As I read these forums, I sometimes get the impression that people are forgetting a few things about Peak Oil:
1) Peak Oil is primarily a problem of economics, not the environment. While it would be nice to find an alternative (or set of alternatives) to oil that is clean, I'm not holding my breath. (Err... okay, so maybe I should hold my breath, if coal is the best alternative.) Before anyone starts shrieking at me, I realize that we could end up saving ourselves from Peak Oil, only to find us facing Peak Coal, or Peak Uranium, or whatever... and still have global environmental catastrophe on our hands. But some people need to stop giving so much weight to the environmental impact of certain alternatives, if those alternatives are going to help avert the PO crisis.
2) Peak Oil is not about the complete depletion of oil reserves. It's about slowly spreading gap between production and demand. We don't have to replace the energy from oil 100% tomorrow, or even 10 years from tomorrow. We just have to fill the gap. Conservation measures to help keep the gap smaller will help, too... but they will also be pretty much assured as energy prices go up. People will have greater financial incentive to trim their consumption in different ways.
3) Peak Oil is a solvable problem. Okay, perhaps this is just the optimist in me, but believing otherwise is a fruitless endeavor. I'm not against making adjustments in my personal lifestyle to increase my energy independence. It's prudent to do so, anyway. But the doom-and-gloom that is spread by certain individuals does nothing to help. If you're just here to preach the end of the world, take it to the church pulpit or street corner.
4) There is not likely to be a single panacaea to solve the problem. We have literally dozens of technologies and conservation plans that will help. Some are viable now, some may be viable in the future. But no one thing will save us. It will be a lot of different things. Most have at least some merit. I won't make predictions about every concept, but we most certainly will have more wind power, solar power, hydro-electric, geothermal, nuclear, biomass, and even coal. These are existing technologies with at least a small install-base. Economies of scale are beginning to really kick in with some of them (like wind). Along with the reminder #2 above, we don't need to eliminate a specific alternative energy source just because it doesn't do the job 100%. With so many different things to "fill the gap", we've got a real shot at this.
Anyway, I just thought I'd remind you all of these things.
PeakOil is You
A few reminders about Peak Oil
A few reminders about Peak Oil
by Caoimhan » Tue 28 Jun 2005, 11:54:45
-
Caoimhan - Tar Sands
- Posts: 557
- Joined: Tue 10 May 2005, 03:00:00
by holmes » Tue 28 Jun 2005, 12:04:10
Forgetting? Im not sure what you mean. I for one have rehashed all the issues associated with the backside of the curve, brother. Not an environmental issue? When oil goes so does water treatment and filtration, wildland, etc.. Slowl;y at first but as abusive energy sources become the majority its all going to change. I think you are forgetting something. The scale. where i live will be better off then most others. So small localities with resources will fare well. Its all about environment and energy flows. Environemental 100%. The economy we have has been= doomed from the beginning. energy flows must be incorporated into economics. Ecological economics. Far too late now on a national scale. energy cost of every facet of productiuon of a certain good must be considered in the price of that good. Logical and sustainable. And that must go with breeding as well. The cost of overpopulation on the enviroenment and the nations are never considered.
- holmes
- Intermediate Crude
- Posts: 2382
- Joined: Tue 12 Oct 2004, 03:00:00
by Caoimhan » Tue 28 Jun 2005, 12:15:41
I didn't say it's not an environmental issue. It's just not predominantly environmental.
As for the problems you raise, a lot of the alternatives are very clean, or at least cleaner than petroleum.
And why are you talking about "when oil goes"? I need to point once more to reminder #2 in my original post. Oil won't "go" for another century.
And I'm not forgetting about scale. Let's assume that coal is our cheapest alternative to oil that can be scaled up significantly. Is coal that much more a polluter than oil? Won't clean alternatives also offset that extra pollution to a large degree?
Take your finger off the panic button, and take a few deep, cleansing breaths. This is a solvable problem, and it can be done without total ecological devastation, too.
As for the problems you raise, a lot of the alternatives are very clean, or at least cleaner than petroleum.
And why are you talking about "when oil goes"? I need to point once more to reminder #2 in my original post. Oil won't "go" for another century.
And I'm not forgetting about scale. Let's assume that coal is our cheapest alternative to oil that can be scaled up significantly. Is coal that much more a polluter than oil? Won't clean alternatives also offset that extra pollution to a large degree?
Take your finger off the panic button, and take a few deep, cleansing breaths. This is a solvable problem, and it can be done without total ecological devastation, too.
-
Caoimhan - Tar Sands
- Posts: 557
- Joined: Tue 10 May 2005, 03:00:00
Re: A few reminders about Peak Oil
by FatherOfTwo » Tue 28 Jun 2005, 12:31:44
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Caoimhan', '1')) Peak Oil is primarily a problem of economics, not the environment. [snip] But some people need to stop giving so much weight to the environmental impact of certain alternatives, if those alternatives are going to help avert the PO crisis.
Peak Oil is a problem which reaches its tentacles into every aspect of life. The (hopefully) slow removal of oil from society will necessarily force other resources to be used. Mass expansion of coal use (which is likely) is going to be a major problem for air quality and global warming. Mass use of methane hydrates (which is hopefully unlikely) would be catastrophic for global warming. Mass use of nuclear is likely our best hope, but it too has problems, most of which can be smartly handled – will we is the question. But irregardless of the energy substitutes, the only way Peak Oil won’t be a problem for the environment is if we turn over a new leaf and stop breeding ourselves into a disaster of our own making (whether that ultimately is resource wars, an ecological disaster etc.)$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Caoimhan', ' ')2) Peak Oil is not about the complete depletion of oil reserves. It's about slowly spreading gap between production and demand. We don't have to replace the energy from oil 100% tomorrow, or even 10 years from tomorrow. We just have to fill the gap. Conservation measures to help keep the gap smaller will help, too... but they will also be pretty much assured as energy prices go up. People will have greater financial incentive to trim their consumption in different ways.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Caoimhan', '3')) Peak Oil is a solvable problem. Okay, perhaps this is just the optimist in me, but believing otherwise is a fruitless endeavor. I'm not against making adjustments in my personal lifestyle to increase my energy independence. It's prudent to do so, anyway. But the doom-and-gloom that is spread by certain individuals does nothing to help. If you're just here to preach the end of the world, take it to the church pulpit or street corner.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Caoimhan', '4')) There is not likely to be a single panacaea to solve the problem. We have literally dozens of technologies and conservation plans that will help. Some are viable now, some may be viable in the future. But no one thing will save us. It will be a lot of different things. Most have at least some merit. I won't make predictions about every concept, but we most certainly will have more wind power, solar power, hydro-electric, geothermal, nuclear, biomass, and even coal. These are existing technologies with at least a small install-base. Economies of scale are beginning to really kick in with some of them (like wind). Along with the reminder #2 above, we don't need to eliminate a specific alternative energy source just because it doesn't do the job 100%. With so many different things to "fill the gap", we've got a real shot at this.
-
FatherOfTwo - Tar Sands
- Posts: 960
- Joined: Thu 11 Nov 2004, 04:00:00
- Location: Heart of Canada's Oil Country
