philski

Here is a video by Dr. Muller, a global warming advocate. He, in my opinion, is intellectually honest and rakes the IPCC over the coals and admits if there is a 2% error on cloud cover models that global warming doesn't happen. Also note just this week that CERN currently has a gag order on the CLOUD research ("don't interpret results") which are showing to be opposed with the global warming agenda, showing greater cloud cover... [sorry to divert. I find it fascinating. My wife has a M.S. in atmospheric science]

He also discusses energy. Flip ahead to 35 minutes. He gets through it in about 5 minutes well worth your time.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VbR0EPWgkEI

Notice how he starts with known oil reserves and then adds in known shale/sands/etc. and then liquidized coal. Notice how the scale increases by an order of magnitude and how the US has the largest total liquidizable energy reserves.

Oil is a relatively new phenomenon, and is truly a game-changing technology. As time progresses new technologies come and old technologies go. As wind power becomes cheaper and more efficient (it's curently at least twice the cost of coal), as solar panels become more efficient (they are approaching their theoretical efficiency however new cell chemistries are being tried which could boost it to 40% form mid-20%) and as nuclear becomes more politically tenable there is no reason to believe that we can't exploit these technologies.

There are plenty of reserves we haven't tapped simply because oil is so damn cheap out of the current sources. It is my firm belief we won't reach peak oil because these other technologies will mature and make more sense before we reach any "peak". Production will die off solely because there is a better source.

Compare this to computers. In the early 80's my dad had a large suitcase with 80 rotary switches. He placed a telephone on a microphone and speaker and placed templates over the switches to sell insurance policies. Five years later he had an 80086 luggabble laptop (Data General, 2 disk drives and a built-in handle!). Ten years later a true laptop with a CD player. Now we have smartphones with millions of times more processing power for a tenth or less of the energy.

Similar game-changing advances are being made in energy.

Sorry, it's a long post and it barely scratches the surface.

-philip

philski

I finally caved and bought my wife an iPod Touch. First Apple product in our household. I avoid Apple like the plague

dahut

This. +1

We want to remember that the demand for oil is global. It isn't the oil WE use that is our sole problem, it is the fact that everyone else also wants it. As we speak, current production capacity, worldwide, is being slightly outstripped by demand. Global refining abilities are being upgraded, but for now, it is a stalemate at best.

It doesn't help that here in the United States, we have been steadily siphoning off our collective wealth for the last 4 decades. We see the effects of that, plain enough. There is far too much of our money held by foreign concerns... in large part due to the petroleum business.

But added to that is a darker cloud, a game changing shift in petro-energy production, that is expected to happen soon enough.

For example, Hugo Chavez of Venezuela sits atop a huge lake of Orinoco crude oil, some one trillion barrels of heavy oil.
It is considered one of the largest in-place oil pools in the world. Mr. Chavez has very nearly ejected all other oil companies but his state service from access to the Orinoco pool, too, by taxing them out of the game.
Okay, so this variety of dinosaur juice is referred to as "heavy," because it is not easily refined. Right now, most of it comes here to the U.S., because our refineries can handle it and we are close by.
But new facilities are being built in places like the Dominican Republic and Ecuador - partly with Venezuela's help, partly at the behest of the petroleum industry itself - that will handily bypass the U.S. refineries. Energy experts think that as much as half of our current refinery capacity, along with the jobs and economic inflow it provides - will simply go elsewhere when that happens.

Things like these are being planned right now, by the movers and shakers in the oil industry. Its not that there won't, or cannot be enough oil for the foreseeable future. They are not idiots; they know it is not an infinite supply.
Rather, there is only so much to go around no matter it's source. And that means big profits.

Alternatives to petroleum exist, or are being developed. Some things are already happening in this vein. But the odds that we'll see a single, meaningful alternative energy scheme supplant petroleum anytime soon are quite long.

With the entire world clamoring for the same oil, and able to pay for it, our priority is gone. We're all fish in the same pond, now. How was it put?: "I think it's safe to say that the era of comfy, mass consumerism will be over within the lifetimes of most of us."

