Is peak oil a fraud? from "Does it matter if global warming is a fraud?"

[Zythryn]

In my opinion Peak Oil is more of a threat to the society of wealthy nations, while climate change is a bigger threat to the well being of people/societies of the poorer nations.

When peak oil hits, it is going to hit HARD and fast. Climate change is going to be more severe, but it also is going to be much more drawn out. Giving us time to adapt.

 

Now, if we are already moving off of a dependance of oil for transportation, fertilizers, plastics, etc, it won't be such an issue. But I don't see us, as a society making those moves until we are forced to. And once we are forced to, it will be too late to avoid serious damage to our society (IMHO).

[Eclipse Now]

In my opinion Peak Oil is more of a threat to the society of wealthy nations, while climate change is a bigger threat to the well being of people/societies of the poorer nations.

When peak oil hits, it is going to hit HARD and fast. Climate change is going to be more severe, but it also is going to be much more drawn out. Giving us time to adapt.

This is a useful distinction.

 

Now, if we are already moving off of a dependance of oil for transportation, fertilizers, plastics, etc, it won't be such an issue. But I don't see us, as a society making those moves until we are forced to. And once we are forced to, it will be too late to avoid serious damage to our society (IMHO).

 

Do you mean society or economy? Because having 'lived' on a peak oil forum for about 4 years, where we had every kind of opinion from peaknik through to Malthusian catastrophe, when I hear people say it is going to damage society I imagine losing democracy, the rule of law, reliable food supplies to stores, the works...

 

[maikeru]

Speak of the devil, there's an article I ran across on the SciAm site concerning Peak Oil:

 

Another Century of Oil? Getting More from Current Reserves: Scientific American

 

And letters in response:

 

Readers Respond on "Squeezing More Oil from the Ground": Scientific American

[Eclipse Now]

usually I love Sciam but on this I think they're out.

 

The USGS estimates world oil reserves yet to be discovered according to a formulae they noticed during the heady days of American oil discovery. From memory from Dr Jeremy Leggett's book "Half Gone", they developed the P5, P50, and P95 discovery estimate... which worked for America's early days, but has not tracked so well on a global scale.

 

Now that we are down to ticking off oil producing nations and regions as "peaked" or "soon to be peaking", I'd rather count the P95 oil, wouldn't you? (The oil we were 95% sure was there).

 

So you can see the fatal flaw in the assumptions of the piece just in the first few paragraphs...

 

# The author predicts that by 2030, thanks to advanced technologies, wells will be able to extract half of the oil known to be underground, up from the current average of 35 percent.

Which would be amazing, and might have the effect of prolonging some oil consumption, but demand would already have permanently overtaken supply! I will be amazed if we don't see demand overtake supply within the decade, and even more amazed if we don't see production actually begin to decline by 2020!, let alone 2030!

# Together with new discoveries, the increased productivity could make oil last at least another century.

 

Yeah, new discoveries, after 40 years of declining discoveries they're still going to guesstimate that there MIGHT be an extra gazzillion barrels of oil at maybe a 50% chance! Wow, that's responsible planing around our most important resource!

 

Sorry, this isn't frustration directed at anyone on the list... just the USGS methodologies.

 

The discovery has to COMPLETELY turn around a 40 year trend to make any difference. The Australian Federal Senate even got that!:lightning

 

When are these guys going to start predicting oil based on what we actually have found, what the discovery trends are actually showing us, and what the demand profiles from China and India are telling us? If I ran the world, I'd want to be making my plans according to what we KNEW we had, especially in a world where 25 year old college grads were probably not born when Consumption overtook new Discovery of oil for the rest of human history!

[Zythryn]

...Do you mean society or economy? ...

 

Depends on how prepared we are and how fast the supply vs demand curve goes down.:confused:

 

If it is a gentle downslope the economy will be impacted and society will change, but won't necessarily be damaged.

If we keep our heads buried in the sand and continue to deny the need for alternatives even after the supply vs demand curve is going down, it will have a more and more serious impact until society as a whole is damaged (yes, some would even say destroyed).

