There is strong evidence that liquid fuels have already peaked on a net energy basis since there is little help from ethanol or tar sands. That means developed countries are competing with India and China for dwindling oil supplies. There appears to be no way to avoid having to tighten our energy belts since alternatives are low yield and/or take a long time to develop. A mixed blessing is that it looks like all fossil fuels including coal will peak worldwide within 20 years so that alternatives will have to be found; that may also limit global warming but the world will still undergo dramatic changes.

I'm not sure nuclear waste is such a problem since the volumes are small but permanent burial should no longer be put off. The real anti-inheritance for today's children is remembering how their grandparents drove private cars, flew in planes and grew abundant food with irrigation and cheap fertiliser.

I’m not sure I buy the assertion that the real reason for the Iraq war “a direct response to knowledge of impending oil peak.”

“So it is very well for economists to sneer that Malthus has been continually proved wrong by human ingenuity. Ingenious we may be, but for the last century our single big idea has been petroleum, on which we now depend utterly for industrial materials, almost all our transport, and critically for food; every calorie you consume takes ten calories of fossil fuel to produce.”

We haven’t been ingenious at all! In fact we’ve been highly autistic; brilliant at some things and absolutely hopeless at the very basics in other ways. Obviously it is the complete antithesis of ingenuity to have allowed the population to hugely build up and become dependent on a finite resource that just simply cannot be replaced without a massive readjustment to economics, quality of life…and population size. And this has happened at the same time that we have been collectively congratulating ourselves on our great ingenuity. Hells bells!

“Russia, quite unexpectedly, turns out to have won the Cold War. It may have been forced to ditch its Soviet ideology, but of the three blocs, Russia alone has both the nuclear weapons and the oil and gas. China and the West, by contrast, are now competing supplicants for Russian resources, giving enormous power to Moscow.”

Yes. Very interesting.

“governments should ‘scrap all airport and road network expansion forthwith; there will be plenty of spare capacity soon enough’ ”.

YES!! And along with it the whole notion of expansionism.

‘The last oil shock – a survival guide to the imminent extinction of petroleum man’ sounds like a must read book.

Thanks Graham for this review.

Aaaaaaaarrrgh…that intractable missing word syndrome strikes again, this time in the first line of a post.

Man that is excruciatingly annoying!

I’m not sure I buy the assertion that the real reason for the Iraq war WAS “a direct response to knowledge of impending oil peak.”

Hi Ludwig,

Have you seen Cheney's 1999 speech to the London Institute of Petroleum where he basically outlines the problem of oil depletion and says that oil companies need greater access to the Middle East?:

http://www.energybulletin.net/559.html

This was when Cheney was chairman of Haliburton before he became vice-president. Remember that Cheney, Bush and even Condoleezza are all oil people. Condoleezza even had an oil tanker named after her at one stage!

“governments should ‘scrap all airport and road network expansion forthwith; there will be plenty of spare capacity soon enough’ ” - is Macquarie Bank listening?

Oooh this guy is a real hysterian. He is already living in his mud hut (ok yurt with grass on the roof) waiting for the end of civilisation. Surprise surprise the author doesn't like nuclear as an option. He prefers what he calls "power down" which translates to "lets all go live in a yurt". Lets not until we have to.

Alzo, we might be living in yurts sooner than you think. At the present rate of population growth, the world pop is set to double in the next 40 years and as well as that, energy consumption per capita is still increasing. Looks like we will all be riding bicycles before we get much older too.

What with both oil and water becoming scarcer, it looks like subsistence farming on the coastal fringe will be the way to go.

Enjoy it while it lasts.

