleet wholesale to gas fuel instead of liquids. Standard parts may make mass conversion of existing vehicles to electric or hybrid operation practical.

Big businesses from the petroleum industry itself (cf Tonye's "refinery gains" above) to retail to banking to the chemical industry have committed to dramatic improvements in energy efficiency and some even to "carbon neutrality". The R&D is mostly done, so the technological and legislative potential exists to turn our oil-dependence around, if not on sixpence then on tens of billions in change.

It's not yet too late. We aren't in Hirsch's optimistic 10-years-notice phase (unless unexpected supply-side discoveries push the peak further out) but we are also well ahead of his pessimistic no-action-until-peak scenario.

It will be a big job to make sure our governments play this game well. But it's not impossible.
Posted by xoddam, Wednesday, 7 November 2007 5:20:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
G'day xoddam,
I look around at our leaders and I find it hard to maintain your confidence. I'm also not sure that we are well ahead of Hirsch's gloomier scenarios.
Australia peaked in 2000. We are now 7 years into decline. Using EIA data up to August 2007 global peak month for crude&condensate was May 2005. Global peak month for all liquids was July 2006.
What has happened in Oz the past 7yrs? Our oil consumption has increased each and every year. Our CO2 emmissions have increased each and every year. Our population has increased each and every year.
New vehicle purchases are setting records. In each case you can be sure that 2007 totals will exceed 2006 totals.
Despite the fuel switching in Pakistan its oil consumption is increasing. Pakistan has 8 times the population of Oz but only 40% of its oil consumption.
Biofuel plants in Oz are closing. Wind turbine manufacturers are packing up and going home. New coal fired power plants are being built.
When the mother-in-law comes up from Sydney she has to catch a train,then transfer to a bus and I have to drive 20 kms to the station where the bus terminates to pick her up. It is a 13hr trip.
Main reason is that the state railway gauges are different!
Best hopes for sanity.
Posted by fungible, Wednesday, 7 November 2007 9:32:36 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Just a quickie for Bernie. Indeed, we have moved on in the past but that has always been with an increasingly energy-rich replacement: from wood to coal to whale oil to coal gas to petroleum. I guess the 'nexts' will be nuclear, GM plants for fuel and different modes of community operation. All well and good but it needs to be happening NOW. I accept PO and also that we will move through it but we can do it hard or easy. As it gets ignored or denied fixing it will just get harder and harder.
Posted by PeterJH, Sunday, 11 November 2007 12:57:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
According to Maslow's hierarchy of human needs, our species - Homo sapiens - has needs which, in ascending order, move from physiological to safety to love/belonging to esteem to self-actualisation. The physiological needs are the most basic and essential in the short-term: breathing, food, water, sex, sleep, homeostasis, excretion. When I asked earlier what crisis had human society not been able to resolve satisfactorily in the past so that it would give pointers to how to prepare for the peak oil problem, I didn't receive ANY examples. So I'll do my own analysis.

If thanks to peak oil we find that oil production drops by 5% a year for each of the next few years, what will happen to human behaviour in order to meet our physiological needs?
* Breathing shouldn't be a problem
* Food - whatever oil is available will be diverted to the production of food which, because oil will be rapidly increasing in price, so food costs will rise up significantly.
* Water - we have plenty, even if it's salty, so the question is how do we remove the salt - maybe nuclear?
* Sex - I'll leave this one alone.
* Sleep - peak oil shouldn't have much impact here.
* Homeostasis - Wikipedia says this is: "the property of either an open system or a closed system, especially a living organism, which regulates its internal environment so as to maintain a stable, constant condition. Multiple dynamic equilibrium adjustments, regulation mechanisms, make homeostasis possible." - peak oil will see multiple dynamic adjustments made throughout the entire planet.
* Excretion - again, I'll leave this one alone.

See next post:
Posted by Bernie Masters, Sunday, 11 November 2007 1:28:20 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
So, of all these physiological needs, food is the one I see most at risk of being impacted by peak oil. In the developed countries of the world, I have no doubt that we'll be able to buy our way out of trouble. We're already so rich, on average, that whatever fossil fuels are needed to produce and transport food to the populations of developed countries will be found.

So the question now becomes how will the 3 or 4 billion people of the developing world meet their fuel needs. Well, Kenyan farmers will stop producing coffee beans for export and start producing food. Brasilian sugarcane farmers will stop producing the raw material for ethanol and instead produce food. I also expect Argentinian and Madagascan farmers to stop producing cattle for meat and instead start producing plant-based foods that require less water and energy inputs. In other words, people in developing countries will divert their available resources to food production before all other needs, including material wealth.

So, overall, I agree that food production in the developing world will have several troubled years ahead but I'm also confident that the problems will be temporary and not lead to the catastrophes predicted by some.
Posted by Bernie Masters, Sunday, 11 November 2007 1:28:59 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Bernie,

"But the Krell forgot one thing .... Monsters, monsters from the not all humans are created equal (or fair) ID!"