King Obie talks about "redistributing the wealth." This is what he means. Better stock up on bikes, now.

KD5NRH

Purely from an economic standpoint, peak oil is easily refuted; BP and the other oil companies know how much oil is available, and they all look to their own futures. If they believed that we were anywhere near the point where there wouldn't be enough oil left to sustain their profit margins, they'd be making serious investments in alternative energy. Not the few acres of BP turbines or a farm or two growing corn for Shell's ethanol experiments, but entire third world countries growing millions of acres of ethanol crops, mountain ranges covered with turbines, etc.

cooker

Again, that is peak oil. You're expecting a soft landing or smooth transition with other technologies coming on stream in time, while others expect a period of chaos since the other sources can't be scaled up fast enough, and obviously are going to be more expensive (or we would already be using them), but you still agree with them that the age of oil is ending.

Roody

Doesn't the fact that Big Oil is investing billions in exploration of difficult fields indicate that they are concerned about their supplies, and possible even "scraping the bottom of the barrel"? Nother indication is the recent announcement that corn ethanol production will continue, even if subsidies and mandates end.

I'm not a peak oiler by any means, but I think the old saying is true: "If something is not sustainable, it will end."

gerv 

Now there's a pretty picture.

philski

You are interpreting peak oil as peak CONSUMPTION. Generally when we speak of peak oil, we are talking about PRODUCTION; that is, production which cannot keep up with demand because output has peaked.

philski

No because there are billions of barrels of oil in shales and sands which have been known about for a long time but not pursued because they are more expensive to get at than current oil reservoirs. If you could enumerate what "difficult fields" they are pursuing I could provide a better argument. If you are referring to deep sea drilling, this is primarily due to government regulations of coastal environments.

philski

Except every ear of corn put to Ethanol production is an ear of corn that cannot be eaten. Subsidized ethanol production in the US is leading to higher food prices worldwide. We export 2 million metric tons of corn to China on top of it.

https://www.usatoday.com/money/indust...corn-low_N.htm

dahut

And you don't want to know how much water it takes to make it, on the scale needed. Seriously - dont ask...

Roody

Thank god the government is regulating deep sea production, or we might have a disastrous spill in the Gulf or something.

Roody

It's very unlikely that ethanol will be subsidized for more than a couple weeks. It's also possible that mandated use will end in the next year or two. Nevertheless, as I posted earlier, ethanol production will probably continue to expand since more expensive petroleum is making it cost-effective at this time.

cooker

They're not really that different. As the easy oil gets depleted and the cost of pumping difficult oil rises, production will fall.

gerv 

Ok I said it was scary, but what I really meant is that I live in that Ethanol kingdom, where every stinking acre of land is devoted to "agriculture" and you can't buy a locally produced tomato or apple.

philski

Its only economical because of the subsidies.

philski

You are presuming in this post production will fall due to depletion. This is peak oil.
However what if we find a more economical energy source before depletion? Then there is no peak oil, as we could be pumping more ...

philski

Exactly. Government regulation does no good. Thanks for the acknowledgement!

cooker

If we had a more economical energy source than oil, it would already be the backbone of our economy. The likelihood that one will appear is almost nil. The transition to new energy sources will occur as the price of oil moves above them, not as they come down.

Roody

I'm glad you agree that we need stronger regulation of drilling in environmentally sensitive areas.

Roody

Two objections:

1. One reason alternatives cost more is that they are mostly start-up projects. Government could (and does) finnce R&D of alternatives with the goal of making them cheaper. This seems to be the cornerstone of Obama's energy policy.

2. Oil could be made more expensive through taxation, thereby making alternatives more attractive. This could be done in a revenue neutral way, so that consumers are not actually paying more for energy than they are now.

PJones0012

Some, such as myself, have no choice but to bike, take public transportation or walk. Why? Because I'm legally blind. I haven't driven in several years, don't have, don't need and don't want a car. My vision is limited to about 20 to 30 feet and beyond that everything is blurred shapes and colors. BTW, it is not correctable. So for me cycling is not an option, it is a necessity.