Life on the downslope of the petroleum supply curve

[Filius Nullius]

Most Americans believe that we will not run out of oil and gasoline for many decades, and that is true. However, some experts now believe that we may be at or approaching the point of peak petroleum production. Once that happens, we will be on the backside or downslope of the petroleum supply curve.

The immediate problem isn't with the complete depletion of world petroleum stocks. It is with crossing the point of peak production so that production begins to decline and demand becomes permanently greater than the available supply. From that point on, demand, rather than supply, will control prices of oil and gasoline. Never again will producers be able to control prices artificially by reducing or increasing production because there will no longer be any spare capacity. Demand will take over as the sole determinant of prices worldwide, and we will truly be in a dog-eat-dog fight for resources with the rest of the world.

We also must deal with the problem of energy in the ground that requires more energy to produce than it yields. When we reach that point, it makes no sense to do anything but leave it in the ground.

We have been living in a fools' paradise of artificially low gasoline prices for several decades now. If we don't get serious about developing renewable sources of energy right away, oil and gas prices could very well spiral out of control...permanently. Once that happens, energy prices may be too high for us to afford to develop the necessary technology and infrastructure for new sources of renewable energy. At that point, our profligate suburban lifestyles, in which almost nothing is produced at home and practically everything is shipped to us from thousands of miles away, may collapse. That would cause us to very quickly encounter formerly unimaginable hardships that we lack the ability to do anything about.

Lead time is needed to solve these problems. If we don't get busy, we may lack the resources later to start intensive development of alternative, renewable sources of energy.

Those who have doubts about the validity of this problem (it is not a matter of if, but when the peak will be reached, and many are beginning to think it will be sooner than later), may want to have a look at the following web site: <http://www.peakoil.net/>. In particular, please read the following excerpt from the transcript of hearings held in the House of Representatives on 3-14-05 regarding the impending peak oil crisis: <http://www.peakoil.net/HouseOfRepresentatives.html>. The intro to the transcript contains the following passage:

"On Monday March 14th there was a one hour long presentation of Peak Oil in the US House of Representatives. It was the House member from Maryland, Congressman Roscoe Bartlett, which gave the presentation and the full proceeding of the presentation is available below. The peak predictions by King Hubbert and Colin Campbell was discussed and Mr Bartlett said as conclusion:

"'We really had about 30 years warning that this was going to happen. When M. King Hubbert predicted oil would peak in this country in 1970 and it did, and 5 years later, certainly by 10 years later we knew absolutely he was right, because we were well down on the curve 10 years later, we should have had some hint that he probably was right, he and Colin Campbell were probably right about world production? We paid no attention to that.'"

See also <http://www.energybulletin.net/4733.html>.

The current administration seems intent on helping their political supporters make the maximimum profits on the available supply of fossil fuels for as long as it is possible to do so. The media does not seem to have caught on to the seriousness of the looming crisis.

[A HERETIC I AM]

1. War.

World War 3 will be over this issue, no doubt. It trumps religion by a factor of thousands as a cause of international conflict. The Chinese need it. We all need it for now. After all, thats why we're in Iraq in the 1st place, to control the 2nd largest known reserves in the world and be able to profit from bringing it to market. And who is the market? The Chinese and the Indians. If either of those two countries decide they dont want to have to pay the price being charged or if they encounter embargo or other difficulty in getting what they need.....well....Pearl Harbor all over again.

But much worse.

[DELUSIONAL]

2. War over OIL or WATER --- it could be a toss up.

One theory is that the Israeli/Palestinian conflict is really about who controls the water. Each Jewish settlement is located on or near a major well head. Water has always been a scarce commodity.

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Coastie for Truth]

4. Go for alternative, renewable, green energy stocks

1. Biggest "actual" hardware and infrastructure in renewable and alternative energy - pilot plants, plants for pv, ethanol (from biomass), hydrogen infrastructure, coal->oil, etc.

2. Biggest "green, equity" infrastructure in renewable and alternative energy - stock holdings in startups, subsidiaries, affiliates, etc. in pv, ethanol (from biomass), hydrogen infrastructure, coal->oil, etc.

3. Biggest "intellectual property" infrastructure in renewable and alternative energy - patents on pv, ethanol (from biomass), hydrogen infrastructure, coal->oil, etc.

4. Biggest "grayware" infrastructure in renewable and alternative energy - academicians under contract, PhD's with the right dissertations and publications, and reputations among peers, etc. in the pv, ethanol (from biomass), hydrogen infrastructure, coal->oil, etc. arenas

5. The toughest to find - to winnow out all of those that meet 1-4, above, an aggressive, forward thinking management team that will bet the company to make a major commitment to pv, ethanol (from biomass), hydrogen infrastructure, coal->oil, etc. businesses. This is the hard one!

Part of our problem is that we look for wealth in stocks and bonds and financial transactions and creative book keeping and currency trading and short term (or long term) swings in the commodities markets -- instead of products.

