Peak Oil (was "petroleum geologist explains US war policy")

[littlebabyjesus]

If a genuinely cheap way of producing energy is found, and I think it will be within the next few decades, that will change how we think about many things.

 

[Shevek]

sorry don't want to derail the thread too much (please tell me if I am). Yeah I think there are massive challenges not least with the terminology people use. I suppose it comes down to a matter of faith (weirdly) whether you believe a better type of society is possible or not. I would characterise it as rule by the majority rather than rule by an oligarchy. Maybe these times of crisis offer a moment where different alternative come onto the table.

 

[elbows]

I don't want to sound complacent here, because I don't dispute the broad thrust that running out of oil is a major challenge, but billions, and ultimately trillions of pounds will be invested in research into new sources of energy. And there are potentially some very promising leads – nuclear fission that leaves waste that degrades in decades rather than thousands of years, nuclear fusion is still not an impossibility, all kinds of improvements in photovoltaic cell technology, harnessing the power of waves, etc, etc. Even beaming energy down to earth that's been collected from huge solar panels in orbit around the planet (the Japanese are developing this one).

It is impossible to say what throwing billions of pounds at and dedicating the best brains to developing these leads could bring, but I think we can safely say that advances would be spectacular and many unforeseen. And who is leading the way with this research? China. They know they're fucked eventually if they can't replace coal. The west is way behind on this. But imagine what an Apollo-scale research programme could bring in terms of rewards.

Well I certainly dont rule out major technological & scientific developments changing the picture somewhat. I dont see any reason to write it off completely as hopeless, as many choose to, but I dont see many reasons to be very optimistic either. A heck of a lot of the scientific progress of the last century was about finding new ways to exploit fossil fuels of one sort or another, and even if we can scale up some of the solutions to a useful level, there are questions of cost, reliability etc.

I would be more optimistic if we hadnt buggered the timing up. We may have half of the total oil we'll ever get our hands on left, but so much is needed just to keep our current ways going each year that time really is short, we could have done with some technological miracles decades ago. Granted things like price & easy availability, transport & conversion of oil decreased the incentive to bother, but individual nations still had good reasons to find useful alternatives in decades past and mostly failed to do so.

Im left thinking that some of the alternatives will go some way to address the issues, but a heck of a lot of the solution will be on the demand side. We'll need to waste a lot less in future. Id bet that we will travel less and will produce far less tat for a start.

 

[elbows]

If a genuinely cheap way of producing energy is found, and I think it will be within the next few decades, that will change how we think about many things.

Such as (what thoughts it changes rather than what tech can provide this)? Oil has been extremely cheap and practical, and it hasnt changed many things for the better in terms of attitudes, politics etc. Its changed living standards for the better in many cases. I think we'll be exceedingly lucky if we find anything that comes close to the easy & low price of oil,it really is stunningly cheap because we dont have to factor in the true cost, in terms of vast quantities of time and powerful natural forces that created these fossil fuels in the first place.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Well I'd love to see an end to the capitalist mode of production that demands endless growth. Let us aim for zero growth and learn how to distribute resources fairly.

I think that could be one result of the energy crisis – a movement away from the capitalist model of economics. If it is, capitalism won't go down without a struggle. But new means of producing cheap energy – possibly massively cheap – could also bring an end to capitalism as we know it. Ownership of resources would become much less of a lever of power than it is now, and we the masses who own nothing would be greatly empowered.

I'm not a head-in-the-clouds idealist, but I also see no inevitability to the power structures as they exist now. And an impending energy crisis, combined with the impending global warming crisis, could easily engender new feelings of international cooperation and common feeling. In the face of a hostile environment, we will not turn on each other. We will need each other too much.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Such as (what thoughts it changes rather than what tech can provide this)? Oil has been extremely cheap and practical, and it hasnt changed many things for the better in terms of attitudes, politics etc. Its changed living standards for the better in many cases. I think we'll be exceedingly lucky if we find anything that comes close to the easy & low price of oil,it really is stunningly cheap because we dont have to factor in the true cost, in terms of vast quantities of time and powerful natural forces that created these fossil fuels in the first place.

I take your point that oil is exceedingly cheap really, but nonetheless, those who control its production effectively control the world. If an energy source is found that does not rely on the exploitation of natural resources in the same way, ownership of resources will not be such a lever of power. Depending on how such things are developed, they could be freed up for general use – there are people, especially among scientists, who believe more strongly in a general good than personal gain.

