I will believe the Saudis don't see any upcoming problems with Ghawar when they cancel one of their projects due to low oil prices. If they continue to be full steam ahead with increasing their capacity then I think they are aware that Ghawar may not be as robust in 5 years time as they would like us to believe.
Joined: Apr 08, 2005 Posts: 29 Location: Western MA
Posted: Mon Apr 11, 2005 5:09 pm Post subject: A few questions from a newbie
I have recently found out about peak oil from a member of my local U.U.
he held a confrence and showed all of the graphs, including population
and oil production. I am at the point now where I am trying hard to
disprove this theory. I want your responces from my questions before I
make up my mind.(I also read some 184 page E-book that my friend's
dad e-mailed me.)
#1 Why do you not incorperate coal into the time before the crash, sure 2010-2020 is shocking, but isn't it misleading to suggest that such a enviroment ignoring country such as ourselves wont use coal? Wont that add about 40 years before the crash? That makes my age from 25, to 65 untill this crash occurs.
#2 The power outages in california were brought on by companies trying to get rich, not shortages. right? If so then why is it constantly linked to what will happen in the futer in regards to PO.
#3 Oil supplies 40% of our power, why dont we make that up with nuclear, or others?
#4 With the extension of coal, how can you be sure that zero of our alternative energies will work? What about fusion? What about Free energy? When people see that we only have coal and natural gas left wont people really start to put their rear in gear in regards to these power sources?
#5 I hear "net energy loss" alot and people say solar panels require more energy to create and maintain then they provide in their lifetimes. A "lifetime suggests that solar panels die. How? What if we upgrade our technology to make them easier to make? I heard about people making them from silicone.
#6 Really how important is petrolium fertilizer?
#7 Before oil, the population was over 1 billion. Why is there the suggestion that it will drop to only 1/2 of a billion?
#8 If this were true, more people would know! No one besides my friend's dad and that kid at the U.U. knows!
Joined: Dec 07, 2004 Posts: 483 Location: Cheshire, England
Posted: Mon Apr 11, 2005 5:36 pm Post subject:
Welcome to PO.com Nairb.
I'm sure plenty of people will have answers to your questions, but I'd suggest that you do some more reading on the subject before getting into debates with people here. Read stuff by ASPO and Colin Campbell etc, then read stuff by the opposition eg. USGS, and make up your own mind.
From reading your questions, it seems that you might not have got the full PO picture from the conference given by a member of your local U.U.
Posted: Mon Apr 11, 2005 5:54 pm Post subject: I will answer a few.
I'm answering these questions in regards to my more green-leaning views. I am not an expert in any sense really, but here's my answers from what I've read and understood.
1. Oil and such is a major disruption for travel and industry. As one of the more environmental leaning crazies here, burning coal is the dirtiest of the energies. Would 40 years of continued living as we are now be worth it if you screw over the rest of the generations by screwing up the climate? (There are no scientific papers that have argued that CO2 changes the climate, all the evidence you hear are from public relation/propaganda groups funded by the industry.) Especially if the world is going to be increasingly agrarian.
No doubt, coal will be used though. But it doesn't solve all the problems. There's a recent post about how much energy goes into making aluminum cans.
2. Not sure. Most people link to Cuba and North Korea as PO future. Maybe they are trying to show the effect in the States than in some far off country...
3. Nuclear has problems, short-term gains for LONG-term problems (You can't be certain that the nuclear waste [which is much more than the leftover uranium pellets like most nuke activists say] won't leak into our environment -and our water/food supply. 10,000 years of prediction is alot - too much. Nuclear poisoning is horrible.
4. Alternative energies won't gaurantee our everday usage of energy these days. It is a matter of scale (there isn't enough hydro, solar, and wind) as well as a matter of the fact that our WHOLE INFRASTRUCTURE is based on cheap oil. Industry and suburbia is dependant on cheap oil.
5. Not sure about all the things about solar panels. But, the effect is that all the energy that goes into a solar panel isn't repaid for 2 years. Also, I guess solar panels could break down and lose efficiency over time... but I'm not sure at all - just my experience that complicated things tend to break down.
