That is an “above the poverty line” perspective. Economics adjust, but that doesn’t necessarily mean quality of life can be maintained for the majority.
I very strongly disagree that relative energy-poverty is as unlikely a scenario as nuclear war or an asteroid strike. I’ll spawn off another thread to discuss this.
That’s right…it’s substantially cheaper, so we haven’t invested the large amount of capital necessary to develop the myriad alternatives. However, once oil crosses (and sustains) some price threshold this won’t be the case any more, and so investing in research and production of alternatives will become more attractive. Once that happens then do you really think that costs won’t come down, as the new technology gains greater acceptance and more wide spread use? As other companies start to compete and gain market share?
Oil is really, REALLY cheap…so, as long as it remains so, there is no real incentive to do more than cursory research into alternative extraction methods or full blown alternatives. Why would you do more than research and perhaps some exploratory prototyping of possible production, when if you scaled up production (initially) it would end up costing you more for your end product than the cheap oil alternative? It’s not like there are going to be a bunch of rich early adopters who will want to buy refined fuels (at higher prices) from your fancy new shale oil extraction facility, or pay more for your oil refined out of tar sands. Or pay a premium for your turkey guts hydrocarbons, or any of the myriad other alternatives.
No, there isn’t…and it’s not necessary that it does. All that has to happen is that when oil reaches a certain level those other technologies become competitive. and once they are, they companies will start investing serious money on the production end of things. I have no doubts that, once enough money is invested in producing some of these alternatives that the costs will come down by some degree…but even if it doesn’t, so what? We already KNOW that people and economies work just fine with significantly higher fuel costs…just go to Europe sometime and see what THEY pay for refined gasoline and diesel. The problem has been (in the US) that while the price of oil peaked at over a $150/barrel it didn’t sustain that price…and now we are back below $100/barrel (around $70/barrel atm IIRC). At $150/barrel a lot of other technologies become viable (and the world doesn’t collapse economically)…but the price has to be sustained before the research would be translated into full scale production of the new technologies and techniques.
Let me give you an analogy. When Rome was founded they had plenty of wells and springs for water for the citizens. Several miles away they had alternative water sources that were pretty much untapped because of the costs associated with bringing that water into the city…and because they had a cheap, abundant source right there that the citizens could use. Eventually however they reached a point where the old source just wasn’t adequate any more…it had become depleted, and even if it hadn’t there just wasn’t enough of it. So, they bit the bullet and built all of those really cool looking aqueducts and water infrastructure to bring in water to the city (and move it out again).
The reason we haven’t really invested heavily in alternatives is that oil was (and still is) so cheap and plentiful that it’s not worth investing more than in research and small scale development. The water is still abundant, cheap and right there. As that equation shifts though, that research will pave the way to large scale production. We’ll have to spend the capital to go out and get the water that was left untapped because there was no economic reason to get it before.
You ask what the basis that we are on the verge of some kind of break through, but that’s really a silly question. The technologies we are talking about already exist. They are simply not economical at the current price of oil. As an example, IIRC tar sands (which have more potential oil reserves than ever existed in the ME in total) need oil to be something like $100/barrel (sustained) to become economically competitive on a large scale (the Canadian’s and Venezuelan’s both are already developing their own reserves already of course, but not on a truly large scale). Shale oils (with even larger reserves) would take a sustained price of something even higher (say, as a WAG, $150/barrel sustained). Once those levels are reached however then that opens up those vast reserves. Once the capital is invested and production ramped up I have no doubts that the costs will come down…but as I said earlier, even if they don’t, so what? The Euro’s have been paying a lot more for years, and we seemed to survive when oil was $150/barrel last year.
And then we can talk about the OTHER alternatives that are either waiting in the wings our would require your break through tech in order to effect a real shift. Higher capacity, quicker recharging, lighter, cheaper batteries. Solar cells that are cheaper to manufacture and maintain with higher energy densities. Fuel cell vehicles using cheap hydrogen or methane. Hybrids of several of these technologies working together. Bio-engineered fuels, nano-tech energy sources, Mr. Fusion, Magic Pony Tech(ARR). We have LOTS of time…and the rate of technological change today is astonishing. I don’t think that even the magic pony tech is unreasonable to consider given a few decades or a century or so to continue to percolate.
-XT
While in Europe we pay a lot of tax on vehicle fuels, that isn’t true for our other energy costs. High fuel duty is not the same as increased energy costs. The latter affects all aspects on the economy (manufacturing, agriculture, transport etc), while fuel duty has far less impact.
For example, in the UK you can buy “red” (untaxed) diesel for agricultural purposes.
We are talking about oil…or at least I was. I doubt anyone is seriously thinking we are about to hit Peak Coal (or whatever) right now. That’s kind of the point…civilization wouldn’t collapse back to an 18th or even 19th century level because we ran out of oil (which isn’t going to happen) because we DO have all that energy.
