Did U watch "CRUDE"

[Grunt]

The question is not even when we will run out of oil. The question is what will happen when we do. My view is that as oil prices go up more people would switch to other energy sources. As more people switch to other energy sources their price will come down (economy of scale), and suddenly we will find out that we are using more nuclear, wind, solar or NZ sheep butane than oil.

None of these can hope to replace anything but a fraction of our oil use in a time frame that will make a difference. All of them are 'Oil Derivatives'. That is you need to use oil to mine crap to make them, transport crap or use petrochemicals to feed them. As the price of oil goes up, so will the price of these.

Oil is a liquid. It's kind of handy for transporting. We would need to replace half of our car and truck fleet with electric vehicles within 9 years assuming peak is about now. Even if we could our electrical grid can barely cope with current demand let alone the several orders of magnitude increase in capacity we would need to run our transport system.

Nuclear energy reserves are enough to sustain the current world consumption for 5000 years.

Just crap.




Uranium needs to be mined, processed and transported. That ain't happening without oil. Also, I'm not too keen on nuclear powered cars on the road.

If we tame only 1% of the solar energy that hits the earth we can increase our energy consumption by a factor of 60, and still rely on renewable energy. There is no energy shortage in sight.

Currently, about 1% of the worlds generated energy comes from solar power. To make solar panels requires a great deal of energy to mine the raw materials, ship, manufacture and maintain photo voltaic arrays. Solar powered cars aren't very practical either. There is no way that we could build sufficient numbers of solar panels and the required batteries to replace 50% of our oil needs in 9 years.

How do we know we are at the peak? Maybe the peak will come in 20 years, or 50? Maybe by then we will be able to commercially use wave, solar or wind energy?

Without hindsight we won't truly know we have reached peak. However, the evidence is mounting. Many countries have already reached peak. America, Norway, Venezuela, UK, Indonesia, Iran, Australia etc.

Saudi Arabia, the largest producer of oil (about 10%), produced 8% less oil in 2006 than it did in 2005. This in it self is not proof of them having reached peak but you've got to ask yourself why with oil prices so high, why wouldn't they increase rather than decrease production.

We need oil to produce it. In the US oil discoveries peaked in the 1930's. 40 years later in 1971, the US reached peak production. It has been declining ever since. The world oil discoveries peaked in 1965. 40 years later, it appears we have reached peak.

[MrFixIt]

Hi

I doubt that things are as bad as that portrayed by the media and doomsayers.

However I do agree that the worlds population is NOT doing things right. Many of what is done is backwards.

For example we are churning out MORE CO2, while at the same time copping down millions of trees the very thing that helps scrub the CO2 from the atmosphere.

So when are we going to get the less knowledgeable people annihilating the trees to understand the global waming problem? How are THEY going to exist if they can't sell the timber etc.

What happens when the oil runs out? We go back to the way things were before we had oil, INVENTING ways to do things WITHOUT oil.

Nuclear fusion is the way to go as it can be self sustaining and far less nasty than nuclear FISSION.

From here...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fusion

It takes considerable energy to force nuclei to fuse, even those of the lightest element, hydrogen. But the fusion of lighter nuclei, creating a heavier nucleus and a free neutron, will generally release more energy than it took to force them together — an exothermic process that can produce self-sustaining reactions.

With nuclear fusion reaction we would NEVER run out of energy, in fact the eventual producers would be forever making more than we could use. How are they going to sell it? Where are they going to earn their money to pay wages etc. They could sell it so cheap (eventually).

There are too many flow on effects if the "powers that be" were to introduce nuclear fusion now. The oil industry would crash leaving industrial turmoil in its wake.

So, too much of the global warming scenario is politically based and politically BIASED.

It is not excessively expensive to solar power your own home, though it is still for the more affluent. It is not yet within the realms of everybody's income but given a few more years even THAT will become a VERY viable option.

The human race will continue to survive. The conveniences we have may diminish or even dissipate entirely, BUT we will ALL adjust.

What if oil was not available as of tomorrow? Yes, it would be drastic adjustment.

There could be a resurgence in growing our own fuel oils - plant based and renewable.

Jobs would change, we would have a new need for other types of transportation, bicycles, horses etc. We would to some extent revert to the old ways which is not such a bad thing. There would be less obesity

Saudi Arabia, the largest producer of oil (about 10%), produced 8% less oil in 2006 than it did in 2005. This in it self is not proof of them having reached peak but you've got to ask yourself why with oil prices so high, why wouldn't they increase rather than decrease production.

Because an INCREASE in production reduces the price of oil!

We need oil to produce it.

Why? they didn't have oil when they first discovered it? I don't deny though that it would not be quite so easy as it was in the early days of oil discovery.

