quote:

---

When asked if there is a solution, Simmons responded:
I don’t think there is one. The solution is to pray. Under the best of circumstances, if all prayers are answered there will be no crisis for maybe two years. After that it’s a certainty.

---

GAAAAAA!!!!!
Not only is dubya a moron but he's surrounded himself with other morons!

The coming shortage has been predicted for decades (do a google search on Hubbert curve) and has been discussed at least a few times on Babble. The problem has been ignored by politicians and the media; and been covered up by the oil industry.

quote:

---

The Greatest Story Never Told?
In 1995, Petroconsultants Pty. Ltd., one of the largest and most respected oil industry analysis and consulting firms, released a document called, 'World Oil Supply 1930-2050'. This report, which was written for oil industry insiders and cost a whopping $32,000 per copy, predicted that global oil production will peak around the year 2000 and decline to 25% by 2025.

---

http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/index.html

quote:

---

This page and its satellites will contain references to articles, my own and by others, explaining how humanity is likely to advance in the near future. In particular, we argue that the whole world can reach and maintain American standards of living with a population of even 15 billion. We also argue that maintaining material progress is the highest priority and the best way to ensure that population eventually stabilizes at a sustainable level with a standard of living above the present American level and continues to improve thereafter.

---

I think there will be some pain with energy rationing until a new, more sustainable source comes along. If everyone keeps their heads, though (a big if, I have to admit), we could prevent the doomsday scenario presented using coal, nuclear and renewable sources while cutting back on consumption. Developing alternatives would become a priority as would population control.

As for running out of oil... so what? So what if we have to return to being an agrarian society? It would kinda bite having the internet being reduced from the information super-highway to a bike path, but I'd live. So why should I be scared?

The silly people who crowd themselves into dense urban metropoli... well they will face some challenges, but will eventually adapt.

quote:

---

The silly people who crowd themselves into dense urban metropoli... well they will face some challenges, but will eventually adapt.

---

These silly people use far less energy per capita than people who live in urban settings. I think you greatly underestimate the potential for a huge fallout - starvation, wars, possibly the breakdown of order in many countries. This is a worst case scenario admittedly but well within the realm of possibility if people keep their heads in the sand and don't react until it's too late.

I know, I know. It's an "end of the world" thing. But still - it sounds so reasonable!

quote:

---

As for running out of oil... so what? So what if we have to return to being an agrarian society? It would kinda bite having the internet being reduced from the information super-highway to a bike path, but I'd live. So why should I be scared?

---

The decline will take years, as the price of oil steadily increases. Hybrid technology and increased use of alternative energy will buy us some more time.

From now until we really run out of conventional sources of energy will probably be quite a few years. It will be a gradual process, not a sudden revolution. And in that time we have, humans should be able to make the necesary changes to their life styles. Things like the earth ship homes will become the norm as the relative cost of them decreases as conventional electricity gets more and more expensive.

I might not be able to live off the land starting immediately, but in 25-50 years I could probably learn.

As for people unwilling to give up consumerism, maybe I will feel generous when they come begging at my door when I'm an old man living in one of those zero-energy homes.

quote:

---

what life will be like for people who need wheelchairs and fake limbs?

---

quote:

---

Things like the earth ship homes will become the norm as the relative cost of them decreases as conventional electricity gets more and more expensive

---

Uhhh, the point is given that electricity is going to get more and more expensive the costs of things like 'earth ship homes' won't go down in price. It takes enormous energy to build these things.

Peak Oil has been discussed on the Art Bell show several times, which might lead some to believe that it is a conspiracy theory along with space aliens. The guy behind that web site, though, was on the show and was very credible.

Gir is completely underestimating the problem of the loss of cheap energy and oil because he (she?) obviously doesn't realize two critical things spelled out at that site:

1.Modern agriculture is very dependent on oil for fertilizers. Without oil, there would be a major decrease in food production. We have no substitutes for this.

2.It is much harder to replace oil than Gir makes it out to be. It's not simply a matter of substituting one product for another. It takes an entire infrastructure to mass produce any alternative fuel (if any can be made at mass quantities). Whether it is building tens of thousands of windmills, or constructing hundreds of nuclear power plants. It would take massive amounts of energy to make these things. Without cheap oil, building a massive new infrastructure is (almost) impossible to do.

Whether Gir is correct about how much oil we have left is completely unknown. In reality, each country keeps its amount of reserves pretty secret. The numbers are really all just guesses.

There is no one solution to the problem,, nor is there probably a totally satisfactory combination of answers. However, as New Democrats, one thing we should understand as an idea is the idea of Co-Operatives.

I think the only thing that can really work at is pretty much at the local scale, and the best idea I can think of is of energy co-operatives.
People getting together in their communities and putting up windmills, or solar power and the like.

First off, he criticises alternative energy sources by stating that they can't replace oil. Well, who says they have to? Certainly it wouldn't be the same industrial civilisation that we're all used to if we learned to live with 20% of our current energy usage, but that's not the same thing as saying that we'd be thrown back into an agrarian society. Heck, in some ways it would be way better. No more cars? Show me the button and I'll push it.

Food production would be a problem, but not an insurmountable one, if it became an overwhelming concern. He admits wind power is very promising. We could put all that potential into food production, surely our number one priority, grown and distributed locally to save on transporation costs. We'd have less choice of foods, and no more overprocessed crap, but these seem like minor drawbacks to me.

I also find his dismissal of TD technology to be rather flippant. He admits that practically nothing is known about its potential. Personally, I think it will be a very successful technology, providing oil at a very modest rate, compared to what we're used to, for all those things like plastic, etc. Our availability of these things would be greatly reduced, but so what? Mostly it is overused anyhow. No more little flowers that dance when you clap at them. Big loss.

And his projections of demographic trends are not credible, if he is to be believed. The much more populated and industrialised world that could be projected for 2025 will obviously never come to pass if oil prices start rising dramatically in the next few years. Or, that is to say, we will keep industrialising, but not along the same model that we've been using. I think our society can stay "modern" in many important ways and consume vastly less energy than it does. How much electricity do computers and the internet consume? Not so much that it couldn't be provided through alternative sources, especially as we refine their technology. Right now we're only dabbling.

The biggest change might be in transportation, and this would be significant, especially if communications stayed relatively the same. It would be a strange world where you could talk to anyone but meet almost nobody, but again, this would be a short period that would be overcome as alternative energy sources were perfected. Another big change would be in warfare, as huge modern industrial armies would become almost impossible. No loss there, I'm sure you'd agree.

