Peak Oil Denial: Nonsense, Part 1 of Infinity

At the risk of starting a cat fight where truth may too quickly become a casualty, why don’t we more forcefully challenge those who deny peak oil (and global warming) and who do so for reasons that generally ignore reality in favor of narrowly-defined interests? Those motivations will ultimately do nothing but promote more eventual harm by denying the truths to those who clearly need them the most….
Of course, we run the risk of getting bogged down in he said/she-said arguments that quickly devolve into the lowest forms of ‘debate’, but why let those types of offerings go unchallenged? They feed on themselves, and it is tiresome and time-consuming to have to rebut all the nonsense. But if we don’t, uninformed readers and listeners have no reason to at least consider the possibility that there may indeed be other facts out there that should at least be examined in order to make informed assessments, rather than accepting the words of the few. More information is rarely a bad thing, and giving everyone the opportunity to examine the facts and engage in rational discourse as a means of seeking common ground makes for a healthier and more productive society.

That’s from a post I wrote three years ago, and my attitude hasn’t wavered. The constant flow of articles and opinions give me yet more opportunities to bat down the nonsense passing as advice and learned observations about the world of energy supply.

MY COPY OF THAT ARTICLE IS MISSING EXPLANATIONS

Provided government doesn’t get in the way, the economy can easily adjust to changing oil supplies for three reasons. First, oil is fungible. That means that, once refined, it doesn’t matter whether gasoline or other fuels come from liquid oil in Saudi Arabia, tar sand oil in Alberta, shale oil in North Dakota, or synthetic fuel made from coal in South Africa.
Second, energy is fungible. Different kinds of energy have different characteristics, but ultimately we can power cars and airplanes from electricity generated by nuclear, hydroelectric, or other sources.
Third, saving energy is fungible. We can save more energy by reducing the amount of energy we need to live our current lifestyles than by changing those lifestyles. That means it makes more sense to design more energy-efficient single-family homes than it does to push more people into multifamily housing, just as it makes more sense to buy more fuel-efficient cars than to live less mobile lives. (links in original) [1]

That is so comforting! If it weren’t for the fact that it was mostly nonsense, it would be the answer to almost all of our prayers! Doncha just hate when those lovely bedtime stories are rudely dissembled by an introduction of facts? THIS close to ideology triumphing over truth!

Damn!

First up, the obligatory right-wing talking point: “Provided government doesn’t get in the way.” Right, because we wouldn’t want to put any safeguards or oversight into play. That would benefit consumers and help protect our environment, but what of those poor oil industry souls who won’t be able to just do whatever the hell they want, wherever, whenever, consequences be damned? How fair is that?

FACTS VERSUS WHAT THE …?!

TRUE: “Energy is fungible. Different kinds of energy have different characteristics“

HUH? “[B]ut ultimately we can power cars and airplanes from electricity generated by nuclear, hydroelectric, or other sources.”

Anyone reading anything from Boeing about their electric planes? Hydroelectric car dealerships are springing up everywhere, Right?

This pablum is what passes for intelligent and meaningful conversation from oil industry cheerleaders. Exactly how are consumers benefiting from truckloads of asinine commentary like this? How about a fact or two regarding these revolutionary changes in our energy structure? (There’s a reason why author Randal O’Toole calls himself the Antiplanner.)

The Chevy Volt, Tesla, Nissan Leaf … all wonderful demonstrations of ingenuity and technological prowess. But we’re several hundred million electric cars short of transitioning. That’s not going to happen overnight, or in a decade. It won’t be free, and there will be a few other bumps in the road before we all fall asleep at night to the gentle sounds of electric engines humming in the dark as they’re recharged. (Which company is making extension cords for those electric airplanes?)

I do recall “Doc” telling Michael J. Fox’s character in those delightful Back to the Future movies that he needed nuclear power to run his flux capacitor at a sufficient level of jigawatts, but since then the whole nuclear-powered car process hasn’t gotten much media coverage. Perhaps the Antiplanner can offer up some of his antiFacts to help us out.

As for that third point the Antiplanner raised, any help with some specifics, for-examples, or even a “might possibly”? How exactly does the “We can save more energy by reducing the amount of energy we need to live our current lifestyles than by changing those lifestyles” strategy work here in Reality? Is there a pamphlet we can all get in the mail or our inboxes to help us make that changeover this weekend?

When should we expect the big changeover to single-family home designs and organizing the massive move into them? (Still not clear on that “exactly how do we all go about buying more fuel efficient cars now” explanation, either.)

But, as has been proved time and again, it is too soon to panic. While the task of replacing oil and coal as the main sources of energy driving the world economy has been made all the more urgent by environmental concerns, there is little reason to fear that the oil will run out before an alternative can be found. [2]

Well that certainly doesn’t clear anything up! If it weren’t for the complete absence of anything within a sniff of facts, that might possible serve as perhaps an answer of some kind if some other unspecified information of unclear origins could find their way into the discussion somehow, at some point. (Perhaps if we all click our heels together at the same time, and repeatedly whisper “There’s no place like hope” we’ll find all our problems vanishing into the mist.)

While new exploration and technologies will extend the life of some of the gasping old fields, the long-term downward trend is intact.
The conventional fields are running out of puff just as world demand is climbing again, which can only put upward pressure on prices.
The oil shills, the tech geeks and most, but not all, oil companies would have you believe that non-conventional energy will fill the gap as the cheap, easy-to-pump oil heads gently into the night. It might, but at what price and cost to the environment? Or it might not at any price. [3]

Reality sucks the life out of all the happily-ever-after stories, doesn’t it?

Peak Oil Matters