In the US oil discoveries peaked in the 1930's. 40 years later in 1971, the US reached peak production. It has been declining ever since. The world oil discoveries peaked in 1965. 40 years later, it appears we have reached peak.

How do we REALLY know this. As the oil market is so politically based and biased WORLDWIDE who can we believe?

We'd better start saving all those wood scraps and start building that steam engine

We WILL survive. At least until 2012 when the Mayan calandar runs out and who knows what will happen. It is supposed to be the end of the world as we currently know it. Either world war(s) or cataclysmic natural disasters are predicted by some.

A couple of references for those that may be curious...

http://www.levity.com/eschaton/Why2012.html

http://www.greatdreams.com/2012.htm

http://survive2012.com/why_2012_maya.php

http://www.greatdreams.com/end-world.htm

I have NOT read these so I do not advocate or dismiss these,I only put them here (plucked from Google) for your interest (amusement?)

Australia is one of the safest places to be as it is on it's own "plate". We may be surrounded by fault lines but all in all Australia will be THE place to be

Oh well enough of this morbid talk, I'm a survivor so those of you that survive with me will have to start writing letters again to keep up the forum

[dazzler]

Always keep a paper clip in your mouth ,

But from what this program was saying, if we use up the oil that we know we have that the CO2 levels will rise beyond what existed at the time that the oil was laid down originally and that it was laid down because the seas become toxic due to huge algal blooming and effectively a dead zone beneath the surface which stops all the dead animals/plants from decaying and instead it beomes a sludge on the ocean floor.

They seemed to use simple maths. The atmosphere is this much cubic kilometres in size and CO2 is currently Y%. Add in this much CO2 and the % becomes X% and its all over.

And seeing as humans are too stupid to look to the future we will go on until were smacked in the face and then all hell will break loose.

Gotta go or Ill be missed.

[javali]

We would need to replace half of our car and truck fleet with electric vehicles within 9 years assuming peak is about now.

Assumption!

Just crap.

Uranium needs to be mined, processed and transported. That ain't happening without oil. Also, I'm not too keen on nuclear powered cars on the road.

Assumption!
The diagrams are true assuming we take the IPCC estimate of remaining nuclear fuel. The International Atomic Energy Agency estimates are more than a hundred times higher.
Oh, and while I am not keen on nuclear power at all, there is no need for nuclear powered cars.

Without hindsight we won't truly know we have reached peak. However, the evidence is mounting. Many countries have already reached peak. [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=2]America, Norway, Venezuela, UK, Indonesia, Iran, Australia etc.

Saudi Arabia, the largest producer of oil (about 10%), produced 8% less oil in 2006 than it did in 2005. This in it self is not proof of them having reached peak but you've got to ask yourself why with oil prices so high, why wouldn't they increase rather than decrease production.

Assumption!
OPEC production policy has always been limiting production to maintain high prices.
Hindsight is a powerful tool. In 1985 oil production has been 10% lower than the up to then peak production. Evidence was more than mounting then. Why will that not repeat?

You see, the main problem with 'peak oil doom theories' is that peak oil production is an effect. Not a cause. Peak oil production will occur exactly at the time that demand will diminish. That's basic economy. US oil production peaked not because it could not produce more oil. It peaked because it was cheaper to produce oil elsewhere. World peak production will be reached when it becomes cheaper to use other energy sources.

Doom theories are always based on a very strong FUD factor. The fear of not having enough fuel to take the children to school, combined with the uncertainty as to the amount of energy reserves we have and the doubts about alternative energy sources is an excellent basis for a doom theory. Doom theories are also based on the assumption that things will be radically different in the future. This is where they break. God does not rain great hailstones fire and brimstone, computers do not stop working just because the date changes, and pigs do not fly. Oil prices will not soar overnight, alternative energy will become available when it becomes commercially exploitable, peak oil production will be reached and oil will gradually be replaced as the major source of energy. There is no reason to lose sleep over any of these.

[silentC]

computers do not stop working just because the date changes

Umm, well in some cases they did, but it wasn't so much the computers stopping, but the software written for them that was the problem. And because we spent wads of cash on making sure that all software was 2000 compliant, we didn't have many problems. So that was a case of people realising there was an impending problem and doing something about it before it was too late. Yes a lot of it was overkill, but it was better to fix each and every double digit year variable than analyse each and every one for it's potential impact. 'twas a good time to be a programmer because Y2K took a lot of resources away from the mainstream and made the rest of us more desirable.

So you are faced with a decision, you can wave it aside as just another doom prophesy and assume that things will just keep going as they always have done, because based on our (paultry) couple of thousand years of recorded history they always have, or you can accept the possibility that just maybe this is a problem that we need to do something about because hindsight will be too late.

I always think it's pointless to look for analogies (like Y2K) because they are independent and unrelated events and have no meaning when talking about climate change or oil.

