Peak Oil is You
Donate Bitcoins ;-) or Paypal :-)
Page added on May 17, 2015
Heinberg paints a bleak picture of an inevitable post-carbon future
Very slowly, environmentalists have begun to convince the world we can have our cake and eat it too.
They argue human civilization can transition away from fossil fuels without suffering a significant blow to the global economy. Capitalism, continual growth, and high standards of living can all continue, and continue without the onset of catastrophic climate change.
We can transition to renewable sources of energy such as solar, wind, and hydro—which, in recent years, have become substantially more economically viable. And that allow us save the planet while continuing to update to the latest iPhone each year and without forgoing the annual vacations in Hawaii.
But Richard Heinberg argues this optimistic future is a fantasy. It is absolutely imperative that the world does move away from fossil fuels, he maintains. But it is not going to happen without severe economic sacrifice, political upheaval, and a “simplification and decentralization of societal systems”.
“One way or another, we are going to get off of fossil fuels this century,” Heinberg told the Straight. “The question is, how are we going to do it? Are we going to do it in some kind of planned and managed way? Or is it going to be a series of economic and environmental catastrophes?”
Heinberg is a senior fellow at the Post Carbon Institute and the author of The Party’s Over: Oil, War, and the Fate of Industrial Society. That 2003 book was one of the earlier works to attract mainstream attention to peak oil, the point in human history when we reach—or reached—the maximum rate of oil extraction before the resource’s finite nature means reserves and production will forever after decline. His latest book, Afterburn: Society Beyond Fossil Fuels, was published in April 2015.
Now, Heinberg revealed, his next “big project” is called “Our Renewable Future”, an analysis of various energy uses and an attempt to determine how each one can theoretically be replaced with a renewable source of fuel. Heinberg said he expects the results out in September or October.
“There are a lot of challenges with switching to renewables for all energy consumption,” Heinberg said in a wide-ranging telephone interview.
Some aspects of this transition are easy enough and well underway, he continued. In British Columbia, for example, entire cities stay warm through the winter running on electricity produced at hydroelectric dams. And companies like Tesla have shown how automobiles can plug into those same grids instead of relying on combustible fuels.
But there are real and significant constraints on the extents to which clean sources of power can replace the dirtier forms we rely on for more energy-intensive requirements, Heinberg said.
“We can electrify automobile transportation, but what about airplanes, ships, and big 18-wheel trucks?” he asked.
“Then there are lots of industrial uses of energy for heat,” he continued. “How about using high heat to smelt metals or to produce concrete and steel?….A lot of resource extraction is going to be very hard to electrify. Big mining equipment. The same goes for forestry operations….When you get to the really big stuff, it is much more difficult.”
Intercontinental travel similarly requires combustion. The electricity produced by a solar-power installation, farm of wind turbines, or even a hydroelectric dam the size of the Hoover can’t produce energy with the density that’s required to move an airplane, freight train, or cargo ship.
“We are not going to have electric airliners,” Heinberg said. “I think we have to be realistic and recognize there are going to be some serious challenges along the way.”
So, if the future is not a greener version of the world we know today, what will the economies of our grandchildren look like?
“I think we’re already seeing the first signs of it, which is economic contraction,” Heinberg said. “Economic growth all around the world—in China, in Europe, in Japan, in North America, Australia—instead of three or four-percent annual GDP growth, we’re seeing fractions of one percent or even less….We are moving into a post-growth era.”
Citizens are catching on, Heinberg said. But our leaders are woefully far behind them, strapped to promises of perpetual growth their re-elections depend on no matter how unrealistic they might be.
“This is probably going to be a crisis-led transition,” Heinberg concluded. “On a finite planet, nothing grows forever.”
39 Comments on "Heinberg paints a bleak picture of an inevitable post-carbon future"
Apneaman on Sun, 17th May 2015 8:00 pm
“On a finite planet, nothing grows forever.”
Denial and Hopium do.
