313 comments on DrumBeat: November 8, 2006
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
313 comments on DrumBeat: November 8, 2006
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Beware email scams!
Beware email scams claiming to be from this site. We do not have any job openings. If anyone contacts you about a job at The Oil Drum, do not reply to them, and definitely do not give them any personal information or send them money. Read more here.
Search The Oil Drum with Google
Recently on TOD:World
TOD:Campfire
- Passive Solar Design Overview – Part 1
- Radical Retrenchment - A Reference Model
- TOD:Campfire RSS feed
TOD:Europe
- SER-2 [01] Introduction
- The Russian Bear?
- The Permanent Oil Crisis Conference in Amsterdam, January 21 & 22, 2009
TOD:Canada
- In this house, we obey the laws of thermodynamics!
- The Round-Up: October 24, 2008
- Compressed Air Energy Storage - How viable is it?
TOD:Australia/NZ
- 2009: Predictions for Australia
- The Bullroarer - Tuesday 6th January 2009
- The Bullroarer - Monday 29th December 2008
TOD:Net Energy
Blogroll
Energy Sites
- The Coming Global Oil Crisis
- Die Off
- Dry Dipstick
- Energy Bulletin
- From the Wilderness
- Life After the Oil Crash
- Peak Oil Crisis
- Peak Oil News and Message Boards
- Powerswitch
- Rigzone
- Matthew Simmons
- Wolf at the Door
Environment & Sustainability Sites
- The Daily Green
- EcoGeek
- Eco Street
- Green Car Congress
- Green Options
- green.alltop.com
- Gristmill
- RealClimate
- Sustainablog
- Treehugger
- WorldChanging
Blogs
- The Big Picture
- Casaubon's Book
- Cleantech Blog
- Clusterf
k Nation (Jim Kunstler) - The Cost of Energy
- David Strahan
- The Energy Blog
- Entropy Production
- European Tribune
- GraphOilology
- Health After Oil
- jeffvail.net
- Mobjectivist
- Peak Energy (Australia)
- Peak Energy (USA)
- R-Squared
- Resource Insights
Finance & Economics Blogs
- Calculated Risk
- The Crash Course
- Ecological Economics
- Econbrowser
- Environmental Economics
- Infectious Greed
- The Mess That Greenspan Made
- Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis
Organizations
“It is only through labor and painful effort, by grim energy and resolute courage, that we move on to better things.”
—Theodore Roosevelt
User login
Contact
- Content: editors at theoildrum dot com
- Tech support: support at theoildrum dot com
Personnel
- Editors: Prof. Goose, Nate Hagens, Gail the Actuary, Heading Out
- DrumBeat Editor: Leanan
- Contributors: ace, Engineer-Poet, jeffvail, JoulesBurn, Khebab, Robert Rapier
- TOD:Local: Glenn
- TOD:Europe: Chris Vernon, Euan Mearns, Francois Cellier, Jerome a Paris, Luís de Sousa, Rembrandt, Rune Likvern, Ugo Bardi
- TOD:Canada: benk, Libelle
- TOD:ANZ: Big Gav, Phil Hart, aeldric
- Emeritus: Stuart Staniford
- Technician: Super G
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.
GAIA Host Collective
My contention is that the biggest initial effect of peak oil will be to exacerbate this infrastructure crisis. Both in the oil field and in general. We have in many ways lived the last twenty years of the investments in infrastructure made in the 60-80's a lot of our current housing stock for example was built during this period for example. A good bit of it is getting to the age where major refurbishment is needed or it will decay into slums. I live in Irvine for example and a lot of the homes here need 30-50k worth of repairs for example. And this is generally a area where the homes are well cared for. Since we are probably facing a perpetual slowdown from now on out as peak oil causes the world economy to slowly shrink any housing stock that was not refurbished during the recent boom probably will not be refurbished unless its sold well below market value.
The same goes for roads and commercial properties and our electric network.
Next for example there is a good chance shipbuilding will slow to a crawl over the next few years leading to a aging shipping fleet within 10-20 years.
