Maker Pro
Maker Pro

Peak oil/oil crash

B

Bob Peterson

Jan 1, 1970
0
This nonsense about running out of oil has been around for a century now,
with its proponents making the same dire predictions. You would think there
would be zero credibility with people who are 100% wrong in their previous
predictions over the last 100 years, but there are always a few gullible
ones out there.
 
A

Andy Hunt

Jan 1, 1970
0
You would think there
would be zero credibility with people who are 100% wrong in their previous
predictions over the last 100 years, but there are always a few gullible
ones out there.

Including the energy adviser to George Bush, it seems:-

"We need a wake up call. We need it desperately. We need basically a new
form of energy. I don't know that there is one." - Matthew Simmons, energy
adviser for President Bush, May 23rd 2002

Well. We all know how gullible the current US administration is, don't we?
Perhaps I shouldn't take quite so much notice of the US government after
all. I was under the impression that they know what they are talking about -
silly me.

It never ceases to amaze me how much abuse gets dished out on these
newsgroups to those who simply have the consideration to answer a question
that has been posted.


Andrew
 
A

Andy Hunt

Jan 1, 1970
0
Do you just not like electricity, or what? It is understandable that in UK,
where gasoline/petrol prices are already 4x higher than US due to heavier UK
petrol taxes, it might be scary when a petroleum transport strike drives the
price still higher. Yes, that may make walking and taking the (electric)
train seem more desireable to more people on average, but I wouldn't equate
it with the end of civilization, would you?

I simply thought that people on this group might be interested - I wasn't
plugging some agenda of my own, particularly. I don't know about you, but I
believe in preparing for the worst, and hoping for the best. If you don't
feel that way - fair enough, that's your lookout. But when 45,000 homes here
in the UK have their power cut off for days just because of a snowfall, and
2500 people die from hypothermia because of a bit of an unusually cold snap
(the equivalent of a September 11th without the injury to national pride),
you begin to wonder about what would happen if it was something worse -
well, I do, anyway.

Andrew
 
D

Dave Gower

Jan 1, 1970
0
Bob Peterson said:
This nonsense about running out of oil has been around for a century now,
with its proponents making the same dire predictions. You would think there
would be zero credibility with people who are 100% wrong in their previous
predictions over the last 100 years, but there are always a few gullible
ones out there.

We have to be realistic that there IS a limit to fossil fuels. We now have a
pretty complete knowledge of fossil fuel reserves, and they will start to
run out in the lifetime of many people alive today. The people making these
statements are not panicky environmentalists. They are hard-nosed
geologists, energy economists, government researchers, corporate planners,
investment analysts etc. But that doesn't mean oil and other fossil fuels
will suddenly dry up and civilization collapses.

We will gradually, over a period of decades, progressively run out of the
stuff that's easy to get hold of. As we come to rely on sources that are
progressively more difficult to access (under deep ocean, pressure is poor,
in solid form i.e. tar sands, contaminated etc.) the price will steadily
rise in comparison to other commodities. Then both alternative energy
sources and conservation become more attractive.

I have always felt that life without fossil fuels could have a higher
quality than life with them. We just wouldn't be able to roar all over the
place in our Lincoln Navigators and Hummer H2s. How sad. But the point is to
make the transition, and time is necessary, which fortunately we have,
providing we don't waste it.

All of this is predicated in the absence of major technical breakthroughs
i.e. fusion. But such breakthroughs do happen, and are to expected. Since we
don't know what or when, they are hard to factor in. Personally, I expect to
see major developments in energy-storage capacity, which would greatly
improve the economics of both portable and intermittent electric power.
 
A

Andy Hunt

Jan 1, 1970
0
Absolutely, Dave - and what a refreshing post.

I think that preparing for the advent of life without fossil fuels holds
many opportunities for innovation and enjoyment. If I get rid of my boring
old gas fire and replace it with a solid-fuel fire burning, say, wood
pellets or logs, then not only am I not contributing to "greenhouse gases"
(whether you believe in global warming or not, what harm can it do to be on
the safe side?), but I have a lovely real fire, which I can cook with if I
have built-in side ovens, and heat my house with if I have a back-boiler.
And maybe someone will even bring out a flue-fitted heat reclaimer/air
filter so that I can burn big logs even in a smokeless zone. And if the gas
gets cut off - who cares? Not me, that's for sure! With locally-grown
carbon-neutral firewood from managed forests around the town where I live in
abundant supply, there's no problem!

AND I'm freeing up some gas reserves for use in say, generation of
electricity, which will make it last a bit longer and maybe cushion the blow
a little.

And what if I believe that controlling CO2 emissions will help stabilise our
planetary environment? What in God's name is wrong with that? I'm not trying
to impose it on everyone else, am I? One has to lead by example, after all,
not by dictation. Or am I wrong?