Remember, in all thermodynamic systems (including and especially in human civil populations given our long hstory of war) any sudden increase/REDUCTION in per-capita-energy leads to new Thermodynamic states/ENDPOINTS. The trajectory of the change is CHAOTIC with an INTENSITY proportional to the time-rate-of-change of the energy addition/reduction.

In human populations, no amount of logic,reason,good intent or education can change the outcome. As human populations are a pure thermodynamic system, they MUST obey the laws of physics the same as any other thermodynamic system under change.

The mechanics of human thought/behaviour during such rapid thermodynamic transitions is complex and may even be rationalised as a free will response to hard times. However in reality such human complexity of thought and reaction is nothing more than an involuntary-time-etched response to thermodynamic forces in the social fabric.

Its all Thermodynamics, It REALLY is!

Don't be an Alice-in-Wonderland or Pollyanna.

Australia must not be the odd man out in a global PEAKOIL crowd crush if we want-to-survive!

Australia's Thermodynamic decay under PEAKOIL will NOT become CHAOTIC if we go NUCLEAR POWER now.

If however we create hot rock geothermal-power-stations for all capital cities within the next 10 years that would be a more satisfactory alternative.

Good News on the Geothermal front! As of today, this report indicates the full scale mining of Canada's OILSANDS:

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2007/11/10/1194329565004.html

It has 6 times the capacity of all Saudi oil fields.
This development could delay PEAKOIL for up to a decade to around 2035. If that transpires and Australia invests in hot-rock Geothermal power now, then we will not require Nuclear power to bridge PEAKOIL.

Given John Howard's electoral stink and Rudd's uninformed stance on ENERGY and science, I am not holding my breath.

However, global and local events now brewing may force a LAbour government to become more serious about the Geothermal option and if necessary the Nuclear option as well.
Posted by KAEP, Sunday, 11 November 2007 7:10:51 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
For practically every suggested alternative to oil, I can likely find a reason why that suggestion won't make much difference to the looming crisis of peak oil. eg: Canadian oil sands (Bitumen by another name). The following few lines from an Online article sums it up rather nicely....

"Replacing conventional crude with oil sands to meet the world's energy appetite would require about 700 additional plants the size of the existing Syncrude plant. Together, they would generate a waste pond the size of Lake Ontario. While oil sands represent a potential energy asset for Canada, they cannot make up for the inevitable decline in the global production of conventional oil."

The whole article can be viewed at...
http://www.hubbertpeak.com/tarsands/

There are dozens more Online articles to counteract the perverse notion that tar sands will in any way extend our ability to maintain our current lifestyle, which in turn is dependent on cheap and abundant oil. Also, Canada is struggling to maintain sufficient electrical production on which tar sands rely heavily for steam production, not to mention the massive waste of water.
Aime.
Posted by Aime, Monday, 12 November 2007 10:09:07 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Spot on Aime!

Oil sands are not going to help. In fact there is not much that will help (short of changing the way the entire developed world works).

As I've said before; "oil is essential for our way of live" -- although it may be better stated "oil is essential for our current way of life". For those of you who disagree take a look around your office and try and workout where oil is used be it in transport or manufacture. Then imagine an alternative to either transporting or making it.

If we where going to do anything about Peak oil it needed to be done years ago, my fear is there isn't the time left to change before the price of petrol goes though the roof (and takes food with it) and economies start to contract, there by destroying the wealth needed to fight climate change and Peak oil.
Posted by Charger, Monday, 12 November 2007 10:23:10 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Oh, Charger, Aime,

From one Extreme to the other!

Please understand the following.

1. PEAKOIL will not destroy your precious lifestyle ... It is going to kill you.

2. Without sufficient Geothermal and or Nuclear power stations to replace declining oil stocks 7billion people out of the projected 9billion will die in wars, civil conflicts and disease epidemics by 2025. There is no doubt that under such a threat, a way will be found to extract at last 1 out of the 6 Saudi oilfield quantities from the Canadian sands. That should prolong our civilisation for 10 years to 2035. But then the former constraint will kick in if we don't go GEOTHERMAL/Nuclear and 7billion people will still die.

3. The BIGGEST problem is humans, backed by idiot polititions and selfish business interests, immigrating their fellow countryman and increasing the energy demands for the future and the rapidity that PEAKOIL will hit Australia. Add to this the baby bonuses, child care and other political incentives and Australia will not be able to reach its energy output requirements even if we go NUCLEAR.

4. No Nuclear bomb or bombs have even 1/10th of the destructive capability as the human population bomb. WE are our greatest threat.

5. Australia must have energy self sufficiency using a geothermal/Nuclear mix by 2015 or it won't be our lifestyle under threat it will be our lives. Wake up!

