Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
eclipse said:
I come from a Christian background, and this is a piece I had published in a Christian magazine at www.zadok.org.au on "Peak oil" otherwise known as "The End of Cheap Oil" or the end of the "Oil Age".

I hope you enjoy if you already are a peaknik... I hope it's not too disturbing if you're not. :eek:

so let me get this straight, your a christian who cares about the environment and oil???

wow, i though i was the only one :p. it seems every christian i know thinks that if your not a republican, if you don't support bush, if you don't support war, if you don't support capital punishment, if you care about the environment etc... then your a bad christian :rolleyes:



ok, so here's my $0.02 about the oil
we will never stop using oil untill there is no oil left to use, when production starts dropping off, instead of weaning off oil and finding something else, we will hoard oil.

what happens when there is an impending hurricane or other natural disaster? you have mobs and looting at every store in sight. people will try and get as much stuff as possible for themselves. thats what will happen with oil.

were screwed, mark my words, humans will not live to see the next century unless drastic change is made, and we all know how resistent we are to change on a large scale... it's a shame too, i rather enjoy living
 
Blargh! Don't give into the Doomers! I know www.dieoff.com has a lot of very academic papers, but other people equally as smart see a massive Great Depression ahead as we adjust.

There may be pockets of panic and disorder... I've written about that on my website under "the spectrum" of views... peaknik through to Doomer.

But don't give up, I have seen some amazing government admissions regarding peak oil. Re-read the Andrew McNamara stuff... he's not a greenie but a solid Labor guy, and he sounds like a tree hugging hippie!
A few months of investigating peak oil and ANYONE can see that things have to change, and we are going to have to protect our local ecologies and local economies just to survive!

So don't give up. The governments will adapt and change and adopt drastic BIG GOVERNMENT programs when they have to. I'd just like to see it happen sooner rather than later, as we are already pushing it in my opinion!
 
Hi Err,
I understand writing at 3am! Insomnia or shift work (or just plain naughty?;) )

Now... there is always the possibility of a "breakthrough"... I'd be a fool to write that out of any discussion in the future. I think solar could make huge breakthroughs, especially with nano-technology making solar arrays cheaper to manufacture.

Yet at this stage, as Andrew McNamara's taskforce says, there is nothing to replace oil. Nothing! And it means the last 70 years of suburban construction has been "The Greatest misallocation of resources in the history of the world!" (Kunstler from www.endofsuburbia.com — see previews.) We can hope for "breakthroughs" Err, but seriously.... if you had a 95% chance of a bomb going off in your basement, and only a 5% chance of some super new "containment device" arriving in time to stop the explosion, do you think you would abandon the house?

Forget the car model. Forget fuel cells for now.... they require platinum which would bring on "peak platinum" just to replace the world's fleet of vehicles ONCE, and then we'd be in another resource crisis!

All these objections are answered at www.lifesaftertheoilcrash.net except one major objection... we will adapt and live different lives. I think Matt Savinar has done a great job raising awareness of the risks... if you google "peak oil" his site comes up second. No wonder with it being read out in Congress all the time! But I really think he underestimates just how hard people can work if they have to.

Suburbia is stuffed, there may even be "oil refugees" flooding into camps and New Urbanism squares, working for food in the massive reconstruction effort ahead. Or it will just be anarchy as the title of that website says. But I rather think that a big government "emergency economy" can do an amazing amount of energy saving and society reconstructing. Remember WW2 and how quickly car manufacturers were switched into making tanks? Imagine the same thing going towards wind turbines, solar chimneys, solar PV, electric rail, trams, and my favourite people mover.... www.skytran.com?
 
so long as my government is stuck in this cycle of corruption and resist to change, i don't see anything changing.

i can picture it now, some douchebag republican and all his oil corporate executive freinds will lie untill their blue in the face about how there isn't really a problem, and how there is plenty of oil. and then democrats will call bs, then republicans will run a smear campaign about democrats other motives, the the democrats will fight back, then the republicans will say they respect the other viewpoint and the people and how they hope to work together with them to get the issue solved, then they will introduce a plan, the democrats will hate it and come up with their own plan, they scream back and forth on the senate floor on what the hell to go do with themselves, then they'll start playing technicalities on every little thing and then france will disagree with us so like the babies we are we'll rename french fries to freedom fries :rolleyes: blah blah blah, nothing meaningfull will get done.

thats not to say other countries won't accomplish something, but my (great :rolleyes: ) country dwarfs every other country in consumption, we must change too. and its not even just my government, the people are just as to blame with all our fricken suvs :rolleyes: and crap like that.

i just don't see us changing enough to make a difference
 
I have hope simply because of the internet and free presss... the story is breaking!

I am an Australian and am quite scared of who's in charge of "the red button" in your country! The fact that he can come out and say stuff like "working hard to put food on your family!" hardly strikes a note of confidence that his IQ is larger than his shoe size!

However, I sense a seachange in the politics in your country. We will see. But don't right off all Republicans... one of them is my hero!
Check all the entries here on Roscoe Bartlett's peak oil campaigning!

http://www.globalpublicmedia.com/people/roscoe_bartlett


I mean, this guy just will not shut up! He makes even me look timid and mild and self controlled! He gets up in the US Congress, and does these hour long peak oil presentations in the special sessions. That's where he quotes Matt Savinar's www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net "Dear Reader, Civlization as we know it is coming to an end soon!" Hopefully by talking like that he will shock people into action and get something happening soon. He quoted a summary of the Hirsch report into the US Congress...

1. When world oil peaking will occur is not known with certainty. A fundamental problem in predicting oil peaking is the poor quality of and possible political biases in world oil reserves data. Some experts believe peaking may occur soon. This study indicates that ``soon'' is within 20 years.

2. The problems associated with world oil production peaking will not be temporary, and past ``energy crisis'' experience will provide relatively little guidance. The challenge of oil peaking deserves immediate, serious attention, if risks are to be fully understood and mitigation begun on a timely basis.

3. Oil peaking will create a severe liquid fuels problem for the transportation sector, not an ``energy crisis'' in the usual sense that term has been used.

4. Peaking will result in dramatically higher oil prices, which will cause protracted economic hardship in the United States and the world. However, the problems are not insoluble. Timely, aggressive mitigation initiatives addressing both the supply and the demand sides of the issue will be required.

5. In the developed nations, the problems will be especially serious. In the developing nations peaking problems have the potential to be much worse.

6. Mitigation will require a minimum of a decade of intense, expensive effort, because the scale of liquid fuels mitigation is inherently extremely large.

7. While greater end-use efficiency is essential, increased efficiency alone will be neither sufficient nor timely enough to solve the problem. Production of large amounts of substitute liquid fuels will be required. A number of commercial or near-commercial substitute fuel production technologies are currently available for deployment, so the production of vast amounts of substitute liquid fuels is feasible with existing technology.

8. Intervention by governments will be required, because the economic and social implications of oil peaking would otherwise be chaotic. The experiences of the 1970s and 1980s offer important guides as to government actions that are desirable and those that are undesirable, but the process will not be easy.

Mitigating the peaking of world conventional oil production presents a classic risk management problem: Mitigation initiated earlier than required may turn out to be premature, if peaking is long delayed. If peaking is imminent, failure to initiate timely mitigation could be extremely damaging.

Prudent risk management requires the planning and implementation of mitigation well before peaking. Early mitigation will almost certainly be less expensive than delayed mitigation. A unique aspect of the world oil peaking problem is that its timing is uncertain, because of inadequate and potentially biased reserves data from elsewhere around the world. In addition, the onset of peaking may be obscured by the volatile nature of oil prices. Since the potential economic impact of peaking is immense and the uncertainties relating to all facets of the problem are large, detailed quantitative studies to address the uncertainties and to explore mitigation strategies are a critical need.
http://www.xecu.net/thorn/PO/PO-Nov16-2005.html

have you checked http://www.energybulletin.net/news.php lately?
The stories are everywhere... our national TV science show on the Australian ABC are doing it this Thursday night.
 
I guess one thing's for certain... the inherently high cost of oil in the future will force us to reduce our CO2 emissions! Allegedly, the UK is going to cut emissions by 20% by 2010 (20% of levels at which year I am not certain - possibly wrt 1990):

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4453926.stm

So of course now nuclear power is hitting the headlines as our only imminent saviour (and will take at least 10 years to get a staion online) - it must be hitting home somewhere in Whitehall because they know nuclear will not be popular. Our gas supplies are dwindling and we already import most of our oil. Nuclear won't help for transport of course.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4454468.stm

Is nuclear truly carbon neutral? How much is really used in transport and reprocessing of uranium?

On a personal note... is it crazy to invest in a pension that I will use in 40 years' time - when the stock markets on which it is based may well be in total turmoil by then? I'm not advocating cashing it in *just in case* - I think that's a bit too risky - but it certainly is a cause for concern.
 
eclipse said:
I mean, I can't help but hiccup or blink when I hear the term "sustainable growth". Growth is not sustainable in a finite system... and this world's resources are very finite. :confused:
No.

A finite system has limited resources and a "Definitive" end, the Earth is part of a larger body. Sustainable growth would entail better town design and building, based on the ability to produce an agricultural product to support the town.
 
big said:
No. A finite system has limited resources and a "Definitive" end, the Earth is part of a larger body.

What, the solar system? Grow out into that? Hey, I like the goal... before I discovered peak oil I was a real fan of terraforming Mars websites. But now I just shake my head and wonder at the energy question. Where is all the energy going to come from to do that? Especially when much solar has a 7 to 10 year energy payback cycle? (If you count all the costs that go into manufacturing the solar cells.)

Sustainable growth would entail better town design and building, based on the ability to produce an agricultural product to support the town.

Agreed. Go New Urbanism... go www.ecocitybuilders.com !

But I am still concerned about the term "growth". Sustainable steady state economies are my goal... sustainable growth is an oxymoron. You cannot keep growing either our standard of living & consumption, or our population, indefinitely in a finite system.
 
I think it's kind of funny that all the "best minds" that are suppose to be helping to solve the energy quandary is just compounding the problem.
They are educated and inured into "the system" and corporate culture of the energy companies. I don't see how "out of the box" thinking car arise from that kind of atmosphere.
Whereas "the Green thinkers" are relegated to those hippy-kooks category.
The government is just a reflection of the mass electorate folks. And brother, the majority are a bunch of idiots. I'm sorry to say, but it is true.
Short-sighted nincompoops.
We all have ourselves to blame, everytime we buy the big SUV, buy a home off in the boondocks that is just succumbing to suburban sprawl, we are accepting the role we play in all this.
I'm not talking radical change. But a simple effort to transition our culture into something that can handle the oncoming crisis. And it will be a CRISIS.
Right now, there is no figure on Capital Hill that shows any visionary quality for meeting the forthcoming challenges.
They are playing it safe. Keeping their districts happy, and hoping to keep their jobs next election season.
The big question is how much longer can we afford to play it safe?
 
But I am still concerned about the term "growth". Sustainable steady state economies are my goal... sustainable growth is an oxymoron. You cannot keep growing either our standard of living & consumption, or our population, indefinitely in a finite system.

We do need population growth. This pays for our expansion to the Moon, Mars and beyond. We can not expect to keep the world population at only 8bn indefinitely (though I think it is possible). Until we colonize the outer planets and other solar systems, we need to create towns and cities that can feed themselves, and a larger metropolis at the center of these towns and villages. That's sustainable growth.

The reason I like discussing these issues in an informal point like this, is because others can follow along, we can hash out our ideas, concerns, then take these to our respected representatives.
 
TrenchMouth said:
I thought this was relevent as per our conversation:

Why $5 Gas is Good for America

Good grief.

This is evidently written by an economist who, like all economists, thinks that the world is powered by money. The flaw in his thinking is that economic drives will solve the problem.

The issue is an energy one, not an economic one. There is no alternative to oil that is so energy-dense and versatile. Hydrogen? Corn? These aren't a magic new source of energy, they are stores of energy, converted from some other form. They all require energy *input* to be made, since no energy transfer is 100% efficient. Fossil fuels are stored energy that is free for us to take, stored as a result of millions of years of photosynthesis. We don't have to harness it from anywhere else; we have been drawing on our energy "savings account", putting it in our current account for spending, without having actually to "earn" any (in this analogy, earning energy would be harnessing it from the Sun, our true source of "current" energy).

When the savings are gone, our rate of spending must decrease, because we are currently unable to earn sufficient to meet it. What should we do? Invest the energy we do have in savings (oil), before it runs out, in order to produce more money (energy income - i.e. renewable sources) in the future!

Oops - that was an "economic" argument. No pun intended.
 
Hey, I couldn't have said it better myself! :cool:

http://eclipsenow.org/facts/alternateenergy.html
The inheritance

The problem is that twe have not earned this energy. We inherited it. The average citizen does not know the true value of energy because we did not have to work for it. The earth gave us a vast energy inheritance in fossil fuels. We are just about to discover how badly we have misused it.

EPR is about the difference between gaining an inheritance, and starting again from scratch. Every time we dig for oil we use energy, yet oil is so good that it has at times repaid the effort up to a hundred fold. It is our most valuable inheritance from millions of years ago. Yet every time we build a nuclear power plant we also use energy. But a nuclear power plant takes about 10 years to build and then 12 years to repay the cheap oil energy it took to construct it!

(IF it ever does repay the energy, I am still investigating a claim that when everything is included Nuclear Power plants may actually use more energy than they ever produce. Energy consumption has to be measured for mining the uranium, constructing the enormous nuclear plant safety dome, and decomissioning the plant after its useful life, let alone storing the radioactive waste and protecting it from terrorists! It may be that Nuclear Power merely turns lots of cheap fossil fuels into expensive electric energy. Speaking in real money terms, the only reason nuclear power plants ever break even is because of massive government subsidies, and the fact that the oil energy spent constructing the plant was so CHEAP. Nuclear power does not have an EPR anywhere near as good as oil.

Also, uranium reserves are not vast enough in quantity to supply all our electricity for 6 years!)

http://afr.com/articles/2005/06/23/1119321845502.html
 
The importance of wind, ocean wave, tidal and geological power will of course increase, but my money would be on solar energy harnessed with the help of some sort of bacteria or genetically engineered plant life to produce hydrogen or some chemical compund that's easier to handle than sugar and similar bioproducts.
 
mac_head101 said:
Oil shale deposits in Colorado; a billion barrels a square mile? You bet.

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/front/la-na-shale20nov20,1,3835858.story

I think this will put off peak for a few decades and allow consumption to boom; of course, making the downward slope more devastating.

I think this is a bad idea. It's not cost-efficient and the impact to the environment would be devastating.
This is desperation at best from people who aren't thinking through things completely.

I can't believe solar-power technology hasn't advanced much since its invention. It would take massive implementation to reap any measure of benefit in off-setting the use of fossil-based energy sources.
I don't see ANY municipalities in taking the first step in making its use widespread; even making it part of new building codes.

We are on the Titanic and the band is playing while we all can drown to music. Enjoy the party!
 
JesseJames said:
I think this is a bad idea. It's not cost-efficient and the impact to the environment would be devastating.
This is desperation at best from people who aren't thinking through things completely.

I hate the idea :p. Somehow I think, though, that in a few years people will be SO desperate for oil they won't care what happens to the environment. Of course wouldn't be thought through well, but if it means some oil company can deliver $40 a gallon gasoline to desperate people, I'm sure they'd try their darnest to implement some kind of system like this.
 
mac_head101 said:
...but if it means some oil company can deliver $40 a gallon gasoline to desperate people, I'm sure they'd try their darnest to do so.

That's very true, I suspect. When times are hard, people naturally worry the most about No. 1; Western concern for the environment is part-time at best, and when it comes to heating one's home you can guess what will matter more.

Oh dear :(
 
I also have concerns about the energy profit ratio for oil shale.

North American natural gas is already in decline (as tends to happen after the oil peak for the same region) and soon it will be a choice between:-
1/ Using gas to heat your homes
2/ Using gas to run the Haber process to make your fertilizer
3/ Using gas to cook shale oil to turn sludgy kerogen into really foul crude that needs a hydrogen cracker refinery... all to make some very, very expensive oil.

Don't forget, it's not the end of oil that is causing this crisis, it's the end of cheap oil. People placing desperate hopes in tar sands and shale oil quote the enormous figures of the TOTAL reserves without really analyzing the economically extractable reserves, and the much more important ENERGETICALLY extractable reserves.

Don't forget, many things that might be economic now will not be so after the peak. If a Nuclear Reactor is expensive now, what's it going to cost to build when the very basis of construction... oil energy... is going through the roof? If shale oil costs a lot now, what's it going to cost in a few years time when gas depletion has reached a critical crisis and you are having trouble keeping the grid going? If a wind turbine costs x now, won't it's cost go through Y and then Z as oil prices climb and climb?

Every wind turbine that was ever built was built in a cheap oil economy.
Everything is going to change. And when I have to spell out these terrible implications of peak oil, I lose my rosy disposition of a Greater Depression and start to think we are heading for a www.dieoff.com scenario. Time to put up some more posters!
 
dops7107 said:
That's very true, I suspect. When times are hard, people naturally worry the most about No. 1; Western concern for the environment is part-time at best, and when it comes to heating one's home you can guess what will matter more.

Oh dear :(

What's #1? Heating their houses and driving their cars? If so, I agree...:mad:
And by western, do you mean western society, or the western US?
 
eclipse said:
Every wind turbine that was ever built was built in a cheap oil economy.

Which is precisely why we have to invest some cheap oil in renewables now!! Argh, preaching to the converted :rolleyes:

mac_head101 said:
What's #1? Heating their houses and driving their cars? If so, I agree...:mad:
And by western, do you mean western society, or the western US?

#1 = me, myself and I - in other words, thinking of one's own well-being first. But basically yes, heating homes and driving cars.

I was referring to western society and developed nations in general - sorry for the ambiguity (and imprecision, in fact)
 
eclipse said:
Every wind turbine that was ever built was built in a cheap oil economy.

Tell the Dutch that ;). And don't forget, all of the wooden ones that were built on American farms from the 1870's to the 1930's were built without the benifit of power tools. I'm sure post-peak some of them in that fashion can be built.

Perhaps, to store the energy for later use, we can do what the Czechs did and continue to; use some of the power from your power station (in the valley) during the day to pump water into a holding-tank (in the hills), and then at night, when demand is higher, run your plant to produce electricity and ALSO get power from the falling water. It's a practical way for windmills (or other renewables) to store power for later use that doesn't involve batteries or Mystical, Mythical Hydrogen™:rolleyes:.
 
I call them wind mills... there's some gears, a millstone, and they do all sorts of wonderful work, but don't generate electricity with a turbine.

Things can be built after peak oil, it's just going to take a lot longer, a lot more money, and require a lot more effort and direction which is why I'm becoming a bit more left wing, I'm afraid.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.