Peak Oil

Free State Project Forum

265015 Posts in 21194 Topics by 34921 Members / Latest Member: BethShnibss

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
June 19, 2013, 03:33:56 am

Join the FSP

POSTING GUIDELINES and ADVICE FOR NEW MEMBERS

Peak Oil is a myth created and promoted by the socialist Club of Rome. Along with the myth of anthropogenic global warming, it is part of a strategy of hamstringing the highly competitive US economy with punitive energy taxes to both curb energy use (and economic productivity) and fund a new welfare state in the US (also curbing productivity) so that the boat anchor European socialist economies can more evently compete with the US.

Do not become a sock puppet to global socialism.

Oil is NOT an unlimited resource; but then, NOTHING is-- even solar has its costs in comparison to other sources.
The price of any energy-source, is-- like anything ELSE in the economy-- a direct reflection of the sum-total of the various expenses involved in delivering it to the end-user.
Unless the market is free to reflect these expenses, unhindered by distortions by the government, then it will cannot accurately reflect these expenses, and the economy will suffer as a result.
Even more importantly, however, is when these interventions and meddlings result in compromise to our national security; I'd far rather drive my car on hydrogen, than be subjected to airport-searches (and now SUBWAY searches). All this is simply the result of the government allowing big oil to put profits ahead of freedom.

We are nowhere near running out of oil. We are running out of cheap oil. Thus, the move from oil to other sources of energy will be far more orderly than the Peak Oil folks think. "Peak Oil" is a wishful thinking movement among those who want to return to a more local economy.

First thing to realize is that gasoline is still pretty cheap. It hit $1/gallon back in 1981. So, it has gone up in price about 130% or so. What hasn't? Compare movie tickes or paperback book prices to the prices in 1981. Compare land prices. Or soft drink prices.

People are driving around in SUVs because gasoline has not gone up much in price after you adjust for inflation. Also engines are more efficient, so some of today's SUVs are about as economical as yesterday's big cars.

If oil gets more scarce, people will adjust their behavior. A second car for solo commuters will become a popular consumer item. Car pools might become more popular. Because we are currnetly so wastefull, I see no reason to panic. We have lots of slack in our economy.

As for a catastrophic rise in oil, get real. Who is going to bid the price up that much? The Chinese are getting richer, but they are still poor. Meanwhile, Canada has huge reserves of tar sands. We have mountains of oil shale. And there is always the Jimmy Carter option of turning coal into liiquid fuels. THe oil companies were uninterested in the Jimmy Carter program 20 years ago because they knew it wouldn't pay. In real terms oill has not skyrocketed in price.

Meanwhile, George Bush has proposed something sillier than the Jimmy Carter program: hydrogen for cars. What a great idea: replace a relatively safe liiquid fuel with a high pressure explosive gas that requires a MUCH greater volume to allow a 300 mile cruising range. If you have hydrogen, it makes much more sense to react that hydrogen with carbon to make liquid hydrocarbons than it does to run internal combustion engines on hydrogen.

OK, with fuel cells you can make a partial case for hydrogen, since it reacts so cleanly to make electricty, but you still have the storage problem. And fuel cells are expensive.

If the price goes up enough, existing alternative energy technology becomes competitive.

Some people like to panic.

Quote from: Harmonious Avenger on August 12, 2005, 03:09:09 pm

We are nowhere near running out of oil. We are running out of cheap oil.

Price is relative to alternatives, however in a government-instilled monopoly there ARE no alternatives.

1. Try filling your tank with ethanol, naptha, methane or hydrogen-- I certainly wouldn't know where to look. Alternatives exist, but aren't for sale.
2. You hear about men being killed on oil-platforms; however risk simply relates to cost. If they're killed unnecessarily, then cost is being subsidized.
3. You hear about people being killed in the Middle-East, as well as our loss of national sovereignty; however these things likewise have a cost. Your hassles at the airport, subway and everything else under the "Paternalism Act" relate directly to the oil-monopoly, since ALL of these things have a cost.

All three of these factors pertain to the monopoly granted to the oil-industry via corporate welfare and other special subsidies such as overseas protection of their assets etc-- not to mention regulations that favor a big-oil monopoly.
If none of these existed, these costs would figure into fuel-pump gasoline prices, and alternatives would arise literally OVERNIGHT. I'm quite certain that we'd have filling-stations would combine an optimum BLEND of various fuels to give the most miles per dollar-- in fact they'd HAVE to in order to stay in business.

Quote from: Mike Lorrey on August 06, 2005, 08:30:51 pm

Well if you want to discredit something perhaps you should at least know where it came from, it's very well documented after all. Dr. M. King Hubbert is the Geophysicist, that came up with Peak Oil when he correctly predicted the United States own Peak of Production. You don't have to believe me, there is a great page about him and the subject at http://www.hubbertpeak.com

Do not become another useless eater to the Elite's of the world.