6. Howard still believes that his Titanic tax surpluses will be worth something to buy our way out of the looming PEAKOIL iceberg collision. Money isn't everything John .. it really isn't.

Rudd's Labour doesn't even know about the most important aspects of GEOTHERMAL power and is nuclearphobic based on negative media polls that could change to pro-nuclear in the wink of an eye.

Now I believe that there is enough smarts in the Australian community to cut through all the BS and get GEOTHERMAL and Nuclear power happening real soon, in time to insulate our lives, (forget the bloody lifestyle) from PEAKOIL.
Posted by KAEP, Monday, 12 November 2007 1:30:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
KAEP - Can you please provide me with just one example from human history of the last 10,000 years that suggests the sorts of catastrophes that you are talking about - 7 billion dead? I'm not aware of any examples of wars and similar turmoil caused by a shortage of a natural commodity.

I believe history will give us pointers to the future, so have a look at Thomas Cech's 2003 book "Principles o0f Water Resources: History, Development, Management and Policy". In it, he talks about a study by Dr Aaron Wolf of Oregon University which shows that there have been some 3600 water treaties around the world over the last 5000 years and only one war over water some 4500 years ago in what is now Iran. I interpret this to mean that, as oil becomes short, there won't be wars claiming billions or even millions of lives. Instead, governments at the insistence of their citizens will sit down and negotiate mutually acceptable outcomes so as to avoid war and share whatever oil is left in the world, regardless of where it comes from.

I completely reject your armageddon scenario as being totally unrealistic and unlikely.
Posted by Bernie Masters, Monday, 12 November 2007 1:44:09 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hello Bernie,
The transition protocol has been suggested to enable a fair
distribution of the supply and hopefully that is what will get adopted.

I do draw your attention that this problem is somewhat different in nature to those that have gone before.
Until now, looked at in a say 100 year cycle, energy changes have all
been towards greater availability of energy.
This time will be the first time that there is a change back to lower
energy density systems.

It is the energy density of oil that has allowed the big increase
in population since 1900.
Posted by Bazz, Monday, 12 November 2007 2:07:16 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
KAEP, the problem with Nuclear is that we're not overflowing with nuclear technicians - we don't as a country, and probably as a planet, have the skills to run hundreds of nuclear reactors. Neither do we have the uranium, which itself is at or near peak (see http://www.theoildrum.com/node/2379, http://home.austarnet.com.au/davekimble/peakuranium.htm).

Anyway, nuclear, geothermal & solar will only generate electricity. They won't produce fuel for your internal combustion engine. Do we really think that all our ICE-driven cars & trucks will somehow be converted to electric in a short time-span? Or to any other significantly-different fuel for that matter? If not, petrol & diesel will still be needed to drive the machines that mine our minerals, cultivate our fields and transport our food.

Certainly there should be massive & urgent investment into the research and manufacture of alternate energy sources. There should also be a huge effort put into public transport instead of motorways, and planning for austerity measures that will substantially reduce non-essential fuel usage, balanced by subsidies for agricultural and vital transport usage. Our refineries should be upgraded so that they can process fuel from our own (declining) oil reserves as well.

People will need to get to & from work - how will this happen if they can't afford to use their cars, but are stuck with public transport that's geared for far fewer passengers? They'll need to eat - how will this happen if it becomes to expensive for farmers to fuel their tractors or for food to be transported from farms to supermarkets?

I guess its easier for our beloved leaders to dismiss all this as Chicken Little alarmism, and just continue just do & say nothing about it. It'll be business as usual until the sky really does fall in.
Posted by commuter, Monday, 12 November 2007 2:11:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Apart from the peaking of oil, I suggest we will also experience a peaking of lifestyle in this country (Australia), but it's not going to happen over night.

The population explosion has occurred ONLY because of cheap and abundant energy in the form of fossil fuels. If you follow a population growth graph, you'll immediately notice that it correlates to the rise in the use of fossil fuels. Our lifestyle has increased in much the same manner. One barrel of oil, for example, equals 25,000 man hours of energy. Nothing can replace compact energy like that, so as oil becomes increasingly expensive and all other fossil fuels too, we will see an unending decline in our lifestyles right back to the point whereby people do indeed begin to die.

Without the energy provided by cheap and abundant oil, everything will have to be done with greater and greater human labor input, but I rather believe that peak oil will be more like a roller-coaster event than anything quick and abysmal. We will see rays of hope on the horizon, only to see then dashed within weeks. There will be new discoveries, but not enough energy to exploit them. Such will be our lot. The rich will have no need of money, the sick will fade away, the thrifty will be lords of their communities, the lazy will plunder, then be killed.

Welcome to the "Old World."
Posted by Aime, Monday, 12 November 2007 3:26:07 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Peak Oil has a lot in similar with Climate Change. Both require urgent action to avert their worst effects, and both needed that action to begin a decade or more ago.