----Don't pay any attention to me -- I'm just an engineer.

[Dogmudgeon]

7. About ethanol

I thought that, as an energy source, it was a big loser. Is the real story any different?

--p!

[Coastie for Truth]

8. Depends

If you think like an oil company engineer - i.e., "minimum residence time in expensive (high pressure and high temperature autoclaves) process equipment" - it is a loser.

If you think like a bootlegger, vintner, brewmaster (rely on the sacchromyces cerivisae yeast at "room temperature and pressure" and "let nature take it's course" - cheaper -- but uses up lots of real estate for the "vats."

The energy "cost" is in the high pressures and high temperatures to push it through industrially like a petroleum refinery.

I went to engineering school where the rural areas and coal mining valleys were "Appalachia" and the urban valleys were "Rust Belt" - so I did my share my home brewing, home vintnering, and bootlegging.

The underlying chemistry and organic chemistry and biochemistry is the same. The "drinkable" versus "industrial" scale up is entirely different -- and that's where the difference in cost comes in.

[Dogmudgeon]

5. Not War, but Plague

Plague is greatly preferable to War, in the world view of most of our Leaders.

War destroys property and requires the exhaustive use of precious resources. But Plague kills people and leaves property safe.

With the increasing speed of viral polymorphism -- the generation of new strains against which no immunity exists -- a simple "LIHOP" scenario will suffice. A simple 80% die-off should give us at least 50 years to deal with our energy, population, and resource problems.

--p!

[brokensymmetry]

6. Critical information.

Thanks for posting this - Peak Oil is coming, and the more awareness the better.

And with Peak comes the dieoff...perhaps by plague, but probably exacerbated by famine.

[IrateCitizen]

9. There's no way out of this mess -- alternative energies won't help...

Everything that we take for granted in our daily lives is dependent upon the profligate use of fossil fuels. The reasons that we have stayed with fossil fuels and not switched over toward renewable or alternative forms of energy are primarily twofold.

First, oil gives an "energy return" of approximately 30:1. That means that for every 1 unit of energy used to extract and refine petroleum into a fuel source, it provides 30 units of energy in return. That's an extremely high energy return, and it cannot be approached by solar or wind energy, which have considerably lower energy returns (hovering around 2-3, at most). In addition, fossil fuels are a transportable and steady energy source, whereas both solar and wind are non-transportable and intermittent. Solar and wind might work well on a small-scale, local basis -- but they will never provide the backbone of the modern economy the way that fossil fuels do.

Second is the "transportable" nature of fossil fuels mentioned above. Oil is, by far, the most transportable form of energy we have. Without oil, we would not be able to have automobiles. Also, with regards to wind, solar, and even nuclear power -- all are heavily dependent upon oil in order to extract and transport raw materials, and to manufacture the systems necessary to create these forms of energy. Without access to cheap oil, there are no means to actually produce the other alternative means of energy production that would be required en masse after oil prices reached price levels that made it prohibitively expensive which would be required to maintain even a shadow of our current existence in a technological society.

Going back to the high energy return of oil, given the trends toward "market fundamentalism" in our modern society, it would take oil reaching prices of $200 per barrel or more before large-scale renewables would actually be considered economically viable. The problem at this point is that it then becomes too expensive to produce the equipment needed to switch over to large-scale renewables.

Finally, we have our agricultural system, which takes an input of 10 calories of fossil fuels (fertilizer, transport, machinery, processing, etc.) in order to produce one calorie of actual food. In the future, agriculture will become much more localized, small-scale, and labor intensive. The problem we face is that we have sacrificed some of our best farmlands to endless suburban sprawl over the past 50 years, and our cities will suffer as a result as these suburbs literally become uninhabitable due to their autocentric nature and lack of local scale commerce. Towns in rural areas will probably do best during this time, as they will have access to the agricultural lands needed along with some remnants of a local economy.

The fact is that there is no way "out" of this mess. There is simply a way "through" it, and we can start preparing now for the end of our way of life as we know it. Thinking that somehow the "American way of life" is in any way sustainable is wishful thinking at best, self-destructive at worst.

[GumboYaYa]

10. The Thermal Depolemerization plant in Carthage, MO

is currently producing oil from turkey guts at a cost of $80.00 per barrel. The process is 85-15 efficient, meaning 15 percent of the energy produced is used in the process. That translates to a 560% efficiency.

Wind power is currently producing electricity in the range of $0.03 to $0.06 per kilowatt hour. Traditional sources range from $0.02 to $0.05 per kilowatt hour. The estimate of $200.00 per barrel before alternative become economically viable is way off the mark. Soon, market forces will make alternatives competitive, but as you point out there is a massive capital investment needed to use these technologies on a large scale. Whether that investment is made depends upon whether we have real leadership in Washington. Right now we don't.

Conservation is by far the cheapest way to approach the problem. It is far cheaper to never use energy than to produce that amount from an alternatice source. As prices increase (and they will continue to do this) there will be a point where demand naturally falls.