Unfortunately Michael, Macquarie Bank aren't the only ones not listening. There's no doubt that Howard and his cronies are not listening or refuse to acknowledge peak oil , but it's the same with Rudd and his Labor party. His quotes in newspapers are often tinged with 'keeping the economy on track.' My only hope is that should he get into power, he'll implement some sort of policy to address the problem of the end of cheap oil, but I won't be holding my breath.
One of the biggest economic problems associated with the oil situation in the future may be the relationship between peak oil and Australian superannuation funds, some of which are tied closely to road infrastructure such as toll roads, tunnels and an inviable air transport network. What happens to our funds when expensive fuel decimates road and air usage and those same super investments go down the gurgler? People should be writing to their super funds and asking these very important questions and changing to funds that provided better access to renewable energies.
Maybe it won't matter much in another 50 years if peak oil destroys the World economy, but it's a question that should be addressed.

Good article. Many Cities in the UK and Ireland are already adopting the 'Transition Towns' model for responding to the twin challenges of Peak Oil and Climate Change. Where are we?

Since peak oil is predicted by most experts to occur by 2020, planning over the next 13 years is essential if we're to make a smooth transition towards transport and energy systems not based on petrol, diesel and oil.

Rocketing petrol prices as we approach peak oil will be a major challenge for people who are heavily car-dependant. Fobbing the problem to the ACCC will not solve the underlying problem.

Our politicians have never be strong on strategic planning but they must start on the extensive transitional changes required to existing transport infrastructure for an oil- free future.

Engaging interested members of our communities to begin developing local government Transition Initiatives could get the wheels turning. Creation of local Energy Descent Action Plans is a starting point.

Local action plans are needed accross the nation for transport facilities such as:
* Provision of facilities in Central Business Districts for electric cars.
* Allow electric cars to be given re-charge while you park concessions as they do in Oakland, USA.
* Allow the import and licencing of electric cars from India and make Australia an electric car manufacturing country
* Plan for extensive expansion of each city's existing cycle ways and
* Open up routes that horse and buggy riders
Our energy descent plans could involve planning new Civic Centres and public buildings that apply highly energy and water efficient technology and design like the new Melbourne City Council building.

To our candidates for the next federal election, what initiatives do you propose to respond to the looming peak oil event? Peak oil? Who's listening?

Quick Response, in the UK and Ireland, townships are not all that far apart. Unfortunately, in rural Australia, what could be achieved by bicycle in UK/Europe cannot be achieved here. None the less, your plans are quite sound.
The biggest problem is that we don't have enough high profile figures who are willing to jump onto the bandwagon of peak oil. Ireland has Colin Campbell and are justifiably proud of him. The whole world should sing his praises for the heads up he's provided all of us, but sadly, so few Australians are prepared to listen to his message.
Whilst John Howard holds the reins of power in this country, you can forget electric vehicles. He's already stated his opposition to them siting loss of jobs because "they don't require any maintenance." I believe his opposition has more to do with propping up his 'big oil' mates. Also, how can you tax the sunlight falling on EV owners solar cells?
We won't have any real meaningful change until the oil situation has destroyed the economic system once and for all, but unfortunately, by then it may well be too late to mitigate the damage caused to manufacturing industries who could provided a buffer of alternatives. The clock is ticking on oil, but the alarm hasn't gone off yet for our politicians. They'd best wake up quickly before any semblance of opportunity is lost.

Another excellent piece. Australians are starting to get our heads around this stuff now. We certainly need to. But it is not yet too late. There is still just enough time to save our kids from the new enemy - which is us. Petroleum Man can still reinvent herself as Sustainable Woman, if she is smart.

Our kids should not have to live in yurts if we start planning intelligently soon. In Australia there is still enough readily available non-renewable energy in the ground that we can use it to build a new energy conversion infrastructure based on renewable energy. We in Australia have huge solar, wind, tidal, wave and geothermal energy conversion potential. It is a matter of our society resolving to find the money – money we waste now on things we don’t need - to build this new energy conversion infrastructure while oil and coal are still cheap and available. Everything we need to build that new physical infrastructure – metals, concrete, plastics, advanced silicates, earthmoving energy – now comes from oil-based products and processes. Once that new infrastructure is built, producing enough surplus energy to go on maintaining and renewing itself, we should be OK, and should have capacity and know-how to help others in the world less favourably placed.

