Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

THE Olduvai Thread (merged)

General discussions of the systemic, societal and civilisational effects of depletion.

Re: The Olduvai Theory: Terminal Decline Imminent

Postby MonteQuest » Tue 13 Feb 2007, 11:53:36

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Jonathan_Hoag', ' ')And while water is unique (i.e. you can't substitute a different substance for the job), oil isn't.


Is that why it is our #1 primary energy? I'd rethink that statement. Oil may well be the best enrgy source we ever know. That would make it quite unique.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I')t is a logical fallacy that just because one item gets scarce that it will continue to climb without any sort of replacement by emerging technologies.


Technology cannot create energy.
A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
User avatar
MonteQuest
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 16593
Joined: Mon 06 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Westboro, MO

Re: The Olduvai Theory: Terminal Decline Imminent

Postby Jonathan_Hoag » Tue 13 Feb 2007, 11:59:00

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Tyler_JC', 'P')starr, that is basically what I was trying to say.

But I guess I need a realistic example to explain what I mean.


Yeah, corn and steak and champagne and water didn't work out that great. :)

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')Right now, oil is 1/3 the cost of solar and I can get one Oil-Barrel-Of-Energy for $60.

Oil suddenly costs $200 a barrel. Solar somehow stays at $180 per Oil-Barrel-Of-Energy.


The point is that if you can make barrel of oil equivalent for $180/bbl the price of oil cannot go beyond that long term. Energy is fungible.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')Is solar now cheap?

NO!

An Oil-Barrel-Of-Energy has tripled in price!


Right. Nobody is saying that if peak oil came soon that it would not result in higher energy prices, at first at least. What I take issue with are wild fantasies about collapse of our civilization, return to an agrarian society etc. Doomer wet dreams in other words.

That said, I think your $180 estimate is way too high. It might apply to solar, but we have 200 years worth of coal in US at current use. With quadruple use that is still 50 years, and coal-->liquid fuels is more like $80-$100. Even with $180 you would not end up paying much more for gallon of gas than Western Europeans already pay. And the standard of living in WE is quite good. I do not see We reverting to an agrarian society anytime soon.

Doomer also fail to acknowledge technological progress. If liquid fuels suddenly cost $180/bbl there is great economical incentive to offer technologies that deliver energy at lower prices.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')Deciding to drink champagne rather than water because water prices have gone up doesn't leave you better off financially. You are still spending a much larger % of your income on beverages than you were when water was cheap


Champagne is expensive now because it is a niche product (in comparison to water at least). If somehow only way for us to metabolize water became through a fermented bubbly grape beverage you'd expect much more hectarage devoted to grapes, and regular wine/brandy/grape juice production would suffer in favor of bubbly wine.
In other words, if one resource becomes scarce you can expect production in other areas to shift to make up the slack.
User avatar
Jonathan_Hoag
Wood
Wood
 
Posts: 38
Joined: Sun 30 Jan 2005, 04:00:00
Top

Re: The Olduvai Theory: Terminal Decline Imminent

Postby MonteQuest » Tue 13 Feb 2007, 11:59:52

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Jonathan_Hoag', ' ')If water gets expensive it provides incentive to get more water from different sources, such as deep wells, desalination, recycling.


But the water is not cheaper. California's Montauk irrigation district uses water from the Colorado River at $14 per acre foot. Desalination costs $2000 per acre foot. Deep wells cause ground subsidence and lower the water table making other wells usless.

With population growth alone, you easily use up any new sources in a few short years. What then?

The market will always provide?
A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
User avatar
MonteQuest
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 16593
Joined: Mon 06 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Westboro, MO
Top

Re: The Olduvai Theory: Terminal Decline Imminent

Postby NWMossBack » Tue 13 Feb 2007, 12:02:21

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pstarr', 'A')ll you have come forward with is "a new source of energy" or "a new sustainable economic model."

Can you be more specific?


I could, and others have trotted out many ideas that are summarily dismissed (fusion, solar, bio, etc.) but my point is that dire necessity will trigger NEW solutions that we cannot anticipate now.

For instance when England burned through all it's forests making charcoal, the question on most people's minds was likely "how can we possibly get more trees for charcoal?" when the solution was in the minerals beneath their feet.
User avatar
NWMossBack
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 202
Joined: Wed 24 Jan 2007, 04:00:00
Location: Pacific NW USA
Top

Re: The Olduvai Theory: Terminal Decline Imminent

Postby MonteQuest » Tue 13 Feb 2007, 12:03:14

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('NWMossBack', ' ')Why does violence seem inevitable?


