'Out of Gas': They're Not Making More

[Desperadoe]

If all you knew about David Goodstein was the title of his book, you might imagine him to be one of those insufferably enthusiastic prophets of doom, the flannel-shirted, off-the-grid types who take too much pleasure in letting us know that the environment is crumbling all around us. But Goodstein, a physicist, vice provost of the California Institute of Technology and an advocate of nuclear power, is no muddled idealist. And his argument is based on the immutable laws of physics.

The age of oil is ending, he says. The supply will soon begin to decline, precipitating a global crisis. Even if we substitute coal and natural gas for some of the oil, we will start to run out of fossil fuels by the end of the century. ''And by the time we have burned up all that fuel,'' he writes, ''we may well have rendered the planet unfit for human life. Even if human life does go on, civilization as we know it will not survive.''

He's talking about 100 years from now, far enough in the future, you might say, that we needn't worry for generations. Surely some technological fix will be in place by then, some new source of energy, some breakthrough. But with a little luck, many readers of these pages will live until 2030 or 2040, or longer. Their children may live until 2070 or 2080, and their grandchildren will easily survive into the 22nd century. We're talking about a time in the lives of our grandchildren, not some warp drive, Star Trek future.

And what about that technological fix? ''There is no single magic bullet that will solve all our energy problems,'' Goodstein writes. ''Most likely, progress will lie in incremental advances on many simultaneous fronts.'' We might finally learn to harness nuclear fusion, the energy that powers the sun, or to develop better nuclear reactors, or to improve the efficiency of the power grid. But those advances will require a ''massive, focused commitment to scientific and technological research. That is a commitment we have not yet made.'' Drilling in the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge, and scouring the energy resources of national lands across the West might help the constituents of Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska and Vice President Dick Cheney's friends in the energy industry, but it won't solve the problem. <snip>

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/08/books/review/08RAEBURT.html

[Broadslidin]

1. Thank You for the Reference Link, Eddie.

[mhr]

2. He Is An Optimist, Most Say We Are Effectively Out of Oil by 2050 Or So

We have probably already reached the peak of production which means the world has consumed half the oil endowment.

Going forward we will see supply shortages, price increases, and more war to capture the remaining supply.

You can learn more about peak oil from the links below.

Websites of interest include:

http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/Home.html
http://globalpublicmedia.com/
http://www.oilcrash.com/
http://www.wolfatthedoor.org.uk/
http://www.asponews.org
http://www.gulland.ca/depletion/depletion.htm
http://www.dieoff.org/
http://www.oilanalytics.org/
http://www.greatchange.org/
http://www.oilcrisis.com/
http://www.after-oil.co.uk/
http://www.hubbertpeak.com/
http://hubbert.mines.edu
http://www.museletter.com/archive/cia-oil.html

Energy Resources
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/energyresources/

Alas Babylon
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AlasBabylon/

Running on Empty
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/RunningOnEmpty2/

[kalian]

3. Correct, that author is an "optimist" at best....

We'll be entering the first phase of the oil depletion shortly and
its impact on the world economy will be profound.
BTW, by "first phase" I mean uncontrolled price increases...

[nannah]

5. I'd say "spokesperson for the neocon nuclear power enthusiasts,

not "optimist". Misdirection in this article includes: time frame for problem (it's beginning now, not sometime into our grandchildren's future), stressing nuclear power as alternative (first choice of existing energy purveyors), identifying coal as alternative ( highly destructive to the environment). Ironically, the end of cheap, easily available fossil fuels carries a possible reprieve on the environment.

Focusing on non polluting alternatives and conservation as our primary strategies for facing the change in availability of cheap fossil fuels offers hope for mitigating global warming. a win win solution for all. in my america, win win solutions make sense. grab the brilliance of the world's thinking and light our way to cooperative problem solving. can it happen?

