“Our ignorance is not as vast as our failure to use what we know”.
-- M. King Hubbert
A minority of geologists have long argued that hydrocarbons were formed through inorganic processes operating on carbon sourced from the earth’s mantle. Theories for an inorganic origin ranged from hydrocarbons raining from the sky early during the Earth’s formation and trapped into the surface rocks which, later transformed into petroleum. In all these cases, the presence of organic matter was attributed to the petroleum picking them up as it moved through crystal rocks containing organic material.
Unfortunately for the inorganic theory, all major petroleum discoveries have come from methods that assume an organic formation process. However, hydrocarbons are almost surely derived from organic decay and because of this, the petroleum reserves are limited. We will eventually run out of “affordable” oil, the big question is when? Peak Oil Theory tends to answer this question.
Oil resources are finite; this is irrefutable. It is equally true that no one knows just how finite they are and trying to assess their order of magnitude is a very complicated puzzle. In 1956, geologist M. King Hubbert predicted that U.S. oil production would peak in the early 1970s. Almost everyone inside and outside the oil industry rejected Hubbert’s analysis. The controversy raged until 1970, when the U.S. production of crude oil really started to fall. Hubbert was right. Hubbert predicted that annual oil production would follow a “bell-shaped” curve; the curve which become to be known as “Hubbert’s Peak”.
The bell-shaped production curve, as originally suggested by M. King Hubbert in 1956.
The earth’s endowment of oil is finite and demand for oil continues to increase with time. Accordingly, geologists know that at some future date, conventional oil supply will no longer be capable of satisfying world demand. At that point, world oil production will have “peaked” and begin to decline. It has taken 50 – 300 million years to form, yet mankind has managed to burn roughly half of the global oil reserves in merely 125 years or so. The world is consuming about 86 million barrels of oil per day, or 40,000 gallons per second, and the demand is growing exponentially.
As Albert Einstein said, “One of nature’s biggest forces is exponential growth”. Dr. Colin Campbell, leading geologist says, “It’s quite a simple theory and one that any beer drinker understands. The glass starts full and ends empty and the faster you drink it the quicker it’s gone”.
Statistics prove that oil production in 33 out of 48 countries has approached a “peak”, and if the rate of consumption is not reined in, it can potentially end our Oil Age. The world is not running out of oil itself, but rather its ability to produce high-quality, cheap and economically extractable oil on demand. The rate at which world oil producers can extract oil is reaching its maximum, and possibly that is what is meant by “Peak Oil”. The last few years have had a Reserve Replacement Ratio of less than one – a jargon for saying that more is being drilled out of the ground than being discovered. The Stone Age did not end because of the lack of stones, and the Oil Age won’t end also because of lack of oil. The issue is lack of further growth, followed by gradual, then steep decline.
It is important to recognize that oil production peaking is not “running out” of oil. Reserves are an estimate of the total amount of oil in a reservoir that can be extracted at an assumed cost. Thus, a higher price outlook often means that more oil can be produced, but geology places an upper limit on price-dependant reserves growth.
In the oil world, the prevailing classification system for assessing reserves has been outlined into three categories:
- Proven reserves – defined as the amount of oil and gas in place, in known reservoirs, that can be estimated with “reasonable certainty”. The concept of “reasonable certainty” is associated with a probability of profitable recovery of at least 90%.
- Probable reserves – the probability of profitable recovery falls to 50%.
- Possible reserves – profitable probability of recovery no less than 10%.
Today, all major sources estimate that the world’s proven oil reserves vary between 1.0 and 1.2 million barrels and are geographically highly concentrated. Nearly 65% of oil is found in the Persian Gulf area. As per the present oil consumption of 85 million barrels per day, the life span of proven oil reserves is about 38 years.
Economists argue that this projection is misleading because future demand will be higher than today’s, thus shortening the effective longevity of today’s reserves. This argument is itself flawed as it assures that only consumption grows, while resources are fixed. Technological advances have dramatically increased the recoverability of oil from its reservoirs. On an average, only about 15 to 20% of oil in a given reservoir can be recovered from its rocky prison by relying on natural pressure known as “primary recovery”. Over a period, many new technologies have enabled bringing additional oil to the ground by injecting natural gas and water down into the reservoirs generally referred to as “secondary recovery”.