Quote from: Harmonious Avenger on August 12, 2005, 03:09:09 pm

Quote

Your right, we are nowhere near running out, however that's not really the point. When Oil Production Declines your Oil Based Economy is going to decline as well, perhaps slowly, or more likely fast. While, it's sadly not the current price that really matters, it's the price that we'll see this winter, Peak Oil was a problem before Rita and Katrina, but now after the refinery shutdowns are costing about 1.5 million barrels a day of gasoline, 800,000 barrels of distillate fuel and 400,000 barrels of jet fuel, the EIA said Wednesday. That's right out of an AP Article. We now have Matthew Simmons, Energy Investment Banker who handles over $60B in accounts, and who was Bush's Energy Adviser, saying that we'll see 10$ a gallon gas this winter. Do you really think the airline industry can afford that? Do you think any employ working at McD's will pay 10$ gallon to go to work and make 7$ an hour? I don't think our economy could withstand 5$ a gallon for very long, given our current rate of growing debt.

Quote

People are driving around in SUVs because gasoline has not gone up much in price after you adjust for inflation. Also engines are more efficient, so some of today's SUVs are about as economical as yesterday's big cars.

Our cars are not efficient, that's just a joke. How many SUVs do you know that get more than 16 mpg and if you really want to look at this as an issue, our cars have actually gotten less efficient in the latter years. Just FN Google it.

Quote

If oil gets more scarce, people will adjust their behavior. A second car for solo commuters will become a popular consumer item. Car pools might become more popular. Because we are currently so wastefull, I see no reason to panic. We have lots of slack in our economy.

As for a catastrophic rise in oil, get real. Who is going to bid the price up that much? The Chinese are getting richer, but they are still poor. Meanwhile, Canada has huge reserves of tar sands. We have mountains of oil shale. And there is always the Jimmy Carter option of turning coal into liiquid fuels. THe oil companies were uninterested in the Jimmy Carter program 20 years ago because they knew it wouldn't pay. In real terms oill has not skyrocketed in price.

Well that'd be great if people could just adjust their behavior and stop eating and drinking water. Perhaps your forgetting just how much we use oil in EVERYTHING. I challenge you to find just 1 object in which OIL isn't used to create it, or to transport it to you. Don't bother trying, People like to think we just use oil to drive our cars, but we use it to make them too, about 2500 Gallons of Gasoline go into making one hybrid car about 7 gallons of gas in one tire. Yet more importantly we use Hydrocarbons for more than just transportation, how about food, we use natural gas to grow it, we ship it with oil of course, did you know we use 10 Calories of Hydrocarbons for every Calorie of Food. That's not counting cooking or the transportation from the store to your home. As far as conserving our way out of this, that's just physically impossible, we have actually been becoming more efficient for quite some time, I think that stat is about 4-10% more efficient a year. (can't find it to verify) The problem is population growth as much as it is Production decline, you see more people = more energy used. So to think of peak oil realistically you need to take into account 3 main things GDP(economy) Population Growth(Me you and our kids) and Oil Production.
GDP will grow historical about 1.6% per year, unlikely to change because everyone loves growth. Then you have Population which will certainly continue to climb, at about the same 1% rate, like it has. But then you have the decline of production, which is quite evident around the world, hubberts peak says oil wells start to go into decline after about 40 years... Then it's interesting to note that not even 1 megal oil field has been discovered in several years. That's not even enough oil for 12 days of global demand. It's really easy to discredit but, for those that have looked at the FACTS of what we call PEAK OIL, it's really just simple math and math when done right comes out to the same solution..

Quote

Meanwhile, George Bush has proposed something sillier than the Jimmy Carter program: hydrogen for cars. What a great idea: replace a relatively safe liiquid fuel with a high pressure explosive gas that requires a MUCH greater volume to allow a 300 mile cruising range. If you have hydrogen, it makes much more sense to react that hydrogen with carbon to make liquid hydrocarbons than it does to run internal combustion engines on hydrogen.

Well, finally I've found something that I can agree on, kind of. While Hydrogen for our transportation is likely the worst thing we could do, it's not because of the danger of explosive gas, it's more because of Energy Return on Energy Investment, EROEI is what we call it. For those that have gotten serious and really looked at this issue, you know what this means. If you don't google it, it's pretty simple.

Quote

OK, with fuel cells you can make a partial case for hydrogen, since it reacts so cleanly to make electricty, but you still have the storage problem. And fuel cells are expensive.

If the price goes up enough, existing alternative energy technology becomes competitive.

Some people like to panic.