[NickB79]

15. Nuclear is the only choice we have left

Like it or not, nuclear is the lesser of two evils. That or coal are the only two power sources left on this planet that could replace oil at the moment. I say nuclear is the lesser of the two evils because coal produces more toxic waste per day in this country than nuclear does in an entire year, and the nuclear waste is far more easily contained than the soot, CO2 and waste ash from coal-fired plants. Wind, solar and biomass are all excellent ways to reduce our dependancy on fossil fuels or nuclear, but to put all your hope in them as replacements to oil is sadly overly optimistic. Even if our demand for energy doesn't increase in the future (it more than likely will increase), without massive technological advancements in solar cells and wind farms, they will be unable to supply us with the required energy. This subject has been discussed thoroughly on the Environment Board, and there are numerous threads there to browse through. Honestly, I don't like the idea of nuclear power plants near my home, or anyone else's. My college physics professor told us years ago that by the time we were his age we'd be relying on nuclear for more than 50% of our energy needs, and I scoffed at the idea. But, after reading up on the subject of Peak Oil and life after we no longer have cheap oil-based fuels, there doesn't appear to be any alternative. I only pray they perfect fusion reactors, but they've been saying they're 20 yrs away from a working fusion reactor for the past 40 yrs now.

[cprise]

19. It's Calvinist energy policy

Do as I say, not as I do!

That won't prevent nuclear proliferation.

Only the renewable sort of energy will help prevent that.


We could have powered 1/2 our curernt electric demand with wind turbines if we used the Iraq invasion money for that instead.

[el_gato]

25. you can't run a tractor or a Semi on nukes

nukes won't solve the problem

[NickB79]

28. Actually, yes you can. Read on the Environment/Energy/Science board

Electricity generated by nuclear plants can be used to operate chemical plants capable of fixing CO2 into short-chain carbon polymers. Ammonia, methane, ethane, ethanol, methanol, etc can be generated in large amounts. All are very usable as a liquid fuel source. Or, if need be, use nuclear power to generate hydrogen to power fuel cells. This would be a last-ditch option, though, as fuel cells require more energy to create and run than engines fueled by synthetic fuels. Of course there won't be enough to maintain the gas-guzzling way of life we're so fond of now, but enough could be produced to maintain the most vital sectors of our transportation infrastructure.

[megatherium]

17. Article isn't exactly pro-nuke

Actually, the article says: "Even nuclear power is only a short-term solution. Uranium, too, has a Hubbert's peak, and the current known reserves can supply the earth's energy needs for only 25 years at best. There are other nuclear fuels, and solar and wind power might help at the fringes."

Several years ago, out of curiosity, I read around on the web to find out what happened to cold fusion. Pretty much dead, there's still a dwindling supply of enthusiasts, but of course no proof. So I wondered what about hot fusion. Well, it's still at least four decades away. But some of the hot fusion researchers were saying, hey if you want to solve our energy problems right now, fission will work. So I read web pages of nuclear physicists, nuclear engineering professors and the like. Very interesting stuff. They've thought through all the issues -- waste, proliferation, safety, cost. (Also, it can last indefinitely if fuel is reprocessed.)

If it's a choice between a revival of nuclear, and coal, I'll choose nuclear. Likewise, I'll choose nuclear over war. (Petroleum demand is increasing by 4%/yr in Asia.)

Although I must confess, perhaps I'm not so allergic to nuclear energy because where I went to college, they have a real working nuclear reactor, and I just love that pretty faded blue jean Cherenkov radiation glow at the bottom of the reactor pool. (I'm a mathematician, but I took 30 credit hours of physics there.)

[GreenGreenLimaBean]

4. The first of the Oil wars has already happened

This is scary shit. The bush* people know the reality of the
situation, so why didn't they hit Saudi Arabia first?

[TennesseeWalker]

10. Iraq was hobbled by sanctions. Easy target.

The Saudi Kingdom is relatively strong, and the population is not as bad off and demoralized as the Iraqis. We're setting up bases in Iraq from which to attack the Saudis, who conveniently set themselves up for American military action with the "19 Hijackers" on 9/11.

Welcome to Peak Oil. More of this to come, no matter who the President is, I'm afraid. We're way too dependent on "Texas Tea". We should have been weaning ourselves off this stuff 40 years ago. Major changes have to happen in order for us to continue on in a relatively comfortable lifestyle, and I haven't seen a politician with a spine yet, except maybe Kucinich, and to a lesser degree, Dean. Unfortunately, the American People don't want to hear the truth.