[Zythryn]

When are these guys going to start predicting oil based on what we actually have found, what the discovery trends are actually showing us, and what the demand profiles from China and India are telling us? If I ran the world, I'd want to be making my plans according to what we KNEW we had, especially in a world where 25 year old college grads were probably not born when Consumption overtook new Discovery of oil for the rest of human history! :confused:

 

Exactly!

Has anyone read the entire article? I don't have a subscription:(

However, my biggest question about improved recovery is how much energy do these methods take?

Hypothetical question, if it takes two barrels of oil worth of energy to extract one barrel of oil from the ground, wouldn't we be better finding alternatives to oil?

 

Peak oil is not about when there is NO oil left in the ground. It is about when demand continues to outpace supply.

[maikeru]

usually I love Sciam but on this I think they're out.

 

The USGS estimates world oil reserves yet to be discovered according to a formulae they noticed during the heady days of American oil discovery. From memory from Dr Jeremy Leggett's book "Half Gone", they developed the P5, P50, and P95 discovery estimate... which worked for America's early days, but has not tracked so well on a global scale.

 

Now that we are down to ticking off oil producing nations and regions as "peaked" or "soon to be peaking", I'd rather count the P95 oil, wouldn't you? (The oil we were 95% sure was there).

 

So you can see the fatal flaw in the assumptions of the piece just in the first few paragraphs...

 

Yeah, I didn't buy into it. I believe the author works for a major oil company. Thought I'd toss it this way, anyway. One thing it does well is it shows the tricks and hollow optimism of Peak Oil denialists.

[maikeru]

Exactly!

Has anyone read the entire article? I don't have a subscription:(

However, my biggest question about improved recovery is how much energy do these methods take?

Hypothetical question, if it takes two barrels of oil worth of energy to extract one barrel of oil from the ground, wouldn't we be better finding alternatives to oil?

 

Peak oil is not about when there is NO oil left in the ground. It is about when demand continues to outpace supply.

 

You bring up a good question. If it takes two barrels of oil worth of energy to extract one barrel from the ground, we've already put ourselves into a tight corner for having enough total currently "usable energy" to research, develop, and use other alternatives forms of energy, including those for oil, IMO. (And it will impact transportation too.) By that time it's already a little too late. As Eclipse Now keeps mentioning, what matters is not predictions or theoretical amounts of oil or any kind of energy really, but what is extractable and usable (and will follow the Laws of Thermodynamics, though human imagination will have otherwise!). Humankind is in dire need to increase the total amount of usable energy that can be supplied to support our civilization and lives. In other words, we are facing an energy deficit, because we live beyond our means. Much of this is currently and irreplaceably supplied by oil and oil by-products. As far as I know, Mother Nature has no central bank or bailout programs to save debtors.

[Zythryn]

Well, yes and no.

We use a tiny tiny tiny tiny tiny (you get the point) amount of the energy avaialbe to us.

The amount of energy in simply solar energy that the sun puts out is dificult to comprehend. And even though the earth only captures an tiny tiny tin...nevermind, amount of that, it is enough to replace all the energy currently released from fosil fuel sources IF we could harness it.

Sure, there are technological barriers to overcome and the need to build the infrastructure. But just imagine if we could get harness solar power with 75% efficiency instead of ~20% AND could store it efficiently? Peak oil would be irrelevant (if the infrastructure were in place).

[maikeru]

Well, yes and no.

We use a tiny tiny tiny tiny tiny (you get the point) amount of the energy avaialbe to us.

The amount of energy in simply solar energy that the sun puts out is dificult to comprehend. And even though the earth only captures an tiny tiny tin...nevermind, amount of that, it is enough to replace all the energy currently released from fosil fuel sources IF we could harness it.

Sure, there are technological barriers to overcome and the need to build the infrastructure. But just imagine if we could get harness solar power with 75% efficiency instead of ~20% AND could store it efficiently? Peak oil would be irrelevant (if the infrastructure were in place).

 

Definitely, but it's that big IF and more importantly the HOWs that bother me. To manufacture wind turbines, solar panels, etc. and transport them still requires fossil fuels. We're also limited by (dwindling) supplies of rare metals and elements for manufacturing powerful neodymium magnets, semiconductors, batteries, etc. We still need to put that infrastructure into place. That requires not only money, but energy and materials to put it into place.