Davy on Sun, 17th May 2015 8:42 pm
I am glad to see Heinberg is showing more doom. He is still entertaining ideas that won’t scale or can’t maintain our current way of life but not like he used to. For example electrified transport is a dud.
Heinberg has to show hopium or no one will listen to him. Can you imagine Heinberg talking doom salad? They would boot him out of the Post Carbon Institute. Then he would end up doing Davy doom salad rants on the PO forum.
I personally think the situation is so bad as to require people like Heinberg and others to come together in a group and tell people just how bad it is. Something has to be done soon if we have any chance of effecting some kind of change. No change at all is going to be extremly dangerous. We should at least get a back to the land movement in play. Starvation is going to be our biggest challenge.
Rodster on Sun, 17th May 2015 8:43 pm
TPTB know the consequences so they’ll ride the fossil fuel train to it’s grave. Nothing will change because the global “just in time system” they created requires fossil fuels and NOTHING will replace it. So it’s either collapse in a transition or collapse because the ecosystem has been damaged beyond compare and we no longer can economically operate a global economy on high priced fossil fuels.
My bet is that they’ll continue kicking the can down the road until it’s too late for anything.
penury on Sun, 17th May 2015 8:55 pm
The situation appears to be dire. The economy is exhibiting fatal flaws. Governments,Central Banks and large money market banks are starting to push for a cashless society. It may be a sudden collapse or it may take a hundred or more years but, the message is there. Party is over.Once people lose control over their bank accounts, and must do all transactions on your electronics only members of the club will be protected.
Rodster on Sun, 17th May 2015 9:18 pm
“Governments,Central Banks and large money market banks are starting to push for a cashless society.”
That can’t be said enough. You know you’re at the end when criminals can think of this shit and make it policy.
dave thompson on Sun, 17th May 2015 9:26 pm
Yes Davy I agree,”the situation is so bad as to require people like Heinberg and others to come together in a group and tell people just how bad it is.” I do think people are waking up, however, it will take real leadership to make any progress.
Northwest Resident on Sun, 17th May 2015 9:59 pm
TPTB have already decided long ago that there is nothing that can be done to stop or mitigate the oncoming total collapse. All they can do is delay, buy time and prepare. And that is exactly what they are doing. The most pressing and the most urgent problems faced by humans and their leadership today is far too many people making demands on far too little resources. And don’t think TPTB haven’t thought about and recognized that fact.
apneaman on Sun, 17th May 2015 10:35 pm
If there is total collapse what exactly are they going to be in charge of? If they can’t maintain and control things when they are at the peak of their power how will they manage chaos? For TPTB an even worse prospect than contending with the masses is contending with each other. These are the scummiest back stabbing people on the planet and they all know perfectly well what their fellow elites are capable of. They will be knocking off each other in paranoid power grabs. The global Game of Thrones.
Hubbert on Sun, 17th May 2015 11:06 pm
Unfortunately, these politicians are lost. Any sort of meaningful transition is never going to happen. I don’t think they have any clue what’s really going on.
Perk Earl on Mon, 18th May 2015 12:04 am
“Governments,Central Banks and large money market banks are starting to push for a cashless society.”
I’ve noticed that too, penury. I think their thought is there won’t be runs on the bank if depositors can’t get cash. It’s probably another reason to wonder just how far things have to go before all hell breaks loose.
Let’s see; the local police now have military equipment. The banks don’t give out hardly anything on passbook savings and want to go to a cashless society. The police would probably love a cashless society so drug deals have to be done on a barter basis (but also wonder where they will get enough for their kid’s college education if they can’t confiscate cash). Drones will soon be policing riots. The super rich already have their bunkers and south sea islands stocked up and are ready to fly private jets to get out of Dodge fast.
Sure, everything is in place for whenever s hits the f.
adamx on Mon, 18th May 2015 12:40 am
You know, it doesn’t help when sense is mixed with nonsense.