Both also have a huge number of sceptics in positions of political and economic power, and that's the real problem. A "believer" will (or should) take steps to cope with the problem & hopefully avoid its worst effects, while a skeptic will keep acting as if our current way of life and economic growth can go on forever.

What are the downsides of the believer's actions if the catastrophe (Peak Oil or Climate Change) doesn't happen? Well, they'll have spent a lot of money switching to cleaner, renewable sources of energy and transformed from "going for growth" to a goal of sustainable existence in balance with the environment. There would have been social upheaval & unrest, but at the end there'd be many new energy industries to balance the decline of the old fossil-fuel ones. We'd have cleaner air and no worries about our fuel running out. When Peak Oil does hit, we'd be well place to export technology and expertise to the rest of the world. Its hard to see a negative long-term consequence here.

However, what are the downsides of the sceptic's non-action if the catastrophes they're ignoring do happen? Utter failure to prepare as a nation, resulting in the permanent disintegration of modern society & rapid loss of population. The thing is, Peak Oil _will_ happen - its a certainty, just a question of how quickly.

continued in the next post...
Posted by commuter, Monday, 12 November 2007 3:51:29 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Aime,

Your oil/population correlation is facile and wrong. Population growth has *always* been exponential. Population has only ever stabilised in energy-rich societies.

20th century population growth was fastest in oil-poor countries such as the Indian subcontinent, Mexico and China, far outstripping the prosperous and profligate OECD and the oil-rich Soviet bloc.

During and after the oil "shocks" of the 1970s, all oil-importing nations decreased consumption. Population did not fall correspondingly.

It is technically simple, with some effort and political will, to break the back of our present excessively heavy reliance on oil.

We just have to stop wasting the stuff. Changing our habits with decent mass transit and some gentle arm-twisting in the form of congestion charges (and fuel rationing as the crunch looms) would mostly eliminate unnecessary and discretionary urban oil consumption, which accounts for half of the total demand. High prices can achieve the same, but since they are already "destroying" demand amongst the poorest consumers rather than the most wasteful ones, the implications are iniquitous.

Technological change should not be underestimated; it is the modern norm. 80% savings in gross liquid fuel requirements are achievable with technology that is already commonplace; all that's lacking is regulatory incentives to accelerate adoption. Saving fuel is cheaper than buying it; any pain caused by "austerity measures" need only be temporary.

Technical energy efficiency improvements typically reduce the whole economy's gross energy intensity by 1% per year, in the absence of any incentive but economy. High prices strengthen that incentive, There is room for a political mandate to strengthen it five- or ten-fold more, simply by subsidising efficient equipment and penalising waste.

The biggest obstacle to change is the risk that oil prices may fall again before the peak is obvious. For ten years now the price signal of the imminent peak has been hidden in the noise.

KAEP persistently ignores the vast thermodynamic wealth of existing terrestrial resources other than his nuclear and geothermal hobbyhorses. Concentrating the energy of the sunlight that reaches Earth is a simple matter of mirrors, photosynthesis, compost and pyrolysis.
Posted by xoddam, Tuesday, 13 November 2007 12:45:33 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pollyanna ... er Xoddamn

So oil prices are going to fall and human beings will all cooperate with each other when fuel is too expensive for law and order infrastructure to operate effectively. Oh and wanda is for black people and it cant happen to white dudes like you. And best of all, solar, wind and biomess can supply more than 20% of our energy needs.

Snap-out-of-it artilleryman!

Humans are thermodynamic machines. When you strip away all the civilised niceties, Civilisations, groups of humans, are also thermodynamic machines and as such obey the laws of physics. We know from examples of the application of those laws in other areas such as hurricane formations that when you have large, rapid changes in energy inputs then you get CHAOTIC response solutions involving a trajectory of the system between specific endpoints.

Those endpoints for humans are the 2billion population of pre-oil 1900 to the 9billion post oil population of 2025. The difference in population will die-off. Its that simple. Anyone with a modicum of real-life-experience and understands the real-Rwanda KNOWS this: http://dieoff.org/

Australia is running-out-of-time:

1 Stop IMMIGRATION. You wouldn't have flown in plane loads of bull-dogs before the Titanic hit the iceberg. We musn't fly in plane loads of aggressive migrants NOW near PEAKOIL anarchy. PEAKOIL will hell-raise enough anarchy without extras.

To view immigrants as GST revenue and captive votes for incumbent governments is a John Howard BETRAYAL of the Australian people. Immigration used to grow economy is a phoney. The $A value will be wiped out within a decade as world-currencies fall and revalue to nuclear, coal and geothermal energy stocks.

2. Go Total-nuclear-Industries(TNI) as a bridge over PEAKOIL and to build up future nuclear proficiency for R&D into the holy energy grail of nuclear fusion. Value added TNI exports like PBR fuel and mini reactors can more than double the loss of income from ceasing immigration. Further, such revenue will not devalue at PEAKOIL.