All our politicians are still phlegmatic about this, or pretending to be. Howard never will get it. He will die a climate change and peak oil sceptic. I doubt he has moral empathy to imagine our responsibility to our children. This is the government, after all, that robs our working young so that the old can live in clover on superannuation. Why should it care about the fate of children not yet born?

Rudd is young, ferociously intelligent, and of a moral mind. He has to get elected first, but once elected, I pray that he will quickly grasp what needs to be done, and will be the quality of leader to inspire us to do it.

Howard offers only guaranteed inactivity disguised by spin. Rudd offers hope of real action after the election.

This sounds to me like the same (un)reasoned logic promoted by the Year 2000 mob who expected anarchy and the failure of our government to provide water to the bathtub. Maybe it is the same band of people.

We will not wake up one morning and see headlines screaming "No More Coal", or "No Oil Remains - We Have Used it All"

Simple marketplace logic would indicate that as the price of petrol increases due to declining availability of crude oil, other sources of fuel will arise because the financial viability will be met. This is already happening with methanol and cooking oil powered diesels. Not to mention the more affordable solar panels and windmills.

New sources of power will be found and new engines will be invented to drive our transportation needs. General Motors, Ford, Boeing et al. are much aware of the future power needs of the marketplace. However their product offerings are driven by what the population is willing to buy. Until the price of petrol is driven quite a bit higher there will not be a large demand for the dual fuel (or alternate fuel) cars, buses and planes that can be delivered today.

Not until the price of electricity is driven much higher will there be a demand for nuclear power, or maybe even huge windmills in every backyard

tonyk, if only it were so. talk about 'cargo-cult' psychology, those pacific islanders at least had the example of a few real airplanes.

pollies ain't gonna do it, and oz isn't going to respond to the power/pollution crisis in an organized and effective way.

so plan b:

1. motor scooters are going to make a big comeback. some bright engineer will put together a golfcart battery and a washing machine motor with a mountain bike and ozelec vehicles will be born. soichiro honda did something similar after wwll.

2. put your super in solar hot water companies, they will grow like mushrooms.

3. convert your house and life to 12volt sytems. a solar cell array on your roof of 2-4 kilowatts with some car batteries in the garage will allow an austere but civilized life.

4. put up a wall around your property and acquire an automatic rifle. your neighbors are going to rely on pollies to save them, and will consequently be unemployed, starving, and desperate. don't allow their feckless dependence on lies to interfere with your provident planning.

Bruce; you are not going to wake up one morning and hear that all the oil has gone.
That is a silly proposition and no one is making that statement.
You are more likely to see a service station with a sign that says

"No petrol till 12 noon".

It will creep up on us over a period of some years if we are lucky.
Aime;
The governments do seem to be aware of peak oil, but not with an urgency.
The state government has an order in for new busses, 500 I believe.
They normally scrap or sell the old ones, but this time they are
mothballing them; I wonder why ?
Also why is Peter Costello giving away $2000 to convert your car to gas ?

I believe they are aware, but realise it would be political suicide
to get up and say they are going to do a lot of inconvenient things.

Where they let us down is in not making it a non political problem.
By the way they can tax sunlight. The only difference between radio
frequencies and sunlight is it is a different frequency and they charged
the mobile phone companies billions for a small band of frequencies.

The one thing that might prevent a slow onset is if the overseas
priciples of our oil companies block the local branches from buying
oil on the market until they get what they want.
This would have a sudden and dramatic effect.
That is why we need the Transition Protocol being adopted by the UN.

Someone mentioned the electric car from India.
In the UK they are concerned about the result of crash testing and
are reviewing the cars safety.

Someday cheap supplies of oil and coal will be used up. Will this be a catastrophe? A lot depends on the speed of depletion. Shall we be able to adapt? Biological adaptation seems to take a long time to work its way through a population. But, other adaptations occur more quickly. Horse drawn carts to automobiles took just a few decades. Whale oil to petroleum took just a few years. I think the alarmists need to factor in our societies capacities to adapt to new situations. Maybe there will be a 20-30 years transition from our present energy sources to new ones. I think Bruce has spoken a lot of sense.