-XT
Well the thing is efficiency gains in energy transmission and energy usage are made as well. Solar gets better, then the lines used to transmit energy get better, and then the storage devices get better. PDAs could be outfit with buckyball kinetic motion switches that generate electricity while you walk. Consumer electronics become cheaper and less energy intensive all the time.
So yes, we might see an energy poor future, but we might also not need energy. If our economy runs largely on the ebb and flow of information, then maybe we’ll buy fewer plastic toys, but more software modules for our PDA. Maybe instead of having a computer an X-Box a Cable-Box and a DVR we’ll have one unit that runs everything.
Maybe computing will be held on remote servers with local computers needing only enough power to successfully stream the VPN connection, with all of the actual computation being done remotely at a NOC which has a greater access to power than our individual homes. These can be located near power sources like say in New Mexico with a giant solar array on the roof.
In places with a lot of water we can use tidal pool generators and the flow of rivers to power cities, as they have a pilot program to test in the East River of New York City. Why would people in New York City need any more than an electric car for short commutes?
We might have to reduce our penchant for ‘stuff’ but that doesn’t necessarily mean some kind of Dickensian poverty. Sure we’ll spend a greater proportion of our income on food, but maybe a lower proportion on entertainment, while the entertainment distribution models move more and more to volume as the distribution methods become cheaper and cheaper.
It isn’t about one magic bullet. We are on the cusp of an explosion of energy advancement on anything from new materials built at the nanoscale which will increase efficiency of everything, lighter weight stronger materials to build cars out of, fiber optic cables with a great bandwidth, solid state computers that do not require energy to run, only to change states. More efficient solar, wind, hydroelectric, geothermal. And yes, more people can ride bikes, it’d be healthier for them, we might lean up and have better health overall reducing medical expenses.
And on that note, Medical expenses, maybe basic medical will become far cheaper as the cost of building the expensive scanning machines reduces. Maybe we can come up with some system that reduces the bureaucratic costs associated with red tape.
Basic consumer goods can be built in 3D printers and don’t need some massive supply chain to get it from one side of the globe to the other. People will begin building more sailboats like the Maltese Falcon and people will travel that way telecommuting to work while slowboating across the Atlantic.
Necessity is the Mother of invention, and I didn’t mention a single invention that doesn’t ALREADY exist. So the only thing that would need to be done is for these inventions to become more advanced, and that will happen simply from increased demand.
I really do not feel threatened by peak oil. My view is, bring it on.
I’m not sure that’s entirely accurate. Petroleum was initially refined into kerosene to replace whale oil, a sort of pre-fossilized, under-renewable fuel that was becoming increasingly scarce and costly.
Also, there is much discussion of alternative fuel vehicles, but there is one mode of transportation which is at present entirely dependent on fossil fuels - the airplane.
To get back to the subject, a sufficiently virulent plague that is highly transmissible would have a severe impact on society. It would prevent maintenance of the communication and transportation infrastructure and create a disincentive for people who aren’t killed outright to leave their houses, including those responsible for enforcing the law and civil servants. From there, it’s not too far to Somalian levels of anarchy, poverty and decay. Fiefdoms and tribes become the dominant social structure, battles for increasingly scarce resources become commonplace. On the roads, it’s a white line nightmare… Oh, sorry, Mad Max flashback… 
First off this is not even remotely true. Airplanes work just as well on fuel produced form biomass or even produced directly form the atmosphere. Engines neither know nor care where the fuel they are burning originated.
Secondly you are making the common mistake of assuming that fossil fuel is perfect synonym of liquid crude. Most fossil fuel is coal, shale oil, sand tar, bitumen and so forth. Nobody is predicting any shortage of fossil fuel within the next 50 years, only a shortage of liquid crude. Since aircraft run just fine on fuel produced from coal (cite: many of Germany’s aircraft in the latter part of WWII) it doesn’t much matter if we run short of liquid crude.
First off you did not remotely read what I wrote… Please notice where I said “presently”. Boeing is just dipping its toe in biofuel, and Airbus has yet to operate a plane on biofuel.
It’s obvious that a combustion engine will run on biofuel, but my comment was oriented toward energy sources like electric, solar, etc. that might be adaptable to ground based transportation, but air travel needs jet engines. Perhaps I needed to be more obvious, but I assumed a word to the wise would be sufficient.
Where did I say anything to the effect that we wouldn’t have fossil-based fuels in the near future? I’m completely cognizant that supply is a function of demand in so far as price is the determinant that dictates what sources are exploited. My parallel to whale oil is evidence of this.
Also, pray tell to what fuel are you referring that is produced “directly form [sic] the atmosphere”? Perhaps we can develop an aircraft that runs on wind power? Do we need a treadmill for that?
I agree there is a lot of scope for us to become more energy efficient, and that we could do so without seriously affecting our quality of life. I have more faith in this than I do in the development of future technologies of unknown utility.