 

Zythryn, I think I've started to understand there are better ways to harness solar energy, and they may not all include directly utilizing the solar energy. Much of the solar energy is lost when it's converted into waste heat. The best solar panels get around 30-35% efficiency to my understanding, and most solar panels are less than that. These are huge losses. Weaning ourselves off of oil not only requires using new or alternative energy sources, but increasing overall efficiencies of many things (transportation, energy production, etc.) and decreasing waste.

 

In a way, you are right there's plenty of energy to go around, but if there are not enough ways to harness it or make it usable, still we face an energy deficit.

 

Just to give you a sense of what I mean, usable chemical energy for humans from food from plants is just a tiny fraction of that available solar energy. Something like 1-8% depending on the plant and growing conditions. That 1-8% provides the energy of life for 6.8 billion people, our animals, (and the rest of the plants, photosynthetic organisms, etc. power the other food webs and most other ecosystems). Given that we destroy so much farmland and erode the few meager inches of topsoil that sustain us, we're pushing things close to the edge...

 

Photosynthetic efficiency - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

Oil is age-old bottled sunlight and geothermal planet juice. In a sense, it's infinitely precious.

[Zythryn]

Definitely, but it's that big IF and more importantly the HOWs that bother me. To manufacture wind turbines, solar panels, etc. and transport them still requires fossil fuels.

 

All true, for the most part at the present time. If any of these items are built in iceland, it is likely using more renewable energies to manufacture. As we harness more non-fosil fuels, the manufacturing of the turbines/batteries/panels will be less reliant on fosil fuels.

 

...Much of the solar energy is lost when it's converted into waste heat. The best solar panels get around 30-35% efficiency to my understanding, and most solar panels are less than that. These are huge losses. Weaning ourselves off of oil not only requires using new or alternative energy sources, but increasing overall efficiencies of many things (transportation, energy production, etc.) and decreasing waste.

Close to 20% although space based solar panels can get almost 40%.

For solar panels though the efficiencies are almost irrelevant. For example, the solar energy the hits my roof is converted at only a 20% efficiency due to my solar panels. Of course, if the panels were not there, I would be converting 0% into energy. As a matter of fact, I would be getting more heat in my attic, which I would need energy to deal with so I would be loosing additional energy.

 

In a way, you are right there's plenty of energy to go around, but if there are not enough ways to harness it or make it usable, still we face an energy deficit.

Exactly, which is why we need to move beyond 19th century technology and work at modernizing out energy storage/generation.

 

...

Oil is age-old bottled sunlight and geothermal planet juice. In a sense, it's infinitely precious.

 

I agree, and it is one of the reasons we really should stop burning it in applications for which there are options:)

[HydrogenBond]

Oil is suppose to follow the laws of supply and demand. But I can show you an example how one can break the laws of supply and demand. In current times, we are having a recession. Many small businesses are feeling pressure, due to decreased revenue, as people tighten their belts and spend less. With demand down and inventory rising (supply), one would expect all prices to drop. But some businesses are raising prices to make up for lost revenue due to lower demand. If they don't raise prices, with all their fixed costs, they could risk going belly up. They need to break the law of supply and demand. One can also break the law of supply and demand to raise revenue, for profits.

 

The law of supply and demand is not a law like the conservation of energy or the laws of gravity. If you broke the law of supply and demand, what is the penalty or fine? There is none. It is done all the time, by the oil cartels. Governments also break the law of supply and demand with taxes. It is not an enforceable law.

[Eclipse Now]

Great points all! Good to see you all nutting this out in an informed way, and not just saying "But won't wind turbines save us from peak oil?"

 

You all have a grasp that this is not just about energy, but economically extractable forms of energy in the right format (liquid fuels) for the kind of transportation and minining infrastructure we have today.

 

So weaning off oil is not just about substituting one energy for another, like Pepsi for Coke, but rebuilding an entire transportation and mining infrastructure around the potentially abundant new forms of energy coming online, which are unfortunately in the wrong format (electricity) for the transportation and construction sector.

 

And as someone has already pointed out, the transportation and construction sector currently runs on oil, and that's the sector we need to rebuild to wean off oil, so we'd better leave oil before it leaves us!

