What are your thoughts on the "peak oil" debate?

[Michele Zone]

So, why should our tax dollars be subsidizing a soccer mom who wants to drive to the mall a little quicker?

It is subsidizing the process of change. The cars we have today are not much like the cars that were built a hundred years ago. They have undergone a lot of change. Not everything will work out. But change must happen. Fostering change speeds evolution of the new technology.

I have read some articles over the years about "predicting the future". In one of them, they noted that all the futuristic lifestyles predicted in the early part of the twentieth century completely failed to predict the one invention that made all the difference: the computer. I really tire of arguing with folks who insist on believing that the limits of current technology define our future for all time. I suppose all of you nay-sayers have the same crappy two channel TV I had when I was 5, none of you have cell phones, or DSL and you have never used any technology that was invented and brought to market within your own lifetime? I really don't mean to be snarky but I find it snarky for folks to delineate in great and glorious detail the limitations of current technology and hold that up as "proof" that I am wrong. That would be kind of like arguing with Henry Ford about the limitations of horse-drawn carriages.

[BKM]

It is subsidizing the process of change. The cars we have today are not much like the cars that were built a hundred years ago. They have undergone a lot of change. Not everything will work out. But change must happen. Fostering change speeds evolution of the new technology.

I have read some articles over the years about "predicting the future". In one of them, they noted that all the futuristic lifestyles predicted in the early part of the twentieth century completely failed to predict the one invention that made all the difference: the computer. I really tire of arguing with folks who insist on believing that the limits of current technology define our future for all time. I suppose all of you nay-sayers have the same crappy two channel TV I had when I was 5, none of you have cell phones, or DSL and you have never used any technology that was invented and brought to market within your own lifetime? I really don't mean to be snarky but I find it snarky for folks to delineate in great and glorious detail the limitations of current technology and hold that up as "proof" that I am wrong. That would be kind of like arguing with Henry Ford about the limitations of horse-drawn carriages.

I hope you are right. Unlike some (Kunstler, for example), I really don't want to be a peasant farmer or to live in a circa 1897 farm town. I like modernism, with all its failings.

The concern the doomsayers have is that energy density/energy resources are not as easily solved as less critical technologies (the television set example). There are fundamental issues of physics-energy storage, transmission, generation, etc.

At the same time, I agree that there is a lot we can do vis a vis current technologies and even lifestyle changes to reduce energy use, to soften the blow. I am just a bit annoyed that hybrids are seen as a major solution, when the reality is they are being used as a way to assuage our guilt for, if anything, increased consumption and environmental.

And, there may well be enough slack in the myriad of small technologies out there-maybe that's Kunstler's fundamental blindness, his position that there has to be one miracle cure and there isn't.

[Michele Zone]

I am just a bit annoyed that hybrids are seen as a major solution

I am not presenting it that way and I have my own criticisms of hybrids. I am an environmental studies major. I recycle batteries because they are so full of heavy metals. Most batteries wind up in the trash and that winds up at landfills that are not equipped to contain them. Hybrids contain huge batteries and what do we do with those when their lifespan is over? I do not see battery-driven cars as a "clean" energy alternative.

The point is: even legislators are beginning to take the energy problem seriously and try to do something about it. This was part of an ENERGY BILL. There is a specific goal in mind: promote alternatives to gasoline. And it gives the issue press and raises public awareness. People in this forum have complained a great deal that the Hubbert Peak doesn't get anywhere nearly as much publicity as global warming but may well be a more pressing problem.

Does that make sense?

[Luca]

?
OT:
What does that mean? The online dictionary doesn't list it. Is it a reference to the Jeremiah of the Bible?

Indeed, Jeremiah ----> Jeremiad ----> a lamentation, a grief-stricken, sorrowful speech

[BKM]

Indeed, Jeremiah ----> Jeremiad ----> a lamentation, a grief-stricken, sorrowful speech

Is it still a Jeremiad when the speaker is secretly pleased at the concept of doom and destruction?

