Peak oil

[Non Aligned States]

The only viable option forward really is nuclear. And that might not work.

You need to convert all heavy and light transport to hydrogen burning or electrical though, otherwise you'll end up with the same problems again, what with the mines and transport lines for the fissile fuels ending up not moving from lack of fuel oil.

[Rhodmhire]

It looks like you forgot the post which claimed that you wanted peak oil to happen sooner rather than later. Here you go:

Yes. Because then real solutions would have a chance to take off? Perhaps? I'm not really sure what you are trying to say by this. Can you show a logical connection of how wanting "peak oil" to happen sooner means I want all that bad stuff to happen?

I think he means bad things are obviously going to happen once we reach peak oil, if those "real solutions" don't take off before it happens.

[Non Aligned States]

Thanks for the complements again "Non Aligned States"

Disagreement with you does not equal "lack any appreciable amount of foresight." Why must you put such flamebait into your posts?

Yes I disagree with your vision of the future. I think you are making stuff up just as you clearly think I'm wrong about what would happen. But that is no reason to talk to me like that.

You are not displaying any appreciable amount of foresight with your commentary, hence it is reasonable to assume that either you do not have it, or are not using it, which results in the same thing. Very short sighted idealistic stuff that has little to no practicality in the real world.

When you say you want peak oil to happen sooner so that the alternatives can take off, you are in effect, saying you want to build a better blimp while you're on the Hindenburg as it's burning.

[Natapoc]

It looks like you forgot the post which claimed that you wanted peak oil to happen sooner rather than later. Here you go:

Yes. Because then real solutions would have a chance to take off? Perhaps? I'm not really sure what you are trying to say by this. Can you show a logical connection of how wanting "peak oil" to happen sooner means I want all that bad stuff to happen?

I think he means bad things are obviously going to happen once we reach peak oil, if those "real solutions" don't take off before it happens.

Governments currently have no political will to tackle this issue with the amount of seriousness it deserves. Without the government being willing to do anything but token gestures and most of the people willing to do even less... we are unfortunately left with capitalism "Peak Oil" just means "market incentive."

[Rhodmhire]

When you say you want peak oil to happen sooner so that the alternatives can take off, you are in effect, saying you want to build a better blimp while you're on the Hindenburg as it's burning.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

[Lacadaemon]

You need to convert all heavy and light transport to hydrogen burning or electrical though, otherwise you'll end up with the same problems again, what with the mines and transport lines for the fissile fuels ending up not moving from lack of fuel oil.

Oh absolutely. Even with breeder reactors you'd still have to convert to hydrogen. And then there is all the petro by products which we rely on which would have to be synthesized. Plus all the agricultural stuff.

So you'd need more energy, not the same. And so I tend to think that Nuclear is the only thing 'in place' that can be deployed in time with any hope of being a realistic replacement. Even then it may well not be doable.

[Natapoc]

Thanks for the complements again "Non Aligned States"

Disagreement with you does not equal "lack any appreciable amount of foresight." Why must you put such flamebait into your posts?

Yes I disagree with your vision of the future. I think you are making stuff up just as you clearly think I'm wrong about what would happen. But that is no reason to talk to me like that.

You are not displaying any appreciable amount of foresight with your commentary, hence it is reasonable to assume that either you do not have it, or are not using it, which results in the same thing. Very short sighted idealistic stuff that has little to no practicality in the real world.

When you say you want peak oil to happen sooner so that the alternatives can take off, you are in effect, saying you want to build a better blimp while you're on the Hindenburg as it's burning.

Of course! See you are all practical and reasonable but people you disagree with are all just short sighted and idealistic with no practicality at all in the real world.

So besides the usual demeaning statements against me can you tell me what about my statements specifically were not practical?

[Big Jim P]

ramping up production, demand, and lowering cost of existing wind and solar technology, while continuing improvements and bringing other intrinsically sustainables online. well within what there is nothing standing in the way of other then short sighted greed of the fanatical economic mafia.

You forgot to mention nuclear power.

I foresee a time where there is a combination of wind/ocean currents, nuclear (eventually fusion, maybe) and solar (including orbital collectors) sources powering civilization.

None of which will eliminate the need for plastics etc that we derive from oil.

[Virtud Tierra]

ramping up production, demand, and lowering cost of existing wind and solar technology, while continuing improvements and bringing other intrinsically sustainables online. well within what there is nothing standing in the way of other then short sighted greed of the fanatical economic mafia.