There are tons of possibilities – even exploiting the Casimir effect and mining energy literally from empty space – all a long way off, but with the appropriate resources aimed at them, possibly not as long as we might think: after all, the Industrial Revolution took only a few short decades to transform the UK. And such a revolution could – could – lead to a change in power relations between the elites and the rest of us.

 

[elbows]

Maybe these times of crisis offer a moment where different alternative come onto the table.

There is no doubt at all that a prolonged crisis offers huge opportunity for change. The problem is that it can go in so many ways, pretty much every political stance other than what we've had for the last 30-40 years sees opportunity in this, or will do if/when things get bad enough.

The case can be made for all sorts of nice, progressive, sane ways for humans to organise & live in the face of these changes. But theres nothing to suggest thats what will actually happen. Its far, far too early to tell.

Personally I would recommend forgetting about the labels and half-understood ideologies, and get into the detail of how these alternatives would work, and what they would offer in the face of declining ability to produce stuff. Gotta learn how to make the case for certain things, labels & ideologies really should help but a lot have gone stale or been rendered meaningless, and get in the way.

And theres absolutely no need to wait or think about this stuff only in futuristic terms. Because for all we know the current economic woe is actually how peak oil will continue to manifest itself, we wont necessarily see overt shortages of specific oil-related products.

 

[Falcon]

Not to take issue with your wider point, but 2% economic growth doesnt necessarily equate to 2% oil demand growth.

Economic growth has exactly correlated with oil demand growth for the last 70 years. What would be the basis for it becoming decoupled now?

Also I doubt we can accurately tie growth rate to pension pot predictions, too many other factors.

There are many factors, but their aggregate effect is simple to anticipate. The unfunded pension liability is estimated by discounting all the future payments back to today at a discount rate of inflation plus 3.5%. The 3.5% comprises a 1.5% element to account for a preference for having benefits sooner rather than later, and a 2% element that assumes the 2.1% growth rate observed from 1950 to 1998 will continue indefinitely. In any case, we will see economic contraction not expansion, where a reduction in the growth estimate of only 0.5% is an increase in the shortfall of a further £2 trillion, so it's fairly academic.

 

[elbows]

I take your point that oil is exceedingly cheap really, but nonetheless, those who control its production effectively control the world. If an energy source is found that does not rely on the exploitation of natural resources in the same way, ownership of resources will not be such a lever of power. Depending on how such things are developed, they could be freed up for general use – there are people, especially among scientists, who believe more strongly in a general good than personal gain.

There are tons of possibilities – even exploiting the Casimir effect and mining energy literally from empty space – all a long way off, but with the appropriate resources aimed at them, possibly not as long as we might think: after all, the Industrial Revolution took only a few short decades to transform the UK. And such a revolution could – could – lead to a change in power relations between the elites and the rest of us.

There are some specific possibilities yes, Im far from convinced it will happen to the extent you suggest, but as you suggest that also depends on many other struggles going the right way.

Right now there are a few concrete things that tie into what you are talking about, albeit not on the scale you suggest. Putting aside dreams of almost free energy, Micro-generation is the most obvious one that springs to mind. Large power stations suit capitalists well in terms of scale, return on investment, binding people into costly dependency on centralised infrastructure. Decentralised small-scale microgeneration offers something a bit different - dont get me wrong, its not incompatible with capitalism but its got some potential to change things, depending on how its done, how its paid for etc.

If I were in charge, Id be starting with some real basics. The housing stock in this country is not fit for purpose. Homes can be made that need negligible fuel to keep at liveable temperatures. We must change that. But this demonstrates one of the problems of timescale I talked about earlier. We need time to replace this stuff, a lot of our wealth is trapped in infrastructure etc that could rapidly fail to meet even our basic needs, and we cant change it overnight. If we dont get on with it, and in a more substantial way than is currently proposed, then we are left reliant on developments that may never arrive and then there is going to be a very large human horror highscore.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Economic growth has exactly correlated with oil demand growth for the last 70 years. What would be the basis for it becoming decoupled now?

That's not surprising though, is it? I would suspect that if you looked at economic growth in the 19th century, it was correlated with coal demand growth. Economic growth correlates with the growth in the demand for energy. That's kind of obvious, isn't it? Economic growth can become decoupled from demand from oil by finding alternative sources of energy to oil, just as oil was an alternative to coal.

 

[Falcon]

billions, and ultimately trillions of pounds will be invested in research into new sources of energy.

What billions and trillions of pounds? We are currently printing trillions of virtual dollars simply to maintain the solvency of the existing ones ...

But imagine what an Apollo-scale research programme could bring in terms of rewards.