3. Bypass oil companies and invest in new laser drilling technologies to get HOT-ROCK-GEOTHERMAL power stations for all capital cities within a decade or sooner.
Posted by KAEP, Tuesday, 13 November 2007 11:21:31 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Keap,

I don't think nuclear is going to be able to replace oil. In any event nuclear material will peak in about 30 years time (and that's assuming demand stays at it current level) -- you can re process uranium but I'd suggest more weapon capable material in an unstable world is not such a good idea.

If we can maintain the electricity grid then we can probably still run some kind of transport system and hence some kind of economy -- there is not way its going to be able to cover the transition from oil though.

David Strahan in his book "The Last Oil Shock" calculated you'd need a wind farm the size of Wales (in the uk) to provide enough power to run the transport system alone.

I'd also suggest to everyone that there could well be mass starvation; if the worlds population has grown due to the use of oil in agriculture what happens when you take it away?
Posted by Charger, Wednesday, 14 November 2007 6:22:44 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Nuclear as a-BRIDGE-over-PEAKOIL, Charger. Please read carefully. The KAEP concept is not just a one-liner.

And the 30 year limit on nuclear is for the WHOLE planet. Australia could maintain realistic THERMODYNAMIC law & order till at least 2040 by which time I expect the dire circumstnces will ensure polititians are forced to run Australia on 80% Geothermal/ 20% renewables for at least 1000 years. By that time if women can realise their role in overpopulating and polluting the planet, we(humankind) may have a chance of mastering this planet and looking outward to space for future economic growth.

Speaking of women, there was a woman on radio today complaining about 4 stroke lawnmowers polluting more in an hour than 10 cars. What hypocrisy!. Every one of her children will have a home and mow the lawn 50 times a year for 1hour and for 60 years. Thats equivalent to 30,000 cars, not to mention her kids' inexorable expectations of expanding 1st world footprints and the mega-pollution that causes.

Unless women tweak that they are the sole creators of the INCREASING pollution on this planet we are all doomed. I don't get it. If there were no families(and its getting close to that), women would still have kids, so men are not a major part of the blame. Women are wired to have kids and I sometimes believe they just don't give a damn if the world descends into holocaust and environmental decay as long as they feel they can get away with their kids & lifestyle in tact. Women actually think they're smart and I love women but but this duality and deceitful thinking is a joke that could along with dopey Go-4Growth politicians see the ruin of us all.

Girls ... please ... only one-child each! You really don't want to be held accountable in a final-PEAKOIL-analysis.

As for economic growth without population growth: QUALITY is superior to quantity. With vast exports of small PBR reactors and safe Pebble fuel Australia will have the export $capital to continue improving lifestyles even for the aged without mind-numbing, utterly-corrupt, overpopulated, sardine-can-cities.
Posted by KAEP, Wednesday, 14 November 2007 12:05:59 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Keap,

What the? Nuclear is not going to bridge to anything. Especially if the rest of the world says "Hey that's a good idea, lets build a few plants as well". Uranium will peak quicker then oil. You may as well burn coal. It will last longer.

And what's with the women having fewer children? As far as I remember men have something to do with it as well. Unless women tweak "that they are the sole creators of the INCREASING pollution"?

I take it you are joking... otherwise I'd ask you to join the rest of us in the current century.
Posted by Charger, Wednesday, 14 November 2007 12:15:56 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
KAEP,

If anything you're a War-of-the-Worlds artilleryman yourself, proposing urgent adoption of nonexistent technology to avert "thermodynamic disaster" when half the petroleum is still in the ground and a wealth of 'negabarrels' and non-oil energy is lying about on the floor.

I do firmly believe that renewable energy can eventually supply 100% of global energy use. It already supplies 13%. This is basic physics, not Pollyanna economics.

Dire projections one sees with 'demand' soaring above 'supply' are complete nonsense: supply and demand are in equilibrium now and will always seek equilibrium. Prudent leadership and rising prices together will reduce demand, while resourceful people find ways to make do with less by efficiency and substitution.

You have not addressed the point that oil provides less than 40% of present global energy use.

You have not addressed the point that demand for oil (and other energy forms) can be reduced dramatically by sound management, without resulting in economic depression.

You have not answered the question of how you expect geothermal and nuclear energy to substitute for liquid fuels.

You have not addressed the point that we have no present shortage of energy for stationary use. Coal will outlast the oil peak by a century or two at least (even if China passes its coal peak in a couple of decades), and sunshine will outlast both by a couple of billion years.

You have not addressed the point that growth in biofuel is already providing a significant fraction of liquid fuel demand.

You have not addressed the point that coal and biomass are both capable of providing liquid fuels through chemical transformation, and that technology to do so is in everyday use.