You forgot to mention nuclear power.

I foresee a time where there is a combination of wind/ocean currents, nuclear (eventually fusion, maybe) and solar (including orbital collectors) sources powering civilization.

None of which will eliminate the need for plastics etc that we derive from oil.

There is such a thing as Peak Uranium as well, the energy contained in radioactives is limited and the mines that supply them are limited. If all of our current energy demand was placed solely on nuclear power plants, we would quickly run out of nuclear fuel to use. Not to mention it takes over a 10 years to construct a new nuclear powerplant. If we made a sudden switch to nuclears to meet energy demand by the time the final nuclear powerplant was online and commissioned, the world's nuclear fuel sources would have already been depleted.

A breeder reactor would be an interesting solution but they are inheriently unstable and prone to meltdowns. The research and development of these reactors are a political impossibility with the public.

[Biotopia]

Of course a lot of these arguments assume that we should maintain our current (Western) lifestyles. But then, who really want to argue we should descend in the material third world?

[Hayteria]

I haven't bothered with either of those links yet, but I've heard of peak oil and the potential economic damage it could do. Let me just say this; peak oil could also potentially be a blessing in disguise, since forcing us to kick our fossil addiction could help solve environmental problems like climate change.

[Non Aligned States]

Of course! See you are all practical and reasonable but people you disagree with are all just short sighted and idealistic with no practicality at all in the real world.

So besides the usual demeaning statements against me can you tell me what about my statements specifically were not practical?

Let me spell it out to you in very simple terms, since you seem incapable of understanding them when pointed out in a grand scale picture, as has been done several times on this thread alone.

1: Renewable energy sources require heavy industry, both to maintain and to build.
2: Heavy industry requires cheap energy
3: Cheap energy is mostly provided via oil and gas
4: Oil and gas are limited
5: Current renewable energy sources cannot support heavy industry.
6: Peak oil means no more cheap energy.
7: No more cheap energy means no more heavy industry.
8: No heavy industry means no additional renewable energy sources. Also means renewable energy cannot be maintained indefinitely.
9: No additional additional energy sources means no more intensive farming
10: No more intensive farming means a return to subsistence farming.
11: Subsistence farming cannot possibly sustain the greater portion of 6 billion people (world population).
12: Vastly Insufficient food for 6 billion people means mass famine.
13: Famine means anarchy
14: Anarchy means break down to Somalian style dark age.

If you fail to understand this, or logically refute it, then your ignorance is deliberate.

[Non Aligned States]

There is such a thing as Peak Uranium as well, the energy contained in radioactives is limited and the mines that supply them are limited. If all of our current energy demand was placed solely on nuclear power plants, we would quickly run out of nuclear fuel to use. Not to mention it takes over a 10 years to construct a new nuclear powerplant. If we made a sudden switch to nuclears to meet energy demand by the time the final nuclear powerplant was online and commissioned, the world's nuclear fuel sources would have already been depleted.

A breeder reactor would be an interesting solution but they are inheriently unstable and prone to meltdowns. The research and development of these reactors are a political impossibility with the public.

Peak uranium is still a while off, due to the apparent cheapness of natural uranium. But Japan has a program towards achieving a plutonium economy with fast breeder reactors, so it's not completely unfeasible to create a power infrastructure that is relatively immune to natural fuel shortages.

As for the political difficulties, they aren't THAT difficult to overcome. All it requires is a strong central government that is not held ransom by activist groups, misinformed or otherwise. China and Russia have pushed quite a bit further ahead with nuclear power than the United States due to this. Though Russian carelessness with past civilian designs have set them back quite a bit, China is steaming full ahead with the continued production of nuclear power plants. France interestingly, does get a lot of its power off the nuclear grid as well, come to think of it.

[Free Commonalities]

There are solutions, but it requires investment not tomorrow, but now.
http://www.nrel.gov/biomass/biorefinery.html

[New Dracora]

Ok fair enough.

What about Oil-Shales then? Isn't 90% of all discovered potential oil in oil shales located in North America?

Last I heard it took more energy to extract the oil from the shale than that extract would then provide. While they may improve upon this and even pass the break even point one day we are talking about a low density energy source that would make the tars sands look like a neat and clean method by comparison.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_shale

Ok wiki puts it a bit pricer than the tar sands (rangeing from equivalent to double the cost). Also has similar environmental issues like high water volume needed for processing.

http://www.fossil.energy.gov/programs/r ... ancev2.pdf
This says profit from oil shale would be realize when oil is above $30 dollars a barrel.

More from the wiki:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_shale_economics

The various attempts to develop oil shale deposits have succeeded only when the cost of shale-oil production in a given region comes in below the price of crude oil or its other substitutes. According to a survey conducted by the RAND Corporation, the cost of producing a barrel of oil at a surface retorting complex in the United States (comprising a mine, retorting plant, upgrading plant, supporting utilities, and spent shale reclamation), would range between US$70–95 ($440–600/m3, adjusted to 2005 values). This estimate considers varying levels of kerogen quality and extraction efficiency. In order for the operation to be profitable, the price of crude oil would need to remain above these levels. The analysis also discusses the expectation that processing costs would drop after the complex was established. The hypothetical unit would see a cost reduction of 35–70% after its first 500 million barrels (79×10^6 m3) were produced. Assuming an increase in output of 25 thousand barrels per day (4.0×10^3 m3/d) during each year after the start of commercial production, the costs would then be expected to decline to $35–48 per barrel ($220–300/m3) within 12 years. After achieving the milestone of 1 billion barrels (160×10^6 m3), its costs would decline further to $30–40 per barrel ($190–250/m3).[5][6] A comparison of the proposed American oil shale industry to the Alberta oil-sands industry has been drawn (the latter enterprise generated over one million barrels of oil per day in late 2007), stating that "the first-generation facility is the hardest, both technically and economically".[7][8]

In 2005, Royal Dutch Shell has announced that its in situ extraction technology in Colorado could become competitive at prices over $30 per barrel ($190/m3).[9] However, it is possible that the real competitive price level will be higher as the costs for building an underground wall of frozen water to contain melted shale have significantly escalated. [10]

At full-scale production, the production costs for one barrel of light crude oil of the Australia's Stuart plant were projected to be in the range of US$11.3 to $12.4 per barrel, including capital costs and operation costs over a projected 30-year lifetime. However, the project has been suspended due to environmental concerns.[6][11] Israel's AFSK Hom Tov process, which produces oil from a mixture of oil refinery residue (in the form of bitumen) and oil shale, claims to be profitable at US$16-US$17 per barrel. This technology is still being tested.

The project of a new Alberta Taciuk Processor, planned by VKG Oil, is estimated to achieve break-even financial feasibility operating at 30% capacity, assuming a crude oil price of US$21 per barrel or higher. At 50% utilization, the project is economic at a price of US$18 per barrel, while at full capacity, it could be economic at a price of US$13 per barrel.[12]

As for extraction:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shale_oil_extraction

In in situ processing methods, oil shale is heated underground by injection of hot fluids into the oil shale formation, or by using line or plane heating sources followed by thermal conduction and convection to distribute heat through the oil shale formation. Shale oil is recovered through vertical wells drilled into the oil shale formation.[10] These technologies are potentially able to extract more shale oil from a given area of land than conventional ex situ processing technologies, as the wells can reach greater depths than surface mines.[36] They present an opportunity to recover shale oil from low-grade deposits that would not be extractable by traditional mining techniques.[37]

And just in case you're wondering:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_shale_reserves

There are around 600 known oil shale deposits.[1] Many deposits need more exploration to determine their potential as reserves. However, worldwide technically-recoverable reserves have recently been estimated at about 2.8-3.3 trillion barrels of shale oil, with the largest reserves in the United States, which is thought to have 1.5-2.6 trillion barrels.[2][3][4][5] Well-explored deposits, which could be classified as reserves, include the Green River deposits in the western United States, the Tertiary deposits in Queensland, Australia, deposits in Sweden and Estonia, the El-Lajjun deposit in Jordan, and deposits in France, Germany, Brazil, China, and Russia. It is expected that these deposits would yield at least 40 liters of shale oil per tonne of shale, using the Fischer Assay.[6][7]

edit: and that's based on present conventional mining methods that use ex-situ extraction.

[Natapoc]

Of course! See you are all practical and reasonable but people you disagree with are all just short sighted and idealistic with no practicality at all in the real world.

So besides the usual demeaning statements against me can you tell me what about my statements specifically were not practical?

Let me spell it out to you in very simple terms, since you seem incapable of understanding them when pointed out in a grand scale picture, as has been done several times on this thread alone.

Thank you for at least providing an outline of your argument but as I've requested earlier please do not use such a demeaning tone with me. As I suspected, your argument is based almost entirely on popular myth.

1: Renewable energy sources require heavy industry, both to maintain and to build.

False. Although some renewable energy sources such as solar do require heavy energy, other types do not including small scale hydroelectric (including tidal power), Biomass, some forms of wind power, ect.

With the first statement in your argument shown to be false there is no need to address the other arguments that follow it. However I will also present an argument against your statement #2.

2: Heavy industry requires cheap energy

Really? It requires it? I can understand you making the claim that Heavy industry requires energy prices under a certain threshold in order to maintain costs but here you are making the blanket and quite bold statement that "cheap energy"(whatever that means) is necessary for "heavy industry"

On the face of it your claim seems to make total sense but after reflection it seems to have no basis in fact. I think you really mean something more here when you say that it requires cheap energy. I think you want a more complete and accurate statement here. However, me speculating on what you may have intended to say would be unhelpful so I'll accept that you said exactly what you intended to say.

Given that your assumptions 1 and 2 seem questionable if not outright false, your statements labeled 3-9 which depend on the accuracy of 1 and 2 are faulty on that basis alone and therefore will not be further countered. However this does not imply that they would necessarily be true even if you were to revise 1 and 2 such that they were true.

Some consideration on your hunger argument:

On another topic you claim that without petrol intensive farming techniques the world population could not be supported. There is conflicting data and much argument among experts regarding this.

For a brief introduction to some studies and arguments that counter your beliefs please read this article: http://www.worldwatch.org/node/4060

It outlines how some studies have claimed that organic non petrol intense farming can produce even greater amounts of usable food then current petrol intensive methods. While some of this farming still requires some electric equipment it requires MUCH less and in amounts that could likely be met with "alternative" energy sources as is currently being done on some commercial organic farms.

[Lacadaemon]

1: Renewable energy sources require heavy industry, both to maintain and to build.

False. Although some renewable energy sources such as solar do require heavy energy, other types do not including small scale hydroelectric (including tidal power), Biomass, some forms of wind power, ect.

With the first statement in your argument shown to be false there is no need to address the other arguments that follow it. However I will also present an argument against your statement #2.

Everything requires heavy industry. It's the bottom of the supply pyramid. You can't do jack shit without it, we have a highly interdependent economy; that's just the way it is.

ALL of our light industry is completely dependent on the heavy industry infrastructure that sits beneath it in the supply chain.

Also hydroelectric is highly damaging to the environment. Even small scale. People shouldn't be allowed to fuck around with the natural fluvial morphology, it's highly destructive to natural habitats.

[Bavin]

Hydrogen fuel isn't really a substitute for oil either. Its not an energy source, its a form of energy storage. It takes more energy to make hydrogen then you get from burning it. Hydrogen fuel today is made from natural gas, which is just a form of petroleum. Ultimately hydrogen is just a clean-burning fuel that would basically just strain the fossil fuel supply even more, especially considering the electricity needed to make it otherwise comes from coal-fired powerplants.

Coal that would be converted into liquid fuel.

1) Hydrogen can also be made with electrolysis
2) Doesn't really matter than it uses more energy to make than it outputs
3) Nuclear reactors?

Nuclear Fusion powering the electorlysis?

[Natapoc]

Everything requires heavy industry. [snip]

Can you explain how power from compost heaps later used in organic farming requires heavy industry? (just as one minor example)

See it just takes one counter example to disprove a statement of the form "All x requires y". I simply have to find an x that does not require y. It is not nessessary that I show anything else about x or y including but not limited to viability in a universal sense.

If you don't like that then stop making statements of the form "All x requires y" And instead make statements of the form "most x currently uses y" or "Without k amount of y, x would be limited by b as shown by a scientifically valid study I've linked here"

[Phenia]

Everything requires heavy industry. [snip]

Can you explain how power from compost heaps later used in organic farming requires heavy industry? (just as one minor example)

The copper wiring alone requires heavy mining. The metal for the equipment does as well. Generators and turbines and electrical equipment are all produced in factories. Unless by "power" you mean "burning to keep warm," electrical power by its very nature requires infrastructure and heavy industry.

[Natapoc]

Also hydroelectric is highly damaging to the environment. Even small scale. People shouldn't be allowed to fuck around with the natural fluvial morphology, it's highly destructive to natural habitats.

By the way this is a very interesting position for you to take. Can you explain what you mean by this further? As I'm reading it your statement, if followed universally, would eliminate: Irrigation, aquifers, city water distribution centers, All forms of agriculture that are not wholy dependent on one of the following:

1. rain.
2. planted next to a natural water source such as a river, a spring, or swamp.

I don't think I need to go into great detail to explain why such an idea, if implemented, would make most people die of thirst or hunger (especially people living in or near cities.) and of course stop most industry/agriculture/ect.

There are many alternatives to fossil fuels but there is no alternative to water.

[Natapoc]

Everything requires heavy industry. [snip]

Can you explain how power from compost heaps later used in organic farming requires heavy industry? (just as one minor example)

The copper wiring alone requires heavy mining. The metal for the equipment does as well. Generators and turbines and electrical equipment are all produced in factories. Unless by "power" you mean "burning to keep warm," electrical power by its very nature requires infrastructure and heavy industry.

Yes. I also was unsure what exactly the poster I was replying to means by "heavy energy" I was assuming he intended something more then just simple mining/smelting and part fabrication of the minimal level needed to generate electricity that can move over copper wiring.


But according to your definition of heavy industry: non petrol based energy methods can power "heavy industry" because all these things you mentioned can be done by non petrol based power including but not limited to manual labor to mine the materials and with use of a non petrol based furnace smelting the copper and then producing wires.

Anything that can produce:

1. Heat sufficient to smelt copper or and other materials needed for creation of gears.
2. Mechanical movement sufficient to produce motion of parts made from above materials.

Can enable the continuation of heavy industry. The statement I'm arguing against is that heavy industry cannot continue following "peak oil"


ps. Please note that out of kindness I'm using to the greatest extent possible each posters own definitions of terms and not my own. This is necessary for any conversation to not devolve into a debate about contesting definitions. Please do not use this against me by showing discrepancies in the definitions I'm willing to accept. I only do so for the sake of conversation.

[Phenia]

Everything requires heavy industry. [snip]

Can you explain how power from compost heaps later used in organic farming requires heavy industry? (just as one minor example)

The copper wiring alone requires heavy mining. The metal for the equipment does as well. Generators and turbines and electrical equipment are all produced in factories. Unless by "power" you mean "burning to keep warm," electrical power by its very nature requires infrastructure and heavy industry.

Yes. I also was unsure what exactly the poster I was replying to means by "heavy energy" I was assuming he intended something more then just simple mining/smelting and part fabrication of the minimal level needed to generate electricity that can move over copper wiring.


But according to your definition of heavy industry: non petrol based energy methods can power "heavy industry" because all these things you mentioned can be done by non petrol based power including but not limited to manual labor to mine the materials and with use of a non petrol based furnace smelting the copper and then producing wires.

Manual labor? Seriously? You say "simple mining" but there's nothing simple about it. It's not like it's the Dark Ages. You can't just find ores lying around in easy to get at places. Manual labor in mining is also dangerous and largely unethical as a result.

The statement I'm arguing against is that heavy industry cannot continue following "peak oil"

I'm not addressing or disagreeing with that bit.

[Lacadaemon]

Everything requires heavy industry. [snip]

Can you explain how power from compost heaps later used in organic farming requires heavy industry? (just as one minor example)

See it just takes one counter example to disprove a statement of the form "All x requires y". I simply have to find an x that does not require y. It is not nessessary that I show anything else about x or y including but not limited to viability in a universal sense.

If you don't like that then stop making statements of the form "All x requires y" And instead make statements of the form "most x currently uses y" or "Without k amount of y, x would be limited by b as shown by a scientifically valid study I've linked here"

Those organic farms rely on the infrastructure which heavy industry has built. They wouldn't exist otherwise.

[Lacadaemon]

Can enable the continuation of heavy industry. The statement I'm arguing against is that heavy industry cannot continue following "peak oil"

I never said that. I said that unless realistic options are pursued which will allow sufficient energy surplus to produce hydrogen - or some other energy dense storage - are found, then heavy industry can't continue after peak oil. I also said that renewables can't fit the bill for that. Stop mis-stating my position on this.

ps. Please note that out of kindness I'm using to the greatest extent possible each posters own definitions of terms and not my own. This is necessary for any conversation to not devolve into a debate about contesting definitions. Please do not use this against me by showing discrepancies in the definitions I'm willing to accept. I only do so for the sake of conversation.

You really aren't though.