If oil is in fact peaking, and renewables cannot realistically be expected to satisfy demand (I am not even going to venture into nuclear, which is at least as beholden to oil as renewables in its construction and fuel refinement stages), where does that leave us? Is the economic growth model based on a resource consumption pattern that is itself unsustainable? Should we reexamine the foundations of our socio-economic system in order to design and establish a system that is reasonably sustainable?
Or, as another poster noted,
The biggest source of energy in the world is that which we do not use.
How near is near? How soon is soon? I’m not going to wade through 2 YouTube videos, so why don’t you summarize their predictions. That way, when this thread is zombied in 2 or 3 years we can look back and see how accurate (or, IMHO inaccurate) those predictions were when we either do or don’t collapse. Plus, it’s always entertaining to hear the waving of hands explaining why it’s still imminent but just hasn’t happened yet because of a host of excuses. Sort of like always happens when these Peak Oil™ threads are revived or the discussion is…
The predictions for crude oil have been accurate. Read my previous posts for more details.
The forecasts for U.S. shale oil and global oil and gas were given by the EIA and the IEA. More details in my previous posts.
For oil production per capita, it’s irrelevant to forecast for that because global oil production per capita peaked in 1979. There is, however, a forecast for the size of the global middle class in relation to total population. More details in my previous posts.
Read my previous rebuttal to your previous assertions. Then read my last post and try giving some solid…or, hell, wild ass guesses…to the questions I actually asked (without referencing your previous posts or drive by links). Thanks in advance.
Sorry it took so long to get back to this. I’m very busy, and I don’t think you can grok any of my cites anyway, which is frustrating and de-motivating.
What I think you are basically refusing to acknowledge is that these things are going to be done with electricity. Will the transition be seamless? Of course not. But we’ve already got electric transportation, and that technology still has a long way to go to maturity.
Mining? Look at this article on solar projects powering mining:
Do you see where it says “without government subsidies”? Please slow down and please, please let those three words sink in. This solar project will power mining operations, and it will provide power that is as cheap or cheaper than other sources. If it provides power for the same price or less as other sources, doesn’t it seem logical that it is giving an equivalent or better Return On Investment? Please don’t refer me to some previous post- answer the question please.
You wouldn’t accept it if I refuted your arguments about Peak Oil by constantly referring to 1960s data and pointing out what a wealth of reserves we have, look, according to 1960, we can probably triple our oil output, maybe better! No, the entire point of your argument is that things change over time. Yet, you resist acknowledging the incredible trajectory of solar system pricing, and resist looking at the present and immanent future of the industry. You need to stop that and get real, ralfy.
Ralfy, please look carefully at this chart. Can you detect the dramatic drop in the price of solar systems represented there? If you can’t, can you tell me which part you aren’t understanding so that I may explain it to you?
It matters if a system is old or put together by a failed company such as BP Solar, Suntech Power, Solyndra, etc, because a) those companies couldn’t compete and b) solar power was at about quadruple the cost just 10 years ago. If you want to keep throwing analyses at me of systems that were built 10 years ago, you fail utterly because once again, you are failing to acknowledge the trend in the price of solar panels.
You want everyone to accept data about trends in the cost of oil and gas and their production levels, but seem to be oblivious to other trends in the world. Look, getting back to Spain, they also use a lot of concentrated solar. Look at Why This Solar Technology Is Already Dead:
You have to grok the trends, rafly. Grid parity is already here in many places, and it is coming everywhere else. You have to get used to it.
I don’t remember referring to government subsidies.
The global economy needs a 2-pct increase in energy demand. That means the solution you provided will be able to meet that demand increase for only ten years. If the global middle class keeps growing, then even more energy and minerals will be needed.
In addition, only 20-percent of daytime electricity will be offset, and when multiple factors take place, then the energy provided decreases.
Finally, minerals are becoming increasingly difficult to obtain because lower grades are now being found at increasing depths. That means even more energy will be needed to get them.
As explained many times in previous messages, peak oil is not about reserves but about production rate, and production rate is driven by EROI.
That’s why even with vast reserves of crude oil we are now resorting to U.S. shale oil to meet increasing demand. That’s why capital expenditures for both crude oil and shale are rising in exchange for less new oil produced. That’s why instead of a tripling of oil output we’ve had a tripling of oil prices. That’s why the EIA acknowledges that shale oil will peak after only a few years.
