Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Hubbert's main detractors are a group called the Cornucopians. With voices like Peter Huber and Bjorn Lomberg on their side, they claim that human innovation dealing with things like tar sands will keep the oil flowing.
The real test of oil is not whether we'll run out, per se, but whether the return on investment (ROI) will become too much to bear. Hubbert detractors insist that monetary ROI is not linked to EROEI (Energy Returned on Energy Invested), but if either continues to become less and less beneficial, then why aren't we focusing on other energy sources that are still on the way up? Why do we love oil so much? Even if you discount the impact of global warming, the particulates in the air are definitely not beneficial. I lived in the Appalachian Mountains for a while, and acid rain is still killing trees, even if we've forgotten all about that.
Fact is, conservation and alternative energy sources can be extremely beneficial to business as well as people. They can save and make you money! So why all the fuss?
Fact is, conservation and alternative energy sources can be extremely beneficial to business as well as people. They can save and make you money! So why all the fuss?
I'm all for it, but one thing that must be considered is that if we go completely oil free, we are gonna need a junk yard the size of North Dakota to park all the gas burners on the road right NOW. By the time it could be reality there will be millions more new cars coming off the production lines. A way to convert gas burners to something else would be great, but seems unlikely at this point.
I'm all for it, but one thing that must be considered is that if we go completely oil free, we are gonna need a junk yard the size of North Dakota to park all the gas burners on the road right NOW. By the time it could be reality there will be millions more new cars coming off the production lines. A way to convert gas burners to something else would be great, but seems unlikely at this point.
Metal recycles quite well. Look at Brazil, back during the mid 70's OPEC debacle, they decided to become energy independent for a variety of reasons, one being national security. Their then, tin pot third world government worked with the auto industry to produce cars that would run on 50% ethanol. Then later on 100% ethanol which has more bang for the gallon than even gasoline does. They figured it would take two decades and today they are within 10-12% of being totally energy self sufficient. Makes me wonder why can't we do something similar if not more grand in scale, after all, we are a nation of tinkerers.
It can be done even with todays technologies. I don't believe there is any single solution to weening ourselves off the black crack but there are many things that can be done to help curb our appetite and start us down the right path.
Brazil uses sugarcane ethanol, which isn't really right for our climate. Corn ethanol is pretty much a nightmare with a terrible EROEI. I'm interested to see if cellulose ethanol will be a reality soon. Switchgrass is, by all accounts, hardy, great for the environment (the roots filter soil pollutants remarkably well), and not a food source, so it won't drive up the costs of corn, beef, eggs, etc. like corn ethanol will/has.
Also, keep in mind that the transition won't come overnight. Assuming it's the market driving the change, some people will continue to use petroleum, just like my Dad still watches VHS tapes. Some vehicles can be converted to biodiesel. Some engines may be able to run on different fuel types with other modifications. Beyond that, many of us buy new cars every couple of years anyway, so that's nothing new.
Brazil uses sugarcane ethanol, which isn't really right for our climate. Corn ethanol is pretty much a nightmare with a terrible EROEI. I'm interested to see if cellulose ethanol will be a reality soon. Switchgrass is, by all accounts, hardy, great for the environment (the roots filter soil pollutants remarkably well), and not a food source, so it won't drive up the costs of corn, beef, eggs, etc. like corn ethanol will/has.
Also, keep in mind that the transition won't come overnight. Assuming it's the market driving the change, some people will continue to use petroleum, just like my Dad still watches VHS tapes. Some vehicles can be converted to biodiesel. Some engines may be able to run on different fuel types with other modifications. Beyond that, many of us buy new cars every couple of years anyway, so that's nothing new.
This is nothing different than the conversion we made in the mid 1970's from leaded to unleaded gas. You do it in phases, and around 8 or so years after initial conversion, you restrict distribution of the outdated product.
By the way, in the article I referenced in my earlier posting, it appears that the tar sands oil may take us well beyond our lifetimes.
Its a theory that has been around since the late 60s or so. As a theory, it lacks anything resembling certainty.
It's a theory that has been around since at least the 1930's. Being classified as 'only a theory' does not by itself diminish the implications of it. As for certainty, one can in various cases establish as a certainty the premise that following any other course of action than that most directly suggested by the theory is to choose a higher-risk option. Such choices are always suboptimal.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ndfmnlf
I tend to ignore it for the most part. Were extreme scarcity imminent, gas would be at $1000 per gallon.
And global economic activity would be near zero, meaning that what was left of the global population would be living under conditions of stark suffering and crushing deprivation. It is wiser not to wait until the cataclysm arrives to do something about avoiding the cataclysm.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ndfmnlf
The intersection of Supply & Demand determines the optimal price of something.
In an efficient market. There is meanwhile no guaranty that the Supply part of that S&D dynamic will be at a level sufficient to support anything approaching the current scale of human activity. Just as there was no guaranty during the Great Depression that S&D equilibrium in labor markets would fall at a level anywhere near full employment.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ndfmnlf
Explains why 1 of the only 100 Honus Wagner baseball cards just went for around $2 million.