I don't mean to paint too rosy of a picture. If all this is true, and I wouldn't be surprised if it is, then it entails the biggest challenge the human race has ever faced within recorded history. But I think we can meet the challenge and will do so. No doubt there will be hard times ahead, but not an apocalypse, just a massive restructuring. It's not unlike a junkie who has reached the end of his rope, realising that he has come to the point where he can die or kick it once and for all. The withdrawal will be painful, but coming out the other side will be the best thing he ever did. Deprived of his artificial rush, he will be forced to cultivate real strength.

The last hundred years of human history have been a violent, brutal, rapacious, and unsustainable production and consumption binge. It's probably just as well that the oil is running out because if it didn't, lord knows what we'd do to ourselves. It will be a crash, but mostly a crash of our delusional image as masters of the universe, as we are forced to work on basic survival all over again, and this time with a deeper awareness of the limits of our strength. Humanity desperately needs to be humbled for its own good.

quote:

---

The decline will take years, as the price of oil steadily increases. Hybrid technology and increased use of alternative energy will buy us some more time.

---

Maybe one of the economic experts will step in with better information but my guess is it will only take a relatively small decrease in supply to push the price through the roof. Don't forget that at the same time supply will be dwindling, demand is still growing. The demand from China and India is growing rapidly and isn't anything close to what it is in North America on a per-capita basis.

One result will be that people will be forced to cut back (thus extending the supply) but there will also be other results - sharply increased prices of almost everything. The economy will likely go into a major tailspin and in our cost-cutting world, we could easily see another 30's-style depression.

quote:

---

Originally posted by ReeferMadness:

Maybe one of the economic experts will step in with better information but my guess is it will only take a relatively small decrease in supply to push the price through the roof.

---

Well, so the initial shortfall will give us something like the oil shock of the seventies. At that time people quickly did a lot of basic conservation measures, and it dropped demand by a surprising amount. If I actually got around to all the basic insulation, double glazing and whatnot stuff needed around my home it would make a substantial difference. Economy cars would suddenly be back in fashion.
And there were some government initiatives, which fell by the wayside because the prices started dropping again and also because the neocons started their rise to power, putting government intervention (especially against the interests of oil companies) way out of fashion.

quote:

---

How much electricity do computers and the internet consume? Not so much that it couldn't be provided through alternative sources, especially as we refine their technology. Right now we're only dabbling.

---

"Non-renewable" means just what it says. At whatever rate we consume the non-renewable oil, we will eventually run out. Since more people are consuming oil faster, we will run out sooner. I read somewhere that China is already the second largest importer of oil, after the US. Quite simply, there is not enough to go around. This should remove any doubts about what the war in Iraq is about.

There are many alternatives waiting in the wings. (Surprizingly, there is even oil waiting. Alberta's tar sands hold a lot of very expensive oil.) Cheap oil is holding back the development of alternatives. As the price of oil rises, and it will, the alternatives will become more attractive.

Some of the alternatives are simple and cheap and they work very well. In the Cook Islands, for example, every house has a large stainless steel tank on the roof. It is a water tank. The sun heats the water, for free. No one ever runs out of hot water. The Cook Islanders do this because other forms of energy are very expensive. The same system could easily be used in Texas or Florida or California, but rarely is. North Americans don't want a big ugly tank on their roof.

In the same way, most North Americans don't want solar panels on the roof. Or windmills in the back yard; spoils the view. Even those in northern climates can benefit from better choices. The R 2000 technology was designed in Saskatchewan, and it works.

There's lots of data on this topic floating around out there. I've done a fair study on it, and there are a number of issues that come up that should be considered:

Oil provides about 25% of the energy we currently use, in North America. World Fact Book has numbers. Almost everything you hear about oil is 'conventional reserves', which is the amount of oil in the ground that can be exploited at the current price. A much more realistic measurement would be 'recoverable reserves', which would measure the amount of oil in the ground that would take less energy to extract than is in the oil itself. But they don't measure that, so it's trivial.

In unconvential reserves, Canada and Peru have immense supplies of oil sands - over a trillion barrels in Canada that we have the technology to extract, and will take less energy to extract than is available in the oil. I don't know what the extraction efficiency is, but it's not terrible. But that reserve will supply the world for 30 years at the current rate of increase of consumption.

Using 7% of Nevada for solar farms would supply all of the US domestic energy demand at $0.15/kwh and with a 1.5 year energy debt. Thus, 1.5 years later, you're on the plus side of the energy-in vs energy-out balance. Small scale solar will work in Canada for thermal energy - there is some arguement about the viability of solar electric in Canada.

Using 1% of the US land mass for wind generation would provide all of the electrical needs of the US at about $0.20/kwh. Canada has more wind, more area, and much less demand, so the number for Canada would be more like 0.1% of the land mass, and the cost would be about the same.

DCFC, or Direct Carbon Fuel Cells can convert coal to electricity with a theoretical thermodynamic efficiency of 100%. Actual efficiencies are more like 80%. Current conversion of coal into electricity using steam is no better than 30% efficient, and produces huge pollution problems due to the oxidation of the crap in the coal other than carbon. The DCFC is not a combustion process, and the crap doesn't get oxidized.

PEM, or proton exchange membranes - the great hydrogen fuel cells - are at best 50% efficient, and 40% is much more realistic. And that doesn't include the energy it takes to create the hydrogen, or the problems with shipping, storing, handling, etc. hydrogen. This whole technology, I think, is a red herring to disguise how close we are to when the shit hits the fan.

My own favorites include The Air Car, Concentrated Solar.

I don't think big-anything (government, business, industry, union, etc) will be able to change enough, fast enough to make a significant difference to what's going to happen. I do beleive, however, that we as individuals can do alot to protect ourselves from the coming crash.

And there will be a crash. Supply and demand will increase the cost of oil without increasing the ability of the US to pay for it. Eventually, the cost of energy will increase beyond the ability of the people to pay for it.

Easter Island economics for all. Only, this time, it will be the world, not just an island, and precipitated by the loss of easy energy, not the loss of trees. See, thats the nice thing about globalization - all of our resources will run out at the same time. No hording allowed. Easter island went from a sustained population of 10,000 (who were rich enough to spend all their energy on making stone heads) to a sustained population of 500 sustainence farmers/fishermen, and never recovered.

Currently, energy costs Canadians about 7% of their income. In 20 years, it will cost about 20% of their current income (in constant dollars), but their income will have reached a peak of about 115% of current values. So the amount of money available on services will still be about the same. But as energy supplies continue to dwindle and the demand continues to grow, this will only get worse.