As explained previously, energy returns are ultimately about energy, not prices. That’s because if there is anything we can create easily, it’s credit:
“Top Derivatives Expert Estimates Size of the Global Derivatives Market at $1,200 Trillion Dollars … 20 Times Larger than the Global Economy”
But the same cannot be said for energy returns vs. energy demand from a global economy.
Finally, we need to look at the performance of systems that have been running for years. Detail on that can be found in my previous posts regarding systems currently running in Spain.
IOW, you are going to ignore all progress in the solar industry to focus on 10-year-old systems in Spain installed by industry-trailing, bankrupt companies using outdated technology. You’re going to ignore that the trends in fossil fuels are for ever-more-expensive energy at ever-lower ROIs while the trends in alternatives, solar in particular, are toward ever-cheaper energy (cheaper even than fossil fuels) at ever-increasing ROIs. Got it. We’re all doomed. Cherry picking wins every time. Congrats.
And I countered your counters with counters of my own which countered previous posts of yours that directed me to view even more previous posts. In fact, it’s counters all the way down. They are like turtles that way.
Why keep bumping this thread to just say, essentially (and to paraphrase), ‘go back and read what I wrote earlier’? If you feel you’ve made your case (you haven’t) then leave it at that. If you have anything NEW to add, feel free.
Oh, and the question I asked YOU to answer (not drive by link too, not ‘go back and read what I wrote earlier’) was:
[QUOTE=XT]
How near is near? How soon is soon? I’m not going to wade through 2 YouTube videos, so why don’t you summarize their predictions. That way, when this thread is zombied in 2 or 3 years we can look back and see how accurate (or, IMHO inaccurate) those predictions were when we either do or don’t collapse. Plus, it’s always entertaining to hear the waving of hands explaining why it’s still imminent but just hasn’t happened yet because of a host of excuses. Sort of like always happens when these Peak Oil™ threads are revived or the discussion is…
[/QUOTE]
So…now ‘near is near’? How ‘soon is soon’? When will all these dire predictions of yours start panning out? In 5 years? 10? 100? Sooner? Later?
I’m not ignoring such progress. What I am doing is addressing the topic thread. That is, can we safely assume that companies going bankrupt, updated technology not implemented immediately, and many other factors that affect civilization won’t take place, such that energy returns for various sources will be so high that they will meet not only declining energy returns from oil but also incredible increases in energy demand? If I did that, then I’d be cherry-picking.
My assumption is the topic is about industrial civilization. That requires incredible inputs in not only energy (and not just any type of energy but those that provide petrochemicals) but material resources, and much of manufacturing, food production, and transport worldwide are heavily dependent on fossil fuels.
In addition, most of the countries that make up that civilization are developing, which means they do not have sufficient funds to implemented advanced technology immediately or easily. At the same time, they have growing middle classes which need consumer goods and services as early as possible. (That’s why oil consumption, sales of cars, construction materials, consumer goods, etc., are rising globally.) They and the present middle classes plus businesses that rely on more sales of goods and services as part of capitalist systems, governments and military forces that expect more tax revenues and defense spending, and banks and financiers that expect not only to extend increasing credit but receive more returns on investment and lending, are not willing to wait for a full transition to renewable energy. They want that plus “business as usual.”
Given that, how do ideal models of solar panel performance make up for the multiple factors that will affect systems when they are operating under conditions I just described? Shouldn’t the situation of Spain, a country that has far more funds that most countries worldwide, be considered? How much regulation and cooperation between economies do you think has to take place so that the global economy can be retooled to use renewable energy plus ensure “business as usual”? And if that is not possible in the short term (recall that the EIA argues that shale oil will peak after only a few years, and we we need lots of oil not just to maintain the current global economy but to create surplus energy to produce alternatives) what are the consequences? Are the 2008 crash, which led to over $30 trillion worldwide vaporized, and resulted in an on-going global recession, a tripling in oil prices, reports on chronic unemployment in many countries, and increasing social unrest in various regions, indicators of such consequences?
As for predictions, you’re too late, as they’ve already taken place.