Because scarcity breeds poverty and poverty breeds conflict. All depends upon the rate and magnitude of change.
A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
User avatar
MonteQuest
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 16593
Joined: Mon 06 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Westboro, MO
Top

Re: The Olduvai Theory: Terminal Decline Imminent

Postby Jonathan_Hoag » Tue 13 Feb 2007, 12:03:54

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('cube', '
')BTW if we ever do transition to a solar based economy you can forget about getting "free" services off the interent. Something tells me if google had to pay triple the price for electricity to feed their energy hungry servers we wouldn't have a free search engines and email.

No amount of obnoxious internet advertisements could pay the electricity bill. :roll:


If google had to pay tripple for electricity their operating costs would not even double. Secondly, if electricity costs increased sufficiently to hurt, it would increase demand for power saving servers, routers, etc. So servers will utilize more laptop-like components and save electricity. Duh!
Last edited by Jonathan_Hoag on Tue 13 Feb 2007, 12:32:05, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Jonathan_Hoag
Wood
Wood
 
Posts: 38
Joined: Sun 30 Jan 2005, 04:00:00
Top

Re: The Olduvai Theory: Terminal Decline Imminent

Postby dinopello » Tue 13 Feb 2007, 12:04:28

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', 'T')echnology cannot create energy.


Maybe not, but it can let us harness and use the energy in all sorts of new ways. Oh wait , that doesn't help...[smilie=eusa_doh.gif]
User avatar
dinopello
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 6088
Joined: Fri 13 May 2005, 03:00:00
Location: The Urban Village
Top

Re: The Olduvai Theory: Terminal Decline Imminent

Postby NWMossBack » Tue 13 Feb 2007, 12:32:23

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', 'B')ecause scarcity breeds poverty and poverty breeds conflict. All depends upon the rate and magnitude of change.


MQ: I've been particularly impressed with the quality and depth of your research into topics you weigh in on, but "poverty breeds conflict" sounds more like an article of faith. Conflict is a given I think, but you imply that mayhem will overwhelm the states ability to maintain order. Is there any historical precedent or sociological study you can cite? I am not aware of any widespead violence during the US great depression for instance.
User avatar
NWMossBack
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 202
Joined: Wed 24 Jan 2007, 04:00:00
Location: Pacific NW USA
Top

Re: The Olduvai Theory: Terminal Decline Imminent

Postby Jonathan_Hoag » Tue 13 Feb 2007, 12:46:27

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('DantesPeak', ' ')but it would be difficult to deliver the incremental coal needed to accommodate a sudden surge in coal liquification demand accross the country.


You would build coal liquification plants close to the source. No need to transport coal itself cross country.
User avatar
Jonathan_Hoag
Wood
Wood
 
Posts: 38
Joined: Sun 30 Jan 2005, 04:00:00
Top

Re: The Olduvai Theory: Terminal Decline Imminent

Postby Jonathan_Hoag » Tue 13 Feb 2007, 12:50:09

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', '
')Oh, so you think it will be decades before we see $500 oil?


No, I think it will never happen. At least not in 2007 dollars. However think it will take at least a decade or two for oil to go above $100.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')Because it would take decades to utilize alternatives in the manner and scale we utilize oil...not to mention price.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
') And just how is nuclear energy a liquid fuel "alternative"?


1. Plug in hybrids/all electric cars
2. Hydrogen (high T electrolysis)
a. Hydrogen fuel cell/ICE cars
b. use of Hydrogen for F-T synthesis
User avatar
Jonathan_Hoag
Wood
Wood
 
Posts: 38
Joined: Sun 30 Jan 2005, 04:00:00
Top

Re: The Olduvai Theory: Terminal Decline Imminent

Postby Jester » Tue 13 Feb 2007, 13:58:54

Sounds fine eh, $100 fuel whether it's oil or coal derived, everyone will just soak up that extra amount and drive less.

And your food that travels thousands of miles will not double or triple in price? That's ok, just soak up that extra amount too, no problem.

And the goods people need, that also have to be transported, again, bump those costs up even more since there won't be cheap product shipping in from China and Indonesian sweat shops, at least not at anywhere near the prices that we see now. But everyone will just soak up that extra expense, no problem.

Without petroleum derived fertilizers readily available, food production would drop to much lower yields than we see now. How do you counteract less food, just eat less ?

What of lost jobs, which inevitably will happen should the economy start to suffer from higher costs of everything?


