Oil Production: Will the Peak Hold?

[clv101]

Two questions for RGR:

Hypothetically, will everything be "okay" (economic growth be maintained) if in the near future total energy supply falls?

Does a say 2012 all liquids peak represent a total energy supply peak?

I will make an unequivical statement. No country can be rich without abundant and relatively inexpensive ENERGY.

Of course, we may define both abundant and inexpensive differently. And I said energy, NOT crude oil.

And no, I do not agree that peak oil, at any time, past, present or future, is the equivalent of peak energy. May it be? Yes. Is it likely? I doubt it. Does it even matter? Not necessarily, depending on energy efficiency gains as population growth continues to slow down.

Okay, so you accpet that we need to maintain energy supplies inorder for everything to be okay.

Would I be correct to say that the foundation stone of your belief system in these matters is that whilst you accept peak oil - you don't accept peak energy?

[PS_RalphW]

I will make an unequivical statement. No country can be rich without abundant and relatively inexpensive ENERGY.

Of course, we may define both abundant and inexpensive differently. And I said energy, NOT crude oil.

And no, I do not agree that peak oil, at any time, past, present or future, is the equivalent of peak energy. May it be? Yes. Is it likely? I doubt it. Does it even matter? Not necessarily, depending on energy efficiency gains as population growth continues to slow down.

Hi RGR, the latest post at TOD is another peak FF energy analysis and what to do about it.

http://europe.theoildrum.com/node/3565

It concludes peak energy per capita coincides with peak oil, and peak FF energy will be six years later, in 2018. The 'what to do about it' part is massive investment in nuclear, solar, wind, and 50% improvement in GDP per unit energy.

As far as it goes, I think it is a good analysis on the data we have available. What it does not consider is the other constraints and limits on our finite planet, like fossil aquifers, soil degradation, climate change etc. etc., or the social problems, like that fact that our economic model is based on conspicuous consumption and exponential growth, and our world leaders tend to be a rabid bunch of warmongers.




edited for keyword change.

[Adam1]

Two questions for RGR:

Hypothetically, will everything be "okay" (economic growth be maintained) if in the near future total energy supply falls?

Does a say 2012 all liquids peak represent a total energy supply peak?

I will make an unequivical statement. No country can be rich without abundant and relatively inexpensive ENERGY.

Of course, we may define both abundant and inexpensive differently. And I said energy, NOT crude oil.

And no, I do not agree that peak oil, at any time, past, present or future, is the equivalent of peak energy. May it be? Yes. Is it likely? I doubt it. Does it even matter? Not necessarily, depending on energy efficiency gains as population growth continues to slow down.

I guess that nails things down a bit. I agree that efficiency gains are and will continue to be an important factor in determining how we fare. Whether or not our energy supply peaks and whether it is in the next five or the next thirty-five years are also absolutely key. Efficiency gains will only ameliorate the effects of the decline, they will not allow us to continue growing (energy use/economic growth). The challenges of effecting the rapid energy transition we now need are "unprecedented" in scale and complexity. There is no room for complacency. In fact, if complacency results in poor strategic decisions over the coming decades, complacency could well be our undoing: the thing that makes the doomers' predictions come true.

[emordnilap]

Again, I refer to those figures where population has just over doubled in sixty years but oil consumption has gone up 15+ fold, plus so-called efficiency gains.

How long can this energy usage (and growth) continue? And why?

[RGR]

Would I be correct to say that the foundation stone of your belief system in these matters is that whilst you accept peak oil - you don't accept peak energy?

Absolutely.

[RGR]

[RGR]

[clv101]

I'm sorry...but its a joke...the entire thing. Piling speculation on top of conjecture topped off with acting as though Duncans original work wasn't pseudo science at its worst?

Each of the questions that this scenario tries to answer is its own complex issue, and the authors are just gathering up whatever is handy, slapping it all together, and giving a hearty TA-DAA!

I can build models as well, they are quite easy. Let me give you an example of one you can do yourself.

Take all energy used in the world today, broken up into respective chunks. Fossil fuels, nukes, renewables. Decline crude oil at whatever exponential decline makes you happy, 1%,3%, 5%. Leave other fossil fuels static, during that same time period. Exponentially grow nukes, hydro, solar, and renewables. The goal here is to arrive at the EXACT same per capita useage in 2050 with a population of 9 billion people as we have today, call it 600 quads, up from todays 400.

What do you discover with this little exercise? That you can completely replace the energy from crude with nothing more than a consistent 1-2-3% increase in renewables....not the 20-40% growth the US has been sustaining for years now, just 1-2-3%.

I actually love reading the more complicated TOD models, there are some great ideas wrapped up in there. Unfortunately, as predictors of future performance, they are strictly trendology, they aren't geologically based ( which is where this question SHOULD be fought ), they don't consider basic economic parameters ( which is where this question should be fought if you want to ignore geologogy ), they can't account for singularities at all and ignore the possibility of them completely, and I didn't see a single probabilistic estimate anywhere in the entire thing to allow for scaling the events in question.

Can you add this comment to The Oil Drum discussion? Thanks.