An Apollo-scale research programme, and the massive build out programme that it (might) lead to, would require massive quantities of energy. Our power system is now at full output, yet our economy is barely functioning. Which parts of the global economy do you feel it will be safe to switch off to allow the necessary power to be diverted to such a programme?

 

[elbows]

Economic growth has exactly correlated with oil demand growth for the last 70 years. What would be the basis for it becoming decoupled now?

Im pretty sure Ive read stuff about things changing on that front after the 1970's oil crisis. Not suggesting its been completely decoupled, that seems very implausible, but there were some significant changes. Not saying that your point is invalid, just that there is a bit of wiggle room here, although its quite possible that we did a lot of the easy stuff back then and are left with all the harder decoupling work to do now.

I will try to find some numbers.

Also the internet & digital products are far less tied to oil. Not sure how much more efficient they are in terms of total energy used, but is not reliant on the particular practical advantages that oil offers as, for example, a production feedstock and transport fuel.

 

[Shevek]

There is no doubt at all that a prolonged crisis offers huge opportunity for change. The problem is that it can go in so many ways, pretty much every political stance other than what we've had for the last 30-40 years sees opportunity in this, or will do if/when things get bad enough.

The case can be made for all sorts of nice, progressive, sane ways for humans to organise & live in the face of these changes. But theres nothing to suggest thats what will actually happen. Its far, far too early to tell.

Personally I would recommend forgetting about the labels and half-understood ideologies, and get into the detail of how these alternatives would work, and what they would offer in the face of declining ability to produce stuff. Gotta learn how to make the case for certain things, labels & ideologies really should help but a lot have gone stale or been rendered meaningless, and get in the way.

And theres absolutely no need to wait or think about this stuff only in futuristic terms. Because for all we know the current economic woe is actually how peak oil will continue to manifest itself, we wont necessarily see overt shortages of specific oil-related products.

I like this idea that ideologies can go stale, that there can be confusion around terminology, ideas get debased. I tend to see things in my own way and then wonder why everyone else doesn't agree with that point of view that seems obvious to me. Interesting. I can only go hmmmmm.

 

[Falcon]

Economic growth can become decoupled from demand from oil by finding alternative sources of energy to oil, just as oil was an alternative to coal.

Yes it can. If only we had found one before we ran out of the surplus energy necessary to retool our entire energy infrastructure around it.

 

[elbows]

OK some numbers:

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/ba/pba/intensityindicators/total_energy.html

Taking a long-term perspective, and using the simple Energy/Gross Domestic Product (E/GDP) ratio, the amount of energy needed to produce a dollar's worth of goods and services in the U.S. economy fell by more than half between 1949 and 2004. The nation's output of goods and services, as measured by inflation-adjusted Gross Domestic Product (GDP), increased more than six-fold, from $1.63 trillion to $10.75 trillion over the period. Total energy consumption increased three-fold, from 32 Quadrillion British thermal units (QBtu) to slightly less than 100 QBtu. As a broad measure of energy intensity, the ratio of energy to GDP (E/GDP ratio) declined by 47% over this 55-year period. These long-term trends are illustrated by indexes, relative to 1985, in Figure 1 below.

This entire period, however, can be better understood by considering three sub-periods. In the period up to the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) oil embargo (1949 through 1973), total energy consumption generally grew slightly slower than GDP. Corresponding to this trend, energy intensity (measured by the E/GDP ratio), declined by 11%. The 1973-1974 oil embargo and subsequent price shocks of the late 1970s and early 1980s encouraged energy conservation and efficiency improvements in all sectors of the economy. Between 1973 and 1985, the E/GDP ratio decreased by 28%. Oil prices fell sharply in 1986, accelerating price declines in all fuels whose prices had peaked in the early 1980s. In spite of this development, after 1985 the E/GDP ratio has continued to decline, dropping another 26% by 2004. Translating these declines into annual average rates indicates that up to 1973, the E/GDP ratio declined at about 0.5% per year; between 1973 and 1985, it declined about 2.7% per year; and between 1985 and 2004, it declined 1.6% per year.

While this is an impressive record of achievement, the simple E/GDP ratio measure of energy intensity overstates the extent to which energy efficiency improvements have occurred in the economy, because factors that affect intensity that are unrelated to the efficiency of energy use are included in the ratio.

 

[elbows]

I like this idea that ideologies can go stale, that there can be confusion around terminology, ideas get debased. I tend to see things in my own way and then wonder why everyone else doesn't agree with that point of view that seems obvious to me. Interesting. I can only go hmmmmm.