“The electricity produced by a solar-power installation, farm of wind turbines, or even a hydroelectric dam the size of the Hoover can’t produce energy with the density that’s required to move an airplane, freight train, or cargo ship.”
Electric airplanes are impractical. Duh. But electric trains? There are plenty of Hoover-sized and larger dams, and they provide way more than enough power for trains. Many countries have electric trains.
As for shipping (and fishing and other stuff), the most likely long term scenario is a return to sail. That pretty much nixes the industrial level of trade today, but it’s also a far cry from “everything is shutting down”.
I am much more worried about commuting. America will suffer badly. It’s very strange that he would say “we can electrify sutomobile transportation”, because overall that would be the biggest expense – we can electrify a SMALL PORTION of automobile transport but I can’t imagine how we could come up with the energy for the millions and millions of cars today. The whole edifice is going to hollow out, just as Kunstler has been saying.
This is a really nonsensical article. The truth is that we honestly don’t know the end game. I have come to believe that we well know it when it happens, but the time up to there will be thoroughly disguised. It’s clear that it’s going to go down badly but HOW it goes down, or even WHEN it goes down, is hard to see. All the signs are clear but when the the ripe fruit falls from the tree is not so obvious. I though 2008 was the beginning of the end, but that was not the case, we’re back in la-la land (things are worse than before the crash overall but well disguised).
I wouldn’t be super surprised if it happened this year, and I wouldn’t be super surprised if it took another 20 years.
Don S on Mon, 18th May 2015 12:56 am
“There are plenty of Hoover-sized and larger dams, and they provide way more than enough power for trains.”
You mean the Hoover Dam served by Lake Mead, the level of which is falling toward a point where it will no longer be able to generate electricity?
apneaman on Mon, 18th May 2015 1:21 am
America’s second largest reservoir — Lake Powell — is disappearing
http://www.rawstory.com/2015/05/americas-second-largest-reservoir-lake-powell-is-disappearing/?utm_content=buffer8d413&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer
apneaman on Mon, 18th May 2015 1:22 am
Carbon time-bomb in Siberia threatens catastrophic climate change
A DEVASTATING and sudden acceleration of climate change which is currently being sparked could result in “awful consequences”, a leading scientist has warned
http://www.express.co.uk/news/nature/576581/Climate-change-global-warming-Siberia-weather-shift?utm_content=buffer61b75&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer
antiwarforever on Mon, 18th May 2015 3:19 am
watch Rampage 2
Ralph on Mon, 18th May 2015 4:25 am
I would ignore anything printed by the Express website/ ‘news’paper.
It makes Fox news look intellectual.
That said, a massive methane release from melting permafrost is certainly a scenario that needs further research.
Davy on Mon, 18th May 2015 5:51 am
We need to accept the fact that this is a collapse event or process. Currently it is a process. Most of us here can say with legitimacy that real growth is over. What we are told by the talking heads is not real growth. It is market making IOW someone is selling something from a greedy trader all the way up to the central bank head saying we have this under control relax.
We appear to be in a bumpy descent. This process will be characterized by decay and dysfunction of networks, economic abandonment, and irrational polices. This will be a surreal situation of systems and processes working normally and other in dysfunction. At some point it is likely the system will fail to maintain or support all locals. These locals will be discarded just as the body goes into hypothermic stages. The most apparent indications of this will be lack of security, food insecurity, and or fuel shortages. When a critical mass of these unsupportable locals occurs drastic action will begin.
Expect command and control of the economy and security. Financial controls of money and employment. Expect priorities being with emergency services. When collapse proceeds far enough we may see security operations against rebellion. We could see states begin securing their borders against other states or population migrations. We will see food being controlled and dispersed by authorities. People’s right to property will be removed.
