09-23-2014, 01:00 PM
First off, let's take a look at just what is meant by 'peak oil' and what various people think about it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_oil
In a nutshell, not everyone agrees with the peak oil theory and even its proponents and originator point out that the issue of when/if it has or will occur is more complex than has been presented here so far. In particular, the idea that 'peak oil' has already happened is not universally agreed upon. In addition, the article indicates that 'peak oil' can have several impacts, some even seen as positive, and that it need not automatically lead to the collapse of civilization.
In addition, peak oil seems to mean the peak of conventional oil production, not every form of petroleum (oil sands, etc.) on the planet, nor does it seem to take into account natural gas (at least the article here didn't include it - maybe others do).
Beyond that, it would not be necessary to replace every car on the road or all of the infrastructure before hydrogen (or whatever) could be used as motor fuel any more than it is necessary to build an entire alternative energy infrastructure across the entire planet before any part of it can be used. That does not logically follow.
As solar and other systems come online they reduce oil consumption, meaning that oil reserves are extended. As increased efficiency, recycling, and conservation technologies come online (and many of these can potentially come online very quickly since they mainly involve changes in behavior), resources, including oil, are extended. As alternative fuels are developed, including such things as making jet fuel from sea water or bacteria that generate hydrocarbons (fuel) as a waste product or hydrogen fuels, or whatever, existing oil reserves are extended.
In addition, even once peak oil is reached, this does not mean that all oil production comes to a screeching halt and all the pumps run dry overnight. What it does mean is that prices would rise significantly. At which point, various other options suddenly become more economically attractive and competitive with petroleum and it seems likely that increased resources will be spent on them, driving their price down and making them yet more competitive. Also, based on past observed behavior, people begin changing their behavior and conserving more, buying smaller and more fuel efficient vehicles, etc.
A major flaw I'm seeing in your argument here is that you keep treating the issue as a 100% either/or situation. Either we replace 100% of existing energy infrastructure before peak oil is reached or within X number of years after or it is as if absolutely nothing whatsoever had been done at all. This does not logically or accurately reflect the more likely scenario of various efforts gaining greater and greater 'market share' and competitiveness as time goes on and oil supplies drop and prices rise. It also does not consider the possibility of technological advance or innovation in any form, nor changes in people's behaviors (buying habits, energy usage, travel habits). While such things are not guaranteed by any means, neither are they guaranteed to not happen at all. However, even if we ignore new technology beyond what is in the lab and in the field now, we still go back to the issue that alternative systems are often growing at a steady rate, and therefore impacting the overall energy equation, vs not existing at all.
Yes, you've pointed out that many renewable systems are insufficient by themselves to meet global energy needs (although that does not preclude them meeting some percentage of the, I'd point out), referencing the Sustainable Energy without the hot air publication. A further read into that work also shows that he concludes that the US could use solar energy to provide power to all of North America at US levels (I'm sure the Canadians will be thrilled), while a similar system in North Africa could power much of Europe - although the political situation in that case could be...interesting. Of course, other parts of the world would also ideally get power from somewhere, but there are various options, including some the publication doesn't discuss such as ocean thermal.
So basically, the publication you yourself reference says that the situation is potentially solvable, if we as a civilization have the will. That point (whether or not we have the will) can be argued, but gets us into issues of politics and philosophy, neither of which are readily quantifiable.
It should be noted that Europe has much higher gas prices than the US, yet is not exactly a dystopian wasteland just because its people don't drive around as much and use much less energy than the US (at least none of the several Europeans on this forum have complained AFAIK). It should also be noted that the US (and a big chunk of the rest of the world) went through the decade plus of the Great Depression without our civilization collapsing. The people of Britain took being repeatedly bombed by the Nazi war machine without their civilization collapsing. During WWII, gasoline and much else in the US was strictly rationed, people grew 'victory gardens' to stretch food supplies, and generally life was not a cakewalk. But people kept it up for years on end and they got through it. So far I've yet to hear any argument presented here as to why people wouldn't or couldn't take analogous measures in the event of a pending energy crunch that don't more or less sum up to 'people are just no damn good'. Which is certainly one philosophy and a statement of opinion, but isn't equivalent to numbers saying it can't be done at all.
So, basically, while it is certainly possible that the depletion of world petroleum supplies will lead to various negative effects, up to and including the collapse of civilization, that is by no means an assured outcome, either in general, or if some particularly favored course of action is not followed.
Speaking of favored courses of action, at several points in this thread I've had the sense that you have a very definite idea of what your favored response to this potential issue is, whether it be mentioning various 'sustainable tech when the collapse comes' items or forums or saying you want to 'preserve what we have for future generations'. Perhaps I'm just misunderstanding you on these points, in which case my apologies in advance. But otherwise, it would probably save a lot of time and additional trips around the debate bush if you just told us what you viewed as a preferred solution to this potential problem (because it (collapse of civilization) is a potential problem, not a guaranteed one, by any means).