Why would there be violence? Simply look throughout history. It's not so much about not having something, if you've never had something, you didn't lose anything. It's about having something and losing it, people don't take well to that and will do what it takes to keep what they have. Look at the switch to virtually barbaric behavior in New Orleans when people didn't have what they needed after merely a few days...
User avatar
Jester
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 204
Joined: Thu 16 Mar 2006, 04:00:00

Re: The Olduvai Theory: Terminal Decline Imminent

Postby DantesPeak » Tue 13 Feb 2007, 14:09:00

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Jonathan_Hoag', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('DantesPeak', ' ')but it would be difficult to deliver the incremental coal needed to accommodate a sudden surge in coal liquification demand accross the country.


You would build coal liquification plants close to the source. No need to transport coal itself cross country.


And then the finished CTL is transported by what? Trucks? Or new pipelines?

Are you aware if there is are a significant number of CTL plants being constructed at this time? (I have not seen much evidence about a program like this underway at this time)
It's already over, now it's just a matter of adjusting.
User avatar
DantesPeak
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 6277
Joined: Sat 23 Oct 2004, 03:00:00
Location: New Jersey
Top

Re: The Olduvai Theory: Terminal Decline Imminent

Postby MonteQuest » Tue 13 Feb 2007, 20:01:07

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('NWMossBack', ' ')But faced with an initial shortfall of just a few percent, isn't it possible we will pick ourselves up after the initial shock and finally get to work on the problem?


Initial shortfall of a few percent? We don't know what the decline rate will be. All we can do is look at the trend. The US, with all it's technology was able to hold a 2% oil decline after 1970's peak. Exsiting fields today are declining at 4 to 5 % with some fields like Cantarell showing 14.5%.

If we use the rule of 70 (which determines doubling or halving rates), 2% decline = 35 years 5% =14 years 14.5% = 4.8 years . The trend seems to be about 8%, which is 50% of our oil production gone in less than 9 years.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I')sn't it possible that after 20 or 30 years of declining energy we are able to harness some new source of energy for growth, or develop a new sustainable economic model?


Depends upon the decline rate, the URR's, and how the economic market reacts to the peaking of oil production.

And my best answer is if we are able to harness some new source of energy 20 to 30 years before fossil fuel energy declines, then we might have a chance. See the Hirsch Report.

And this from Harrison Brown:

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '')Within a period of time which is very short compared with the total span of human history, supplies of fossil fuels will almost certainly be exhausted. This loss will make man completely dependent upon waterpower, atomic energy, and solar energy for driving his machines.

There are no fundamental physical laws which prevent such a transition, and it is quite possible that society will be able to make the change smoothly.

But it is a transition that will happen only once during the lifetime of the human species...if machine civilization should, because of some catastrophe, stop functioning, it will probably never again come into existence.” Harrison Brown -1954


$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'W')e face a grave challenge to be sure, and I am not all that optimistic that we will find a solution, ever. But it seems overly pessimistic and somewhat dogmatic to insist there is no chance at all.


No one has said there is no chance at all. What has been said is that there is no chance given this unsustainable world paradigm path we are on.
A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
User avatar
MonteQuest
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 16593
Joined: Mon 06 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Westboro, MO
Top

Re: The Olduvai Theory: Terminal Decline Imminent

Postby MonteQuest » Tue 13 Feb 2007, 20:19:47

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('NWMossBack', ' ')I could, and others have trotted out many ideas that are summarily dismissed (fusion, solar, bio, etc.) but my point is that dire necessity will trigger NEW solutions that we cannot anticipate now.

For instance when England burned through all it's forests making charcoal, the question on most people's minds was likely "how can we possibly get more trees for charcoal?" when the solution was in the minerals beneath their feet.


Sure, charcoal use caused a serious depletion of England's forests during the 18th century. And while charcoal easily created the heat required to melt tin and copper for bronze, and to smelt pig iron and steel, the production of the large quantities of steel required by a burgeoning modern society using wood was just not scalable.

This was why the move was made to coal. There was no peaking in wood production in the world, only in the forests near the industrial centers.

Going from wood to coal power took 75 years.

A quote by Peter Tertzakian from A Thousand Barrels a Second: The Coming Oil Break Point and the Challenges Facing an Energy Dependent World.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '"')Historically, substitutions in the energy world take a long time and there's no reason to think the next substitution is going to happen overnight. While it's likely that we may not run out of oil before a substitute is found, it will be decades or more into the future before any new solutions make a difference."


It is a mistake to think that the speed of change in the technology world will be mirrored in the energy sphere, as technology is only as good as the energy form that drives it.
A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
User avatar
MonteQuest
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 16593
Joined: Mon 06 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Westboro, MO
Top

Re: The Olduvai Theory: Terminal Decline Imminent

Postby MonteQuest » Tue 13 Feb 2007, 20:25:25

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('NWMossBack', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', 'B')ecause scarcity breeds poverty and poverty breeds conflict. All depends upon the rate and magnitude of change.