It goes without saying that we must discover before we can extract. It is also true that if we extract more than we discover, we will eventually exhaust the surplus reserves built over a period of time. Presently, the world is consuming four times as much as it discovers. World oil demand is expected to grow 50% by 2025 i.e. to approximately 120 million barrels a day. Peak Oil as a theory is difficult to prove, until the peaking occurs. Geologists and economists has described three forms of this:
- The “weak” form. This school believes that global oil production will peak unpredictably at some point in next 10 to 20 years. Until then, oil production will decline in most nations but will be offset by increased production from Middle East and Former Soviet Union (FSU) countries;
- The “moderate” form of peak oil will occur when the Middle East & FSU countries will be unable to significantly increase the production, although they will maintain current levels of output for many decades; and
- The “strong” form, the worst predicted, is when the Middle East will prove unable to increase its production, leaving a catastrophic effect on the global economy.
In addition to the above, another, and the most dangerous form of “peak oil” predicted is “political peaking”. The Middle Eastern nations can produce more oil to meet the world’s growing thirst, but will they? Is it better to pump more and invest the surplus? Or leave it in the ground for future generations?
The arrival of Peak Oil may be slightly delayed if worldwide demand for oil would fall; a global recession can hit demand for oil-based products. This would result in spare capacity building up again. Furthermore, high oil prices themselves can dampen demand. We have actually taken our lifestyles and the cheap and abundant supply of oil all for granted. The main worry is not the present levels of resource use and ecological impact. It is the levels we want to raise. The supreme goal of all countries is to raise incomes, the “living standards” and the GDP as much as possible.
With this energy base dwindling, there is simply not enough time to replace a fluid so cheap, abundant and versatile. It is rich in energy, easy to use, store and transport. No other form of energy can replace it in time, either separately or in combination. Other renewable forms of energy also require lots of energy to construct and require a petroleum platform to deliver. To cite a few examples:
- Natural gas is a diminishing resource as well and cannot satisfy the growing demand for energy;
- Ethanol has a net energy value of zero;
- Solar energy produces marginal net energy, but is still decades away at best from being a viable substitute given the recent rate of progress in efficiency and costs;
- The widespread belief that hydrogen is going to save the day, hydrogen fuel cells are not an energy source at all, but are more properly termed a form of energy storage. Free hydrogen does not exist on this planet. It requires more energy to break a hydrogen bond;
- Coal is abundant, but its net energy profile is poor compared to oil;
- Obtaining usable oil from tar sands requires huge amounts of energy; and
- Nuclear power plants are simply too expensive and takes ten years to build, relying on a fossil fuel platform for all stages of construction, maintenance, and extracting & processing nuclear fuels.
The Economic Armageddon
Oil is the fuel that enabled the growth of modern civilization, and the industrialized countries now rely on it to an extraordinary extent. Oil provides 40% of all primary energy, and 90% of our transportation energy. Oil peaking will create a severe liquid fuels problem for the transportation sector, not an “energy crisis” in the usual sense that term has been used. The physical and chemical versatility of oil, combined with its high energy density, cannot replace any other known energy source or even adequate substitute. In short, oil is the lifeblood of the current world. As the chief economist of Morgan Stanley said, “… we have a 90% chance of facing an economic Armageddon.” The bell is ringing for us to wake up and as Albert Einstein said, “you cannot solve this world’s problems with the same thinking that created them”.
The main changes we need to effect are a move away from “too much” globalization towards local economies that values and preserves own natural capital such as local food supplies, traditional skills, protecting the flora & fauna, the practices of optimum land use and urban design. Peak Oil will certainly pose enormous challenge for future generations; we need to respond now for a harmonious future, time now to put our “Plan B” in place. As pointed by Lester R. Brown in his bestselling book Plan B 2.0: Rescuing a Planet under Stress and a Civilization in trouble writes:
Sustaining our early 21st century global civilization now depends on shifting to a renewable energy-based, reuse/recycle economy with a diversified transport system. Business as usual – Plan A – cannot take us where we want to go. It is time for Plan B, time to build a new economy and new world. Our central survival task for the decades ahead, as individuals and as species, must be to make a transition away from the use of fossil fuels and to do this as peacefully, equitably, and intelligently as possible.
Whether Hubbert’s theory is correct or not, we must ensure that our society can function with dwindling supplies of black gold.
