I’ve said it before: Peak Oil mania is where the Y2K crowd went for their latest Apocalypse.
Sam Stone is right: It’s ridiculous. We’ve had many peak oil debates here before, Brad, I’m surprised you haven’t participated.
All the contra arguments here are great, but the overall mistake the peak oil people make is forgetting how adaptable people are. If anything, the demise of ultra-cheap, environment-destroying energy would be a big boon to the world economy, as it would force people to think smart about energy in every dimension.
I haven’t seen the movie, but two brief and important points:
-
We can make motor fuel out of coal. It’s easy. The Germans did this 65 years ago. The U.S. has a lot of coal. We don’t really bother to look for it anymore.
-
As a professional in the field, I question Matt Simmons’ credibility and expertise, as do many other professionals.
I am not overly worried. the main question is; how fast would oil prices rise? A big jump 9say to $100/barrle) would be VERY disruptive-people can adjust, but only if the change is gradual. Suppose the Government took real (bold0 action (unlikely), and started imposing stiff energy useage requirements (CAFE standards). The auto industry would send hundreds of lobbyists in to derail the whole thing. Clearly, there is a lot thqt could be done-should it be done by the “invisible hand” (the market? -or through the clumsy hand of government.
ralph, the market will handle this just fine. If we are running out of oil (a dubious proposition), prices will start increasing. That will be all the incentive that companies need to find other energy sources. As these sources come online, prices will stabilize or fall.
It’s like when prices for whale oil were increasing in the nineteenth century. An enterprising guy figured out that he could use the black stuff oozing out of the ground in Pennsylvania to make kerosene. He figured out how to do it and suddenly people had a very cheap source of energy. The same principle will work whenever the oil runs out.
Relying on government to accurately predict this and do the right thing is pretty ludicrous. The government has been predicting we’re running out of oil since the 1920s.
However, this scenario assumes that the typical car owner is driving a relatively new car in the $30K price range and still making payments on it. Sure, if you’re already shelling out that kind of money, $1K extra per year for gasoline will be pretty much peanuts by comparison.
But for people who can’t afford new and expensive cars in the first place, paying an extra thousand bucks or so annually for gasoline is not a trivial expenditure.
I was trying to figure out a way to express my feeling on the subject of Peak Oil in as succinct a way as possible and then I read this post.
Nice post Mr. Miskatonic and might I add… “GET OUT OF MY HEAD!”
Very true. Here in the U.K., petrol is nearly US$2 per litre / US$9 per gallon. Until nearly three years ago, I used to commute 10K miles per year. Call it 25 mpg to allow for traffic jams - the car will do vastly better on clear roads - and that’s 400 gallons, US$3600 per year. And I was typical. I cannot but feel that costs like this are negatively impacting Britain’s business and profitability.
But…there’s candy in here!
You are assuming that alternative technologies that would enable us to continue to live in the automobile-dependent way we’ve been living are possible. It ain’t necessarily so.
Go here and scroll down to the 5/28/07 entry, “We Want Solutions!”
The same thinking, circa 1890:
“You are assuming that alternative technologies that would enable us to continue to live in the horse-dependent way we’ve been living are possible. It ain’t necessarily so.”
False equivalence. 1) The supply of oats was never seriously threatened. 2) People of that period could have given up their horses much more easily than we can give up our cars. 3) Just because we really need something doesn’t mean we can have it. Some things are impossible. I’d like to see humanity go to the stars; that almost certainly will never happen unless we invent a faster-than-light drive; but based on what we now know of physics, a faster-than-light drive is probably impossible.
You’re right about that. I’m not saying there won’t be hardships. Of course there will be. Fundamental restructuring is always painful. The blacksmith industry was destroyed by the motor car. The telephone operator industry was wiped out by automated switching, and a large percentage of those operators were people who otherwise had no skills and couldn’t hope to find another job as good.
The question isn’t whether some people will be hurt by a transition to alternative energy and transportation sources - the question is whether it will throw the world into a depression.
Man, Kunstler kind of comes across as a dick, doesn’t he? Arrogant and condescending. His problem is that he just hates personal transportation. Any solution that allows people to actually have their own personal transportation makes him spit nails. Whatever.
The fact is, we are already seeing the transition to the new solutions, and we can start to see the form it’s taking. We’re not going to see one magic technology that’s going to save us. There’s going to be a whole bunch. Flex-fuel, plug-in hybrids, nuclear, clean coal, wind, and solar. In the meantime, battery technology continues to improve, solar cell efficiencies improve, etc. These technologies are converging. More efficient batteries make electric cars more viable. In the meantime, hybrids are teaching engineers better way to build electric drivetrains. The next generation of plug-in hybrids can travel reasonable distances on electric alone. The gas engine just becomes a range extender.