Some people may call it panic, but I call it saving human lives and the only problem with your fun economic reasoning is that there is not a technology that is existing capable of doing for us what oil does for us, furthermore it's even less likely we'll be able to find it without proper management of the remaining balance of our OIL.

Don't panic, just think.

Quote from: calibaba77 on August 01, 2005, 04:58:59 pm

Well, this isn't necessarily a nice and cozy topic, but it is a problem that we will likely face in out lifetimes, and I'd like to see if any other free staters have any ideas about what to do about it.

We're running out of oil. The latest projections I saw were 35 more years worth of easy flowing oil. But that was at current rates of growth. Since China's growth (as measured in fuel consumption) is set to explode, the 35 year figure is probably too conservative.

The U.S. has been quietly reverting to coal power plants, but that too is a temporary fix. Hydrogen power advocates overlook the fact that it requires petroleum to manufacture the required Hydrogen.

Am I the only one who believes that solar power is the only long-term solution to the problem? If you think there are other solutions, I'd like to hear them.

Also, I'd be interested in hearing ideas about implementing different forms of energy within a Libertarian context. Bush's collectivist energy plans require government intervention. How could we, as a people, encourage alternative energy sources without resorting to government intervention. Or is government intervention proper in this case. If we can make the case that Peak Oil is a national security problem, are we justified in using government and military resources to solve the problem?

Caleb

It's nice to see people really wanting to think about this as a form of solution rather than just trying to decide if it's real. Since we all were taught it is real in school, not directly yet we did all learn about renewables and non-renewables. Anyway, you are right that solar energy is really the only renewable that has the capacity to do what oil has done. There is a Professor at Caltech that is working on a real solution to this problem and also put together a GREAT power point presentation that you can watch at http://today.caltech.edu/theater/8054_bb.ram It goes through EVERYTHING, and looks at it analytical, it's a must watch.

Quote

You can manufacture hydrogen out of ANY source of electricity-- you just electrolycize it from water, remove it from methane etc.

Hydrogen does not freely occur in nature in useful quantities, therefore hydrogen must be split from molecules, either molecules of methane derived from fossil fuels or from water.

Currently, most hydrogen is produced by the treatment of methane with steam, following the formula: CH4 (g) + H2O + e > 3H2(g) + CO(g). The CO(g) in this equation is carbon monoxide gas, which is a byproduct of the reaction.

Not entered into this formula is the energy required to produce the steam, which usually comes from the burning of fossil fuels.

For this reason, we do not escape the production of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. We simply transfer the generation of this pollution to the hydrogen production plants. This procedure of hydrogen production also results in a severe energy loss. First we have the production of the feedstock methanol from natural gas or coal at a 32 percent to 44 percent net energy loss. Then the steam treatment process to procure the hydrogen will result in a further 35 percent energy loss.

It has often been pointed out that we have an inexhaustible supply of water from which to derive hydrogen. However, this reaction, 2H2O + e = 2H2(g) + O2(g), requires a substantial energy investment per unit of water (286kJ per mole). This energy investment is required by elementary principles of chemistry and can never be reduced.

Several processes are being explored to derive hydrogen from water, most notably electrolysis of water and thermal decomposition of water. But the basic chemistry mentioned above requires major energy investments from all of these processes, rendering them unprofitable in terms of EROEI.(Energy Return on Energy Investment)

Quote from: pstudier on August 02, 2005, 07:30:43 pm

What is there to worry about? We ran out of whale oil and we did just fine. One of many possible solutions is oil from coal. There is enough coal for hundreds of years. This process has been proven on a large scale. Most of the diesel oil in South Africa is produced this way. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fischer-Tropsch_synthesis

Well sure we can turn coal into liquid fuel, the Nazi's also did it when they were cut off from their gasoline. There just maybe one little problem, that I guess could be important? And actually I think Nathan Scott Lewis said there was enough coal to last for a thousand years.. unless of course this global warming thing pans out then it might just last forever.

Quote from: Justfngoogleit on October 01, 2005, 01:19:45 am

If water supplies decline 30%, we don't die of thirst; we just stop filling the swimming pool, washing the car, and watering the lawn. The same goes for oil. Should the price keep going up, lower priority items will stop using oil.

In the near term it is hard for people up north to switch away from oil heat. In the longer term, there is always coal or coke. Cleaning it up on a furnace by furnace basis isn't cheap, but it's probably cheaper than $10 fuel oil.

I don't think we will see sustained prices that high (adjusted for inflation). If oil stays up at current price levels, Alberta will go online with its tar sands. Alberta has as much hydrocarbons as Saudi Arabia.

