Peak Oil?

[forrestkc]

If we ever do use up the oil, we will use something else. Look back in history. Do you not remember that as the whales were beginning to disappear, everyone was wondering where they would get fuel for their lamps. Entire cities were lit by whale oil. Whale fishing stopped, the world did not end.

The question is not whether we use up the oil. We won't use up all the oil for at least another 100 to 150 years. The problem is that once you have used up half of the world's recoverable oil, you can't continue to increase production to meet world demand and while this would not be the end of the world, it would result in severe worldwide economic depression until new sources of energy were found and developed and frankly there is simply nothing on the horizon with the kind of energy return of oil.

And - this may be implied in your argument, but it's a point worth bringing out - while the original idea that "Hubbert's Peak" was going to come up around, well, NOW, has been proven incorrect as we discover more and more smaller reserves, the most pressing issue isn't that we'll run out of oil, it's that the remaining oil is in harder to reach places. Eventually the cost of getting to a smaller amount of oil is prohibitive, even with increasing demand.

Ok, but wait, if I am not mistaken, the rate of new discoveries is being outstripped by both demand and oil field depletion. I don't believe that Hubbert's Peak means that no new oil will be discovered. Indeed, new reserves have been discovered in the United States over the last 37 years. However, we are still at half the production levels we were when we peaked in 1970.

[forrestkc]

If we ever do use up the oil, we will use something else. Look back in history. Do you not remember that as the whales were beginning to disappear, everyone was wondering where they would get fuel for their lamps. Entire cities were lit by whale oil. Whale fishing stopped, the world did not end.

The question is not whether we use up the oil. We won't use up all the oil for at least another 100 to 150 years. The problem is that once you have used up half of the world's recoverable oil, you can't continue to increase production to meet world demand and while this would not be the end of the world, it would result in severe worldwide economic depression until new sources of energy were found and developed and frankly there is simply nothing on the horizon with the kind of energy return of oil.

When demand exceeds supply, demand will be altered. There are plenty of alternative fuels available. Bio diesel is a much more viable option the ethanol.

The problem with alternative fuels is that the cost of producing them is pretty much equivalent to the energy returned. There is a lot of promise with algae based ethanol fuels, but the production costs per-acre needs to be reduced substantially. In the short term, coal liquefaction with carbon sequestration on the production side holds the most promise. At any rate, we need to get the ball rolling now rather than waiting until we hit crisis mode.

[EricH]

If we ever do use up the oil, we will use something else. Look back in history. Do you not remember that as the whales were beginning to disappear, everyone was wondering where they would get fuel for their lamps. Entire cities were lit by whale oil. Whale fishing stopped, the world did not end.

The question is not whether we use up the oil. We won't use up all the oil for at least another 100 to 150 years. The problem is that once you have used up half of the world's recoverable oil, you can't continue to increase production to meet world demand and while this would not be the end of the world, it would result in severe worldwide economic depression until new sources of energy were found and developed and frankly there is simply nothing on the horizon with the kind of energy return of oil.

And - this may be implied in your argument, but it's a point worth bringing out - while the original idea that "Hubbert's Peak" was going to come up around, well, NOW, has been proven incorrect as we discover more and more smaller reserves, the most pressing issue isn't that we'll run out of oil, it's that the remaining oil is in harder to reach places. Eventually the cost of getting to a smaller amount of oil is prohibitive, even with increasing demand.

Ok, but wait, if I am not mistaken, the rate of new discoveries is being outstripped by both demand and oil field depletion. I don't believe that Hubbert's Peak means that no new oil will be discovered. Indeed, new reserves have been discovered in the United States over the last 37 years. However, we are still at half the production levels we were when we peaked in 1970.

As with most shortage issues, it is not a matter of supply or demand. It is a matter of distribution channels

[hr.jr.]

If we ever do use up the oil, we will use something else. Look back in history. Do you not remember that as the whales were beginning to disappear, everyone was wondering where they would get fuel for their lamps. Entire cities were lit by whale oil. Whale fishing stopped, the world did not end.

The question is not whether we use up the oil. We won't use up all the oil for at least another 100 to 150 years. The problem is that once you have used up half of the world's recoverable oil, you can't continue to increase production to meet world demand and while this would not be the end of the world, it would result in severe worldwide economic depression until new sources of energy were found and developed and frankly there is simply nothing on the horizon with the kind of energy return of oil.

When demand exceeds supply, demand will be altered. There are plenty of alternative fuels available. Bio diesel is a much more viable option the ethanol.

The problem with alternative fuels is that the cost of producing them is pretty much equivalent to the energy returned. There is a lot of promise with algae based ethanol fuels, but the production costs per-acre needs to be reduced substantially. In the short term, coal liquefaction with carbon sequestration on the production side holds the most promise. At any rate, we need to get the ball rolling now rather than waiting until we hit crisis mode.

Bio-diesel is efficiently produced. That is what separates it from Ethanol.

[irishcowboy]

what about Nuke Power,

clean,

cheap,

and actually less radioactive waste put into the atmosphere then with a coal burning plant...... (burning coal does put radioactive waste into the atmosphere).....

the last one built in the USA (If i am not mistaken) was in the 1980's.......

Wolfe Creek Power Plant is still running good..... and is still safe......

the only problems is when people have purposely caused faults, or did not follow several SOP's....... and were not stopped, meaning several other people knew what was going on and did nothing about it.....

there are power plants that have been going for about 50 years, and still running smooth....