I accept that between them, climate change and peak oil *may* cause a major depression. However I know that this is not inevitable, and I am eager to propose solutions rather than cry wolf.

Your "WOLF" is so harsh it's crazy. Your favoured technologies have NO potential to mitigate peak oil. They substitute for still-plentiful stationary energy, not for the liquid fuels whose supply is expected to decline.
Posted by xoddam, Wednesday, 14 November 2007 2:35:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Xoddamn,

For the Nth time, you don't know what you're talking about.
Example: "You have not addressed the point that growth in biofuel is already providing a significant fraction of liquid fuel demand".
It has been pointed out on OLO threads many times that there is no growth in biofuels. the damage to the environment in places like indonesia is closing down biofuel plants.
Losing touch with reality is the key identifier of the artilleryman. Like I said, "snap-out-of-it!"

My understanding of the course of events over the next 2 decades is quite rational. Its based on sound thermodynamic science and is supported by http://www.dieoff.org which is an exhaustive study of the effects of PEAKOIL on human populations.

##And Charger, this is the second time you have deliberately misrepresented what I have said.
I will clarify this time but I am sure you won't mind if I don't bother with you in future.

Clarification: "An understanding that in a disproportionte number of cases women are wired to have kids and that they are in a position to have kids whether males like it or not is standard savoir-faire. Seeing you can't read properly I am not surprised you have none and thus probably get none."

And you obviously don't get around or you would have heard the song "50 ways to screw your lover" ----: drop off the 'pill' Jill, tie the man down.
Posted by KAEP, Wednesday, 14 November 2007 11:35:20 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Keap,

You need to leave last century and join us in this one (I mean, 50 ways to screw you lover? Do you still own flairs and a safari suit?).

I've also read the arguments in Die off and to some extent I agree (as I said before as well).

All species are hardwire to reproduce. That's what life does. To blame the population explosion on women is nuts and does you a disservice -- here's a thought, the Roman Catholic church campaigned long and hard (and still does) against birth control. The RC church is a male organization. Why not blame them for the increase in population?

But back to topic. Xoddam, bio fuels aren't going to help or replace oil; Landline had a segment on the spiraling cost of corn due to the US bio fuel growth. This causing problem in Mexico (to the extent of riots) when the price of a basic food stuff went up significantly. I'd rather eat then drive and so would a lot of Mexicans.

Everyone seems to be assuming that is going to be "business as usual" and that there is some miraculous technical solution to the problem (nuclear, geo thermal, solar, whatever) -- these do not have the potential to replace oil in the way we use it now. They might if we change the way we run our economies and the way we live.

Start by buying local (if you can, there are olive farms in sight of my house yet strangely I can't buy their olive oil in my local Woolworths). Buy water tanks. Get a smaller car. Ride your bike or walk where you can. Turn of your pc when not in use. Don't use an air conditioner, design a better house instead. Have fewer children (yes Keap I agree the world is over populated). All these things are achievable with what we have now.
Posted by Charger, Thursday, 15 November 2007 7:32:03 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Charger and KAEP,

I know rising food prices are iniquitous. I don't support fuels that compete with food and encourage deforestation. Yet I observe that ethanol & biodiesel continue growing around the world. Brazil, India and China are investing heavily:

http://www.reuters.com/article/GlobalBiofuel07/idUSN1732024720070117
http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/09/05/business/ethanol.php
http://biopact.com/2007/07/china-announces-agricultural-biofuel.html
http://biopact.com/2007/07/china-to-boost-forest-based-bioenergy.html
http://biopact.com/2007/11/lula-new-oil-find-will-have-no-impact.html
http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/2005/10/20/stories/2005102002021100.htm
http://www.autobloggreen.com/2007/09/29/brazil-accelerating-biodiesel-production/
http://www.technologyreview.com/Energy/17940/page1/
http://www.financialexpress.com/old/latest_full_story.php?content_id=145882
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2007/10/india_ethanol.php

Countries which must 'do without' petroleum as prices rise are also beginning to adopt first-generation biofuels in a big way.

http://mbfimozambique.com/
http://allafrica.com/stories/200710220881.html
http://chinaconfidential.blogspot.com/2007/02/china-exploring-africas-biodiesel.html
http://environment.newscientist.com/article/mg19626263.300-brazil-rides-biofuel-bandwagon-to-africa.html
http://biopact.com/2007/05/myanmar-to-create-biofuel-plantations.html
http://www.ippmedia.com/ipp/guardian/2006/06/28/69248.html
http://biopact.com/2007/04/fuel-shortages-in-heart-of-africa.html
http://www.reeep.org/index.cfm?articleid=760
http://www.reeep.org/index.cfm?articleid=1397
http://biopact.com/2007/05/new-congo-government-identifies.html
http://www.gasandoil.com/goc/news/nta62796.htm
http://allafrica.com/stories/200710180787.html

But biofuel doesn't *require* food- or food-like feedstocks. As our OLO forum colleague ForrestGump said, "pro ignis lignis!" Gross biomass, mostly straw and wood, promises to supplant petroleum as the world's transportation powerhouse.