To recap, Hubbert predicted in 1976 that crude oil production would peak in 1995 + 10 years. In 2010, the IEA confirmed that production peaked in 2006. EIA data until last year confirms this.
In addition, discoveries peaked in the mid-'60s and global production per capita peaked in 1979.
Finally, I have been posting new points. For example, have you seen the one regarding capital expenditures?
The FUCKING HELL you aren’t. Either that or you can’t read.
I am going to walk away from this for a week or so. I am just too frustrated with trying to reason with a broken record. I wonder if that has been expressed in any previous posts…
[QUOTE=ralfy]
No, you did not counter any of my arguments.
[/QUOTE]
I’ll leave it up to others to decide that. To me, drive by links and exhortations to go back and read said links you posted earlier do not an argument make, but that’s just me.
Well then, when this thread is revived in a couple of years I guess we should be into the collapse by then, right? Or maybe the thread will never be revived, since we are already in the collapse and it’s just a matter of time.
And later they waffled on this prediction and now aren’t so firm. Yes, we went over this literally pages ago. But let’s pretend you are right, and oil has in fact peaked. What happens next, in your view? Please, none of this horseshit about the global middle class, blah blah blah…what’s your prediction of what happens in the US? I mean, if oil peaked in 2006…well, that was 8 YEARS ago. I’m not seeing an imminent collapse or really even a major bump in the road. While I won’t say the US economy is booming right now, it’s certainly pretty strong, and out European brethren and sistren seem to have gotten their shit back together as well, at least averting the collapse of the EU for not. China’s economy is strengthening as well, and so is Japan’s. Canada’s is at an all time high. Even Russia seems to be feeling froggy enough to butt heads with the Europeans and NATO over the Ukraine. So, oil peaks 8 years ago and here we are…
Oh, the price of gasoline at the pump at the station I generally go to has dropped to $3.05/gallon, from a high this summer of $3.45/gallon, and I’m guessing it will be back below $3/gallon sometime in the next month or so.
Indeed, I read them when you posted them before as well. And I’ve seen posters attempt to discuss it with you as well. Since I’m not as well versed in that aspect I have nothing to really add there. In fact, I really have only limited interest in this thread at all, since this has all been done before. What I really want is for you to go on record with some prediction so when this thread is zombied in several years by a new round of Peak Oil™ gloom and doom that people can look back and see them and judge for themselves. Because as has been the case every other time when this silly discussion has reared it’s ugly head, peak oil is a reality and it’s just a bump in the road, and Peak Oil™ is a load of horseshit…just as much today as it was 5 years ago, or 10, or 15, when it was brought up before.
No, I’m not. Even the Raugei paper which I referred to earlier discusses such technology. The catch is that the industrial civilization referred to in the topic thread brings in factors that lower energy returns.
No, none of the links I provide are “drive by” but evidence of my arguments. I will not repost them. Please use the search feature of the thread to view them.
That’s right.
Consider capital expenditures and prices. Read my earlier posts about that for details.
BTW, what amounts to a “boom” is essentially increased credit creation. Recall the reason why the U.S. economy crashed in 2008.
Prices at the pump go up and down, and usually because of lower demand due to economic problems. The IEA reported on that earlier:
Apparently, this is the best we have in terms of economic “recovery.”
The only way to prove this is to show that arguments raised more than eight years ago will take place. That is, oil prices will drop to $30, crude oil production will ramp up to 100 Mb/d, and unconventional oil production will become irrelevant.
When the thread is revived or the next one comes out in a year or two and we still haven’t collapsed, it will be fun to see what you say then…assuming you are even still around.
I disagree now and disagreed then with your conclusions. See my earlier posts or posts in earlier threads on this same subject for details.
I disagree with your assertion here. See my earlier posts and earlier threads on the economy for details.
Did you read the article in your link?
Thanks for the article though.
Works for me.
Except this is a strawman. No one…NO ONE…has said that oil will drop to $30/barrel again. If you actually addressed others points instead of drive by links and exhortations to go back and read your links from earlier plus tangential or irrelevant posts about the global middle class and your loopy ideas about how the economy works you’d be a lot more interesting a poster to debate with. At any rate, I think I’ve wrung all of the fun out of this thread I can. I’ll just wait and see if the world collapses in the next year or two, shall I?
