Oil Production: Will the Peak Hold?

[Joe]

The 25% increase in electrical generation to power the cars of the future doesn't sound like much to me...given the lifespan of existing known fossil fuels, we've even got plenty of time to grow electrical generation that much.

Hi RGR. Just wondering if you've seen Al Bartlett's "Arithmetic, Population & Energy" lecture and, if so, what your impressions are?

[RGR]

[RGR]

The 25% increase in electrical generation to power the cars of the future doesn't sound like much to me...given the lifespan of existing known fossil fuels, we've even got plenty of time to grow electrical generation that much.

Hi RGR. Just wondering if you've seen Al Bartlett's "Arithmetic, Population & Energy" lecture and, if so, what your impressions are?

I've read more than a few of Bartletts papers. Is there a particular angle you would like a comment on?

[Joe]

The 25% increase in electrical generation to power the cars of the future doesn't sound like much to me...given the lifespan of existing known fossil fuels, we've even got plenty of time to grow electrical generation that much.

Hi RGR. Just wondering if you've seen Al Bartlett's "Arithmetic, Population & Energy" lecture and, if so, what your impressions are?

I've read more than a few of Bartletts papers. Is there a particular angle you would like a comment on?

Well, his analysis of (US) coal reserves calls into question widely held assumptions about reserve lifetime. I wondered if your statement 'given the lifespan of existing known fossil fuels' was based on:
1) the widely held assumption that there's loads of coal left;
2) an acceptance of his rather more conservative estimates of reserve lifespan;
3) a considered rejection of his hypothesis based on other information/knoweldge;
4) something else altogether?

[RGR]

[Keela]

I hear what you are saying RGR.

I'm a biologist and the "yeast in a bottle" argument annoys me the same way. Folk take the doubling time of yeast in a bottle and argue that once doubling starts that the bottle of yeast will keep doing this until it uses up all the resources. Then they ask - when was the bottle at half the max population - and give the answer as only 1 generation prior to the max. Then they say like WOW look how quickly the crash arrives.

In reality exponential growth of yeast happens for only a short period of time - then toxins, reducing food supply etc. start to have an effect and gradually increase the doubling time so slowing the growth rate and this can happen well before the max population is reached. So rather than a peak of yeast followed by an immediate crash the population curve is just that - more curved. And the top could look more plateau-like than peak-like-with-crash......... of course the yeast in a bottle population will eventually crash as toxins reach toxic levels and as resources become too scant but the downslope could be gentle at first.

In away this "yeast in bottle view" is perhaps how extreme "peak oil" views see oil production. RGR I think you are telling us that there is more to the situation than the simple view. Hence the top will be more plateau like than we think and the down slope slower to gain momentum than some would have us believe?

Just my 2p worth.

(Just thought - is Bartlett the "yeast-in-a-bottle" man? There's no link here to his work. )

[chubbygristle]

Just thought - is Bartlett the "yeast-in-a-bottle" man? There's no link here to his work. )

yes he is, although his example is actually bacteria in a jar.

I think he's just using the 'yeast' thing to demonstrate the mathematics as opposed to what would actually happen in real life though...

He acknowledges such things at the start of his lecture (or somewhere near the beginning) when he talks of exponential growth of the human population and getting to the point where there was 1 person per square meter of the dry land of the earth (or something like that) which he says "would never actually happen" - i.e. things would change lowering the population growth before we got to that point (similar to the yeast metaphor).

He's just trying to get across the point that people tend to neglect growth on growth when they make some of their claims about how long a resource will last (as they assume current rates into their calculations).

http://globalpublicmedia.com/lectures/461 is the link to the original lecture.

[Joe]

(Just thought - is Bartlett the "yeast-in-a-bottle" man? There's no link here to his work. )

Yes. http://globalpublicmedia.com/lectures/461

Thanks RGR and Sally for responses.

Bartletts analysis tends to be that exponential increases in consumption eat up ANY reserves/resources in a much shorter period of time than usually calculated.

The impression I got was that he was challenging the kind of numbers that reach - and persist within - the public imagination via the media, govt. etc, rather than ongoing calculations performed by mining engineers & geologists.

The fundamental, and inaccurate, assumption being that anything can grow exponentially forever, or until a given commodity runs out.

Indeed. Hence we're talking about Peak Oil, not Oil Running Out.

Incidentally, I thought the Energy Watch Group's coal report made interesting reading: http://www.energywatchgroup.org/fileadm ... 2007ms.pdf

I think the clearest message to draw from it is that the data is terrible and we're effectively flying blind.

Thanks again.

[Adam1]

I hear what you are saying RGR.

I'm a biologist and the "yeast in a bottle" argument annoys me the same way. Folk take the doubling time of yeast in a bottle and argue that once doubling starts that the bottle of yeast will keep doing this until it uses up all the resources. Then they ask - when was the bottle at half the max population - and give the answer as only 1 generation prior to the max. Then they say like WOW look how quickly the crash arrives.

In reality exponential growth of yeast happens for only a short period of time - then toxins, reducing food supply etc. start to have an effect and gradually increase the doubling time so slowing the growth rate and this can happen well before the max population is reached. So rather than a peak of yeast followed by an immediate crash the population curve is just that - more curved. And the top could look more plateau-like than peak-like-with-crash......... of course the yeast in a bottle population will eventually crash as toxins reach toxic levels and as resources become too scant but the downslope could be gentle at first.