From an economist’s perspective, the concept of “peak oil” does not exist. An economist sees the availability of oil as a function of technology and investment i.e. as long as people are prepared to pay the price there is enough material in the earth’s crust to create oil. We have to be ready to pay the price both in monetary and environmental terms.
According to the First Law of Thermodynamics, energy can neither be created nor destroyed; it can only be converted from one form into another. This is also known as the Law of Conservation of Energy. Fuel is the scarce resource, not energy by itself. Crude Oil is also one such scarce resource. How do we choose how much to produce? How do we allocate scarce resources that have alternative uses to their “best” use? And, how do we know what is the “best” use? All these are economic questions. The answer is “the best use is one that provides the greatest satisfaction for the greatest number of people”.
How do we achieve that “best” use? The answer is, “in a free society we achieve that through free markets”. A fundamental economic axiom is that human creativity and inventiveness respond to the incentive of price. In a free society, market prices tell us how much to produce, how much to consume, and how much to conserve, of our scarce resources. In a free society market prices will allocate resources to their best use.
Michael Crichton, the famous novelist, in his novel State of Fear has rightly said:
There are many reasons to shift away from fossil fuels, and we will do so in this century without legislation, financial incentives, carbon conservation programs, or the interminable yammering of fear mongers. So far as I know, nobody will have to ban horse transportation in this century.
The conclusion line is that the wolf is not at the door. Only the inability of the decision makers to grasp this reality and to act accordingly may push the world to that “resource curse”. From Sri Lankan perspective, it is worth quoting Mr. Ashantha de Mel, CMD, Ceylon Petroleum Corporation, who says, “alternative forms of energy is an aspect that we can explore, but it is more important to try and reduce consumption…”
To avoid a crunch, energy policy needs to reduce the demand growth – “fuel switching”, or to increase the supply of unconventional liquids. A major overhaul in the thinking process is desired towards energy policy around the globe. Time is not far when an oil price spike might break down opposition to a much greater interventionist approach by the governments in their energy sectors. Thus it might do for energy policy what 9/11 did for US military and security policy. Greater government intervention might return us to the ‘bad old days’ when much of the intervention was ill informed, unhelpful and positively damaging. The Trojan horse led to the fall of Troy, it is for the policy makers to decide whether they need to be remembered by our generations to come, as the Trojan horse is.
Hence the buzz phrase of the day as posted on Indian Oil message boards is “Save oil today or walk to your destination tomorrow”.
Related Articles
|
This article has 64 comments:
-
investor88
-
716 Comments
Nov 16 07:25 AM-
mangolfer
-
162 Comments
Nov 16 08:14 AMWhen the numbers and quotes, don't say what you want, give them more numbers and quotes to try and get the price up again.....
-
john s. gordon
-
680 Comments
Nov 16 08:38 AMcontrol unrestrained population growth & we can postpone the exhaustion of petroleum.
coal-to-syncrude rides to the rescue.
> jack
-
long_on_oil
-
93 Comments
Nov 16 08:49 AMWouldn't we be better off to prepare for peak oil and have the theory proven wrong than to not prepare at all and actually face the Armageddon to come.
I won't be around because I am to damn old but when the world does run out of oil you can bet the next theory will be born and it will be called "the demise of the human race due to lack of oil."
-
Clifford J. Wirth, Ph.D.
-
48 Comments
My Website
Nov 16 08:53 AMAccording to most independent scientific studies, global oil production will now decline from 74 million barrels per day to 60 million barrels per day by 2015. During the same time demand will increase 9%.
No one can reverse this trend, nor can we conserve our way out of this catastrophe. Because the demand for oil is so high, it will always exceed production levels; thus oil depletion will continue steadily until all recoverable oil is extracted.
Alternatives will not even begin to fill the gap. And most alternatives yield electric power, but we need liquid fuels for tractors/combines, 18 wheel trucks, trains, ships, and mining equipment.
We are facing the collapse of the highways that depend on diesel trucks for maintenance of bridges, cleaning culverts to avoid road washouts, snow plowing, roadbed and surface repair. When the highways fail, so will the power grid, as highways carry the parts, transformers, steel for pylons, and high tension cables, all from far away. With the highways out, there will be no food coming in from "outside," and without the power grid virtually nothing works, including home heating, pumping of gasoline and diesel, airports, communications, and automated systems.