Personally, I think peak oil will be a more gradual decline in our standard of living. We will not feel it as badly here as the third world. As oil prices increase, our desires to dominate and destroy the third world for its resources will reach a feverish pitch. Also, we will see a strong push to nuclear.

While peak oil is a giant problem, to me the scariest thing is the amount of damage we will do to the world compeing for its dwindling resources.

[IrateCitizen]

11. There are several things missing from your analysis...

The Thermal Depolemerization plant in Carthage, MO is currently producing oil from turkey guts at a cost of $80.00 per barrel. The process is 85-15 efficient, meaning 15 percent of the energy produced is used in the process. That translates to a 560% efficiency.

No, that translates to an 85% efficiency. A full 15 units of every 100 are lost in the depolymerization process. This is actually an energy LOSER, not a net producer, as you describe it. The only benefit from such a process would be transportability, but the energy required to produce depolymerized oil on any viable scale would be astronomical, if depended upon from renewable sources.

Also, how much turkey guts would be necessary in order to produce oil on the scale that would support our present-day society in any meaningful way? How do we get such massive amounts of turkey guts? The problem with the whole idea of depolymerization as a solution is that it requires on the same kind of consumer culture with massive amounts of waste as our present oil-dependent one to work. When the oil becomes prohibitively expensive, there is no longer the input required for industrialized agriculture that is needed to produce all those turkey guts.

Wind power is currently producing electricity in the range of $0.03 to $0.06 per kilowatt hour. Traditional sources range from $0.02 to $0.05 per kilowatt hour. The estimate of $200.00 per barrel before alternative become economically viable is way off the mark. Soon, market forces will make alternatives competitive, but as you point out there is a massive capital investment needed to use these technologies on a large scale. Whether that investment is made depends upon whether we have real leadership in Washington. Right now we don't.

This is just the tip of the iceberg. We also need time -- decades of it. The fact remains that in spite of how much of a fan I am of wind power (we purchase ALL our electricity from wind generation in NY State), the reality is that it does not provide anywhere near the energy needed to maintain our society as it is. All the wind generation in the state of California, for instance, produces a mere fraction of the amount produced from just a few natural gas fired plants. In fact, of all the energy produced in the US last year, something like 0.167% of it was from alternative energies. The fact is that it would take a wind turbine or solar panel on just about every square inch of available land in the United States to produce the amount of energy we currently use. Plus, as oil gets prohibitively expensive, so do the components for solar and wind technologies.

Conservation is by far the cheapest way to approach the problem. It is far cheaper to never use energy than to produce that amount from an alternatice source. As prices increase (and they will continue to do this) there will be a point where demand naturally falls.

Yes, eventually this will happen. But not in the short-term. In fact, even if you conserve as an individual, it will actually result in perpetuating the status quo. Here's a description of this phenomenon, known as Jevon's Paradox, taken from www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net:

Think of our economy as a giant petroleum powered machine that turns raw materials into consumer goods which are later turned into garbage:

If you remove the machine's internal inefficiencies, the extra energy is simply reinvested into the petroleum supply side of the machine. By removing the machine's internal inefficiencies, you have enabled it to consume petroleum and produce garbage at an even faster rate.

The only way to get the machine to consume less petroleum is for whoever owns/operates the machine to press the button that says "slow-down." However, since we are all dependent on the machine for jobs, food, affordable health care, subsidies for alternative forms of energy, etc., nobody is going to lobby the owners/operators of the machine to press the "slow-down" button until it's too late.

Eventually (sooner than later) the petroleum plug will get pulled and the machine's production will sputter before grinding to a halt. At that point, those of us dependent on the machine (which means all of us) will have to fight for whatever scraps it manages to spit out.

To be clear: conservation will benefit you as an individual. If, for instance, you save $100/month on your energy bills, you can roll that money into acquiring skills or resources that will benefit you as we slide down the petroleum-production downslope. But since your $100 savings will result in a net increase in the energy consumed by society as a whole, it will actually cause us to slide down the downslope faster.

Personally, I think peak oil will be a more gradual decline in our standard of living. We will not feel it as badly here as the third world. As oil prices increase, our desires to dominate and destroy the third world for its resources will reach a feverish pitch. Also, we will see a strong push to nuclear.

When the 1970's oil crisis hit, gas prices skyrocketed 400% from a 5% decline in supply. When the California natural gas shortage hit power plants, prices rose by 400% for a decline in supply of 5%. Given the fact that supply will decline by 3-6% annually after the peak of production is reached, what do you think will happen to prices? Will there be a gradual decline of living standards, or will it reach freefall in a short period of time?

The race to dominate and destroy the third world is already on. Iraq is the opening salvo.

As for nuclear energy, it still isn't possible with massive petroleum inputs to actually build nuclear facilities and extract uranium needed for production. It would take at least 10 years to get all the nuke plants online we would need to maintain some degree of our "way of life". What happens when oil prices go from $55 per barrel to over $200 in a much shorter time frame?