As for energy conservation in general, there is a huge amount of slack in our system. This is especially true for heating and cooling. Why do we use indoor heated air to cool off the coils in our refrigerators during the winter? The compressor and coils belong outside! Why do we use air conditioned air to cool our office equipment? Why not have special ductwork to vent computers and copy machines direcly outside in the summer? Why do we use electricity for heating water? Much more efficient to burn the primary fuel directly to heat the water than to convert it into electricity first. Or, if you really want to get efficient, move the generator to the consumer and use the waste heat from the generator to heat water and heat the house.

All of this is low tech. I have not exhausted the list.

Oh, when I went to an energy fair this summer, there were solar heat collectors which the dealer claimed paid themselves off in 5-7 years -- at today's prices. Even if he was fudging, a substantial increase in energy prices would bring solar heat into the mainstream with existing technology. (Economical solar cells are probably further off.)

I came across this article recently...

http://lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/Index.html

If you haven't read it already, it might be work a look.

Some people might think that Matt Savinar is way off, but I don't know. He gives references to his points throughout. I hope he's wrong, but it's still worth considering his point of view.

BTW, I'm a new FSP participant, even though it doesn't say so in my profile.

Lee

If you believe Peak Oil is going to be a problem, please explain what a futures market is.

If you don't know the answer to that question, you probably don't know enough to evaluate the Peak Oil claim.

Quote from: Lee Gordon Seebach on October 07, 2005, 02:04:14 pm

I came across this article recently...

http://lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/Index.html

I read half of the front page. About 2/3 of the paragraphs were erroneous or misleading. This type of thinking is the same sort that motivated the Club of Rome back in the 1970s, the movie Soylent Green, etc. Some fallacies:

Fallacy 1. That demand can outstrip production.
Reality: Demand is a curve. It is an amount consumed based on price. For a particular demand curve, we have different demand values for different prices. The author of this web site would flunk first semester microeconomics.

Fallacy 2: It takes x gallons of petroleum to produce y product.
Reality: The author is mixing apples and oranges. Most of the energy to produce these products is in the form of electricity. Most electricity in the U.S. comes from coal, not oil, and the U.S.. has gobs of coal.

Fallacy 3: A 10-15 percent drop in oil production can shatter a modern economy.
Reality: Nazi Germany was able to run its economy and fight a war against just about everyone. They used coal to make diesel fuel. South Africa did the same thing. We have gobs of coal. Jimmy Carter knew that. He wanted to revive this technology. At the time, oil was too cheap to make this technology pay. This may change.

Fallacy 4: Once oil reaches its peak, we can expect 3% drop per year.
Reality: Canada has tar sand reserves equivalent to Saudi Arabia's oil. Should the price stay up, it becomes profitable to build the equipment to strip mine the tar sands.

Fallacy 5: Post-industrial stone age.
Reality: Nuclear energy is old technology. If you have electricity, you have hydrogen. If you have hydrogen and carbon, you can make hydrocarbons. And this is just one of the many old-technology options we have to continue on our merry way.

Fallacy 6: "Big deal. If gas prices get high..."
Reality: A 10% drop in supply will not affect the petrochemical industry. As I said before regarding water. A 30% drop in water supply results in not watering the lawn, not dying of dehydration. The author of this site demonstrates economic cluelessness once again.

Fallacy 7: Food travels 1500 miles to get to you plate.
Reality: Technically true, but doesn't have to be that way. If oil prices go up, the food system will adapt. The current 1500 mile figure includes such things as transporting oysters from the Gulf to the Chesapeake to be shucked. (This is because the Chesapeake is depleted, but the surrounding area has some very skilled oyster shuckers.) If diesel gets too expensive, then it pays to train oyster shuckers where the oysters are.

Fallacy 8: "With the exception of a few experimental prototypes, all
farming implements such as tractors and trailers are
constructed and powered using oil;"
Reality: The technology to run internal combustion engines on fuels other than petroleum is very, very old. I believe the first IC engines actually ran on water gas. My grandfather had plans from World War II on how to run a car on charcoal.

I suggest reading Peter Huber's The Bottomless Well.

Quote from: Harmonious Avenger on October 07, 2005, 10:17:52 am

I don't think we will see sustained prices that high (adjusted for inflation). If oil stays up at current price levels, Alberta will go online with its tar sands. Alberta has as much hydrocarbons as Saudi Arabia.

Oil has been extracted from the Athabaska oil sands for many years now;Â it's part of Alberta's large petroleum production base, and why Alberta is the only Province in Canada without any government debt.

Alberta's oil is also a large part of the reason the Canadian dollar is doing as well as it is right now....

NOTICE: The forum will be down for maintenance beginning at 7PM (NH time) this evening. It should be up again by 9PM. Please forgive the inconvenience and feel free to e-mail arick@freestateproject.org if you have any questions or support requests.