[SunnyJim]

Hi RGR, the latest post at TOD is another peak FF energy analysis and what to do about it.

http://europe.theoildrum.com/node/3565

It concludes peak energy per capita coincides with peak oil, and peak FF energy will be six years later, in 2018. The 'what to do about it' part is massive investment in nuclear, solar, wind, and 50% improvement in GDP per unit energy.

As far as it goes, I think it is a good analysis on the data we have available. What it does not consider is the other constraints and limits on our finite planet, like fossil aquifers, soil degradation, climate change etc. etc., or the social problems, like that fact that our economic model is based on conspicuous consumption and exponential growth, and our world leaders tend to be a rabid bunch of warmongers.

I'm sorry...but its a joke...the entire thing. Piling speculation on top of conjecture topped off with acting as though Duncans original work wasn't pseudo science at its worst?

Each of the questions that this scenario tries to answer is its own complex issue, and the authors are just gathering up whatever is handy, slapping it all together, and giving a hearty TA-DAA!

I can build models as well, they are quite easy. Let me give you an example of one you can do yourself.

Take all energy used in the world today, broken up into respective chunks. Fossil fuels, nukes, renewables. Decline crude oil at whatever exponential decline makes you happy, 1%,3%, 5%. Leave other fossil fuels static, during that same time period. Exponentially grow nukes, hydro, solar, and renewables. The goal here is to arrive at the EXACT same per capita useage in 2050 with a population of 9 billion people as we have today, call it 600 quads, up from todays 400.

What do you discover with this little exercise? That you can completely replace the energy from crude with nothing more than a consistent 1-2-3% increase in renewables....not the 20-40% growth the US has been sustaining for years now, just 1-2-3%.

I actually love reading the more complicated TOD models, there are some great ideas wrapped up in there. Unfortunately, as predictors of future performance, they are strictly trendology, they aren't geologically based ( which is where this question SHOULD be fought ), they don't consider basic economic parameters ( which is where this question should be fought if you want to ignore geologogy ), they can't account for singularities at all and ignore the possibility of them completely, and I didn't see a single probabilistic estimate anywhere in the entire thing to allow for scaling the events in question.

Why don't you put together some decent analysis of your own then RGR, rather than simply slagging off everyone elses efforts? You really are quite the critic aren't you? Happy to tear down others efforts, with the least effort you can possibly put in. I have seen no figures or basis for any of your arguments, and frankly your rhetoric is getting pretty boring.

[21st_century_caveman]

Oh...you mean growing economies, higher life expectancies, lower infant mortality, higher food production, more efficient energy use, that kind of stuff? Gotcha..

If those things are possible without exponential growth in finite resource consumption then great, tell us how and lets get on with it.

I would say we are. When a 2 cent/kWh tax incentive is enough to make 40% of new electrical generation wind turbines in an economy the size of the US, just imagine what happens with other renewables, let alone nukes.

Personally i dont think thats enough, as is often said we need some kind of "Apollo Programme" or WW2 type mobilisation for construction of renewable energy infrastructure if PO is less than about 20 or 30 years away.

I need to go to the library and track down Limits To Growth. Its hailed as another silly Doom prediction, but others claim it wasn't as bad as the naysayers make it out.

Well it was hailed as such by certain economists who have little or no knowledge of the laws of physics and the exponential function.
What they did was attempt to model finite resource consumption and came up with different different scenarios, there were no predictions, just suggestions as to what might happen.
It would be a good read for some like yourself with a background in science.

[fifthcolumn]

I think the important thing to realize is that we can't have infinite economic growth when what we're talking about is conversion of raw materials to finished products and then consume them, and all on a massive scale.

Obviously that won't work and will start to break down once we are close to capacity. In that sense the book "the limits to growth" was correct.

Where I break with the club of Rome and most of the doomers is that economic growth does not necessarrily translate into increased use of resources per se.
The reason is that GDP growth is simply money spent in the economy. We can get growth theoretically without using any new resources at all.

Consider this: say we built an all-electric economy but with quality products that didn't wear out as fast as they do in our consumer economy of today.

In theory we could grow the economy based purely on services with a little bit of churn on the manufactured end.

I think that is a reasonable idea to shoot for and it's probably doable. The big questions aren't so much the engineering ones, it's the political and public will to make the changes in addition to being able to convince investors to invest in risky projects (in their eyes).

I am involved with investors on a regular basis and it's incredibly hard to convince most of them that nuclear, wind and solar are anything more than boondoggles. Likewise electric public transport or private vehicles.

Luckily, however, things are moving so it will come down to how much time we really have to mitigate. Short a big war or even a blockade of Iran to push us off the deep end of the depletion cliff I'm cautiously optimistic that we can make it through to 2020 with a bit of pain, leaner and meaner but without a dieoff.

[RGR]

Can you add this comment to The Oil Drum discussion? Thanks.

Which part?

[RGR]

Why don't you put together some decent analysis of your own then RGR, rather than simply slagging off everyone elses efforts?

[clv101]

Can you add this comment to The Oil Drum discussion? Thanks.

Which part?

I was thinking the whole comment. btw, I'm an editor at TOD.

[Erik]

Can you add this comment to The Oil Drum discussion? Thanks.

Which part?

Careful... you might get yourself banned from TOD too!