What a shame that some people seem to be "hooked" on defending fossil fuels
to the "last ditch". Makes me wonder if they have some financial interest in
fossil fuel supplies. Or maybe they simply like burning up the roads in
their "fanny magnet" gas-guzzlers. Of course the "Titanic" was originally
thought to be unsinkable. Whatever happened to the pioneering human spirit.

Andrew
 
H

H. E. Taylor

Jan 1, 1970
0
We have to be realistic that there IS a limit to fossil fuels. We now have a
pretty complete knowledge of fossil fuel reserves, and they will start to
run out in the lifetime of many people alive today. The people making these
statements are not panicky environmentalists. They are hard-nosed
geologists, energy economists, government researchers, corporate planners,
investment analysts etc. But that doesn't mean oil and other fossil fuels
will suddenly dry up and civilization collapses.

We will gradually, over a period of decades, progressively run out of the
stuff that's easy to get hold of. As we come to rely on sources that are
progressively more difficult to access (under deep ocean, pressure is poor,
in solid form i.e. tar sands, contaminated etc.) the price will steadily
rise in comparison to other commodities. Then both alternative energy
sources and conservation become more attractive.

I have always felt that life without fossil fuels could have a higher
quality than life with them. We just wouldn't be able to roar all over the
place in our Lincoln Navigators and Hummer H2s. How sad. But the point is to
make the transition, and time is necessary, which fortunately we have,
providing we don't waste it.

All of this is predicated in the absence of major technical breakthroughs
i.e. fusion. But such breakthroughs do happen, and are to expected. Since we
don't know what or when, they are hard to factor in. Personally, I expect to
see major developments in energy-storage capacity, which would greatly
improve the economics of both portable and intermittent electric power.

Isn't there some kind of a usenet law about making reasonable
statements when others are aiming for the flaming glory?
There are several troubling aspects to the situation. One is
the fact that so much of our energy is supplied by oil and
for that matter, other fossil fuels.
[See: IEA: International Energy Agency <http://www.iea.org/>
BP World Energy <http://www.bp.com/worldenergy/>]

Does anybody have data [links, references, citations] on
the relationship of petroleum and fertilizer?

<fwiw>
-het


PS
Added s.g.p




--
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary
depends upon his not understanding it." -Upton Sinclair

Energy Alternatives: http://www.autobahn.mb.ca/~het/energy/energy.html
H.E. Taylor http://www.autobahn.mb.ca/~het/
 
A

Andy Hunt

Jan 1, 1970
0
It never ceases to amaze me how much abuse gets dished out on these
It is customary to include the question in your reply, so readers can see
the relevance of your answer. You might also consider posting your answer
only to the newsgroup in which the question was asked, or even, just
e-mailing your reply to the author of the question, rather than posting it
to the group.

I do apologise for my lack of "netiquette", I shall try to do better in
future, after all, there is no excuse for bad manners, is there?
For more on biomass fuels, see:

TB Johansson et al 1993 _Renewable Energy: Sources for Fuels and
Electricity_.

Thanks for the reference, it looks a little older than stuff I've read
recently, but I'll certainly have a look if I come across it.

Andrew
 
A

Andy Hunt

Jan 1, 1970
0
Isn't there some kind of a usenet law about making reasonable
statements when others are aiming for the flaming glory?

I'm sorry if I have offended anyone here, it was not my intention, I must
confess.

Andrew
 
A

Andy Hunt

Jan 1, 1970
0
I
Sad to hear the bad news. Reliability of the electric power grid under
extreme weather conditions is indeed a problem that needs fixing
(http://www.eh.doe.gov/ntgs/).

Traditionally, people have relied on their neighbors for help in a snow
crisis
(http://videoindex.pbs.org/program/chapter.jsp?item_id=7787&chap_id=8).

-dl

Well really I'm only following the lead of the UK and European governments
in requiring Local Authorities (City/County Councils) to achieve "energy
autonomy" - through local generating facilities (wind farms, CHP plants,
landfill methane generators) and energy efficiency and renewable energy
measures in local industry and housing stock.

I myself work in local government here in the UK, in my town we're currently
spending around £500,000 on insulation measures for about 2,800 private
homes in a poor part of town, as part of our energy autonomy and fuel
poverty strategies. It all helps to save lives and realise self-sufficiency.
Leicester City Council has spent over £70 million on their own energy
management company, tasked with delivering energy autonomy for that city.
"New" energy management is big business over here. Nuclear power has been
making huge losses for years, and the UK taxpayer is sick of subsidising it.
The biggest growth sector within UK energy is offshore wind farms, which
will deliver just short of 10% of UK electricity by the end of this year.