MQ: I've been particularly impressed with the quality and depth of your research into topics you weigh in on, but "poverty breeds conflict" sounds more like an article of faith. Conflict is a given I think, but you imply that mayhem will overwhelm the states ability to maintain order. Is there any historical precedent or sociological study you can cite?


No, I maintain that we will fight our neighbors over resources.

Historical precedent? All wars.
A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
User avatar
MonteQuest
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 16593
Joined: Mon 06 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Westboro, MO
Top

Re: The Olduvai Theory: Terminal Decline Imminent

Postby MonteQuest » Tue 13 Feb 2007, 20:30:00

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Jonathan_Hoag', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('DantesPeak', ' ')but it would be difficult to deliver the incremental coal needed to accommodate a sudden surge in coal liquification demand accross the country.


You would build coal liquification plants close to the source. No need to transport coal itself cross country.


Then you would have to build the transport lines to deliver the finished product. We already have such an infrastructure to deliver refined products from oil and gas. You posit we should build another system just for CTL?
A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
User avatar
MonteQuest
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 16593
Joined: Mon 06 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Westboro, MO
Top

Re: The Olduvai Theory: Terminal Decline Imminent

Postby MonteQuest » Tue 13 Feb 2007, 20:37:23

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Jonathan_Hoag', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', '
')Oh, so you think it will be decades before we see $500 oil?


No, I think it will never happen. At least not in 2007 dollars. However think it will take at least a decade or two for oil to go above $100.


So, you see peak oil as a decade or two away?

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
') And just how is nuclear energy a liquid fuel "alternative"?


1. Plug in hybrids/all electric cars
2. Hydrogen (high T electrolysis)
a. Hydrogen fuel cell/ICE cars
b. use of Hydrogen for F-T synthesis
[/quote]

We don't have the grid infrastructure to handle the transmission of that much new electrical demand. Who is going to pay to turn over the fleet? Toyota Prius's are now stacked up on new car lots begging for buyers. Hybrids take more energy to build than a conventional car. Another new energy consumer is a solution?

Hydrogen? Create a new energy consumer to solve an energy crisis?

You must want to continue "happy motoring" at all costs.
A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
User avatar
MonteQuest
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 16593
Joined: Mon 06 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Westboro, MO
Top

Re: The Olduvai Theory: Terminal Decline Imminent

Postby nth » Tue 13 Feb 2007, 21:46:28

People need to stop claiming high transport prices will end global trade. The perdcentage costs of transporting goods are so low that transport price will never stop global trade. Global trade will stop way before the costs of transportation rises out of control. It will stop due to other issues like lack of demand of goods due to lack of spending power after peak energy.
User avatar
nth
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1978
Joined: Thu 24 Feb 2005, 04:00:00

Re: The Olduvai Theory: Terminal Decline Imminent

Postby NWMossBack » Tue 13 Feb 2007, 22:34:04

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', 'I')f we use the rule of 70 (which determines doubling or halving rates), 2% decline = 35 years 5% =14 years 14.5% = 4.8 years . The trend seems to be about 8%, which is 50% of our oil production gone in less than 9 years.


OK, so it seems at least possible that with conservation & efficiency gradually reducing demand and a combination of alternate transport technologies gradually ramping up we can fill that 50% gap in 9 years. Someone else pointed out that there doesn't have to be a single "silver bullet" solution, and I haven't seen if you ever responded to that.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', 'N')o, I maintain that we will fight our neighbors over resources.

Historical precedent? All wars.


I could quibble with "all wars" but I get your point.

This thread is titled "...Terminal Decline Imminent" and I took that to mean an end to industrial civilization and population die-off. Ending civilization via warfare would absolutely require a massive nuclear exchange, don't you think? Historical precedent suggests that is not likely. Wars for resources, while obviously sucking for those in possesion of the coveted resources, does not equal the end of civilization IMO.
User avatar
NWMossBack
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 202
Joined: Wed 24 Jan 2007, 04:00:00
Location: Pacific NW USA
Top

Re: The Olduvai Theory: Terminal Decline Imminent

Postby Tyler_JC » Tue 13 Feb 2007, 23:06:12

In Europe, the extra oil tax money goes to the government. All of those high gas taxes don't vanish from the European economy. Instead, the extra revenue is used to pay for social programs, roads, etc.

In the United States, extra money spent on oil would go to...Saudi Arabia and Nigeria to be siphoned off by dictators to buy weapons of war.
"www.peakoil.com is the Myspace of the Apocalypse."
Tyler_JC
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 5438
Joined: Sat 25 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Boston, MA

PreviousNext

Return to Peak Oil Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests

cron