In away this "yeast in bottle view" is perhaps how extreme "peak oil" views see oil production. RGR I think you are telling us that there is more to the situation than the simple view. Hence the top will be more plateau like than we think and the down slope slower to gain momentum than some would have us believe?

Just my 2p worth.

(Just thought - is Bartlett the "yeast-in-a-bottle" man? There's no link here to his work. )

I'm not sure Albert Bartlett says that the doubling time will always be constant in real world situations, he just models the case where doubling rates are constant. When he does his yeast thing, he is just making the point that with each doubling the amount of the resource consumed in the last doubling time is as large as the consumption in all previous doubling periods. If you look at the global population, the doubling period is getting longer as the rate of growth slows. The same is true of all liquids consumption (looking at the collation of the IEA figures by Rembrandt on the Oil Drum). That means that in real life everything doesn't happen in the last minute in the figurative yeast bottle of global oil/coal/people production, or at least that the "minutes" get longer as the bottle gets fuller.

[chubbygristle]

I wouldn't take a mathematicians word for an estimate of reserves or resources any more than I would let a barber design, build or launch the replacement for the space shuttle.

From what I have read, Bartlett doesn't give estimates. He just makes the point that there is a lot of misleading information purported about the length of time that a resource such as coal will last because the estimates given are based on current consumption levels - which doesn't make them wrong, just misleading as most people will see xx amount of years worth of coal at current consumption rates to be quite literally that many years of future availability of the resource.

Bartletts analysis tends to be that exponential increases in consumption eat up ANY reserves/resources in a much shorter period of time than usually calculated. The fundamental, and inaccurate, assumption being that anything can grow exponentially forever, or until a given commodity runs out.

Again, he doesn't make the assumption that anything will grown exponentially forever or until it runs out. He gives examples of what would happen if such things could happen but at no point, in anything I have read by him, does he say this is what will or does happen to a resource.

His efforts are more towards trying to make people appreciate growth on growth.

When he talks about the example of the coal reserves in the USA with the 500 year 'at current rates' example, and he plugs in steady growth at rates considered desirable and the production drops to ~70 years or so.. he's not making the point of exponential resource use - nor saying that that is what will happen, he's making the point of limitations to human population growth / per capita energy usage growth. He's simply making the point that it is unfeasible for the human population growth on growth to be sustained as the resources to allow it are not there. If anything he is agreeing with what you are saying about exponential growth lasting for a short time only - as it will do with the human population. His point is more about controlling this problem as opposed to leaving it to nature to decide the limiting factors only.

[Keela]

Yup Adam - pretty much as I was saying.

Sadly I do sometimes hear the argument thrown back in its simplistic form. Obviously you and I recognise that it is not so simple.

I think RGR is trying to point out to us that many of us hold a simplistic view of oil extraction. Much like the simplistic view of yeast is sometimes protrayed.

Of course, I also wonder if anyone can have a clear picture - our human society is so complex there are so many more variables than just oil in wells. The financial stuff for one thing could make things increasingly unpredictable.

[Keela]

. If anything he [Bartlett] is agreeing with what you are saying about exponential growth lasting for a short time only - as it will do with the human population. His point is more about controlling this problem as opposed to leaving it to nature to decide the limiting factors only.

Sounds sensible. Truth is human nature is hard to direct. Like trying to change the direction a river flows really!

[Andy Hunt]

. If anything he [Bartlett] is agreeing with what you are saying about exponential growth lasting for a short time only - as it will do with the human population. His point is more about controlling this problem as opposed to leaving it to nature to decide the limiting factors only.

Sounds sensible. Truth is human nature is hard to direct. Like trying to change the direction a river flows really!

But the final destination is always the sea . . .

I think we are bumping up against the limits to growth right now. If it isn't oil, it will be food or water.

Maybe 'peak people' won't be in 2050 after all.

[chubbygristle]

it always entertains me that, when you mention the need to curb population growth, most people seem to see you as some monster advocating bumping people off or you are some kind of advocate of state monolithic communism wanting to tell people how many kids to have, as opposed to someone just mentioning that we either do it ourselves, now, nicely and in a controlled fashion - akin to applying the brakes to the 'people' car in advance of it hitting the overshoot 'wall', rather than just leaving it to crash (dunno why but this makes me think of a bit of Leonard Cohen's - Beautiful Losers)...

Then again, it entertains me that when people ask me if "I have baked that bread myself" most people follow it up with "oh you have a bread-maker then", er, no I have hands and an oven!

I don't know what I am getting at here... and it's clearly off topic... sorry.

Oh, I think it had something to do with misunderstanding the point of Bartletts lectures... or something.

I like his essay about whiteboards though... nice and short and to the point - no maths involved and it's pretty easy to grasp what he's getting at

The chattering monkey strikes again...

[SunnyJim]

Warning. Content of a hippy nature.


That was the river, the river, the river, and this is the sea......

I agree Andy.

Balls to the mechanics of oil extraction. It's a pimple on the arse of the worlds problems. Take a step back. Check out the bigger picture. There's a perfect storm brewing.

Take the most tranquil moment you've ever had. Mine was sailing into a small Cornish harbour on my own in a little 20 ft plywood yacht on a sunny summer day.

Then imagine rush hour in central london.

That's what's wrong with the world. Where has the harmony gone? Where is our connection with nature? Our one-ness with the planet? Our respect for the great Earth Mother? We've lost 'the way'. The one true way that cannot be named. We need to meditate, re-connect. Surrender ourselves to the ways of nature and stop trying to inflict our domination over something we will never tame.