At some point, the vast majority of first world inhabitants will find that they are poor. And then the shit is really going to hit the fan. I'm being a little melodramatic, but it's true: You can hear the hoofbeats of the Apocollapse, if you listen for it.

[editted to add]

Since the topic was the "Life after..." website, I thought I should comment.

He's a little extreme, but about right. The earth's carrying capacity was exceeded in the early '80's. Redefining Progress shows the data in a variety of forms. The Ecological Footprint under estimates, and the date that the world's capacity was exceeded may have been as early as about 1954.

I've used a simple arguement to illustrate the problem. There is a ecological bank account that pays 'interest' on its 'capital'. The interest rate is argueable, but a young forest could double it's biomass in a hundred years, so it's possible that it's as high as 1%. I've run numbers between 0.1 and 1%, just to see, and the conclusion doesn't change, just the timing.

We make withdrawls on this bank account, in the manner of taking fish, dumping pollution, cutting trees, etc. When we reached capacity, our withdrawls equalled the interest paid. Consumption is increasing at 2% per year on a world wide basis. It is a matter of simple calculations to show that between 70 and 160 years after capacity was exceeded, the last withdrawl is made and the bank account is closed.

In reality, the collapse mechanism will be much more complex, with local areas collapsing (we see that already) extending the time to collapse, but it will happen. There is no magic trick that will save the world. Here in Canada, we have the good luck of having immense natural resources (per capita ecological footprint = 8.5 ha, productinve land = 16 ha), and the bad luck of being next to the US (per capita ecological footprint 9.5 ha, productive land 6.0). So, when the elephant rolls over and convulses from starvation, disease, and war, we have to be pretty nimble to prevent being crushed.

I asked my professor of Sustainability Engineering if "Can the Titanic miss the iceberg?", and she said "No, but we may be able to prevent it from sinking". Prayer is not the way. Sucking back that latte isn't, either.

[ 12 April 2004: Message edited by: dnuttall ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cougyr:

In the same way, most North Americans don't want solar panels on the roof.

---

I dunno, I think with solar panels it's mainly cost. Something that is changing, both as solar gets cheaper and conventional gets more expensive. I think a lot of the solar panelling made these days actually looks pretty cool. Every now and then I make a stab at costing it out, and I conclude that the price isn't there . . . yet. As soon as I conclude different, I'm gonna be talking to Strata council.

Here in Ottawa, the ground is at 8C in the winter, 12C in the summer. One can get their incoming air heated from -20C to 8 for almost free, and then do the rest of the heating with a woodstove. A heat recovery ventilator then regains about half of the remaining heat, so even in the very coldest temperatures, only 6C of heating is required, instead of 28. Energy costs just dropped to 25%. And all cooling costs can be provided by the incoming 12C air. Just takes a plastic pipe in the ground - lifespan = hundreds to thousands of years.

The problem in North America is that we are very short sighted. The average Canadian home was constructed using 950 GigaJoules of energy. The average home uses 160 Gigajoules of energy per year. Thus, at the end of 7 years, you've used less energy to construct the house than to heat and light it. Since a house will be used for 40 or more years, we are using 6 2/3 or more times as much energy to keep the house going, than we used in the first place.

This scenario is a survivalists wet dream. I picture fascist dictatorships sprouting up all over North America.
The social safety net will collapse, leaving the old, sick and infirm to fend for themselves and possibly die in the process.
When the system falls to pieces chances are good that I will be in my late thirties. I can say with absolute certainty that I will not live to see my 41st birthday.
One of the arguments that rightist gun nuts use for buying and/or not registering their guns is that a fascist régime could take over and they may need to defend themselves. Perhaps they are right, perhaps a gun will become a necessary tool in the near future, both for killing intruders and hunting.

could you please expand on the following statements?

quote:

---

So, when the elephant rolls over and convulses from starvation, disease, and war, we have to be pretty nimble to prevent being crushed.

---

What do you mean by nimble? Nimble in a military sense or nimble in a diplomatic sense?

quote:

---

Sucking back that latte isn't, either.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ReeferMadness:
Maybe one of the economic experts will step in with better information but my guess is it will only take a relatively small decrease in supply to push the price through the roof.

---

The spike in oil prices in 1979 was triggered by less than a 5% drop in the supply of oil.

That may serve as a guide.

As for the oil situation more generally, my concern is that we are not gradually preparing (we're human. We're supposed to be able to plan for the future, instead of just reacting instinctively like an amoeba.) for the inevitable shortage, but instead trusting that oil prices will simply do the work for us by dislocating those who can least afford to pay for the higher cost of energy, first, and then working up the food chain until finally the rich people say "Hey! It's costing us too much to run the decorative Ming Vase Fireplace!" and order the corporations they own to find a way to get cheaper energy sources online.

I hate to say it, but hear me out, folks...

What is the requirement of the modern energy base of our civilization? A concentrated and relatively portable source of energy. Gasoline and its parent, crude oil, fulfill this in spades.

By contrast, solar, wind and geothermal do not really fulfill this criteria.

What does?

Nuclear fuels - that is, fissionable isotopes.

While you can't have a uranium-powered car (although the beta particles from highly radioactive isotopes could be used to complete electric circuits and run vehicles, perhaps), you could have uranium-powered trains, airplanes, boats, and of course power plants for electricity.

Nuclear energy is the only foreseeable alternative unless, as others have said, we want to drop back to an essentially agrarian, only partially industrialized environment where the major fuel base is, as in times of old, wood.

But basically, they are a red herring; people talk about fuel cells almost as if they were an energy source when in fact they're something more like a battery. So the question on that front is, what kind of battery is best?
I agree that those compressed air cars look rather good, although I'm beginning to be skeptical as to whether the outfit theoretically making them will get off the ground.
Neither conventional batteries (low energy density, made of toxic stuff although it's recycled pretty well, need replacement often) nor fuel cells (seem to be bleedin' expensive, inefficient) turn my crank that much.
Compressed air has some definite points. I like flywheels too. Flywheels have the potential for considerable energy density and very high durability.

I used what I thought was a cleverism. Perhaps I should have been more clear. Apo-collapse. Play on words. Not really in the biblical sence.

In Canada, it is extremely unlikely that 'survivalists' would have their day. It's more like the Great Depression, except longer, and worse. Not Mad Max. It will be in some places (such as Bosnia, Afghanistan, Rwanda, etc), but not here, not yet.

