I stumbled across this site while browsing the 'net (oh, alright; it was a Fark.com link), but despite the nature of the site it was linked on, it appears that the page makes some valid points.
I’m not going to pull quotes from the cite due to the sheer volume of information.
“Peak Oil”, it appears, is reality, and I think many of the effects described on the cite may prove to be true (although the population reduction described within may be a bit much). However, if even half of the site’s content is true (which I am beginning to believe it is), we’re in for a very rough next few decades.
So, dopers, to dispel my ignorance, I pose the question to you:
Is “Peak Oil” a grim summation of mankind’s future, or is it simple the writings of an paraniod alarmist?
I find it unlikely that the planetary population is going to drop by five billion in the next fifty years, short of utter friggin’ Gotterdammerung, Twilight Of The Freakin’ Gods, Ragnarok, and suchlike.
I do find oil wars a likelihood, though. I suspect we have already begun to tread that road…
The article is wildly alarmist. 5.5 billion people will die because oil goes up in price? Give me a break.
There is no shortage of energy. Oil is just one energy source. The reason the others aren’t in play is simply becausde oil is cheaper. But once oil goes up to $40/barrel, you’re going to see nuclear make a big comeback. In the meantime, Alberta has huge reserves of oil in the tar sands, which aren’t being exploited because they are too expensive. There are other sources in the world like that. Coal, etc. That’s why the downlope curve won’t be that severe - There won’t be one peak where oil prices go up rapidly - there will be a peak of one type of oil, followed by a price increase, followed by the opening of the more expensive sources, etc.
The true result of the ‘oil peak’ is that we can expect energy to go up in cost fairly significantly (but not disastrously) in the next 20-30 years, and then stabilize. The end result could hurt the poorer nations and economic growth in the rich countries, but there won’t be a catastrophe.
Seen this thread before. Can’t remember the title but this has been debated a few times…and I think there were valid arguements on both sides.
My take? Its somewhere in between, maybe leaning more towards ‘paraniod alarmist’. I always check for tinfoil hats whenever someone starts raving that the sky is falling or that the wheels are just about to fall off…and when the experts seem so divided on the subject.
IF we begin to run out of oil (something I currently see no indications is iminent) then my money is on some smart girl or guy coming up with an alternative. Why? Because there will literally be TONS of money in it for the genuis who figures it out, thats why. My faith in the greed of my fellow man is unbounded.
[QUOTE=Master Wang-Ka]
I find it unlikely that the planetary population is going to drop by five billion in the next fifty years, short of utter friggin’ Gotterdammerung, Twilight Of The Freakin’ Gods, Ragnarok, and suchlike.
[QUOTE]
For me, that was the one part of the article that cast some doubt over the rest. 5 billion just seem too alarmist. Hell, even 5 million seem high.
“Umm…” to all of that. It’s either not true, or a wild exaggeration, or simply irrelevant.
World Trade Center destroyed–yeah, but it wasn’t our fault, and a terrorist bombing or two doesn’t mean the world is ending.
budget surplus vanished–well, yeah, but the federal budget has swung back and forth between “surplus” and “deficit” before, and it didn’t mean the world was ending.
dysfunctional health care–well, yeah, but that doesn’t mean the world is ending, it just means the American health care system sucks.
honest elections gone–gee, not where I live. Too bad for him.
2.5 million jobs lost–erm, actually unemployment isdown since last June. OMG, we’re all gonna die, the unemployment rate went down!! :eek: :rolleyes:
433 publicly traded companies gone bankrupt–So? This doesn’t prove the world is ending, it just proves that some companies went bankrupt.
social security close to gone–possibly, but it doesn’t mean the world is ending.
government oversight of big business gone–um…what? Not where I live, bucko. The ADA is still in effect last time I looked, as was OSHA, the FDA, the FTC, the USDA, the SEC…
weakened infrastructure–so? It’s fixable. Doesn’t mean it’s time to head for the hills.
undermined civil liberties–Well, maybe just a tad, due to the Patriot Act, but last time I looked I still had the right to get up on a soapbox and say, “John Ashcroft is a total idjit” out loud without being arrested.
tainted food supply–um…what? A few food items with contaminants doesn’t mean the entire system is collapsing, it just means there’s mercury in tuna and possibly mad cow in ground beef. But that’s not grounds for having your tubes tied so you won’t bring any more mouths into a starving world.
On a symbolic level, the fact that the Statue of Liberty is now closed–this is just silly. We all know why it’s closed, and it has nothing to do with the oil running out, or the world ending.
Just another “the world’s going to hell in a handbasket!” website.
Feh.
Well, that certainly seems extreme. Of course, years after that the game is basically up for the human race according to this guy.
After that, bobs your uncle, it curtain time for homo-sapient I guess (though in fairness the author of this thing claims reduced civilization, living closer to nature and on a much more modest energy budget will rise phoenix like from the ruins of civilization. Personally I don’t see it…5.5 billion out of 6? No way we are rising from that in any meaningful way IMO).
And of course, this gazer into the future knows this. He also knows that there won’t be any breakthroughs in the next few years. Damn, I want to meet this guy so I can get next weeks winning lottery number.
My only question is…if EVERYONE who is an expert KNOWS all this…what are they doing? Are they sitting around with their thumbs up their ass fiddling while Rome burns?? I mean…5.5 billion are going to die world wide. Thats pretty bad odds in a population of only 6 billion, no? You’d think SOMEONE out there would be, you know, doing something. I know Bush is evil and all, but don’t you suppose the US would be focusing on this minor problem perhaps? (read his section on What is the government doing to solve this problem? for a good laugh. The Gulf War syndrome and National Guardsmen without bullet proof vests definitely adds a certain something to an energy discussion, don’t you think?)