This is documented in a free 48 page report that can be downloaded, website posted, distributed, and emailed: www.peakoilassociates....
I used to live in NH-USA, but moved to a sustainable place. Anyone interested in relocating to a nice, pretty, sustainable area with a good climate and good soil? Email: clifford dot wirth at yahoo dot com or give me a phone call which operates here as my old USA-NH number 603-668-4207. survivingpeakoil.blogs.../
-
ziz
-
20 Comments
My Website
Nov 16 09:02 AMPOM1 = when oil runs out
POM2 = when folks realise that POM1 will happen real soon now
POM2 is when energy becomes a political problem and not an econmic problem.
-
Bamboo
-
1 Comment
My Website
Nov 16 09:12 AM-
ferguson
-
48 Comments
Nov 16 09:16 AMOn the other hand, even if all of the advocated steps are taken and we are able to battle the forces of evil to a draw, the result will still be disastrous for the simple reason that war has now become a distraction from the real problems facing the world which include global warming, environmental degredation, food and water shortages, population growth and (last but not least) peak oil.
War and the preparation for war is one of the least (perhaps the very least) productive uses of time and energy on the planet. The world as a whole (and we have to think in these terms) simply cannot afford a future where a large percentage of resources are spent on national defense, war and the aftermath of war.
The clear interests of the entire world and its inhabitants are in finding a way to move beyond war. As the world's mightiest war machine, the U.S. should take the lead in this direction.
-
lewisabroad
-
8 Comments
Nov 16 09:59 AMSwitching to localized production requires that once-outsourced manufacturing now needs to be done locally and manufacturing that was once done for a global market is now done for a local one. Businesses that were once profitable because of economies of scale and scope are no longer so, resulting in overall global economic loss. Producers for a local market are rarely able to achieve the efficiencies of a global producer, the result will be an overall increase in the cost of goods or decrease in quality, or both.
We experienced "peak oil" over the summer: a period when demand for a product with a highly inelastic price nearly exceeded supply. It's a good starting point to see if free markets will provide the necessary structure to prevent peak oil from affecting quality of life.
Over the summer price was also affected by hedge funds and other financial players speculating on the market. Prices plateued a bit when China and India decreased subsidies and then collapsed when speculators had to cover losses on unwinding positions when the commercial paper market collapsed. The speculative positions taken by non-market players may have caused prices to fluctuate more than they might have in a pure supply-demand market. My feeling is that the speculator's role may be overplayed however, as we saw a similar price spike in the 1970's when there were few players outside the market.
The idea that the market will solve this problem is a good one. As the margin between supply and demand grows thin prices rise. People then switch to other modes of transport or use other fuels, the price declines, and then people (perhaps) switch back, until a kind of equilibrium is reached.
There are a couple of problems with the free market model, however, that argue against a pure market solution. First, switching costs can be high, incur an initial investment cost, and take time. For example, switching to public transport from a car incurs a time cost of the customer and long-term will overload the public transit system resulting in a need for infrastructure investment. Switching to PHEVs requires a huge retooling investment from auto manufacturers and also requires time.
Second, because fuel prices are reflected in almost every product and service, fluctuation in fuel prices does not just affect the amount of driving we do but also the quantity and types of products we buy, resulting in a ripple effect across the entire economy. Price spikes in oil accompany periods of global economic growth, price collapses accompany periods of global recession.
Third, market policies are not determined globally; some countries implement subsidies while others allow market forces to rule. Subsidies distort the ability of supply signals to be sent to customers and modulate demand.
Lastly, since the price of oil is inelastic, prices fluctuate far out of proportion to the number fo marginal barrels of production out there. This results in dramatic price swings (both up and down) depending on the availability of oil. A drop in demand of less than 2% has led to oil prices dropping by roughly 50%.
We need policies that not only help us reduce demand, but also help dampen price spikes and troughs. It is nearly impossible to expect the market to be able to create technological solutions to high oil prices over the course of eight months. What happens instead is that demand for other goods and services is curtailed to free up consumers cash to fill up a tank, until consumer demand drops cause a recession.
In the case of petroleum, the answer is not "prices allocate their best use". the answer is "prices cause global economic instability and prevent long-term investment and decision-making" - at least on the part of consumers and producers.