I think you forgot that this thread is itself 11 years old.
Back in post 131 and post 137 I did a review, 11 years later, of the predictions made by “your side”. There is no positive correlation between their predictions and what actually happened.
In addition, a number of the 2003-era sites linked-to by supporters of your position (especially those run by Matthew Simmons, now deceased) have reversed their position re: peak oil.
On the other hand, I don’t recall a citation, nor have I found one, of anybody in this thread making the above-quoted claims. Perhaps you could helpfully provide me the links to those posts?
(Also, note that I didn’t just say “I did a review of the predictions and you can find it earlier in this thread”, I said “here’s my review” and provided the hyperlinks. If you’re going to refer to citations made earlier, please supply hyperlinks - they’re one of the basic building-blocks of the WWW and should be used when needed. )
You absolutely are. My proof is your insistence on only viewing developments in solar power through the lens of Spain, when 1) there are something like 192 other countries in the world, 2) Spain’s systems were installed largely by failed companies using technology that is not considered cost-effective today and 3) most of Spain’s systems were installed 10+ years ago. Your utter inability to discuss any solar system or development outside of Spain exposes your inability to meaningfully discuss solar power in the context of Peak Oil, or anything else for that matter.
Point 3 is especially important. To chain your data to, say, 2004 is to ignore Swanson’s Law:
Can you see why Spain’s results are irrelevant to the present and future of the solar industry? Or are you going to tell me to read your prior links, an expression of your generalized attachment to the past?
Again, if the projections come true (and they have to date), the solar industry will grow to 400GW of annual shipped capacity. That means we can expect the cost of solar to halve, halve, and halve again, until the panels cost mere pennies per watt, all by 2020 or so. It’s a game-changer. The present and future of this industry are what is relevant, and no amount of referencing Spain changes that.
I know I am going to regret returning to this thread.
So as the world ends and US shale oil production falls into the abyss and civilization teters on the edge of… but no wait
some notes from the article
“The U.S. government on Tuesday jacked up its forecast for oil production next year by 250,000 barrels per day (bpd) as the boom in shale oil drilling continues to confound expectations of slower growth.”
“Rising monthly crude oil production, which will approach 10 million barrels a day in late 2015, will help cut U.S. fuel imports next year to just 21 percent of domestic demand, the lowest level since 1968,” EIA Administrator Adam Sieminski said
Of note; this is crude production, who knew that shale oil was also crude, well part from everyone who doesn’t want to make a peak oil case by discounting it out of production figures. ( I think I got my double negatives right there)
But there is more
“In recent years, surging light tight oil production has backed out U.S. imports of West African crude, which are now moving to Asia,” the IEA said in a monthly report. “Saudi exports seem to be showing the beginning of a similar shift,” it said, estimating that Saudi exports have likely run below 7 million barrels per day for the last four months, their lowest level since September 2011.”
“In coming years… U.S. light distillate exports will reach increasingly far-flung markets,” said the IEA, which estimates that Canada and the United States could have a surplus of naphtha and gasoline of around 1.3 million barrels per day by 2019.
So US crude oil production rising. Some abstract comments have been made alluding to the quality of the tight liquids, the only known issue with tight shale liquids is that it contains more light end content which makes it better for fuels than other crudes. It does have some processing challenges , resulting from the higher paraffin and wax contents and tends to have a bit more solids in it.
http://www.hydrocarbonprocessing.com/Article/3223989/Innovative-solutions-for-processing-shale-oils.html
“The quality of the finished fuels from refining shale oils has changed significantly. As the shale oils have higher light-ends content, one benefit is increased production of naphtha for gasoline, and stable diesel and jet distillates. These increased volumes can boost refinery margins. However, due to the chemical nature of these shale oil feeds, several challenges can be encountered.”
So if Ralfy is worried about the growing middle class all needing transportation via gasoline powered cars , or al the global shipping, he should rest easy knowing the shale oils / tight liquids/crude oil being produced in the US has higher not lower output of gasoline and diesel.
Then read my last post and try giving some solid…or, hell, wild ass guesses…to the questions I actually asked (without referencing your previous posts or drive by links). Thanks in advance.
)