[Luca]

Is it still a Jeremiad when the speaker is secretly pleased at the concept of doom and destruction?

I'd have to say no.

In that case it is just sad

Bring on the biofuel (great thing about biofuel, it takes carbon outta circulation before putting it back out). In Brazil they use a LOT of biofuel. Then we can stop subsidizing all the darn farmers.

[circusoflife]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20050818/...y_dutch_ecn_dc

" The world could run out of time to develop cleaner alternatives to oil and other fossil fuels before depletion drives prices through the roof, a leading Dutch energy researcher said on Thursday....

ahhh...rubbish. I just want my cheap gas!! Give it to me! Let's use our nukes to get it!

----

so..I've been doing some research on man caused animal extintinctions or near extinctions...and it is quite shocking.

1) The American bison went from TENS OF MILLIONS to 3,500 before someone decided to do something about it,

2)Tthe passenger pigeon which used to number in the BILLIONS and formed groups 200+ miles long in the air was exterminated in the early 1900s by overhappy hunters and forest clearing. Hard to imagine...

3) Then there is the Carolina Parakeet - the only native parrot to N. America which was exterminated around the same time by overhappy farmers (Now we use pesticides instead of guns). Nevermind how pretty and colorful it was -- a green body with a multi-colored head.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Bison

(As far as I know image leeching is ok from Wikipedia...please advise if not...I did a search and found nothing to the contrary - if not I will transfer it to my website)



--

so what does this have to do with oil...well the thinking that caused these extinctions hasn't changed much in America (And quite a few others)....a few notable exceptions notwithstanding...when in doubt, idiocy and extreme thinking often wins out. Pride before the fall.

The oceans are getting ravaged and overfished and globalization is distancing people even further from the effects of production (Thus the importance of travel...)
and well...i'm tired of writing this message.

[JNA]

Check out the Cover Story in the Sunday NY Times Magazine:

The Breaking Point
By Peter Maass

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/21/magazine/21OIL.html

[ginzu]

While people curently self select to own a hybrid and probably are more concientous of their driving habits since they are wanting to maximize their fuel efficiency might see fuel economy close to the EPA estimate. But when the masses drive a hybrid the fuel economy will not be that much improved over the brand's closest non-hybrid fuel efficient car.

Don't get me wrong I think we have to move in this direction and the hybrid technology has promise. But it is mostly marketing hype at this point. But the hybrid engines tend to burn cleaner and produce fewer emmisions even at the same fuel economy, so to speak as another fuel efficient non-hybrid. If I had the money I 'd by a hybrid as a vote for a viable alternative and because it is cleaner burning even though the fuel economy is really only marginally better.

I would also support state and federal incentives for any vehicle that has a high enough minimum fuel economy, and make it available to used cars of a certain age. The price of gas is not really all that expensive if you adjust for inflation, so I don't see that as much of a market force to drive a major switch from less fuel efficient vehicles.

BTW the hybrid car batteries should last longer than a conventional car battery and can also be reconditioned not jsut recycled. And a hybrid doesn't need a dozen batteries like electric cars (I thought some one implied that but I may have misunderstood them).

As far as the peak oil debate goes, I thought that applied to the easier to access oil, for me the issue is the increasing demand from countries like China, Russia, and India, and where in the world (literally) will we have to drill to get to oil.

I wish some one would show leadership in this country and move passenger and light commercial vehicles away from petrol. Bio Diesel works really well, some TRANSPORTATION PLANNING in places like Houston (I hate you Ken Lay) and Atlanta could reduce pollution and dependence on oil. What better FU to some of our enemies and friendly economic competitors than not needing something they are all dependent on. Yes that was rhetorical...

I personally enjoy riding my bikes whenever possible and if I need a car a drive the most fuel efficeint car of the 60s- a VW Beetle!

I apologize for the diarhea of the finger tips

[dobopoq]

The death of suburbia and Peak Oil
I was just wondering what everyone's thoughts are about this issue.