My argument is that the only solution is to move away from oil to a diversified energy portfolio. Policies should be geared towards promoting electricity for transportation, whether through EVs or public transit, since electricity represents a diversified energy source. Let the utilities then decide which source is most efficient for them. If climate change is a concern, a general carbon tax would tilt economics in the favor of renewables and biofuels.
-
notsosmart
-
1199 Comments
Nov 16 10:02 AM-
123andy
-
5 Comments
Nov 16 10:16 AM-
Michael Fitzsimmons
-
292 Comments
My Website
Nov 16 10:16 AMthe inability of worldwide oil supply to keep up with worldwide oil demand can only lead any thinking human being to once conclusion: any country that imports 70% of its oil must adopt a strategic, long-term, comprehensive energy policy! here is one in case anyone needs help understanding what is necessary:
thefitzman.blogspot.co...
-
msoori
-
67 Comments
My Website
Nov 16 10:27 AM-
fahrender
-
11 Comments
My Website
Nov 16 12:00 PMlong_on_oil said it best:
"wouldn't we be better off to prepare for peak oil and be proven wrong than not to prepare and face the Armageddon to come(?)."
there are more worthwhile reasons to develop alternatives to oil besides avoidance of Armageddon. the serious development of wind and solar power and the modernization of the electricity infrastructure in the US would make for a stronger economy as well as a healthier environment. a healthier environment would reduce health care costs. converting autos in America to natural gas would also improve the environment. building out the required infrastructure would be economically beneficial.
we used to be a "can do" country. we are known, historically, as innovators. what happened? why can't we do this?
-
Larry Bellehumeur
-
65 Comments
Nov 16 12:31 PM-
Mark Goldes
-
27 Comments
My Website
Nov 16 01:02 PMThe earth is immersed in an extremely dense sea of energy. In 1926, inventor Hans Coler, in Germany, tapped what he termed “Space Energy”. His first generator delivered a few watts of electricity. During 1937, Coler demonstrated a second, 6,000 watt, generator that was later shown to the German navy. During WWII, a highly secret R&D project supported Coler, in attempts to achieve production in order to recharge submarine batteries without the need for a sub to surface. Late in the War, the Allies bombed the lab. After hostilities ended, Coler cooperated with British Intelligence, which published a Report in 1946, concluding his achievement was real. In 1979, 34 pages of the British Intelligence Report were declassified. Today, they can readily be found on the internet.
MPI is developing revolutionary new technology. Some of our generators may prove to be tapping the same, Space Energy resource. It is now often referred to as the Quantum Vacuum, or Zero Point Energy (ZPE). U.S. Patent, No. 7,379,286 (not directly connected with our work) is entitled: Quantum Vacuum Energy Extraction. It provides a comprehensive discussion of the Zero Point Field. The Patent is readily available on the web.
Ambient heat surrounds us at all times. It is another huge untapped energy reservoir. When it is utilized on a very large scale, it can help resolve our energy problems. On earth, ambient heat is a secondary power source powered by the sun. Sunlight is conserved in matter, such as rocks, in the form of heat. A great deal of energy remains available after sunset. Matter acts as an energy storage system for heat and allows life to survive periods of darkness. The stored energy is released after sunset or if the energy has been absorbed. Absorption takes place whenever heat is converted into electricity cooling instead of heating the planet. Those who doubt this is possible may find the two papers dealing with Maxwell at the following link of interest: arxiv.org/find/physics...
Unconventional energy conversion systems are under development in several countries. Those inventions that become practical products may prove to be tapping one or the other of these never previously commercialized, renewable, abundant sources of energy. Revolutionary new energy conversion devices can be manufactured in many of the world’s electronic factories. They are likely to prove inherently cost-competitive with all existing energy systems. Not only can they be used to power homes and businesses of every variety, but also to make practical cars, trucks, buses, ships and eventually aircraft that need no engines, batteries, or any variety of conventional fuel or recharge.
Advanced designs will soon be capable of producing torque and/or electricity on a self-sustaining basis. Devices without moving parts are comparable to an inexhaustible electric battery. One Proof-of-Concept prototype was evaluated by Lee Felsenstein, EE. He concluded it to be analogous to the early work on the transistor, which eventually led to a Nobel Prize and the creation of Silicon Valley.