[zenwood]

Javali's point is excellent: future forecasts are based on current trends and assuming that these will remain valid. However we're coming up with massive upheavals, that change the conditions, and these are not accounted for in static models.

I am encouraged by the fact that people have been forecasting doomesday scenarios throughout history, and many of them have not come to pass. Such as the imminent return of Christ, Gog and Magog, the coming ice age of the 1970s, and indeed Y2K.

On the other hand, massive change is what human beings do very very well. We have adapted ourselves in the last 10,000 years or so to most conditions on the planet.

I wonder what will be the interaction between the exhaustion of the world's oil and the exponential rise of computation, genetic engineering, nanotechnology and robotics (see e.g. Kurzweil). In a couple of century's time, we may be able to avoid international air travel by downloading ourselves into a network, passing the data across the ocean, and re-instantiating ourselves at the remote location. That's assuming a remote location is required. The teletransportation may not even be needed if virtual presence is of sufficiently high fidelity. The pertinent equivalent of a current human life might be executable on only a few joules of energy. Current biology is quite inefficient, having to lug around a lot of supporting structure (skeleton, digestive system, muscular system, etc), to get the brain to various locations.

Maybe the doom-sayers are right: humanity is destined for extinction, the cockroaches will inherit the earth, and the planet will breathe a slight sigh and move on: other species expanding and adapting into their evolutionary futures. There's a certain poetry in the human race evolving from its simian roots and in only a few million years consuming itself in a blaze of fiery intelligence, perhaps the only such intelligence the universe will ever know.

"Prediction is very difficult, especially about the future." -- Niels Bohr

[silentC]

I am encouraged by the fact that people have been forecasting doomesday scenarios throughout history

Yes but don't forget that we know a lot more about the world than was known then.

People keep bringing up Y2K and the apparent anti-climax as a reason for assuming everything will be OK. I don't understand that way of thinking. It's like having your alarm clock go off on time despite a power failure overnight and assuming therefore that the weather forecast for rain will be proven wrong. Other past 'doomsday' prophecies have just as little to do with it. Just because one group of scientists, philosophers or religious nutters were wrong, doesn't mean they all will be.

The Y2K analogy is a furphy. If no action had been taken, there would have been havoc. I can speak with authority about that, at least for the organisation I was working for at the time. It was never going to be a world 'doom' event though. It doesn't even rate next to the problems projected by the peak oil and global warming theories (let's not forget that's what they are, theories. Nobody knows what is going to happen).

[javali]

So that was a case of people realising there was an impending problem and doing something about it before it was too late.

Sure that was the case, but there was also another side. There were the doom prophesies along the lines of "there is no way that all software will be fixed on time, financial markets will collapse, buy gold and stay in your shelters." People did just that. Gold price jumped just before the end of 1999.

So you are faced with a decision, you can wave it aside as just another doom prophesy and assume that things will just keep going as they always have done, because based on our (paultry) couple of thousand years of recorded history they always have, or you can accept the possibility that just maybe this is a problem that we need to do something about because hindsight will be too late.

Deplating oil resources is not a doom prophesy. It is an issue that has to be and is being addressed. Research is being carried on alternative energy sources. Plants are being built and at some oil price they will become a commercially viable option.

"The population will be reduced to somewhere between .5 billion and 2 billion over the next 30-50 years" is a doom prophesy. We are not in that stage yet. There is no need to "build sufficient numbers of solar panels and the required batteries to replace 50% of our oil needs in 9 years". There is no need to build personal stashes of petrol, food and water and to arm yourself to the teeth in preparation for a Mad Max society. If we do not address the problem of deplating oil reserves we will have to deal with a Mad Max society. It is not a real option yet. no need to lose sleep over it.

[silentC]

There were the doom prophesies along the lines of "there is no way that all software will be fixed on time, financial markets will collapse, buy gold and stay in your shelters."

But there were just as many people saying that it would all be OK and not to worry about it. It was sensible to be cautious. You don't just sit back and see what happens. It's all part of risk mitigation. People whose job it is to analyse risk must look at the worst case scenario. If it turns out better, well and good but at least you were prepared.

Balance is required, but throwing up arguments that the ice age never came or Y2K was a non-event don't contribute much because they are not logically related scenarios.

I think there are enough knowledgeable people ringing alarm bells to make it something that needs to be looked at urgently. If spouting doom prophecies gets people to sit up and take notice (like Y2K) then perhaps it's not a bad tactic. Maybe we need them to distract people from their daily pursuit of hapiness in the form of bigger TVs.

[Grunt]

OPEC production policy has always been limiting production to maintain high prices.

Explain why we went for nearly two decades at between $10 and $20 a barrel till 2000. Surely, it would have made sense to restrict supply at that price rather than at near $70 a barrel.