While another sold for less than $200,000? Otherwise, this is a rough example of the Paradox of Value. Water, essential for life, is cheap. Diamonds, essential for almost nothing, are expensive. The paradox is reasonably well resolved in marginal utility theory, and it is in any case not particularly relevant to the problems posed by peak oil.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ndfmnlf
If the petrol industry thought such scarcity there, the price would astronomical and they would not be spending money to drill in other places.
Not the case. The industry will continue to drill in other places so long as that is consistent with short-term profitability, even if the short-term in question is ten years out. Otherwise, the industry is well aware of the implications of peak oil and is positioning itself to profit from those. Their plans are to make huge profits from both the last signifcant reserves of oil and the first substantial reserves of alternative fuels.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ndfmnlf
If true and it could be for all we know, the diminishing output will become apparent over time. And that's the point where all these other energy sources and technologies will become cost effective. If there is a space of time between the two, well hell, if the Amish can live without it, so could I.
It is already apparent that future demand will increase markedly, and that future supplies will be deliverable only at higher and higher cost to an industry that is well positioned to defend its profit margins. The implications of those facts alone should be sufficient to spur serious concern.
It is certainly true that the cost of a unit of energy will have to rise in order to make a greater variety of sources of it economically viable. The question is how that cost increase should occur. There seem to be those who are willing to await and then endure a devastating cataclysm in order for that to occur. Especially given the fact that lead times for the development of alternative sources are rather long, a phase-in of cost increases (such as by surtaxes on oil, the proceeds of which could be channelled directly into the R&D needed to develop alternative sources) would be a potentially preferable option.
As for the Amish, they may have less dependence on oil than you or I do, but they do not have zero dependence on oil. I confidently predict that you (or your children or grandchildren etc.) will not at all enjoy their lives in a world that for any period of time reflects a lack of both oil and a meaningful alternative to oil.
You don't recognize what an economist calls the substitution effect?
For subsitution effects to come into play, there must first actually be an effective substitute. At the moment and with respect to oil, the best we have is a shaky commitment to pursuing interim, band-aid type substitutes that could serve to get us by while work to develop and implement an effective long-term substitute is carried out. This is not a particularly encouraging situation.
For subsitution effects to come into play, there must first actually be an effective substitute. At the moment and with respect to oil, the best we have is a shaky commitment to pursuing interim, band-aid type substitutes that could serve to get us by while work to develop and implement an effective long-term substitute is carried out. This is not a particularly encouraging situation.
My comment was not addressing what are the substitutes that exist today, though there are some. It is an economic fact that people will substitute one good for another when the price of the latter rises too high. This will happen for oil as well as of some time in the future. The demand for a more cost-effective substitute for scarce oil will motivate inventors to create alternative technologies. Because the use of oil in the advanced economies of the world is so pervasive, not only for fuel but as ingredients of other goods, I would also expect there to be significant economic dislocations during the transition away from high-cost oil, as I mentioned in my previous post. That's why I would put your word "effective" in quotes. The effectiveness of a substitute for oil in the economy will probably mean that more than one substance will turn out to be the substitute and will become so only over some passage of time. Those substances will not be an exact substitute because other kinds of changes in manufacture and delivery technologies, etc. for the substitute(s) will have to be developed.
Last edited by ParkTwain; 09-09-2007 at 09:56 AM..
Hubbert's main detractors are a group called the Cornucopians. With voices like Peter Huber and Bjorn Lomberg on their side, they claim that human innovation dealing with things like tar sands will keep the oil flowing.
There is certainly some validity to their points, and they have historical examples of adaptability to point to. But even if technology were to reduce EROEI to the rather ridiculous levels offered by pools of oil simply sitting in the ground, you would still face the question, given rapidly increasing demand, of what to do when the sands and shales run out, as well as the perhaps broader consideration that many other products depend on petroleum, and that as supplies of it inevitably become more scarce, we simply can't afford any longer to burn it up for such mundane purposes as getting from Point-A to Point-B.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarolinaBredChicagoan
The real test of oil is not whether we'll run out, per se, but whether the return on investment (ROI) will become too much to bear. Hubbert detractors insist that monetary ROI is not linked to EROEI (Energy Returned on Energy Invested), but if either continues to become less and less beneficial, then why aren't we focusing on other energy sources that are still on the way up?
To me, the last question is the pertinent one. I would not see definitive links between EROEI and ROI, but EROEI is all but certain to worsen as times goes on, as are the terms of the trade-off we will need to make in terms of sustaining particularly uses of petroleum as a source for transportation energy. We should indeed be focusing on development of both interim and long-term alternatives, while realizing that anything any of us can do to reduce our contribution to per capita energy consumption is an unmitigated plus and therefore worth pursuing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarolinaBredChicagoan
Fact is, conservation and alternative energy sources can be extremely beneficial to business as well as people. They can save and make you money! So why all the fuss?
I recommend a book called "The Party is Over" by Richard Heinberg. Big chunks of it can be found here on Google Books. It also has a GREAT cover, though only on some printings.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