Whether or not you believe in Peak Oil is secondary here.
One would have to be naive to think Oil will return back to $40 a barrel. Higher prices are here to stay IMHO and will continue to rise faster than inflation.

Transit ridership is up all across North America. I know personally that rents for fringe areas of my town are falling significantly as people pass over lower prices in exchange for centrally located properties.

I guess a lot of people were counting on this to be a temporary thing, but oil continues to trade near its all time high. I wonder if it's only a matter of time before distant suburbs start dying out. Urban condo sales in Tallahassee are now red hot. More than double first expectations. Now there is nearly a dozen or so planned which will bring thousands of people into the downtown area. I wonder if this would be possible had it not the recent rise in gasoline prices.

Thoughts?

I think suburbia will die a very stubborn death. We are so wedded to a vehicle oriented culture that any change that comes will be incremental. As gas gets more expensive people will buy more hybrids, electric, hydrogen fuel cell or whatever other alternative so that they may maintain the lifestyle they have come to enjoy. Before the end I expect folks will be cutting holes in the floors of their cars so that they can have Flintstone powered vehicles.

[I have pasted the two posts from OP's closed thread from here:http://www.cyburbia.org/forums/showthread.php?t=21877

I highly doubt oil will fall below $40 again. But I agree with Maister that suburbia's death will be stubborn and slow.

A quick summary of the decade so far: The early half of this decade began with a major downturn on Wall Street and 9-11's incitement of the largely oil motivated war in Iraq. A housing bubble has replaced the dot.com bubble. And from 1999-present, oil prices have increased about 5 times - adjusted for inflation.

IMO, peak oil is already here or will be by decade's end. Concomitant with peak oil, I think we are living in the era of Peak Suburbia. The recent oil spike is certainly shortening the lifespan of the current housing bubble as urban condos mean less fuel cost. With bike sales booming, it looks like the suburban juggernaut has finally been broken, and momentum has begun to slowly move toward the direction of less auto-dependent lifestyles. Independent of fuel prices, traffic congestion will still remain a problem for hybrids. So increasing gas prices should work in tandem with congestion to encourage public clamor for more transit rather than more highways. But our current leaders made their fortunes from the petroleum status quo.

Maybe one of these young Google billionaires will come along some election and lead the push for the U.S. to embark on an Apollonian effort to develop green technologies, and more transit.

[dobopoq]

I just heard an interesting interview on global public media here:http://www.globalpublicmedia.com/interviews/610
Dr. Joseph Romm says the peak-oil doomsayers like Kunstler miss that electricity is a very obvious substitute to oil - assuming we mount an all out investment program in renewable energy. Romm then discusses a new form of car that I had not previously been aware of. He says plug-in electric hybrids are the next step beyond the current hybrids. We've had electric vehicles for a long time, but they take a while to charge and their range is much more limited than gas. As with any electric vehicle, the plug-in electric hybrid allows you to charge your vehicle at night then commute to a job say up to 20 miles away, completely on electric power. But, if you want to go on a long drive the car also has an I.C.E. so that you can use gasoline and not have to stop and recharge every 40 miles or so.

My understanding is that hybrids such as the Prius only get their energy by regenerative braking - capturing wasted energy originally released by the burning of gas. The plug-in electric hybrid has the potential to be 100% sustainable for everyday use (assuming that your choosing renewable power from hydro, wind or solar), while still allowing you to utilize gas for long distance travel when needed. Romm indicated that these cars are beginning to appear, as the technology to make them possible is already well understood.

This just might be the technological wrinkle that convinces me to at least get my drivers license. I'll be researching this more and add any additional worthwhile info I find.

[BKM]

I just heard an interesting interview on global public media here:http://www.globalpublicmedia.com/interviews/610
Dr. Joseph Romm says the peak-oil doomsayers like Kunstler miss that electricity is a very obvious substitute to oil - assuming we mount an all out investment program in renewable energy. Romm then discusses a new form of car that I had not previously been aware of. He says plug-in electric hybrids are the next step beyond the current hybrids. We've had electric vehicles for a long time, but they take a while to charge and their range is much more limited than gas. As with any electric vehicle, the plug-in electric hybrid allows you to charge your vehicle at night then commute to a job say up to 20 miles away, completely on electric power. But, if you want to go on a long drive the car also has an I.C.E. so that you can use gasoline and not have to stop and recharge every 40 miles or so.