Originally Posted by Grunt
We would need to replace half of our car and truck fleet with electric vehicles within 9 years assuming peak is about now.
Assumption!

Yes, I'm assuming that we have a depletion rate of 5%. This is a reasonable estimate based on historical depletion rates. See graph below.

In 1985 oil production has been 10% lower than the up to then peak production. Evidence was more than mounting then. Why will that not repeat?

The drop in production was completely due to a drop in demand. The oil shock of 1979 was caused by political events around Iran and Saudi Arabia. There was a short period where we actually tried to conserve oil.

How do we REALLY know this. As the oil market is so politically based and biased WORLDWIDE who can we believe?

Absolutely. There is no reason for a country or an oil to lie about production. A company that understates there production would have an adverse effect on their share price. Not something directors of companies like. Oil is a finite resource. It is not a question of whether we we will reach peak oil but when.

There is real reason for countries to lie about there reserves though. OPEC brought in a rule that said OPEC members were not allowed to produce more than a set percentage of their total oil reserves. Miraculously, over the next 18 months every OPEC member's stated reserves increased by somewhere between 50% and 200%

It peaked because it was cheaper to produce oil elsewhere. World peak production will be reached when it becomes cheaper to use other energy sources.

At $70 a barrel, you would think that it would become economic to start producing at least a bit more. The US has been in steady decline since 1971.
Peak Oil is about the end of cheap oil not the end of oil.

Oil prices will not soar overnight, alternative energy will become available when it becomes commercially exploitable, peak oil production will be reached and oil will gradually be replaced as the major source of energy.

The price of oil has nearly quadrupled over the last 5 years. When will these become viable?

What happens when the oil runs out? We go back to the way things were before we had oil, INVENTING ways to do things WITHOUT oil.

Nuclear fusion is the way to go as it can be self sustaining and far less nasty than nuclear FISSION.

Fission is still a pipe dream. At best it is still decades away from commercial reality.

Why? they didn't have oil when they first discovered it? I don't deny though that it would not be quite so easy as it was in the early days of oil discovery.

Oil is part of everything we do. We will have to change everything in our lives in a relatively short space of time. We haven't started yet.

[Gingermick]

Nuclear fusion is the way to go

All we need to do is master cold fusion. And given that the laws of thermodynamics wont let us, we'll just have to elect a goverment that will change those laws.

However, I did see a telly program on a experimental fusion reactor in ths US. they succeeded in producing a fusion reaction, for a nano second or something, and harnessed a number (greater than 1) of Tera-watts. More power than the world was currently using at that time.

[Grunt]

However, I did see a telly program on a experimental fusion reactor in ths US. they succeeded in producing a fusion reaction, for a nano second or something, and harnessed a number (greater than 1) of Tera-watts. More power than the world was currently using at that time.

If that was Catalyst late last year, they used put more energy into the reactor then they got out. The next step was to build a bigger reactor for around US$6 billion. They are still a long way off from actually producing usable energy.

[echnidna]

All that reactors can really power is an electricity grid, and there are various ways of making electricity without oil.

What is needed is vehicle fuel.

[Gingermick]

I They are still a long way off from actually producing usable energy.

They are, however technological advance is also exponential.

[Andy Mac]

It was a good show, and I especially liked that young (greenie) woman's comments, that everything we touch has a drop of oil involved, whether in transport or manufacturing, or as a product/byproduct.
We are currently bound up with the supply of oil, and that supply will be hit by the double whammy of increased extraction costs and spirally demand. We need to reduce our dependence on oil.... that is a simple no-brainer.
I guess my thoughts are on how do we continue to produce or manufacture at the current rate, and then transport our needs. Domestic transport isn't really an issue I don't reckon: we'll get by on increasingly more efficient vehicles and public transport, with increasing use of electric vehicles; electricity will continue to be produced, if only by the vast reserves of coal. Long distance and heavy haulage is a different matter, where electric vehicles (apart from trains) aren't an option at present, so we may need to revisit the rail network. Air travel will suffer!
Agriculture, especially broad acre farming, will suffer greatly without diesel, and I can't imagine electric tractors in the near future! Add oil crop production onto increased demand for food cropping....
But what about the products manufactured from petrochemicals....rubber for the enormous number of tyres for instance? Go back to latex!? People have mentioned all sorts here...pesticides and fertilizers, plastics. Can the base chemicals needed for these be extracted from coal, a closely allied substance? I seem to remember reading that early plastics production was from coal? What about lubricants...seems we can't rely on whales as an alternative anymore. As an ex-mechanic, I can't imagine a world without oil and grease. What is synthetic motor oil made from...more oil I'd guess!?

Many challenges lie ahead, and it will involve changes in expectations, but I feel confident it won't be the end of the world!
BTW has anyone read Dougal Dixon's "After Man: a zoology of the future"?

Cheers,