Well I think many of the underlying ideas may still be valid, but a lot of labels have been badly soiled thats for sure. Orwell's warnings about the destruction of ideas & language via things like newspeak have materialised to a certain extent, although obviously not quite in the way he described.

 

[Shevek]

I don't like to call myself an anarchist because I think you have to be actually 'living it' and doing something to qualify. I agree with the principles of anarchism but to a lot of people it probably just sounds like stale old 'blah blah blah' ideological, lefty nonsense. I also think to a certain extent all the ideologies are a straitjacket and prevent you from seeing that other ways of doing things might have some hidden benefits.

 

[Falcon]

Im pretty sure Ive read stuff about things changing on that front after the 1970's oil crisis...its quite possible that we did a lot of the easy stuff back then and are left with all the harder decoupling work to do now.

We shifted from oil fired power stations to coal and gas fired power stations in the 70's. The huge problem with the move away from oil is that large parts of our economy (food production, jumbo jets and cargo ships, etc.) don't run on coal or electricity, and can't be made to.

Also the internet & digital products are far less tied to oil.

Within the global economy, you can alter the energy intensity of bits of it by shifting energy intensive activities around. But we only get to have an economy in which we sell insurance policies and copies of pirated Windows software to each other because the Chinese do all the energy heavy lifting. You can't have a global economy in which everyone sells insurance policies to each other...

 

[elbows]

Broadly speaking you are right, Im just saying its unfair to completely disregard the energy-efficiency aspect and mention only the shuffling around stuff. Ive already said that I dont think the stuff I am talking about is enough of a difference-maker to change the overall trend, but I stick to the idea that it gives a little bit of wiggle room for growth in certain sectors, including certain forms of production.

 

[elbows]

Anyway the shuffling around is likely to play quite a part in things too, dont you think? I expect that as oil production declines really kick in, we will see further movement towards using it for stuff where there really is no alternative, such as the certain forms of transport you mention. Obviously this leaves questions about what could possibly fill the gap, and I believe much of the gap will be filed on the demand side rather than alternatives because Im not convinced the scale & cost of alternatives will make them a practical option in many cases.

On this front, I really am interested in whats happening with natural gas production. It seems they may have bought a little bit of time on this front via alternative sources for gas, although again Im not getting carried away with what this offers. I just know that gas production hasnt followed the worse case scenarios yet, thus preventing the absolute perfect storm but quite possibly only for a few years. The brakes being slammed on the economy has probably had a greater effect in slightly changing the timescales, although I cant claim it has delayed the woe as it obviously still brings just the kind of woe that peak oil offers.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

If I were in charge, Id be starting with some real basics. The housing stock in this country is not fit for purpose. Homes can be made that need negligible fuel to keep at liveable temperatures. We must change that. But this demonstrates one of the problems of timescale I talked about earlier. We need time to replace this stuff, a lot of our wealth is trapped in infrastructure etc that could rapidly fail to meet even our basic needs, and we cant change it overnight. If we dont get on with it, and in a more substantial way than is currently proposed, then we are left reliant on developments that may never arrive and then there is going to be a very large human horror highscore.

Yes, I agree. And we haven't even started politically to face up to the changes in our way of life that such changes would necessitate, such as the assumption that we can travel where we want, eat what we want when we want, etc. I have no illusions that it will take nothing short of major catastrophe to provide this will.

What billions and trillions of pounds? We are currently printing trillions of virtual dollars simply to maintain the solvency of the existing ones ...



An Apollo-scale research programme, and the massive build out programme that it (might) lead to, would require massive quantities of energy. Our power system is now at full output, yet our economy is barely functioning. Which parts of the global economy do you feel it will be safe to switch off to allow the necessary power to be diverted to such a programme?

The military. The same place the energy for the Apollo programme came from. There is already massive slack – one third of US taxpayer dollars goes on the military. There's the slack right there. Sooner or later, those who control such things will realise what the real and immediate enemy is. Even neocon billionaires don't really want to fuck up civilisation as we know it.

 

[elbows]

And please dont get me wrong, barriers to future growth are where the action is, and it does my head in that the economic situation leads to all sorts of drivel about growth, whilst at the same time opening the door for more widespread acceptance that the god of growth is, at the very least, unwell, and is quite possibly dead already.

 

[elbows]

Yes, I agree. And we haven't even started politically to face up to the changes in our way of life that such changes would necessitate, such as the assumption that we can travel where we want, eat what we want when we want, etc. I have no illusions that it will take nothing short of major catastrophe to provide this will.