I expect many people to accept this in the name of security where there is security. Many areas will be ungovernable. When there is a lack of security and resources those locals with the most exposure will be most at risk. That is common sense but profound. Those locations with large populations requiring complex support will suffer. Energy intensive areas for food, water, and shelter will be a great risk. The grid will surely destabilize because complexity will suffer decay. Unfortunately we have a centralized grid covering huge areas that will not be completely supportable.
It is these situations we should prep for especially seeing a collapse process in motion now. None of the doomers here can accurately tell us the when, where, and how. Short and rock can give us the energy picture. Other doomers can mention the systematic details. We have the ecosystem and climate problems mentioned here. We have the geopolitical dangers ever present covered. The best we can do is determine a range of scenarios with a range of responses. We can prep accordingly.
This prep does not have to be physical it can be as little as awareness. If we have a crisis situation we may find our security at risk for a time until stability returns. Stability may not return but generally crisis cycle. Making positive correct decisions in a crisis situation will be important.
If we get a critical mass of responses we may effect change at our local level. I have said this numerous times longer term our survival depends on our local and next higher local at least. In my situation that would be county and state level.
You should prep especially short term because you can do that and make a difference. If you chose to do long term prep you should realize there are no guarantees these efforts will save you long term. Yet, anything is better than nothing.
sunweb on Mon, 18th May 2015 6:41 am
Heinberg is a major part of the problem. He is selling books. He is not speaking truth. “renewables” are simply business as usual, more of the same. If he had integrity, he would look at the total manufacturing system and not promote this elitist pap.
ghung on Mon, 18th May 2015 8:37 am
Meanwhile, NPR news just stated that the US is on track to set a new record for passenger flight in 2015, surpassing 2007; miles driven is on the rise, and we have war mongers like Lindsey Graham who think they are presidential material. Recently lower fuel costs have been a giant carrot-on-a-stick leading BAU down a path to whatever awaits it and the collective is woefully unprepared for anything else; situational awareness be damned.
Any suggestion that we’ll transition in terms of infrastucture ignores that we are unable to maintain current systems (how old are most of the hydro-electric systems we – most of us – will be relying on so heavily in Heinberg’s future?). Maybe the military industrial complex will maintain the highways and bridges that few will be able to uttilise much due to affordability….
Prepare thyself for the salvage economy; go local for things that matter. Prepare to pull weeds.
shortonoil on Mon, 18th May 2015 9:32 am
“I wouldn’t be super surprised if it happened this year, and I wouldn’t be super surprised if it took another 20 years.”
It all stops when oil production stops. Oil production stops when oil companies can no longer make money producing oil. Oil companies will no longer be able to make money producing oil when they no longer have the energy to do it with. We have a pretty good idea as to when that will be:
http://www.thehillsgroup.org/depletion2_022.htm
Running out of energy is like pouring water out of a bucket. When its empty – its empty. At the end it is likely there will be a few drops dribbling off the lip. In a very dry environment they will evaporate before they hit the ground.
BobInget on Mon, 18th May 2015 9:57 am
Ghung of course puts a stubby toe directly on our biggest difficulty. Our religious, military industrial complex has taken over domestic and foreign policy. Cops gone military.
Gun nuts in arms race with our military.
examples;
Texas biker gangs are acting out dystopian nightmares on week-end killing feasts.
Texas National Guard put to guarding the State against an Obama takeover.
Yes– But,
Because its the PROFITABLE thing to do,
Texas leads the nation in wind and solar power generation.
BobInget on Mon, 18th May 2015 10:53 am
Shortonoil greatly underestimates human adaptability. Only the defense industry uses perfectly good science to achieve its ends
better then international oil companies.
‘Big Oil’ got the message years ago. Just to satisfy US needs, B.O. figured correctly,
we can’t depend on land based fields much longer. Ultra deep water drilling, not shale,
is our last hurrah.
The ‘tell’.
When Shell’s, Arctic exploration program went four billion in the hole, the company doubled down. How could Shell be be more obvious? The world’s largest oil company
knows better then any here, for the remainder of human life on earth, only ultra-ultra deep
E&P will come closest to satisfying our doomed society’s ‘needs’.