(a family of 4, living in an all electric house, with nuke power, would have the radioactive waste about the size of a quarter in about a year..... the same family, receiving their power from a coal burning plant, would have the waste of about 2 tons of radioactive waste...... )

which would you rather see????

mike

[georgesbluegirl]

If we ever do use up the oil, we will use something else. Look back in history. Do you not remember that as the whales were beginning to disappear, everyone was wondering where they would get fuel for their lamps. Entire cities were lit by whale oil. Whale fishing stopped, the world did not end.

The question is not whether we use up the oil. We won't use up all the oil for at least another 100 to 150 years. The problem is that once you have used up half of the world's recoverable oil, you can't continue to increase production to meet world demand and while this would not be the end of the world, it would result in severe worldwide economic depression until new sources of energy were found and developed and frankly there is simply nothing on the horizon with the kind of energy return of oil.

And - this may be implied in your argument, but it's a point worth bringing out - while the original idea that "Hubbert's Peak" was going to come up around, well, NOW, has been proven incorrect as we discover more and more smaller reserves, the most pressing issue isn't that we'll run out of oil, it's that the remaining oil is in harder to reach places. Eventually the cost of getting to a smaller amount of oil is prohibitive, even with increasing demand.

Ok, but wait, if I am not mistaken, the rate of new discoveries is being outstripped by both demand and oil field depletion. I don't believe that Hubbert's Peak means that no new oil will be discovered. Indeed, new reserves have been discovered in the United States over the last 37 years. However, we are still at half the production levels we were when we peaked in 1970.

As with most shortage issues, it is not a matter of supply or demand. It is a matter of distribution channels

Distribution is partly to do with it, but Forrest is correct in saying that rising demand is part of the problem - if you assume that developing nations with huge populations (India, China) are going to keep needing more and more oil, then demand versus oil available becomes a very real problem (one reason why leaders in both of those countries are starting to look more at alternative forms of energy). Hubbert's peak was the origination of the "peak oil" concept; that eventually we would max out the amount of oil we could draw (at a specifically identified point). Hubbert's peak doesn't mean no new oil would be discovered, it means that at a certain point no additional oil could be drawn, and our rate of withdrawal would then gradually start to fall as resources depleted. Basically, though, the original estimate has been proven incorrect (I think it was supposed to be late-90s or early 2000s), since with better technology we're able to locate more small oil reserves. The limiting factor then isn't really the amount of oil; it's the accessibility of reserves, as well as their size. What I was trying to highlight was the point that at a certain point, when you're maybe looking at 30 small, hard (i.e. expensive)-to-reach reserves instead of one big one to produce the same amount of oil, you really have no choice but to start thinking differently about energy.

[faith pleases God]

If we ever do use up the oil, we will use something else. Look back in history. Do you not remember that as the whales were beginning to disappear, everyone was wondering where they would get fuel for their lamps. Entire cities were lit by whale oil. Whale fishing stopped, the world did not end.

The question is not whether we use up the oil. We won't use up all the oil for at least another 100 to 150 years. The problem is that once you have used up half of the world's recoverable oil, you can't continue to increase production to meet world demand and while this would not be the end of the world, it would result in severe worldwide economic depression until new sources of energy were found and developed and frankly there is simply nothing on the horizon with the kind of energy return of oil.

And - this may be implied in your argument, but it's a point worth bringing out - while the original idea that "Hubbert's Peak" was going to come up around, well, NOW, has been proven incorrect as we discover more and more smaller reserves, the most pressing issue isn't that we'll run out of oil, it's that the remaining oil is in harder to reach places. Eventually the cost of getting to a smaller amount of oil is prohibitive, even with increasing demand.

Ok, but wait, if I am not mistaken, the rate of new discoveries is being outstripped by both demand and oil field depletion. I don't believe that Hubbert's Peak means that no new oil will be discovered. Indeed, new reserves have been discovered in the United States over the last 37 years. However, we are still at half the production levels we were when we peaked in 1970.

As with most shortage issues, it is not a matter of supply or demand. It is a matter of distribution channels

Distribution is partly to do with it, but Forrest is correct in saying that rising demand is part of the problem - if you assume that developing nations with huge populations (India, China) are going to keep needing more and more oil, then demand versus oil available becomes a very real problem (one reason why leaders in both of those countries are starting to look more at alternative forms of energy). Hubbert's peak was the origination of the "peak oil" concept; that eventually we would max out the amount of oil we could draw (at a specifically identified point). Hubbert's peak doesn't mean no new oil would be discovered, it means that at a certain point no additional oil could be drawn, and our rate of withdrawal would then gradually start to fall as resources depleted. Basically, though, the original estimate has been proven incorrect (I think it was supposed to be late-90s or early 2000s), since with better technology we're able to locate more small oil reserves. The limiting factor then isn't really the amount of oil; it's the accessibility of reserves, as well as their size. What I was trying to highlight was the point that at a certain point, when you're maybe looking at 30 small, hard (i.e. expensive)-to-reach reserves instead of one big one to produce the same amount of oil, you really have no choice but to start thinking differently about energy.

To be able to prove when peak oil has plateaued is difficult at best. Disclosure must be trusted. Nevertheless you can bet those who own and control oil supplies have a plan in order already. What that plan is, is a mystery to the masses. The supply is questionable but the demand for now is increasing. Oil is making a few very rich and they are fighting hard to keep away from alternatives for obvious reasons.