2,000 watts is the maximum amount of power that can be drawn from a 110 volt wall outlet to recharge the battery of a plug-in hybrid car. Generators we are developing are expected to generate this much power and demonstrate replacement of the plug needed by a plug-in hybrid car, within a year. This will be a harbinger of automobiles that need no conventional fuel. With normal progress, prototype new energy conversion systems are anticipated to replace an automobile engine within three years. That goal might be achieved in less time if development involves four teams of engineers and technicians working on a 24/7 basis. These prototypes will open a path to mass production of entirely new varieties of automotive power plants. Vehicles powered by these technologies will never require conventional fuel of any kind.
Cars can become a source of income
Vehicle to grid (V2G) power was demonstrated by Google and PG&E during 2007. It was recently estimated that selling power to the grid from future production hybrid electric cars might earn the vehicles’ owner $4,000 each year. This assumes that power will be drawn by utilities from the car’s batteries, using a two-way, plug.
In the future, cars powered by new energy conversion systems are expected to earn much more, as these generators are anticipated to replace both batteries and car engines. Therefore, they are expected to produce far greater amounts of electricity. No plug will be required.
Generators of the variety we are developing to power electric automobiles might be thought of as analogous to a fuel cell that needs no hydrogen. We can easily switch this cell on or off. When the car is driving the conversion device is switched on, providing energy to the electric motor that propels the car. When the vehicle is parked, the motor that drives the vehicle is turned 'off', but the modular device remains "on", still producing energy, like a fuel cell that needs no fuel. In larger cars, trucks and buses, up to 150 kW, produced by the unit while the motor is off, can be transferred from the vehicle through a wireless technology requiring no physical connection to the parked vehicle, providing power to the utility grid. Instead of paying to park, the electric power utility may decide to pay vehicle owners, because their cars and trucks become a source of electricity, a clean alternative to any existing variety of power plant. Over a reasonable period of time, payments to the owner may be sufficient to reimburse the purchase price of many vehicles.
Once cars, trucks and buses become available that need no fuel and can earn their keep, it is logical to expect automotive manufacturers will sell every such vehicle they make. Plants that have been shut down will reopen. Auto workers who have been laid off could have the opportunity to be rehired. Large numbers of new manufacturing jobs will be created.
A revolutionary product this far-reaching has the potential to provide huge numbers of new jobs and opportunities for new enterprise. The economic impact of cars as power plants may prove a surprising way to stimulate the global economy. It can also provide distributed generation wherever the grid is lacking or unreliable. Moreover, cars can wirelessly power homes and businesses. Imagine the many advantages following storms and other disasters.
These technologies will rapidly reduce the need to import fuel and thereby accomplish a huge reduction in the balance of payments, a huge drain at present on our economy.
Greenland loses more ice each year than all the ice in the Alps. Elsewhere there is also frightening, massive, melting of ice. Temperatures in the Arctic have climbed by 4 degrees C in recent decades. The Observer newspaper, in the UK, has stated that in 6 “years nearly all Peru's glaciers will be gone due to global warming and its 27 million people will nearly all lack fresh water, with the likely result being: 'chaos, conflict and mass migration'. (As rising temperatures reach heavily populated areas of the planet) each 1 degree Celsius global temperature rise deprives between 400 million and 1.7 billion people of sufficient water. “A total of 46 nations and 2.7 billion people are now at high risk of being overwhelmed by armed conflict and war because of climate change”. More than 180 nations have coastal areas in peril. The world has twenty megacities. Thirteen of them, including New York, London, Miami, Shanghai and Tokyo, are at hazard. Drastic shifts are happening much more rapidly than earlier predicted.
A Worst Case Scenario? John Atcheson, a geologist, issued the most ominous alert in an article entitled: Ticking Time Bomb – A Growing Threat To Life On Earth (Baltimore Sun, December, 2004). Atcheson postulates that global warming could trigger the release of large amounts of methane trapped in Arctic ices and the permafrost. Methane is a greenhouse gas 20 times stronger than carbon dioxide. Once started, Atcheson suggests that such a release of methane could cause an uncontrollable and irreversible chain reaction leading to a mass extinction of life on earth – an extinction rivaling those that appear to have taken place twice before, 55 million and 251 million years ago. Within the last five years the surface permafrost in an area in Siberia, the size of France and Germany combined, has started to melt for the first time since the last ice age, 11,000 years ago. One estimate suggests that all mammalian life could be snuffed out in the arctic in as little as 15-25 years. Recent findings, that more Methane accumulated in the atmosphere during the past year and unexpectedly is bubbling up from the ocean floor through holes in the rapidly melting permafrost, indicates the population of the planet is in much greater danger than has been understood, even by those aware of the problem.