Human life is short compared to that of a major corporation like Shell. It’s not that Exxon or Shell or Chevron WANT to shorten
human occupancy on earth. They didn’t create AGW they will rationalize. So called ‘defense contractors’ didn’t after-all, create war, it’s just bidness, after-all.
Being ultimate pragmatists, oil companies, like arms makers, business is business.
As for lifting precious cargo.. Oil companies have already switched away from diesel to once flared NG, for electrical power generation. If wind or solar
energy is needed, like the Saudis no one will hesitate.
My rejoinder for AGW deniers is always to
‘wish them a long life’. Something akin to
“may you always live in interesting times”.
For those well meaning individuals trying to stop Arctic drilling, a good paddle on the sound always makes a person feel better.
Think again, how you shlepped that kayak
to the launch.
None of us here will live long enough to see the last barrel of oil go away.
Like sea level rise, like hour hands on a analog clocks, it’s a slow, inexorable process.
Jerry McManus on Mon, 18th May 2015 11:01 am
Sunweb is absolutely right.
In our world full of slums that is frantically burning up millions of years of natural capital as quickly as humanly possible we are clearly facing a future of overpopulation, pollution, extreme energy poverty, climate chaos, ecosystem collapse, economic collapse, and resource wars.
Gosh, do you think maybe we should be talking about the distinct possibility that in the not-too-distant future our population will be culled to the tune of several billion people in a bloody and brutal mix of war, famine, pestilence and death?
Not idiots like Heinberg! Oh, heavens no! All they want to do is waste everyone’s time talking about how we can merrily keep killing the future of every living thing on the planet by “alternative” means. Brilliant!
steve on Mon, 18th May 2015 11:23 am
governments of the world esp…the U.s have shown that they prefer war over planning…Hitler was able to quickly get the masses ready because of fear…and Americans are very fearful people…one has to look no further than their reaction to 9/11…the new leader won’t look like Hitler he will be more like John Wayne…it is interesting to go back and read some of Hitler’s speeches…hell I am not so sure you could not use them for today…no one would no the difference…The FED has played their hand and now they are in a corner raising interest rates will make everything happen faster…hold on folks we are heading to 1817
BobInget on Mon, 18th May 2015 11:30 am
http://timesofsandiego.com/business/2015/04/18/nassco-launches-worlds-first-lng-powered-container-ship/
Speculawyer on Mon, 18th May 2015 11:56 am
Heinberg has lost credibility with me for not changing his message much in view of new data coming in. Fracking & tar sands HAVE changed the peak oil dynamics and have given us a few more years. Yes, it is true that shale fields are limited too and fracking only works well at high oil prices. But fracking & tar sands have definitely hit the snooze button on peak oil.
GregT on Mon, 18th May 2015 12:52 pm
“fracking & tar sands have definitely hit the snooze button on peak oil.”
So what do you advocate that Heinberg should do spec? Sleep for a little bit longer?
BobInget on Mon, 18th May 2015 12:58 pm
Lifted from ‘Investor Village’
1) It’s almost ridiculous predicting oil prices.
2) WW depletion/decline averages 6%. We need to replace 5mm bbl. of production
per yr. The reason for depletion/decline is Mexico’s Cantarell field increased
its rate of production using nitrogen injection masking the underlying depletion
of the field. When nitrogen injection could no longer increase production the
field declined rapidly. Much > 6%.
3) Most all of the worlds oil fields are using some type of EOR. Production has
been maintained but the underlying depletion is there. When decline sets in it
may be rapid. Most oil producing countries are experiencing declining production.
4) How the world will replace 25mm bbl. p/d of depletion/decline along with
1mm bbl. p/d of new demand on average for the next 5 yrs. at $50-60 oil is not known to me. US
Shale oil is not limitless.