My understanding is that hybrids such as the Prius only get their energy by regenerative braking - capturing wasted energy originally released by the burning of gas. The plug-in electric hybrid has the potential to be 100% sustainable for everyday use (assuming that your choosing renewable power from hydro, wind or solar), while still allowing you to utilize gas for long distance travel when needed. Romm indicated that these cars are beginning to appear, as the technology to make them possible is already well understood.

This just might be the technological wrinkle that convinces me to at least get my drivers license. I'll be researching this more and add any additional worthwhile info I find.

I understand some technically proficient Prius owners are already converting their current generation hybrids.

[AubieTurtle]

Oops, it looks like Kuwait's oil fields only contain about half of what they had been previously been estimated to contain. Since Kuwait was believed to have 10% of the world's oil, we've just "lost" 5% of the outstanding oil supply:

http://today.reuters.com/business/ne...&imageid=&cap=

Many believe the Saudis are also over estimating their oil fields since OPEC quotas are based on what you have in the ground, so it will be interesting to see if they ever come out with a re-estimation. I suspect they won't until oil gets REALLY REALLY expensive or they just can't pump enough oil to logically support their claims.

[quink]

The Prius is only a thing of the day, and I am very convinced that Hybrids will be out of fashion within 10-or-so years. It's 4.7L/100km highway. The VW Lupo can also seat five people (albeit much more cramped), but gets 3L/100km.

It's Diesel that'll be a whole lot better than hybrids when it hits the fan.

I think that Hydrogen is the ideal storage medium, and for original creation, the technologies are already here. Nuclear, Wind, Solar and Water. Sounds a lot better than Gas, Oil, Coal, Waste.

[Vlaude]

I agree 100%, the solutions for the masses are already here. Gas prices must hit that critical point, then these options will become more appealing to the masses. I think a lot of similar discussions occurred during the 70's and then with the oil peak. That said new technologies for collecting oil and new locations have kept oil easily obtainable which does not promote change. The same thing is happening now, ie. Canadian sand oil, polar oil, the new holes being drilled in the midwest, etc... IMO there is still a lot of oil out there its just a matter of who controls it and how fast it can be refined! Sad situation when you consider the environmental ramifications... I believe the bell curve isn't at its peak, hopefully hydrogen will break through and provide a similar auto with virtually no pollution... Keeping my fingers crossed!

[AubieTurtle]

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...182&q=kunstler

The Massachusetts School of Law has an hour long interview with James Kunstler posted on Google Video. Flash and a broadband connection are required but there is no cost to watch the video.

[urbanliz]

I'm surprised not to see as much discussion of the effect on urban living on this site (as opposed to suburbs, transportation etc.). I'm read many of tgeposts- but not all. It seems to me that there will be huge effects on who lives in inner-cities, with the wealthy and upper-middle class buying as much urban property as possible and displacing the poor and working class (faster than with current gentrification). Exurb companies may need to return to the cities as well, putting further pressure on property. I'm concerned that public housing, if it continues to exist, would be shunted out to 2nd ring suburbs and residents would have high travel burdens, effectively isolating them. Perhaps if there are local manufacturing jobs (as many have predicted will return), then companies will create housing nearby or develop communal transportation plans.

Can you imagine regional hub-cities like Atlanta or others getting more dense?

[BKM]

I'm surprised not to see as much discussion of the effect on urban living on this site (as opposed to suburbs, transportation etc.). I'm read many of tgeposts- but not all. It seems to me that there will be huge effects on who lives in inner-cities, with the wealthy and upper-middle class buying as much urban property as possible and displacing the poor and working class (faster than with current gentrification). Exurb companies may need to return to the cities as well, putting further pressure on property. I'm concerned that public housing, if it continues to exist, would be shunted out to 2nd ring suburbs and residents would have high travel burdens, effectively isolating them. Perhaps if there are local manufacturing jobs (as many have predicted will return), then companies will create housing nearby or develop communal transportation plans.