Love this part:
Too funny. So, to avoid terrorism and potential disaster we’ll simply allow 5.5 billion to die. Reasonable. No way we’ll do either a risk analysis or cost benifits study here…let them eat cake I say!!
Hilarious. WHY do they cost billion dollars? Why, because of all the resistance to making them…you know, the protests, the delays, the environmental impact studies that drag on for years, the redesigns, etc etc ad nausium. If people start to get hungry, or, more likely, if they can’t watch Survivor on TV because the power is out, I figure they will see the light fairly fast, no?
And?
Oh gazer into the future knows this. No chance that fuel cell technology, battery technology, etc will advance in the next years. We’re doomed…
Ah…got to have oil to mine Uranium…no other way really. Damn, its over. And we’ll probably use the last drop, blissfully ignorant that this is coming long before we start mining the stuff. Too bad for us.
Major problem. Reactors are radio active for years after they are abandoned. I’m sure no one would consider doing this then. Better to have 5.5 Billion die I suppose than have radioactive reactors lieing about causing death.
True true…and god knows we’ll never figure anything ELSE out in the mean time. Fusion I’m sure is a pipe dream. Besides, we know were ALL the uranium is on earth…
I’m sorry, his blithe dismissal of nuclear and hydrogen is pretty lame. With nuclear power, you can make quite a bit of hydrogen. Distribution? A definite problem, but not insurmountable…especially if 5.5 billion lives were on the line. Hydrogen or methane fuel cell technology is just starting to scratch the surface…as well as battery technology. He doesn’t talk about fusion at all, yet they are making strides in this. Hydo-electric too was dismissed kind of blithely IMO.
There have been folks for a long time that have predicted the iminent collapse of civilization due to scarce resources. The truth is, no one can predict the future, nor can they predict what new innovations or discoveries may occur in that future. Perhaps years from now mankind would use oil at all…and they will look back and scratch their heads and try and figure out what all the fuss was about. Just like we do today for dire predictions of the past.
BTW, anyone who is encouraging stuff about Nikola Tesla and infinite energy magazine (and the section entitled What is the government doing to solve this problem DEFINITELY has my tinfoil hat alarm ringing loudly)…well, I’d be just a BIT more skeptical about it, ya know?
-XT
p.s. Now having gone through the cite in more detail, I’d say that MOST of these claims definitely go in the ‘paraniod alarmist’ catagory. There actually ARE reasonable claims that can be made…this guy simply isn’t making them in any coherent way IMO.
Sam, I thought the real problem with the tar sands was that it took more energy to extract a barrel of oil than there is in a barrel of oil. Have they gotten past the break even point in that regard? If they haven’t, the problem isn’t that oil prices are too low for economic competitiveness, since the extraction costs would increase just as quickly as the price of oil.
That said, I agree with your general point - we won’t run out of oil fast enough that the market won’t encourage the development of alternatives at a sufficient rate. Not that it would be a bad idea to encourage relevant research to get a jump on the problem, since we know it’s coming and all.
Duck Duck Goose, the unemployment rate being down doesn’t mean more people are working. It only means that more people are dropping off the unemployment compensation rolls, either through expiration of benefits or through simply giving up in despair of finding a job. The unemployment rate is probably one of the most disingenuous attempts by the Administration (Dept. of Labor) to make numbers mean something other than what they actually mean.
Cool. I suppose I really should educamate myself on the process sometime.
Nitpick: theoretically, your cite is compatible with tar sand extraction being a net energy loss, because it’s not outside the realm of possibility that oil’s economic value is disproportionate to its energy content compared to other energy sources (coal, say), but I don’t imagine that the energy market is so screwed up as all that. Plus I don’t believe there’s a giant coal-fired power plant at Fort Mac.
How does that help us if there is no oil anymore? If done right now, perhaps it could double the time until we run out? It wouldn’t say that this is a real solution…
Another wolf cry? There have been so many doomsday criers that I approach any new claim with a very large amount of distrust. When mega deaths like 5.5. billion (great big evil Warg wolf cry) is brought up I must say this put him squarely in the paranoid nutty category for me.
Supposedly Nuclear plants could power the process of extracting the hydrogen to power the fuel cell powered cars or the electricity powered cars.
-Passed a law dictating that USA passenger cars get a MINIMUM of 40 MPG
-banned SUVs and trucks
-cameup with a cheap, reliable fluid-bed nuclear reactor design
-allowed oil drilling on George’s Bank (east coast US), and the Santa Barbara Channel(California)
-stopped all energy-wasting activities (like shipping bottled water around the world, and transporting “junk” mail (90% of which is thrown out!))
-allowed oil exploration on all USA Fedrally-owned lands
The results? We wouldhave anoil surplus to huge thta prices wouldplummet-oil would probably drop to less than $10.00/barrel. Would EXXON,Chevron, et.al. want this? No way!
Yes, we waste energy because it is so cheap. Personally, we could improve our livestyle and use less energy with VERY MINOR lifestyle changes…the reason peopledon’t want this is simply that oil (at present) is so cheap!
Sure it can. Use nuclear power plants to manufacture hydrogen. Power cars with hydrogen fuel cells. We could do this today - we don’t becausse it’s too expensive. If we have to, we can do it.
Here is an excerpt from a post I wrote in a thread started a few weeks back dealing with the “problems” of consumerism . I can’t stand these fricking oil myths.
