Book Review: Peak Oil Prep
Posted by Robert Rapier on December 27, 2006 - 11:29am
Topic: Environment/Sustainability
Tags: book review, peak oil, sustainability [list all tags]

For some reason I especially like to read books on Peak Oil, sustainability, and energy issues while traveling. Part of the reason is that traveling always makes me reflective. Part of the reason is that these books are often an ice-breaker that allows me to talk about energy with other travelers. On previous trips I read Jared Diamond's Collapse and John Howe's The End of Fossil Energy (reviewed here). On my latest trip I read Mick Winter's Peak Oil Prep and Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth. I started reading Peak Oil Prep during my first flight, and while the man sitting across the aisle from me reading the National Enquirer didn't show much interest in what I was reading, the woman sitting next to me reading about Christina Aguilera's confessions in Glamour kept glancing at the book. But unfortunately, she never asked about it and we never struck up a conversation. Opportunity missed.
The book contained a lot of information that will be familiar to TOD readers. In fact, there was even a plug for TOD on Page 19. However, each section is chock full of links to additional resources. This was the strength of the book, in my opinion. There were a lot of practical tips, but then the author linked to additional information so you could research a topic to your heart's content. Want to learn to garden using permaculture? Read the permaculture summary on Page 78, and then follow up with one or more of the ten references on permaculture.
This is not a book to convince people of Peak Oil or of climate change. There is a short section in the beginning that discusses these topics, but those are more appropriate for someone who is already familiar with those issues. This is a book for those who have at least a basic grasp, and who are wondering "What can I do?" And that is answered from "A" (acupressure) to "Z" (zoning). This book is essentially a user's manual for sustainable living.
The book could be repetitive over certain points. While I think it is incredibly valuable advice to tell people to change out their incandescent bulbs for compact fluorescents (and I have done so in the past 3 homes I lived in), I counted no fewer than 7 times this was mentioned in the book. There were also some topics that seemed to be out of place in a peak oil book (e.g. "get more sleep"). But, by and large, the advice is topical, worthwhile, and could probably benefit all of us.
Taking Notes
I took 3 pages of notes as I read this book on things that were of particular interest to me. In this section I will share some of those issues.
In the early part of the book, the author makes the case that demand is likely to outstrip supply (which I also think is very likely), and that conflict with China appears possible. He also commented that China is outlawing bicycles in some areas, which came a surprise to me. This is the last thing one should do when fossil fuel resources are diminishing.
On Page 18, the author mentions something that I think we frequently forget about - plastics are made from petroleum. We often think of Peak Oil in terms of energy, but we are dependent on petroleum in many other ways.
On Page 20, he mentions a theme that I don't think gets enough attention: Even if you don't believe that Peak Oil is an imminent problem, implementing solutions that reduce your energy usage will lower greenhouse gas emissions. The author calls this a "two-fer", but given that many of these solutions will also save you money it could very well be a "three-fer".
On Page 30, the author discusses the benefits of walking, and then describes 10 keys to walkable communities. As I worked my way down the list, I was struck by how most European villages would be aptly described by these 10 keys, but the typical town in the U.S. would not.
On Page 43, Winter starts to hammer home the "localize" theme, which is a familiar one to TOD readers. This something I have put more effort into this past year, as I spent much more time at farmers' markets.
On Page 61, one of the references caught my eye. It was Dan Chiras' 31 Ways to Create Sustainable Neighborhoods. That sounded like one to add to my library.
That is probably enough to give a good flavor of the book. Some of the topics covered through the rest of the book were how to compost, solar ovens, beer making, growing your own coffee, and making your house more energy efficient. One point that really caught my attention was the author's claim that over 50% of the vegetables consumed in Havana (population 2 million) are produced in local gardens. That gives me great hope for the future.
Addressing a Misconception
There was one oil company misconception that I want to address, because I see it frequently. On Page 17, the author states that no new oil refineries have been built in the U.S. since 1976. He then suggests that this may be because there's no sense expanding facilities if the feedstock is starting to diminish.
I can tell you that the reason no new refineries have been built is not because oil companies are concerned about Peak Oil. When ExxonMobil tells you that there is plenty of oil, they are not just throwing out a smokescreen. This is what they honestly believe. The vast majority of oil companies, in my opinion, believe that we have adequate supplies of oil for quite some time.
