Energy Crisis?

[Markulas]

Okay since the story of Paris is blocking any real debate was brought up I thought I'd write a relatively short piece on energy.

As peak oil draws near, or perhaps has already happened, we live in a country that can not function without oil. The first step in our future is to recognize we have a problem, after all AA tells us so. "Here we have a serious problem: America is addicted to oil, which is often imported from unstable parts of the world," says George W. Bush. It might seem like we have accomplished (no pun intended) the first step since our, former oil executive, president has; however, the implications of peak oil have not been realized. The only way to refute peak oil is to proclaim oil is renewable, which any self-respecting scientist would not say. Since the general public does recognize that oil is a finite resource the idea of peak oil is not controversial since it has to happen sooner or later. Peak oil has already happened here in the US in 1970, even if you include drilling our reserves in Alaska which would give us enough oil for approximately 3 months at current rates. 18 other oil producing countries have already peaked in their oil production as well. The majority of the estimated peak oil estimates is from 2004-2010, after this oil will not only have an increase in demand but a reduction in supply. Whether or not oil companies are manipulating price doesn’t matter since the fact is that there will be a reduction in supply.

Of course peak oil would not be a problem if we didn’t need oil or there were alternatives. Unfortunately, alternative isn’t really the correct word since they are all unable to replace oil in a legitimate respect. Corn derived ethanol is derived in an almost no net energy gained process, with Cornell University saying there is a energy loss in the process including all the processes of farming and the department of energy recently saying there is a 34% energy gain. It could be expected that ethanol derived from other biomass sources would have similar energy efficiencies. The production of ethanol from biomass relies on natural gas as a fertilizer and is no where in the same league as oil energy return. Oil has been operating on anywhere from around a 25:1 to 2:1 energy ratio since its existence. Clearly natural gas is a finite source, which here in Minnesota we rely on heavily to heat our homes, and it will peak soon after oil. Furthermore, even if all our land was converted for ethanol we would not come close enough to meet our current energy needs. Brazil’s sugar cane program is able to work now because of massive subsidies in the last 30 years and due to a much smaller energy demand. Brazil’s program is inspiring yet it does not address global warming since ethanol produces more C02 emissions than gasoline.

Hydrogen is not so much an alternative form of energy as it is a carrier of energy. Thus a very strong nuclear program needs to be redeveloped in order for it to even exist since a lot of the other energies continually require massive amounts of oil and are not as efficient. Currently hydrogen cars are just prototypes that one day might be able to replace the Honda civic or Geo metro. Hydrogen cars will require a pressured tank to hold the flammable hydrogen in. Additionally, trucks and airplanes are unable to run on hydrogen or electricity. Airplanes alone spend 9 percent of our oil consumption.

As for coal liquefaction the process is extremely more energy intensive and releases more than twice as much carbon dioxide into the air than using oil alone. The process of even getting coal requires large amounts of oil to power the machines that have to digger and deeper because it’s only getting more difficult to retrieve coal and just like any other finite resource its price will only rise dramatically especially when oil is out of the picture economically.

The infamous Hubbert’s peak, which shows the graph for oil production as a bell curve that has oil peaking around 2010, has become increasingly familiar in the public’s eye. Hubbert’s peak however will not be a perfect bell curve because of the increase in demand for oil with population and economic growth from the USA but also from rapidly developing China and India. Additionally, most of the world’s easiest accessible oil sites have already been used. The last remaining half is going to be increasingly difficult to obtain and extremely less energy profitable. The tar shales and sands are examples of this, but many people in the oil industry know that the by-products, ecological damage, and natural gas needed might be too much for them to be fully exploited. Much of the new oil finds have been found to be less than originally estimated and much more energy intensive to get at. Either way the discovering of oil fields has declined steadily since the 1960’s thus any new finds in oil will be few considering oil companies realize Earth has been fully explored for any viable oil. These new finds will also just further the delay of public’s view that we can live on oil for just a little longer. Hubbert’s peak therefore will probably more negatively skewed than anything.

