 | Just a Note...Jim Kunstler--author of World Made by Hand--to be on Glenn Beck on CNN-HN tonight, 7 & 9 EDT | The Oil Drum | DrumBeat: May 14, 2008 |  |
109 comments on Richard Heinberg (via the ABC): "Nothing governments can do about rising oil prices"
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
| Show without comments | PDF version
109 comments on Richard Heinberg (via the ABC): "Nothing governments can do about rising oil prices"
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
| Show without comments | PDF version
User login
Contact
- anz at theoildrum dot com
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.
Archives
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
GAIA Host Collective
Heinberg didn't say anything new (the usual Heinberg stuff, plugging his protocol thingie) what's interesting is that he was presented as a credible "oil expert and author" in the mainstream media.
I think we might have a nascent peak oiler in Tony Jones. He uttered the words "Hubbert's Peak" in an interview with Joe Stiglitz last week.
Agreed. I posted it because it was interesting to see Richard on the TV - he hasn't really said anything new in quite a while - not that there is much need to as he is just explaining the basics to people who are probably new to the concept.
That said, I find myself without enthusiasm for the Oil Depletion Protocol - I don't think it will ever be adopted and I don't think it is the right way to solve the problem even if all necessary countries could be persuaded to adopt it. So rather than flog a dead horse its better to work out how to fix the supply side (ie alternative energy) as quickly as possible and let rising prices take care of demand...
Hi Big Gav,
Thanks for posting this.
re: "I don't think it is the right way to solve the problem even if all necessary countries could be persuaded to adopt it."
How come?
What is the downside it? (Are you saying there is one?)
re: "its better to work out how to fix the supply side (ie alternative energy) as quickly as possible and let rising prices take care of demand..."
Can you possibly elaborate?
Can the supply side really be "fixed", given the finiteness of the planet?
How do you/(we) move resources to alternative energy without also employing some conservation measure?
Or do you see conservation as unnecessary?
From whence comes the money/energy to introduce large-scale use of alternatives and how to do this?
In answer to your questions :
1. Why isn't it the right way / what is the downside ? Because it focuses on trying to get countries to agree to ration a depleting resource in a fair and equitable manner. For many countries it won't be in their interest to do so, so they will be motivated to subvert the system. Either it will fail, or it will need to be enforced in a heavy handed way. In the latter case, this means that you are focusing more attention and resources on the problem (decreasing oil availability) instead of the solution (finding efficiencies and substitutes).
2. How can the supply side be fixed given a finite planet ? The amount of energy available from renewable sources is more than 10,000 times our current consumption. There is also a lot of scope for making our use of energy much more efficient. Thus I don't see that there is any meaningful supply constraint, though there may be challenges ramping up replacements as fast as fossil fuels dwindle, depending on the peak date and decline rate.
3. Do I see conservation as unnecessary ? No - conservation is a very cost effective way of dealing with less energy. However it isn't the only way and there are limits to how much more efficient we can become in energy use or in "doing without" things we want or need.
As a broad brush description of how to solve our problems I'd say these are the important ones :
1. Adjusting building codes to make new buildings highly energy efficient.
2. In appropriate areas, making solar hot water and rainwater capture part of the building code.
3. Encouraging denser urban development, with better public transport (the whole "transport oriented design" paradigm, with a focus on building walkable neighbourhoods)
4. Moving to electric transport - both individual and public
5. Building as much solar, wind, geothermal, ocean and biogas based power infrastructure as needed. Build in enough storage to deal with any intermittency issues. Expand the grids and interconnect them. Make the grid smarter - manage demand to match supply instead of always trying to generate sufficient power to meet demand.
6. Increase the use of recycling, eventually moving to a "cradle to cradle" / "design for disassembly" / "internet of things" industrial paradigm, so that we can give up the current extraction based system of manufacturing.
7. Adopt various other efficiency measures as appropriate (cogeneration, increased vehicle fuel efficiency standards etc)
8. Work from home where possible.
9. Expand office opening times and work in shifts where possible. This can reduce traffic congestion which safes energy.
10. Reduce human population. IMO, without this, the other 9 are at best stop-gap strategies.
Hello All:
As I am a brand new user, I feel a little guilty about my first post, but I am compelled to respond. I have been vigorously study the energy/PO/alternative subject, trying to cut through the various agenda driven noise. I read the doomers, the pollyannas, the cornucopians and everything in between. I haven't decided where I sit but what is essential on this subject is verifiable, realistic data wherever and whenever possible.
Please, do not take this as a flame. My intention is exactly the opposite.
So, I must take exception to your statement:
"2. How can the supply side be fixed given a finite planet ? The amount of energy available from renewable sources is more than 10,000 times our current consumption."
By definition, a finite planet has a fixed supply side of energy. It consists of how many joules we receive every day and we can't use more than that unless we've stored some from the previous day's (or month's insolation)
From my studies, about 99%+ of renewable energy comes from the sun, and as of 2004, total energy consumption would make this factor less than 8200.
Am I being picky? Yes and no. If we are to wrap our heads around this problem, every number we use must be realistic and grounded. That said, whether it it some vague "more than 10,000" or a more specific 8200, it is a meaningless, potentially dangerous, cornucopian statement. I have seen it many times, so you are not alone.
What is our current solar consumption? As we enjoy the benefits of oxygen, and are relying on plants to provide us with it, while at the same time they are stopping our CO2 levels from not going through the roof any faster than they are, I would suggest that we are indeed using that energy and shouldn't mess with it.
The ambient temperature of the earth is almost entirely due to solar radiation, without which we would have a very cold dark orb, so I posit that we are using that energy, as is every member of the food chain.
The oceans, which comprise 4/5 of the planet is a solar driven food machine, starting at the smallest creature who thrive by photosynthesis and are the very foundation of the marine food chain. Further, temperature differentials that are responsible for moving nutrients via massive ocean currents are solar driven. As we avail ourselves of this bounty, that energy is off limits.
Every creature on this planet; herbivore, carnivore or omnivore survives as a result of what the sun provides, both in terms of food and water. For land creatures, every scrap of water that they use was distilled and delivered by, you guessed it, solar energy. We are in that group, from our millions of acres of direct food crops to millions of tons of plant life eaten by our domesticated animal. This planet is solar powered and always has been.
So, what is left for us? Frankly, I don't know, but as the earth is in relative equilibrium, I would say it is using just about all of it.
That doesn't mean that there isn't something left over for us, but what is our realistic supply? Again, I don't know, focusing on "realistic" values, any form of direct or indirect solar conversion must be in relative proximity to its consumption. This is a good thing, otherwise we could screw up our oceans more than we already have. Perhaps we could extract solar energy from the poles, and lessen ice cap melting, but that makes for a pretty long extension cord. :-)
Let me provide an example:
If we were to replace the energy consumption of the US using photovoltaics, (and I don't suggest we do), it would require we cover 21.8% of the US land mass with solar cells (Based on an average of 5KWh/m2/day and an efficiency of 25%).
I show this to highlight the staggering amount of energy that we consume.
So here are the two key questions:
How much is available to us?
How much can we realistically expect to harvest?
Whether you meant to or not, the statement in question implies boundless resources and further implies that it's all for the taking. When will we ever learn?
Please take this in the vein it was meant and if I have missed anything, feel free to jump all over me. We are dealing with some very large numbers here so between sig. figs and units, it's easy to make a mistake.
Cheers
You're not posting on a suspended artistic license, are you?
Let's see. 1*1017BTU * 1054.4 J/BTU = 1.05*1020 J/yr energy.
1.05*1020 J / 0.25 = 4.20*1020 J sun required (assuming all 100 quads are supplied as electricity)
4.20*1020 J/yr / 1.8*107 J/m²/day / 365 days/yr
= 6.39*1010 m²
= 6.39*104 km²
Looks like a square 253 km (157 miles) on a side. That's a long, long way from 20+% of the US land mass.
In practice, large amounts of that energy would be used as heat (low to no conversion loss) and the fraction used as electricity is counted some 3x in its portion of the 100 quads. Both the USA and Australia may be in bad shape, but a lack of solar energy doesn't figure in either of our troubles.
Right you are, still haven't figured out where I messed up. It's a factor of 15??? (mutter, mutter, mutter)
The World Resources Institute puts 2000 US total consumption at double your figure, so the required area would a minimum of 1.3e5Km2, or a square 357 km (221 miles)on a side, still not a trivial figure. Factor in conversion (DC-AC or electrolysis plus transmission costs) and add another 25% plus whatever increases over the last 8 years.
In some ways, this proves my point and a good raison d'etre for sites like this. If we don't have realistic data, we can't move forward logically.
Having wiped a little egg off my face, I still stand by my basic premise.
Yes, I know Oz has no solar shortage, I worked in the Simpson desert and the Strzleki Desert for 3 months.
I close, cheerfully busted
Back to your note about impact on the general environment, put PV on roofs and solar thermal plants in the desert.
I really can't see how we could have any meaningful impact on the environment if we did this (except for the benefit of shutting down all the coal and nuclear power plants).
We aren't going to change the albedo of the earth and the energy isn't "lost" - it will reemerge as heat somewhere down the track.
Yes, I agree, although heat (infrared) has a lower energy value than visible or ultraviolet light, it all goes to progressively lower energy levels. That's entropy for you.
The red and infrared spectrum does not contain sufficient energy for photosynthesis, but as you rightly point out, we have lots of desert and are making more every day.
My main point was the need for real data, and I think I have beat that to death enough. Secondly, I wanted to point out how much energy we consume and what sort of effort will be required to replace it.
Also, you are right to point out that PV will do nothing to replace petroleum distillates unless we use the electricity to generate hydrogen, which is a cruel hoax as a transportation fuel (IMHO), or further process the hydrogen into some sort of liquid fuel, which will do little to address CO2 emission issues.
As an interim or stop-gap measure, I don't understand why coal should not be used for electrical generation, providing scrubbers and CO2 sequestration are included. Perhaps I am naive, but I'm still learning.
As more and more countries "get it", I see a looming general resource crunch. If fossil fuel independence is possible, it will come at an enormous cost in money, natural resources and energy. Rather than hijack this thread, I will post my theory for all to pick apart once I am better informed.
Cheers,
PV (and any other form of power generation, preferably using renewables) will help replace oil if we transform our transport systems to be electricity based instead of liquid fuels based.
We need to do both things to deal with peak oil.
The EIA says the US consumed 104.8 quads in the last year on record, so you might want to see if WRI is doing any funny accounting.
"Two men say they're Jesus, One of them must be wrong." - Mark Knopfler.
Your reference to WRI implies that WRI is less credible than the EIA. Can you justify this?
At present I have no basis for believing one over the other, (or either one, for that matter) but the WRI does not detail its methodology as well as the EIA.
That said, I find it interesting that the link you provided showed:
- Fossil fuels jumped .06 quads due to notation f "Includes 0.06 quadrillion Btu of coal coke net imports.", which is not reflected in imports.
- Renewables jumped up .05 quads between input and the breakout after adjustments (deduction) and exports (deduction).
Not a huge jump, but still, unexplained discrepancies make me question the overall validity.
I will investigate more.
I agree ... its even less likely to be implemented than the Kyoto Protocol, which means very close to zero.
If we see $200, $300 or $500 a barrel in the next few years (and yes I think developed economies can cope with that without collapsing) the demand side will take care of itself, and there will be enormous incentive to develop alternatives.
Lets hope those alternatives don't include CTL, oil sands and shale oil.
Efficiency gains can preempt the need for oil in urban transportation.
Masdar is being built using Personal Rapid Transit. These systems can move car-size compartments using an electrical equivalent of 200 miles per gallon of diesel.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=90042092
You really should just buy a banner advert on the site.
How much commission do you charge for banner ad sales kiashu ?
Seriously though, please don't spam thread after thread with the same message - eventually you'll become annoying, even if the thrust of your argument is generally agreed with.
Well - I wouldn't hold my breath - at the moment the signs are that efforts to ramp up all 3 are underway...
I'd like to see those getting a shot at good publicity speak more directly. When you have the time of a sound bite, it's got to bite. Explaining things such as discoveries vs. production really needs to be explicit. Too many people have no exposure to the issue and terminology. For example, saying something like, "We've found an average of n barrels a year since 1985 and have used up N barrels a year. We're depleting known reserves rapidly. Future finds will almost certainly be even less than over the last ten years while demand is still growing."
Or something like that.
And when he was asked and/or had it stated (2x, I think) that he agreed peak could be in 30 years, he needed a very direct, "No, that's not what I've said or believe." His answer was more gauzy, which leaves more room for people to miss it entirely or misinterpret it.
Cheers
Well there was Alan Kohler the week before... anybody who saw that should have started to connect the dots.
Thanks for the link.
I'm always amazed at how people can look at that graph and not instantly understand what we face.
Cheers
ABC, Australia isn't "mainstream" (no Britney Spears or wonder-bra stories found on THIS channel). But how to get your experts onto prime time? That's the big challenge.
As for any mention of Energy Security in our brand new government's National Budget, again zip! Indeed, the follow-up questions today from mainstream media on the ABC (yes, that's right, the same, non-mainstream channel) were also devoid of "$200 a barrel" talk.
Is it a conspiracy? What am I missing?
Well - I'd love to declare a conspiracy is at work, but I don't think its true in this case.
I think 99%+ of the population understand almost nothing about the oil market and will just accept the status quo until the (petrol price) pain gets too great for a significant number of them to bear.
At that point scapegoats and solutions will be demanded, and we might start to see some real action.
As part of one his an early questions, Tony Jones also mentioned (words to the effect), "some believe forty dollars a barrel is possible". Is it? Who are the "some"? Will those voices help carry the so-called peak in Mr Hubbert's Curve beyond what is a reasonable plateau - so the decline is that much steeper? So that any "real action" will come all too late?
Again, how on Earth do we get the PO message into the homes of the 99%+? If only to debate whether the notion PO has arrived or is still several decades away. Do TODsters have any influence? Can we start using it? For our children's sake... And their children.
I just don't get it. Why do we have to wait for the airports to close?
We just have to do it the old fashioned way I'm afraid. One person at a time. I leave calling cards whereever I go with the message "Peak Oil is going to change your life. Visit www.theoildrum.com and find out why and what you need to prepare for life after cheap petroleum" On the flipside is printed "If you think $1.50 a litre for petrol is a ripoff, just don't buy it. Adjust. Peak Oil will cause petrol prices over $3.00/L by 2010." Don't believe us. Go to www.theoildrum.com."
I especially love leaving them on petrol bowsers. But I leave them in librabry books, at cafes, any waiting rooms I visit. It feels kinda subversive but at the same time more of a practical action plan than just blowing off here at TOD.
You can get these printed pretty cheaply at Officeworks so it doesn't need huge expense.
Thanks DD, but I don't know. Sounds a bit... Not me?
Classic :-)
The correct response to that question would have been "Well, they're insane. Totally disconnected."
I don't think there's a conspiracy. It's just that people don't want to hear bad news in between Britneys latest car accident and what that Queer Eye fella is doing.
They're much more interested in what immediate, short-term benefits they'll get out of the budget (like the Au$31bn in tax cuts, or a Happy Meal each week) than genuinely pressing, long-term issues like Peak Everything.
This short-term thinking has infested the Australian mindset in an increasing amount recently. How much is due to the Government we've has for over a decade, and how much is due to everyone folling Americas lead on everything from 'entertainment' to car size, I don't know.