Life After The Oil Crash

[UncleJoseph]

Anyone reading Life After The Oil Crash website? There's a bit of doomsday predictiveness coming from the author, but it's a provocative read, nonetheless. I found a lot of parallels, even if I don't necessarily think the end of the world is coming (due to oil consumption anyway). Lots of good preparedness materials, no matter what ignites the apocalypse.

[Salvation122]

Peak Oil is largely bullshit.

We really don't know how much is available off shore, because doing exploratory digging there is currently not worth it; however, as existing reserves start to fall off, it will make financial sense to do so. Proven reserves are exceptionally unlikely to be the only oil on the planet.

Additionally I'm pretty sure Russia's not even really sure how much they have, for the same reasons. And TDP makes it all a completely moot point anyway; turns out alchemy works.

[Salvation122]

Oh wow, this guy has absolutely no concept of how economics works. This is just sad.

[Serious Paul]

I generally picture people speaking like they post, which is I often wonder if Sal has any friends at all. Or if they're all just dicks like the tone of his posts come off as.

[UncleJoseph]

We really don't know how much is available off shore, because doing exploratory digging there is currently not worth it; however, as existing reserves start to fall off, it will make financial sense to do so. Proven reserves are exceptionally unlikely to be the only oil on the planet.

That's kind of the point of the much of the rant on the website. We won't likely run out of oil for a very, very long time. But once proven reserves are depleted, the oil that remains will be very expensive and difficult to retrieve, pushing prices much higher. There are 2 things on the site that ring true:

1. Progress and the development of civilization depend largely, if not totally, on the availability of cheap and plentiful energy.

2. The transition to a new energy infrastructure will cause an increase in energy consumption in the current infrastructure for at least as long as the transition takes place, and energy consumption always increases over time.

Why do you think the Peak Oil argument is largely bullshit? TDP works, as does ethanol production from algae, but neither technology is even close to being ready to replace petrol.

[Salvation122]

I generally picture people speaking like they post, which is I often wonder if Sal has any friends at all. Or if they're all just dicks like the tone of his posts come off as.

I think my antecedent may have been unclear in that second post, as well - "this guy" was referring to the author of that website, not UJ. UJ's a pretty stand-up guy, especially for a cop.

I'm actually pretty quiet (and genial) in person. And I figure everyone here has a pretty thick skin, so I don't hold back much.

I've got an in-depth reply in the works to you, Uncle Joseph, but a friend just called me to run out for lunch. Should be up before the end of the night.

[DV8]

I think it might be the finality with which you judge other people's ideas on economics and politics especially that rub some people the wrong way. Especially considering what I find to be certain deeply flawed financial principles you have defended in the past, in particular your ideas about debt, national as well as personal. I guess that type of confident dirision works among some people you know, but perhaps you shouldn't rely on it too much here, where, I feel, you are surrounded by your intellectual peers. (I certainly don't count myself in that group.) Then that abbrassiveness isn't mistaken for confidence, but just seen as...abbrassiveness.

[Serious Paul]

I think my antecedent may have been unclear in that second post, as well - "this guy" was referring to the author of that website, not UJ. UJ's a pretty stand-up guy, especially for a cop.

No, no I got all of that.

[Salvation122]

That's kind of the point of the much of the rant on the website. We won't likely run out of oil for a very, very long time. But once proven reserves are depleted, the oil that remains will be very expensive and difficult to retrieve, pushing prices much higher.

Proven reserves are not expected to be depleted for another two or three decades, by which point we'll almost certainly have cracked fusion (and other renewable energy sources will be significantly more efficient.)

Additionally, note that people have been doomsaying about peak oil for going on thirty years now. Oil's always expected to peak within the next ten years. Then we find another big deposit, or learn how to drill sideways, and it gets pushed back. With current technology, we may reach peak oil in ten or twenty years. In ten or twenty years, we'll have better ways of extracting oil, which will push the peak back again. You can't do it indefinitely - there is a finite amount of oil - but there's no reason at all to believe that our demise is imminent.

2. The transition to a new energy infrastructure will cause an increase in energy consumption in the current infrastructure for at least as long as the transition takes place, and energy consumption always increases over time.