As the cost of energy increases, the alternative energy market will not be capable of meeting the need in a timely manner. The oil crisis of the '70s is an example of the lag time between the problem and the solution. Between the two, there is a steep decline in availablity. My estimate, and really it's not much more than a slighly educated guess, is about 9 years before alternative sources will have levelled off the drop in supply. I don't think it will ever truely 'bounce' back, but I could be wrong. For that period, it's not nice.

Currently, agriculture in North America is a way of converting oil into food. Through fertilizers, tractors/combines, transportation systems, energy intensive processes etc, oil is used to allow us to produce the food we eat. As the cost of energy increases, and the supply of energy drops, the amount of food that will reach our tables will go down. Prices will skyrocket, and people in cities that can not grow their own food will go hungry. A little hunger in North American cities probably would just eliminate some jobs. A lot would create riots, due to the perceived uneven distribution of wealth.

As costs go up and incomes don't, there will be a lot of people that are not able to cope in a growth based economy. How would you feel, for instance, if your income was reduced by 10%, but your expences went up by 10%? Your mortgage, for instance, is probably the most you can currently afford. If there was a clever leader that could show you that it was the fault of the Arabs, for hording the oil, or the Canadians for refusing to sell their wood, or the filthy rich, for consuming all the taxpayer's dollars, then a lot of unhappy people would have a target for their anger, and bad things would happen.

If the unhappy people didn't have an easy outlet for their anger, then they would create difficult outlets. Oklahoma bombings come to mind. This would mean that some of the US military presence would come home, significantly reducing the ability of the US to force their foreign policy on the world at large. This would be in part due to the high cost of energy to keep the military 'flying', but also because the number of domestic terrorists will go up significantly. This is why Bush capitalized on the fear created by Sept.11 to create all of their draconian anti-freedoms legislation, because he knows how much oil there really is. Oh, and as a side line, Canada is the biggest source of oil consumed in the US, but they already own us.

So, what can we do? Well, if we can, as individuals, find ways of reducing the costs of living by changing our lifestyles, we can 'nimbly' avoid as much of the trouble as possible. Consume less. Think more. Be creative and work at building your community. When shit happens, it will happen less to you. Won't make you safe, but it will offer some security.

Dr. C.:

Nuclear has huge drawbacks. The principal one is the energy it takes to convert ore into fuel. Thats the main reason that a breeder reactor is attractive, to save the cost of extraction. It's also the reason there aren't any in Canada - to much energy to convert the spent rods into reusable fuel.

Just as the cheap oil is already used, so is the cheap uranium. Yucca Mountain is a terrible place for storage, and if you don't know how to deal with the wastes, don't make them. If you include the ecological costs, nuclear is prohibitive. Unfortunately, because the ecological cost is very hard to prove, it is always under reported.

FYI - Price elasticity of oil is about 10 to 1, so that a 1% decrease in supply will be a 10% increase in cost. Thats based off the change of supply and price during the first Gulf War.

Rufus:

Hydrogen fuel cell - red herring. I totally agree. The DCFC is not a red herring, but will never be in a car. Mobile energy is fast becoming a problem.

Flywheels are very nice. But they are pricy. Current flywheels are made of carbon fibre and are spinning at ludicrous speed. Check out Flywheel Energy for more details.

In the end, converting energy from one form to another is wasteful. Ideally, we would use wind for mechanical power, solar for heat and light, and store as little energy as possible. Wood seems to be the best way of storing solar energy. There are ways of storing wind, but it may be better to use it for something when it's available, and being patient for it to blow.

That requires changing our lifestyles, since we like to do things when it's convenient, not when it's available. Sailing ships moved when the wind did, not when the passengers wanted to be at their destination.

Hybrid Solar Lighting is an example of getting halfway there. The fluorescents don't work for me, (I'd use LEDs) and the first tests failed, but it's a good idea in principal.

quote:

---

This is why Bush capitalized on the fear created by Sept.11 to create all of their draconian anti-freedoms legislation, because he knows how much oil there really is. Oh, and as a side line, Canada is the biggest source of oil consumed in the US, but they already own us.

---

quote:

---

While you can't have a uranium-powered car (although the beta particles from highly radioactive isotopes could be used to complete electric circuits and run vehicles, perhaps), you could have uranium-powered trains, airplanes, boats, and of course power plants for electricity.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by dnuttall:
Nuclear has huge drawbacks. The principal one is the energy it takes to convert ore into fuel. Thats the main reason that a breeder reactor is attractive, to save the cost of extraction. It's also the reason there aren't any in Canada - to much energy to convert the spent rods into reusable fuel.

---

Incidentally, the CANDU operates in a "breeding" type fashion, since it works by conversion of Uranium-238 into Plutonium-239, a fissionable isotope.

In principle, a CANDU could be used with Thorium-232 as well, since Uranium-233 is a fissionable isotope also.

quote:

---

Originally posted by ReeferMadness:
C'mon, Dr C. A nuclear powered airplane? Given the shielding required around the reactor (which has to be massive to work), you'd never get it in the air.

---

Well, I wasn't going to suggest a concrete airplane.

Seriously, though, has anyone come up with an electrically powered airplane? I suspect the design could be modified to incorporate a relatively small nuclear reactor.

Alternatively, if solar cells become more efficient than they are now, a hybrid airplane could be built, which uses, say, normal jet fuel to rise aloft, and then once above the cloud cover, switch to solar.

[ 13 April 2004: Message edited by: DrConway ]

Search the net for "Hubbert's Peak". You'll get the whole 10 yards.

The peak will occur in 2004 (maximum oil consumption per capita), and be fairly level for a period of time, perhaps 5-10 years (maximum oil consumption in total). Then the shit hits the fan.

This site has a lot of details on the theory behind Hubbert's curve.

Not surprisingly there is a aptly named website here.

There is Zounds of stuff out there, and it's not hiding in the fringe. Hubbert, for instance, was a Geoscientist in the oil industry, and missed on his prediction (in 1954) of the oil crisis in the states by only a few months. He originally predicted the world crisis (still in 1954) to occur in 2000. Turns out, he missed by only a little bit, by a series of unforseen reductions in production, so the date was somewhat stretched out. Laherrere is associated with Petroconsultants, those same fellows that were offering their report on the world's oil for $32,000.

The only reason it's not in the media is that it doesn't sell well that WE are the problem. So much easier to sell that THEY are the problem.

quote:

---

The only reason it's not in the media is that it doesn't sell well that WE are the problem. So much easier to sell that THEY are the problem.

---

quote:

---

Well, I wasn't going to suggest a concrete airplane.

---

So, what will your nuclear reactor use to shield the passengers from radiation. Lead? In order for the material to be a useful shield, it has to have a lot of mass (i.e. be heavy). That's the inherent problem with a nuclear airplane.

