All of the alternative energy sources and or the so called “renewable” energy sources and devices are very reliant on FFE in order to be researched, designed, produced or constructed then utilized, maintained and eventually decommissioned (decommissioning, often overlooked, is a very important aspect in the overall sustainability of the planet in a form the SBBM needs for its survival). These other energy sources will never fill the gap left by FFE. None have improved on photosynthesis, without the assistance of FFE.

Photosynthesis is “nature’s” method of extracting energy from the sun (the only continuing earth energy source). Photosynthesis takes ages to do its work and the SBBM will eventually need to rely on this and this alone, once again, in order to survive, to supply its energy requirements.

Of course, the growing regional sabre rattling leading to conflicts over these declining finite energy resources, will almost certainly accelerate the slide or crash of the SBBM populations. Or the SBBM, that has learned nothing from the numerous previous adverse events that have occurred when it has been confronted by essential resource restrictions (food, water), or in its competitive quest for wealth and power may this time wipe its self from this planet completely.

I reiterate; the SBBM has learned nothing from its relatively short history.

Oo roo,

Bucko

I simply don't believe this. Queensland, for example, is meant to have three hundred years' of coal at present consumption rates - and given the infrastructure constraints these consumption rates can't go up much. (Mind you, getting rid of the unions from Queensland Rail would go a long way.)

While the author is possibly correct in terms of Peak Oil I think his coal analysis is seriously flawed. Possibly he has confused Proven Reserves or Measured Resources with what is actually in the ground and able to be exploited in the future. Proven Reserves and Measured Resources are deposits which have been demonstrated to exist at the nominated tonnage and grade to a very high degree of geologic (and economic) certainty - and are well less that what is actually there in the ground, perhaps as little as 5% of the total. Mining companies rarely maintain a long term Proven Reserve ahead of mining, even though they may believe there is minable material available.

I am unconvinced by Peak Oil theory as well. As the price of oil increases - and we have seen spectacular rises recently - more oil becomes economic to extract and more money will be spent on exploration and development. Prediction is very difficult - especially about the future! Towards the end of the 19th century the end of civilization as it was then know was confidently predicted based on an extrapolation of the growth in horse-drawn traffic in London, and the concomittant growth in manure deposition. It was confidently predicted - based on sound data - that by the early 20th century Londeners would be up to their knees in it!

Hi Reynard,

You need to understand that the exploitation of an energy resource (in contrast to a mineral resource) is not, ultimately, dependent upon price but upon the energy return that the resource can give on enery invested to exploit it. If it takes more energy to get oil or coal out than you subsequently can produce from burning it then not only does it make no sense economically - it simply cannot be done - a physical impossibility (unless you subsidise the activity with energy from somewhere else)!

On average, we can only get 30-40% of the oil out of an oil field. The rest is not economic to extract in terms of energy (or money) and so will remain forever underground. The same applies to coal. The world possesses vast amounts of coal but only a fraction can be exploited with an energy profit. Look at what Aleklett is saying about US coal production. Their volume produced is increasing but the energy produced from it (which is approximately equivalent to carbon content and CO2 production) is actually decreasing. At some point, the energy produced will be less than the energy required to harvest and, at that point, exploitation ends.

nowhere in this debate has anyone mentioned nuclear, or fusion. I know that fusion is always 30 years away into the future - but it will come or we shall greatly diminish our populations.

On the big scale of things what is a world population of 10 billions for a decade or two, or a population of 1 billion for a few centuries. Who cares, except for the many billions who never get a life.

Count your blessings that you have life, whatever that means in the total scheme of things. One thing is certain. There will be great change. Humanity should be giving high priority to systems of government that can cope with rapid change.

Of course we should conserve Earth's resources, of course we should develop our sciences against the evil day of coal, oil and gas depletion. But, in the ultimate scheme of things, blah!

These are valid criticisms of the IPCC methodology but the study makes an equally significant error. They have failed to factor in improvements in productivity and the ultimate recoverability of reserves.

Productivity generally improves by 1-2% per annum and, at the very least, one should factor in a rate of improvement in recoverable reserves of a similar percentage. But when motivated by strong market signals there is evidence that much greater improvements are possible.

Given the changes in technology we have seen over the past century, there really is no excuse, as both the study and the IPCC has done, for assuming that the same amount of CO2 will be emitted from a tonne of coal in 2050 as is emitted today. Even a modest, 1% compound annual improvement in emission "cleaning" capacity will see total emissions/tonne of coal or oil reduced by half within 70 years. At 2% annual improvement this halving of emissions will be achieved in only 34 years.

This order of improvement is already being achieved through fuel use efficiencies so there is absolutely no basis for assuming the same cannot be achieved through emission "cleaning".

It is also a very good point about the IPCC's scarenarios assuming that emissions will continue into the next century. For even at a very modest 0.5 of 1% annual compound improvement in emissions cleaning, the emissions in 2100 will only be 60.57% of todays rate.

But all it will take for this entire "problem" to go away is for someone to discover a profitable use for CO2. Almost overnight it will turn into a valuable resource in it's own right which will justify the cost of capture. And at that point we will need to pay serious attention to ensure that our biosphere is getting enough CO2 to meet it's needs and keep us warm.

Basically we have just too many people on the planet.The environmentals talk about restraint in terms of energy and resources but few mention the need for contraception in developing countries that are consuming energy/resources with impunity.

When I was born just 55yrs ago the world pop was just 2 billion.Now it is 7 billion and still growing expodentially.The problem is more about too many people than not enough energy.