And of course the oil fields are in the same boat.
So basically we are facing the need for trillions in investment to maintain our current infrastructure much less fuel growth. Rising oil prices will basically destroy any chance we have of solving our infrastructure problems.
Not to mention of course causing the value of a lot of it to decrease as it becomes untenable to use in a high oil price world.
Next I think the impact of high cost fuel oil, bunker fuel and asphalt on our world economy is way underestimated.
The lowest grade products of a cheap oil world economy have been one of the core reasons for our current growth.
I just keep hoping that people will wake up and start addressing these problems so we can figure out how we are going to transition at the minimum to a world of expensive and rising oil prices. Much less develop a alternative fuel economy.
The problem is alternative energy sources can barely begin to replace the daily fuel usage much less support critical infrasture rebuilding needs that will arise over the next 20 years. So I really think we need to focus on first a clear accounting of the the state of the nations infrastructure from housing to oil fields then decide how we solve the problem. A obvious solution will be to refocus on denser communities and rail and basically give up on a lot of our road beds and far flung suburbs. The nice thing about this approach is the roads that are discounted will make a nice source of asphalt for maintaining roadways we decide to keep allowing us to invest in focused solutions.
This does not mean that we all move to big cities but a rebirth of the American small town is not a bad thing.
On the oil field front instead of spending billions getting the last drops of oil out of oil fields or deep sea project with marginal returns it makes far more sense to get the national oil companies and majors to work together on the most promising fields.
What do we have to do in return ? I think its simple help these countries develop diversified robust economies that can withstand the loss of oil. Nigeria is probably the poster child of a westward leaning nation that we simply won't help. It could and should be a fantastic country. If we would do the right things in Nigeria then I think it would open the door in other countries.
Right now the chances of this happening are slim to none. But I think that if we can determine the best solutions for all of our problems and present them we have a chance of finding compromises that works.
Another issue that can no longer be ignored for example is world population we have to start excepting responsibility as a world for our population.
As you can see we are finally reaching the point that issues which have been ignored for years have festered to the point we must solve them.
I'm not a doomer I just think that we are reaching the point that if we don't make responsible choices and hard decisions then our inaction will result in the worst possible outcomes for these problems.
The first step is getting a clear understanding of the problems we face and determine the best possible solution.
This means for example for cars forget about alternative fuels. We can build super fuel efficent small diesel/hybrids that would drastically slash our fuel usage overnight if we set up the right economic conditions. Sure we could use soybeans for the diesel that's fine in the long term. But short term we should heavily support development of 50mpg+ transportation. Along side this electric consumer and freight rail can easily be made very economical at the expense of long haul trucking. This is a example of where we have to pick a winner and loser. Long haul trucking needs to die. If we decide to do nothing then we will soon face the situation that long haul trucking is simply to expensive and we don't have any alternatives which means we will basically stop shipping a lot of goods in a reasonable time frame as they wait for available rail. This will lead quickly to shortages and wild economic swings as goods rise in price till trucking is affordable then quickly drop and pent up rail deliveries finally reach their destination.
Our new global just in time economy is very sensitive to transportation problems and trying to convert it back to one where large inventories are maintained will be painful and it will lead to local shortages and pricing problems. I actually think that the global just in time model is a good one it just needs to be converted to work on a sustainable transportation system. This may result of course in you having to wait a few months when purchasing a new car or tv before you take delivery but this inconvience is far better then uncertian delivery.
Enough rambling, but it is getting close to time to take a serious look at all the issues we are facing and start making the tough decisions to solve them.
The average barrel of oil is utilized something like this:
19.6 gallons of gasoline
10 gallons of diesel
4 gallons of jet fuel
-------
33.6 gallons out of 42 per barrel of oil
Thats 80% of our oil consumption in just 3 fields. If we eliminated the need for this consumption, our 21 million bpd consumption would be cut down to 4.2 million bpd. We'd be self sufficient!
Ah well, one can only dream ~_~
Imagine pulling up whole subdivisions of asphalt driveways and streets to repair major roads.
You are trying to hang onto a paradigm that isn't going to survive. Most people reject this notion out of hand because it is frightening and there is no alternative on the horizon - more of the same isn't going to work.
I try to look at the future realistically. And what I see, among other things, is a collpase of economies based on growth. It doesn't matter how efficient transportation is if there is no reason to use it.
Todd; a Realist
Actually I agree 100% the underlying problem is growth based economies are over. At least on earth. The point is with some thought we can wind down our economies with dignity.
Also to be honest what is yet one more house or suv or flat screen tv ? This is what our growth based economy has given us massive quantities of the same thing for everyone. One thing about living in both southern California and Florida is I notice there are no beautiful public gardens here. On of the few places on earth that could host the worlds most magnificent public gardens and nothing.
I suggest you see.
http://goflorida.about.com/od/attractionsaz/a/boktower.htm
There is nothing equivalent in California.
This may sound like a completely different concept but its not. Its about growth via quality and arts and craftsmanship. The point is you can have a vibrant growing economy if its about producing long lasting quality goods and beauty. Not a McMansion but real mansions with real a real Picasso. The Japanese switched over to this sort of economy a long time ago.
The point is there is a light at the end of the tunnel even in a economy that does not grow like we are accustomed too. What does it grow it grows plenty of beautiful gardens homes and art. And it can continue to grow medical science.
Technology need not stop. Look at paintings immense wealth can be created with less than 100 dollars in materials.
What has to stop ?
One more SUV just like your neighbors and a crappy house super size it.
The number of streetcars, and the amount of track they run on, has been growing, concretely. The number of people who no longer use cars, but instead use a system which at least in part uses electricity from renewable (essentially hydro), has been growing.
The amount of renewable energy likely to feed the system in the future will need to include the growth of wind and PV systems - PV factories are a fairly common growth item these days, with a new announcement every few weeks, recently.
Is this growth (or more realistically, shuffling - melt down a few thousand cars people no longer need because the streetcar serves them well enough, especially when fuel is expensive, and you likely have enough metals like steel and copper for more streetcars and tracks) unsustainable?
The problem is what is meant by growth - and where growth ends. Nobody involved in industry in Germany that I know of realistically expects growth to go on forever - after a point, only replacement and repair of the streetcars and tracks will be required. Which is fine - since the point is to ride the train to get to where you are going, and not to get richer than anyone else.
This is okay in a growth economy, because "their day will come." Eventually, it is assumed, those on the bottom - or their children - will rise up through the pyramid, and enjoy a middle class lifestyle, too - maybe even a high-class lifestyle. And in turn be supported by even more poor people below them.
You can see the problem with this scenario. It requires constant growth.
Sure, efficiency can help, but there's only so much we can cut back. Someone has to grow food, haul waste, make clothing, etc. Will we do it ourselves? That will leave us a lot less time for nuclear engineering or solar technology. Will we have a permanent underclass to do these things for us? Probably. I could see a future where downward mobility is the norm, as much as upward mobility was in the 20th century.
This usually when someone suggests that the solution is a bunch of robots that will do all the dirty work, so we humans can spend our days selling each other insurance or designing Web pages. I wouldn't bet on that one - not in the light of peak oil.
It would be like living in the late 50:s but with much better electronics, hospitals, communications and transportation infrastructure. I would also find it reasonable that most people would be able to own or hire a car for weekend trips to the countryside, friends and family outside the railways, bicycle lane networks and electricity only reach of small cars.
Today it would be easier to have the same level of prosperity with far less oil mostly due to much better infrastructure. Now we have district heating, more efficient houses, more railways in the densely populated areas (A lot of the rest have been torn up), much better roads and more bicycle lanes in manny towns.
Travel and living patterns including shipping etc would have to changed but not drastically and it can mostly be accomondated within the present building stock. The lack of rail spur lines would probably be compensated by hybrid rail/road traffic. Most changes would be gradual.
The hardest part would probably be to get people to feel that all these changes are for the good and that we are living in prosperous times. I guess it is fairly likely this might be helped by some failures in adaption in some other area of the world showing us that we are lucky and need to keep working hard to stay lucky.
Worse, I realise that the 'American Dream' seems almost unstoppable, and growth is an integral part.
But at the same time, how people think is part of the problem - I keep reading numbers that make me think Americans have gone insane (I remember things like the articles of clothing or toys bought in a year - the average is way beyond one a week in either category).
There seems no cure for that insanity, but it still is insane. Though reality seems to have no relation to insanity, at some point, reality becomes inescapable regardless, even if the insanity was in reaction to reality.
Personally, much of this debate hangs on values which are impossible to quantify - what is the worth of a well fitting pair of shoes which lasts ten years of use, and can be resoled by a competent shoemaker? In today's America, the worth would seem to be about zero, while in many parts of Europe, the worth would seem to be self-obvious in terms of the number of places such shoes are sold and repaired. Affordable? Maybe, maybe not. But imaginable and desirable for enough people to keep a local shoe industry going? Definitely.
Will America ever see a growth in such a local shoe industry? Possibly - but will it then be seen as a sign of collapse since this means Nike Air is no longer available, even if the ads are still broadcast? (Collapse in the broad doomer sense, not anything specific.)
Sometimes, I wonder how Americans as a group can be so distant from the reality which still existed when I was a child.
Systems collapse for a number of reasons, and sometimes, I just wonder if America will be the first example of societal collapse brought on by sheer marketing mixed with greed.
In my eyes, possibly the most scary aspect of the 20th Century was how deeply we learned to manipulate ourselves through film, radio, TV, with ideology or profit as the motivation leading to ever more refined tools to manipulate ourselves without restraint.
The old tools were bad enough, but this last century may have seen something else. One perspective of mine about how to define a society is to define what it rejects - and at this point, marketing seems to make the definition, in an America where many things considered normal here are rejected out of hand by huge numbers of Americans. A tiny example - a German nursery school (Kindergarten) doesn't bother with a girl and a boy toilet - who cares? The 3 and 5 year olds certainly don't, and neither do the adults. And the toilets are not private in terms of doors either, as the bathroom has four or six or whatever number of them anyways - again, who cares?
Somehow, I doubt a number of German attitudes would be allowed to exist in today's America, since these attitudes seem to encompass what is rejected - quality as a desirable trait, for example.
The term growth is not good or bad only what it is refering to. A climax forest has growth in it, just as it has decline. The key is they are in balance. The overall forest is not "growing" in size, but components of it are constantly growing and declining. We need this kind of model for our overall economy. Rather than saying the entire economy must expand (or show "growth") there must be recognition of what components should be growing and which components/sectors should be declining and recycled.
Exactly !
I'd add that this is a economy that is refining itself.
Each time it becomes more efficient or produces a good that lasts longer the excess can be used for some expansion in the traditional sense. For example you can always replace a one story house that can not be easily made efficient with say a four story building that uses less resources. This is real growth in the sense you have a more valuable asset but the energy costs of construction would be "paid down" over time via the increase in efficiency.
Think of it this way every object can use energy in two ways.
One in its construction and second in its use. A car uses far more energy in its use than in its construction. A water glass is of course the opposite.
In a society that does not grow energy wise your free to still create a bazillion plastic cups and throw them away.
But as you can see its far better to create a glass once and reuse it. The most compelling reason is that heating the water to wash the glass can come from say a solar heater or other renewable source. The same with the soap.
Also high energy tasks like glass making can be coupled to cheap energy sources such as hydro.
Basically over time the energy impact of a glass can be paid off while disposable plastic cups cannot.
And of course you can wash the plastic cup for the same effect this is not a plastic vs glass debate.
It just shows that in a constant energy society the focus would be on making washing reusable items efficient since the cost of manufacture can be "paid off" if the object lasts long enough.