Human Population & Natural Resources

[lucwarm]

I'm starting this thread because there's a similar thread in GQ and the OP has requested that the GQ thread not be turned into a debate.

The topic has fascinated me ever since I read about the famous wager between Julian Simon and Paul Ehrlich, described here:

http://www.overpopulation.com/faq/People/julian_simon.html

It seems that as the world's population has increased, the scarcity of many resources has decreased. Counter-intuitive, but (apparently) supported by the evidence.

Based on this and similar information, I think we cannot say with any certainty that the world will not be able to support 9 billion people indefinitely.

As for the resources, I mean those that enable us to live in the style to which we are accustomed, ie energy-producing resources. Fossil fuels. They will not last forever.

It seems to me that you are assuming that fossil fuels are the only potential source of energy. I think this is a bad assumption, given that we continue to develop and deploy energy-producing technologies that do not depend upon fossil fuels. Anyway, I don't see you how you can be so confident that no replacement will be found.

[lucwarm]

And here's a link back to the GQ thread:

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?postid=3697304#post3697304

[Achernar]

Assuming that "live in the style to which we are accustomed" means "using the same resources that we're using them now", then of course we can't do that indefinitely with 9 billion people. We can't even do it indefinitely with 6 billion people. (At least, that's the impression that I get.) Does anyone seriously expect that we'll never replace fossil fuels? :dubious:

[tomndebb]

If anyone would like to mine for information on this topic among old Straight Dope threads, the classic, of course, was 6 billion? (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=22259), in which a substantial amount of information was provided, indicating that the population might peak at 9 billion, but it would retreat from that high (without catastrophe) in the years following. (Most of the better information begins around pages 3 or 4.)

[hobbes730]

Oil is about the last thing anyone would run out of; currently oil companies keep track of 20-30 years of oil reserves, so there's plenty of known oil. As oil gets more expensive, oil fields that are not considered worthwhile to exploit at the present time become cost effective, and well-known but somewhat expensive techniques become worthwhile (like various methods of synthesizing oil).

I have to strongly disagree with this. Well, some of it. Even the most optimistic projections, taking into account new recycling and drilling technologies, estimate the remaining life of the world's oil supplies to be under a century! Others say our remaining reserves could be depleted in as little as 40 years. Please tell me these statistics scare someone other than just me! :)

On the other hand, I think you're right in that other technologies will come along to break our dependance on fossil fuels; hell, they'll HAVE to when the average American starts paying a hundred bucks a tank to fill up their gas-guzzling SUV (not that this isn't happening already in some cases). I can only hope these technologies come before it's too late.

[adamant]

Actually look at these sites for more info :

http://www.dieoff.com (extreme case - but still plausible when you look at the details)

http://www.oilcrisis.com/

http://www.simmonsco-intl.com/

http://www.peakoil.net/

http://www.odac-info.org/

The problem is oil (and natural gas) not excactly running out - but reaching a maximum production level (that we might already be close to ) where no matter how many resources are put in you get less and less (diminishing returns) out. With the constant pressure built into our economic system to expand and with our increasing reliance on transportation of goods, mechanized production of food and use of fossil fuel based fertilizers to keep crop yields high this will be more and more of a problem.

Yes, there are other energy sources, but none of them are ready to flip a switch and go to the high use that oil/natural gas enjoys today. The switchover to other energy sources will take time and during that time things will get a little hairy with increasing world strife over control of the remaining oil resources.

The Middle East will continue to be a very contested area as every year the share of remaining oil in the world contained in the ME goes up.

As for hoping something will pop out of the technological genie just in time to save us all - we can always hope that fusion gets figured out in the next year or so and can be ramped up quickly to replace more and more expensive fossil fuels.
If that happens - oil will be saved for making plastics/fertilizers/etc instead of wasting it by burning.

Lacking that big genie last minute save there is going to be a lot of pain during the changeover to other energy sources. A lot of pain runs from complete catastrophe (think nuclear war over ME) to a worldwide depression (complete with food riots - mass starvation and disease) that makes the Great Depression/Black Plague look easy.

Oh, pay attention especially to the Simmons Site - he is on the board put together by Cheney to advise the president and often gives talks to Congress and other international governing bodies.

He makes the case that natural gas will soon be reaching a scarcity point in North America and that will make electricity go way up in price too.

Happy reading!

[Blake]

Even the most optimistic projections, taking into account new recycling and drilling technologies, estimate the remaining life of the world's oil supplies to be under a century!


That's just not true.

Worldwide, Meyer and Schenk (1985) estimated world heavy crude oil and bitumen resources to be 6,200 billion barrels with 890 billion barrels being "recoverable". These numbers are equivalent to 1033 and 148 years of 1998 US crude oil consumption, respectively…..
Smith (1981) estimated that the Green River Formation in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming contains 1,500 billion barrels of oil, equivalent to 250 years of 1998 US consumption. Duncan and Swanson (1965) estimated that if all oil shale in the US is considered, the size of the potential resource is 160,000 billion barrels, or 26,667 years of US consumption
As production of unconventional oil resources in the form of tar sands has already begun, it becomes increasingly difficult to define the size of the world's oil and gas resource base. Unconventional oil resources such as tar sands and oil shales are sufficient in size to supply the world's petroleum needs for about 100 to 1000 years.…
( http://geology.ou.edu/library/aapg_oil.pdf )



Others say our remaining reserves could be depleted in as little as 40 years.


Some say that aliens built the pyramids too. That doens't make it credible. No credible source says that oureserves could be depleted in 40 years.

At worst production estimates based on reserves will peak within 40 years. Note the word 'reserves' here. Not resources, reserves. That word has a very specific definition when talking about oil. We have used up 100% of the 1920 reserves as well. And 85% of the 1950 reserves. Yet we have a greate rvolume in reserves than ever before. Using up reserves doesn't tell us anything since reserves are increasing faster than production.

No one is claiming that we will even use up the remaining known resoucres within 40 years. That's a pretty reassuring thought since the unknown resources are huge


Assuming that "live in the style to which we are accustomed" means "using the same resources that we're using them now", then of course we can't do that indefinitely with 9 billion people. We can't even do it indefinitely with 6 billion people.

Cite?

With the exception of the rather artificial distinction limitation on fossil fuels as opposed to synthetic biomass hydrocarbons, why excatly can't we do that with 6 billion?

[Blake]

Yes, there are other energy sources, but none of them are ready to flip a switch and go to the high use that oil/natural gas enjoys today


That’s not a problem because there isn’t going to be any switch flipped that will switch off the high use that oil/natural gas enjoys today.

Oh, pay attention especially to the Simmons Site

I have. He makes absolutely no predictions about any end of oil production. Nor does he suggest that “A lot of pain runs from complete catastrophe (think nuclear war over ME) to a worldwide depression (complete with food riots - mass starvation and disease) that makes the Great Depression/Black Plague look easy.” He is nowhere near that pessimistic. You are way overdramatising what he has to say.

He makes the case that natural gas will soon be reaching a scarcity point in North America and that will make electricity go way up in price too.

Far from predicting an imminent scarcity Simmons predicts an increase in natural gas supplies. You have made this claim about Simmons before on these boards, and I have asked you to provide a reference and you couldn’t do so. I have not seen Simmons make any such claim. He has said that there is a need for more investment in infrastructure and exploration but that is it on his web site.

[Blake]

For a more balanced and less hysterical view approach from the peak bodies:

Over the last 50 years estimates of the size of the world's conventional crude oil resources have increased faster than cumulative production. The estimated size of the ultimate resource base will continue to increase in the future as unconventional fossil fuels come on line (http://geology.ou.edu/library/aapg_oil.pdf)



The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) World Petroleum Assessment 2000 provides estimates of the quantities of conventional oil, gas, and natural gas liquids outside the United States that have the potential to be added to reserves in the next 30 years (1995 to 2025). Excluding the U.S., the mean (expected) volumes of undiscovered resources are 649 billion barrels of oil (BBO), 4,669 trillion cubic feet of gas (TCFG), and 207 billion barrels of natural gas liquids (BBNGL). The estimated mean additions to reserves from discovered fields (potential reserve growth) are 612 BBO, 3,305 TCFG.
http://greenwood.cr.usgs.gov




World Energy Outlook: 2002

The Earth’s energy resources are undoubtedly adequate to meet rising demand for at least the next three decades….
World energy use will increase steadily through 2030 in the Reference Scenario. Global primary energy demand is projected to increase by 1.7 percent per year from 2000 to 2030, reaching an annual level of 15.3 billion tonnes of oil equivalent. The increase will be equal to two-thirds of current demand. The projected growth is, nevertheless, slower than growth over the past three decades, which ran at 2.1 percent per year….
Fossil fuels will remain the primary sources of energy, meeting more than 90 percent of the increase in demand. Global oil demand will rise by about 1.6 percent per year, from 75 mb/d in 2000 to 120 mb/d in 2030….

Fossil Energy Resources Are Ample, but Technologies and Supply Patterns Will Change

The world's energy resources are adequate to meet the projected growth in energy demand. Oil resources are ample, but more reserves will need to be identified in order to meet rising oil demand to 2030. …
Global crude oil refining capacity is projected to increase by an average 1.3 percent a year, reaching 121 mb/d in 2030. The growth of capacity will be slightly less than that of demand for refined products, because of increased utilisation rates and the elimination of some refinery bottlenecks.http://www.worldenergyoutlook.org/w...EO2002_1sum.pdf

This range implies remaining conventional crude oil resources of between 1.4 and 2.1 trillion barrels…..
however, dramatic progress has been made in both exploration and recovery technologies in just the first half of this decade. If similar technology advances were projected into the longer term oil assessment, the ultimately recoverable resource base could potentially double the current mean estimates by the USGS, and the potential could be even greater if the real price of world oil increased.

DOE World Energy Outlook 1997

[adamant]

http://www.simmonsco-intl.com/files/IAEE.pdf

From his web page - listed under his name - submenu papers and speeches - this is one of the latest papers linked on that site.

From this slideshow :

Non Opec Supply (excluding FSU - Russia) has flattened out

FSU supply very questionable (lack of data - lack of continued exploration - ie some of the companies that jumped in initially have pulled back after less than stellar results)

He then continues to make the case that non-OPEC oul has peaked - ie the supply from non-Opec sources has platued and now is in decline. He then continues saying than many OPEC are also in decline with only the middle East OPEC (in a golden triangle that is equivalent to 6% of the area of the US) having not peaked(still can increase production).

He then talks about current assumptions that this triangle has lots of oil resources left - with assumed limitless Saudi Oil - then he debunks these assumptions with somewhat sketchy data (because it is hard to get them to release this data) about how more and more of the super size ME oilfields are having to pump more and more water in to keep the production the same with costs rising because of the extra pumping of water.

He talks about how the price of oil needs to be higher to allow more and more exploration and implementation of technology to keep supplies going.

A few slides later he states :

The optimists were wrong :

While the optimists vs pessimists (economists vs scientists) debate rages on - the jury has decided the optomists have lost.

Too much real data now proves their total thesis was wrong - supplies never surged, demand never peaked, prices rose instead of falling.

------------------------
His next slide then says :
The Pessimists Might also Be Wrong :

Most serious scientists worry the world will peak in oil supplies.

But most assume the day is still far away.

Most assume nonconventional oil will carry us through several additional decades.

They were right to ring the alarm bell

But they might also be too optimistic.

0-------------------------------

His next slide explains why non-conventional oil cannout out and out replace conventional oil -

Heavy oil is hard to produce, extremely energy intensive, and very hard to grow rapidly.

Heavy oil can last forever

But it is very hard to get out of the ground

and it takes remarkable amounts of energy to convert to useable power.

----------------------------
His final slide sums up thusly :

The Real Oil Issue:

What are current declines (by basin)?

What will decline rates be by 2005 (and beyond)?

What does it cost now to create new supply?

Can growth of new fields replace constant decline?

When peaking occurs , what energy substitute can take its place?

At what cost will the substitute take?

All are serious questions, none have easy answers.

--------------------------------------------------

That is the summary of just one of several of his recent speeches/papers that indicate his belief that non-OPEC oil has already peaked (note we are talking about conventional - easy to produce - relatively cheap oil - not shale oil and other non-conventional hard to produce - sometimes energy defeating oil - of which we have plenty). He then at least implies that the lack of hard data from the middle east might mean that they are closer to peaking then many of the pessimistic scientists think.

His talks are always fact based, he makes no incredible predictions about wars or die-off but that makes me even more worred when he does question the possibility that we are at the peak (or near) of conventional oil - and also perhaps near the peak for natural gas (I can look up and give excerpts from his natural gas talk - but later - you can find them off his site if you look).

This is not a bunch of kooks yelling "the world is ending".
Simmons advises the president and other industry leaders.

Note Blake that your resources talk about non-conventional oil without looking into the problems of producing it economically (overcome whenever the price gets high enough) AND thermodynamically (ie - some resources will never be able to be used- because it will take more energy to produce then you get out of the end product. If it takes over a barrel of oile energy equivalent to produce a barrel or oil - then you just keep the barrel you have).

I appreciate dialogue and look forward to more discussion, but please read more of what these scientists (like the guy at Princeton) are saying before just dismissing everyone as a chicken little.

Regards

Adamant

[Schnauzer]

It seems to me that you are assuming that fossil fuels are the only potential source of energy. I think this is a bad assumption, given that we continue to develop and deploy energy-producing technologies that do not depend upon fossil fuels. Anyway, I don't see you how you can be so confident that no replacement will be found.

I made the point in Otto's original post that we cannot afford to wait for the technology to appear. Perhaps the assumption that fossil fuels are the only potential source of energy was a bad one, but we just don't know what may or may not be developed. I'm not saying that no replacement will be found, just that we cannot blindly stumble forwards in the hope that something will turn up and save us all. We have to act on what we know *today*, and at the moment there appears to be no great new energy source imminent.

[adamant]

Originally posted by Schnauzer
I made the point in Otto's original post that we cannot afford to wait for the technology to appear. Perhaps the assumption that fossil fuels are the only potential source of energy was a bad one, but we just don't know what may or may not be developed. I'm not saying that no replacement will be found, just that we cannot blindly stumble forwards in the hope that something will turn up and save us all. We have to act on what we know *today*, and at the moment there appears to be no great new energy source imminent.
I agree - the transition to other energy sources needs to be as gradual as possible (or at least we need to have prepared a way to transition). The problem now is that so many people do not even see the need yet - and they way our political system works, the effort needed (money, resources, time, people) will come too late to really help. The transition unplanned for will be harder and entail more suffering (and risk of war, conflict, starvation) than if we are prepared with the new technology.

One possible energy source available now is nuclear - but with the environmentalists against it, we are phasing this out over time (no new plants have been built in years and the old ones are already close to or exceeded their original desing lifes).
The real solution will probably involve multiple energy sources - no single source will yield as much as we already get with conventional oil/gas.

That is one reason to raise awareness of the facts - then a proper plans and responses have a chance.

Unfortunately it may be too late already to avoid the economic cruch that will happen when the price of oil jumps to $100/barrel - then goes higher.

Adamant

[eburacum45]

I cannot say this enough times- the only worthwile source in the solar system is the sun, giving out a billion times the light incident on the earth constantly; this source of energywill bwe available for five billion years and more; the amount of solar energy falling on the Earth is 1800 times the total energy use of all nations worldwide;
Due to inefficiencies in solar collection we would need to cover 5% of the Earth's land surface with collectors to collect enough energy to give the population of Earth a western level of energy consumption....
so I recommend that we start building them now.
Ocean thermal energy conversion units also have great promise, cutting down on the land surface required for solar collection.

It may well be that fusion becomes a viable source- I expect it will but there is no need to rely on it.
Also we should start looking at collecting the vast resource of light energy that is wasted into the black sky of the universe;
the Sun has enough power, and the solar system has enough resources to support a trillion people in luxury.
__________________
SF worldbuilding at
http://www.orionsarm.com/main.html

[hobbes730]

I guess we just have different sources Blake :)

From the May 2000 issue of Popular Science:

Though the most recent increase in U.S. gasoline prices was the result of a decrease in oil production among the 11 OPEC (Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries) members, the world will be facing a much bigger issue over the next 10 years, one that will keep prices inflated: We're running out of oil. Really.

Though the general public-having been warned about the depletion of our oil reserves for decades-is taking an "I'll believe it when I see it" attitude, the facts are a little unnerving. Today, the world finds one new barrel of oil for every four it consumes. World oil discoveries peaked in the 1960s. . . . More than 90 percent of today's oil comes from fields discovered more than 20 years ago-and most of the fields uncovered over the past decade have been extremely small. The consensus in the industry is that, based oncurrent reserves, anticipated discoveries, and today's rate of demand, the world will run out of its most precious resource in 2050.

I'll admit there was some ambiguity in my terminology, I meant the Earth's reserves, not ours per se. But I have to point out that all of the estimates you mentioned were made between 20 and 40 years ago. And your last article, the most recent, even states that in as little as 20 years we will not be able to meet the world's demand for oil.

[adamant]

http://www.oilcrash.com/running.htm

FYI

[Lemur866]

Look, even if we have peaked in total oil production, that doesn't imply anything about a "crash". It means that oil prices will steadily go up and up and up and up. Gasoline at $2.00 a gallon is expensive, but doesn't require any vast changes in driving habits except buying smaller more efficient vehicles. Gasoline at $3.00 a gallon, and people start looking for alternatives...CNG, electric, alcohol, biodiesel, hydrogen, bicycles, public transportation.

I don't know why increasing gasoline prices imply sharp discontinuities, panics, and shortages. People change over to new technology when it is cost-effective to do so, not before. There are dozens of technologies that can compete with gasoline right now, except they are all more expensive per mile than gasoline at $2.00 a gallon. At each new price for gasoline, the new technologies kick in and people start to switch. And every person that switches reduces the demand for gasoline, which keeps the price lower.

If you are concerned that new technologies aren't being developed fast enough, the simple solution is to slap a steep gas tax on every gallon. A phased-in $0.50 or $1.00 per gallon gas tax would suddenly get everyone to take notice. There are lots of people who would switch right now if you imposed that tax on gasoline but not alternative fuels, even if the savings were marginal.

Also, remember that petroleum is NOT used to generate electricity in this country. It is used almost exclusively for transportation. We aren't importing oil from Saudi Arabia and burning it to provide electricity. So oil is not a substitute for hydroelectic, coal or nuclear power or vice versa, unless those are used to charge conventional electric vehicles or make hydrogen for fuel cells.

It all comes down to cost. Alternative fuels are expensive, but many could compete with $3.00 per gallon gas. We'll hit $3.00 per gallon gas waaaaaaaay before we start to run out of crude oil reserves.

[Gairloch]

Add another tax? Oh dear. The belief in the omnipotent intellectual overview and altruistic intent of government never ends. Has any government ever been right about anything? This is a bit off topic, but once reliant on the income from a new tax, a government hardly has any interest in losing the source of that income. There is a certain inherent conflict of interest in asking a government to levy a 'sin' tax in order to discourage certain behavior, since once the tax income is made a permanent part of the spending plan it is against the interests both of the government and of those taxpayers who are not engaging in the disproportionately taxed behavior to actually end that behavior. Public budgets will not be suddenly reduced by the amount of the 'sin' taxes if the 'sinners' suddenly repent, and the self-proclaimed, public-spirited non-sinners will have already spent the money several times over, and will have even sold 30-year government bonds dependent on that 'sin' income to finance their newly minted pet project, the potential loss of which is always decried as an unsustainable 'cut' in 'vital' government services.

It would be very difficult to demonstrate that this sort of taxation has ever had any substantive effect on anything other than the unrestrained bloating of government.

Further, it might be noticed that while the government feels no remorse about poking their nose into everyone else's business, the government produces no oil. The government also produces no cars, no steel, no food, no clothing, no electricity, no computers, no asphalt, no bricks, no mortar, and only a small portion of the paper it is printed on. While we debate the phantom menace and highly questionable 'crisis' of energy production, it might be instructive to note that the government has gone along for the ride, neither creating nor much enabling the private economy that sustains it, but rather seeking to take as much as possible out of that economy under the banner of the 'public good.' Any crusade seeking governmental intervention as a solution to any 'problem' can find itself running up against governmental self-interest as a large component of that problem, and needs to decide which direction the spiral ought to be turning.

Gairloch

[adamant]

Originally posted by Lemur866
Look, even if we have peaked in total oil production, that doesn't imply anything about a "crash". It means that oil prices will steadily go up and up and up and up. Gasoline at $2.00 a gallon is expensive, but doesn't require any vast changes in driving habits except buying smaller more efficient vehicles. Gasoline at $3.00 a gallon, and people start looking for alternatives...CNG, electric, alcohol, biodiesel, hydrogen, bicycles, public transportation.

I don't know why increasing gasoline prices imply sharp discontinuities, panics, and shortages. People change over to new technology when it is cost-effective to do so, not before. There are dozens of technologies that can compete with gasoline right now, except they are all more expensive per mile than gasoline at $2.00 a gallon. At each new price for gasoline, the new technologies kick in and people start to switch. And every person that switches reduces the demand for gasoline, which keeps the price lower.

If you are concerned that new technologies aren't being developed fast enough, the simple solution is to slap a steep gas tax on every gallon. A phased-in $0.50 or $1.00 per gallon gas tax would suddenly get everyone to take notice. There are lots of people who would switch right now if you imposed that tax on gasoline but not alternative fuels, even if the savings were marginal.

Also, remember that petroleum is NOT used to generate electricity in this country. It is used almost exclusively for transportation. We aren't importing oil from Saudi Arabia and burning it to provide electricity. So oil is not a substitute for hydroelectic, coal or nuclear power or vice versa, unless those are used to charge conventional electric vehicles or make hydrogen for fuel cells.

It all comes down to cost. Alternative fuels are expensive, but many could compete with $3.00 per gallon gas. We'll hit $3.00 per gallon gas waaaaaaaay before we start to run out of crude oil reserves.

The problem with alternative fuels for transportation is that none of them can be ramped up quickly enough to ease the pain when gas goes up to $10 or $20 a gallon. Remember the 1970's? (or have you heard about it in school or from older relatives)? There was a temporary gas shortage in the US due mostly to OPEC and some other political decisions. This was not a real shortage (like the coming GLOBAL shortage) but it did cause real harm to the economy (noone thought that you could have inflation during a recession until then for instance - double digit inflation for almost 6 years).
When this global peak occurs, it might not be an instant panic (in fact - some data and experts indicate that we might be at peak right now) but as demand increases and the supply starts to deplete - the price will skyrocket. Then the price will probably go up and down by large amounts as the economy tries to get going every time oil goes down, then hits the depletion limit (worse each time) and spikes again - slowing the economy,etc.
Yes, Oil is mostly used for transportation not just here but everywhere. Of course, due to the way we have structured the world economy, every single good depends on cheap oil. We buy raw supply wherever it is cheaper -ship it to wherever it can be cheaply processed, ship it to another place for assembly, then ship the finished product all the way around the world for sale and then re-sale. When gas prices double - this will effect everything. When gas prices triple, things will get worse.
Then there is food production. Food today is produced largely on huge mechanized farms with lots of oil products used to work the farm , as well as lots of oil and gas derivatives used for fertilizers. Then the food is shipped somewhere for processing, then the finished food is shipped or trucked or flown to point of sale.
Food production depends highly on cheap oil. When oil goes up and becomes scarce, food production will go down.
So, you have lots of people making less money or no money due to job cuts and a depression that dwarfs the "great" depression and is worldwide(combined with hyper inflation) . then you have food supplies dropping. Then you have known facts like over 50 % (rising daily) of remaining easily pumped conventional oil being located in the middle east.

I guess everyone will tighten their belt, go home and pray for peace and food.


Unfortunately it will more likely entail food riots, governments overthrown, wars over oil (maybe this is already being prepared for? - by people who have more knowledge of the oil supply situation than anyone who is on the outside of large oil companies?), and wars over food supply.

We're not going to be able to crank out biofuels(lots of farming - have to drop food production again) or shale oil (nonconventional oil is hard to produce, energy intensive, and hard to ramp up production), or any other alternative fuel in time to avoid the large economic and political problems that will occur when the oil situation becomes clearer to all who are trying to survive.

Demand is growing for oil and natural gas (which is used for electricity more than oil is - and natural gas in North America is approaching peak with record numbers of wells dug only able to keep supply flat over the last few years and more and more wells depleting faster and faster). Natural gas was thought of by many who saw oil depletion coming as the "transition fuel" that would give us time to transition to more renewable resources, but natural gas will be running out sooner than many people planned for - and that depletion will accelerate as oil depletes and more and more natural gas demand goes up to replace oil.

There are some good books on the subject including Duffeyes recent book "Hubbert's Peak".

Regards

Adamant

[Lemur866]

Gairloch:

I certainly don't advocate a large increase in the gas tax myself, I'm perfectly confident in the private sector being able to phase in alternatives. I merely pointed out that a tax on gasoline and NO OTHER ACTION would be the wisest course if one were convinced that alternative fuels weren't being developed fast enough. A simple tax on gasoline would make more sense than silly "industrial policy", subsidies for alternative fuels, invasions of other countries, or panic, looting and cannibalism.

Adamant:

I still don't understand why you think declining oil reserves neccesarily means wild fluctuations in price and huge price spikes. Gasoline isn't going to instantly jump to $10 a gallon. We just had a price spike due to the Venezualan strikes and the Iraq war. Gas went from ~1.30 to ~1.70 where I live, now it is down to ~1.50. Why would you think the next interuption in supply would spike the price to ~10.00?

Look, in America we have lots of hyro, coal, and nuclear power available, and while hyrdo is probably at its limit, there's no reason we can't build a lot of new power plants. That's electricity generation that can be used to generate hydrogen. How long would it take to get a hyrogen infrastructure up? Twenty years?

You completely ignore the fact that we've got all kinds of alternatives. Yes, they are more expensive than oil, that's why NO ONE USES THEM. If gas prices spike to $10.00 a gallon like you prophecy, then you could run your car off of vegetable oil bought from the supermarket more cheaply. There are literally dozens of alternatives once you hit $10.00 a gallon gasoline. Of course we won't implement all of them, we'll implement--get this--the cheapest ones.

[hobbes730]

We don't even necessarily have to switch to alternative fuels; I simply believe that if the government were to phase in a reasonable tax on gasoline, it would encourage consumers to buy more fuel efficient vehicles and in turn encourage the auto industry to develop more hybrid and ULEV vehicles. Think about it; the typical SUV can get as little as 10 MPG. At the other end of the scale, compact-cars are pushing the 100 MPG limit, and concept hybrid pickups and SUVS can get 40-50. The point is, if we were all to convert to hybrid vehicles, we could reasonably cut gas consumption by up to 5x, and thus extend the life of oil supplies by decades, if not centuries. I think this extension is what would give industries time to switch to alternative fuels.

[adamant]

Originally posted by Lemur866
Adamant:

I still don't understand why you think declining oil reserves neccesarily means wild fluctuations in price and huge price spikes. Gasoline isn't going to instantly jump to $10 a gallon. We just had a price spike due to the Venezualan strikes and the Iraq war. Gas went from ~1.30 to ~1.70 where I live, now it is down to ~1.50. Why would you think the next interuption in supply would spike the price to ~10.00?


The problem we are about to face (or are already facing depending on whose numbers are correct) is one that we have never seen before. The global supply of oil will be peaking. The demand is still increasing, and has to increase to avoid recession/depression. The oil supply will level out and then decrease. This will cause price variations that we have not seen. In the 70's the price of oil spiked up very high - but did not stay there very long because the shortage was aritficial and temporary (having more to do with politics, logistical holdups, and perceptions of a shortage that were not physically true). This shortage is physically true - and will get worse every year. This shortage is not foreseen by most people so when the truth becomes known the reaction could be extreme (due to the nature of our news media - jumping on a big story like it was new today - even when the evidence has been building and debated for years before). All of a sudden every Joe Blow will be talking about an oil shortage and wanting to stock up. Prices will go up , then probably go back down in reaction (ie - less demand for a short time as the price gets so high) then back up as the economy tries to get going again pushing demand back over the now lower capacity to produce, etc.

All of the timing / pricing issues are very speculative and I have no idea how abrubt or gradual such a process will be, but I have worries about what that will do to our world economy when everything depends on cheap transport.

As for running your car on oil from the grocery store, how about your hundreds of neighbors, how about all the farmland put into producing fuel oil instead of food. Also what are the tractors going to run on? Many studies have shown that some biofuels actually take more energy to produce then you get in the end product. How do these fuels even get produced , you ask? Because of money subsidies by the government.


Look, in America we have lots of hyro, coal, and nuclear power available, and while hyrdo is probably at its limit, there's no reason we can't build a lot of new power plants. That's electricity generation that can be used to generate hydrogen. How long would it take to get a hyrogen infrastructure up? Twenty years?

You completely ignore the fact that we've got all kinds of alternatives. Yes, they are more expensive than oil, that's why NO ONE USES THEM. If gas prices spike to $10.00 a gallon like you prophecy, then you could run your car off of vegetable oil bought from the supermarket more cheaply. There are literally dozens of alternatives once you hit $10.00 a gallon gasoline. Of course we won't implement all of them, we'll implement--get this--the cheapest ones.
I do not ignore the alternatives. I believed the standard "we'll just switch to something else when the time comes" just as you do until I starting reading up on the scientific and physical reasons (including thermodynamic analysis of the energy inputs and outputs of various alternatives). The problem is what do you do for everyone's immediate needs (especially for food) while switching? We don't have 20 years, we need to be switching now (or at least paving the way a bit more than we are). The reason we use oil/natural gas to begin with is that they are cheaper - they are cheaper because they were abundant and because the energy content/transportability was high. That is not the case for most of the alternatives and that is part of the overall problem.

I agree that we need to build more nuclear plants - new designs that are smaller, cheaper to build than the old dinosaurs and yet are easier to operate and safer, but we aren't doing it, and it might be too late to do so (for most people) because of the lead time and resources needed.
When the stuff hits the fan, most of our oil resources will be held out for the military to protect the rest of the oil that is available, and less and less will go to farming/ industry/ home heating/ non - military transport.

All of your questions are answerd far better than I can in this short space by the links I listed above (and by people far more qualified by education and job experience than I). Please glance through them, then return here to debate the points further.

I would love nothing more to find that I am wrong, that I am listening to the wrong set of experts.
But when one set is full of scientists (geologists mostly) with lots of industry experience searching for oil, and the other side is mostly economists saying things like " we'll never run short of resources" and other statements that have no physical meaning, I start to get worried. I look further, see more and more current news stories, see more and more experts agreeing on the peak, just debating the actual date, and I get a little more worried.

Regards

Adamant

[cowgirl]

It is nice that it doesn't seem to bother anyone that the impact of oil exploration continues to grow. Because you are not Nigerian or Sudanese and you do not have to put up with oil fires and the pillage of your land; you are not Gwich'in (http://www.cariboucommons.com/issue/issue.html) people who rely on the caribou that will be destroyed if drilling in the Alaskan reserve proceeds; or Haida (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1859347.stm) people whose land claim is threatened by oil interests. Most of us in North America will remain blissfully unaware of the horrendous costs of the search for oil. A search which will inevitably grow ever more intensive as supplies diminish.

We are happy to let others (Africans, natives) pay the cost for our thirst for oil. We can marginalize the objectors by dismissing them as "environmentalists" or as "radicals," and as "hoodlums" or "anarchists" when they object more vocally.

It never ceases to amaze me that in most talk I hear about energy (currently, the energy crisis in Ontario, as well as this current discussion which has turned into one about oil), it is always supply that concerns us. As far as my limited understanding of economics tells me, there are two axes on this particular graph: and yet "demand" never seems to factor into the equation. We can find alternative energy sources, yes, and if we are comfortable ravaging other people's land for oil we can do that too. Wouldn't it be easier to adjust our lifestyle so we didn't need so much? Then our actions - not only how we transport ourselves around the city, but how our corporations act globally - will be more sustainable. (I know that's a dirty word. But I won't stop praying for the day when when it becomes acceptable.)

[adamant]

cowgirl,
The impact of continued oil exploration bothers me very much. That impact will grow worse as oil becomes more precious, and conservation/lifestyle change is important to slow demand.

It is hard to change one's lifestyle. There are so many pressures driving us to keep driving our cars, going to work - buying the house, the gizmos, all the things we are taught to seek after - and family pressures demand, etc.

I feel as if I am on a huge Lemming drive - we are all being jostled along towards a cliff. Only a few have taken the time to look up and notice the drop as it nears, and we can't even begin to slow the race - instead it gets faster and faster with more people and more demand for energy every day.

Our whole economic system is geared to constant growth, if you aren't growing the economy you are in a recession or depression. The only way to keep growing the economy is to use more energy - the single uber-resource that backs the availability of every other resoure. With enough energy we can purify water, reclaim lost land, clean up pollution. With energy running out our options become more limited and the carrying capacity of the land is reduced. Then it is only a matter of time and method until the population adjusts to a lower number, maybe lower by quite a factor and I am particularly worried about that adjustment and how it will affect my children and family and friends.

Thanks for bringing up the point of how much suffering we as a society can accept as long as it is out of sight. That is why by the time we actually see the suffering in our own personal lives - it will be too late for many of the best options.

Regards

Adamant

[adamant]

cowgirl,
The impact of continued oil exploration bothers me very much. That impact will grow worse as oil becomes more precious, and conservation/lifestyle change is important to slow demand.

It is hard to change one's lifestyle. There are so many pressures driving us to keep driving our cars, going to work - buying the house, the gizmos, all the things we are taught to seek after - and family pressures demand, etc.

I feel as if I am on a huge Lemming drive - we are all being jostled along towards a cliff. Only a few have taken the time to look up and notice the drop as it nears, and we can't even begin to slow the race - instead it gets faster and faster with more people and more demand for energy every day.

Our whole economic system is geared to constant growth, if you aren't growing the economy you are in a recession or depression. The only way to keep growing the economy is to use more energy - the single uber-resource that backs the availability of every other resoure. With enough energy we can purify water, reclaim lost land, clean up pollution. With energy running out our options become more limited and the carrying capacity of the land is reduced. Then it is only a matter of time and method until the population adjusts to a lower number, maybe lower by quite a factor and I am particularly worried about that adjustment and how it will affect my children and family and friends.

Thanks for bringing up the point of how much suffering we as a society can accept as long as it is out of sight. That is why by the time we actually see the suffering in our own personal lives - it will be too late for many of the best options.

Regards

Adamant