Much of the world’s population currently lives in Dickensian poverty. I’m trying to look at this from a global perspective, and I’m not just thinking about what will happen in my lifetime.
It’s impossible to predict how much impact these technologies will really have. A lot of people make the mistake of extrapolating current rates of development into the future. For example, in commercial aviation, since the Boeing 707 was introduced, changes have been evolutionary rather than revolutionary. It’s simply not true that science and technology progress at an exponetial rate. Some fields do, until they hit limits caused by physics or human understanding.
It’s instructive to look at past predictions of future technology. The general theme has been to underestimate the difficulty of advancing a new field, and over-estimation of their impact.
I’ll start another thread to talk about these issues another day, I don’t have the time to give it a proper treatment right now.
The thing here is that xtisme, myself and others who are arguing this line aren’t arguing for future tech, we are arguing for stuff that already exists that will only become more advanced over time, only become cheaper over time and where there will eventually be a crossing of price points where oil becomes more expensive and other techs become less. The technology is a reality, it already exists, we’re not talking about future tech we are talking about present tech. The only future change that everyone on both sides agrees upon is the rising of the price of oil.
So for much of the world it won’t make a difference. But as for global perspective, I’m not thinking locally, or about my own lifetime either. If I live to be 90 I think this point will be entirely moot. In 2068 our tech will be so much different from how it is now, and the saturation of technology will be of such a different nature demographically that most of our concerns will be utterly irrelevant. Not because I am dismissing your concerns just that factors we cannot predict may happen. What if Somalia is suddenly built up and becomes a boom economy around 2055? We don’t know how things will turn out. Imagine telling someone that China would be the way it is today in 1955.
Yeah, we’re not talking about revolutionary. That’s the point I think most of us have been trying to make. ALL of the technologies I have referred to already exist and are even viable economically. They just aren’t the CHEAPEST yet. Solar power is ready for prime time NOW, and it’s being laid down furiously, the solar power market is booming and has been for a couple of years now. There is no reason to expect it to stop suddenly when it’s only getting better and better.
Right, no one is talking about future tech. We are talking about present tech.
Sounds good, I look forward to it.
I watched a documentary on oil and I personally think that the way humans depend on oil is too excessive. I mean, all this stuff like plastics, cars, paints, textiles, wouldn’t exist without petroleum. Some geologists specialising in crude oil estimated that the peak (after which everything goes downhill on a runaway trolley), was around 2005, give or take. At the moment, the way we are using up oil, we have two possibities.
One. Global anoxic event.
Basically, we use up so much oil and therefore release so much carbon that heaps of CO2 gets into the atmostphere, causing a rise in temperature -> rise in humidity-> storms and flooding. Basically the greenhouse effect. Waters will get deoxygentated and stagnant. The water will rise because of the poles melting. Heaps of people will die.
Option 2.
We use up too much oil, and we run out. Even if this happens it may not stop option 1 from also happening. Economy and people are left floundering as we try to find an alternative for oil. Which will be hard if we don’t have machines.
Why, you ask? Becasue we get our electricity from burning coal, which we get from mining, which we do with fueled machines. Even hydroelectric plants use machines and grease for the joints.
So I personally think that we soooo need to find a nice, more environmentally non dooms-daying form of power. Fast.
Basically, we’re stuffed. Have a nice day…
Ohime Rose There is no reason we couldn’t fuel mining machines with coal.
Asteroid/comet strikes are a case of when and how often rather then if.
It might happen soon, or it might happen later but it will happen.
Lunar craters aren’t caused by acne.
It might be a good idea to start actively putting into reality some sort of mechanism to prevent it happening now rather then when one is due to strike in the near future.
By mechanism I mean something that can actually move large objects in space as opposed to cartoons of theoretical solutions and hours and hours of hot air.
No, they are caused by meteors that don’t break up in the Moon’s atmosphere.
Do you include China and India in that analysis?
Who are you responding to?
I think it’s worth mentioning that the use of petroleum for plastics, pharmaceutical feedstock and other synthetics composes a tiny minority of our dependence on oil.
Even enormous increases in oil prices aren’t going to mean we need to start exploring other alternatives for these sorts of products, the critical issue here is energy.
Right, and we can recycle plastics to make new plastics. One day we’ll start mining landfills.
Like the one that hit Meteor Crater Arizona and the one that was responsible for the extinction event that hit the sea bed off of Mexico you mean ?
Over our history there have been many many more; but erosion has hidden the impact craters.
In historical terms large meteor strikes on the Earth are not rare events.
Luckily the Siberian one DID break up eventually but still managed to achieve a high level of devastation in a,luckily, sparsley populated,region.
It would be nice if we could start doing something about what is a certainty, now, rather then running around like headless chickens when a strike is imminenent.
By which time we may not be able to successfully remove the threat.
It’s already here and called nuclear energy.
We’re a very long way from being stuffed.