The reason no new refineries have been built is that the permitting process is lengthy. A group in Arizona, Arizona Clean Fuels Yuma LLC, applied for a permit to build a new refinery in 1999. It was finally granted in 2005. So, instead of going through the lengthy permitting process, refiners simply expand their existing refineries. The permitting process for this is significantly simpler.
The EIA has written extensively on this issue. The bottom line on refinery capacity:
Much has been made of the fact that no significant grassroots refinery has been built in the United States in nearly 3 decades other than some small simple refineries. Yet, U.S. refinery capacity has increased 1.9 million barrels per day over the last 10 years, which is equivalent to the addition of 1 medium-size refinery per year on average, as refiners attempt to de-bottleneck and make their refineries more efficient, change feedstocks, and add capacity to meet market opportunities. In EIA's latest Petroleum Supply Annual, Volume 1, although the number of refineries stayed the same between January 1, 2003 and January 1, 2004, capacity increased by 137,000 barrels per day, adding, again, the equivalent of another medium-sized refinery!
So, refiners are expanding capacity. This should tell you that, while they may be wrong, they are betting against an imminent peak.
Conclusion
Overall, this was a solid book that was full of useful resources. This is a good book for anyone trying to live sustainably. For more information, the author hosts 2 Peak Oil websites: DryDipstick.com and BeyondPeak.com.



Folks, also consider this a reminder to positively rate these articles (using the icons under the tags in the story title) at reddit, digg, and del.icio.us if you are so inclined. Also, don't forget to submit them to your favorite link farms, such as metafilter, stumbleupon, slashdot, fark, boingboing, furl, or any of the others.
Cheers and Happy Holidays from The Oil Drum!
I posted this on my blog as well, and a lot of the comments were directed at Al Gore's new book. Several posters questioned the reality of Global Warming. It is interesting to me that some people still deny this. See the comments at:
Global Warming Debate
One good volcano burp and we could be heading towards an Ice Age instead of a global metldown. We still do not have a good grasp of how the whole system comes together.
I will gladly read your next peer reviewed paper on this hypothesis once it is published in "Science" or "Nature". Until then I will simply treat your comment as the kind of nonsense it is.
:-)
We do not "believe" in scientific hypothesis because they are not religion. If we have a scientific hypothesis we try to find experimental or observational data in its support or data that invalidates it. So if you have any data in favor of your idea that a global volcanic catatrophy is going to happen shortly that could have the potential of leading to a new ice age, I would like to see some geological data for that. But something tells me, you don't.
From Wiki: Year without Summer
And on the topic of GD: how about here, Real Climate April 2006 admitting that GD makes the GW model "complex"?
Or here, the NOVA documentary?
Or here, wiki page on GD?
So how do you predict the inevitable occurence of a volcanic event a hundred times worse than Mount Tambora just at the right time to exactly counter all of AGW?
May I ask what brand of a crystal ball you are using? It seems to be fairly advanced...
:-)
I never said I'm "predicting" anything. I just said that it is a chaotic system that could tip either way.
Consider the possibility that we dramatically increase our use of coal once oil starts drying up. That puts more soot into the atmosphere. Now imagine that a mega-volcano decides to blow at the same time. No one is saying it definitely "will" happen. It is among the infinite possibilities of what could happen under Murphy's Laws.
Greenland has, in the past, warmed by as much as 7-8 degrees centigrade in under 50 years, and yet Greenland has also shown shifts towards ice age temperature ranges that have occurred in less than 5 years.
This is all basic climate science. Rapid climate change in both directions is the admission that climate scientists have had to make to themselves mostly from the early 1990s forward although a number of pioneers have explored this idea even earlier while the dominant thinking still restricted itself to climate changes occurring only over thousands of years. The truth is that climate can change drastically in a few decades to levels either hot or cold not experienced by homo sapiens since the advent of agriculture and modern civilization. A significant shift in either direction would be a catastrophe for the current global civilization and yet we go on playing with GHGs as if we are exempt from the consequences of that action. In reality, it may not be our children or our grandchildren who suffer these consequences but ourselves. And frankly, that would be most fitting, wouldn't it?
P.S. Rises in GHGs and temperature are correlated for the ends of prior ice ages although which is cause and which is effect remains unclear. They also happen to be correlated for the ends of several prior warm periods as well. While I personally still believe that, barring other factors, current GHG emissions will lead to inevitable global warming, it remains possible that this is simply prelude to yet another ice age. One thing is dramatically clear - no current model has been accurate about the extent and rate of warming to date. All models have consistently underestimated what is happening.
We've had a number of volcano belches (El Chichon, Pinatubo, Krakatoa, Tambora) and none plunged us into an ice age.
However, Pinatubo did put our warming trend on hold for a couple of years and even levelled the Keeling curve briefly. This is something the critics of Paul Cruzen might want to think about.
We've had a number of volcano belches (El Chichon, Pinatubo, Krakatoa, Tambora) and none plunged us into an ice age.
Not recently, but Toba was a success, ice ages are "good for you" just as Global Warming : A mini ice age may have warmed human relationships.
Do not despair, Yellowstone is promising.
"Do not despair, Yellowstone is promising."
Except for the fact that it will probably kill 90+% of the population in North America... but I guess that would solve PO for a little while... or at least make it seem somewhat less of a problem...
:-)
and the ash cloud would cause major global cooling so you fix GW as well.
I think "Get more sleep" is relevant. One, if you're asleep, the lights, TV, computer, etc., are presumably off or at least in sleep mode. The thermostat may even be lower. So you're conserving energy. Two, there's some fascinating new research that links lack of enough sleep to health problems like obesity, heart disease, cancer and diabetes. Something to keep in mind, if we're heading to a future where healthcare will be unavailable, or at least way more expensive.
I think "Get more sleep" is relevant.
Agreed. Another reason we all could use more sleep is clear-headedness. I've recommended to a number of people who are freaked upon first finding out about oil peaking that they get more sleep, go for a walk, and get more exercise. I think all three of those are basic human needs that many people undervalue. I haven't found anything better than a good walk for dealing with anxiety.
Perhaps this is not relevant, but I've long been intrigued by our family's sleep paterns in response to seasonal changes. Decreasing daylength and the long nites of winter always get longer sleep times, whereas the reverse holds true for the short nights of summer. Is it boredom, less work, or just a natural response? It must help to lower winter energy consumption, though that is not a deliberate response.
The evidence points to "natural response" as the reason why we northerners sleep more in winter and less in summer. People who live within the tropics do not display different sleep amounts at different times of year because day length varies so little in the tropics.
My body wants to hibernate during Minnesota winters, while during the summer I have manic energy and can get by on four or five hours of sleep.
Minnesota winters? Perhaps you have a scandinavian heritage? Back here in south Sweden, dawn is at around 0800-0900, and dusk at 1500-1600. I go to work in pitch black, sit indoors, get back home in total darkness. Literaly put on my peak oil hat, go feed the sheep in total darkness, bring in a days worth of firewood, clean away the droves of rodents left by the cats on the front porch, do some logging, go inside play with the children, make dinner, make love to my beautiful wife, do some logging, go to sleep. Thank god for my portable rechargeable LED lights, and without the physical activity I would be in hibernation 15 hours every day. And it's even worse further up north, but at least they have some snow to light up their existence. Global warming has killed the snow, so here comes winter and pitch black depressions.
Used to be in Vermont and other New England states the suicide rate went up during the winter. Then the snowmobile was invented. Now the death rate from snowmobile accidents is replacing the suicide rate :-}
Must be great in the summer though.:)
I was in the state of commenting on this, and as often, you already replied fast with a documented reponse.
Sleep is one of my favorite subjects when I try to help my patients. Sleep is primordial for your attentionnal system. If you want to remain creative and take appropriate steps in preparing for PO, you should definitely take enough sleep.
We all know what sleep deprivation can cause : attention disorder (very well documented by research done on drivers), headache, nervousness, disruption of the need-satisfaction cycle because of hypothalamic induced perturbations hence the risk of obesity and diabetes, anxiety, depression or aggressivity, tremor, imprecision of motricity, increased muscular tone ...
All of these consequences will increase energy consumption : food, medication, TV, inappropriate driving and so on.
The first thing we will need to learn when dealing with decreasing energy resources is that everything in life goes in cycles. We need to recognise them (our brains are framed for that) and to live with them, not against them. The wake-sleep cycle is one of them and I would indeed suggest that it is one of the first we need to learn to know.
Lack of sleep may be associated with those diseases, but the cause is already quite clear for anyone willing to weight the thousands of scientific studies in an objective manner. A crappy diet of meat, dairy, and junk food causes a pandora's box of chronic diseases. The cure is obvious too: whole plant foods. The mountain of studies show this, and I guarantee that when peak oil forces industrialized folks to eat healthier (less environmentally disastrous and inefficient meat/dairy, more whole plants) - the result will be a rapid reversal of the diseases you mention above. In fact, in addition to science, history provides examples like WWII - the rates of chronic, lifestyle diseases went down when europeans were forced to eat lower on the food chain. This is the ultimate irony: that peak everything will actually improve the physical health of the richest 20% of human beings on the planet. Check out Dean Ornish, who first proved that heart disease is totally reversible via a basically vegan diet. Then just last year I think it was, his newer study showed that a vegan diet reverses prostate cancer (those on the vegan diet got better and none of them got full blown cancer). So in a way it's kind of absurd that energy descent will improve the health of the already-richest segment of the human population! :)
I wouldn't be surprised. Have you seen the research about calorie restriction and longevity? Critters from rotifers to rats live 30%-100% longer if kept on a low-calorie diet. For obvious reasons, most research has been done on animals, but many scientists suspect it holds for humans, as well. Preliminary studies have been promising, and there are a lot of people actually practicing it already.
Why would this be? One theory is that our cells have to "choose" between reproduction and cell repair. Sex is metabolically expensive, and if we use some of our historically limited energy toward it, something else has to go - cellular maintenance. If you're eating well, the body thinks, "Hey, time to reproduce - might never be a better chance." Energy goes into the hormones, etc., that make sex and reproduction possible.
But if times are bad - you aren't eating well - it's a better strategy to wait until times are better in order to reproduce. Energy goes into cellular repair instead.
Of course, nature never foresaw our current situation, where there's plenty of food for both reproduction and cell repair, and where long periods of revved-up sex hormones can actually be bad for you.
A data point that may support this theory: it's long been noted that people who have a lot of kids have shorter lifespans.
What do you get when you starve a monkey?
A monkey that is 30% longer hungry!
"There is always an easy solution to every human problem — neat, plausible and wrong."
H._L._Mencken
One can always recognize a pornucopian by his habit of "improving" the texts he quotes :
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong.
H. L. Mencken
Actually... I was quoting what many people believe to be the original by H.L. Mencken and you are quoting the popular version. I can't say I am the authority on this, but at least I tried to find the original quote with a citation:
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/H._L._Mencken
He might have said the same thing twice using different language...
Anyway... you are totally wrong about me being a cornucopian. IMHO the peak occurred, for all practical puproses, in 2006, or, if it didn't, will occur well before 2010. I constantly suggest a $1/gallon gas tax in the US with an automatic 10% annual increase until at least 50% of the retail price of gas is tax, an allocation of those funds for a fleet of high efficiency cars, a luxury tax on SUVs and increasing government investment in renewable energy sources like wind and solar. I think all forms of energy should cost twice as much as they do right now and there should be a global tax on carbon.
Hardly cornucopian standpoints... wouldn't you agree?
Also, I believe, the health of the Cubans improved when they were forced to live lower on the food chain as a result of their oil being cut off with the collapse of the soviet union. Although I am vegan and believe that this approach could help solve many of our problems, including global warming, I fear that our human population would just expand to take up the land freed up thereby.
My guess also, however, is that lack of energy will cause millions of people to starve who are already on the edge as it is. The so called green revolution has been primarily successful because of petroleum inputs; millions will not be able to adjust in time as the Cubans did. Also, Cuba's climate and high level of education probably also contributed to their ability to transition to a largely organic system with very small inputs of petroleum energy.
Another issue is the contention that organic agriculture would make it necessary to expand the amount of land devoted to agricuture, thus further impinging on areas like the rain forest. Of course, if we experience a significant decrease in the amount of petroleum available, the millions who might did from that would potentially free up a countervailing amount of land.
The people who are starving today have not had any upside from the green revolution. They can not afford to buy GM seeds from Monsanto, fertilizer, herbicides, pesticides, fungicides and the usual tech toys of the northern hemisphere farmer.
On the other hand, the people who have been given these riches will make a simple decision: to take the bus OR to see their kids starve while they fill'er up for a few hundred a week. In my books that is a really simple decision to make... and something tells me it will be just as easy for everyone else.
The people who are starving today have not had any upside from the green revolution.
Yes, the "green revolution" was kinda upside-down :
For most of them, hybrid rice was more difficult to cultivate and "inferior in terms of grain price, profitability, consumer demand, and head rice recovery."
They can not afford to buy GM seeds from Monsanto, fertilizer, herbicides, pesticides, fungicides and the usual tech toys of the northern hemisphere farmer.
Of course they "cannot afford" that, this is probably why Monsanto used to give hybrid seeds for free :
Often, it is the government which buys from Monsanto or its distributors the Bt corn seeds, which are then given for free or at subsidized prices to unsuspecting farmers.
Now that the free ride has vanished they cannot cope, how silly!
Yet they found a smart solution, suicide!
I must emphasize that this is also a neat solution to the overpopulation problem, Heil Monsanto!
Disclaimer: I am not a leftist and I don't like the so-called "democracy" but to quote Mencken (not much of a leftist either) again :
Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin to slit throats.
H. L. Mencken
I think we totally agree with every sane person that Monsanto's strategies in developing countries are criminal. The company should be prosecuted for a lot of what it did in the past and is doing right now.
The point I was trying to make is that the green revolution has not had as benign an effect on much of the world as it had on the developed countries. Indeed... without the green revolution much of the world would be starving to death, but even with it there is hunger. Part of the problem is technical (not all parts of the world are equally productive eco-systems for agriculture), part is economic and part is political.
Unlike you I will always agree that part of me, like of every honest man, is a leftist. The other part of me is conservative... conservative as in "conservation of (natural) resources and human life and values", not as in neo-conservative fascist.
"I think "Get more sleep" is relevant."
More sleep, in a cold house, with the lights off....hmmm..."lack of enough sleep to health problems like obesity, heart disease, cancer and diabetes." (Sounds an awful alot like exercize to me, but hey what do I know)... :-?
...more sleep...sounds...er...great to me!
;-)
More sleep, in a cold house, with the lights off....hmmm
Also a very good reason for a vasectomy
I spent nearly 20 years in the IT world. The "falling asleep" ritual took at least 30 minutes every evening. The mornings were a challenge, and I usually slept 6.5-7 hours.
I retired almost 5 years ago and became a builder. Trust me, 10 hours a day with a tool belt on, getting enough sleep is the last of your worries. The "falling asleep" ritual is now measured in seconds. I would say I fall asleep in less than 2-3 minutes. I don't use an alarm clock, and my body dictates how long I sleep, usally 7.5-8.5 hours.
If people are going to physically work for a living, getting enough sleep will not be a problem. It will be a requirement to survive.
I am now 42, and do not miss the white shirt, tie, coat and slacks.
I spring out of bed in the morning! I love the physical work!
So the moral is take more naps, and that turkey sandwitch may fuel a bout of lewd behaviour. Starving oneself may not make you live forever, but its sure going to seem like it!
The cultural obsession with longevity is amusing,considering the extremely poor quality of life of almost anyone over the age of 90.
Obviously, what people want is to be healthy into old age.
That appears to be genetic, though. If you do everything right - exercise, eat a vegetarian diet, don't smoke, etc. - the average person will live to be about 86. The people who live to be over 100 tend to be quite healthy and happy for most of that time. If you have cancer or a heart attack at 56, you probably won't live to be 100.
Its not that bad since the number of good years have increased a lot.
One complex economical and moral problem is that we now have very manny medical treatments to get some more months or better quality of life for a short while when we are near the end of our lives. This is a good problem since we did not have these options before but using all of them for everybody cost a lot and will probably cost more then can be afforded.
This prompts the need for some kind of moral/cultural development to ratio these medical treatments in a way that gives a nice society to live in with good quality of life for most people.
I have a living will in the hands of each of my children, my doctor and my lawyer. The gist of it is that before age seventy it is all right to spend a lot of money to keep me going, between seventy and eighty I want to rule out very elaborate procedures, and after age eighty all I want in the way of additional medical care is antibiotics and painkillers. With the help of my lawyer I put in strong wording to the effect that I am not afraid of death, but I am afraid of pain or of being kept alive on a ventilator near the end of my life. At all ages I have specified "DNR" "Do Not Resuscitate" because dying once is enough for me;-)
My body is going to go to the U. of Minnesota medical school to provide an educational corpse for future doctors. Why waste a perfectly good body by burying or burning it?