New techniques like cellulosic hydrolysis (producing sugars for fermentation to ethanol or butanol) and established ones such as anaerobic digestion (producing methane), pyrolysis and steam-reformation (to produce biochar for soil improvement and 'syngas', carbon monoxide plus hydrogen), and Fischer-Tropf synthesis (producing quality alkanes) all effectively replace fossil liquid and gas fuel with biomass feedstocks without competing with food.

"It has been pointed out on OLO threads many times that there is no growth in biofuels."

It has been pointed out *incorrectly* on the basis of local, temporary conditions of drought (well I *hope* it's temporary) and rising food prices. Palm oil has risen in price *faster* than petroleum, because it is food as well as fuel! Likewise China has restricted the use of corn as an ethanol feedstock for similar reasons -- it is still gung-ho on cassava and non-food biofuels.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0531/p01s04-wosc.html

"The damage to the environment in places like indonesia is closing down biofuel plants."

I wish it were so! The truth is that illegal clearing and the growth of palm-oil plantations continue unabated.

http://envirofuel.com.au/2007/10/18/palm-oil-deforestation-concerns-continue-to-rise/
http://waterweek.wordpress.com/2007/10/09/turnbulls-tangle-palm-oil-grown-to-earn-australian-subsidies-clears-se-asia-forests-and-creates-greenhouse-effect-australia-to-pay-indonesia-to-replant/
http://www.illegal-logging.info/item_single.php?item=news&item_id=2217&approach_id=19

It's price-competition with food, not any decline in biofuel demand or palm-oil production, which has caused closures and delays of South-East-Asian and Australian biodiesel plants. Fuel is likely to dominate prices again before long.

KAEP,

You have now given two incorrect answers to one of my six points. Care to tackle the other five?
Posted by xoddam, Thursday, 15 November 2007 12:42:15 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi again KAEP,

I've looked over the dieoff.org site and while I agree with some of the information it presents, much of it is out of date or short-sighted while the main text consists principally of bald assertions of insupportable opinions.

Dieoff.org says the long-term sustainable carrying capacity of Earth is two billion people. The one source given for this figure suggests two billion *reasonably prosperous* people, supposing no alternative energy and chemical-feedstock sources to fossil fuels can be found. The six or more billion people living here now aren't "reasonably prosperous" on average. Thirteen years ago when the paper was written, even fewer were prosperous than are now.

I read and studied the "emergy" discussion which purports to justify the site's complete dismissal of renewable energy.

This waffle and its impenetrable source grossly overestimate the "embodied energy" of fossil fuels by trying to trace the energy source back to the sun. The process of conversion from living biomass to fossil fuel was extremely inefficient and did not involve any highly-evolved 'maximum power' organisms, merely geological processes. We can do much better with contemporary biomass.

The "emergy" page then inappropriately compares this overestimate of the fossil-fuel energy consumption of the profligate USA to solar radiation presently directly absorbed on the land area of the USA (the Earth as a whole does much better, as much of it is dark ocean and rainforest, while the continental USA consists largely of high-albedo desert, pasture and grain cropland) instead of to the enormous total flux of solar energy which is available for capture on Earth.

Five points still outstanding:

* Petroleum represents less than 40% of present energy use. Renewable energy represents 13% and growing.

* Sound management (admittedly lacking to date in most countries) can reduce demand for petroleum, faster than any decline in production.

* There is no present-day shortage of stationary energy.

* Any carbon-bearing combustible fuel (such as coal or biomass) can be transformed chemically into high-quality liquid fuels which substitute for petroleum.

* Conversely, your pet technologies of geothermal and nuclear power cannot readily substitute for liquid fuels.
Posted by xoddam, Thursday, 15 November 2007 6:01:54 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
> * Petroleum represents less than 40% of present energy use. Renewable energy represents 13% and growing.

Really? Are those Australian statistics for liquid fuels? I'd like to see some sources for that - sorry if you posted it somewhere previously.

> * Sound management (admittedly lacking to date in most countries) can reduce demand for petroleum, faster than any decline in production.

If by sound management you mean severe austerity measures such as rationing & greatly increased taxes for personal use, combined with an urgent investment in massive public transport ... then maybe you're right. Can't see it happening otherwise, and I can't see our politicians being brave enough or far-sighted enough to implement it anyway.

> * There is no present-day shortage of stationary energy.

Our stationary energy, being mostly coal-based, needs liquid fuels to mine & transport the coal. When liquid fuels go higher in price due to scarcity it will logically have an impact on the cost & availability of stationery energy. When there's supply disruptions due to peak oil production, stationery energy will start to falter as well.