5) In the last 5 yrs. the 50mm bbl. p/d of production outside of OPEC & NA has
only been maintained at $90 and well over $1T of investment. There was no increase
of production. The majors who were the largest investors in these assets have cut
way back. This production was maintained primarily by EOR & infill drilling.
6) Oil prices may be ahead of themselves near term due to inventory levels. Prices
though are not at levels that allow for production increases. (30)
Hubbert on Mon, 18th May 2015 1:49 pm
I’m still predicting within 50 years, the major portion of Industrial Age will come to an end. idiots on Wall St. will dream on as usual, but fossil fuel is a FINITE energy source. Once it’s gone, it’s gone. Nothing will replace it.
Dredd on Mon, 18th May 2015 2:40 pm
The TPP will stop SLR? (The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and Sea Level Rise (SLR))
Nony on Mon, 18th May 2015 3:11 pm
We regularly have videos from Heinberg from 10 years ago with drastically wrong predictions. He is like a religious crank predicting the end of the world even after prediction after prediction fails.
The whole doomer thing is seeming a little threadbare. So, so, 2004.
http://peakoildebunked.blogspot.com/2013/07/429-oil-drum-bites-bag.html
GregT on Mon, 18th May 2015 4:33 pm
Patience Nony. The predictions will come true, soon enough.
joe on Mon, 18th May 2015 6:15 pm
Peak oil will manifest itself to most people as a health crisis not an energy one. 2 or 3 major recessions from now (they have been occurring at about 2 or 3 per presidency) maybe 2 presidential cycles from now. Fraking will be peaking, at that point they will say that they can no longer fund Healthcare and that superbugs are costing too much to fight. Life expectancy will begin to lower and the decline will set in. The good news is that renewables mixed with lowscale coal use would be economically viable if the population was lower and economies smaller, the end of oil would mean an end of growth but not the end of the world. A world without oil would require that we build things that last, and our main energy being electricity derived from coal for a population 75% or more lower than today powering rail for mass transit, and livestock for local food and transport. For signs of true collapse, look at big pharma and Healthcare stories when they start saying that the market cant support antibiotics investments, then it’s only a matter of months or years until people are dying by the millions of ‘old’ disease and infections. Ironically in a collapse the birth rate will go up not down, but sadly so will the death rate relative to birth until a new equilibrium is established. Renewables will give breathing room for the elites to live better lives but as the stock of generation items is worn and declines the replacement cost will rise, as happened to the Roman aqua ducts and road system.
apneaman on Mon, 18th May 2015 9:53 pm
Where are you on the map?
……………………………………………..
Poster: The New Political Map
http://howtosavetheworld.ca/2015/05/17/poster-the-new-political-map/?utm_content=buffere1888&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer
Dredd on Tue, 19th May 2015 10:33 am
Putting all environmentalists in a mistake because it is inaccurate.
One can be an environmentalist and not fall for false hope.
The fools will die if the environment dies, as will the wise people.
Not being able to discern foolishness from wisdom is deadly to nations and individuals alike (Economic War Of The Pacific – 6).
Dredd on Tue, 19th May 2015 10:34 am
typo: “Putting all environmentalists in one bag is a mistake because it is inaccurate.”
JuanP on Tue, 19th May 2015 12:53 pm
“Intercontinental travel similarly requires combustion.” I would say that intercontinental travel as it is today or intercontinental flying requires combustion, but sailing will be around longer than FF, IMO. It worked in the past, it works now, and it will work in the future, with a few caveats, like the probable lack of adequate trees to build large masts and whatnot, but it is likely we could build the masts out of repurposed steel for a while.
Bandits on Tue, 19th May 2015 7:59 pm
Hi Joe, what you say could be feasible in a normal world where a fairly abrupt cut in FF use descends (as it surely will).
I can only assume you are an AGW denier or are personally in denial, then again maybe you simply never got the memo.
Apneaman on Wed, 20th May 2015 6:11 pm
Why enough water will never be enough for California
http://phys.org/news/2015-05-california.html