[ 14 April 2004: Message edited by: ReeferMadness ]

Reefer, it's not ironic at all. The fact that the existing power structure doesn't want the mooing public to notice that they themselves are precipitating their own demise is just good business. Once it is clear that the shit has hit the fan, they'll happily pull out a fall guy. Currently, the Middle East is full of likely targets, and ironically, they have the cheap oil.

quote:

---

Originally posted by ReeferMadness:
Exactly. But if others follow the U.S. lead and fight over the dwindling resources, they'll all be used up in the fighting.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by dnuttall:
Oh, and an interesting sidebar - Opec agreed recently to dial back production by 4%, at effectively the same time that Venuzualan production is picking back up after their strike. It's all connected.

---

quote:

---

I think the Germans and Dutch and so on will have the last laugh; when the crunch starts, they'll be well on the way to decreased oil reliance while the Americans are thrashing around hemorrhaging money and people and political capital in the Middle East.

---

quote:

---

Reefer, it's not ironic at all. The fact that the existing power structure doesn't want the mooing public to notice that they themselves are precipitating their own demise is just good business.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michelle:
The solution is to pray? Good grief.

Not surprising though. Hey, maybe the rapture will happen soon and then we won't have to worry about any of this. At least not us True Christians.

---

quote:

---

I also find his dismissal of TD technology to be rather flippant. He admits that practically nothing is known about its potential. Personally, I think it will be a very successful technology, providing oil at a very modest rate, compared to what we're used to, for all those things like plastic, etc.

---

FYI when I asked the GVRD if they had any interest in TDP, the representative said no (and she hadn't even done any research into it, either).

Scientists who fear that a great oil crunch is looming have done a lousy job of communicating this to those in power.

quote:

---

Ahh, so someone in this thread is aware of TDP. Missed that.

---

The US is investing in alternate forms of energy. I mentioned hybrid lighting, and Direct Carbon Fuel Cells. There are many others. The trouble comes from timing - we'll be losing energy supply before these alternate technologies get sufficient market penetration to provide for any significant portion of the energy demand

Thermal Decomposition of biomass is a pretty good solution for some of the problems. I've been keeping an eye on Dynamotive, out of Vancouver. Great technology. Thermal decomposition of plastic is a poor choice. The 3 R's are written in that order for a reason. Reduce will have a bigger impact than Reuse. Reuse will have a bigger impact than Recycle. Thermal Decomposition is recycling, not reuse, or reduction. Therefore, it is likely that there are better ways of using the materials.

No single technology can replace all of the oil we won't be burning, which is why we will have less energy than we have today. All of the known technologies together will not replace all of the oil, either. But neither will we be without energy when they use the last of the cheap oil.

CMOT; One has to be careful about the rhetoric. We're not talking biblical extinctions here. We're talking about less energy at a higher price. Imagine a standard of living like the 50's, rather than today. The transition will be traumatic, but it's not death to all. Periods of very high unemployment, yes. Requiring a radical shift in policy from a growth based economy to a steady state or dynamic equilibrium economy, yes. Armagedon, no.

quote:

---

Originally posted by R. J. Dunnill:

And what makes you think that the Americans aren't doing anything about reducing independence on foreign oil? Because they're not investing heavily in politically-correct types of alternate energy like wind power?

---

quote:

---

TDP? What is this?

---

Although the basic principles of TDP have been known since the 1920s, no one has been able to find a way to implement it cost-effectively. That is, until now.

The world's first commercial (not pilot) biomass-to-oil plant is now in full production in Carthage, MO. It was a joint effort between the owners of the process (a tiny energy company called Changing World Technologies that developed the technology and holds the patents) and the giant Conagra corporation, with some assistance from the U.S. EPA. The Carthage plant is now the showcase for TDP; every day, it converts some 200 tons of turkey offal (a waste stream that was once a major environmental headache for Conagra) into 500 barrels a day of bio-oil that is sold to a nearby electrical utility for use in power generation.

For several years, CWT had operated a pilot plant in an old Navy yard in Philadelphia, which converted scrap tires into crude and demonstrated the viability of the process. Now that the Carthage plant is in full production, the Philadelphia operation is now used as a test facility. Meanwhile, CWT is working on a plan for the city of Philadelphia to convert municipal sewage sludge into bio-oil (at present, it is buried in landfills).

Several large TDP projects are now in the works in the U.S., along with one in Italy. The CEO of the company plans for thousands of TDP facilities to be in service within the next 15 years.

It doesn't take much imagination to see where widespread adoption of TDP technology could go: reduced CO2 emissions, waste problems cleaned up, a new vitality for rural areas, and jobs, jobs, jobs (and sustainable ones).

For some reason, though, all this has not been considered newsworthy, despite increasing worldwide concern over both energy and environmental issues. Maybe if Britney Spears bought in, that would change. In the meantime, CWT will have to settle for the likes of legendary billionaire investor Warren Buffett and ex-CIA chief James Woolsely.

quote:

---

Originally posted by R. J. Dunnill:
And what makes you think that the Americans aren't doing anything about reducing independence on foreign oil? Because they're not investing heavily in politically-correct types of alternate energy like wind power?

---

The US uses somewhere around 3 times the amount of oil per capita as Europe does.

Re: Alternative energy technologies

I'm also surprised at the relative lack of fanfare given to successful trials and commercial proof of viability of these sorts of things such as bio-diesel, TDP, and so on.

I think it's because they're not easily centralized, and so there's no way for someone to really get ahold of a "choke point" and gain political or economic power through it.

Just for example, a buddy of mine out in Maple Ridge lives with his family, and they all drive diesel vehicles powered by a back-yard biodiesel plant.

They figure their cost is 25 cents a liter, but their biodiesel also won't scale well, so it's not like they can suddenly leap to owning their own biodiesel station and compete with the big boys.

But at the same time, they're essentially self-sufficient. They don't have to go to the major oil companies unless they want to use diesel for long-distance trips, or the like.

If a bunch of people in my neighborhood could come up with a viable bio-propane or bio-natural gas facility, I'd get the LTD propane converted in no time flat.

[ 15 April 2004: Message edited by: DrConway ]

Edited to add:

Not that I need another reason to hate Monsanto - but it seems beyond evil, venturing into the realm of idiotic, to devote such a huge amount of resources to developing organisms that are dependent upon a fast-disappearing resource.

[ 15 April 2004: Message edited by: Anchoress ]

quote:

---

Given a choice between a new set of matching tableware and the survival of humanity, I suspect that most people would choose the tableware.