This is true. That increase is not necessarily significant, though, and in fact probably really isn't notable at all unless you're doing totally crazy stuff. For example, it takes a lot of steel and concrete to build a nuclear power plant, but as a percentage increase in steel and concrete production, the extra amount used isn't even worth mentioning unless you build them en mass over the same timeframe.

TDP works, as does ethanol production from algae, but neither technology is even close to being ready to replace petrol.

TDP is ready, it just needs to be expanded (and the fossil fuel investment in each new plant actually decreases exponentially as you build more of them, since you'll be using some of the fuel the plant produces to build new facilities.) Honestly, I don't understand why Congress hasn't pushed the hell out of it. It shouldn't exactly be difficult to sell "cheap gas made out of trash" to the American public.

A lot of other less-sexy (and thus less-publicized) ideas are being worked on now, as well. Waste-water treatment plants and landfills, for example, put out a hell of a lot of methane, which is generally just burned off. A very good friend of mine worked on a way to make that actually do something productive over the summer, and will likely get a very good job continuing that work next year after he graduates. (Frankly, I don't understand why you can't just slap a steam turbine on the end of the methane line and call it a day, but that's why he's an engineer and I'm not.)

The only thing that's going to truly, truly suck about peak oil is getting our transportation infrastructure switched over to something not-oil, but it's certainly doable. The end is not extremely fucking nigh.

(If there's any interest, I can go into excruciating detail about why Matt Savinar needs to take some more advanced econ courses. I actually had a bunch of that written up, but excised it as it wasn't really relevant to the discussion at hand.)

[UncleJoseph]

Proven reserves are not expected to be depleted for another two or three decades, by which point we'll almost certainly have cracked fusion (and other renewable energy sources will be significantly more efficient.)

Additionally, note that people have been doomsaying about peak oil for going on thirty years now. Oil's always expected to peak within the next ten years. Then we find another big deposit, or learn how to drill sideways, and it gets pushed back. With current technology, we may reach peak oil in ten or twenty years. In ten or twenty years, we'll have better ways of extracting oil, which will push the peak back again. You can't do it indefinitely - there is a finite amount of oil - but there's no reason at all to believe that our demise is imminent.

We are mostly in agreement here. I think that oil supply will dwindle a little faster, and we may end up in a real (not political) energy crunch before fusion and other technologies are ready to bear the load. New recovery techniques and new discoveries will push the supply of oil farther than most oil doomsayers say it will last. But oil production will start to fall off. We may end up with peaks and valleys in the oil production graph, but the trend will ultimately show a decrease.

TDP is ready, it just needs to be expanded (and the fossil fuel investment in each new plant actually decreases exponentially as you build more of them, since you'll be using some of the fuel the plant produces to build new facilities.) Honestly, I don't understand why Congress hasn't pushed the hell out of it. It shouldn't exactly be difficult to sell "cheap gas made out of trash" to the American public.

Part of why I think that TDP and some other methods aren't ready to replace a lot of oil-based energy, is because they're not currently cost-effective compared to oil. With a lot of support from Congress and widespread use, they would be. They're just not quite there yet. And the main reason: Oil is still much cheaper to use, and the oil industry has a stranglehold on the energy market. It will take a long time to dislodge oil as our #1 choice for consumable energy. It might take huge shortages, or maybe people will finally realize that our oil addiction needs to be addressed before it's too late.

(If there's any interest, I can go into excruciating detail about why Matt Savinar needs to take some more advanced econ courses. I actually had a bunch of that written up, but excised it as it wasn't really relevant to the discussion at hand.)

Well, the one thing I agree with Savinar about, is that economic growth and development depends on cheap accessible energy, particularly in the transportation markets. Just as we saw last summer, significant increases in transportation costs have a dramatic effect on the price of goods and service. It was short-lived last summer, due to the price increases being based almost solely on speculation (i.e. fear). But real shortages in supply will have similar, if not worse, effects on the economy.

[Salvation122]

Part of why I think that TDP and some other methods aren't ready to replace a lot of oil-based energy, is because they're not currently cost-effective compared to oil. With a lot of support from Congress and widespread use, they would be. They're just not quite there yet.

Really, the only thing TDP needs is cheaper feedstocks, which can quite easily be legislated. The only reason it's not cost effective at the plant in Carthage is because the company bet on turkey offal being outlawed as livestock feed, and getting it for free, which ended up not happening. If we mandate that organic waste in the US is dumped into TDP plants, we'll very easily have enough energy to power the US indefinitely. The amount of food we throw away alone is truly phenomenal.

