Poll: What do you know/think about "Peak Oil"

It used to be hard to believe it. But now I'm reading a poll where we seem to have an option to not "believe" in peak oil. Are there really those who think our earthly oil supply is infinite? (And that we can survive it's continued use?) Nobody denies that the easy oil is gone. Not even the folks who's fortunes depend on it being otherwise.

Good post Patsparks! I sure don't agree with you all the time, but that was a good read.

 

I don't understand this fascination with "Peak Oil"? 100 years ago or more we started heading toward no oil. Does it really matter if oil production has peaked? I think what matters is it is running out. Production of fuel from crude oil may have reached a peak recently or that may happen some time soon but the amount of oil in the ground today is less than yesterday and yesterday was less than the day before. We are using a finite resource so we need to use it conservatively and look for alternatives now.

Just as there is no one energy source now there is no one answer to our energy supplies in the future. We already have several options but not one excludes another. We can use several renewable energies to replace a growing portion of our fossil fuel use now and extend the usable life of fossil fuels. There are also steps we can take toward reducing consumption where fossil fuels are the only option, hybrids are an example of that. There is no reason wind, solar, geothermal, wave, tidal hydro, bio, and fossil fuels can't all be used into the future as long as fossil fuels are a last resort. The best way to ensure development of this kind is that fossil fuel prices reflect the harm they do and the cost of remedial action required to restore the harm done by them. This will ensure the alternative energies are price competitive on a level playing field.

The high price of fossil fuels is a good thing in that it makes the alternatives more attractive to use and develop.

I'd like to see a 5% global loading on fossil fuels to be channelled into renewable energy development and installation. That would go a small way toward rectifying the harm done and prepare us for a future with much less reliance on fossil fuels. I would even argue that 5% of what we currently spend on fossil fuels over 20 years would see enough use of renewable energy to almost eliminate the use of fossil fuels except for the distribution of freight. Such a fund could also be used to encourage clean development in developing countries.
Rant over.

 

Nope, no rant. I agree. We are rapidly heading towards a Dystopian future, rather than the Utopian Future we always believed we would have

Unless we're willing to wage biological or thermonuclear war on 85% of the global population to ensure us spoiled brats in the West can have unlimited access to energy, our future is Dystopian. And there is no guarantee all-out war will help our odds, more than likely we just fall off the cliff that much faster

 

Go Nucular! ;-)
Nevada resident in favor of Yucca;
Democrats, Liberals and Environmentalists are attempting to create "peak" oil by restricting exploration;
The poor (and developing countries) suffer the most from Democrat, Liberal and Environmentalist energy policies;
There are more proven oil reserves currently than have EVER existed! (existed meaning were previously known reserves, from about 10 years ago)
I just paid over $50 to fill up the Prius, and the result.... I will personally drill through the heart of the last baby harp seal to get back to even $2 a gallon gas!

 

Hopefully this is a parody post. Very good job of leaving the readers wondering.

 

It helps to understand EROEI (Energy Returned on Energy Invested).

http://www.theoildrum.com/files/ch_balloon_tod.png

EROEI on imported oil today is about the same as for windmills; on domestic it is approaching that of nuclear and solar. This is the "easy" oil (which as you can see is becoming less and less "easy"). Tar sands and shale have an EROEI of less than 1, meaning it takes more energy to extract than the energy extracted. We will never return to $2 gas.

 

Maybe they can use wind and solar and nuclear energy to extract the oil from the shale and tar sands to put a few more gallons in the old F150?

 

Nuclear energy which a lot of people talk about replacing oil will not work. The simplest reason? There is not enough uranium in the world to create enough nuclear reactors.

Also you mention there is more proven reserves than have ever existed. Yes on the books there are more proven reserves than ever. But the real question is do you know WHY? Its because members of OPEC are allowed to sell a specific number of barrells per year. That number is determined by how many barrels in the ground each country has. Did you notice in the late 80's the number of barrels each country had in the ground mysteriously doubled overnight. I don't mean 1 or 2 opec countries but all of them doubled their numbers. And every day they pump roughly 32 million barrels, that's billions of barrels a year. But guess what? Magically at the end of the year all the OPEC countries report the same amount of oil in the ground as they had the previous year. Pretty amazing isn't it. So if you have a cookie jar filled with money and you take out 32 million a day, at the end of the year you still have the same amount of money you started with. Wow wouldn't that be great.

The bottom line is OPEC lies. They don't want people to panic and actually do something about the oil problem. God... I wish people would just use their brain sometimes. :fish:

 

(1) EROEI on nuclear is much lower than that of windmills, and just a little better than photovoltaic.
(2) Deconcentration of energy sources (from power plants of any kind to local windmills or roof-top PV systems) tends to strengthen the infrastructure and reduce blackouts.
(3) Windmills and PV systems don't have all that nasty nuclear waste to deal with.

So while I agree that Nuclear can be part of the solution, it should only be explored when wind and solar (and similar) options have been exhausted, and only after we figure out how to safely store all the nuclear waste, including what we've already accumulated.

 

Very good & accurate summary, but it might help to have some clarification for others that read.

1) EROEI Impact - Banks, Utilities, and other energy financing organization are not financing Nuclear Power Plants since they will make more money, much sooner, on high EROEI plants. This is already forcing many utilities (including FL) to abandon nuclear planning and substitute renewable plants.

2) Deconcentration Impact - Sustainable plants can often be very close to the cities or industries that need the power. Vast savings on infrastructure have resulted in this trend increasing very fast....with the demand for BIG power plants getting undercut.

3) .....not to overlook that the transportation cost of getting the 'fuel' to a sustainable plant is mighty low!

 

And how is population reduction a solution? After all, in a credit based global economy, it requires more & more & more buyers to sustain its existence. The next generation (more & more people) have to buy all our crap (stocks, properties, businesses, etc) in order for us to cash in on its value. Fewer people mean we have to sell the stock for 1/2 the value. So now what do you do, with (say, for example) only a fraction of the populaiton to buy the baby boomer's goods.

I used to think P.O. was 'the issue' though actually it's just a piece ... maybe less than 30%. Cheep energy is / was what our global economy is / was built on. Now that it's fading, and trillions of debt weigh in ... wow. I sugggest listening to the following 20 elements, which may take a bit of time ... but afterward one's prospective will likely change:
The Crash Course | Chris Martenson