Yeah, just look at what happens when we try to discuss climate change on these forums, the politics of it and what it means for the masses goes very pear-shaped,a nd for good reason unfortunately.

As for travel, its going to be very interesting to see how much of our car stock can be replaced with, for example, electric cars, and where we get that electricity from. Given the prospects for this to go wrong,and considering that many advances in recent decades have been in information technology and digital entertainment devices, I tend to look at the offsetting of transport by things like the internet, and dulling the pain of public transport by being able to watch videos on a tablet enabling uncomfortable eye contact with strangers to be avoided

 

[Shevek]

I want humanity to explore space not go back to the stone age on a dying planet

 

[elbows]

I want humanity to explore space not go back to the stone age on a dying planet

Yeah well I wouldnt put all my hopes in that. The sci-fi future that has us exploiting other planets for their minerals etc is showing very little sign of coming to fruition. Maybe it can still happen, but maybe the energy reality will put pay to these grandiose ideas once and for all.

There is also the possibility that if we can bring back energy from elsewhere, we'll just have even more potential to kill the planet. So I tend to prefer a more grounded approach, we can stay on earth and not kill the planet. ANd we certainly aint going back to the stone-age anytime soon.

 

[Shevek]

read some sci fi man. Exploring space could be amazing! All we need is nearly as fast as light ships, maybe then a simultaneity drive.

 

[iROBOT]

We dont need to exploit far flung planets for our minerals/chemicals needs. It's all in the asteroid/Edgeworth-Kuiper belt right here in our Solar System.

 

[A Dashing Blade]

. . . There is already massive slack – one third of US taxpayer dollars goes on the military. There's the slack right there. . . .

Er . . . nearer 15% or approx 3.0% of GDP

Non Wiki Source

 

[newharper]

Er . . . nearer 15% or approx 3.0% of GDP

Non Wiki Source

To quibble,

As of 2008 4.2%

http://www.google.com/publicdata?ds=wb-wdi&met=ms_mil_xpnd_gd_zs&idim=country:USA&dl=en&hl=en&q=us+military+spending+gdp#met=ms_mil_xpnd_gd_zs&idim=country:USA

 

[Backatcha Bandit]

Numbers, schmumbers, muh-nuh-muh-nuhmbers...

Global investment in renewables ~ $150 billion

US 'Defense' budget ~ $740 billion

..do-doo-do-do-doo. That's a lot of money to spend on something you can't even spell.

FT reckons Iraq will become subject to OPEC quotas @ 4-5m bpd, 2013/14:

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/480d277c-d852-11df-a7b4-00144feabdc0.html?ftcamp=rss

The details of the exact oil-related motives for the Iraq war are still well open to debate. It probably wasnt the simplified idea of control over Iraqs oil that some would think, nor was it a means to gain significant control over OPEC.

Did you ever go much on the triggered by the Fed's 'quantitative easing' (surely the banking term for 'eating your own shit'?)

the god of growth is, at the very least, unwell, and is quite possibly dead already.

Heretic. I was actually going to write a eulogy for the infinite growth paradigm, but couldn't think of anything nice to say. I might go to the inquest to jeer and throw peanuts. On second thoughts, I'll just jeer. I might need the peanuts. <*sigh*> I never did get my flying car.

Speaking of which, here's one for the techno-cornucopians out there - a new link for Prof. Rick Smalley (carbon nanotubes etc) telling it like it is back in '03:

Rick Smalley - Our Energy Challenge

It's a detailed look at how we might embark on a 'new Apollo Mission' directed toward finding what might be 'for this century what oil was in the last century'. Not much has changed since it was recorded 7 years ago, except that 7 more years have passed...

He probably can't build us a starship, though... (mainly because he's dead) It's a shame we didn't learn how to pilot this big blue one sooner, as it's probably futile trying to book lessons with the intergalactic driving school after the point at which braking might conceivably have stopped us careening off the cliff.

This all feels a bit like those few moments when Wile E. Coyote realises that his Acme Rocket Skates have burned out, but remains hanging in mid-air, suspended by nothing more than the echo of his reluctance to countenance his new reality. Don't let me put you off the video, though.

So...

can we* build a socialist-libertarian (i.e. anarchist society) in the face of peak oil[?]

Sorry, mate - it's 'either Mad Max or Waterworld; take your pick, end of discussion.'

Either of which is probably preferable to the sort of techno-fascist utopia Mr. 'Physics of the Impossible' Kaku will cook up when he's finished .

[whisper] *we're probably going to have to [/whisper]​

(Hi BM & BG

)