[Don_G]

20. Probably The Third Or Fourth

Remember Montgomery defeating the Nazis in Africa, Gulf War I and Hussain's Iron Rule?

Why is that area of the world in a constant "Police" State?

[Spider Jerusalem]

23. More like fifth or sixth...

don't forget the German drive into Russia in '41-'43, with a main target of the advance being capture of the oil fields around Ploesti and Baku.

[icymist]

27. And the Japanese grab

for Indochina and who, BTW, attacked the US preemptively.

[teryang]

6. Oil wars also occur to keep oil off the market

...despite what the politicians and visionaries say.

[llmart]

7. And they laughed at

all us environmentalists/conservationists who have been saying for years that the next wars would be over resources. Wish I could take some satisfaction in being right, but there are thousands dead in Iraq and thousands wounded and dead in the US because of this administration's connection to big oil, and I take no satisfaction in that.

[TennesseeWalker]

11. Almost all wars are over resources.

After oil is over and done with, look for drinking water to be the next issue.

[icymist]

8. Imagine if the money spent on this war in Iraq, alone

were spent on developing alternative fuel sources? Well, wasn't it big oil interests that pointed out that solar energy wasn't a viable means of fuel until someone could figure out a way to put a meter on the sun?

[llmart]

9. Or what about

using the money to make more fuel efficient vehicles???

[scottxyz]

12. The Oil Wars have ALREADY begun

Afghanistan and Iraq.

Afghanistan was really about Unocal's desire to build a pipeline and the Taliban's refusal to let them.

Bush Sr was negotiating with the Taliban way back. The Bush dynasty broke with Afghanistan before 9/11, when they told them "We can carpet you with gold - or carpet you with bombs."

The Iraq War started because they have 11% of the oil reserves, they were starting to price them in Euros, and the Bush dynasty wanted to control that area.

The "Bush II" article at http://www.copvcia.com/

http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/013004_in_your_face.html

has the best analysis of the Bush dynasty long-term geopolitical strategy in the Middle East.

60% of the world's recoverable oil is in a “golden” triangle running from Mosul in northern Iraq, to the Straits of Hormuz, to an oil field in Saudi Arabia 75 miles in from the coast, just west of Qatar, then back up to Mosul. Sixty per cent of all the recoverable oil on the planet is an in area no larger than the state of Indiana .

Is it surprising then that the overwhelming majority of US military deployment since 9/11 is in this region? How easy would it be for the US military, already surrounding it, to occupy this area in the event that the Saudi monarchy became unstable?

[Wells]

29. An "Under-reported Story"

"We can carpet you with gold - or carpet you with bombs."

We should not forget this threatening statement made by the Fueror's henchmen in the Summer of 2001 to Afghanistani Taliban. Was it an intentional stirring of the hornet's nest? Obviously. Should DUHbya's cronies be lightly excused? Hell no!

An Oil War is not just a war for the resource. The resource is a means to control a market, and more to the point, establish a heirarchic control. It doesn't matter what fuel is used to power a car-dependent society, or one that is globalized with a colonial economic structure, dependent upon long-distance transport.

Suburbia is a Human Farm.

[truthisfreedom]

13. ineresting stuff. kinda bleak, huh?

no wonder it has all seemed so depressing. desperate men, struggling to build powerful empires using the last drops of oil to do it... knowing full well that once it's gone, the world economy will be shattered.

[damnyankee2601]

22. Not so bleak.

There are plenty of technological fixes in place right now: nano-superconductors, hydrogen fuel cells, wind farms, solar, etc. Its just that the oligarchy has no economic interest in seeing them implemented. When oil gets too expensive, their interests will change. The oil biz is already preparing for the shift. (I work in it.) We fully expect to be in the CO2 injection business in 20 years, and out of the hydrocarbon extraction business by 2060.

[NickB79]

14. I'll probably survive to 2060-2070

If all four of my 90+ yr old greatgrandparents were any indication of my family longevity. It's gonna be one hell of a ride, thats for sure.