Can you imagine regional hub-cities like Atlanta or others getting more dense?

Perhaps this will happen. But, if you give any credence to the worst case scenarios, big cities will be unable to support themselves, because the acres and acres of fertile farmland that once surrounded many such cities have been paved over with the faux-rural low density dream of suburbia. The worst casers argue that small, traditional towns will fare better, as they will be better able to feed themselves. I hope this isn;t true, as I have no desire to live in a small town

[dobopoq]

Perhaps this will happen. But, if you give any credence to the worst case scenarios, big cities will be unable to support themselves, because the acres and acres of fertile farmland that once surrounded many such cities have been paved over with the faux-rural low density dream of suburbia. The worst casers argue that small, traditional towns will fare better, as they will be better able to feed themselves. I hope this isn;t true, as I have no desire to live in a small town

Yeah, I wouldn't want to live in a small town either. It really kind of creates a paradox. People living in Manhattan use far oil then the rest of the country because their transport system is so efficient. Yet because Manhattan is surrounded by miles of suburbs, prospects for it could be bleak unless maybe central park were turned into a garden or one of the burroughs were bulldozed for farmland. I actually think this is more likely. The efficiency of dense places like Manhattan is too great to not justify a little "suburban redevelopment." The worst case scenarios would probably be more applicable to the sprawling sunbelt cities like Phoenix (where water would be an issue as well) - I hope.

I don't see how the energy demands for running elevators and climate control in skyscrapers would be more energy intensive than miles of sprawled out single story detached houses and strip malls.

[jaws]

I don't know where people get the idea that peak oil means the total breakdown of the food supply chain. It means food might get more expensive, but it will still get to where it is needed. Before oil was in widespread use, the American midwest shipped food out to everywhere in the world.

Please, please, please read economics for real people.

[dobopoq]

CNN is airing a hypothetical 1-hour movie/documentary on a potential fuel crisis on March 18th and 19th at both 8pm and 11pm. Here's a link about it: http://www.cnn.com/CNN/Programs/presents/
I'll check it out. Hopefully it will present a more plausible scenario than the FX special last summer (I didn't see) which had mostly negative reviews.

[AubieTurtle]

If it is good enough for the Shah, it's good enough for me:

[Tide]

I don't know what your thoughts were on peak oil, but some think tank "Cambridge Energy Research Associates" believes there is a lot more oil than we think.

What a comforting thought however dilusional it might be.

"World oil production will not begin to fall for at least another 24 years, contrary to doomsday theories that supply is already in terminal decline, a prominent energy consulting group said Tuesday."

"Jackson said the main flaw in “peak oil” theory is that it fails to account for exploration, technology, rising estimates of the size of existing fields and geopolitical shifts."

Article Here

[bluehour]

Yeah, but Tide, we're going to run out anyway, whether its later than we think or not. It is a finite resource.

BTW my 2 cents on the topic are placed wholeheartedly with Michele Zone's rather equolent posting of back on 2005. We will have to change the way we live when oil runs out, but heck, I like change.

New climate, new shorelines and water levels, no petrolum products. Life will be different in 21006.

[Tide]

Yeah, but Tide, we're going to run out anyway, whether its later than we think or not. It is a finite resource.

BTW my 2 cents on the topic are placed wholeheartedly with Michele Zone's rather equolent posting of back on 2005. We will have to change the way we live when oil runs out, but heck, I like change.

New climate, new shorelines and water levels, no petrolum products. Life will be different in 21006.

I never said we weren't going to run out. I was merely drawn to this article this morning since it was the first I have seen that counters the peak oil theories. It might not happen in our lifetime now, but one day oil will be more precious than gold.