6. Petrolium fertilizer is very important. But, I guess it could be possible if our sewage system could be connected with farms. In terms of food production, sprays are just as important (increased efficiency with land use).
7. I don't know. I never heard that it will be 1/2 of a billion. If you could find the exact source, that'd be helpful. That could be some kind of statistic using the energy usage usage of Europe around the world or something.
8. ALOT OF PEOPLE KNOW! It's just that it is scary and most who know it, don't preach it. Also, mass media has a responsibility to not spread panic (very bad for stock market). But, information has leaked through. For example, there's alot of books on it. There's "End of Suburbia". There's scientific papers. Republican Congressman Roscoe Bartlett has presented it to congress. It's been presented in the Australian parliment. I think in Europe it's been hidden in the guise of Climate Change. Also, ASPO is presenting it to european leaders soon (or something, don't pay attention to Europe much... I'm American).
Also, remember that our economy requires for growth - growth depends on energy. By definition, energy is the ability to do work. Our economy will take a continuous beating from now on - part of it is because most people depend on cheap oil every single day. It should be unnecessary to drive 1-2 hours to work like alot of people do in the suburbs. If there was a somewhat planned infrastructure (which you know, is blasphemy), our energy usage would have been much less.
Joined: Apr 08, 2005 Posts: 29 Location: Western MA
Posted: Mon Apr 11, 2005 6:00 pm Post subject:
I got the 500 million from the 184 page e-book. The title to this e-book is "pages1-184" so i can't really help you with that one. I think that he is the "matt" from lifeaftertheoilcrash.net. Thank you for your responce! I liked the format of your answer! (Don't worry I'm not a republican, and I'm an athiest, so for a 15 year old I am free-thinking enough to handle the implications that such a crises would mean to my life.)
Joined: Sep 05, 2004 Posts: 205 Location: Washington, DC
Posted: Mon Apr 11, 2005 6:41 pm Post subject: Re: A few questions from a newbie
Nairb wrote:
#1 Why do you not incorperate coal into the time before the crash, sure 2010-2020 is shocking, but isn't it misleading to suggest that such a enviroment ignoring country such as ourselves wont use coal? Wont that add about 40 years before the crash? That makes my age from 25, to 65 untill this crash occurs.
I think you get a wide variety of opinion on this forum. I am not convinced that an "end of the world" crash will happen. When oil production peaks, I think there will be a very slow application of economic pressure mostly on liquid fuels and chemical feedstocks. I suspect that we will acutely feel this pressure BEFORE production peaks as demand expansion outstrips supply expansion. We will absolutely be using more coal to make up for the reductions in energy from oil. I can say one thing for certain... if hydrocarbons remain the principle source of wealth in the world through the 21st century, then it will not be a prosperous century, but a very difficult one.
Nairb wrote:
#2 The power outages in california were brought on by companies trying to get rich, not shortages. right? If so then why is it constantly linked to what will happen in the futer in regards to PO.
I suspect that there was a combination of problems. The best comment I ever heard was by Matt Simmons when he talked about the 2003 outage out East and asked "How did we ever allow ourselves to get so close to peak grid capacity where a falling tree branch can wipe out the entire electrical system?" Running the electrical grid at peak capacity is the most efficient in terms of economic theory. But economic theory assumes steady-state conditions and does not account for the TIME it takes for markets to adjust to problems (or tree branches). I think that it is clear we need a capacity cushion.
Nairb wrote:
#3 Oil supplies 40% of our power, why dont we make that up with nuclear, or others?
We will try... the question is whether it can be done... and for how long... I haven't seen any data what-so-ever that convinces me we (as a society) have any understanding of exactly how much nuclear fuel is extractable. I'm sure that the political barriers to nuclear energy will disappear quickly when people start spending $100 for a tank of gas. (to quote Kenneth Defeyyes)
Nairb wrote:
#4 With the extension of coal, how can you be sure that zero of our alternative energies will work? What about fusion? What about Free energy? When people see that we only have coal and natural gas left wont people really start to put their rear in gear in regards to these power sources?
A very good and very short article on alternative energy is Salameh, Mamdouh G. “Can Renewable and Unconventional Energy Sources Bridge the Global Energy Gap In the 21st Century?” Applied Energy 75 (2003): 33–42. You should be able to find it at your local university library.
"Free energy" is only a thermodynamic term used to describe the lowest energy state of a system, and has nothing to do with energy with the capacity to do work.
Nairb wrote:
#5 I hear "net energy loss" alot and people say solar panels require more energy to create and maintain then they provide in their lifetimes. A "lifetime suggests that solar panels die. How? What if we upgrade our technology to make them easier to make? I heard about people making them from silicone.
I think you mean Silicon. The same stuff that the semiconductor in your computer is made of. PV cells are Light Emitting Diodes run in reverse, and if LEDs are so efficient, why aren't solar cells? Well, when you run photodiode forward, the large amount of light that comes from them is all concentrated in a very tight wavelength band producing a single color... making the diode extremely efficient in operation at a specific wavelength. The problem is that sunlight is a mix of all sorts of wavelengths of light... but only one wavelength actually triggers the diode to run in reverse and generate electricity.
However, there is much development in organic based electro-chemistry such as LEDs and PV type cells. The interesting thing about this is that the range of wavelength of light which triggers electron/hole separation in the energy band of the material is much wider than for silicon based materials - increasing the efficiency. They are also much cheaper to produce. For example, some can also give negative differential resistance, in which V=IR does not directly apply (over a specific range of voltage potentials, the resistance of the device actually decreases insead of increases). The possibility to build more efficient PV devices seems quite promising.
Nairb wrote:
#6 Really how important is petrolium fertilizer?
Fertilizer is made from natural gas, not oil. Oil is a feedstock for pesticides, however. I'm no farmer... but my understanding is that fertilizer is important enough to essentially force farmers to use it in order to remain competitive against institutional agriculture and produce a profit. Organic is more expensive, but there is a market for it.
Nairb wrote:
#7 Before oil, the population was over 1 billion. Why is there the suggestion that it will drop to only 1/2 of a billion?
Read the following paper for an outline of the argument:
Youngquist, Walter, “The Post-Petroleum Paradigm – and Population.” Population and Environment: A Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies 20.4 (1999), 304.
He calculates about 2 billion, but other estimates vary.
Nairb wrote:
#8 If this were true, more people would know! No one besides my friend's dad and that kid at the U.U. knows!
I think people do know (deep down) how important oil is to their lives... that's why they complain so profusely when the price of gasoline rises... and also why most people don't like to talk about this topic, or easily brush it off with "technology will save us." It's not very pleasant, and learning about it doesn't help me pay my bills today. I also suspect that people do not fully understand the EXTENT to which oil plays a role in their lives. People will learn muhc more about it when it threatens their pocketbook to a significant degree.
Posted: Mon Apr 11, 2005 6:42 pm Post subject: Re: A few questions from a newbie
Nairb wrote:
I
#6 Really how important is petrolium fertilizer?
#7 Before oil, the population was over 1 billion. Why is there the suggestion that it will drop to only 1/2 of a billion?
There are threads here that will answer your questions in more depth, but I will adress these two.
Without hydrocarbon based fertilizers, the "Green Revolution" which created a four-fold increase in food yields, would not have been possible, thus the 6.5 billion people the earth supports is predicated upon a phantom carrying capacity that will soon end. The increase costs for fuel, pesticides, fertilizers, and irrigation will soon be beyond the reach of many third-world countries.
When any given species overshoots the carrying capacity of it's environment through a new introduced source of food or energy, like humans have done on earth, the sequel is a dieoff back to an equllibrium with the environment before the introduction, i.e., 1-2 billion pre fossil fuel era. However, in many cases where the damage to the environment is severe, the population dies off to a level below the previous carrying capacity, i.e., the 1/2 billion -1 billion you are reading about. _________________ A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
Live in Arizona? Check out: http://sustainablearizona.org and read my blog.
Last edited by MonteQuest on Mon Apr 11, 2005 7:54 pm; edited 1 time in total
Posted: Mon Apr 11, 2005 7:08 pm Post subject: Re: A few questions from a newbie
MonteQuest wrote:
Without petroleum based fertilizers, the "Green Revolution" which created a four-fold increase in food yields, would not have been possible, thus the 6.5 billion people the earth supports is predicated upon a phantom carrying capacity that will soon end.
There is no such thing as a petroleum(oil)-based fertilizer. The primary macronutrients for plants are nitrogen, potassium and phosphorus -- none of which are contained in hydrocarbons. At the present time, nitrogen fertilizer is made from ammonia, which is in turn is made from natural gas, not oil, as Such pointed out. If natural gas shortages arise, there is an easy solution: tap the vast, free ammonia supplies available in human urine. Everybody in the U.S. is already peeing in cups for drug testing. They just need to make the cups bigger.
Posted: Mon Apr 11, 2005 7:18 pm Post subject: Re: A few questions from a newbie
Nairb wrote:
I am at the point now where I am trying hard to disprove this theory. I want your responces from my questions before I make up my mind.
Hi Nairb, welcome to the group. We need more smart kids like you posting!
You're totally on the right track. While there is a certain element of truth to peak oil theory, on the whole the arguments of the peak oilers are as full of holes as a piece of swiss cheese. Stay skeptical!!
Joined: Aug 14, 2004 Posts: 2068 Location: San Diego, Ca.
Posted: Mon Apr 11, 2005 7:27 pm Post subject:
Yeah! I mean John Denver has been on the board here for 8 months and is still skeptical...but he keeps coming back!
Quote:
While there is a certain element of truth to peak oil theory, on the whole the arguments of the peak oilers are as full of holes as a piece of swiss cheese.
This needs to be backed up John! What element is true and which are full of holes? _________________ "Peak oil isn't more than an interesting industry factoid and doesn't have anything to do with the hysterics speculated on ad nauseum around here!" ReserveGrowthRulz
Joined: Mar 18, 2005 Posts: 2690 Location: Minnesota
Posted: Mon Apr 11, 2005 7:40 pm Post subject:
I first tried to disprove peak oil myself. I studied it for months before i realized i couldn't...before i realized that it was all true and i could not find one single chink in it's armor.
It's quite a shock when y'r eyes are finally open!
As far as fusion goes...i think that's our ONLY hope, but it's just too far off to prevent peaking! There's simply no way we're going to start mass producing fusion reactors in the next 2 years.
Posted: Mon Apr 11, 2005 7:57 pm Post subject: Re: A few questions from a newbie
JohnDenver wrote:
MonteQuest wrote:
Without petroleum based fertilizers, the "Green Revolution" which created a four-fold increase in food yields, would not have been possible, thus the 6.5 billion people the earth supports is predicated upon a phantom carrying capacity that will soon end.
There is no such thing as a petroleum(oil)-based fertilizer. The primary macronutrients for plants are nitrogen, potassium and phosphorus -- none of which are contained in hydrocarbons. At the present time, nitrogen fertilizer is made from ammonia, which is in turn is made from natural gas, not oil, as Such pointed out. If natural gas shortages arise, there is an easy solution: tap the vast, free ammonia supplies available in human urine. Everybody in the U.S. is already peeing in cups for drug testing. They just need to make the cups bigger.
I should have wrote "hydrocarbon" based as I have edited. The facts remain the same. _________________ A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
Live in Arizona? Check out: http://sustainablearizona.org and read my blog.
Posted: Mon Apr 11, 2005 8:42 pm Post subject: Re: A few questions from a newbie
MonteQuest wrote:
JohnDenver wrote:
MonteQuest wrote:
Without petroleum based fertilizers, the "Green Revolution" which created a four-fold increase in food yields, would not have been possible, thus the 6.5 billion people the earth supports is predicated upon a phantom carrying capacity that will soon end.
There is no such thing as a petroleum(oil)-based fertilizer. The primary macronutrients for plants are nitrogen, potassium and phosphorus -- none of which are contained in hydrocarbons. At the present time, nitrogen fertilizer is made from ammonia, which is in turn is made from natural gas, not oil, as Such pointed out. If natural gas shortages arise, there is an easy solution: tap the vast, free ammonia supplies available in human urine. Everybody in the U.S. is already peeing in cups for drug testing. They just need to make the cups bigger.
I should have wrote "hydrocarbon" based as I have edited. The facts remain the same.
What facts? Fertilizer is a total non-problem. First of all, it's not made from oil, so peak oil is irrelevant. Even when peak natural gas occurs (whenever that might be), we have the easy, obvious solution of substituting human urine as the ammonia source. Potassium and phosphorus are derived from potash and phosphate rock, and reserves of those mineral are plentiful. Saskatchewan alone could supply world demand for potash for several hundred years. And even when those reserves run down, we can turn to recycling those nutrients from organic wastes.
This is one of the "holes" in the swiss cheese. You can explain it a hundred times, and it still won't penetrate the thick skulls in this forum. Give it 5 minutes, and another bonehead will be posting about the impending mass die-off due to a shortage of "petroleum fertilizer".
I first tried to disprove peak oil myself. I studied it for months before i realized i couldn't...before i realized that it was all true and i could not find one single chink in it's armor.
Your inability to find the chinks in the armor doesn't prove that there aren't any. Maybe you're just lazy.
Posted: Mon Apr 11, 2005 8:49 pm Post subject: Re: A few questions from a newbie
Here is my two cents on some of your questions.
Nairb wrote:
#1 Why do you not incorperate coal into the time before the crash, sure 2010-2020 is shocking, but isn't it misleading to suggest that such a enviroment ignoring country such as ourselves wont use coal? Wont that add about 40 years before the crash? That makes my age from 25, to 65 untill this crash occurs.
1. Realistically, coal production faces its own limits. Although the geological peak of coal supply is somewhat further out, the decline in oil supplies and the inhereint characteristics of the fuel conspire to limit the amount of coal that will ultimately be recovered. In many countries the low-hanging coal supplies have long been accessed. Those supplies, which can be picked off by hand or simple machine operations, close to the surface have great EROEI ratios and many cases are long gone. Even china and its massive coal industry is running into this situation. With those sources gone, the only coal that can be gotten is the stuff you have to remove the entire mountain to get at [see my Mountain Top mining posts] or go deep beneath the surface to recover (think Illinois now). EROEI on this stuff is barely positive. Coal faces a number of other limitations. It is bulky and hard to ship. Modern practices use large amounts of petroleum to extract process and ship (since the consumption points are usually nowhere near the source). Today's industry is largely at capacity in anycase which means any increasing demands will not be met by increases in supply due to a limitation in equipment, train cars, and as is becoming more apparent in Appalachia, suitable mine sites. Plus with the increase in diesel cost, the cost of coal mining increases beyond what would be expected from demand increases by the utilities.
Posted: Mon Apr 11, 2005 8:50 pm Post subject: Re: A few questions from a newbie
Nairb wrote:
#2 The power outages in california were brought on by companies trying to get rich, not shortages. right? If so then why is it constantly linked to what will happen in the futer in regards to PO.
2. The CA power problems had many causes of which manipulation was only part of. I worked for Sempra at the time and recently chatted to the ISO and the Energy commission on this topic. CA power crisis was caused by the following factors:
- low hydroelectric supplies in the Pacific NW meant less power was available to import
- high gas prices meant gas fired generation was costly and since the price was fixed for the most part difficult to justify.
- stagnant supply: no new powerplants were built over the past decade
- increasing demand: CA population and economy grew phenomenally during the same period.
- limited transmission capabilities: power available in one location was unable to be moved from point a to b due to limitations.
NOW add to this recipe, manipulation and chicanery and you got problems. Did corporate traders and energy company greed cause rolling blackouts: ABSOLUTELY. Would that have happened if underlying situation was different (more supply): NOT AT ALL. Remember, deregulation went into effect in 1998. For two years there werent problems. It was only until supply got tight were the companies able to manipulate things.
Incedentally, All of the factors, minus the manipulation are in place for california this summer. According to the ISO, southern CA could expect stage 3 emergencies if we have a 1:10 summer (HOT). _________________ UNplanning the future...
http://unplanning.blogspot.com
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
News
Discussions
Resources
Members
Forum FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