---

No one answered my question, so I will ask it again. How much do solar panels cost?

[ 15 April 2004: Message edited by: CMOT Dibbler ]

quote:

---

Did I mention that I hate this thread...

---

RD

[ 15 April 2004: Message edited by: R. J. Dunnill ]

Just a quick perusal of the net shows a complete system capable of generating, storing, and discharging 1 kWh/day (about a 20th of an average home's electric use) is $5000 US. A 10.5 kWh/day system is $20K.

Solar electric is not normally considered a suitable solution in Eastern Ontario. As part of a system, perhaps, but not by itself. The trouble is that a) the sun doesn't shine when you want the electricity, b) solar electric systems have low overall efficiency, and c) they are expensive.

You can check out the Canadian Climate Normals to determine the number (and distribution) of sunlit hours per month & year. For Ottawa, it is:

(oh, and since this looks like shit, I'll apologize in advance. Note, only average rainfall is shown)

quote:

---

Originally posted by R. J. Dunnill:

The world's first commercial (not pilot) biomass-to-oil plant is now in full production in Carthage, MO.
. . .
The Carthage plant is now the showcase for TDP; every day, it converts some 200 tons of turkey offal (a waste stream that was once a major environmental headache for Conagra) into 500 barrels a day of bio-oil that is sold to a nearby electrical utility for use in power generation.

---

quote:

---

Just a quick perusal of the net shows a complete system capable of generating, storing, and discharging 1 kWh/day (about a 20th of an average home's electric use) is $5000 US. A 10.5 kWh/day system is $20K.

---

Holy Shit! That's too rich for my blood!
I currently live on a sheep and goat farm with my parents anywho so we're pretty self sufficient, the only problem is that are well and appliances are electric and we get most of our fruit from the grocery store.

Here is the ironic bit. I am currently trying to finish a five years of courses provided by the open learning agency. I was planning to move out and go to a larger center to try and find love and a career. It looks like my plans will have to change. The problem is that at the rate at which the Campbell Government is slashing social programs in the "heartland" it won't be worth my while to stay anyway.
fuckin' Dubya. fuckin' Gordo. Fuckin' Americans.
does anyone here believe that their will be a place for some socialistic ideals in this brave new world that will be created after the crash hits. The impression I got from the oil crash web site, is that government will be backward inefficient and evil in the new world order that will be created.
Any thoughts?

[ 15 April 2004: Message edited by: CMOT Dibbler ]

[ 15 April 2004: Message edited by: CMOT Dibbler ]

quote:

---

does anyone here believe that their will be a place for some socialistic ideals in this brave new world that will be created after the crash hits

---

If all this comes to pass, then it will be socialism or destruction. The "cost" of redesigning the entire economy and infrastructure of scoiety will be too high to contemplate. Profit will become an anachronism as nobody will be making any. Capitalists will try to hoard everything for themselves by insisting that the normal market mechanisms stay in place, but these same mechanisms will prevent most of the country from obtaining food or shelter, and so will have to be abandoned.

For instance, it's already been mentioned that growing food will become enormously difficult, so the "market price" of sustenence will be too high to feed anyone. basically, to get through such a catastrophe, the government will have to assume control of nearly everything. In fact, A fascist soviet-style state would be a real danger around this time, but I doubt it would last even if it came to pass as it would all come about rather quickly and the same generation that saw civilisation re-stablise would have grown up with democracy.

[ 15 April 2004: Message edited by: Jacob Two-Two ]

Doc: While the U.S. does use more oil per capita than Europe, that doesn't mean that the Americans are not working (and making progress) towards weaning their economy away from foreign oil.

Edit: Here's one example of what I'm referring to. Yes, a 48-mile-per-Imperial-gallon SUV, coming soon to a Ford dealership near you.

[ 15 April 2004: Message edited by: R. J. Dunnill ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by R. J. Dunnill:
For those who didn't know, North America has ample oil reserves.

---

quote:

---

That's not the point. Cheap oil is the problem. Most of the cheap and easy oil has been pumped already. It will be increasingly expensive to get the rest.

---

quote:

---

A little about myself: last August, I was a 25 year-old law school graduate who had just taken the California Bar Exam.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by R. J. Dunnill:
To all of you who are despondent about the predictions made by this site, did you notice this: . . . Just how does a "25-year-old law school graduate who had just taken the California Bar Exam" become a credible energy prophet?
RD

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by CMOT Dibbler:
Can you get a solar powered flashlight

---

quote:

---

People with less severe disabilities will adapt. People who require massive amounts of materials and energy to maintain their loose grip on life will die. Sounds harsh, but that is the way it has been throughout the vast majority of our history, and may well be again.

---

quote:

---

"I think basically that peaking of oil will never be accurately predicted until after the fact. But the event will occur, and my analysis is... that peaking is at hand, not years away.

"If I'm right, the unforeseen consequences are devastating... If the world's oil supply does peak, the world's issues start to look very different.

"There really aren't any good energy solutions for bridges, to buy some time, from oil and gas to the alternatives. The only alternative right now is to shrink our economies."

---

quote:

---

If BBC is paying attention, how about other mass media?

---

Please, tell me another one.

Like:
ABC news

CNN

The Globe and Mail

Detroit News

Oil and Gas Journal

New York Post

Damned liberal media! Always wanting to see an end to materialism and consumerism.

BTW, the Globe and Mail article was written by the chief economist and strategist from that other leftist pinko communist organization, CIBC World Markets.

quote:

---

Well, why don't we look at some other "left-leaning organizations that would like to see an end to materialism and consumerism"?

---

Gloom and doom is about the cheapest (and oldest) commodity there is.

Doc: To paraphrase Socrates, is this some new kind of reasoning you've developed, laughter? Oh, but if a classical philosopher was complaining about a particular form of non-rational rhetorical persuasion millenia ago, then it can't be new.

quote:

---

Originally posted by ReeferMadness:
Well, why don't we look at some other "left-leaning organizations that would like to see an end to materialism and consumerism"? . . .

---

quote:

---

And look at the difference in the slant of the BBC article and the others. Note that the latter don't raise the spectre of an end to industrial civilization.

---

You're right: the ABC article instead raises the spectre of the end of life on planet earth:

quote:

---

"Worst case: After Hubbert's peak, all efforts to produce, distribute, and consume alternative fuels fast enough to fill the gap between falling supplies and rising demand fail. Runaway inflation and worldwide depression leave many billions of people with no alternative but to burn coal in vast quantities for warmth, cooking, and primitive industry. The change in the greenhouse effect that results eventually tips Earth's climate into a new state hostile to life. End of story.

---

quote:

---

If oil starts declining, what's going to happen to the Canadian broadcasting Corp.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by oldgoat:

Endless reruns of our pet Juliette.

---

Juliette (no last name) was a singer who was huge on Canadian TV way back when. Had a variety show on CBC for ages. She came to be nicknamed "our pet Juliette"

You missed a lot of good stuff by being born as late as you were, but Juliette is not one of them.

First of all, even in the worst case, the oil isn't going to disappear overnight. CBC reporters and military people aren't going to find themselves stranded somewhere with no way home. Oil isn't going to run out anytime soon. The suspicion is that the amount of it we can produce in a year will peak.

If this occurs, over a period of several years there will be a number of hikes in the price of oil that will make things (especially travel and food) increasingly expensive. As always, poorer countries will be especially hard hit.

quote:

---

I'm sure you can but what are you going to replace the grid with? Dibbler, I get the impression you are taking this whole thing a bit too seriously.

---

In my view, some of the claims made by Colin Campbell are over the top. They remind me of some of the ridiculous claims that were made about Y2K.

Nonetheless, these types of warnings are useful if they make people take notice. Y2K
would have caused a lot of economic problems if it were not for the effort that went into fixing them. The problem was that there was a whole cottage industry built around predicting doom and gloom.

You need to look at these issues dispassionately and decide what really makes sense. AFAIK, there is a finite supply of petroleum and and the production does gradually decline over the life of the field. Also, I think most of the most promising geological zones in the world have been explored. It also makes sense that the largest fields will be found first (adding weight to the belief that all of the truly huge finds have already been discovered). So, I think the basic science is sound. Whether this will happen in 2010 is one of those things that nobody knows for sure.

[ 19 April 2004: Message edited by: Cougyr ]

The problem occurs when daily demand for oil equals supply.

At that point any country wishing to increase it's economy must take the oil from someone who is already using it. It doesn't take a lot of imagination to see the results of that.

Current production is about 80 million barrels a day. The US uses roughly 26% of that.

If China used oil at the same rate (per capita) as the US, they would need 60-70 million barrels a day.

Now subtract (60+21)= 81 from current supply (80).

Oh, oh...looks like only China and the US are going to have oil.

Of course if we increase daily supply and curtail increases in standard of living in China we got a while before it gets hairy.

Problem is, increasing supply is not that easy anymore. As the head of Encana said in a radio interview, "...all the big easy stuff is gone."

It is also true that most players in oil have found it in their interest to overestimate reserves. The Shell Oil executive suite was recently cleaned out by the discovery they had overestimated their reserves by 20%.

Back in the '80's OPEC decided to award quotas for their members based on reserves. Overnight reserves were arbitrarily doubled and in some cases tripled as the OPEC countries jockeyed for position.

The industrial nations of Europe, having little oil of their own have always found it in their interest to overestimate supply. This had the effect of keeping prices down. In effect, a subsidy for their manufacturing sectors.

This US is slightly different in that there were huge reserves of oil in continental US. According to some, the US was the largest depository of oil in the world after the Middle East.

However, they have used so much of their own supply, and their consumption is so high (approx. 7 times per capita usage compared to world average) that they are now importing roughly 40% of total supplies.

Since they started being a net oil importer in the '70's, it has also been in their interest to overestimate supply.

The oil companies themselves may have an interest in a higher per barrel price, but that is outweighed by the boost to share price based on puffed up reserves.

So no one in the biz really has any incentive to come clean about how much is left.

quote:

---

Originally posted by fuslim:
"It is not as if we will be going about our daily business and BANG, all the oil is gone, our civilization dies."

The problem occurs when daily demand for oil equals supply.

At that point any country wishing to increase it's economy must take the oil from someone who is already using it. It doesn't take a lot of imagination to see the results of that.

Current production is about 80 million barrels a day. The US uses roughly 26% of that.

If China used oil at the same rate (per capita) as the US, they would need 60-70 million barrels a day.

Now subtract (60+21)= 81 from current supply (80).

Oh, oh...looks like only China and the US are going to have oil.

Of course if we increase daily supply and curtail increases in standard of living in China we got a while before it gets hairy.

Problem is, increasing supply is not that easy anymore. As the head of Encana said in a radio interview, "...all the big easy stuff is gone."

It is also true that most players in oil have found it in their interest to overestimate reserves. The Shell Oil executive suite was recently cleaned out by the discovery they had overestimated their reserves by 20%.

Back in the '80's OPEC decided to award quotas for their members based on reserves. Overnight reserves were arbitrarily doubled and in some cases tripled as the OPEC countries jockeyed for position.

The industrial nations of Europe, having little oil of their own have always found it in their interest to overestimate supply. This had the effect of keeping prices down. In effect, a subsidy for their manufacturing sectors.

This US is slightly different in that there were huge reserves of oil in continental US. According to some, the US was the largest depository of oil in the world after the Middle East.

However, they have used so much of their own supply, and their consumption is so high (approx. 7 times per capita usage compared to world average) that they are now importing roughly 40% of total supplies.

Since they started being a net oil importer in the '70's, it has also been in their interest to overestimate supply.

The oil companies themselves may have an interest in a higher per barrel price, but that is outweighed by the boost to share price based on puffed up reserves.

So no one in the biz really has any incentive to come clean about how much is left.

What that means is by the time we find out, it'll be too late to prepare.

---

So, you're saying that the oil will disappear overnight? That we will just waike up one morning and find that Western civilization has crumbled into dust? Jesus. I had just stopped worrying to.

quote:

---

Originally posted by redshift:
market economics. supply and demand.why would you think that alternative energy would come down in price as demand for it increases?
those who have are gonna put more armor on their Hummers so they can cruise safely past the donkey carts of the middle class, hurrying home to their warrens and hovels.keep kidding yourselves, that's what the media is for.
lower those expectations,nobody with the power to improve the future for you is remotely interested in doing anything for you, except managing the threat you pose.

---

quote:

---

nothing easy.
educate and motivate, organize and mobilize. the only way to build the future is to take responsibility for informing its direction. to that end, recognize that consumer capitalism is immoral,and corporate fascism tells our children and ourselves lies that feed apathetic immobilizing fear.

---

Well, I'm feeling pretty imobilized right now and this thing hasn't even reached the mainstream media. I would venture to state that you feel as immobilized as I do, which is why you the gave me a nihilistic generalization instead of concrete solutions. I have been to Cranbrook. It's an over urbanized shrine to everything capitalistic. Sell your house. Move somewhere Pastoral. I would be glad to have you as a neighbor.

[ 23 April 2004: Message edited by: CMOT Dibbler ]

I assume you mean relatively cheaper...

There really isn't any alternative energy sources. Solar power works but not for lubrication, nuclear energy works but has enormous costs (look at recent rebuild of Bruce nuclear plants in Ontario) and again doesn't provide lubrication.

Jets need oil to get in the air. No other source of energy has the BTU's per cubic inch required. Remember that natural gas has about 1 thousand BTU's per cubic foot, while oil has about 1 million per cubic foot.

The only answer is to cut back on the amount of oil used, and this is impossible in a capitalist economy.

Hydrogen is not an energy source, only a carrier. I read an interview with Ballard from Ballard fuel cells, and he said that for the foreseeable future the hydrogen for fuel cells will come from natural gas. No gain there...in fact a loss in that the input energy cost of making hydrogen will be lost.

Alberta has the wonderful tar sands (that's what they were called until someone thought of the politically correct term 'oil sands').

But the input energy costs are very high compared to other sources. In fact there has been a continuing battle in Alberta between gas producers and tar sands producers over underground pressure.

Seems the tar sands producers were pumping steam into the tar to loosen it up and create enough pressure to get it to the surface while the gas producers were relieving the pressure by drawing off gas from over top the tar fields.

So the Alberta Utilities Board commanded the shutdown of about 900 gas wells. This is not a huge amount overall, only about two percent of production, but still a fair bit.

At the same time, Alberta will partially compensate those producers for lost production, in effect, paying them not to produce natural gas.

Well why not? They pay farmers not to plant...

I see I've written a long post so I'll cut it off here, with one last thought.

You asked about what is to be done?

I think it is necessary now for the goverment to do an assessment of what is left. It is impossible to believe reserve figures given by private enterprise for the simple reason that there is no incentive for them to provide an accurate accounting.

quote:

---

Jets need oil to get in the air. No other source of energy has the BTU's per cubic inch required. Remember that natural gas has about 1 thousand BTU's per cubic foot, while oil has about 1 million per cubic foot.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by fuslim:
I think it is necessary now for the goverment to do an assessment of what is left. It is impossible to believe reserve figures given by private enterprise for the simple reason that there is no incentive for them to provide an accurate accounting.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by redshift:
market economics. supply and demand.why would you think that alternative energy would come down in price as demand for it increases?

---

1k btu in it's natural state. Or roughly one thousandth of the energy of oil. It's doubtful whether there is any fuel besides oil that will work for aircraft, unless of course one goes to hydrogen (extremely expensive) or helium. Natural gas is not concentrated enough to make it.

'Course a helium balloon is gonna take a while to get from Vancouver to Paris.

quote:

---

Originally posted by fuslim:
Currently, about 10% of the US fuel supply is going into aircraft.

---

quote:

---

As conventional energy sources get more expensive and other sources become competitive in more niches, more will be produced and prices will start to come down, which will lead to more demand--virtuous cycle.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ReeferMadness:

This viruous cycle stuff only lasts so long - until you run out of something. If you look at sun-powered alternate energy (solar, wind, hydroelectric, biomass), it is only feasible to capture so many percent of the energy that hits the earth.

---

[Pie in the sky dreaming mode on]
The suns spews out a lot of energy that doesn't hit the earth as well. It is conceivable that solar panels could be located out in space with laser or radio transmission of power back to earth. Then we wouldn't have to be living under the shadow of the solar panels. Of course, the easiest place to put these panels would be in geosynchronous orbit around the earth which means we'd still be in their shadow. No more worrying about how many days of sunshine you get, though.

More info...

quote:

---

Recent studies indicate that collection and transmission of power from space could become an economically viable means of exploiting solar energy within the next one to two decades (Mankins, 1998). A substantial maturation of certain technologies is needed and, most importantly, the cost of launching material to space must be significantly reduced. Very active efforts are being pursued in the aerospace community to meet both of these conditions.

---

quote:

---

The effects of transmission of power to the ground needs to be assessed with regard to at least three factors:

(1) Influences on the atmosphere itself, particularly the ionosphere on the way down. A rocket-borne experiment (Akiba, 1993) indicates that interactions between transmitted power and the atmosphere are slight and should cause no damage to the earth's ionosphere.

(2) Interference effects between the wireless power transmission and communications or electronics equipment. This requires further study, but a considered engineering view (Glaser, 1993) is that such effects will be negligible.

(3) The effects of the transmitted beam on life forms. Most of the work to date has been based on transmission at microwave frequencies (2.45 GHz has been the most studied),

---

Translation: This crap is all still pie-in-the-sky - much the same as fusion or anti-matter.

quote:

---

The real question is what the price of oil has to be before these schemes become economically feasible ($100/barrel, $200/barrel, $300/barrel?)

---

And how long will it take to develop these new forms of energy, even after the price of oil gets that high?

quote:

---

I have 5 acres. I can grow potatoes.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rufus Polson:

Actually, I think that. You have hold of the wrong piece of economics. The supply of alternative energy generation is elastic, because what we're really talking about is manufactured widgets (wind turbines, solar panels etc.). If there's just one thing this capitalist economy is good at, it would be cheaply manufacturing widgets for which there is much demand. Economies of scale get applied, technologies are improved, prices come down. As conventional energy sources get more expensive and other sources become competitive in more niches, more will be produced and prices will start to come down, which will lead to more demand--virtuous cycle.

---

quote:

---

The oil companies themselves may have an interest in a higher per barrel price, but that is outweighed by the boost to share price based on puffed up reserves.

---

I didn't mean that companies wouldn't accept more for their product.

Just that in terms of reserves the companies have a greater incentive to over-estimate reserves than underestimate them.

Over all it would seem that underestimating reserves would push prices up, thus the oil companies would make more money.

Overestimating reserves may slightly depress prices, but the indivudual company involved gets a higher stock valutation.

That appears to be the reason Shell overestimated their reserves by 20%.

I just suggested that it was worth more in stock valuation to overestimate reserves than it is in income to underestimate them.

The point is that we can't trust the estimated reserves because reserve figures work better for everyone when they are higher rather than lower.

quote:

---

Originally posted by ReeferMadness:
Dibbler, I looked at the site you referenced and was unable to locate the page that said that alternative energy was dependent on oil. Technologies that rely on plastics or petrochemicals would certainly rely on oil but there are often substitutes. There is a way of producing hydrogen from petroleum but that's not the only way.

---

[ 25 April 2004: Message edited by: robbie_dee ]