<Peak Oil and L.A. The Oil Drum Well, could we linearize this, then?>
<DrumBeat: July 15, 2006 DrumBeat DrumBeat: July 17, 2006>

196 comments on DrumBeat: July 16, 2006

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Show without comments | PDF version

Dragonfly41 on July 16, 2006 - 11:08am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Putin is not out of touch at all.  

Here's the Putin translator, "There are plenty of fossil fuels in the world, but they are either sour crude or in locations that will cost more to extract.  We should start switching over to more nuclear energy, which is now more safe than it was 20 or 30 years ago."

How is that different than what we know here?

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
dissident on July 16, 2006 - 11:16am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
I wouldn't say that there is no fossil fuel crisis and that all we need is some investment in extraction technologies to save the day.  But this is what Putin is saying, like a typical oil CEO.  Maybe he is not being honest when he says it, but I think he is like all the other politicians on this planet, not up to speed on peak oil and gas.
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
mbkennel on July 16, 2006 - 2:20pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Vladimir Putin IS an oil company CEO.  

And he doesn't even have to buy an army with political donations.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Dragonfly41 on July 16, 2006 - 11:16am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
The peak of light, sweet crude oil and the switch to heavier, more sour crude is why petroleum fuel is getting more expensive yet there have been no shortages.

We have plenty of oil left if we can afford it.  That's why this "crisis" is different than the one in the '70's and has not caused the panic we saw in the '70's.

We are seeing a "squeeze" on the global lower class citizens and the attrition of the lower, middle class as this "cost" becomes unbearable.

The question, if we claim to moral, humanists, is how long will we allow the "squeeze" to happen?  How much suffering will we witness until we take some action to stop it?  From the events I've seen in recent history, I'd say we (those in the US middle to upper class) will keep letting it happen awhile longer.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
jim burke on July 16, 2006 - 1:05pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
How on earth would you go about reversing the "squeeze" you describe? From looking at the bell curve, it looks like that squeeze will just continue until all vehicle owners are squeezed out.

I'm not at all sure this is something we "allow" to happen, anymore than we "allow" the onset of winter.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Dragonfly41 on July 16, 2006 - 3:46pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Ever heard of conservation?
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
DIYer on July 16, 2006 - 11:24pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Crickets chirping tentatively from their hiding places ...

tumbleweeds blowing down the street.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
mr f on July 16, 2006 - 11:28pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Conservation will do nothing in a global energy market that works on the basis of comparative advantage and profit.

Jevons paradox anyone?

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
DIYer on July 17, 2006 - 8:07am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
No, not as far as I'm concerned. Jevons' Paradox basically says that, if Toyota invents a more efficient engine, more people will use it, maybe for other things like utility generation or whatever. I'm not really much of a believer in the universality of Jevons'.

As for conservation, it could save me money right now — in the money I don't spend for fuel ... or in better health & fitness from riding my bicycle to work (provided I don't become a road pizza).

I'm more a believer in Malthus / Hubbert / Ehrlich / et al. The human-baboon analogies of Matt, or the yeast concept of Bob. That sort of stuff is uhhh, scary but seems likely to me.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
mr f on July 17, 2006 - 8:59am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Well, yes, I would agree that conservation could certainly help individuals get by--of course.

My contention is this.

In a global energy market of natgas and crude, Jevon's paradox most certainly applies. Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice--they all know this... That's why the US is "projecting it's military might". It doesn't matter if we conserve and say "bye-bye" to imports, as China is more than willing to keep on digging into its cookie jar of poverty stricken hundreds of millions (not to mention the rest of the world, which certainly needs more energy, else one wants to just raise up hands and give up on them--which seems to be the route the West has taken for some time now.)

My point is essentially that anywhere efficiency is gained products just utilize that efficiency more. Cars are more efficient today, but much bigger than they were 30 years ago. Some with refrigerators. That's just the commercial sphere...

Then there is just pure population and demand. And conservation by any nation (such as the US, the world's only superpower) will just be displaced into consumption for another nature. It's the nature of the beast. The wonderment of globalization!

However, I do agree that individuals should practive conservation--as it will do two things.

First it will get people ready for the future of forced conservation (deficit high quality energy, equals high prices as we all know). Second, is the reason you posited: it's the smart thing to do, and saves you money.

However, critics of Jevons Paradox, imho, are wrong. Jevons was right. So far as I can tell, I don't know of one historical macro example where Jevons Paradox does not hold true.

Energy is a global market, and Jevons Paradox will hold true until it is no longer possible to extract ever increasing amounts of energy--which by this forum's standards is quite soon.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
DIYer on July 17, 2006 - 10:01am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
What you're describing is just the old fashioned tragedy of the commons. If I am a good little citizen of the village and just have my one cow on the commons, some other a*h** will run a herd of goats on it.

Jevons' paradox was true in the early industrial revolution — someone invented a more efficient steam engine, which then resulted in greater use of fossil fuel because the more-efficient design found many new applications.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Gunga2006 on July 17, 2006 - 1:46pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
That's how I was thinking. Peak oil and global warming are "The Tragedy of the Commons" playing out on a global scale.
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
slx on July 18, 2006 - 7:15am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Unless the community is tight enough to make that socially unacceptable, as most were during the largest part of history.
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Nagorak on July 18, 2006 - 2:21am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
What exactly is the problem?  Sure, if we conserve more, others will use the excess supply.  But then they conserve more to save money and we can use more.  The end result is we all are driving around in more fuel efficient vehicles, or using much more efficient forms of transportation.  What exactly is the paradox here?  

We'll use the energy available.  When it's not available we'll have to do with less.  The only problem is we're not going to draw out oil production for many more years through conservation.  But it will still set us moving in the right direction.  Using energy more efficiently also means we'll need to replace less energy.  

I think you're over thinking the situation.  We need to solve our own problems and count on others doing the same, and eventually resulting in a better situation.  Saying we shouldn't try to conserve because others won't is just being fatalistic.  

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Dragonfly41 on July 18, 2006 - 8:46am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Forced conservation will probably be the only answer that works.
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
john milton on July 16, 2006 - 10:24pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
You ask:

"The question, if we claim to moral, humanists, is how long will we allow the "squeeze" to happen?"

Well, my guess is that it is some distance below the AIDS Pandemic in Africa on the "to do" list , since doing the obvious and meaningful things on that issue would be easier and cheaper for the rich "moral humanists"... How would you say they are doing on that issue?

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Mad Maxout on July 16, 2006 - 11:42pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
The oil peak is a slo-mo crisis. The 1970s crisis was caused by the Arabs suddenly shutting the valve, while now there is a gradual dropoff in production. That with production no longer rising to keep up with demand is the slo-mo effect that has avoided the panic. It's like nature is SLOWLY shutting the valve.

Depending on elasticity of demand, the slow decline will affect people one by one as the price climbs.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

196 comments on DrumBeat: July 16, 2006

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Show without comments | PDF version