 

ONE day America and Australia and the rest of the developed and developing world will probably see wind turbines and solar plants built from the energy of other wind turbines and solar plants, and constructed using a largely electric transport and construction sector... but that's not this generation.

 

If you broke the law of supply and demand, what is the penalty or fine? There is none.

This is only partially true. While there is no current alternative for oil, OPEC knows that they have to walk a very fine line between maximising profits and wrecking western economies and destroying their consumers! Raising the price too high would be killing the goose that lays the golden egg. So they're going to do all they can to delay that day, because they know it is coming (but ultimately don't care, as most of those in charge in OPEC countries are elderly and just maximising their last billion before retirement).

[Buffy]

Oil is suppose to follow the laws of supply and demand. But I can show you an example how one can break the laws of supply and demand.

This of course is not "breaking the laws of supply and demand" as I discussed earlier in the thread.

 

Of course it is much more fun to proclaim that all arguments that disagree with one's own are falsified by virtue of a terse and absolute misstatement of the the facts....

 

Lemme just talk to you for a second about something that I think is good for America: caramel apples, ... I had one last night. Delicious. Not talking about candy apples. I think candy apples are a danger! You crack 'em, they're very sharp. You candy apple crowd need to wake up! :phones:

Buffy

[Eclipse Now]

Lemme just talk to you for a second about something that I think is good for America: caramel apples, ... I had one last night. Delicious. Not talking about candy apples. I think candy apples are a danger! You crack 'em, they're very sharp. You candy apple crowd need to wake up! :phones:

Buffy

 

Now I thought I sometimes took things left of field... sometimes Buffy seems to best me as the master of free association. ;)

[maikeru]

All true, for the most part at the present time. If any of these items are built in iceland, it is likely using more renewable energies to manufacture. As we harness more non-fosil fuels, the manufacturing of the turbines/batteries/panels will be less reliant on fosil fuels.

 

Iceland, IMO, provides some clues as to what a renewable energy economy can look like. I hear their use of geothermal energy is remarkable. I've not had enough time to do a thorough search, though.

 

Close to 20% although space based solar panels can get almost 40%.

For solar panels though the efficiencies are almost irrelevant. For example, the solar energy the hits my roof is converted at only a 20% efficiency due to my solar panels. Of course, if the panels were not there, I would be converting 0% into energy. As a matter of fact, I would be getting more heat in my attic, which I would need energy to deal with so I would be loosing additional energy.

 

Yes, that's one of the weird feedback loops of modern building and construction. It is better to get some than none, but what I had in mind was when possible or especially practical or designable, it might be better to convert sunlight directly into heat energy, and then find uses for that heat. This'd also include converting the heat energy into other forms of energy, such as steam, electricity, etc. :phones:

 

Exactly, which is why we need to move beyond 19th century technology and work at modernizing out energy storage/generation.

 

I think a lot of people abide by the "if it ain't broke..." theory. But it's clear that our energy infrastructure (and perhaps our thinking about energy and energy security in general) is outdated. I think decentralized energy production and storage will become increasingly important.

 

I agree, and it is one of the reasons we really should stop burning it in applications for which there are options:)

 

Probably the last thing on people's minds is how oil formed and how many $$ it can sell or be bought for. ;)

[maikeru]

Great points all! Good to see you all nutting this out in an informed way, and not just saying "But won't wind turbines save us from peak oil?"

 

You all have a grasp that this is not just about energy, but economically extractable forms of energy in the right format (liquid fuels) for the kind of transportation and minining infrastructure we have today.

 

Form(at) is everything. One needs the right energy in the right format for the right activity. For example, fuel for jets. I'm still having a hard time picturing an all-electric jetliner...

 

So weaning off oil is not just about substituting one energy for another, like Pepsi for Coke, but rebuilding an entire transportation and mining infrastructure around the potentially abundant new forms of energy coming online, which are unfortunately in the wrong format (electricity) for the transportation and construction sector.

 

Don't forget agriculture as well. Petrochemical-based fertilizers (such as natural gas used to make ammonia), herbicides, and pesticides. It's about changing an entire way of life and being. A major rethink, redoing of how we work, live, and eat. :phones: