'$100 oil: the terrible truth' by David Strahan

[Breeze54]

$100 oil: the terrible truth

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,2216341,00.html

Nearing the price barrier is a pointer to the peak of output, and the crisis the powerful want to ignore

David Strahan

David Strahan is the author of 'The Last Oil Shock: A Survival Guide to the Imminent Extinction of Petroleum Man'
www.lastoilshock.com

Saturday November 24, 2007
The Guardian

As the price of crude oil sets records almost daily, the British government remains stunningly complacent. With the $100 barrel a real and constant threat, the prime minister's website blithely proclaims "the world's oil and gas resources are sufficient to sustain economic growth for the foreseeable future". Officials refuse to define what is meant by "foreseeable", but it is clear they suffer from extreme myopia, or worse.

All the evidence suggests we are rapidly approaching "peak oil", the point when global production goes into terminal decline for geological reasons. The industry consensus is that world output, excluding that from the Opec producers, will peak in about 2010. It is also widely agreed that Opec has grossly exaggerated the size of its reserves, meaning that global output must also peak soon. Since oil provides 95% of all transport energy, as well as vital inputs to modern agriculture, this is likely to provoke a crisis.

Oil executives have traditionally avoided talk of geological constraints - no doubt mindful of the value of their share options - but now even they admit the industry is in difficulty. A growing number believe output will never exceed 100m barrels per day, compared with 86m today. At present rates of growth, demand will hit that ceiling within about a decade.

The UK position relies on the International Energy Agency, which forecasts oil production rising to 116m barrels per day in 2030. But the model that produces this forecast relies in turn on an estimate of the total oil available published by the US Geological Survey, which is demonstrably wildly overoptimistic.

For the US survey numbers to come true, the world would have to discover 22bn barrels of oil a year between 1995 and 2025. So far we have discovered just 9bn per year, only 40% of the predicted amount.

More....

[NickB79]

1. Kick

Amazing that no one has commented on this story, considering it is probably the biggest immediate threat to civilization we are facing.

[Breeze54]

5. Surprised me also....

I guess home made Kotex pads are the really big issue. :eyes:

[Angela Shelley]

45. It´s only a threat to civilization

when certain countries are willing to attack other countries for resources.

[Solar_Power]

2. I drive a hybrid, so even $200 oil would not impact me much

[Deja Q]

4. All those trucks that transport food - are they hybrids too?

:evilgrin:

[barb162]

41. Excellent point; we can only do so much by cutting our personal

consumption. Semis take a lot of fuel going across country to get tomatoes to us in winter.

[Breeze54]

6. Really? So only your car effects you?

You can't think of any other way that this will effect your life besides how much gas your car uses? :shrug:

[TalkingDog]

20. It will affect your ability to get Kotex obviously......

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:


Why do you think I posted that thread in the first place?

It will affect your ability to get most food but eventually all food and even the seed to grow your own food. And the means to preserve the food you eventually learn to grow. And not to mention food for your critters.

It will affect your ability to get water, clothes, any medications, vitamins, herbs, medical care.

I can't think of one thing it doesn't affect. And I wasn't kidding about that being the reason behind starting the Pads Thread. Read the intro paragraph. I mention the "economic downturn".

And I'm at the stage of preparation for the crunch where I can say: hmmm...maybe I'll need some way to deal with that in the worst of eventualities, I wonder if other folks have thought of that.

Gotta help each other out with the day to day here, bud. It can't all be about the Durm and Strang.



My Favorite Master Artist: Karen Parker GhostWoman Studios

[Breeze54]

21. Which thread?

The 'how to sew your own kotex pads' thread?

Like women couldn't figure that out on their own. :P

Funny! ;)

But you should've included information about condoms too!

They're also non-biodegradable! :P

Can you make one of those? Got a pattern? :rofl:

[TalkingDog]

31. Step 1: Gut a sheep...... a goat will do in a pinch, but unless you are bragging, no cows

Step 2: Pull out the intestines

Step 3: Strip the outer membrane off

Step 4: Cut to length.... no...shorter...no, really shorter than that.

Step 5: Tie off one end

Step 6: Fasten snugly with rubber band or string if no bands available

Ta-Daaaa!!!! :evilgrin:



My Favorite Master Artist: Karen Parker GhostWoman Studios

[Breeze54]

32. Step 7 -

Watch woman run away screaming from you! :P

I just knew you were going to post something to that effect! :rofl:

[TalkingDog]

33. Different outcome, same effect: Birth Control. n/t

My Favorite Master Artist: Karen Parker GhostWoman Studios

[Breeze54]

36. LOL!

:P

But BC is always iffy...it's not fool proof or 100% effective

but that's another thread but your condom would be 100% effective! :P

[Tesha]

47. What makes you think latex is non-biodegradable?

> But you should've included information about condoms too!
>
> They're also non-biodegradable! :P

What makes you think latex is non-biodegradable?

'Seen any 2,000-year-old latex rubber trees standing around
lately, just waiting to biodegrade?

Tesha

[MzShellG]

11. Hybrids will need to be incorporated into the mainstream...

Once the oil supply runs out. I dont believe consumer demand is THAT much higher than it was a couple of years ago. I'd like to know what is really going on? Eventually we won't have to depend on 'foreign oil'. There probably won't be any.

[Leopolds Ghost]

46. Consumer demand is MUCH higher than it used to be because Americans drive EVERYWHERE

That didn't used to be true. Even in the 1960s-1970s, you didn't have the situation we have today. If it is more than 2 blocks, most Americans (even DUers) WILL get back in their car and park 4 blocks away. Just survey your own family.

Much of this is due to baby boomers' unwillingness to let their kids walk to school. When I was 4 years old and in day care, they marched us to pre-school. Most Americans don't know how to walk; our ancestors really DID walk 4 miles a day. Of course, that is in suburbs built before 1980 or so, that are still walkable. Suburbs built after 1980 (including "neotraditional housing" pod-complexes that are bisected by 8-lane service roads mandated by US law) are designed to be completely unwalkable except by the adventurous who are willing to carve out nominally illegal "rabbit trails"

Spending time in New Orleans lately (working for a relief organization) I was amazed how even punk kids who only ride bikes misjudged distances and insisted certain things were out of walking distance or out of cycling distance, largely because they didn't want to walk or ride in traffic (there being no decent sidewalks or shoulders.) And the locals refused to shop local for any reason -- they drove to Metairie. Same phenomenon here at home, in a city that has decent mass transit. Hell, 50% of all RURAL people live in a small town or small city that USED to be walkable where ALL the stores -- big, bustling megaplexes of chain stores that sell more merchandise than the biggest Main Street in America -- are contained within completely unwalkable, segregated shopping malls that thrive even in the most "economically depressed" small towns. Most of rural america only appears economically depressed because the walkable areas have been left to rot and consigned as places suitable only for the (still substantial) poor population to live. And the poor want out; they want to live in completely unwalkable cul de sacs just like everyone else.

[Gregorian]

22. Everything in this society is supported by a sea of oil.

Let me make an example that I am personally experiencing.

I just bought a piece of land. Dirt. Nothing else. I am researching how to go about living on it. There was a time when people did just that. Lived on land. I've bought and sold enough land to have heard some interesting stories. A ranch on the west coast where the people supported themselves by fishing salmon out of the river that flowed through the property. Much of San Francisco ate from the fish they caught. Or a farm I just sold in Oregon where there was a rich history of raising chicken, pork, salmon, dairy products. That river no longer has fish. In fact, both no longer have fish. Although I did see several, last year. Several. Not teaming. Or an old lady who I met in northern California when I had a farm there. She said the Van Duzen river was so full of fish when she was a child, in 1940, that it appeared one could walk across it. And how with the logging, suddenly and abruptly around 1969, not only did the fog patterns change, but the fish disappeared. Now here I am looking at this piece of land I just bought. And how to live on it. There is only one way I can do it. There is no survival off the land. There is only a modern system of energy production. A power company. I have the choice of using propane or electricity for my refrigeration. And what I put in that fridge comes from a store where things are produced and shipped to it. It all rides on a sea of petroleum. As human beings we only have days before we must eat again. And then we start dying.

We're really in an emergency. By relying totally on oil, we have removed ourselves from any kind of system whereby we can sustain our lives. Even solar panels require petroleum to manufacture. And even if we have energy independence, we still don't have complete independence from the need for food and water and medicine, etc. We are completely reliant on petroleum and the power we have given it. And that it gives us.

It is really this land deal I've just made that has driven home the feeling of panic when thinking about what happens when oil hits $200 per barrel. Or even worse, when it stops flowing to us. We have two billion or more people just starting to enroll in the modern lifestyle. And they aren't going to turn around now. And neither are we. So how do we feed all of these users?

Like the hole in the ozone layer, I think we'll slowly pull out of this. But we were lucky to pull out of that one. And I'm hoping we're as lucky as that during this period. And I mean global warming as well as petroleum supply. We have two huge issues to deal with. One is taking care of itself. We're simply running out of oil. The other is far more serious. And there are other nearly as important offshoots from this that we don't even discuss. Like how American consumption is literally poisoning the landscapes of China. Massive ecological disasters are occurring there due to what we are asking them to produce for US. But that's another thread.

The car is a small fraction of the problem. I'm sure you know that. And I'm only posting this here because it just gave me a place to post this.

It's an interesting time. And I see some positive things here. But tragic. We're all starting to think and talk. Well, except for the boneheads who think this is all just a natural phenomenon.

Think about how you'd live if you had to live without petroleum. If you really think about it, you'll see that there is nothing that isn't touched by it. Maybe a weed in your garden that volunteers to come up. But that's about it.

And we're just about to crest seven billion.

[Breeze54]

24. This should be an article all by itself!

If I could recommend this, I would!

I love your style of writing and thanks for all the good insight too. ;)

Lots of things to think about, that's for sure.

[Gregorian]

28. Thanks!

That means a lot.

I would like to find a way to brighten rather than be negative. I've been watching the Daily Show for a decade, and still can't quite emulate their tint on things.

[kineneb]

35. small step - start a garden

at the beginning, it will require some outside input, but eventually one can produce enough compost for all their needs. Get a few chickens and it will get even better.

...most of my Thanksgiving salad came out of my garden, and the walnuts were from local trees

[Deja Q]

3. Would that not be fraud, to grossly exaggerate?

?

[Breeze54]

7. I would think so but we're talking Cheney here!

Cheney and his buddies in the energy business!

[gulfcoastliberal]

19. This has been going on since long before the *co admin. nt

[Breeze54]

30. Ya think? lol

But Cheneys' secret deals aren't helping any. :grr:

[Strelnikov_]

37. The Caspian oil bust, which signaled peak oil was imminent

occured on Chimps watch. Through the Clinton admin, it was thought that the Caspian region would push the date of peak substancially into the future.

Recycled screed follows.

++++++++++++++

Caspian Region. The Oil Isn’t There

Following is a post by 'Petrodollar' in the following thread at peakoil.com. This poster seems to know what he is talking about and what I have previously read about the situation 'plots' with his summary.

I am reproducing the post here because it provides excellent factual information for the coming attacks (when TSHTF next year) on why the Clinton Administration did little regarding energy independence.

http://www.peakoil.com/fortopic21121-0-asc-60.html

On the one hand I can understand your desire to "blame" Gore for not publicly discussing Peak Oil until recently, but you must put history in context before you draw condemnations. Indeed, a lot more is known today than what was known just 8 to 10 years ago.

The first "authoritative" and analytical report on global peak oil that I am aware of was Petroconsultant's 1995 report “The World’s Oil Supply (1930–2050)” - which predicted that peak oil production would occur in the decade following 2000. (written in part by Dr. Colin Campbell). It is rumored the CIA is or was the largest client of Petroconsultants (now IHS Energy), but it is unknown if this report was well received as far as the veracity of the data - but it is a good question for historians....

Anyhow, the one big caveat in that report I suspect were all the estimates from the mid-1990s until late 2001 that the Caspian Sea region could have up to 200 billion barrels of untapped oil, making it the “oil find of the century" - and push back Peak Oil for 12 to 15 years. I think Enron was "banking" on cheap natural gas from the Caspian and a trans-Afghanistan pipeline to save their company re their huge investment in India...

{For that famous quote about the "oil find of the century" see: Stephen Kinzer, “Pipe Dreams: A Perilous New Contest for the Next Oil Prize,” New York Times, September 24, 1997, IV-1}

Indeed, from 1997-1998 the US government and Taliban were negotiating over a trans-Afghanistan pipeline, but these talks were interrupted when two US Embassies in East Africa were bombed during August 1998. These terrorists’ attacks were attributed to Osama bin Laden, who was a “guest” of the Taliban regime. Former president Clinton subsequently launched a cruise missile attack against targets associated with bin Laden, ordered the negotiations with the Taliban called off, and imposed sanctions against the “rogue regime.” Any exploration and worthwhile extraction of the Caspian oil would have to wait until the landscape in central Asia become more conducive to oil pipelines, etc.

{FYI: According to Jean Charles Brisard and Guillaume Dasquie in the French book, The Forbidden Truth, the Bush administration ignored the UN sanctions that had been imposed upon the Taliban and entered into secret negotiations with this supposedly rogue regime from February 2, 2001, to August 6, 2001. The Taliban were not cooperative, according to the statements of Mr. Naik, Pakistan’s former ambassador. He reported that the US threatened a military option if the Taliban did not acquiesce to Washington’s demands about a proposed pipeline route that had to traverse Afghanistan. But I digress...}

I suspect in the late 1990s and perhaps even as the Bush administration entered office in 2001 that the US government may have deducted that the "vast and untapped" Caspian oil would push Peak Oil somewhat into the future. Here's a sampling of the euphoria that surrounded the Caspian in the late 1990s...

Quote:
I cannot think of a time when we have had a region emerge as suddenly to become as strategically significant as the Caspian.

— Former CEO of Halliburton, Dick Cheney, 1998

However, in December 2001, just after US troops took over the capital of Afghanistan, British Petroleum (BP) announced disappointing Caspian drilling results. According to Dale Allen Pfeiffer, an oil industry analyst and former researcher for Michael Ruppert’s www.fromthewilderness.com website, after three exploratory wells were analyzed, it was reported that the Caspian region contains much less oil than originally reported, although there are vast amounts of natural gas. Also, it was discovered that Caspian oil is of poor quality, with up to 20 percent sulfur content, which makes it expensive to refine and creates huge volumes of environmentally damaging waste products.

In 2002 the consulting group PetroStrategies published a study estimating that the Caspian Basin contained only 8 to 39.4 bb of oil. Shortly after this report was discussed in the petroleum news sources, BP and other Western oil companies began reducing their investment plans in the region...and at that point I think the reality of Peak Oil began to creep into consciousness...

Despite exaggerated claims of the “oil find of the century” and predictions of a 'new Saudi Arabia' outside the Middle East, the State Department announced in November 2002 that “Caspian oil represents 4% of world reserves. It will never dominate the world’s markets.”

Unfortunately, this unexpected realization about the Caspian Sea region had serious implications for the US, India, China, Asia, and Europe, since the estimated amount of available hydrocarbons for industrialized and developing nations was now significantly decreased - by 20% in fact if you believed the 200 b/bl estimate. For me, the arguments regarding PO became more valid and convincing after that point, but it was only 4 years ago that the "Caspian myth" was essentially de-bunked

Bottomline: I seem to recall a much more optimistic assessment of global energy supplies (both oil & gas) up thru 2000 when Clinton & Gore left office. Oil was only $10 a barrel in 1998, and talk of Peak Oil would have labeled Gore or whomever an "alarmist" at the very least, and certainly not helped in any future election based on what happened in 1980. (more on that in a moment)

Did the data in the mid to late 1990s support that Peak Oil was imminent? It's hard to tell until relevant CIA and/or DOE documents are released - at which point you will likely be in your 30s or 40s - assuming such documents will ever be released.

The only US President to really address the issue was Jimmy Carter - and every US politician believes that he lost his re-election bid to Reagan in part due to his "pessimistic" (honest) views on global energy supplies, along with that embarrassing incident re American hostages in Tehran during 1979 and the disastrous/failed rescue mission in 1980 didn't help either. Indeed, 30 years ago Carter stated something that no US politician has dared stated until March 2005 when Rep Roscoe Bartlett began his PO crusade in Congress.

Quote:
We are grossly wasting our energy resources … as though their supply was infinite. We must even face the prospect of changing our basic ways of living. This change will either be made on our own initiative in a planned and rational way, or forced on us with chaos and suffering by the inexorable laws of nature.

— Jimmy Carter, 1976

[Breeze54]

38. Great Post!!

Thank You!

:applause: :applause:

[gulfcoastliberal]

40. Yep, thanks for that refresher. Carter spoke about the reality of a finite resource.

Of course, reality has a well-known liberal bias!

[Selatius]

8. For the US, I think it will ultimately mean the total uprooting of American infrastructure.

The US infrastructure is so heavily reliant upon interstates and personal vehicles which are powered by fossil fuels that rapidly inflating oil prices will cause crippling repercussions for the US economy. People, used to long travels to and from work, will find it increasingly difficult to sustain that kind of lifestyle with energy prices inflicting progressively more punitive tolls on their income not just with gas but with food supplies, since food is generally transported by trucks, which also use fossil fuels.

Eventually, people will be forced to find jobs closer to home. Since few could afford to live in the inner-core of urban centers where jobs are because of very high costs of living, many will simply be forced into accepting jobs, potentially at lower pay as well, in the countryside by virtue that it's closer to home. It will feel as if the US landmass suddenly became bigger, not smaller.

[Breeze54]

10. I think that is already happening...

"people will be forced to find jobs closer to home."

I know that's been my goal and I mean close to home, like within walking distance.
But that means lower pay because there aren't any big companies that pay well like
in the city. Although it could mean more telecommuting jobs but the transport of food
and necessities is what worries me, even though I live near the ocean.
Will we all revert to horses and wagons again? Will we be forced to do that?

[Selatius]

13. We could try to emulate Europe and build mass transit with electric bullet trains.

And ultimately, many areas will have to be torn up and redesigned around people, not cars. You've got God-knows how many square miles of land devoted to parking lots and roads that will become prohibitive to maintain or useless in light of such events. Either they're going to be abandoned to the sands of time like Roman monuments or ripped up and converted for other uses, and frankly, I find a flat slab of concrete with white lines drawn on them to be not as impressive as a Roman aqueduct.

[Breeze54]

15. Yes, parking lots suck but bullet trains sound good!

I have a chance to move soon and I'm trying to find an affordable place near public transportation.
I found a nice apt. complex right within walking distance to the commuter rail. I think there will
have to be more development of those too... more connections and access for people. I agree with you.
They just opened a new line of the commuter rail in MA, after waiting 13 years! Right on time, imho.
Also would need to add more bike paths and ferries.

[Tesha]

48. Some day, maybe burning the asphalt will be the best bet.

Some day, in a Mad Max sort of existence, maybe tearing
up the parking lots and burning the asphalt will be the best
bet. That and mining the landfills for all the metal and
plastics that the 20th century people threw "away".

Tesha

[Maven]

9. K/R. Time Magazine picked up this story recently

In addition to the History Channel "Megadisasters" piece.

So I guess it's getting some "mainstream" traction, finally.

[Breeze54]

12. I miss the History Channel.

Thanks for the heads up about Time mag. I'll bet the phrase 'peak oil' will become more and more common now.

[Maven]

14. Here's the link, courtesy of the good people at The Oil Drum (where else?)

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1686824,00.html

It tries to present a "balanced view," but thankfully doesn't give more credence to the industry shills than they deserve.

Note it's #6 in the "most emailed" list.

[Breeze54]

16. Thanks !

That is so nice of you to hunt the link down for me.

Not many people would do that! :hi:

I'm bookmarking it for a read over coffee in the AM. ;)

[NJCher]

17. oh not to worry

They'll do something brilliant like build more nuclear power plants, thereby increasing the likelihood of an even more grotesque demise than global warming.

People will still be driving their fool heads off, using power for things like blowing leaves, all the while imbibing in more and more calories so they can sit on their fat arses, watching the hired help clean the drive.

I'd so love it to be otherwise but I'm not counting on it.



Cher

[Orwellian_Ghost]

18. Excellent discussion here

This needs more attention to say the least.

K&R

[TroubleMan]

23. Here's the scariest graph ever - related to this topic:

So when the oil runs out, guess what happens to the world population. I bet most of those won't be deaths by "natural causes."

Also, check out this video:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=266&topic_id=97&mesg_id=97

[Breeze54]

25. There are already

deaths happening not by natural cause from this. :(

Thanks for the video link too!

[RadioactiveMan]

26. Peak Oil is not as big a problem some think

Sure, we will have to adjust and there will be some economic fallout from peak oil. But it will not spell the end of civilization as we know it. If world oil production peaks at 100 million bbl per day, it is still about 20% higher than present rate. In the meantime, with $90+ oil, there are plenty of incentives to develop alternatives to oil.
There is plenty of energy available, such as nuclear, coal, solar, wind etc. The biggest problem is converting them into something we can use for transportation. That is an engineering, business and in some cases (such as support for increasing the role of rail) also a political problem - not a fundamental, insurmountable problem of lack of usable energy.

So people, yes, peak oil is real, although I do not know when it will come. Higher oil prices might well extend it out a few years because more oil deposits then become commercially recoverable. But it will not spell the end of industrialized civilization. It will not be either road warrior scenario or a neoagrarian utopia, as some envision and hope for. And it will definitely not be the first step toward the precipice of the Olduvai Gorge.

[TroubleMan]

27. It's a huge problem for a debt-based and growth-based economy like we have.

If you haven't seen it, I highly recommend this video:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-9050474362583451279

We live in a debt based economy, so we have to have significant growth to stay ahead of our debt. With oil production peaked (or peaking), that's like slamming the brake and having this huge debt rear-end us. It would be like the Great Depression times 5 or 10. This might be bearable if the economy was in great shape when it happened, but right now we have record debt, record foreclosures, and we've lost a large percentage of our manufacturing base. We're in the worse possible state of readiness for this right now.

Also, another problem is that modern agriculture means turning oil into food. Not literally, of course, but we can produce a huge amount of food because oil is such a great energy resource. When oil peaks, there's going to be a lot of starvation and food prices are going to be sky high. Compound this to the other problems peak production of oil causes, and we're in for a shit storm.

[RadioactiveMan]

29. If the problem was peak energy, I'd agree

But it isn't. It's just one energy source that we are going to be replacing. And gradually. Peak oil will not mean that the spigots run dry overnight.
There is plenty of energy out there. And it can turn out to be a boon on the economy, as energy technology will become red hot. And that's the best trait of capitalism (that all declared Democratic candidates support, after all); the flexibility that comes from a marketplace with many actors in mutual competition.

Modern agriculture turns oil into food? Not quite. Modern mechanized agriculture requires energy, yes. See above. Also it requires hydrogen for the Haber-Bosch process of fixating nitrogen (3 H2 + N2 -- catalyst, heat, pressure --> 2 NH3). That hydrogen is currently obtained from natural gas, because of its abundance, but it doesn't have to be. There is not a single use of oil or gas that cannot be accomplished with an alternative.

Food prices are not going to be sky high. First, oil/energy prices cannot increase arbitrarily because of demand inelasticities. Second, price of energy is only a fraction of the shelf price of food.

In conclusion, I think you worry too much.

[barb162]

42. But energy price will increase dramatically for food in the future.

[wuushew]

50. I ran a quick set of numbers on electrolysis vs. natural gas

100% efficient electrolysis would give you a kilogram of hydrogen for 32.935 kWh(times 6-10 cents a kilowatt hour?).

Industrial rates for natural gas have been around $6.58 per 1,000 cubic feet in the U.S. for 2007.

Density of CH4 is .717 kilograms per cubic meter so 1.39 cubic meters for a even one kilogram (x 4 just for the hydrogen) gives us 5.578 cubic meters or $1.29 for the same one kilogram yielded by electrolysis.


Throw in the necessary capital investments and inefficiences and you are looking at at least a 2.5-3 times increase in fertilizer costs if you are producing domestically. With a global trade in fertilizer and LNG though, who nows what the future will bring.

[Deja Q]

34. There's the tinfoil hat belief that offshoring is preparation for peak oil too.

But too many factors contradict that, so I no longer believe it either.

Still, with the national debt, within a few years it will come back to haunt.

[Leopolds Ghost]

49. There IS a fundamental problem of lack of usable energy. PLEASE READ...

Enrergy reserves are all either solar, biomass, fossil, or nuclear.

Nuclear:

* There is a peak uranium supply too, and the waste products and security issues are daunting. Even in France, ONLY 50% of power to power a post-war lifestyle is nuclear. Guess where the other 50% comes from?

* Geothermal is an untapped nuclear energy source with limited application since it is confined to unstable volcanic zones. Magma is difficult to work with.

* Fusion has not succeeded in producing more energy than it consumes. However, the world of endless energy promoted by futurists which fusion would engender runs up against a hard and fast barrier: we are running out of unimproved natural resources (petroleum, steel, and copper) with which to build stuff, and we are running out of biosphere with which to house people and more importantly, feed them, in the proposed Sao Paulo-style megaplexes. The Green Revolution required to feed 6-12 billion people depends on using up an ever-increasing share of the world's surface (biosphere) in order for humans and domesticated animals bredc solely for human consumption to consume an ever-increasing share of the world's biofuel. Which brings us to the next issue.

Solar:

All other forms of energy on Earth are solar in origin. This includes:

* Direct Solar
* Indirect Solar (hydroelectric, wind)
* Biomass (biofuel, including resources formerly consumed by wildlife)
* Fossil (fossilized biofuel repressenting 60 million years worth of present day biofuel at 1000x the energy density of present day biofuel)

To support 6-12 billion people consuming 3-4x as much energy as the US alone did in the 1930s (hardly an uncivilized period in history), including 3 billion Chinese and Indians consuming 2-3x as much energy as they do today at lower wages than those posessed by the average American (which pro-road and pro-trade New Democrats are openly advocating for),

...the world is currently using 60 million years' worth of accumulated solar energy in the form of fossilized biofuel.

Fortunately for civilization, we've only used a tiny portion (1/4? of accessible fossil fuel, the remainder being in environmentally unpalatable reserves of strip-mined coal and strip-mined tar sands that require natural gas burnoff.

(Hydrogen is a form of natural gas that requires burnoff of large quantities of methane to separate it from the remaining methane, which must first be produced and then exported for consumption; because of the high energy density of methane vs. the low molecular density and volatility of hydrogen, the resultant natural gas supply will always remain 90% methane to 10% hydrogen in terms of energy available for use. Moreover, isolating hydrogen from water is energy-negative, meaning it is an energy storage device bordering on an uneconomic energy sink in times of scarce oil nd gas, not a supply.)

Canada and Montana are a "new Saudi Arabia" of coal and tar, containing as much as Saudi does in conventional oil (as does Venezuela, which the US will doubtless seek to control politically after Chavez is gone; the Anglo-American investment banking structure already controls Canada's energy investments).

Which will nevertheless require a hellish extraction process; think "mountaintop removal" in West Virginia, and vast refineries using up 50% of Canada's natural gas supplies to produce a smaller quantity of usable petroleum in Alberta.

However, given the energy that has to be input in the process, in the absence of cheap petroleum these resources may become swiftly uneconomic. The graders needed to mine for coal, for instance, are diesel-powered; other fuels will becomre more expensive due to demand if petroleum runs out, causing global energy scarcity.

Coal is much easier to be used by cities, e.g. for mass transit and centralized electric grids, than for the modern automobile society.

Coal powered cars are an unlikely alternative: The concept of an electric car depends on cheap coal or nuclear electricity, however:

Cars and other petroleum fuel users use up 50% of the world's energy demand, and coal and nuclear plants are only able to sustain present day electricity demands (which are vastly greater than twenty years ago thanks to so-called "clean" technologies such as mobile phones with their constantly-running low-voltage charger transformers and computers like the one I am using.)

In other words, the price of electricity will keep pace with the price of petroleum as energy demands increase and more people switch to hybrids and electrics, due to the lack of available coal and nuclear plants (we'd have to more than double the number of traditional coal and nuclear plants).

This will result in an equilibrium point, where Americans stop conserving energy by buying hybrid electrics and start simply paying more to drive in order to support their unsustainable highway oriented lifestyle, as they are already doing now.

The result will be a permanent 2nd-world economy of the sort Britain was sliding into before Reagan and Thatcher brought the North Sea oil on line -- the sort Brazil exists in today.

Indirect Solar: Hydroelectric indirect solar is the only economic means to provide energy to the lifestyle YOU anticipate keeping, a lifestyle of near-free energy where we can drive limitless miles on hybrid electrics powered by the sun. And hydroelectric can only be tapped by building dams or dikes that destroy wetland biomes. But it is not available most places.

Solar / Wind: Wind power is a fraction of the available maximum solar energy per square foot that comes from the sun.

The problem with all forms of direct or indirect solar other than hydroelectricity (which includes biomass) is that it cannot be concentrated.

Moreover, even if it were concentrated, WE ARE CURRENTLY USING MORE ENERGY PER DAY TO POWER OUR LIFESTYLE THAN IS ECONOMICALLY POSSIBLE TO EXTRACT, PRE DAY, FROM THE SUN, FOR A GIVEN SQUARE FOOTAGE OF LAND TURNED OVER TO HUMAN (NON-WILDLIFE) USE. In other words, there is a theoretical limit to how much power can be obtained by solar/wind even if every acre turned over to human occupation was covered by the most efficient solar panels. The alternative is to use currently wild areas for solar panels.

///bottom line: The fossil fuels we are using every day represent about 1,000 days' worth of GLOBAL accessible solar energy we are getting from the sun right now, at the maximum theoretical efficiency, for a given square footage of land (Jurassic forests/present day cities and farms).

Biomass: As mentioned, our energy "needs" (3-4x what our "needs" were before WWII, and 3-10x the energy requirements of a Chinese or Indian peasant whose children are producing those petroleum-based plastic goods) match or outpace the daily energy reserve which is accumulable from the entire non-human biomass.

In other words, to power 6-12 billion people on solar or biomass, we would have to usurp the solar energy demands of the other 99.999% of earth's species in order to fertilize our crops, feed our cattle, and power hybrid electric vehicles running around our cities on aimless, politically-determined paths like soldier ants in order to justify a "mobile lifestyle" in which the freedom of movement is 0% once you step outside your vehicle.

[robertpaulsen]

51. Dude, seriously, you need to do some more research on this.

I recommend starting by googling Robert Hirsch. If you read his reports done under the Department of Energy, I believe you'll start to understand that this is not a problem that we can afford to gradually adapt to with alternatives, it is a problem requiring a crash program with a minimal $20 trillion bill.

After reading his reports, look up EROEI. Once you understand the concept, apply it to all existing alternatives and ask the question, "Can our economy grow running it on this?" I have yet to find any combination of alternatives that can actually do this.

I think the David Strahan article in the OP is clear. We just don't have time anymore.

[JCMach1]

39. Not peak oil, just the end of CHEAP oil...

[barb162]

43. a hundred bucks a barrel is just the beginning n/t

[Strelnikov_]

44. ..