Bruce has faith in the markets. I'll let the Federal Senate peak oil enquiry answer the charge that the markets will solve it once the price is right.

"3.147 The committee does not agree with this, for several reasons:

Given the huge investment needed to adapt the economy to a less oil-dependent future, and the long lead times involved, it is possible that price signals resulting from increased scarcity of oil will occur too late to spur alternative developments in a timely way in the quantities required.

Government initiative is needed to promote investments which are regarded as socially desirable, but which have a longer payback period than private actors are used to.
There are high barriers to entry for alternative fuels in that the refuelling network must be in place. Arguably government initiative is needed to promote change - as government has accepted with its current initiatives to promote alternative fuels.[118]

Some responses on the demand management side require policy choices on very long lived public infrastructure. The consequences of decisions made now on how to develop road and rail networks for the sake of fuel efficiency will be with us in 50 years. The shape of new urban development, which has a dominating effect on the amount of car use, is effectively permanent. These decisions are made by government, and they should have a longer time horizon than private economic agents usually consider."

.... and later....

"The committee agrees that government initiative will be essential to move towards a less oil-dependent future."

http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/committee/rrat_ctte/oil_supply/report/c03.htm

The committee also decided no alternative fuel could replace oil and that we basically have to redesign our cities, and that city planning is a government legislative and planning exercise. Leaving this to the marketplace is like running around a cliff-top with a blindfold on.

Also, on electric cars....

one has to run a complete inventory on all the ingredients of the electric car battery to see how viable such a system is. New Scientist recently ran an article how many rarer metals essential for electronics and computing applications are running down, and how these rarer elements relate to the EV is a matter of important consideration. Hafnium, telenium, and many other rarer metals were estimated to not peak, but RUN OUT over the next decade or 2.

There are many reasons for heading into New Urbanism as described on Catalyst after they screened "Crude". Basically, when a Senate inquiry decides we need energy efficient cities not just energy efficient cars, you know something's up.

http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/committee/rrat_ctte/oil_supply/report/c08.htm

"8.96 When government considers the range of policies needed to reduce oil dependence, and the level of government intervention or support that they deserve, the costs and benefits of demand side measures versus supply side measures should be compared. A litre of oil saved through a fuel efficiency measure, or by turning a car trip into a bicycle trip, is just as real as a litre of oil found by new exploration or produced in a coal to liquids plant.

8.97 It should be remembered that measures to reduce demand for oil-fuelled transport also have other benefits - reducing greenhouse gas emissions; promoting the environmental and social benefits of less car-dependent cities - which the alternative fuels do not have, or have to a lesser degree. In the cost/benefit comparison these extra benefits should count to the credit of the demand management measures."

But can they stand up and announce the end of the oil age? Just watch what happens to the stock market if they did. The politicians know about peak oil, but are imprisoned by the silly fragile, "market confidence" based system they have allowed to become our new masters.

I can't resist another short comment on this thread. I have just just read that Senate enquiry report (in February 2007, referred to by another contributor - thanks) into Australia's fuel supply. This was a remarkably sober and sound all-parties report. The committee was chaired by none other than Bill Heffernan. Its deputy chair was Rachel Siewert of the Greens. Remarkably, the committee agreed on all its major findings and recommendations. There were no minority reports or individual chapters.

OK, maybe Heff wanted to push biofuels (and I see no discussion in the report of how growing biofuels production around the world will reduce food supply to poor people, as it is already doing in Brazil -where your continued access to cheaper fuel may be starving some poor kids to death).

But still, it is a remarkably sane and balanced bipartisan Senate report.

So why isn't the Howard government taking any notice of it?

In the UK the government has just published its White Paper on Energy. In 342 pages the only mention of peak oil and gas is in regard to those that have occurred in the North Sea. Having been once a net exporter of oil and gas, our peaks in production have put us in the mercy of external events. Rather than tighten our energy belts we are to continue with road and airport expansion and carbon trading in which we improve industrial efficiencies in India will allow "business-as-usual" without guilt.