“In some areas, it took more than 100 million years for ecosystems to reach their former healthy diversity… If we trigger this runaway release of methane, there's no turning back. No do-over. Once it starts, it's likely to play out all the way.” Myles Allen of Oxford University captures the essence of the situation in one sentence: "The danger zone is not something we're going to reach in the middle of the century; we're in it now."
It has been said: “What we do in the next two to three years will determine our future. This is the defining moment.”
Energy consumption is at the core of human existence. We must sharply accelerate development of new, cost-effective, sustainable alternatives. To reverse the dangerous trends mentioned above, let’s envision a commercially developed technological revolution that conserves planetary resources. Certain varieties of new energy conversion modules are projected to be easy to manufacture and use, as well as inexpensive, thus capable of rapidly achieving global impact. It would seem they may have the potential to catalyze, with a kick start, a global economic recovery.
-
Hmm?!
-
27 Comments
Nov 16 01:04 PMOIl
>> For most of the last two decades oil drilling rigs have been operating at well below capacity. With low prices oil has not been worth looking for.... therefore nobody looked too hard. There have been some recent signifcant finds and in a year or two, we will have a much clearer picture. We were already told for certain oil is running out in the 70's (35 years ago).
>> Ethanol from sugar cane is cheaper to produce than gasoline.
Natural gas for electricity
>> There is tons of excess electricity, the problem is storage. Large power generators take days to bring on line, so they run 24 hours a day. When peak power consumption is only an hour or two a day. Since the other 22 hours are carrying wasted excess everyday, there is a lot of potential. Solar and wind today provide worthless power, because they are the most expensive and totaly unreliable. America can't shut down because it is cloudy day.
-
Crocodilian
-
15 Comments
Nov 16 01:19 PMEnergy consumption has ballooned because energy has been so cheap. Raise the price, and behaviors and consumption change dramatically. With dramatic improvements in information technology and logistics, the transportation demands of many transactions falls dramatically (eg: If I, and everyone else in my building order from Amazon, instead of driving to Target, Barnes & Noble, etc . . . and all these orders are delivered by one UPS van, leaving from one warehouse-- how many hundreds of gallons of gas are saved?)
There's lots and lots of energy in this world: the problem is that its been priced too cheaply, based on the cost of the "low hanging fruit"
-
SAF
-
21 Comments
Nov 16 03:22 PMMeanwhile the world is at cross purposes with regards to terrorists who will obtain and detonate a nuclear device in some large city in the west bringing on a great depression and a real decline in oil usage.
Running out of oil isn't even in my top ten of problems facing the US or the world. It makes fdr good reading though.
-
Rob Viglione
-
27 Comments
My Website
Nov 16 03:33 PMPoliticians trying to socially engineer society can prove even more disastrous. Allowing markets to work will be the best approach going forward in optimally allocating energy resources to those uses which are of greatest value to society at large. Beware politicians claiming to be able to do this more efficiently!
-
Maurice Roulee
-
4 Comments
Nov 16 06:41 PMGood Luck.
-
secmaven
-
260 Comments
Nov 16 07:45 PM-
Bobco23
-
25 Comments
Nov 16 09:12 PMOn Nov 16 09:16 AM ferguson wrote:
> The New York Times lead editorial this morning (11/16/2008) calls
> for a military restructuring and buildup to deal with a different
> but still dangerous world. As we look at the real world around us,
> the editorial has a lot merit.
>
> On the other hand, even if all of the advocated steps are taken and
> we are able to battle the forces of evil to a draw, the result will
> still be disastrous for the simple reason that war has now become
> a distraction from the real problems facing the world which include
> global warming, environmental degredation, food and water shortages,
> population growth and (last but not least) peak oil.
>
> War and the preparation for war is one of the least (perhaps the
> very least) productive uses of time and energy on the planet. The
> world as a whole (and we have to think in these terms) simply cannot
> afford a future where a large percentage of resources are spent on
> national defense, war and the aftermath of war.
>
> The clear interests of the entire world and its inhabitants are in
> finding a way to move beyond war. As the world's mightiest war machine,
> the U.S. should take the lead in this direction.