The problem isn't when we run out of oil, its when oil becomes too expensive to drill anymore (often referred to as Peak Oil). We'll probably never run completely out of oil, but when the oil deposits are reduced to such low pressures that it would cost too much per barrel to extract, we can kiss cheap gasoline and plastics goodbye. Similarly, oil shale can be processed, coal liquified and plant-based polymers synthesized, but those too are expensive. The loss of cheap oil in our society will become progressively worse over a few decades time. First gasoline prices will skyrocket, severely harming most world economies by reducing workers abilities to commute. Similarly, lack of jet fuel will wipe out major airlines. Fuel oil for heating will go up in price next, followed by anything made out of plastic. I suspect the last oil resources we have will be reserved for only those most vital aspects of society, such as medicines, plastics used in hospitals to maintain sterile conditions, and possibly fertilizers and pesticides for crops. The crop situation will probably be alleviated by use of GM crops, but we're still looking at a major shift in the way we live our lives. Or, if Bush et al have their way, we might see the last oil reserves saved for, ugh, military use. Gotta keep those bombers fueled up and ready to kill, kill, kill.

[fishnfla]

16. Is there oil on Mars?

Wind power huh? And with vast areas of the heartland praries becoming depopulated. Tornado alleys may save us yet....

[Mackay]

24. no, but there is lunar Helium 3

that is why we are going there

[Ediacara]

18. Not to be contrarian....

But oil companies DO know that oil is running out, and they are very much forecasting a 2050-2060 peak oil timeframe. Oil companies, like all companies WOULD LIKE TO REMAIN FINANCIALLY SOLVENT, so don't expect oil companies to continue pushing for current levels of consumption because that's simply not in their best interest.

Unfortunately, that also means that it looks like fuel cells and fusion technologies will be produced and sold by oil companies. That'll happen because they have the money to do the R&D, and what better way to integrate into the energy industry than being in the energy industry already?

Oil will continue to be drilled for for 200-300 years, but after the 2050s, it'll all go into plastics. Large scale landfill mining of plastic products may also start to take place in the 2050s, as we have a very finite amount of plastic products, and I doubt plastics will be replaced by another do-all material in the next 46 years, so we'll need to get ahold of as much plastic as possible.

[Just Me]

21. This gives even greater credence to the assertion that,...

,...the neocon cabal are using American resources (in blood and money) to advance their own self interests rather than fulfilling their constitutional and ethical obligations to the American people. The whole lot of them should be impeached on that basis alone. It's not like there is no proof that they are personally benefitting from their ideological policies, both foreign and domestic. The ties are at least strong circumstantial evidence of wrongdoing.

[rustydad]

26. Complications

While the author is right that the peak of oil production is coming his timing may be faulty. World oil production has been essentially flat for several years. On the other hand demand, especially from the emerging giants of the East-India and China, has been growing exponentially. Many informed people believe that peak oil may be here.

The more important issue is what does 'peak oil' mean to our lives and our children's lives. At present oil (and natural gas) are critical to our economy. Oil powers our cars, trucks, trains, airplanes, ships, you name it. There is no other liquid fuel on the planet that can compete with oil products in terms of energy per unit, ease of extraction, storage and transport.

As oil production declines vs demand the market will shift to a sellers market. In the history of petroleum this will be a first. The implications could be overwhelming to the USA. As in any scarcity of an essential commodity prices will be determined by the market and by speculation on what the future market will be. Many see prices of crude above $100 a barrel. At the pump prices may reach $5 a gallon and higher. As every aspect of our economy relies on cheap fuels there will be a feedback effect. Two things are likely to occur. A sharp rise in prices, especially food. Second will be a likely resurgence of inflation as the economy tries to painlessly absorb the new drain on the dollar.

The best outcome may be a decline in our standard of living but gradual enough to allow for adjustments like fuel efficient cars, trains, etc. I personally don't think there is enough time left for a 'soft landing'. I fear that when it becomes obvious that there is no longer enough to go around we will find reasons to use our only trump card, the military solution. We can 'take' the oil if we choose to. We have the military power. The question is will the rest of the world stand back and let that happen? I hardly think so. Hang on for the wild ride is around the corner. Bob in California