The new generation of car platforms are increasingly moving to a ‘power cell’ type concept where various engines can be plugged into the same chassis - gas, fuel cell, electric battery, ethanol, whatever. An architecture like that would allow us to transition very quickly away from oil if it went up dramatically in price. Take your car to the dealer, have the gas engine removed and the space replaced with a high-capacity battery, and you can still commute from the burbs on electricity alone. You’d be surprised how much of this the current electrical grid can absorb, because the grid is sized to provide peak power during the day, and electric car batteries charge at night. We could ramp up additional power plants very quickly if we had to.
And there’s plenty of uranium and thorium for nuclear. Since the fuel itself is only a tiny part of the cost of nuclear power, we can tolerate with very large increases in fuel costs with only small increases in power cost. That means seawater extraction is economically possible. And it’s not theoretical - we can do it today. Breeder reactors can extend current stockpiles out hundreds of years. It’s just not a problem.
No.
No.
No.
No.
Haven’t seen it either, but I’m willing to bet it has:
-economic hardship
-increase pollution from coal-based energy
-wars
-violence and massive civil unrest
-starvation
-criticism of suburban planning
-advocation smaller, self-sufficient communities
See also:
The Long Emergency
And unfortunately, it’s quite carbon-intensive, much more so than petroleum. It’s not like we can consider this problem in isolation.
Simmons makes a pretty good case. Can you link me to a cogent counterargument?
No it’s not a false equivalency and thank you for giving me the points on which to debate it.
-
The supply of oats was not the point. As the 19th century wound down, folks were seriously concerned about enviromental and economic problems that using horses as the power source for transportation. I remember seeing an article praising the automobile as the best thing ever to happen to public health because the people living in towns would no longer have to deal with the piles of manure and the flies and the resulting diseases.
-
This is a classic example of “It’s more important because it’s happening to my generation.” I bet if you had a time machine, you could find a few people in 1890 that would argue that point with you.
-
You’re right. Some things are impossible. But throughout human history, the human species has shown a remarkable ability to adapt, to invent, and to overcome. Here’s a quick list of the formerly known as “impossible”.
[ul]Traveling faster than 25 mph.[/ul]
[ul]Traveling faster than 100 mph.[/ul]
[ul]Traveling faster than the speed of sound.[/ul]
[ul]Setting foot on the moon (the dust will explode under pressure).[/ul]
That last point makes me think of something else. That theory was put forth by a scientist. The media gave him his 15 minutes of fame as a result of it. Fortunately, a few thousand other scientists and engineers ignored him and went ahead anyway.
The transition from horse to automobile was not painless for everyone. As Sam Stone said, blacksmiths were put out of business as were harnessmakers, stables, horse ranchers, and don’t forget the buggy whip factories. The early autos were very expensive. One could make an argument that it wasn’t fair that only the rich could take advantage of the new technology; the the poor we’re being left out of the transition.
But, an entire new industry was born and it fueled (ha, a pun) the US economy for over 75 years.
I have no idea what will replace hydocarbon fuels, but I hope to live long enough to see it because it should be an interesting transition. Who knows, maybe the horse will make a comeback. I know how to plow with a team of horses; I’ve done it before. Do you?
I would like to introduce to this discussion an interesting book, “The Bottomless Well: The twilight of fuel, the virtue of waste, and why we will never run out of energy,” by Peter W. Huber & Mark P. Mills. The authors claim is just that, and it is a treatise not to be dismissed lightly.
Well, like I said, I haven’t seen the movie, so if Simmons makes a claim like beef jerky is tasty, I can’t argue with him. In general though:
Simmons is a Wall Street type, and as a Wall Street type, he expects Saudi Aramco to operate like ExxonMobil. Since they are not doing that, he believes their production has peaked. Many economists, myself included, believe that the Saudis just aren’t too worried about it. They face absorption rate issues in the economy, and don’t trust themselves to sock any funds away for future generations untouched like Norway does. Furthermore, Aramco may be working with a *downward sloping * supply curve, at least partially. They have a set budget of roads, schools, gold Bentleys, etc., so when prices are high, they will work less hard to produce more. Imagine a kid shoveling snow to save for a new video game. If the rate he gets for a driveway doubles, it isn’t hard to imagine him doing half as many jobs, not more.
Furthermore, Simmons, for his book, has interpreted a bunch of spotty and selective Aramco engineering data, which may be suspect. His qualifications to do so have also been called into questions, although I can’t speak to these claims. I have spoken to one of the few outsiders allowed into the Aramco bunker, and he claims Ghawar production is as claimed, unless the Saudis have gone to the trouble to install rigged flow metering equipment and the like.
Like I said, this doesn’t mean Simmons is wrong about everything he ever says though. I wonder if he would still make his $200 in 2010 bet today; I suspect he wouldn’t. (Note the bet’s terms stipulate an average price of $200 across the year, not that oil will hit $200 at some point in 2010) I’m not even sure an invasion of Iran would get us there.
That review says Huber is a fellow of the Manhattan Institute. That does not, of course, automatically discredit anything he says, but it does, of course, automatically warrant careful skepticism.