When a global peak in the production of oil or gas or coal or uranium is likely to occur is not up for discussion. Today in PM's Questions Tony Blair fended off any suggestions that expanding air travel should be restrained.

The White Paper is another "dodgy dossier" similar in its objective to the one which got us into Iraq, but as a device to herald a nuclear "renaissance". Nuclear power is accorded a low carbon nature it does not deserve so that it can benefit from carbon credits to fill its viability gap. It is a desperate measure to maintain economic growth while appearing to alleviate climate change.

It is likely to be overtaken by events, as has happened to the Iraq project.

michael_in_adelaide

Thanks for the link to Cheney’s 1999 speech. Velly intellesting.

I particularly note his concluding remarks;

“You don’t hear our times referred to as the Space Age anymore, instead it’s the Information Age. You will notice they call it the Information Age, not the Knowledge Age. Well, I would conclude today by saying that this industry must be at the forefront of moving into the Knowledge Age. Successful competitors will be those that best manage knowledge. This means technology, expertise, best practices, country, market and competitor intelligence and opportunity assessment. These will be the hallmarks of the energy industry in the new century.”

It all sounds good.

Wouldn’t it be nice if it matched reality, especially the ’best practices’ bit.

I didn’t notice anything in the speech to suggest that the Iraq war was a direct response to knowledge of the impending oil peak…..other than the fact that Cheney knows the oil industry inside out, including its grim future outlook… and obviously knew the value of shoring up oil reserves in the Middle East.

What part this might have played in the Iraq conflict I still can’t form a view on.

Thanks again for this.

This is the beginning of the end of oil. What will we use instead? HYDROGEN, of course. It's truly simple.

Nuclear power will eventually, (maybe in less than 10 years) make electricity cost a very small percentage of what it costs today. And because hydrogen is produced by electricity (electrolysis) that will make hydrogen so cheap that it will completely replace petroleum products. Using hydrogen then will be as if gas were 50 cents a gallon today. If it takes massive subsidies to get that going properly, it's worth it.....certainly cheaper than fighting a war in the Middle East (who will have to find SOME use for all the oil we WON'T NEED in 10 years (or less.)

Incidentally, I was recently invited to the BMW engineering plant in California to drive their brand new 7Hydrogen 12 cylinder sedan. What a rush ! ! It was like driving a rocket, and it was running on pure hydrogen ! ! ! No pollution at all ! ! That will speed up "The extinction of petroleum man," and good riddance!

Sorry Troublemaker, wrong on all counts.

Nuclear power is an incredibly expensive form of power and has never yet proved to be commercially viable. Government subsidies prop it up everywhere. Uranium mining is oil based, and diesel depletion could be problematic faster than many realize. Constructing nuclear power plants takes a long time, as does getting legal approval. No-one wants it.

And introducing a "hydrogen economy" would be far, far more expensive than using the electricity to generate transport energy in the first place.

Basically, Dr Bossel — who's great grandfather invented the Fuel Cell in 1830 — no longer thinks we should waste energy trying to set up a so called "hydrogen economy" because the very laws of physics dictate that the fuel will be 4 times more expensive. In summary, hydrogen is supposed to be replacing fossil fuels so it's insane to reform it from natural gas. The only alternative then is to split water, which requires enormous amounts of electricity and.... water. (Which is an issue in Australia and many other countries. The sheer quantities of fresh water required is another very topical and urgent limit to the "hydrogen economy" that I had not previously considered.)
http://www.podtrac.com/pts/redirect.mp3?http://media.libsyn.com/media/thewattpodcast/tWW67P2-2006-07-23.mp3

Each step of the hydrogen economy loses energy which could have been used to charge a battery in the first place! It's just nuts. I mean, you could do an angry rap song to this thing.

"You had to go and Split it! Compress it! Store it! and Burn it!
When you could have just Charged it you "Silly duffer"*!!"