Every major energy company in the UK is required by law to invest in energy
efficiency measures for its customers, on pain of being fined up to 10% of
their gross annual TURNOVER . . . which as you can imagine adds up to quite
a lot of £. These measures include insulation, CFLs (low energy light
bulbs), domestic appliance replacement schemes, and renewable energy
measures such as solar thermal systems. However, the very same energy
companies are also taking advantage of the Government's Renewable Energy
Obligation, which provides grant funding to companies developing wind farms,
tidal farms etc etc.

Hundreds of millions of pounds in grants are available both to LA's and to
private homeowners and companies for renewable energy and energy efficiency
measures. The LA I work for is probably about 30% self-sufficient at the
moment, we've got a fair way to go - we have a 3MW landfill methane
generator and we're getting a wind farm soon .

If I want solar panels at home, the government will pay half. If I want a
domestic wind turbine, similarly. At work I'm currently looking at a project
which will put a domestic wind turbine on 100% of LA housing stock - which
will basically cost us nothing, because the UK government will pay us for
generating "green" electricity - even though we get to use all the free
electricity. Bargain. Saving lives - looking after our future -
self-determination. Which all makes for local responsibility and a powerful
local democracy.

Being self-sufficient in energy obviously gives an advantage in times of
national crisis, for example if a terrorist attack on a nuclear power
station took the national grid down, or if there were problems getting
fossil fuels into the country for whatever reason, which of course there
will be when they all run out. When your town can provide its own light and
heat when all else fails, it makes going about "business as usual" an awful
lot easier.

Andrew
 
A

Andy Hunt

Jan 1, 1970
0
back-boiler.

Indoor wood smoke from cooking and heating is a major environmental health
threat around the world, killing millions annually. And there is a good
reason why wood fires are prohibited in your neighborhood (ask yourself
"what if everybody would burn wood"?) You can cook and heat with wood, you
can cook and heat with gas, and you can cook and heat with electricity.
It's just that when *everybody* does it, electricity has the least cost for
human health and the environment.

My scenario was only in the event of failure of my combination gas boiler,
for lack of fuel or whatever reason. I feel sure you'd agree that having an
alternative would be better than freezing to death, smoky or otherwise. For
pleasure, I can use smokeless fuel or wood for special occasions such as
Christmas maybe. The rest of the time, I would use my gas wet central
heating system - unless there's a problem with it. You will note I did
mention that some kind of air filter/heat reclaimer in the flue would be a
good idea.
Why use NG for electric gen when you can use carbon-free UO2 instead? Of
course, it is much better to use NG for electric gen than simply flaring it
off of petroleum fields because the oil is worth more than the gas. But,
why not take the (electric) train if it's too far to walk?

I don't have a car - I cycle everywhere. If it's too far, I take the
tram/train. Those are my options at the moment. As for nuclear - well, the
UK nuclear industry has been losing money hand-over-fist for years, it's
only the government (taxpayer) that's propping it up. The teeth of children
in Northern Ireland have tested positive for plutonium from the Sellafield
nuclear reactor on the other side of the Irish Sea. That particular power
station has recently 'misplaced' enough plutonium to make 5 bombs - no idea
where it's gone. And if you mean fusion . . . well, we'll have to see about
that one, won't we.
Try multiplying your example by 10 billion (I mean US billion, or 10^9) and
imagine what the world would be like if everybody followed your example.

Of controlling CO2 emissions? Well, most developing countries in the world
seem to be doing very well in doing so - they seem to see it as very
important for the future of the human race, for some reason:-

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3246236.stm


Andrew
 
A

Andy Hunt

Jan 1, 1970
0
<smile>
I see NTLI is in the UK, but are you sure you're not Canadian?
Such niceness is supposed to be our national disease.

Lol :) I had a couple of friends round on New Year's Eve who've just got
back from a couple of years in Toronto. They loved it. An old teacher of
mine used to divide his time between Toronto and his stone cottage in Wales.
I've had it said to me that Canada has all the good points of the USA
without any of the bad ones. I'm sure that can't be entirely true, but it
certainly sounds like a civilised place to me!!!

You've even got that "Viagra Falls" or whatever it's called, haven't you,
that we get in our spam all the time . . . ? ;-)

Best wishes

Andrew

"The truth can never be told so as to be understood, and not be believed" -
William Blake
 
H

H. E. Taylor

Jan 1, 1970
0
T

Thomas Lee Elifritz

Jan 1, 1970
0
January 4, 2004


Let's try out some of that 'niceness'.
An old teacher of
mine used to divide his time between Toronto and his stone cottage in Wales.

That's great, he's really setting a great example for everyone. He's really
doing his part to combat global warming and environmental pollution, commuting a
quarter way around the world like that.
I've had it said to me that Canada has all the good points of the USA
without any of the bad ones. I'm sure that can't be entirely true, but it
certainly sounds like a civilised place to me!!!

That's fantastic, I wasn't even aware that Canada was a solar powered, space
faring civilization. Wonders never cease. They are setting a real standard for
the rest of the world up there.