Todd
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_oil
In a nutshell, not everyone agrees with the peak oil theory and even its proponents and originator point out that the issue of when/if it has or will occur is more complex than has been presented here so far. In particular, the idea that 'peak oil' has already happened is not universally agreed upon. In addition, the article indicates that 'peak oil' can have several impacts, some even seen as positive, and that it need not automatically lead to the collapse of civilization.
In addition, peak oil seems to mean the peak of conventional oil production, not every form of petroleum (oil sands, etc.) on the planet, nor does it seem to take into account natural gas (at least the article here didn't include it - maybe others do).
Beyond that, it would not be necessary to replace every car on the road or all of the infrastructure before hydrogen (or whatever) could be used as motor fuel any more than it is necessary to build an entire alternative energy infrastructure across the entire planet before any part of it can be used. That does not logically follow.
As solar and other systems come online they reduce oil consumption, meaning that oil reserves are extended. As increased efficiency, recycling, and conservation technologies come online (and many of these can potentially come online very quickly since they mainly involve changes in behavior), resources, including oil, are extended. As alternative fuels are developed, including such things as making jet fuel from sea water or bacteria that generate hydrocarbons (fuel) as a waste product or hydrogen fuels, or whatever, existing oil reserves are extended.
In addition, even once peak oil is reached, this does not mean that all oil production comes to a screeching halt and all the pumps run dry overnight. What it does mean is that prices would rise significantly. At which point, various other options suddenly become more economically attractive and competitive with petroleum and it seems likely that increased resources will be spent on them, driving their price down and making them yet more competitive. Also, based on past observed behavior, people begin changing their behavior and conserving more, buying smaller and more fuel efficient vehicles, etc.
A major flaw I'm seeing in your argument here is that you keep treating the issue as a 100% either/or situation. Either we replace 100% of existing energy infrastructure before peak oil is reached or within X number of years after or it is as if absolutely nothing whatsoever had been done at all. This does not logically or accurately reflect the more likely scenario of various efforts gaining greater and greater 'market share' and competitiveness as time goes on and oil supplies drop and prices rise. It also does not consider the possibility of technological advance or innovation in any form, nor changes in people's behaviors (buying habits, energy usage, travel habits). While such things are not guaranteed by any means, neither are they guaranteed to not happen at all. However, even if we ignore new technology beyond what is in the lab and in the field now, we still go back to the issue that alternative systems are often growing at a steady rate, and therefore impacting the overall energy equation, vs not existing at all.
Yes, you've pointed out that many renewable systems are insufficient by themselves to meet global energy needs (although that does not preclude them meeting some percentage of the, I'd point out), referencing the Sustainable Energy without the hot air publication. A further read into that work also shows that he concludes that the US could use solar energy to provide power to all of North America at US levels (I'm sure the Canadians will be thrilled), while a similar system in North Africa could power much of Europe - although the political situation in that case could be...interesting. Of course, other parts of the world would also ideally get power from somewhere, but there are various options, including some the publication doesn't discuss such as ocean thermal.
So basically, the publication you yourself reference says that the situation is potentially solvable, if we as a civilization have the will. That point (whether or not we have the will) can be argued, but gets us into issues of politics and philosophy, neither of which are readily quantifiable.
It should be noted that Europe has much higher gas prices than the US, yet is not exactly a dystopian wasteland just because its people don't drive around as much and use much less energy than the US (at least none of the several Europeans on this forum have complained AFAIK). It should also be noted that the US (and a big chunk of the rest of the world) went through the decade plus of the Great Depression without our civilization collapsing. The people of Britain took being repeatedly bombed by the Nazi war machine without their civilization collapsing. During WWII, gasoline and much else in the US was strictly rationed, people grew 'victory gardens' to stretch food supplies, and generally life was not a cakewalk. But people kept it up for years on end and they got through it. So far I've yet to hear any argument presented here as to why people wouldn't or couldn't take analogous measures in the event of a pending energy crunch that don't more or less sum up to 'people are just no damn good'. Which is certainly one philosophy and a statement of opinion, but isn't equivalent to numbers saying it can't be done at all.
So, basically, while it is certainly possible that the depletion of world petroleum supplies will lead to various negative effects, up to and including the collapse of civilization, that is by no means an assured outcome, either in general, or if some particularly favored course of action is not followed.
Speaking of favored courses of action, at several points in this thread I've had the sense that you have a very definite idea of what your favored response to this potential issue is, whether it be mentioning various 'sustainable tech when the collapse comes' items or forums or saying you want to 'preserve what we have for future generations'. Perhaps I'm just misunderstanding you on these points, in which case my apologies in advance. But otherwise, it would probably save a lot of time and additional trips around the debate bush if you just told us what you viewed as a preferred solution to this potential problem (because it (collapse of civilization) is a potential problem, not a guaranteed one, by any means).
Todd