While peak oil is a giant problem, to me the scariest thing is the amount of damage we will do to the world compeing for its dwindling resources.

Yes, I agree. However, I try not to view it as a "problem" since it's pretty much unavoidable. I don't think there's a way "out" anymore -- we've made the decision, as a society, to cling to a dead-end way of life above all else. Therefore, it's best to concentrate on the way through, and what kind of societies will emerge on the other side.

[GumboYaYa]

15. You misundertsood what I wrote about efficiency.

Thermal depolymerization at the Carthage, Missouri plant is claimed to be 85-15, meaning that of the energy produced, 15% is used in the process of producing the energy. That is a net energy gain (in the form of usable oil) of 85%. This translates into an efficiency of 560% relative to production of new usable energy. Obviously no new energy is actually created, we are talking just about the change of form. Solar and wind are significantly less efficient than this. This info is based on what the plant is reporting, but they will not let us in to see the operations. I have no way of confirming any of this information.

Basically, I think we are agreeing, it's just semantics that we are disagreeing over. I remember the 1970's well. Oil prices spiked suddenly but temporarily, just as you said but they retreated as people started using less oil. Even during the days of the highest prices when interest rates were in double digits, there was not an appreciable decline in the American standard of living. While people sufferred inconveniences, they did not suddenly have to become sustenance farmers. Winn Dixie still sold frozen pizzas and sodas.

Peak oil will not result in a a sudden change of our culture. Just as you said, we will do everything possible to hold onto the suburban dream long past its viability. Just as you point out, some will conserve out of prinicple and some will conserve out of economic necessity, but in a zero-sum game, they will ust be making more energy available for others. Unlike the 70's we will be in a true global shortage of supply. It will be interesting to see what inmpact this has on conservation efforts, but I tend to be cynical about people taking the shortage seriously if it means giving up the McMansion.

At some point, alternative fuels will become competitive and some people will adopt those, but the capital investment (and as you note) scale required to replace the hydro-carbon economy will not be possible to achieve. Ultimately, we will start building nuclear power plants across the country, damn the potential disasters we are creating...full speed ahead.

The people in developing nations will suffer the most at first as we pillage their lands to fuel our consumption. Global conflicts will ensue, as they already are, for access to resources. We will destroy the environment to a point that it is not reconizable as we squeeze the last drops of oil and gas from the Earth's surface. In the end we will be our own worst enemies. I just see this as a process that plays itself out over the next century, not the next few years.

[IrateCitizen]

16. You and I see the crisis point occurring differently

IMHO, the crisis point is NOT when we actually run out of oil (which will never actually happen), but the point at which demand starts to outstrip supply -- "Peak Oil".

I believe that we are dangerously close to that happening right now. That would help explain the way in which oil prices have gone up, up, up over the past five years or so. I am also concerned about the way in which Saudi Arabia previously pledged to boost supply in order to lower prices, but was unable to do so. I'm no expert in this field, but what that signals to me is that the day of a "swing producer" is gone, and that the price of oil will now be fully subject to market demand -- a demand that has only skyrocketed as China and India have industrialized at a dizzying pace.

You seem to think that a rise in gas prices and home heating oil of 50% or more won't have that much of an effect on the economy -- that everyone will just cut back a little. I disagree, because EVERYTHING in our society -- consumer goods, food, clothing, transport to and from work, medicines, health care, etc. -- is dependent upon cheap oil. What happens when we reach the point at which it is actually more expensive for people to commute to and from their jobs than it is for them to stay home? It will result in a cascading effect, crippling our national economy and forever changing our daily lives in the process. I think that oil is too tied up in everything we do for any disruption to its steady, cheap supply to have an effect other than catastrophic.

[GumboYaYa]

18. No not really,

My thinking is not so linear. I think that when we hit peak oil (if we aren't there already) we will use our miltary might to extend the illusion that we have limitless and inexpensive fuel as long as possible, to the detriment of many developing countries and the environment. When we talk of drops of the standard of living, I don't see us going from our current economy to a pre-industrial agrarian economy within the next few years or even decades (although that is probably where we end up if we survive peak oil).

People will struggle to hold onto what we have now even in the first decades of the post-peak oil period. There is a tremendous amount of accumulated wealth in America, and those people holding the wealth will experience the first years of peak oil much differently than the have-nots of our society. We will truly hit the crisis point in terms of the destruction of our current systems and culture when even the people who hold the gold start to realize that the dream is slipping away.

IMHO, the crisis started when Ronald Reagan ripped the solar panels off the White House and everyone began making fun of Carter for pursuing conservation and alternative fuels (or maybe it was when they drilled the first well in Pennsylvania). We had the wake-up call 30 years ago and ignored it. Now we have no good choices and only options to ease some of the pain (not eliminate it). The next decades will simply be dealing with the consequences.

[Coastie for Truth]

21. They are doing some work at Univ of Illinois

(and a number of other places) on "bugs" (enzymes and bacteria) to convert biowaste to simple hydrocarbons. They report "reproducible" results -- and no "external" energy -- the bugs just metabolize the biowaste and excrete hydrocarbons.

I don't know what kind of separation process they use - but we could push the biotech solution and say that they try an osmotic or an ion exchange membrane process.

[IrateCitizen]

28. That's very interesting -- but what are the scale possibilities.

Certainly any such efforts are more than welcome, but I'm just skeptical as to the scale at which these efforts will produce oil. I mean, we currently use billions of gallons of oil per year -- we obviously won't develop any process that produces it on anything approaching that kind of a scale.

[Coastie for Truth]

30. I don't think we will ever see another epoch in human history

like the "Age of Cheap Petroleum."

As to all of these "alternative fuels" - we lived in an era where the internal combustion was optimized for a very specific fuel.

The next generation of "heat engine" (I didn't say internal combustion engine) - if there is one - may be more like a diesel, able to run on all kinds of burnable blends.

Energy will be like a hog packing house - you harvest everything but the squeal.

I am not being facetious of flip.

[IrateCitizen]

35. I actually agree with you a great deal on this part...

Energy will be like a hog packing house - you harvest everything but the squeal.

And no, I don't find your statement facetious or flip.

Our economic cycles are an ecological dead-end. We harvest raw materials and output trash. We need to change this, and soon, to a more "full-cycle" economy that takes what was used and re-uses or recycles it as raw material or an energy source. It's a simple matter of ecological sustainability.

[Filius Nullius]

12. "Density of energy"

I understand what you are saying about the energy "density" of fossil fuels and the lack of density of most other forms of energy. I took a graduate course in ecology from Eugene Odum while I was attending law school at the University of Georgia back in 1977, and that was a major theme of the course. He worked closely with his brother Howard Odum at the University of Florida, who developed a "language" of energy relationships that made it possible to create energy flow charts for ecosystems and even cities by expressing all physical processes and currency exchange in terms of the energy flows in kilocalories. Howard and Elizabeth Odum, Energy Basis for Man and Nature, New York: McGraw-Hill, 1976, 49-59. For a synopsis of the Odums' concept of the thermodynamic relationships that drive ecosystems and civilization, see <http://www.buddycom.com/ecol/Brainfood/ergmoney.html>.

What if we begin to exploit all forms of renewable energy on a more-or-less local basis, converting them on-site into electricity for the local electrical grid and hydrogen fuel from so-called "reverse fuel cells" (running on electricity from the grid) to run local automobiles? Houses and commercial structures would have to be designed or retrofitted to produce most or all of their energy (under normal circumstances) from active and/or passive solar collectors. I realize that the renewables (such as wind farms, solar towers, photovoltaic collectors and biomass farms) will take up a lot of real estate, but do we have any choice?

Of course, all of this will depend on getting U.S. and world population under control, something that none of the major religious denominations seem to comprehend or be willing to help advance.

[IrateCitizen]

13. Wind and solar will only really be good for local use...

And to be honest, I plan to go for solar or both when my wife and I get a house in the not-too-distant future (possibly only a few months from now).

But the idea of using them for electrolysis of water is an idea I've come to see as misguided, after finding out some of the facts. For instance, you would still not have nearly enough wind and solar power to do this on a large enough scale. Also, hydrogen cells are extremely dependent upon platinum, which is a relatively rare metal. In order to have any meaningful number of cars on the road with hydrogen fuel cells, we would have to accumulate most of the platinum on the earth, which would require a good amount of energy to extract (and probably some wars to attain).

As for real estate and population control, one of the most hard-hit areas when the downward slide occurs will be food production. The average piece of food in a supermarket travels over 1500 miles before reaching your table. Some 10 calories of energy go into the production of one calorie of food. That is unsustainable. We will need land for re-constituted small-scale, labor-intensive agriculture. Furthermore, food shortages and lack of medicines will cause a pretty sizable die-off, forcing the human population to come much more in balance with the world around us.

[Coastie for Truth]

20. Dependent on metals having the same solution to the Wave Equation

You posted "Also, hydrogen cells are extremely dependent upon platinum, which is a relatively rare metal. In order to have any meaningful number of cars on the road with hydrogen fuel cells, we would have to accumulate most of the platinum on the earth, which would require a good amount of energy to extract (and probably some wars to attain)."

That is only as a first approximation. Hydrogen cells are extremely dependent on metals and ceramics having the same solution to the wave equation as "defect oxides" or "sub-oxides" of platinum.

One such example is Dr. Henri Beer's discovery of the electrocatalytic activity of the normally ceramic rutile (ruthenium dioxide) when "doped" with a very small amount of ruthenium dioxide. You may also want to check out subsequent refinements by Alexandrs Martinsons (crystallography as a factor in electrocatalytic activity) and Dr. Vittorio deNora (commercialization).

Further work in the fuel cell area is the work by Bob Savinelle and by Mike Fetcenko.

[Filius Nullius]

22. "Dependent on metals having the same solution to the Wave Equation"

Translation, please. Are you saying that other substances besides platinum can be used as catalysts? I understand that the amount of platinum required has been greatly reduced over the last couple of decades, especially in the processes using higher temperatures.

[Coastie for Truth]

23. Yes - even ceramics

You asked--

"Translation, please. Are you saying that other substances besides platinum can be used as catalysts? I understand that the amount of platinum required has been greatly reduced over the last couple of decades, especially in the processes using higher temperatures."

EXACTLY.

The issue in catalysis is not the "nucleus" but the "electrons" - and more specifically it the spatial configuration and energy of the electrons (what they call "orbitals" in freshman chemistry - actually more detailed).

One of the things that catalyst chemists learned from the semiconductor chemists in the electronics industry is that you get the "spatial configuration and energy of the electrons" in the catalytic form of platinum (which is actually a "defect oxide" or "sub-oxide") in other compounds and alloys.

Requires lots of computer time - and some "electron orbital" software to "design" the alloys- and some semiconductor manufacturing technology to actually "grow" the catalyst.

But, ever since Henri Beer's work (and Vittorio deNora's effort and money) - there has been a lot of work -- and a lot of results.

Having spent about seven years in "semiconductor fabrication" (and making pv cells is "semiconductor fabrication" and growing catalysts is closely related to "semiconductor fabrication") - once you learn the specialized jargon and lingo -- the issues are really the same. And the insights are the same.

BTW - I have seen fuel cell electrodes that are really thin film semiconductors - working at "human" temperatures (under 100 degrees F, atmospheric pressure). -- No platinum. (The company has a bunch of patents - about 25)

[GumboYaYa]

24. I guess the one caveat that any discussion of peak oil must

include is that there is always the possibility that human ingenuity and creativity will find a new source of energy to allow us to continue on the path we are now following. The only question then is whether we will destroy the environment from overconsumption of its resources.

[Coastie for Truth]

25. In a way too pessimistic, in a way too optimistic

You have a lot packed into the phrase "there is always the possibility that human ingenuity and creativity will find a new source of energy to allow us to continue on the path we are now following."

1. There is always the possibility that human ingenuity and creativity will find a new source of energy - or a new way to harness energy.

I am not a cornucopiaist (sp?). Crude oil was cheap, natural gas was cheap. Cheap petroleum facilitated a "petroleum based" civilization. The first stage of "after the peak" will be "rationing of scarce commodities by increasing prices." And, what ever comes next will be more expensive (pessimistically, much more expensive) and with its own set of hazards, risks, caveats, rules, and regulations.

I think we are going to have get used to higher prices for lots of necessities, lower incomes, different modes of personal transportation, mass transit, living in pedestrian-friendly and car-unfriendly, closely packed, urban neighborhoods, linked by mass transit.

And, I am beginning to accept the fact that "water" will also be in short supply.

Between changes in our energy budget and our water budget -- we will see changes in agriculture and in food processing and distribution.

2. ... to allow us to continue on the path we are now following.

I think the high price of energy and of water will force us off of the path we are now following. Increasing prices for energy will eventually reduce the emissions of green house gases - and the paving over of America.

The coming together of a) increasing petroleum prices and reduced petroleum in a post-peak world, b) scarcity of water/capita on a world wide basis, and c) leaps in bio science and scarcity driven agricultural engineering advances will lead to new ways of growing, processing, and distributing food. Who knows, we may grow to like genetically modified "frankenfoods", grown hydroponically, and preserved by irradiation. Especially if there are no other alternatives.

[GumboYaYa]

33. I think you can see from my other posts that I agree with you

and IrateCitizen. I made no value judgment when I wrote the phrase "continue on the path we are now following", but had I, I would have said that the path is one to destruction of our culture. While this discussion has focused largely on the science of peak oil, energy production and the resulting environmental impact, there is a sociological aspect of our consumptive society that is just as dangerous to our culture. The suburban dream has homogenized society in a way that has caused us to lose the connections to those around us. McMansions, big box stores, and the endless highway system, have allowed us to isolate ourselves from things that challenge our world views. As a result we are losing the ability to empathize with others. So, even assuming that we find another cheap energy source that does not contribute to environmental destruction and disregarding all other shortages created by our consumption, I think the sociological impact of our consumptive suburban society, could just as easily be the undoing of western culture as the other factors mentioned on here.

[IrateCitizen]

37. Regarding the sociological impact of American culture...

I'm actually doing the research for a paper toward this end as we speak. It's for a class on Age of Enlightenment, and I'm studying the successes and failures of the Enlightenment in modern American culture.

The problem is that I am going to have trouble narrowing my focus enough to keep this to a 20 page paper and not turn it into a thesis of some sort! So, I'm concentrating on two specific areas -- the boom in technology of the late 20th century (good) and the hollowing out of our culture through commercialism and consumption (bad).

Have you ever read any of the critiques by Max Horkheimer and Theodore Adorno on American culture during the post-war boom? You should, they're quite ahead of their time. I'd also suggest John Kenneth Galbraith's The Affluent Society, any of the works by Juliet B. Schor on consumerism, and especially The Twilight of American Culture by Morris Berman.

[GumboYaYa]

40. I'm adding "The Twilight of American Culture" to my reading list.

When you get a chance, you should also check out Jane Jacobs, "The Dark Age Ahead." It is right on topic for your paper (although it sounds like you have enough info already, but regardless it is a good read).

[IrateCitizen]

42. I've heard of Jane Jacobs, but never read her.

Thanks for the recommendation, I'll have to add it.

[IrateCitizen]

26. Actually, I hope to God we don't continue on our current path...

The only question then is whether we will destroy the environment from overconsumption of its resources.

I don't think that's an "if" question, it's a "when". If you haven't yet checked it out at all, do a quick search for the recent UN millenial working group study on global ecology. Over 1300 scientist from 90+ countries working over 4 years, and they've determined that we've exhausted some 60% of our "ecological principle", and that many systems are literally on the verge of collapse, if not slipping over the edge already.

I'm completely open to new energy technologies that will enable us to continue along a path that retains many of the positive things about our current lives. I honestly don't look forward to a day in which there is no more electricity or motorized transportation, and where we are thrown back into the 15th century or earlier. However, I'm just not optimistic that we can generate energy outputs on the scale of those we receive from fossil fuels that will enable us to continue as a fully industrialized society.

[Coastie for Truth]

32. One little snippet from

Anthony Evans, An Introduction to Economic Geology and Its Environmental Impact (which I am not citing as scriptural - but as typical of intro books) and another snippet from the California Public Utility Commission (don't have the link)-

for a 2000 square foot, two story house, reasonably well insulated, in "most of the continental US" - the combination of just the geothermal under your house, and the ultra violet hitting a photovoltaic cell on your roof -- would supply your base electricity, and maybe with some creative energy storage/management, your peak demand.

The challenges--

1. Capturing the geothermal. It's there.

2. Bringing the cost of 1000 square feet of photovoltaic down under $15K.

[IrateCitizen]

34. Well, I plan to embark on that path myself...

The two things I want to do after I get a house:
1. Install PV panels on my roof
2. Install a ground-source heat pump to heat and cool my home.

I would love to also be able to install a smaller wind turbine to actually sell power back to the grid during peak periods.

[GumboYaYa]

39. We are in the process of desiging a similar system.

I have been working with Ameren UE to configure our PV system for about two months now. We decided to go with a grid-tied system to avoid the expense of buying all those batteries for a stand-alone system. Ameren is making us install a shut-off/back charge protector but that cost is less than the batteries.

We looked at doing a mixed wind/PV system, but building restrictionss made it impossible, plus we have too many tall old trees to fully utilize wind power.

We spent the last year reducing our energy load by installing flourescent light, buying energy efficient appliances, and generally changing our lifestyles so we use less energy.

[GumboYaYa]

36. I built a passive solar heater this winter made from recycled

aluminum cans and some old windows and frames. It reduced our gas usage by more than 30%. Total cost was about $60.00.

Heating and cooling a living space can be done fairly easily and with recycled materials in many cases.

The thing that has to go is the automobile culture. Plus we need to move to local production of goods.

[IrateCitizen]

38. Ding Ding Ding!

The thing that has to go is the automobile culture.

Yup, you've hit the bullseye with just this one little sentence. What amazes me is how absolutely MISERABLE the automobile culture makes us, as a society -- yet people will defend it relentlessly, as if there is no other option.

[Coastie for Truth]

43. The thing that has to go is the automobile culture.

That is THE problem.

[Filius Nullius]

14. Population control and generational equity

"Of course, all of this will depend on getting U.S. and world population under control, something that none of the major religious denominations seem to comprehend or be willing to help advance." I need to elaborate on the last paragraph of my previous post.

Lord help us if another reactionary Pope comes out of the Vatican conclave. Unfortunately, I fear that this will be the inevitable outcome. My wife is a Catholic, and I, of course, have nothing against American Catholics. Many of them, including my wife, are very enlightened on these issues.

However, I do believe that many Catholics in this country have been unwittingly duped and manipulated by the Vatican and protestant religious right and therefore have difficulty seeing the long-term suffering that our continued failure to address the problem of a world population out of control will eventually create. The number of innocent children that are now affected by this misguided religious policy and the inconceivably greater numbers that will suffer in the near future makes the regretable loss of life due to abortion a trade-off that humanity will eventually have no choice but to make. However, every day that we fail to accept the inevitability of this choice magnifies the level of suffering that humanity will eventually face.

It is a shame that the major environmental organizations have been so ineffectual in helping the public to understand how vital it is to the quality of life of our descendants that population control issues be addressed immediately. Perhaps they need to mount a mission to the Vatican to help the next Pope to understand how immoral it truly is for the Catholic Church to stand in the way of bringing world population under control.

[IrateCitizen]

17. I absolutely agree with this assessment...

I'm not a Catholic, I'm a Protestant, but I see the fact that the recently-departed Pope appointed almost all of the current Cardinals does NOT bode well for the idea of getting a new Pope sympathetic to the need for population control.

[Coastie for Truth]

29. A couple of empirical observations

1. Birthrates drop in the move from a rural society to an urban society.
2. A corollary of #1 - birth rates drop in the move from an agricultural economy to an industrial economy --> and birthrates drop still further in the move to a post-industrial (knowledge) economy.
3. Birthrates drop as public health (maternal health, infant health, child health) improves.
4. The Great Depression experience --> the birth rate troughed during the Great Depression.
5. Obvious - but - as birth rates drop --> family size drops.
6. Family size drops as women's opportunities "outside of the house" and "off of the farm" increase.
7. Family size drops as the length of time in "sociological and economic child hood" grows.

-In my parents' generation - kids were "adults" at 14 - pulled out of school and sent off to work.
-Today, with the "bounce back generation" and increasingly lengthly educations and "finding oneself" - "sociological and economic child hood" may extend well into the late 20's. Hell, my sister is still in "sociological and economic child hood" at 60 - but we won't go there.

8. Family size also drops as the "cost" of a child increase - and they don't being money home. It is a not cheap to raise and educate a typical upper middle class kid.

So, I think population (in the developed world) is self-limiting by choice and preference.

[Coastie for Truth]

19. We have been thoroughly indoctrinated into an old paradigm by the

"University of Wisconsin-Houghen - Watson- Ragatz" and "Massachusetts Institute of Technology - Sherwood - Pigford - Smith - VanNess" schools of chemical engineering--

MINIMIZE "RESIDENCE TIME" BY GOING TO HIGH PRESSURE, HIGH TEMPERATURE, ENERGY INTENSIVE PROCESSES THAT REQUIRE EXPENSIVE PROCESS EQUIPMENT"

The economics change when you go to "Biotech" paradigm GE's Ananda Chakrabarty of

STANDARD TEMPERATURE, STANDARD PRESSURE, ENZYME CATALYZED CHEMICAL REACTION ENGINEERING

.

Admitted, I did my undergrad and PhD work in the old paradigm - but I am open to the possibilities of the new enzyme catalyzed chemical reaction engineering.

[IrateCitizen]

27. You've raised some very interesting points, Coastie...

I am actually also an engineer, but not nearly as credentialed as you on all of this (BS in Civil Engineering). I've taken enough basic modern physics to comprehend what you're saying about ceramics and their likeness to semiconductors, which would make them workable for hydrogen fuel cells.

I guess my main problem with all the talk of alternative energies is that some people seem to think that we will be able to generate the scale of energy through them that we have found in hydrocarbons. I believe that, best case scenario, those outputs will be severely reduced. Worst case, they will be virtually non-existent, except on a local scale.

I don't think most US urban environments will be very hospitable in the coming years. Industrialized agriculture in its current form will fade away, and the best farmlands near the cities have been sacrificed over the past 50 years to suburbia. Plus, transport options for the extra distance of bringing food to the cities will be severely limited due to lack of rail. Personally, I'm looking to move to a medium-sized town in the very near future -- somewhere I can walk or bike to everywhere I need to go on a regular basis, have enough of a yard to plant a decent organic garden, and have access to still-active farmlands immediately outside of the town. That way, even if a bad scenario doesn't happen, I'll still be prepared to deal with some of the hardships that are certain to be inevitable.

[dcfirefighter]

31. Irate

BS Industrial & Systems Engineering

There's a small, but direct change we can make at teh state and local level: split rate property tax.

A higher rate on land (unimproved) value than on building value. It tends to build cities and reduce development pressure on farmland. You pay for the land value you hold out of production: industrial, commercial, residential, or agricultural.

There'd be a reduction in transport costs and an increase (or at least less of a decrease) in agricultural land.

Most likely suburban homeowners would have to do something more productive with their lawn than grow grass on all of it.

It's also imo the best way to fund rapid transit. Putting in a tram or metro stop raises property values nearby by far more than the capital cost of the railway.

[IrateCitizen]

41. Very interesting....

I've looked a bit into alternative growth models, like mixed-use development and the like, but this is perhaps one of the most innovative proposals in changing zoning laws that I've read!

I was amazed when I visited Europe -- especially Germany and Holland -- at how EVERYBODY lived in the cities and towns, and as soon as you ventured outside the city or town limits, there was nothing but open space and farmland. It not only appeared to be more "livable", but much more aesthetically pleasing as well.

[dcfirefighter]

44. I'm a big fan of mixed use development

I live in the DC Metro Area, and the expansive development of cookie cutter pastel faux cape homes is sickening. Nowhere in any of these new developments can you walk from where you are to where you want to be.

Google "Land Value Tax", and you'll find a wealth of information.