> * Any carbon-bearing combustible fuel (such as coal or biomass) can be transformed chemically into high-quality liquid fuels which substitute for petroleum.

Yes, but again there's problems. Coal to liquids can be done at an incredibly high cost in CO2 emissions. Have you seen Graeme Pearman's latest report on climate change? Growing biofuels has taken large tracts of land away from growing food crops & consumes scarce water supplies.

> * Conversely, your pet technologies of geothermal and nuclear power cannot readily substitute for liquid fuels.

Nuclear, like coal, relies on liquid fuels to mine & transport the uranium. The core problem with peak oil is that in making liquids scarcer and therefore more expensive, all other forms of power generation become harder & more costly to do - some more than others.

Its a pity Abner Doble's steam car never caught on :)
Posted by commuter, Friday, 16 November 2007 8:37:54 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Commuter,

You are correct re:nuclear but note, once you set up high energy density power generation systems such as nuclear and geothermal, they are NET-energy-produers, 100's times moreso than renewables. Nuclear/Geothermal MMST (manufacture/maintenance/storage/transport) energy usage is sustainable whereas renewables' are not. Nuclear can crack water into Hydrogen and mass-synthesise liquid fuels. Renewables cannot. Thus Nuclear can support itself with net energy and liquid fuel gains. It becomes clearer why renewables alone can never support 6 billion people let alone the 9 billion projected for the 2025 population crunch.

Also, vastly distributed renewable systems are a maintenance nightmare (imagine the army needed to clean square miles of photocells) especially when petrol prices creep past $5/litre. I envisage that renewable systems will not be worth maintaining at that early-juncture. Current investments will be wasted.

If the human race is to survive the next 20 years it MUST stall population growth globally to 7 billion people (one-child-per-family policy), and commence introducing Nuclear&Geothermal power stations.

Few people agree.

However with certain Thermodynamic knowledge I have garnered from watching/analysing 6 US hurricane seasons (Thermodynamic events on a 3-surface manifold) I will state that at about $5/litre(petrol) certain movements in societal values (thermodynamic trajectories in things like value of human life) are going to shock world leaders to an extent that nuclear/geothermal/one-child-per-family implementaion programs will be fast tracked right across the globe.

The alternative will be a series of wars that can hardly be contemplated by demure,selfish and gullible world citizens of today.

There will be those who will prefer war(we know who they are) because they foolishly expect to win. But I can assure people that at above $5/litre the end-of-civilisation consequences of that stupidity will have already begun to show. No-one can or will win anything in a 9 billion people random chaotic crunch.

ITS ALL THERMODYNAMICS ... its not that long to wait and see.

In order to protect our fragile environment and insulate ourselves from an imminent world chaos&tyranny and show some altruism and decency in world leadership, Australia must go Nuclear/Geothermal/one-child-per-family ... sooner ... not later.
Posted by KAEP, Friday, 16 November 2007 10:59:55 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
KAEP,

You write,

"Nuclear can crack water into Hydrogen and mass-synthesise liquid fuels. Renewables cannot."

I know of no technology that can convert nuclear energy into liquid hydrocarbons. Please provide a reference.

Biomass already provides liquid fuels. Nuclear energy does not.

Nuclear power can produce hydrogen by high-temperature electrolysis, which works just as well with solar energy, and which is more expensive than steam reformation of hydrocarbons.

Vast quantities of petroleum go to waste every day. With a minimum of effort most of this wastage could be prevented. For you, this resource doesn't exist.

Are you the kind of person who wouldn't stoop to pick up a $20 note lying on the ground, because if it were possible someone would already have done it?

Commuter,

The figure of 40% reliance on petroleum for primary energy is global. In Australia we use *less* petroleum than average (32% of primary energy) but more natural gas (19%) so our total reliance on the "fluid" fossil fuels that are expected to peak relatively soon is heavier than most. We use much less renewable energy than the world average, 6% as opposed to 13%, because we use less firewood and hydroelectricity than most countries. We lack a good hydro resource, but we certainly could make much better use of our biomass potential.

Coal mining doesn't require oil if electricity is available, and it invariably is. Yes, we use a lot of oil today hauling coal, because until recently it was cheap and convenient. But more of the extractive equipment is powered by electric motors than by internal-combustion engines. Converting railways and the remaining digging equipment to electric operation would be simple and, at today's oil prices, cost-effective.

But actually the best way to reduce coal mining's oil demand is to reduce coal mining, for burning coal is a very wasteful way to produce electricity. There are better ways that require less oil.

Uranium mining equipment also prefers electricity, though often this is provided by diesel or LNG-powered gensets at remote sites, and such long-distance haulage is obviously not suitable for inexpensive electrification.
Posted by xoddam, Tuesday, 20 November 2007 10:35:45 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 8
  7. 9
  8. 10
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy