The Last ASPO Conference

On the evening of the first day of the 10th conference of the Association for the Study of Peak Oil & Gas (ASPO), in Vienna, Rembrandt asked me if I'd write the usual summary again. My immediate answer was "no". Lack of time and motivation left me far from wanting such an undertaking. Hours later a title popped up in my mind; the dead time at airports and on airplanes provided the necessary space for the content.

The title "last conference" can be interpreted in various ways. It can refer simply to the latest, it can also allude to this being the last ever, or even the last I'll ever attend. I haven't quite decided which it is. Below the fold is a short account of my feelings about ASPO 10 - may it shed some light on the title.

Straight on, the first session was presented by Dennis Meadows and Nebojsa Nakicenovic; the latter being the man behind the fossil fuel reserves estimates and production forecasts produced by IIASA and used by the IEA and the IPCC. He played a decisive role in the creation of ASPO in 2000 when he chose to ignore a report delivered by Jean Laherrère at IIASA. These days IIASA is considering CO2 emission scenarios in line with the many forecasts produced by ASPO associates after a decade of failed infinite growth forecasts. But these case studies always assume voluntary actions to reduce fossil fuel consumption in order to keep atmospheric concentrations of CO2 below 450 ppm. This is the threshold, according to the IPCC, that guarantees with some confidence a global temperature rise below 2 ºC of what it is today. Essentially, IIASA is still using the same reserves figures they were using 12 years ago, Nakicenovic claiming these are the numbers found in peer reviewed literature. Back in 2008, when I tried to replicate Nakicenovic's scenarios I found reserve estimates several times higher than those published by the industry, let alone those assessed by ASPO associates.

On the second day of the conference, one of the speakers claimed that with CO2 emissions,mankind is transforming Earth into something like Venus. Climatologists are one group that ASPO has so far failed to sensitise to Peak Oil. These researchers seem totally unaware of the ongoing fossil fuel consumption shift from the OECD to emerging economies, where consumption per capita is much lower. They also seem miles away from acknowledging the potential economic consequences of further declines in oil production.

In more than one presentation, the figure of 100 Mb/d for oil production in 2020 was put forth. The same old discourse drives these forecasts: technological development is unlocking new reserves and as long as the capital and the investment are there, production can continue growing, or at least remain at present levels. This provided, of course, the incentive from high oil prices continues.

Strikingly, this is the same rhetoric underlying the renewable energy optimistic thinking: as long as oil prices remain high and the capital is there, the infrastructure can expand to cover the gap left by declining fossil fuel production. Maybe even to support further economic growth. This is all supposed to happen within the current economic framework, in just a few years and without feed-in tariffs.

Conveniently, both industries completely ignore Net Energy, an issue that was only referenced by one of the speakers throughout the entire conference. Little attention is also paid to the specificities of the transport sector, where according to Robert Hirsch, 100 T$ of infrastructure presently run petrol and diesel, not on electricity or light crudes from tight reservoirs.

And finally the politicians: we had the presence of another European parliament member, this time Yves Cochet, former Environment Minister of the French government. Many were the reasons discussed to justify the lack of acknowledgement, and in many cases action, from governments. But the most important words on this subject were proffered by Reiner Kummel: politicians end up doing what we demand from them - the problem is not the politicians, it's us!

Don't get me wrong. While I feel this conference was disappointing in general, the organisers are not to blame. They did their best and produced the programme that had to be, with ASPO opening itself to the wider society. But after 10 years of activity ASPO's message has failed to pass. Policy makers, climatologists, the energy industry, by and large are all yet to fully acknowledge the problem and its implications.

Nevertheless I had the opportunity to listen to some very good addresses. In no particular order I'd highlight Euans Mearns, Arthur Berman, Reiner Kummel, Werner Zittel, Nate Hagens, James Buckee; sadly, all well established luminaries of the Peak Oil cause. Since we had again parallel sessions I missed a good deal of presentations; you should always stop by at the conference website and browse the videos, which should be posted there in the next few weeks.

But my sour feelings don't come just from a frustrating conference. My country has had its Peak Oil moment and is now undergoing a self destruction process. Energy consumption is declining to levels of 15 or 20 years ago, with most mechanisms put in place for the energy transition being rolled back one after the other. As founding member of ASPO-Portugal, I can only take this as failure. It was precisely to avoid this kind of scenario that I started working on Peak Oil in 2005. But here we are; the efforts of the handful of people backing up our association are now largely irrelevant. The media and the politicians who once showed interest on the subject are gone, and so are we; sadly I'm not the only exiled member of ASPO-Portugal. Long gone seem the days when the Depletion Protocol was discussed and recommended by Parliament. Looking back, I can only acknowledge that I was delusional in thinking I could change anything.

My friends from ASPO-Spain tell a similar story - a 10-year regression in energy consumption, with the deliberate slow-down of economic activity. Unfortunately, the role oil, coal and food prices had (and still have) in the economic crisis is not acknowledged by everyone, not even within ASPO. This is a terrible mistake, for this is exactly what Peak Oil looks like. Getting ourselves intertwined in the debt or peak demand discourse is a self defeating path that will veer policy makers away from addressing the structural weaknesses of our economies. It is never too much to remember that the states today cut off from the European sovereign debt market are precisely those that were most dependent on oil before the crisis.

Many of us question what future ASPO can have in the present setting. It can either remain a loose scientific organisation or can pursue a more political structure to lobby on the institutions that have the means to act. I don't think ASPO should take the latter path, but more than that, it seems unable to do so at present. Is there a place for ASPO after the peak? This is the question many of us are facing.

Notwithstanding, national ASPO organisations still have relevant things to accomplish. It was quite good to see Olivier Rech now with ASPO-France, a man with great analytical skills and particular insight into the subject. Indeed, someone capable of following the path of excellence trailed by Jean Laherrère. It was also fortunate to have Pierre-René Basquis back to the ASPO conferences, with his irreverent but rational optimism. Nuclear power became an unpopular energy source at the worst of times in France; a careful path must be drawn for the country to abandon this technology and still survive Peak Oil.

New faces also in the ASPO-Germany roster. The fast growing renewable electricity sector in Germany is bringing up very important questions. With a relatively small penetration in installed capacity, it is already large enough to bring spot prices to negative territory, day in and day out, whenever the sun shines. How can the renewable energy sector generate revenues in this market setting? Especially now with feed-in tariffs on track to be suspended? And how can the traditional thermal power generation utilities survive with negative prices? These are all questions to which ASPO-Germany can have an important contribution.

Here a parenthesis: Jeremy Leggett is presently working on the development of new financial instruments for investment on renewable energies. I sincerely hope he succeeds, for this will be a crucial problem, with government after government haplessly suspending feed-in tariffs.

Another national organisation that may succeed in the future is ASPO-USA. The shale rush is heading for a predictable crash, with large consequences for the financial sector. When it comes, the thorough analysis by our American colleagues shall grant them a great deal of credit and public exposure. May they be able to seize the opportunity. By the way, thanks to Arthur for getting up so early.

But there is more. Kjell Aleklett seems to be well ahead in preparing the continuation of ASPO-Sweden, around the research group he built at Uppsala University, and from which he should retire later this year. It was also pleasant to meet new blood from ASPO-Italy or ASPO-South Africa. And for the first time I can remember we had a delegation from Poland. Though not yet formally linked to ASPO, things seem moving in the land of coal and unfulfilled shale dreams.

There will be an ASPO conference in 2013, with the work for its realisation already under way. And I will probably be there too. But not as an avid information seeker, dreaming of saving the world. I'll be there just to see old friends and make new ones. After all, that was always the best thing about ASPO conferences.

My impression is that the whole peak oil thing has a problem:

Peak Oil ist presented as a negative: "We will have problems". Well, yes, we are already having problems. Maybe we should instead be picking a positive to hound on - perhaps like Leggett.

Cheers, Dom
http://powerparadigms.blogspot.de/2012/04/peak-oil-nonsense-ii.html

p.s. Thanks for sharing your quite qualified frustration:-)

Frustrating, indeed, planting seeds in unfertile ground. Perhaps ASPO can openly realize what it's strengths have always been; finding cracks in the social pavement. Cast your seeds there and see what grows. That's what nature does, with relentless patience.

ASPO's top-down attempts to divert policy, while nobly conceived and executed, had little chance of accomplishing it's goals, for the goals were flawed from conception. The evermore massive human juggernaut has no hive mind, no central authority, little self-awareness.

Look for cracks and occupy them. That has been ASPO's success thus far, and I suggest that you've been remarkably effective, whether by intent or unintended affectation. Stoneleigh and others figured this out early on.

Don't sell yourselves short. This convergence of predicaments will require individual change before useful political and social changes can occur. The Peak Oil (peak everything) movement still needs a fabric upon which to paint itself.

...or we can all just retreat to our bunkers :-/

ASPO's top-down attempts to divert policy, while nobly conceived and executed, had little chance of accomplishing it's goals, for the goals were flawed from conception. The evermore massive human juggernaut has no hive mind, no central authority, little self-awareness.

Well stated Ghung - I'll have to save that one :-)

Luis - thanks for sharing your frustrations.

I will be attending my fourth ASPO-USA conference this year. Fortunately (I think) for me I walked away from the first one convinced that the goals "were flawed from conception" and I have attended each conference since to learn what other like minded people were thinking about how to cope with the consequences of peak oil. I have very well educated friends who simply do not understand any concept of limits because of the consensus trance they are in about progress. I still like them, enjoy their company, but have no illusions of even talking to them about this subject, even though they all know that I am a "peak oiler". But I also have three friends who are slowly coming around and more frequently are asking what's new about oil supply. They are getting a sense that something is wrong but are reluctant to admit it. But even with them I do not talk about about it unless they ask.

I spend my energy just trying to convince my family that we need to change. That is a challenge in itself,but it is slowly working.

Thanks, T_E. "I spend my energy just trying to convince my family that we need to change. "

Not me,, not any longer. I just keep doing what I consider important and hope some of it rubs off, and I make no excuses. Funny that; they seem to be coming around lately. Guilt by association?

The evermore massive human juggernaut has no hive mind, no central authority, little self-awareness.

That may be technically correct, but it's not that we don't have a socio-economic system that operates even more predictably and ruthlessly than any Politburo. It's capitalism, and it is why nobody who matters (i.e. nobody in power) will listen to ASPO. Doing so means professional suicide within the halls of decision.

The real audience for ASPO is sympathetic experts plus the general public.

"...but it's not that we don't have a socio-economic system that operates even more predictably and ruthlessly than any Politburo. It's capitalism,..."

We don't have a system. It has us, such as it is. But if you need to think that there is a "we" (or a them) that has much meaningful control over any of this, beyond just poking sticks at it to see what happens, I can understand. The alternative is tough for most folks to live with. That's why we have God (some of you anyway).

Come now, Ghung. You think capitalism is beyond human control, both actual and potential? If that were your conclusion, why would you be reading things like TOD? And how would you explain the differences that exist between the Swedish and the American versions?

The President of the United States remains a very powerful person, even if the office is used for babysitting BAU. A range of institutions, from the local to the UN, remain gutted and ineffectual. But it ain't necessarily so. Heck, even if it were, isn't trying to make it not so the only game in town?

Nihilism eats all colors. If there's no hope, I'm building a shelter and/or partying 24/7.

If there's no hope, I'm building a shelter and/or partying 24/7.

From the point of view of 80% of the world's population, how would that look any different than what we're doing now?

I guess my basic problem (?) is that I do not believe we're in control of anything. That sensation of control is an illusion borne of the ego as far as I'm concerned. The illusion of being in control is the root problem, not the second order effects like overconsumption and social injustice that we're all so fond of castigating. That's why the first order of business for someone who aspires to awaken (even just an intellectual awakening) is to surrender and admit that they are not in control and know nothing about what's going on.

This position makes it very difficult for me to stay engaged in debates at places like TOD. While I still know the language, and even remember it having a purpose, it all starts to seem so wrong-headed after a while.

An interesting exchange.
If one had been one of those, and there were many in the summer of 1914, some of whom had friends in powerful places and were part of an international network with better ideas, who thought that Europe's imperial structures embarking on war was a very bad idea, there was still nothing they could have done about it.
Still, you never know; this historic long drawn out affair is mostly not going to be down to Europe, USA, this time?
best
Phil

Nihilism is always an option. Concluding that human beings are not in control of anything strikes me as a wildly wrong conclusion, but you are certainly free to reach it. But, again, if that's the case, why read non-fiction, especially non-fiction devoted to the topic of intervening in the impending eco-social crisis? I don't see the point, if you truly think we're just lemmings-to-the-sea (itself an insult to lemmings, btw).

As my conviction that our sense of control is largely a convenient illusion has grown over the last 10 years, I have indeed stopped reading most work devoted to intervening in the crisis. These days I read the news and blogs like TOD mostly to track the unfolding of events. My real attention has been pulled in two different ways - towards the redevelopment of very local community ties, and to a deep personal exploration of my own place in the universe.

The position I'm comfortable with now is that humanity is a species largely like any other. The implication is that, like other species, we will expand our population and activity until the expansion is stopped by natural forces. Those forces are a combination of external environmental and resource limits, and internal psychosocial changes like those seen by John Calhoun in his famous "Mouse Utopia" experiment. Adopting this position has given me a strong preference not to intervene in the natural course of events, but rather to let them play out according to the inherent dynamics of the situation.

From my point of view the value of consciousness and reason is largely personal rather than collective. Even worse, the reasoning we try to apply to control the course of events is largely corrupted beyond recognition by underlying emotional forces that work in our unconscious mind to shape our perception of the world in entirely non-rational ways.

I am convinced about the value of sapience though, and I think that if it were more fully developed in humans it would radically alter our behaviour in salutary ways. As a result, one of my newer interests is in how sapience might be fostered in individuals. I have this wistful idea that sapience might be an evolutionary fitness trait, and that it could be enhanced in the species through selection pressures as we go through the bottleneck we have now entered. That possibility makes the idea of increasing the sapience of as many individuals as possible - before we hit the bottleneck full-on - a very attractive idea indeed. Not to mention that highly sapient people seem to get more out of life no matter what it throws at them.

Others will not agree with my non-interventionist position, and that's fine - there are seven billion other positions to choose from. Better yet, we could each develop our own position and add it to the dynamic global mix. After all, it's the outcome of that 7-billion-way tug of war that ends up determining our future in every moment.

As my conviction that our sense of control is largely a convenient illusion has grown over the last 10 years

It sounds to me like you're not giving up, you're just being more realistic and focusing your energy where it's most useful.

"think global, act local". That's nothing new, or fatalistic - it's just sensible focusing.

like other species, we will expand our population and activity until the expansion is stopped by natural forces.

Well, that's not accurate. Population is stabilizing in most of the world, and that has very little to do with "natural forces" stopping it. Similarly, consumption of hard goods has stopped naturally at a plateau in the US and most of the OECD.

the course of events is largely corrupted beyond recognition by underlying emotional forces

Of course, the subconscious is extremely important. On the other hand, when it's made conscious, we realize that it's pretty familiar after all.

I am convinced about the value of sapience though, and I think that if it were more fully developed in humans it would radically alter our behaviour in salutary ways.

Absolutely!!

Others will not agree with my non-interventionist position

Again, I don't see anything passive about your approach - it just sounds more focused.

"You think capitalism is beyond human control, both actual and potential?"

Judging from recent trends/events, western capitalists certainly have lost control of large portions of their construct. As with most macro-scale human endeavors, human predispositions for ignoring limits has created imbalances that will be self-correcting. Attempts to 'control' these things have invariably been cases of the proverbial kicking of the can. History is flush with other examples.

I didn't mean to imply that humans don't have short-term control of many of their subsystems; I qualified my comment by stating that 'we' don't have "meaningful" control; our solutions invariably beget future problems to the point that they become unsolvable... randomness, chaos, and entropy take us by surprise. Duh... Crisis management isn't control at all; it's reactive. Our hubris is to believe otherwise and is clearly dooming us, and much of the planet, to be increasingly more reactive. This isn't nihilism... look around; it's real and in your face.

The only meaningful control we have is to teach ourselves, collectively, to live within the limits imposed by the physical world. Beyond that, there is no "control".

This is why ASPO is over:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/jul/02/peak-oil-we-we-wrong

When you get it wrong you finally go out of business.

But everybody who has followed TOD/ASPO during this period has learned an incredible amount with regard to energy, EROEI, oil production, gas production, Saudi depletion and net exports, the challenges of ramping up production, the challenges of financing etc. etc. But it's time to move on.

Monbiot can't see the forest for the trees. Obviously he wrote the piece from the comfort of his home, not while waiting in one of the many petrol lines all around the world. On my website I have a menu on fuel shortages

http://crudeoilpeak.info/fuel-shortages

Peak oil is a process which started in 2005. There were several phases. In 2006/2007 Saudi oil production dropped which caused oil prices to increase.

In October 2007 Gail and me wrote this article:

Did Katrina Hide the Real Peak in World Oil Production? and Other Oil Supply Insights
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/3052/

This graph
http://www.theoildrum.com/files/EIA_IncrementalBarrels2001_Jun2007.jpg
shows the decline at the time.

End 2007 a recession started in the US.

Causes and Consequences of the Oil Shock of 2007–08

Whereas historical oil price shocks were primarily caused by physical disruptions of supply, the price run-up of 2007-08 was caused by strong demand confronting stagnating world production. Although the causes were different, the consequences for the economy appear to have been very similar to those observed in earlier episodes, with significant effects on overall consumption spending and purchases of domestic automobiles in particular. In the absence of those declines, it is unlikely that we would have characterized the period 2007:Q4 to 2008:Q3 as one of economic recession for the U.S. The experience of 2007-08 should thus be added to the list of recessions to which oil prices appear to have made a material contribution.

http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Files/Programs/ES/BPEA/2009_spring_bpea...

In 2008 Saudi Arabia was not able to increase production as China's demand went up an extra 800 kb/d. I call it the Oilympic peak. Result: highest oil prices ever.More details are here:

17/5/2011
Incremental crude oil production update Jan 2012
http://crudeoilpeak.info/incremental-crude-oil-production-update-january...

Money has been printed to pay for high oil prices

4/6/2012
Global debt and oil prices
http://crudeoilpeak.info/global-debt-and-oil-prices

Oil exports have peaked in 2007

14/6/2012
BP Statistical Review 2012: Part 1 discrepancies and peak exports
http://crudeoilpeak.info/bp-statistical-review-2012-analysis-part-1-disc...

We also have oil peaking in Algeria, Egypt, Yemen, Sudan and Syria. Turn on your TV to watch what is happening there.

Argentina nationalised YPF because of peak oil in that country. There was unrest in Nigeria when the government tried to increase fuel prices to reduce subsidies. It's all part of peak oil.

The problem seems to be that some peak oilers are transfixed on the global peak, forgetting what happens in subsystems.

No amount of shale oil will stop the 2nd oil peak in Iran (the Shah overproduced which triggred the 2nd oil crisis)

http://crudeoilpeak.info/iran-peak

Just today Iran was testing missiles.

6/1/2012
Iran playing war games but not in video arcades
http://crudeoilpeak.info/iran-playing-war-games-but-not-in-video-arcades

Monbiot is not alone. Many get confused:

7/4/2012
Australian ABC TV falls into oil and climate trap of unconventional oil
http://crudeoilpeak.info/australian-abc-tv-falls-into-oil-and-climate-tr...

7/3/2012
No number crunching in Alan Kohler's opinion piece on a premature peak oil death
http://crudeoilpeak.info/no-number-crunching-in-alan-kohler-opinion-piec...

Good roundup.

But I think you must understand something. Peak Oil was always relegated to a second spot. Climate change was what the left wanted to talk about. It's disastrous enough, but there's still years and years away so there isn't that imminent personal danger that Peak Oil presents.

Second, Peak Oil, if you truly embrace it, would also cancel out climate change to a large extent. Why? Because in the IPCC scenarios, they use the IEA estimate of the year 2000 for oil production as a base case. That will never happen, as we all know. Even the IEA has revised it's estimates many times the last decade - all downwards.

And if you've invested as much time, energy and emotion into something only to be told, actually, Peak Oil will cancel it out mostly and we have much less time; then it isn't attractive.

Now having said all of this; he is right that the doomsters have been wrong. This includes a lot of people on this site, and it includes ASPO too. People have simply negated any gains in NGLs, biofuels and so on as 'temporary blips'. Well, they aren't. And NGLs in particular will increase as oil shale/shale oil(they are different) as well as shale gas production increases.

And even shale oil itself has beaten everyone's expectations. Add to that the economic incentives, as oil prices go up long-lost production fields become viable again. Efficiency isn't a small pickle either.

All these things have been dismissed in Peak Oil circles. There's been a bit of a cult here sometimes where even the most minor skeptic is met with huge hostility.

Still.. We need to add 12-15 mb/d over the next decade, barring continuous recession. But even then we'll need at least 8 mb/d more than we do now.

Even if you take the optimistic-realistic base case, there's no way to get there. And Russia is drilling more and more wells just to keep up production. They need very, very high oil costs just to self-finance the spiralling CapEx costs. This is a sign of a country in the twilight of a peak. Soon Russia will need $120, and after that $130 dollars just to keep even with all the CapEx costs. It is self-explainable that such a phenomenom cannot continue for long.

The peakists have lost out for being too alarmist and too inflexible of a counter-point. Still, the basic premise is right. It won't be as dramatic as many thought. It's a slow process of erosion. But we are entering the phase already.

The cornucopian argument Mobiot is advancing is simply not credible. It's CERA-level. But people will be swayed by it unless the peakists get more nuanced.

"The peakists have lost out for being too alarmist and too inflexible of a counter-point. Still, the basic premise is right. It won't be as dramatic as many thought. It's a slow process of erosion. But we are entering the phase already."

Agree, for the most part. It depends on your time frame; the longevity of your view. What we are witness to is buying time on a massive scale, which, IMO will make things much worse for virtually every species on the planet.

"It's a slow process of erosion."

...again, depends on one's time frame. This will likely look quite sudden in the rear-view mirror, as sudden as the rise of the industrial age, historically.

I do not think TOD or Peak Oil messengers should give up. Personally I have believed in Limits to Growth for years dating back to 1972 which led to my support for reduced consumption to reduce Environmental destruction. But then came the boom times (for some) of Reagan and even more so of Clinton and concerns about Nuclear War and domestic jobs pushed
Limits to Growth to the background of my thinking. It wasn't until the Iraq War started that Peak Oil popped to the top of my own awareness and a friend guided me to the OilDrum
as well as James Kunstler. At first I and my brother were the only ones talking about Peak Oil among my family and friends. But in the last few years all of my family has come to realize Peak Oil and its impacts along with more and more of my neighbors.
My own angle has always been on the devastating waste in many ways of Auto Addiction in terms of wasting oil, pollution, deaths, land destruction and destruction of sociability.
Suburbia for the most part has been a major cause of the destruction of civil society and community in favor of atomized "nuclear" families isolated from their neighbors, fellow travelers and public institutions like Town squares. But at the same time the US, as the
pre-eminent Auto Addicted society, has enormous rooms to SAVE oil and greenhouse emissions:
just by running Green Transit could save huge amounts of oil and greenhouse emissions. Indeed it already is as Peak Cars have forced increasing numbers to Green transit even as
actual transit is cut. Even people in rural US areas want to see more Rail rather than highway lanes.
I have tried to make Environmentalists aware of Peak Oil and the critical role of Auto Addiction in US waste of oil and greenhouse emissions and increasingly they are becoming aware of it.
Also while the Corporate media keeps pushing cornucopian Peak Oil denials, I have noticed more and more commenters on even websites like the New York Times or CNN bringing up Limits to Growth, Peak Oil and the need to reduce consumption in the first place.
So keep going! Change is coming...

Auto Addicted society, has enormous rooms to SAVE oil and greenhouse emissions:
just by running Green Transit could save huge amounts of oil and greenhouse emissions. Indeed it already is as Peak Cars have forced increasing numbers to Green transit even as........

When is everyone going to wake up to the fact that we will NOT "save" oil or "save" FF's simply but not desiring them.
The damn stuff is still there, still available and will be used by someone else. Heck it's still being used and desired more now than ever before because like the passenger pidgeon, atlantic salmon, whales, swordfish, buffalo etc scarcity of an economic commodity creates a frenzy, a desire to get it before it's all gone.

With the current thinking, "we" will still be saving FF's right up until the last viable shred is extracted or mined.

Windmills, electric cars, electric transport or whatever are in absolutely no way helping the current problem of seven billion people, requiring to emit ever increasing amounts of CO2 to live an ever decreasing quality of life.

CO2 (and CH4) is increasing because we continue to utilize in increasing amounts, poor quality FF's gained with declining EROEI.

The electric engineering is CONTRIBUTING to the problem. The CO2 problem is immediate, plans for the future for rail is psychopathic, as are elctric cars and hybrids. Engineering solutions now are about stealing from the future to further BAU today. Affirmative action to restrict or ban the extraction of FF's is now the only solution. We are not going to achieve a remotely acceptable outcome by engineering.

Life on Earth must be saved from the ravages human occupation is causing. Rhetoric, best hopes, cutting back and in many cases abstinence is still not enough. We must now live with what we have available, if it pollutes it's banned. The NO Vacancy sign is blinking but when a room becomes vacant it gets locked.....forever. If that requirement is too hard, unreasonable, unlikely, impossible or unworkable then we will likely find a deadlier forced solution.

You sound a bit unhinged.

...action to restrict or ban the extraction of FF's is now the only solution.

Life on Earth must be saved from the ravages human occupation is causing.

...if it pollutes it's banned.

If that requirement is too hard, unreasonable, unlikely, impossible or unworkable then we will likely find a deadlier forced solution.

I recommend you calm down. Your stress may negatively affect your health.

I do not agree. Climate Change is not in the far future, nor will it be canceled out by Peak Oil. CLimate is chaning now, and we see effects of this now.

Just one example: jungle tribes use rime vers poetry to remember when to use various resources in nature. For example when bird X start to sing, it is soon time to harvest nut Y and so on. These verses are no joke, they are the summed up knowledge of countless generations, and that wisdom has kept them alive. Now antrhroplogists report that they complain that the old wisdom no longer work. Yes, we will not see New York under water on this side of 2050, but climate change is on us now, and it is getting worse.

Also, stoping CO2 emssions 100% today will not save us from climate change. The CO2 is there now. Heating up all that ocean water will take lots of time, and even if all us humans would die today, we would have 3 decades of climate change to absorb into the system. After 30+ years of this, there will be devastating droughts all over the place (including most of the US) and glaciers will melt at break neck speeds, forcing sea level elevation up to never before seen levels. We will probably see the first dead zones (areas where humans can not live without AC) by then, and expanding.

Peak Oil is upon us to, but we will not cease emissions just right away. It will go down, but slowly. At least in the beginning. One would be a fool to belive less than 50 more PPM will be emmitted. And we already have to much. Add in feed back effects, and it worsen.

2 degree Celsius is unavoidable. No one know where it will end. 6 degree by century end is possible. I don't think we can avoid 4 degrees.

We hear EROEI discussed on a regular basis, and brought up in future projections for different technologies-but we rarely hear it factored into our current situation. We have been relatively flat, or at plateau for 5 years and that level has been maintained by Bakken and the tar sands. What's not mentioned is how much oil itself is involved in the process.

It has to be a significant amount. All the sand, water, and workers are trucked into Bakken, and all the oil and waste is trucked out. The 3 story dump trucks that pit mine the tar sands are not EVs. So while overall production numbers are flat, total fuel available for market isn't. This has real effects on the economy.

I found it interesting to see that Occidental Petroleum is pulling back in the Bakken, even though they have been in the thick of some prime areas. Apparently they can't make as much profit as drilling in other places, presumably because of the high costs (i.e. implicit low EROEI).

That article by George Monbiot is very revealing. He seems to have been among many who embraced Peak Oil based on wishful thinking. He was hoping that fossil fuel depletion and an economic crash would finally stop the assault on our ecosystem by industrial society. There are others whose wishful thinking has more to do with nostalgia for pre-industrial lifestyles. It seems to me that the 'peak oil is wrong' conclusion only applies to those who have been proclaiming an collapse of liquid fuel production in the next few years...which some people seem to have been hoping for. The real crunch seems to me to be something that will play out slowly over decades to a century. Over that time scale, the entire energy system of our civilization will change. No one seems to have evidence to suggest otherwise.

I have to agree with you. Monbiot was hoping for the opposite of what seems to be happening - he wanted less destruction due to less power, but didn't realize we would tear up anything and everything for our fix. It seems clear to me that, somewhat surprisingly, the old standby of coal is still the bedrock of industrial society, from China to Germany to the US, and it seems to be only getting more popular.

Personally, I've come to think that an all-liquids peak is more important than the oil peak. With gas-to-liquids plants being built and biofuels filling out some of the rest, the ultimate peak is still to come... When coal-to-liquids starts being a thing, then we'll know for sure that we're in deep.

In any case, I expect it to play out over my lifetime (31 now). It has already changed a LOT over the past 5 years. People are acting like we're drowning in oil because there is a bit more shale oil than anticipated, and prices dropped to just a shade under $100 for Brent (now a shade over). Is everyone crazy? Prices seem to have bottomed out for the time being, despite the obvious signs of decline in Europe. Really, we're going to have cheap oil again? Really? Perhaps if none of us can afford it. But we haven't got there yet. I still see more people in cars than on bikes. When I start seeing bike traffic, I will believe we're getting there. Right now only the young are that desperate, and then there are more in cars.

I expect to die (if I get to old age) with sailing ships back to being normal (perhaps hybrid ships, but ships with sails in any case). Between where we are and that outcome is several decades of things declining. How this plays out is unclear, but the "austerity" is an early phase.

We're in more trouble if oil hasn't peaked than if it has. Rising oil production will require high prices, lots of drilling, and lots of carbon emissions. You won't need to start your own fire for marshmallows, though.

People are simply buying into a fantasy in their denial. They are paying no attention to the coming price collapse that will make these sources uneconomic. We have been in an exaggerated boom and bust cycle since 2006. That is what happens when supply and demand become tight. 2006-2009 was the first cycle. 2009 to probably sometime later this year or next is the second one. Watch for oil to go below the cost of the lowest price producer temporarily. This will set up a supply crunch at the time the economy is trying to recover from an epic deleveraging (phase two of which is underway). Prices may or may not exceed the 2008 peak in nominal terms, but in real terms prices are going to go through the roof. That is tomorrow's problem though. For the next few years it will be money that is scarce rather than energy, not because of an actual supply explosion, but because of a demand collapse coincident with the illusion of a supply-side solution. Prices owe much more to perception than to reality.

Here's my take on on unconventional oil and its impact:

Unconventional Oil is NOT a Game-Changer

I am in Europe for the summer, and had asked the ASPO organizers if they would like me to come to the conference (I have spoken at the last two ASPO USA conferences and at ASPO Italia last year). There was no reply, so I assume they were not interested.

The Thirties Analogue:

Annual nominal US crude oil prices* 1929 to 1939

1929: $3.67
1930: 2.38
1931: 1.79
1932: 1.82
1933: 1.78
1934: 2.39
1935: 2.13
1936: 2.43
1937: 2.69
1938: 1.90
1939: 2.06

*Data Source: Global Financial Data

It appears that global crude oil consumption declined in 1930, 1931 and 1932, and then started increasing in 1933:

http://www.oilposter.org/posterlarge.html

I obtained the Global Financial Data from Mark Perry, who had the following blog post, which shows 1930's (inflation/deflation adjusted) monthly oil prices in constant 2008 dollars:

http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2008/11/oil-shock-of-1930s.html

Note that both adjusted prices and nominal oil prices rose after 1933, with the 1938 decline still being above the 1933 price level.

I am expecting oil to bottom relatively early in this depression, as it did in the last one. My guess would be a bottom within the next 5 years at the most, and quite possibly sooner. Economic contraction and collapsing purchasing power should push prices down a long way (a temporary $20/barrel would not surprise me), but military demand will probably start to pick up as countries chase after their share of the liquid hegemonic power. I am expecting resource wars and internal conflict within resource rich countries to take supply off the market. I am also expecting production and distribution infrastructure decay and deliberate damage. In addition, trade collapses in depressions, meaning that we would see oil cease to be fungible. Price could vary substantially both in time and between places. The overall picture is likely to be a very complex blend of technology, finance, geopolitics and many other factors.

Even if prices are low in nominal terms, that does not equate to greater affordablity. Purchasing power for most people will have fallen much further than the oil price, making oil considerably more expensive in real terms, even as prices are bottoming. As the next price cycle begins, and prices rise substantially, affordability will get drastically worse. We could see a new high in nominal terms, but real terms matter more anyway.

The portent of $20 oil is frightening, as it implies a recessionary depression of significant depth, lasting as you said more than 5 years (in the deflationary cycle). We may wind up with some near sighted politicos starting a war to pump up the economy, ala WW-II. Unfortunately, with no cheap oil to fuel our outrageous demands on planet Earth, all we can expect from that is a deeper and grimer (more grim?) depression. Not that most will ever see the end of it in any event.

Of course, we are talking about the futility of fiat money, based on anything other than value added by means of human labor. Printing more or arbitrarily basing it on quantities of metals will not help. So long as it is extracted from the economy and hoarded by just a few lucky individuals, without regard for real values, needs, and desires of the creators of the value, it won't help.

Paying me with a piece of gold that has no real worth, and is in fact representative of waste (consider the process of gold extraction today), provides nothing if someone doesn't need that gold for something other than its representative value as a coin. If, on the other hand, I live where a 1 oz gold piece is determined to be the value of, say, one week's labor, and all goods and services are priced based on that same valuation, then it is worth that one week of work. Obviously, a paper dollar, cyber dollar, or an agreed quantity of some metal other than gold, would do quite as well, but not be as easily hoarded by the rentiers. So long as we continue to worship Mises/Friedman and pay homage to Saint Ronnie the Wrong, we will be ever enslaved, particularily now that fossil fuels cannot be used to replace slave labor.

Those are the real terms; as more human beings become actual slaves, the price of oil will increase so that, in exchange for labor-valued currency, we will purchase illusory freedom.

Craig

The crucial difference between now and the Thirties is that there was an expanding global supply of crude oil in the Thirties.

Since 2005, total liquids (inclusive of low net energy biofuels) has shown a small increase of about 0.5%/year from 2005 to 2011, but global annual crude oil production has been virtually flat since 2005, with a material decline in Global Net Exports of oil (GNE, total petroleum liquids), with the Chindia region, so far at least, consuming an increasing share of a declining volume of GNE (see numbers down the thread).

I suspect that China is to our current predicament at the US was to the Thirties, and there were reportedly three million more cars on the road in 1937 in the US, versus the number of cars on the road in the US in 1929.

Westtexas and Stoneleigh-

Long time reader here, 1st time commenter...thank you to you both and all here for the very educational work and forum you and all frequent posters offer here.

Vis a vis the comments above re: oil prices in the depression and now, keep in mind that 1929-1932 v. Forever after, you are dealing with apples and oranges in terms of currencies.

In 1929-1932, the US dollar was gold backed at $20/oz. In 1933, FDR confiscated and revalued gold at $35/oz, a 75% devaluation of the USD...when he did this, the price of everything in the US immediately began to rise - inflation, asset markets, etc...this is in fact exactly what Depression-scholar Ben Bernanke is trying to mimic now with QE, etc.

Fast forward to today - the USD (and all major global currencies) are fiat currencies, with the USD backed by the treasury debt of the US, and all the other currencies (ex-the euro) are primarily backed by fiat dollars.

If we compare oil prices in this Depression to oil prices in the 1st great depression, using the same currency (gold now, gold-backed dollars then), we will find that oil, and in fact all goods and services and markets, have
fallen when priced in gold since 2008, just like the last Depression. Going back 10-15 yrs, oil priced in gold reqlly hasn't moved much.

However, given that the current structure of the USD requires the Fed to print money when needed, oil going to $20 in USD would seem to entail a pretty severe outcome - like a 30-50% global population die-off or something on those lines.

Otherwise, the structure of the USD will require printing until the system is reset...if the Fed doesn't print, the
US treasury market would ultimately collapse, and that in turn would lead to hyperinflation.

This is more of a details kind of comment, but if looking back at prices of things like oil, the economics wonk in me thinks it may be useful to remember that a dollar is not a dollar...it's value isn't fixed over time, and in fact, has fallen meaningfully in the past 10 yrs.

"There was no reply, so I assume they were not interested."

Gosh, Nicole, you could have shown up anyway. I've never been to proud to crash a good party ;-)

Well, independent analysis is not a lucrative endeavour. Intellectual freedom is dearly bought (ie it means no salary). I can't attend conferences just because I would like to. Hopping on a plane from England to Austria and then staying there for several days would have cost far more than I could justify spending. I go to conferences by trading my analysis for the cost of attendance.

Saw you in Sweden at Uppsala this past spring, you gave a good talk!

The current economic crises have their roots sunk deep in resource constraints, especially in energy constraints. Global slowdown is right popular even in mainstream media news articles now. Try googling "global slowdown" and you will see economists acknowledging slowdowns in China, Russia, US, Europe, Brazil, India etc. The prima facie economic evidence (slowdowns, high unemployment, austerity) is that ASPO is getting it right, where as the weak spin of recent articles trying to discredit peak oil is mostly based on wishful generalizations and wishful extrapolations that don't withstand intellectual scrutiny.

An example of intellectual scrutiny posted today :

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2012/jul/04/monbiot-wrong-pea...

I read George Monbiot's article today and saw that he was festooned with comments.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/jul/02/peak-oil-we-we-wrong

I get the uimpression George has rushed to conclusions though..

Am I wrong?

Monbiot, usually reliable, is simply wrong in this case. The 12 month average of net oil imports to all OECD nations, which is basically the developed world, has declined by 5,322,000 barrels per day since September of 2006. That is peak oil!

Oil production has gone up slightly since 2006 but Net Oil Exports have dropped a whole lot more. And net oil imports to OECD nations have dropped even more. Why did no one at ASPO 2012 not point this out? This is the one point that us peak oilers can point to that trumps all the cornucopian claims.