Unfortunately, because TDP pumps out texas light sweet crude, it's not favored by most alternative-energy nuts because it still increases carbon levels (albeit less than traditional oil, as the carbon isn't sequestered.) But you would also largely eliminate landfills - and other than a pretty terrible smell, TDP doesn't produce any harmful waste.

(If there's any interest, I can go into excruciating detail about why Matt Savinar needs to take some more advanced econ courses. I actually had a bunch of that written up, but excised it as it wasn't really relevant to the discussion at hand.)

Well, the one thing I agree with Savinar about, is that economic growth and development depends on cheap accessible energy, particularly in the transportation markets. Just as we saw last summer, significant increases in transportation costs have a dramatic effect on the price of goods and service. It was short-lived last summer, due to the price increases being based almost solely on speculation (i.e. fear). But real shortages in supply will have similar, if not worse, effects on the economy.

[/quote]
And that's true. But the lengths to which he takes it aren't. A 4% shortfall in production does not cause a 500% increase in gasoline; that's oil execs being dicks. High oil prices may have marginally contributed to the recession, but the real estate market imploding and the credit crunch was inevitable. (That's the one that made me claim he knew nothing of economics.) The US defaulting on its debt would cause global economic collapse, but the US shows absolutely no signs of being anywhere near having to default on its debt, although debt reduction would be a good thing. And so forth.

Additionally, a big chunk of his cites are either to other peak-oil blogs/sites, or to "alternative" media sites with no credibility whatsoever (such as Guerrilla News Network.)

[WillyGilligan]

Part of why I think that TDP and some other methods aren't ready to replace a lot of oil-based energy, is because they're not currently cost-effective compared to oil. With a lot of support from Congress and widespread use, they would be. They're just not quite there yet.

Really, the only thing TDP needs is cheaper feedstocks, which can quite easily be legislated. The only reason it's not cost effective at the plant in Carthage is because the company bet on turkey offal being outlawed as livestock feed, and getting it for free, which ended up not happening. If we mandate that organic waste in the US is dumped into TDP plants, we'll very easily have enough energy to power the US indefinitely. The amount of food we throw away alone is truly phenomenal.

Unfortunately, because TDP pumps out texas light sweet crude, it's not favored by most alternative-energy nuts because it still increases carbon levels (albeit less than traditional oil, as the carbon isn't sequestered.) But you would also largely eliminate landfills - and other than a pretty terrible smell, TDP doesn't produce any harmful waste.

The last time I looked at TDP I read that they'd gotten a low grade heating oil out of the process. Good to hear they've improved. Do you have any recent sources?

[3278]

Peak Oil is largely bullshit.

Well, that's self-evidently untrue. There will certainly come a time when oil production reaches its maximum. The only question is when that is, and why it will happen.

We really don't know how much is available off shore, because doing exploratory digging there is currently not worth it...

With any luck, we won't get to that point, because offshore oil drilling is spectacularly bad for the things that live offshore, and removing the rigs once they're there is expensive and very tricky, and could fall afoul of the same problems we're having with mine reclamation in the US, namely that it's so expensive to do, shell companies are created to own the property, which then declare bankruptcy when the costs come due, allowing the same people to then set up a new shell and move on. The monolithic nature of the oil companies, and their [relatively newfound but profoundly fortunate] concern over environmental impact has largely prevented this in the past, but there is no assurance such would continue in the future if profits were available in doing so.

And TDP makes it all a completely moot point anyway; turns out alchemy works.

I'm the king of TDP advocacy, but the fact is, the only company making a real go at it has filed for bankruptcy. Some of that is what I'd call massive mismanagement, but some is also down to the realities of what they're making and what has to be done to it before you can shove it in our tanks. And in the very, very best case, all it does is prolong the agony; we need a new type of fuel. TDP is the best stopgap I know of - miles better than the goat rodeo of environmental devastation that is ethanol - but it's still a stopgap, and I for one can't quite bring myself to lean on TDP as a realistic alternative until someone actually makes a real go of it.

I think it should be us: we should take a Bulldrek collection, buy the patent, manage it properly, and invest the profits in a real alternative source of energy. Then Dennis could get off Sam's back about working for the enemy, too.

Proven reserves are not expected to be depleted for another two or three decades, by which point we'll almost certainly have cracked fusion...

That's optimistic. We've never reached ignition, so I'd say it's not too likely we'll have anything like widespread deployment of fusion reactors in three decades, which is what we'd need to make up for oil depletion; we'd also need a few other things, like, I don't know, a complete replacement of our transportation fleet.

Additionally, note that people have been doomsaying about peak oil for going on thirty years now.

You're not wrong. They've also been claiming we'll reach fusion ignition for 30 years now; I've got a book from 1978 that's quite certain we'll have widespread fusion power by the end of the century, and, you know, we don't. All this tells us is that people are terrible predictors of the future.

2. The transition to a new energy infrastructure will cause an increase in energy consumption in the current infrastructure for at least as long as the transition takes place, and energy consumption always increases over time.

This is true. That increase is not necessarily significant, though, and in fact probably really isn't notable at all unless you're doing totally crazy stuff.

We're literally talking about a worldwide elimination or drastic reduction of all petrochemical use; almost by definition, this is going to require crazy stuff. The energy required to convert my Cherokee to run on batteries isn't of global significance, but the energy required to do it for every car in the world, yes, is. Now, we don't have to get rid of every petrochem-using device - we should still have some petrochemicals for a while, through TDP if nothing else, but any meaningful conversion will require meaningful energy, which will need to last at least the duration of the changeover.

The only thing that's going to truly, truly suck about peak oil is getting our transportation infrastructure switched over to something not-oil, but it's certainly doable. The end is not extremely fucking nigh.

"Nigh" is one of those words, like "extremely," that's superbly relative. I think in centuries, at best, so to me, this is pretty fucking nigh, but if you're thinking in years or election cycles, maybe not so much. But centuries or years, the fact is we're better off solving the problems now - or at least finding the solutions, even if, like Mars colonization, it might be cheaper and more efficient later - than waiting until peak to realize we need to start weaning and converting, because by then, it will be, if not "too late," certainly extremely inconvenient.

[paladin2019]

(Caveat everything to follow with I haven't read this article, I just think about professional questions like how do I get gas for the tanks and how do I feed the tankers.)

The biggest risk I see is to the rest of the world. The US can feed itself without oil, if need be, but that means our surplus will be nil. And that's another disaster for Africa.

How? One class of persons in the US is still subject to involuntary servitude, prisoners. And what country has the largest proportion of its population incarcerated? And to make it "icky," who do we "disproportionately" incarcerate? If we ever hit peak oil, chain gangs will return and McD's et al may go the way of the dodo.

Fuel for the military itself? FCS is supposed to be hydrogen fuel cell powered. That doesn't help on the aviation front yet, but the tanks can roll. But FCS got its funding cut for FY10 because it's not what we need in the "A-stan" or "I-Whack"....

</random thoughts>

[Sam]

Then Dennis could get off Sam's back about working for the enemy, too.

Horray! Hurry up then.

Working for an oil major, and in comms (meaning I doubled up on the Kool Aid during my onboarding) has me itching to jump into the fray. But you'll understand if I say I can't? But know that I am shouting at my monitor all the way through this thread.

[UncleJoseph]

What I don't understand, is why these oil megacorps aren't setting themselves up to be the future energy providers when the infrastructure switch happens. Sure, BP makes a lot of solar panels, but they're not really lobbying or pushing for solar tech. You'd think that some of the shareholders would want to get into the game early, so that when the "big switch" happens (even if it's over 50 years), they're postured to reap the benefits. Of course, they already are doing this, to a degree. But not nearly as aggressive as I'd be doing it.

Again, though this has more to do with immediate profits...in terms of fiscal quarters instead of quarters of a century.

[3278]

What I don't understand, is why these oil megacorps aren't setting themselves up to be the future energy providers when the infrastructure switch happens.

This has never made sense to me. You see this over and over throughout history, where a new technology comes along and the people doing it the old way see it as a threat and fight it. Jesus shit, guy, if it's good enough to be a threat, invest in it like crazy! You can't go into every stupid thing that comes along, but there are actually people who are pretty good at telling the "stupid things" from the "future of humanity things." Then, when your business model starts to crumble, you're already set up.

It's like the Luddites. If you realize that weaving machines are a threat to your livelihood, don't break them: buy them or build them or steal them.