You complete lack of 'hypocrisy' is so, um, "nice".

You're so special.

Thomas Lee Elifritz
http://elifritz.members.atlantic.net
 
D

Dave Gower

Jan 1, 1970
0
Don Libby said:
Indoor wood smoke from cooking and heating is a major environmental health
threat around the world, killing millions annually. And there is a good
reason why wood fires are prohibited in your neighborhood (ask yourself
"what if everybody would burn wood"?)

I agree that wood is not without its downside, but as a minor aside to this
thread it is interesting that there are very promising technologies, some
available and some under development, to make even this source cleaner and
more efficient. There's a lot of waste wood and derivative (i.e. paper)
freely available, even a disposal problem.

Not a global solution, but part of the picture.

Cheers.
 
A

Andy Hunt

Jan 1, 1970
0
Curiously, it is only the developing countries building new nuclear power
plants these days. The rest should follow their example.

They're too afraid of being bombed by USA for doing so.

Andrew
 
A

Andy Hunt

Jan 1, 1970
0
How enlightening - and in response to my apology, too. How you get from my
apologising to me being "special" is beyond me. Perhaps you could explain.
Perhaps only "special" people have the humility to apologise. If this is
your point, then thankyou - it's a big compliment. Perhaps you should try it
yourself, in view of your error of judgement.

My old teacher was a guy called Stafford Beer, he was a cybernetician
(holistic systems theory). He lived in a stone cottage in Ceredigion, Wales
called Cwarel Isaf, and before he died had a consultancy company in Toronto,
which still exists, called Team Syntegrity Inc. (http://www.syntegrity.com).
He probably did more for the human race than everyone on this NG put
together. If you're interested, you might like to check out
www.staffordbeer.com - also www.chroniclesofwizardprang.com. Look him up on
the web - he was quite a guy.

Why don't you just lighten up. (with a CFL, of course ;-)

Andrew
 
M

Meteorite Debris

Jan 1, 1970
0
Actually the Hubbert school has had a number of correct predictions.
Starting from Hubbert's 1956 prediction of the US lower 48 oil
production peak in 1970 to the peak in North Sea oil production 1999.
This gives the Hubbert model something more than "zero credibility".
With that sort of record the analysis is worth taking notice of.

Hubbert's prediction of the US peak was based on a peak in US
discovery in the 30s. 4 decades latter the predictable happened with
the production peak mirroring the discovery peak.

The world is simply a bigger area than the US lower 48 and is sure
to follow the same pattern. On a global scale discovery peaked in the
60s and today consumption is 4 times the rate of discovery. 80% of
today's oil comes from fields discovered before 1973 and these will
have to be replaced by today's smaller discoveries. To hope that oil
production will not mirror the discovery curve time shifted by 4 or 5
decades is to hope for the fairy god mother to wave her wand.

--
To reply remove *THE_ANTI-SPAM_SHIELD*
apatriot #1, atheist #1417,
Chief EAC prophet -
Evil Atheist Conspiracy
http://members.optusnet.com.au/~pk1956/

Shhh. Be very quiet, I'm hunting automorons. Heh heh.

"Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for atheism ever
conceived." - Isaac Asimov

Fingerprint for PGP Keys at key server or go to
http://members.optusnet.com.au/~pk1956/
RSA - 71 BA 7C 45 B5 4A 5F EA 72 DB EC 7F 7F A8 70 99
DSS - 9217 21A9 9C3F EB0B E302 AD0E 69C5 0F06 402E 0943
 
B

Bob Peterson

Jan 1, 1970
0
Meteorite Debris said:
Actually the Hubbert school has had a number of correct predictions.
Starting from Hubbert's 1956 prediction of the US lower 48 oil
production peak in 1970 to the peak in North Sea oil production 1999.
This gives the Hubbert model something more than "zero credibility".
With that sort of record the analysis is worth taking notice of.


Actually, it only shows that they had a limited track record of being close
to correct for a very limited area. The fact is that only a tiny part of
the world has been seriously explored for oil, and the more we look, the
more we find. It may cost a bit more, but history says if we keep looking
we will find more.
 
A

Andy Hunt

Jan 1, 1970
0
I might be interested in exactly what he did for the planet Earth and
it's other non-human inhabitants, besides burning hydrocarbons that
is. But then again, I might not.

Be specific, these are science newsgroups.

That's OK then, because he was a scientist. If you look up "holistic
systems", or do a bit of research into his "Viable System Model" and
environment regulation you'll realise the relevance of his work to this
group.

That is unless you couldn't care less, of course, in which case, don't
bother, and leave the hard work to the rest of us who do care.

I'm sure he would have swum to Toronto, but he was getting on a bit in his
later years. I myself have a bicycle. Do you, or do you use a car?


Andrew
 
Top