With no viable alternative to oil it seems a lot of things will have to change. Market forces will have a significant change in altering our future behavior, however the market will not be able to change the fact that the trucking and airline industry relies heavily on oil with no viable alternatives. Nor will the market be able to create a technology that defies the second law of thermodynamics. Our existing infrastructure in America obviously could not function if it oil was taken out of the picture immediately, which is possible since the Middle East does hold two-thirds of the world’s remaining oil, yet I believe even that is unlikely. The time, money, and effort needed to change our existing suburban lifestyle is more than tremendous, which is why the government and people need to start planning now. Brazil’s program took 30 years to really get off the ground in the first place; acting now would help ensure a more stable economic future. The market will be unable to sufficiently reconstruct our infrastructure when oil is expensive and in a short amount of time especially considering we will probably be in an economic depression at the time when we realize the need to completely redesign everything to reduce oil consumption.

It is important to distance peak oil from doomsayers if the debate ever wants to gain traction in current day. Putting the Y2K bug scare or other unfounded scare on a different level from peak oil will also help spark debate. Many doomsayers declare that nothing can be done for our energy crisis and are similar to Dick Cheney by believing we live in an age of peak oil but unwilling to conserve. Nevertheless, conservation needs to be applied to the fullest but it will not happen until oil is at an estimated 150 dollars to the barrel to even have an effect on energy consumption. In order to conserve the last of the most expensive and most difficult to get to oil there needs to be a global effort to change things. Even if the US alone changes things to correct energy problems, it still leaves many countries whose growth rates, industrially and population wise, are increasing faster than ours fighting for the last remaining oil. Bottom line is that our current infrastructure needs a complete reworking as not to rely on heavy shipping by trucks, help eliminate the need for cars, and create a sustainable agriculture. As for population control the option needs to be examined as seeing our world’s population fall back down to its normal carrying capacity (without cheap energy) with war/hunger/whatever will not be a pretty sight. Additionally, massive funding for energy research and fuels needs to occur(although there’s already been billions spent on fusion research in last few decades). Which brings me to my last point: people seem to be relying on a scientific breakthrough to replace oil. Being an optimist and in the science field I see where it comes from, but to expect a specific and complete breakthrough to happen on demand is unreasonable. Oil is the result of solar energy being stored in organic material that takes millions of years to occur. Replacing what took millions of years will not be an easy feat. Believing that a new technology will come and save us is in the same ballpark as believing that Jesus is going to come and save us. I’m not willing to bet my future on it.

[Knarlz]

You have a lot of good points and this reminds me very much of a paper I had to write over *cough* 30 years ago in collage. (I dinn't major in spellling ).
At the time the paper was promped by OPEC running the price of gas in the US from .3$/gal to over 1$/gal.
At that time I concluded that while there were oil reserves world wide for 50-80 years of consumption at extrapalded use rate growth , they would peak at accessability in 40 years (soon now! or I missed china and it's past ( doing papers such as these 30 years ago was truely a bitch as Al Gore haden't invented the internet yet!!)
None the less after oil comes coal, there is a butt load of coal. It is now reconised as dirty and not an alternitive to turn into "petrol" but still butt loads of BTUs.
In the just US alone is a wicked amount of shale oil. perhaps equil to the proven reserves of world wide liquid oil.
BUT!!! it is all FOSSIL fuels and as you stated over 100 million years of stored solar energy.
It will run out. As such tech in the long run will have to replace it. How long that is... well we are no closer to practacal cold fusion then 30 years ago ( tridium ftw!!)
Thus there is small doubt that we (world) need to conserve. For better or worse the US is in the best position to do such. (although china dosent care yet and do what ever neccesary to maintain growth stature, i.e. they pump 9% gnp to infustructure, ( Brizil only 3% and will choke))
So as the most conspicious consumer of fossil fuels what should the US do?
1- stop the BS ethenol crap subisities to "reduce the dependincies on forien (sp) oil"
It is not where it comes from but its volume.....
(corn in the US is now 50% higher price in the US in just 1 year due to subisties, when that is record crop bushles tha's a lot) plus ethennol is 70% as efficent as a fuel, plus, it must be transported by truck = oil, plus corn is fertilised by nitrites = oil.. Bio fuels should NOT be made from a major commodiy that cost more to the general ecomminy just becouse it's not forien (sp) Use something that dosen't effect the cost of everythin it is also use for.
http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/In ... allet.aspx

2- raise the living shit out of US taxes on petrol. ( I lost a good link to presenting the cse for this) but,,,,

Conclusions..
Fossil fuels will run out.
Niether republicans nor demicrats in the US will have the balls and/or brains to save the world past the next electin.