(*I don't swear, but you can imagine the angry eco-rapper going off his head.)

Troublemaker, I think you need to go back and do your sums again so that you get a better grip on reality. All future power generation is going to come at a greater cost as resources get scarcer, that includes nuclear as well as solar or wind or whatever. Certainly, hydrogen will be part of the future, but it takes at least as much energy to produce hydrogen as you are going to get back from it. I can see hydrogen being used as a cheaper means to store energy than the present reliance on quite expensive batteries. The technology is out there, but needs to be developed a bit further to be used on a domestic scale. We need the price of oil based fuels to increase a bit further to provide the incentive for this to happen. This has actually started to happen, so that the next decade should hopefully see some advances in this area.

The Australian Senate on Hydrogen.

6.93 ...However, what is often overlooked is that hydrogen does not occur naturally and must be produced as part of a manufacturing process...

6.94 However, hydrogen is generally not regarded as a near-term transport fuel, as there are formidable technical issues to be overcome before it could be widely used. These include:

* the very large amounts of energy required to convert it to a liquid and maintain it in a liquid state, or compress it sufficiently to make it suitable for transport fuel use;
* storage problems arising from its propensity to leak through and embrittle the walls of metal pipes and tanks;
* in cars, large heavy tanks that limit luggage space and provide very limited range;
* in trucks, similar issues to LNG and CNG in relation to weight and volume of tanks and reduced cargo carrying capacity;
* the lack of a source of supply (although it could be produced in volume by reforming natural gas); and
* a complete lack of distribution infrastructure.

6.95 In the committee’s view, hydrogen is a fuel that might be considered in the distant future, but is not a useful option to consider in Australia’s current or medium term transport fuels mix. Mr Black of the NGVG summed up the argument in relation to hydrogen very well:

Everybody seems to pinning their hopes on hydrogen, which is still, frankly, pie in the sky. We do a lot of work with the CSIRO and we talk to them fairly frequently. I am on a hydrogen panel with the CSIRO. The greatest fear of hydrogen researchers in this country is that governments and the media will hype it up so much that people will have expectations that will never be met.[66]"

http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/committee/rrat_ctte/oil_supply/report/c06.htm

Troublemaker

"Too cheap to meter electricity" was postulated over fifty years ago. I will believe it when I see it. As for hydrogen cars, you might lose your enthusiasm if you saw some of the cost estimates. Electric cars win hands down on comparison.

You might have missed the latest research in the cellulose to biofuel odyssey. Biofuel has the big advantage of utilising existing fuel infrastructure and transport. There is also a massive amount of potential feedstock which is presently unused.

I wouldn't write off the gas guzzler just yet.

http://www.rsc.org/chemistryworld/News/2007/June/20060701.asp

I've just finished reading The Last Oil Shock. Excellent, informative and frightening read. It’s a pity we can't get our politicians to have a read and to act as well.

Hi Charger,
yep... this thing is a nightmare that just does not want to go away!

I keep waiting to wake up, and it's been 3 years now.

Anyway, Maxine McKew listened to a little 7 minute peak oil thang I did last Monday night, and then was booked to do an introduction for Dr Roger Bezdek just 3 days later at the Thursday Smart conference.

So there's a 50 minute film of the thing by a mate of mine up at Sydney Peak Oil at
http://www.sydneypeakoil.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=12270#12270

If you use Firefox as your browser, you can download an extension/plugin called "Unplug" that puts a little "fish" in the top right window of your browser. Click on that to download the movie to your hard-drive. It's pretty good, but as you'll see on the discussion thread at SPO, some of us peakniks are not to sure about seeing "coal to liquids" as a permanent "solution"... indeed, peak coal might be biting us sometime between 2025 and 2050.

I think this is a really good viewpoint from former CIA Director James Woolsey on the problem we in the west face with oil.

http://www.energybulletin.net/31004.html

As a side effect, reducing our dependence on oil would definitely help to curtail the rise of Islam.