“Peak oil” in and of itself is nothing; it’s the definitional idea that a finite resource must, at some point, run out, gussied up into some sort of all-encompassing “theory” because someone drew an inverted parabola on a napkin.
The people who most evangelically pushed the idea have proclaimed the imminence or even the passing of the peak time and time again for 30 years, and their promised apocalypse has not materialized.
The people who most evangelically push the idea are also stridently opposed to the sort of solutions (nuclear, fuel cell research) that would help the world survive an oil crash, and are really just interested in seeing civilization collapse as some sort of spiritual cleansing.
So, no one is really interested in listening to a bunch of doomsday cultists, who have been proven wrong, push a tautology. Surprised?
But what geoscientist M. King Hubbertnoticed, and is important, and is not just some off-the-cuff bullshit scrawled on a napkin (perhaps you are thinking of the Laffer curve), is that it doesn’t just flow and flow until it runs out. When the production peak passes, there’s still plenty in the ground – but every year it becomes harder to get it out, and it will cost slightly more to pump a barrel out of the fields in question next year than last year, and so on.
That does not invalidate the theory. Hubbert predicted United States oil production would peak some time between 1965 and 1971. He was only off by a couple of years. Oil kept flowing because new fields were discovered in other countries. But all of them will peak eventually, where they have not already, and no geologist thinks there are any big ones left to find – that’s why we’re resorting to oil shale now.
This is a bit of an exaggeration, but it’s not as far from the truth as I wish it were. I do find myself butting heads with other progressives about this from time to time.
If the US increases production thru 2020 or 2035, which are the current estimates, I’d say he was off by 50 to 70 years. Any prognosticator who can’t narrow it down better than that is worthless and no more than a fear-monger.
Most of y’all are off topic! The OP didn’t ask for a debate about peak oil. The OP asked…
The dictionary definition of “conservative” is “disposed to preserve existing conditions, institutions, etc., or to restore traditional ones, and to limit change.”
Basically they simply don’t like any change from the status quo. Their brains don’t work like “well…you’ve raised some interesting points and we should try to use all the information available to plan out a reasoned and practical course of action.” They are more likely to be like “fuck you! You’re one of those Liberals trying to impose your Liberal ways! I don’t want to hear you LALALALALALALA!!!”
They see change as a threat to their institutions and respond accordingly.
Conservatives tend to gravitate towards large institutions with well defined rules and norms for behavior. Church, large corporations, military, sports, so on and so forth. They seem to have a need to know specifically what “normal” is and to reject anything that’s not.
Also think about t like this. For pretty much forever, America has been dominated by white, affluent men. The “typical American family” has been white, middle income, male dominated suburban family for decades. It’s not really “racism” per se. It’s just that in the conservative mindset, what they constantly see around them is “normal” and anything different from that is “weird”.
So with respect to Peak Oil, running out of cheap oil means drastic changes to the suburban lifestyle. Best case scenario, it means more compact living, more public transportation, so on and so forth. That’s something conservatives find terrifying. Especially since in their minds, it probably means having to live above a Starbucks between some druggie hipsters and a loud Korean family and having their kids go to school with delinquent urban black kids.
But since it’s not going to happen tomorrow, they would rather simply stick their fingers in their ears and scream and yell at anyone who would dare “take away their freedom”.
Or it could just be a lot of Conservatives aren’t very smart.
Fracking produces “liquid oil” too. It’s just not in conventional reservoirs but in places like shale deposits where previously it wasn’t economical to get at it. And the thing that has really made exploiting shale deposits economical is really a combination of fracking, which has been around for decades and horizontal drilling which lets you have one rig but send out several radial lines.
Has it occurred to any of you that we’re even worse off if the oil runs out later rather than sooner? Because that means that much more of it will be turned into greenhouse gases.
A freak accident, a massive display or incompetence, a faulty/negligent building, or even a deliberate attack (terrorist or military, since power plants are prime military targets) are aways possible. We didn’t have a meltdown yet. The problem with nuclear power is that although the risk of accident is low, the consequences if there is one are devastating.
Until we get fusion power or extremely efficient solar cells, no power production method is perfectly satisfying. Even hydro power has flaws (see the debates about the massive dams in China or Brazil).
Well, that and increasing demand for oil, accompanied by a plateauing of conventional oil production that has led oil prices to jump to >$100/barrel. I doubt we’d be extracting much shale oil if oil were still at $20/barrel.
IDK. I don’t think that’s necessarily a safe assumption though. Once you sink the main well I’d imagine that’s the bulk of your fixed costs and the more wells that are drilled, the cheaper that should get. Maybe $20/barrel is unrealistic, but remember that it was at that price as recently as 2002 and we were certainly drilling offshore at that time and that’s not cheap.