OECD Net Oil Impors in Kb/d. The last data point is Feb. 2012.

OECD Net Oil Imports

Here is what is happening people. Oil production has been on a plateau for over 7 years. But the oil available to Europe, Japan, the US and developed nations elsewhere, is in decline. This is peak oil. This is why oil is around $100 a barrel, not $35 a barrel. This is why we are seeing a European recession. It is happening right now and all we get is a bunch of happy stories by those who would try to convince us that it is really not happening.

A chart of World Net Oil Imports shows a decline of 5,250,000 barrels per day over the same period and looks very much like the chart above.

Ron P.

Exactly. My graph on OECD is here:

http://crudeoilpeak.info/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/OECD_incremental_net...

The only exception is Australia.

18/10/2011
Australia beats them all - in oil imports
http://crudeoilpeak.info/australia-beats-them-all-in-oil-imports

Regarding Monbiot's comments about Saudi Arabia, their annual production has not materially exceeded their 2005 production level, and their annual net exports have been below their 2005 level of 9.1 mbpd (BP, total petroleum liquids) for six straight years, with 2011 net exports at 8.3 mbpd.

I've renamed the production to consumption ratio the Export Capacity Index (ECI) and the Saudi ECI fell from 5.6 in 2005 to 3.9 in 2011. At this rate of decline, the Saudis would approach a 1.0 ratio, and thus zero net oil exports, around 2034.

Note that there are certainly case histories of a declining ECI that were "false negatives," e.g., Saudi Arabia in the early Eighties and Russia in the early Nineties, but in the former case Saudi Arabia was cutting exports in response to declining oil prices and in the latter case the decline in the Russian ECI was clearly related to political unrest following the collapse of the Soviet Union.

The recent decline in the Saudi ECI, from 5.6 in 2005 to 3.9 in 2011, corresponded to a doubling in annual Brent crude oil prices.

I don't think that China & India will actually be consuming 100% of Global Net Exports of oil (GNE*) in 2030, but on the other hand, it sure is one heck of a trend line, and as you have noted it looks like China's oil production may be peaking. US net oil imports increased at 11%/year from 1949 to 1970, when we peaked. US net oil imports then increased at 14%/year from 1970 to 1977 (doubling in about five years).

Note that at the 2005 to 2008 rate of decline in the GNE/CNI ratio, the Chindia region would be at a 1.0 ratio (consuming 100% of GNE) in 2033. At the 2005 to 2011 rate of decline in the GNE/CNI ratio, the Chindia region would be at a 1.0 ratio (consuming 100% of GNE) in 2030:

http://i1095.photobucket.com/albums/i475/westexas/GNEoverCNI.jpg

In any case, the projected post-2005 Cumulative Available Net Exports** (CANE) number is particularly jaw dropping. We take ANE at peak in 2005 (14.6 GB/year) X 25 years X 0.5 (area under a triangle) less ANE at peak (14.6) to get a post-2005 CANE estimate of 168 Gb, with about 80 Gb already having been shipped, through 2011.

So, the 2005 to 2011 rate of decline in the GNE/CNI ratio suggests that the "fuel tank" that represents the estimated post-2005 cumulative supply of globally net exported oil that will be available to importers other than China & India was about 48% empty at the end of 2011, a depletion rate of about 11%/year.

*Top 33 net oil exporters in 2005, BP + Minor EIA data, total petroleum liquids

**GNE less Chindia's Net Imports (CNI)

"The 12 month average of net oil imports to all OECD nations, which is basically the developed world, has declined by 5,322,000 barrels per day since September of 2006. That is peak oil!"

If I have understood you correctly that is the most ridiculous argument I have heard in my whole life! That has NEVER been peak oil. The fact that many developing nations have chosen to drive more fuel efficient vehicles, switch to public transport, build new electric railway lines, cycle more, etc. etc... IS NOT PEAK OIL. Ron. I just lost all respect for you. Talk about changing the definition to suit the situation!

By your argument the declining use of a metal because a new and better alternative is found is due to the peak of that metal!! You've lost the plot!!

It also ignores the fact that the US has greatly increased domestic production so we are importing less.

The chart represents 30 nations, not just the US.

This chart tells it all. OECD Imports PLUS Production in kb/d.

OECD Imports Production

Ron P.

Darwinian - many people would say that your chart represents
a) The fall in demand in OECD nations since 2007 due to recession (impacting the import side) and
b) An increase in more efficient use of oil in response to high oil prices also impacting the demand side.

And looking at the economic situation now being felt in Europe, Japan and the US, what would be your guess?

Oh, I cannot speak for Europe but not many of those more efficient cars have found their way on the roads here. Well, not enough to make much difference anyway.

Ron P.

In Sweden we see more hybrids and electro vechicles on the roads. But we also see more SUV and imported (guess from where) overzised trucks. On balance, I don't think much changes here. We have had high fuel taxes for ever, so we are pretty much as slim as we could be.

EIA data show that annual US crude oil production increased from 5.4 mbpd in 2004, prior to the hurricanes, to 5.7 mbpd in 2011. Monthly data, which are preliminary estimates and subject to revisions, show a larger increase, but then we have the enormous discrepancy between the EIA and the RRC for Texas crude production, e.g., about 500,000 bpd for January, 2012.

In any case, from 2004 to 2011, combined net oil exports from the seven major net exporters in the Americas, inclusive of rising net exports from Canada, fell from 6.1 mbpd in 2004 to 5.0 mbpd in 2011 (BP, total petroleum liquids).

And then we have the ongoing decline in Global and Available Net Exports:

http://www.energybulletin.net/stories/2012-06-25/commentary-america’s-new-energy-reality-bidding-war-declining-global-net-oil-expo

Late on the evening of April 14th, 1912, at 11:40 P.M., the Titanic struck the iceberg. At around midnight, it seems likely that only about one-tenth of one percent of the people on the ship knew that the ship would sink, but that did not mean that the ship was not sinking. The ship’s pumps helped, but they were not sufficient to fully offset the flood of seawater coming into the ship.

I believe that the slow increase in US crude oil production is to the ongoing decline in global net exports of oil as the Titanic’s pumps were to the flood of seawater into the ship, and I suspect that perhaps one-tenth of one percent of the people in the world have some appreciation for the global net oil export situation, but that does not mean that global net exports are not declining, with the developing countries, led by China, so far consuming an increasing share of a declining volume of global net exports of oil.

Well...
Of course that in itself is not a definition of peak oil, but it is one of the many results.
Just like the development of the tar sands.
Just like the monetary/debt "challenges" since 2008.
Just like the oil price around $100.
Want to give your respect back to Ron - he wasn't proclaiming a "sola scriptura" here, now was he?-)

Cheers, Dom
http://powerparadigms.blogspot.de/2012/07/3-phases-of-age-of-oil.html

Elsewhere I commented about the

weak spin of recent articles trying to discredit peak oil is mostly based on wishful generalizations and wishful extrapolations that don't withstand intellectual scrutiny

Looks like the commentary from some here falls into the same category, with the addition of personal attacks, and condescending and mean spirited tones. Do those things add in any way to an intellectual discussion? No. And in fact, when you see those kinds of things here, it makes you question the motives of the person who made those comments, and whether there was intent to be hurtful in making put down comments. Any intellectual points that they try to make also become highly suspect too. And eventually, like the boy who cried wolf, people start considering the source and the history of comments, and all credibility can soon be lost. Intellectual merit withstands scrutiny, and a lack of intellectual merit crumbles under scrutiny too. If you are going to post, then post with sincerity, and with more than just crumbs.

that is the most ridiculous argument I have heard in my whole life!

Ron. I just lost all respect for you.

You've lost the plot!!

For me the issue is the mass of misrepresentation that is going on. I read the article in the Guardian and, once again, the author hasn't a clue. The quoted reserves in Bakken, for example, are simply silly and reveal pure ignorance. Sure Bakken has a lot of oil in tight rock, very expensive to drill, extremely high well depletion rates and not infrastructure to transport it. The author is unable to discuss Bakken beyond the simplistic quote of "reserves". As far as 91mbd day, well that includes all sorts of things not related to pumping oil.

The conversation has drifted far from the original intent and we, often, are talking apples/oranges. As the entire energy situation rapidly changes, there are many people who aren't keeping up. The reality is nothing has changed from when it all started. I do think the original goals were a waste of time. People simply don't change behavior on information. They wind up arguing about the information.

Personally, I think the original issue with peak oil still exists, issues with climate change are very real and the economic situation is a disaster. And people do love to debate which will get us first. It's the old "I gotta prove I'm right/my problem is the biggest". So you can hold all the conferences you want, publish all the facts you want or anything else for that matter and nothing will change. All one has to do is look around. There are fat people everywhere waddling along to an early death. People drive like utter idiots texting/eating/drinking/on the cell phone. People use massive amounts of drugs. I could go on but you get the drift. A few of us catch our self destructive behaviors but the vast masses plod along like lemmings to the sea.

I'm one that continues to read but keep things to myself. Did my bit of crying wolf. Far, far too many Guardian articles and the like for me to impact. I agree, totally, with the last statement. Go to the conference for yourself.

I note cautionary tales of unfounded optimism have a long history dating back 2600 years to the ancient Greeks then again 600 years ago in western Europe
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don%27t_count_your_chickens_before_they_hatch
Not only has former peakist George Monbiot recanted so has Total's de Margerie who once said all-liquids would never exceed 100 mbpd but now thinks they will. Climate doomsayer James Lovelock appears to have backtracked. I wonder if losing your nerve comes with age.

"I wonder if losing your nerve comes with age."

Perhaps just a realization that the messenger always gets shot first ;-/

http://www.forbes.com/sites/christopherhelman/2012/06/04/bakken-bazhenov...

http://www.snopes.com/politics/gasoline/bakken.asp

What we haven't reached yet is peak malarkey.

The second artifice yet again conflates shale oil with ' 'oil' 'shale' ' (Green river kerogen-infused marlstone)).

So, even if the World total liquids production stays on a plateau (or even rises slightly over time) through say 2035...this is the cornucopian dream, go back to partying...this is a red alert that we have about twenty years to get our collective rears in gear and plan and implement a transition to a post-oil future.

These final spates of discoveries of harder and herder to extract oil are a gift of strategic...nay, deep tactical, warning for us to change our energy paradigm...new sources, more efficiency, population level-off, and doing less with less.

I think the shale gas and shale oil booms are develop into classical bubbles, and those typically burst in a destructive bust.

They have all the classical symptoms of people making exuberant and irrational claims. The economics of shale gas in particular have to be underwater at current gas prices, and nobody can be making money on it. Shale oil is probably profitable at current prices but that requires oil prices approaching $100/bbl. At $50/bbl, most companies would probably be losing money.

Classical bubbles normally burst quite suddenly and the over-exuberant promoters and investors lose their shirts.

At the same time, analysts are not keeping an eye on what is happening in the Middle East and other major oil-producing areas. We're not seeing much in the way of new discoveries coming out of them, and those big old oil fields which produce most of their oil must be getting close to going into decline. Once the shale bubble bursts, people will realize that the world oil supply is not expanding as much as they thought.

Rather sobering to think about...

...for those folks not trapped in a cornucopia-forever mindset.

Short term thinking is part of what created this mess in the first place. If peak oil is moved forward, that is just a reprieve. It does not change the fact that the piper must eventually be paid. If indeed it has moved forward, this should be seen as an opportunity to do things we should have done thrity years ago. But it won't for man is a short sighted beast. At least a hundred year perspective and plan for the future, if any, would be more prudent than jumping up and down about whether peak oil is 2005, 2010, or 2000 whatever. Dumb.

Luis, it seems that a lot of people are undergoing similar "Dark Nights of the Soul" in a various regions of the "Oh Shit Movement" these days. One of the ones that is nearest to my own heart is Confessions of a Recovering Environmentalist by the ex-environmentalist Paul Kingsnorth, one of the founders of the remarkable Dark Mountain Project. Those who have a streak of poet in their soul are seeing the naked truth more clearly than the gimlet-eyed quants.

Tell me of a time in history when people were willing to listen to that which they did not want to hear

Give it time, folks. Even Greer seems a bit miffed at The Cussedness of Whole Systems . There's an unprecedented inertia in industrial societies, and much bargaining yet to be had. Overall, the level of volatility we are seeing is indicative of desperate attempts to right the boat.

I, for one, am grateful for any time the BAU crowd can buy me and mine.

I can remember the weather forecast for a significant snow fall to start here in North Carolina in '89(?). While the grocery store shelves were being emptied of bread and milk, I hunted the area for sleds and found three; one for each kid. The succeeding forecasts kept delaying the arrival of the snow until finally, it was obvious the storm was never going to materialized. The new sleds were stored in the garage for over 10 years before their blades were christened by their first snow fall. During those ten years, I knew how Moses felt wandering the Sinai Desert with his tribe always eager for the Promised Land -- of snow and sleds.

I bought into the concept of Peak Oil but also listened to the naysayers wondering if the oil age will end like the Stone Age; not because we run out of stone but because we have "something" better to go towards especially if driven by a profit motive in a stable economic society. I see that "something" in high efficiency solar electric cells and better batteries. The 15% efficient cells on my roof are nowhere near as efficient as the 45% cells some companies can make at great expense. But they can make them. Now to bring down the costs or find something similar and bring down their costs. I could definitely become an "energy exporter" with 45% efficient solar cells.

I read where a group of Korean Scientists have concocted a stable, non oxidizing electrolyte for a Lithium Air Battery that promises 10 times the energy storage of laptop batteries. But it is still in the lab and may take 20 years to bring it to commercial production. FYI, ten times the storage would make it possible to go coast to coast on **one** charge in an all Electric Vehicle.

Forty-five percent efficient cells and the above Lithium Air battery technology would put a serious dent into the effects of Peak Oil on world industrialized societies. But why does my ticket on this boat ride say "Titanic" and what's all this ice doing on the shuffleboard court???

I respect John Michael Greer and Stoneleigh and have said so financially. I keep looking for truths and I keep looking for falsehoods in what is said and published. When I can identify them, I try to act accordingly. Monboit piece is an example with plenty of falsehoods. For one, he lumps conventional and non conventional oil into the same category and treats them as one. They are not the same. One is in decline and the other requires a checkerboard pattern of wells drilled across the landscape just to maintain present supply.

There is "Cussedness" in the system. It does not want to die and it will fight tooth and nail to keep from dying. From invading Iraq to set Saddam's oil production right to drilling in Siberia for Shale Oil, to auto manufacturers starting to produce Electric Cars in number when 10 years ago they killed the EV1. The system will not go quietly into that good night. I see where TPTB are eyeing schemes to convert coal and gas to fuels to power vehicles. No this system is not going to go down without a tooth and nail and "happy face" fight.

Ghung talks about a "hive" mentality. It is there. There are those of us who come here often and reap bits of wisdoms that help us understand where we are and the challenges that face us as we go forward with our lives. You all have convinced me of why I need to put solar hot water and PV on my roof. Why I and my family need to create a "victory" garden and are doing so. Why we need to live within our means financially, energy-wise, and environmentally. There are many things that you don't see from your sides of your computer screens. It is happening and it is ameliorating the effects of Peak Oil. I've gotten your message and I'm **not** going to shoot you.

Will we all get to a lifeboat in time? Will we reach our "Carpathias" alive? Will we reach a point where we overcome the challenges before us? Hope so but there is nothing like preparing for an eventually that is likely to hit us hard.

I've been promised that the next 20 years will not be anything like the past 20 years and I believe that promise. It might seem like we are waiting for the next snow storm in North Carolina but that storm is building and we are in it already.

I found the Confessions of a Recovering Environmentalist and just read it. Nice and poetic and all, but that seductive viewpoint is destructive in the end. He advocates an 'ecocentrism' that amounts to the worship of the environment as it was before humans arrived. There have been many other flavors of the the environmentalist = anti-human viewpoint over the years. The problem with these movements is obvious: it is humans who wish the humans would go away. That viewpoint is destined to remain at the fringes for eccentrics and dreamers. Many in the peak oil world are wishfully hoping that a collapse of industrial civilization will lead to a world where ecocentrism can be restored. But it won't. Even a collapse will simply lead to renewed building. Its just the kind of creatures humans are. As a practical matter, those who build and innovate will maintain political power over those who just watch sunsets. So you are better off joining the mainstream environmentalists who are making some small contributions toward keeping some spaces wild and human society functioning sustainably enough to continue to enforce the protection of some wilderness. Following Kingsnorth in withdrawing is nothing profound. It is simply giving up because you can't face the fact that the world is not the world you want it to be.

To each their own. I would rather withdraw than prostitute myself to a cause I didn't believe in. Complete withdrawal is impossible, in any event - we are all still human beings who live in cultures. For most of us our decision is how best to oppose those aspects of the culture we find most repugnant. I don't have to become a progressive TV producer in the hopes that I might create one program that will redeem some merit in the vast wasteland. It's also legitimate to turn off my TV and read a book. Or argue on the internet...

I think the American Zen teacher Adyashanti has a point when he says:

The hope for the environment does not lie in the hands of the environmentalists. They simply sit on the opposite side of the duality from those who destroy the environment. They are culprits in continuing a type of violence that is the very root of what causes us to destroy the environment. The hope for the environment lies in the realization that all beings and all things are yourself, including those who oppose you. Until your vision and compassion is big enough to include those who oppose you, you are simply contributing to the continuation of destructiveness. The end of separation is the salvation for all.

This attitude leads to "doing" but on a whole different level than most of us are used to thinking of.

It would be nice to see less "us" vs "them" thinking.

with government after government haplessly suspending feed-in tariffs.

Another national organisation that may succeed in the future is ASPO-USA. The shale rush is heading for a predictable crash, with large consequences for the financial sector. When it comes, the thorough analysis by our American colleagues shall grant them a great deal of credit and public exposure.

I submit that any 'discussion' about the crash would need to include a mention of 'tariffs' needed to provide needed infrastructure, relief to those most harmed by the crash, and continuity of services. Otherwise it would be idle chit-chat. Why anyone would think that the US would decide to increase (begin???) feed-in tariffs in order to respond to the coming crash, I have no idea. Such a tarrif would be a "tax" and more than half of the House of Representatives is pledged to their God, Grover, not to add new, increase old, or otherwise facilitate any tax, no matter the purpose, and no matter the adverse consequences. After all, taxes take away from profits, and we all know that our Corporate Masters demand their profits!

Corporate money doesn't care about global warming, peak oil, national infrastructure, or survival of the species. Unless, of course, they can make a buck in the process. Which is why we are pretty much doomed. And why ASPO, TOD, TAE and the rest are pretty much irrelevant to informed discussion.

Best hopes for the last ASPO meeting.

Craig

There will be other organizations that come in and offer views other than those of ASPO.

Clearly some of these are from nuts that are saying oil depletion is not a problem.

But there will also be others taking different approaches. The "Age of Limits" conference on Memorial Day week-end represents one such approach. The conference took the approach of accepting Limits to Growth as a likely outcome, and going from there. The speakers were John Michael Greer, Dmitry Orloff, Carolyn Baker, Tom Whipple, and myself. There were about 175 in attendance, despite little advertising. I understand another conference is planned next year, with a higher attendance cap (about 50% more).

I wrote up one of the talks that I gave. The title is a bit intimidating, but it really only explains why our current debt system can't work. Rentier Debt and the Collapse of Debt-Based Finance. This is not a post that I expect ASPO would be comfortable with. I didn't try to submit it to TOD.

Luis,

I think you have fallen into the trap that Zeke described above.

"Personally, I think the original issue with peak oil still exists, issues with climate change are very real and the economic situation is a disaster. And people do love to debate which will get us first. It's the old "I gotta prove I'm right/my problem is the biggest"."

Peak Oil, Climate Change and the financial situation are a dilema not a problem.

Peak Oilers are consumed with their topic and think it the most important there is and on TOD they have had a habit of complaining about the major Climate Scientists not taking them seriously enough for years. I don't think that is the problem. They are smart and serious people. Perhaps they have the same opinion that I do. I have followed the Peak Oil debate since the advent of TOD. I have been following the Climate Change debate even longer.

I believe that many Peak Oilers are seriously underestimating the effort that will be put forward to maintain energy supplies going forward. Yes, peak oil (in terms of C&C) is in the rear view mirror at this point. 5 years ago approximately. But look where all liquids production is. And where has coal production gone in the meantime, and natural gas. We are pouring CO2 into the atmosphere. And we are going to pour it in in vast amounts for a long time still. In an attempt to maintain BAU we will pull out all stops. We are going to drag out the energy plateau for a long time. A very long time.

In the mean time all the data being collected on Climate Change is horrible. And getting worse fast. Much faster than originally expected in most cases. Since 2000 many new amplifying feedbacks have been identified. We are in the midst of an extinction event that is likely to get much worse. We are acidifying the oceans. Arctic ice is disappearing at an alarming rate. We have set in motion vast changes to our world that it will be very difficult to adapt too. A reasonable person can look at what is likely to happen in the energy consumption area over the next 30 years and state that, even with the eventual decline resulting from Peak Oil (energy), the additional additions of CO2 are going to completely hose us. It will be decades before CO2 emissions drop to the point where CO2 concentrations start to fall from the peak. Keeping the peak below 500ppm will be very difficult.

There is almost no way out of catastrophe at this point. Technically solutions are available to deal adequately with Peak Oil and energy issues. But we are not going to execute them are we? We know what we need to do to lesson the impacts of Climate Change. But we are not going to do them either. Baring a Black Swan type of civilization changing event the inertia of civilization will keep us on the general path we have taken. Industrial change or cultural change takes a generation or two to take place. Maybe the black swan will be the imminent financial disaster that Stonleigh and others like her have been warning about for years. A total crash that puts us in a depression for a couple of generations. Probably not though. Maybe we will get lucky and all the methane on the ESAS will boil out of the water in a giant burst and bring everything to a halt and reset the system. Very unlikely. And so on...sigh. Winding down from my rant I guess.

While I still pop in every week I don't find TOD of much interest or value anymore. I don't care what the mechanics of Gahwar are or exactly when it waters out. TOD is just on death watch at this point. There was a time when you could come here and learn many things that had potential use in the future that is staring us in the face. It was vibrant and very useful for many people. Then it decided it was going to 'influence' policy or some nonsense like that.

Wyo

I think TOD fills a need, but personally what is most compelling for me are the "disaster reports" - I came here first due to the Deepwater Horizon disaster, and followed the Fukushima disaster and the averted disaster that was the Elgin leak. For these things, technical analysis is important and useful. I also think it's a fairly good site for people who are just starting to learn about peak oil, mostly because the comments are usually very good, especially but not exclusively the comments from insiders. For example, the net exports issue is one example of something that should be obvious but is usually ignored and easy to miss - but Ron and westexas will never let us forget it.

On the other hand, I think the decision to narrow the site down to news and technical analysis with the elimination of the campfires has, while "focusing" the site, also led into a box canyon of sorts. TOD doesn't really promote 'solutions' (perhaps wisely, as these are not problems but predicaments, dilemmas as you put it), but does a good job as a site of people watching and discussing what's happening. It is not totally unique in this regard, but it is more commentor driven than, say, the Archdruid's site or TAE. The problem is that after a while, we all know what the issues are. Despite the wide range of politics and such on display here, there is mostly a common view... And once you see it and know it, TOD can't do much more.

I think TOD and probably ASPO need to move into trying to educate more people. It's easy to say it can't be done, but I think more people are seeing the issues every day. I think my following these issues has led to my family noticing these issues as well. TOD taught me about this. But ultimately we probably need to realize that what ROCKMAN has often said is true - we're going to burn it all. Collectively, humans will work very hard to keep the system going, and that means that despite German solar panels (which have turned out to be an amazingly good idea, despite the doubts and their less than optimal location), the coal is going to be dug up and burnt, the oil will be pumped, etc. The earth will warm, species will go extinct.

Perhaps all we can do is watch.

I sort of agree with many of the points Wyoming makes- I do miss the old oil drum with its variety of strategies of how to deal with peak oil. I do not believe TPTB will change things- I come to this website so I don't feel like I am alone and crazy for seeing these issues (many of those around me dismiss my concerns so I don't even raise them anymore). More importantly, I want survival knowledge. Are there other websites that fill this gap and cover things like low energy living, sustainable agriculture, DIY solar, etc.? Can somebody list good sites about how to survive in a PO, Global Warming world?

P.S. I believe that, even though new sources of energy are being brought on line and we may have a temporary glut, global warming is currently producing many of the consequences of Peak Oil(ex: power grid instability, rising food prices, economic resession, constant crisis management, etc.)In fact, I believe this is happening as I write- global warming's effects feels like Peak Oil's effects.

thanks Orchid- this looks good, i'll make it a favorite

Without a rudimentary understanding of thermodynamics and evolutionary biology, one does not have the tools to understand the predicament the planet is in.
That excludes most of our species.
They are seeking a story that makes sense, and that is what will influence them, but I don't see one emerging.

It seems to me that climate and resource depletion run into the same psychological headwinds, with, essentially, the same results. If you try to scare people (and here I am talking about people, as in chunks of society, not individual persons) into change, they will generally turn you off. However, people tend to only take meaningful action in the face of a crisis. These two phenomena are at odds.

If a crisis hits, denial is no longer an option, and action is the word of the day (or, at least, saving one's bacon and then figuring out what needs to change at a larger level). Personally, I think both climate change and peak oil are here, now, all around us. I think the impacts of both are readily available in weather, economics, finance, to anyone who can objectively look at the real world and the real data. That said, the lines that connect these things are not always obvious and can require illumination and investigation before they become clear. Absent that effort, people see only apparently unrelated events, positioned carefully (by both sides of the debates, mind you) that individual events cannot be traced to . Such a vision does not a crisis represent, at least not yet. So, absent an active crisis, people will not act, and, absent an active crisis, people will see no reason to listen to scary predictions of future crises.

Catch-22.

Combine this catch-22 with the, now genetically embedded, idea that the industrial way of life represents a one-way, deity-given, right that must march ever forward, and "progress" requires that any idea that doesn't adhere to this vision must be wrong. People will seize on any hope, rather than on fact, to allow them to maintain their beliefs.

In short, I see no way that action will ever be taken on either climate or resource depletion until after a crisis hits. Of course, by then, it will be too late to do any of the truly meaningful things that could have mitigated the inevitable decline.

So, what should be the role of ASPO? I don't know. I think the idea of education is still important. I think spreading the word, laying out facts, and debunking denial are important. Perhaps one part of ASPO should continue this public education front. Maybe another part of ASPO should reexamine the problem from the point of view of "Well, we're screwed. We've missed any reasonable chance to get people to deal with resource depletion with foresight. So, given that nothing will happen until a crisis hits, let's figure out what we would recommend doing when that crisis does, in fact, hit. What will it look like? What kinds of public policy, and personal, responses will be necessary? Can we put together plans so that they could be available when the time comes that people are ready to act?" I'd love to think that ASPO could organize a lobbying wing that could effectively sway public and private opinion, but the vested interest in both areas is fully behind the status quo and I see no realistic chance of changing that situation absent crisis.

I, for one, greatly appreciate the work that ASPO has done and hope that they find roles of equal or greater value in the future. I know this, doing nothing helps no one.

Can we put together plans so that they could be available when the time comes that people are ready to act?.

Well, somebody has a very detailed plan, don't they?

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/03/16/executive-order-na...

That is a scary document...

I just power-skimmed the document, and I did not see anything that scary, or to tell the truth, surprising.

Key concepts that jumped out:

- Loan guarantees

- Government Loans

- Government subsidies

- Lots of coordination and delegation

I was thinking a priori that I might see detailed plans for, or at mention of, detention camps and suspension of the Bill of Rights and abduction of all first-born children pressed into indentured servitude in the government mines and slave labor factories...did I miss some key points?

I did, as I said, do a very quick speed-skim....and I didn't see a blueprint for apocalypse...

I am absolutely NO fan of government emergency powers/martial law/etc...but I would be shocked if there does not exist detailed plans to maintain some core fragment of orderly society after say a nuclear exchange, asteroid strike with regional or significant global impacts, unprecedented pandemic, etc.

I agree with pretty much everything you're saying. It has become awfully clear to me that the work will be done after the crisis rather than before. Or rather, enough will be done to keep it from become more severe suddenly, but not enough to prevent it from getting worse over time (the European collapse is a perfect example - the Euro still exists, and is still used as currency in Greece and Ireland, despite the issues having been around for years now).

We need to find a way to talk about this.

Some great plans have been worked up by folks with real expertise. For example if you click into ClimateProgress you can find a plan promoted and mostly written (I believe) by Joe Romm. I do not remember the title but he uses the terminology of "wedges" for each aspect of the plan. You could search and find it that way.

The problem with the approach he espouses is that it does not take long to realize that there is no chance whatsoever that we will actually follow this plan. It takes a global effort of all encompassing effort. There can be no global effort unless and until there is a catastrophe of a magnitude sufficient to panic enough countries that we all band together as a species to save ourselves. We'll get the catastrophe but not for a few decades yet. It will be too late then.

I had that same reaction to both the wedges and Heinberg's Depletion Protocol.

One of my favorite writers, Charles Eisenstein, had a memorable quote about this in his book "The Ascent of Humanity":

"Those things that must be done to avoid the crisis will be done only as its consequence."

It would seem that much frustration abounds. In one respect I disagree with observations made above,
it seems to me that the hardest hit EU members are precisely those who took a different course prior to
the crash. I note that Portugal set a record of more than 45% of its electricity from renewables, and Spain at one point generated all its electricity from renewables.

I subscribe to Modern Monetary Theory, and find Bill Mitchell's blog enlightening. It seems to me
that ASPO should, as Deffeys did, declare the peak in conventional oil production as of 2005, and dismiss
other liquid fuel sources as not equivalent, and not part of the discusson. In support of this argument,
biofuels, for example, generate no net energy, and merely convert diesel fuel into alcohols.

Also, it seems to me, that ASPO should silence the cornucopians,who generally put off peak for 20-30 years, a convenient number it seems, but one which puts the problem squarely into our children's laps, by castigating such people as advocating the impoverishment of our children and grand children for no good purpose.

One essential thing which must be done, immediately, is to lobby nations to NOT BAIL OUT THEIR BANKS. Ireland's woes are a direct result of this, Iceland's too. Spain's too.

Somewhere, we need leadership to show how a reconfiguration of our infrastructure leads to a more sustainable way forward, and ASPO should change it's focus to lobbying for that paradigm.

Because, within a year or two, it seems to me, that the party's over.

INDY

Iceland did not bail out their banks. Hence the quick recovery.

Iceland is 300,000 people on a very large rock, albeit with small farming spaces and a lot of ocean having preserved fish stocks, and some nice bonus hot water coming out of the ground. The fact that the place became the site for a set of ponzi schemes involving worldscale piracy was remarkable, but scarcely relevant, I submit, to putative recovery from global imbalances and financial and economic system failure.

I like Monbiot, but he shows a very shallow understanding of peak energy. As we all know, it's not about "running out." It's about the social-economic impact of depleting resources. In my 10 years studying this topic, attending ASPO conferences, etc., the most important "take-away statistic" I've seen is this: for 90 years, the cost of fossil energy remained flat - effectively "free". For the last 10 years, the percentage of household energy expenditure has risen faster than any other personal need. In 2002, households spent 7% of disposable income on energy. In 2011, that number had skyrocketed to 12% - an 80% real cost increase in just 9 years.

The kind of economic prosperity we've known for the last 100 years requires cheap energy. It will become harder and harder to sustain traditional global GDP growth numbers (roughly 4% globally / 3% USA) as we enter the age of increasingly expensive energy. We're living in the first wave of this cycle now. Our kids will see it more dramatically. I'm hopeful that a combination of affordable alternative energies (super cheap PV by 2030? Usable local fusion by 2060?) will help soften this growing energy-GDP-slowdown-cycle. Clearly Monbiot is missing the point - household energy cost stats effectively prove (IMO) that we've reached economic peak energy and have entered into a recursively damped global energy-economic paradigm.

The kind of economic prosperity we've known for the last 100 years requires cheap energy.

Not really.

First, both the US and other developed countries got that way with "moderately expensive" energy, not cheap energy. Oil and electricity have been cheap in the US in the post-WWII period, but energy was rather higher in years before that: coal and electricity cost much more, adjusted for inflation. The US, and other countries, succeeded quite well in growing strongly even when energy was much more expensive, whether it was coal or oil.

Wind power is quite affordable (if perhaps not quite as dirt cheap as US post-WWII oil and electricity prices), scalable, high-E-ROI, etc, etc. So are nuclear, and solar even if they aren't quite as cheap at the moment (coal is also plentiful and cheap, unfortunately), so I see no reason to expect energy to ever be more than "moderately expensive".

The fact that energy pre-WWII was a much higher portion of GDP means that it was a much heavier burden on the economy. If wind and solar are a little more expensive, that means that the wind/solar sector has to be a little larger than otherwise to power the rest of the economy. This analysis suggests that this is not a big deal: that sector would still be a much smaller portion of the economy than pre-WWII.

Second, fossil fuels aren't nearly as cheap as they seem. Pollution is an unrecognized, external cost. So are the military costs we're seeing currently of roughly $500B per year. Those pollution costs aren't sustainable (especially CO2), but unfortunately the military costs probably are (in fact, many corporate interests are quite comfortable with them...). Moving away from oil and other fossil fuels will actually be much cheaper in the long-run than BAU.

Finally, let's assume that Business As Usual involved spending about 7% of our economic activity. If the cost of acquiring energy goes to 12%, then we have to dedicate another 5% to that activity*. GDP might go down by 5% quickly, in case we'd have a deep recession. Or, it might happen over time - if it took 10 years, then we'd see a reduction in economic growth of .5% per year, for 10 years. After that transition was complete, economic growth would continue. So, a reduction in "net energy" has a significant impact, but it's not TEOTWAWKI.

*Yes, oil importers may be spending 5% more, but that's based on pricing, not cost - the cost of producing oil hasn't gone up by nearly that much.

Admittedly, pre-WW2 comparisons are difficult. Ten years of 1930's depression economics, before that a pre-oil economy by today's standards. I'll adjust my window to 55 years (1945-2000), and stand by what I've said. Cheap fossil energy drove the largest single expansion of wealth (1950-2000) in human history. Those glory days are over. I think you may be underestimating the foundational role cheap-abundant energy plays in raw economic growth.

Your last paragraph seems to validate my point. Increasingly expensive energy (as a percentage of household expenditure) is not the end of the world, but it does indicate an accelerating slowdown in economic growth. As economies slow, energy demand (price) decreases (recessionary) causing social disruption. Cheaper energy then signals economic systems to accelerate, driving demand (prices) up against increasingly limited supply. Repeat the cycle, but with increasingly dramatic social disruption during each successive oscillation.

Nobody yet knows the precise GDP-energy-social relationships going forward. There are far too many variables. But the household energy numbers are clear. From 1946-2001, energy remained at virtually the exact same real-dollar price (not including the artificial Arab embargo period). From 2001 forward, energy price acceleration dramatically outpaced all other household needs. We're in the first decade of increasingly (under-over-) damped energy-economic cycles. I'm not a doomsdayer, but I think our best years are now behind us. That is.. until we develop cheap, concentrated, abundant, clean, renewable sources of energy.

I'll adjust my window to 55 years (1945-2000), and stand by what I've said. Cheap fossil energy drove the largest single expansion of wealth (1950-2000) in human history.

US growth was faster before 1945, using non-cheap, non-oil energy:

1800-1900: 4.13%
1900-1945: 3.53%
1945-2000: 3.17%

"real GDP" at http://www.measuringworth.com/growth/index.php

Increasingly expensive energy (as a percentage of household expenditure) is not the end of the world, but it does indicate an accelerating slowdown in economic growth.

I wouldn't say "accelerating". I'd relatively small. And temporary: there's no sign of energy prices rising above their current level. Which is too bad: fossil fuels should be priced at much higher levels to reflect pollution and security costs.

until we develop cheap, concentrated, abundant, clean, renewable sources of energy.

Actually, we have those now (substituting "moderately expensive but affordable" for "cheap"), we just need to use them.

It took 100,000 years to reach 1B people, fueled by wood and dung. It took just 100 years to reach 2B people, fueled by coal. It took just 75 years to go from 2B to 7B people. This massive jump could not, and would not, have occurred if we had not learned how to harness oil.

Note I did not say GDP expansion, I said wealth expansion. If a community has 10 people with $100, they have a net wealth of $1,000. If a community has 100 people with $100... Fossil energy is the foundation of this massive 75 year increase in global wealth.

there's no sign of energy prices rising above their current level.

The ten year (2001-2011) household energy % expenditure trend line is sloped very sharply UP. What other "sign" do we need? I agree that if the global economy continues to soften, the long-term moving average slope of that household energy cost trend line will become less positive (but remain positive nonetheless). Alas, this long-term graph, and its response to global economic conditions, lends strong (if not irrefutable) support to the general economic theory of peak energy.

Yes, we have alternative energy sources, but the reality is, without global govt intervention, we will continue to use the most "economical" energy. And, besides, if somehow you could get ALL the major govts of the world to significantly mandate alternatives, it would slow down economic activity in proportion to the increased cost of the mandates. No free lunch.

It took just 75 years to go from 2B to 7B people. This massive jump could not, and would not, have occurred if we had not learned how to harness oil.

Nah. Coal would have done just fine to power rail, EVs and water transportation.

Aviation would have been slowed down somewhat if it had to rely on ethanol, CTL, etc. Rail and water transportation would have kept more of their market share of passenger travel.

I did not say GDP expansion, I said wealth expansion

How is this distinction important? Wealth comes from income. Do you have evidence that wealth grew at a different rate from GDP??

The ten year (2001-2011) household energy % expenditure trend line is sloped very sharply UP.

I'm curious as to your source for this.

Now, please note that I said our "current level". Oil, coal and Natural Gas prices have been dropping in the US. Coal and NG prices are higher elsewhere in the world, but please note that spot coal prices are deceptive: most coal is traded on long-term contracts.

There's no doubt that oil prices rose sharply from 2004-2008, but they seem to be fluctuating around about $100 lately: I think they're very unlikely to ever stay above $150: oil's just not worth it compared to the alternatives, even without including external costs.

if somehow you could get ALL the major govts of the world to significantly mandate alternatives, it would slow down economic activity in proportion to the increased cost of the mandates.

That's possible: GDP includes military, security, healthcare and pollution remediation. Alternatives would reduce those costs - I think most people would be pleased by that, however.

Coal would have done just fine

Dream on.. It takes roughly 0.8 metric tons of coal to liquifact a 42 gallon barrel of oil. ODAC says we've used 900 billion barrels of oil -- or 720 billion (equivalent) tons of coal. The IEA says we have 1 trillion tons of "exploitable" coal remaining on the planet, and that the world has used roughly 500B tons of coal since 1800. Using coal for oil, we would have needed to mine 1.2 trillion tons of coal, to date, leaving us with just 300B tons today. There are so many insurmountable problems with your scenario that I won't even start. Reminds me of alternative history novels like P.K. Dick's "Man in the High Castle". There is no historical substitute for fossil oil.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_coal_mining
http://www.mitenergyclub.org/assets/2009/3/2/Coal_Fact_Sheet.pdf
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/05/090507072830.htm

How is this distinction important? Wealth comes from income. Do you have evidence that wealth grew at a different rate from GDP??

The distinction is in the raw number of wealth holders, not per capita wealth. Energy = Population. If you don't see this fundamental connection, i suggest starting with Smalley's 1990's energy lectures (Nobel, physics). You can see the same phenomenon throughout nature. Increased availability of energy/food density leads to proportionate population growth. Reduce energy/food density and you get die-off.

I'm curious as to your source for this.

ClearView Energy Partners, using public data - effectively this guy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevin_Kolevar (a Bush-era, big-oil, big-chem lobbyist - he's paid to debunk peak energy - but his data tells another story!). Chris Martenson and many others have reported this: http://www.peakprosperity.com/blog/great-american-false-dilemma-austerit...

I think they're very unlikely to ever stay above $150

Reminds me of the peak oil debunking economist who said, just a few years ago, that oil would never go above $50/bbl. Sure, oil may remain under $100 for some time, but that would be a result of demand weakening (U.S. GDP now under 2%, Euro-zone entering into recession, etc.), not a supply surplus. Anyone familiar with global oil development would find Monbiot's claim of 110Mb/day by 2020 to be patently absurd.

It takes roughly 0.8 metric tons of coal to liquifact a 42 gallon barrel of oil.

Lord above, I wasn't talking about CTL as a primary strategy - that would be crazy. No, just burn coal for electricity: a ton of coal would propel an EV for very roughly 10,000 miles - that's about 7 times as many miles as fuel from CTL.

There is no historical substitute for fossil oil.

Again, that assumes we needed a liquid fuel. We didn't, for most purposes. Burning coal directly works just fine for rail and water transportation, and for electrical generation (hence for EVs). We might have wanted some CTL for aviation, but that's about it.

The distinction is in the raw number of wealth holders, not per capita wealth.

Not really. Income is what feeds the need for energy, not wealth: wealth is stored capital, not what you input into your system.

GDP also has to be divided up by your population, and GDP per capita can be multiplied by population to get gross GDP. In any case, income is what matters in energy analyis, not stored up wealth.

Anyone familiar with global oil development would find Monbiot's claim of 110Mb/day by 2020 to be patently absurd.

That's not relevant. What is relevant is the competitiveness of oil. Above about $80/barrel oil can't compete. A lot of things become cheaper: efficiencies of various sorts, hybrids, EREVs, PHEVs, EVs, e-bikes, etc.

Burning coal directly works just fine

Even w/o historical liquifaction, burning that much (hypothetical) additional coal would have placed us today well past the half-way point in supply, which means coal is no longer $80/ton, but far more expensive. No free lunch.

What is relevant is the competitiveness of oil. Above about $80/barrel oil can't compete.

Compete with what? We've entered into an era where virtually all energy follows a similar price-demand curve. Not peak oil, but peak energy. In the next 40 years, we will need to double our energy output, with virtually all of those new Joules coming from oil, NG, and nuclear. Biomass/wind/solar/biofuels/hydro/geo will rise as well, but their BTU share will remain relatively tiny (2050 est: Oil 33%, NG 25%, Coal 17%, Nuclear 9%). I personally have high hopes for PV making dramatic efficiency-cost breakthroughs in the next 20 years, but that's just me.

The USA can enjoy low NG prices for a while, but by 2025 a raft of new global import-export terminals will reduce that advantage. Some say the U.S. govt will limit LNG exports for competitive advantage (a policy I support), but that simply keeps rest-of-world energy costs higher. With depressed economic conditions (like today), energy demand and cost goes down. But as the global economy heats up again (2016-2020?), we will enter into the second wave of peak energy, as demand outpaces low cost supply, energy prices rise far faster (5x-10x) than inflation, and global productivity becomes self-limited by simple energy economics. Repeat cycle until fossil dependence is no longer a limiting factor.

I don't see this as the end of the world, but rather a fact of 21st century life going forward. We had 100 years where energy was not a limiting factor to economic growth. As of this decade, those days are over. Energy is now the #1 limiting factor to strong, sustained economic growth. Peak energy is going to be a key factor in the daily lives of many if not most of the 9B people coming to party.

Income is what feeds the need for energy, not wealth

That's irrelevant to my point. Go listen to Smalley on the connections between energy density and availability vs. population sustainability.

burning that much (hypothetical) additional coal would have placed us today well past the half-way point in supply

For better or worse, there's quite a bit more coal than the 1T ton estimate. See http://energyfaq.blogspot.com/2008/06/are-we-running-out-of-coal.html

If coal rises from $80 to $160, in the larger scheme of things, who cares? That's an increase in cost of about 2 cents per kWh.

More importantly, there's vast amounts of other affordable energy. Green river shale is a miserable source of liquid fuel, but it burns just fine. CSP and wind power could have been developed 80 years ago, if desired. Oddly enough, there's enormous amounts of "free lunch".

Compete with what?

With electricity from wind, solar, nuclear, wave; powering EVs, heat pumps and other electrical things.

We've entered into an era where virtually all energy follows a similar price-demand curve.

No, we really haven't. Wind and solar costs continue to fall.

high hopes for PV making dramatic efficiency-cost breakthroughs in the next 20 years

That's largely already happened. PV panels are selling for less than $1 per Wp, which gives a cost per kWh of less than 5 cents. Of course, Balance of System costs need to be reduced, but overall commercial systems are at $3/Wp, which is about 15 cents per kWh. That's more than affordable for running a society, if needed.

Wind is cheaper - around 7 cents per kWh in the US, which certainly affordable.

In the next 40 years, we will need to double our energy output

Actually, no. It would make more sense to double our efficiency. EVs use 1/6 as many BTUs per mile than the average US light vehicle (cars, SUVs, pickups). Passivhaus construction would also make sense. Air-heat pumps use many fewer BTUs.

Biomass/wind/solar/biofuels/hydro/geo will rise as well, but their BTU share will remain relatively tiny (2050 est: Oil 33%, NG 25%, Coal 17%, Nuclear 9%).

And where do those numbers come from, the EIA? When do we believe EIA projections about anything? Or perhaps BP, an oil company??

That's enormously unrealistic. Humanity may choose to stick with fossil fuels, but that's a very bad choice based on politics, not the biophysical reality.

listen to Smalley on the connections between energy density and availability vs. population sustainability.

How does that relate to my point about economic growth having been stronger in the US during the coal era?

BTW, I took another look at the Martenson article you linked earlier. Here are a few of the mistakes:

1st, he talks about percentage of disposable personal income, but it's the % of the overall economy that's important.

2nd, he refers to spending, but it's costs that are real. Most of the increase in price is going to "rent" - a transfer of income to Texas and KSA, not increases in cost of production.

3rd, this is US centric. US oil imports (a negative) are someone else's exports (a positive).

4th, the time period is far too short to prove adaptation won't happen.

5th, if you look closely, the big increase is in the "oil" category. Martenson assumes that the only solution is more liquid fuel, a mistake that Hirsch (most famously) repeatedly makes. Efficiency and electrification (Hybrids, EREVs, PHEVs, EVs) can and should be the substitutes that provides more "supply", not more oil production.

Drivers could and should reduce their energy costs dramatically - the only thing stopping them is social inertia (including fierce opposition from the oil industry, as represented in part by the Koch brothers).

there's quite a bit more coal than the 1T ton estimate.

Right, but the 1TT estimate is "economically exploitable" coal. The rest is, at this point, a pipe dream.

wind, solar, nuclear, wave; powering EVs, heat pumps and other electrical things.

For better or worse (mostly worse) we are going to use the most short-term economical energy we can find. It's nice to make lists of alternatives, but that doesn't deal with economic reality. Yes, better and more efficient EVs and HEVs are coming, that's good, and will help offset liquid fuel demand into 2030-2050, but until real cost of ownership reaches parity with conventional IC engines, HEVs and EVs will remain a fraction of total sales. And maybe we both agree that safely-located nuclear should probably be prioritized. Even better, accelerate the development of regional/local in-ground nukes - Bill Gates is sinking billions into this.

Yes, we will use everything available to us, but at a cost, and that net energy cost is, on a long scale moving average starting in 2000, now rising faster than any other human need (after 50 years of flat-line). We can wave our hands in all directions, shout alternatives as loud as we can, demand that our govts prioritize alternatives, etc.. it doesn't (and won't) change the reality of peak energy in a world of 9B souls. At least not until some kind of broadly perceived global crisis emerges (and, frankly, I don't think peak energy is ever going to be perceived as a "crisis" -- it will increasingly limit growth and cause economic malaise over long periods, but nothing that can shock people on the 6 o'clock news - nothing that will cause people to collectively change their fundamental politics).

Actually, no. It would make more sense to double our efficiency.

Well, yes, and we will. But any energy forecast worth its salt has already factored in the impact of improving efficiencies. Between now and 2050, most of the new energy required is not in the OECD (which after 2020 remains relatively flat), but in non-OECD places like Africa, China, India, Latin America -- 3.5B newly industrializing people who will need massive amounts of energy. Indeed, proper forecasts thru 2050 will factor in roughly 2x efficiency improvement, which very roughly nets to a doubling in global energy needs compared with today. If you have significantly different data, please share.

Humanity may choose to stick with fossil fuels, but that's a very bad choice based on politics, not the biophysical reality.

I agree with you, but that IS our economic reality moving forward. I encourage you and everyone reading to do everything within their power to persuade local, state, federal, and global lawmakers to prioritize a sane energy future. But, alas, without a clear crisis, energy decisions will boil down to raw human nature, which is fundamentally short-term economics in its decision process, and that's not good news.

How does that relate to my point about economic growth having been stronger in the US during the coal era?

It doesn't. I should have simply said "population growth" rather than gross wealth.

the 1TT estimate is "economically exploitable" coal.

If the resource is slightly more expensive than the competition, it's not included.

For instance, there's almost 200 Billion tons of high sulfur coal in the Illinois Basin that's slightly more expensive than Powder River sub-bituminous coal, so it's not being mined right now.

Green River shale is miserable to turn into oil, so it's fair to call that a "pipe dream". But burning it for electricity? It's being done right now in Europe, and has for decades. Very, very practical (if a bit dirty).

For better or worse (mostly worse) we are going to use the most short-term economical energy we can find.

Well, that's wind-powered PHEVs, at the moment.

OTOH, if you're worried about wind & solar not getting traction, you should talk to the Germans. They have other plans.

better and more efficient EVs and HEVs are coming

Cost effective ones are here. Right now. Have you looked at the Prius-C?? Heck, the Leaf is fully cost competitive, if you include all lifecycle out of pocket costs.

until real cost of ownership reaches parity with conventional IC engines, HEVs and EVs will remain a fraction of total sales.

They have. Really. You should see how excited taxi drivers are about hybrids.

And, if you include external costs, it becomes dramatic.

maybe we both agree that safely-located nuclear should probably be prioritized. Even better, accelerate the development of regional/local in-ground nukes

I think it's ok. I prefer wind and solar, but we'll use nuclear, and it will help.

net energy cost is, on a long scale moving average starting in 2000, now rising faster than any other human need

Wind and solar are competitive, and their costs are falling. Wind is cheaper than new coal. Solar is cheaper in the right place.

any energy forecast worth its salt has already factored in the impact of improving efficiencies.

Yes, but sadly that description doesn't apply to EIA or BP forecasts.

3.5B newly industrializing people who will need massive amounts of energy

Could be. If they build properly, and buy the right transportation, that wouldn't happen. The OECD is likely to use rather less energy, but newly emerging economies may not make the right choices. I would note that more e-bikes are sold in China than cars.

raw human nature, which is fundamentally short-term economics in its decision process

That's not exactly the problem. The problem is that legacy industries control the political process. Consumers are not serving their short term interests, they're serving the interests of the oil and coal industries.

I should have simply said "population growth" rather than gross wealth.

Coal supported much faster population growth in the 1800-1945 period than occurred in the post-WWII period.

Let me be clear: I don't especially like coal. I'm just trying to show that oil has no magical quality that makes it essential to civilization.

For a while it appeared to be cheaper, and it was a bit more convenient. Now, it's clearly not the low-cost alternative, and ask any soldier: just how convenient are our oil-wars?

you should talk to the Germans. They have other plans.

There are myriad alternative plans moving forward. EV's, PV's, hydro.. it's all good, and you are a very good cheerleader :-). The Danish derive 1/3 of their electricity from wind. My friend is making oil from algae and now has a contract to deliver 20 million gallons of bio jet fuel to United Airlines, and another 200 million gallons planned for 2015. But all of our alternative strategies, efficiency improvements, etc., are factored in to our long term forecasts. And those forecasts generally suggest the same conclusion: we've entered the era of economic peak energy. If you have global energy forecasts into 2050 that paint a different picture, please share them.

The problem is that legacy industries control the political process.

And this gets to the heart of so many critical problems we're now experiencing with banking, defense, energy, bio-pharma, and other mega industries. Our political process is perhaps hopelessly lost to corruption, influence peddling, and revolving door lobbying. I have a few heroes in government, but mostly I find both sides of the isle to be bought and paid for, serving the interests of their financial (and eventual career) masters, not their home constituency. Obama has been a huge disappointment in this area. Unfortunately, Romney would probably be even worse. We are so screwed.

Coal supported much faster population growth in the 1800-1945 period than occurred in the post-WWII period.

Are you sure?

70-year population growth rate from 1800 to 1870 was 900M to 1.5B (160% change)
70-year population growth rate from 1870 to 1940 was 1.5B to 2.3B (160% change)
70 year population growth rate from 1940 to 2010 was 2.3B to 7.0B (300% change)

Global population has grown twice as fast in the oil age than in the coal age. And, in my view, it's not so much the rate of change, but the absolute number that's fascinating. I'm not convinced that coal, without fossil NG and oil, could support an eventual 9B people, especially in light of our previous thought experiments. What's also interesting in this doubling of oil-era growth rate is that the energy density of oil/NG is almost exactly twice that of coal. Probably no coincidence.

all of our alternative strategies, efficiency improvements, etc., are factored in to our long term forecasts.

umm..whose forecasts are you referring to?

Are we talking about a biophysical analysis of what's possible, or a forecast of what we think is most likely?? They're very different.

It would be affordable, and sensible, to transition over a 20 year period: away from coal for electrical generation; and reduce oil consumption by 80% overall for new light vehicles. Are we going to do that? Not likely.

Consider two historical counter-factuals: US CAFE is dismantled in the 1990's; US CAFE efficiency level is made twice as high in the 1990's. What effects would these political decisions have had?

Obama has been a huge disappointment in this area.

I kind've agree, except that I think he has pretty much done as much as possible, given the forces arrayed against him.

Global population has grown twice as fast in the oil age than in the coal age.

That's for the world, not the US. Most of the world was not industrializing during the 1800-1900 period, so I think the US is a much more useful "laboratory" for an analysis of oil vs coal.

Again, we have an enormous amount of coal and other burnables, and wind and solar could have been developed 80 years ago.

There's plenty of affordable energy around us.

There's plenty of affordable energy around us.

Again, if you have detailed forecasts showing a controlled global energy future - one that effectively tracks inflation - I would love to see it.

I've enjoyed that chat.

detailed forecasts showing a controlled global energy future - one that effectively tracks inflation

Again, are we talking about a biophysical analysis of what's possible, or a forecast of what we think is most likely?

In an ideal world: the US would start taxing fuel very heavily (perhaps with a long phase-in, with the revenues rebated); accelerate CAFE efficiency; and move most freight from long-haul trucks to rail. In 10 years the US could eliminate net oil imports, and develop PHEV/EREV/EV tech that would obviously undercut ICE operating costs, and set in motion a dramatic reduction in liquid fuel consumption around the world.

Europe's largest consumption of oil is for freight. Europe could move aggressively to simplify/standardize their freight rail, and accomodate more freight along with passengers.

Wind and solar could continue their current growth, and most coal consumption could be eliminated in OECD countries in 20 years - even China could start reducing coal consumption fairly soon.

Oil has been in a price bubble recently - a price over about $80 isn't sustainable: electrical alternatives are cheaper at that point, and will eventually replace oil. The real question is how quickly that will happen - will it eliminate oil's power over our economy in, say, 10 years, or will it take 40?

That's a political question, and right now it's in play. If Romney wins in 2012, he threatens to undo all of the US's recent progress. OTOH, maybe we'll have another oil price shock (Iran, anyone?), which will raise consciousness in the long run....

In an ideal world

In the real world, few countries will unilaterally undercut their economic advantages WRT energy. China is absolutely devastating their air and rivers to achieve economic growth. Iceland achieves 2/3 of their electricity from geothermal not because of altruism, but because it is to their economic advantage. China, India, and all the other weakly-capitalized non-OECD regions will do whatever it takes to achieve the magic $5k-$10k prosperity markers - and fossils are their predominant drug of choice over the next 3-4 decades.

Economic reality clarifies our forecasts. Short of some earth-shattering discoveries, we know (within a modest margin of error) how the basic global energy mix will evolve over the next 30-40 years. What most forecasts do not assume is supply limitation leading to a disproportionately accelerating cost of all energy and its negative impact on the global economy.

That's why I asked if you had any alternative 40-year energy global energy forecasts that were significantly different than those in common circulation. I would love to see them and check their economic assumptions. My experience with rosy energy forecasts usually finds them to be based on some "idealized world" rather than the real world. The rosy forecasts usually start something like this... "if we would just invest $5 trillion in xxxx alt-energy, it would reduce 2050 oil use by 25%." There's always an untenable economic assumption somewhere in the rosy energy forecasts.

In the real world, few countries will unilaterally undercut their economic advantages WRT energy

I agree. On the other hand, the picture is complex. The US is reducing coal consumption, in part due to a recognition of it's pollution. China is paying a heavy price in pollution - that's a real cost, and China knows it. They're expanding wind, solar and nuclear as fast as possible. India is paying a heavy price to subsidize diesel and electricity prices - they won't be able to sustain that, and in fact India has already dropped the subsidy for gasoline (thus screwing up the car market....).

The reality is that the US is hurting it's economic competitiveness very badly by investing in the military to solve it's energy problems, instead of investing in better vehicles.

Short of some earth-shattering discoveries, we know (within a modest margin of error) how the basic global energy mix will evolve over the next 30-40 years.

No, we really don't. Another oil shock could change US policy. A clear-cut climate related disaster could affect public policy dramatically.

Current policies are destructive in the short term. The OECD is paying way too much for oil imports - investing in reducing that would be in their short term interest. Unfortunately, policy makers, especially in the US, are held captive by oil investors.

That's why forecasting is so hard: current policies aren't based on biophysical or economic realities, they're based on "rent seeking" by oil companies and oil exporters.

What most forecasts do not assume is supply limitation leading to a disproportionately accelerating cost of all energy and its negative impact on the global economy.

Wind power is cheaper than new coal in the US. Solar is cheaper than the grid in optimum places (the number of which are growing every day).

Hybrids,PHEVs, EREVs and EVs are already competitive with ICEs. If the price of oil rises, these vehicles are available to be bought today, and they cap the price of transportation.

The cost of energy is not going to rise dramatically over the next 40 years, unless policy makers really manage to screw things up. Which is always possible...

I just want to say that I've enjoyed this conversation. I'm mostly on Nick's side . . . we do have lots of technology and options. However, we tend not to choose them because we are greedy, lazy, in denial about climate change, and we are militant. Hopefully we can change our ways for a cleaner world and one that won't face as much pain as oil prices rise (since we will be less dependent on oil).

I just want to say that I've enjoyed this conversation.

Thanks! Me too.

we tend not to choose them because we are greedy, lazy, in denial about climate change, and we are militant.

We have met the enemy, and he is us.

Except...it's a little more the 1% (Koch, et al), than the rest of us...

the US is hurting it's economic competitiveness very badly by investing in the military

To a large extent, I agree. The problem traces back to the industrial-political incest discussed earlier.

<<Short of some earth-shattering discoveries, we know (within a modest margin of error) how the basic global energy mix will evolve over the next 30-40 years.>>

No, we really don't. Another oil shock could change US policy. A clear-cut climate related disaster could affect public policy dramatically...

Of course, that's why I prefaced the statement with "short of something earth-shattering." History shows plenty of Black Swans. But, assuming we stay generally on our present trajectory, and factoring in all the expected improvements in alternative efficiency/cost -- fossils will represent somewhere in the neighborhood of 2/3 of our total energy mix by 2050. Today, 83% of our energy comes from fossils, so most 2050 forecasts indeed assume a significant decrease in fossil demand with a significant increase of alternative use, predominantly solar.

The cost of energy is not going to rise dramatically over the next 40 years

Some on this board would disagree with you. I am not one of them. But going forward, I do see long-term energy costs trending disproportionately faster than inflation - causing economic disruption in times of increasing GDP growth. I see this simply as a result of supply limitation against increased demand. My sense is that most economists won't make the energy-economic connection until we've experienced 2 or 3 limit cycles. I don't see these cycles as "dramatic" but rather a cyclical roller coaster of disproportionately rising energy costs.

Simply watch the household energy % expenditure chart over time. From 1945-2000, the energy % cost slope remained relatively constant with demand - no physical supply limitations (embargo was artificial). IF we have now entered into a period of peak energy, the slope (energy cost) will accelerate up with increased demand in economic boom times, only to self-limit itself as energy costs become too large a percentage to sustain such growth, slowing GDP growth until energy costs reach an equilibrium. We would expect to see this effect amplified in faster growing, weakly capitalized regions, such as the non-OECD. I'm willing to make a Long Bet on this theory, say 2035.

I find it interesting that the USA's long-average GDP growth has been shrinking continually for six decades. Perhaps we've reached a form of social equilibrium. Not sure if this is good news or bad news WRT a theory of peak energy!

http://ablog.typepad.com/keytrendsinglobalisation/2011/01/slowing_of_the...

I do see long-term energy costs trending disproportionately faster than inflation - causing economic disruption in times of increasing GDP growth. I see this simply as a result of supply limitation against increased demand.

Well, it needn't happen with halfway decent public policy. Will we get that? I don't know...

Ha, economically rosy future energy forecasts remind me of this...

http://www.newciv.org/pic/nl/artpic/10/1953/SidneyHarris_MiracleWeb.jpg

Except, all of the tech we need is here right now.

Wind, solar, hybrids, PHEV/EREV/EVs, are all here now, and are proven. The vehicles are very affordable, competitive in overall out of pocket lifecycle costs, and can be bought today at the corner car dealer.

The costs of all of these will continue to drop, but they're "good enough" right now.

No miracles needed.

I've enjoyed that chat.

Thanks! Me too.

Thanks for the summary, still can be considered as one ! ;)

Looked at quite a few videos (most of the talks are on youtube already apparently), thought the geopolitical ones were quite good (Karin Kneissl, Michael Klare especially), and seems to me quite a bit could be gain for the PO message in also telling the "oil history" as it really was, and especially regarding the first oil shock being a consequence of US peak much more than anything else (with the need for higher prices to start Alaska, North Sea, GOM).

Also looked at Reiner Kümmel one "Energy, Entropy and the Origins of Wealth", and although I didn't understand much (also tough without the ability to read the slides), seems to me the conclusion is one, if not the key point currently : transfering the tax "burden" from taxes on work towards taxes on raw materials (newly extracted especially).

The talk from the South African ASPO member is quite interesting also.

Hybrids, PHEVs, EREVs and EVs are already competitive with ICEs.

starting new thread..

I just Googled some real cost data. On average, new hybrids currently achieve parity (payback) with equivalent ICE cars in roughly 8 years, some better (6 yrs), some worse (>10 yrs). Then I looked at average ownership period of new cars, which is now about 70 months.

So.. buying the right 2012 hybrid (Camry) can now achieve ICE parity payback after 6 years. That's good news.

The bad news is EV's. Payback is averaging 10+ years, and there are significant drawbacks, such as 10 hour charge time (20 hour for Nissan Leaf @ 110V), and tests show around 60-70 miles per charge, and less than 50 MPC in cold weather and fast driving. Run out of juice in an EV, and you can't just find a gas can. You need to put it on a truck and tow it to a recharging station. Hey, there's a new business - on-site recharge of out of juice EVs.

As a U.S. citizen, my bet going forward would be an NG-powered vehicle.