[cadalano]

we basically need to reach the level of nuclear development that we should have been at like 20 years ago. along with that, increase collection of energy received from sun... solar/wind farms.. whatever.

[Ashur]

I heard Paris hasn't eaten or slept since she was back in jail!

[Truant]

we basically need to reach the level of nuclear development that we should have been at like 20 years ago. along with that, increase collection of energy received from sun... solar/wind farms.. whatever.

My thoughts exactly. Nuclear fission as a source of power production isn't perfectly ideal, but it's MUCH, much better across the board than any form of fossil fuel based power. Which provides more time to come up with new, more ideal technology.

Wind farms are going up in parts of west and central texas, and there are talks to put some off the Gulf Coast. However, they meet with constant resistance here (and in other parts of the country) for what seems like the stupidest reason I could ever imagine. The primary reason for resistance is that windmills will be an eyesore to the people that live near them. Seriously, htf?

Several countries have programs to give incentive for solar production on residential rooftops. Now this doesn't make these houses energy independant, but it reduces the amount of energy they must draw off the grid (which is generated by fossil fuels). You add up that reduction over the population of a community and you have a significant impact. Solar has been, and still is to a degree, expensive...but a lot of advancements have been made into making more effecient, and more affordable solar panels. There is also the added bonus (in many areas) that your power company buys energy back from you that you generate and do not use. This means that while your house is empty, someone else is using that power instead of more fossil produced energy, and you're getting a credit for it on your bill. Bonus!


This is such a very frustrating issue for me, because I know that the generation of my parents (baby boomers) are going to fuck this planet seven kinds of sideways before they leave it to the younger generations to try and fix. That's just been the mindset of the American public for quite a while now, "Someone else will take care of that problem later, while I enjoy the rewards now." I can only hope that I (and everyone else of the younger generations) doesn't become too jaded in the meantime and follow in the apathetic footsteps of those before us.

[Deward]

Ethanol isn't a good alternative right now but subsidies need to continue in order to keep research going into it. It is certainly not a replacement for our current usage of oil. A study I read said that even at peak capacity, ethanol could only replace something like 14% of our oil usage. America's big problem is that we need to have further education on reducing our consumption. There need to be bigger incentives to put solar panels and wind farms up. I also think we need to tax those people who use the most oil more. If you have a big gas guzzling SUV then you should pay more. Any car that gets less than 30 MPG should be taxed heavily. The technolongy to get 50 MPG is out there. People don't need a 200 HP+ engine for a daily commuter.

[masteen]

I'd care more about the future of mankind if I'd seen some indication that we're anything other than feckless little monkeys. In short, I'm unwilling to give up my car and HDTV and hot showers just so future generations of monkeys can exist. Fuck the future.

[cadalano]

somebody's got a case of the mondays

[Wulfran]

Ethanol isn't a good alternative right now but subsidies need to continue in order to keep research going into it.

Why throw good money after bad? We know ethanol is no where near as efficient a fuel as conventional petroleum based compounds and it gives off the same end product emissions (i.e. CO2 and water vapour + whatever else the additives react to form) so why flog a dead horse? Put the R&D into something that we know isn't a lost cause.

This whole peak oil thing makes me chuckle. This whole subject is skewed and doesn't take into account the massive oil sands in Canada, Russia and South America (a reason to be nice to Chavez in Venezuela). We're not running out of oil anytime soon, just the cheapest conventional stuff: i.e. it will cost producers $12/bbl to produce instead of $2/bbl. All that means is the price will go up a bit unless Exxon, Shell, BP et all decide to ease off the record margins (not likely). From an environmental stand point and for long term practicality, yes, there are definate reasons to find alternative energy sources, but unless you buy into the scaremongering side of the environmental issues (which I don't), its not a crisis.

I think we should be looking harder at implementing more nuclear energy but that also has some limits on supply of reactor fuels (uranium). There is a lot more research we can do into production and usage of wind and geo-thermal energy. We have some avenues we can pursue and maybe the "oil scare" is positive in that it creates some impetus to do more research on these fronts.

I think the real crisis that no one wants to admit to (except Masteen ) is human population growth and its impact. No one wants to admit our population growth has outstripped our resource potential because it takes us down some dark roads: what happens when the third world demands more of (or wants to keep for itself) the resources the developed world needs to survive, even with (in most cases) declining populations? Do we let them starve? Do they go to war with us? Do we let them have what they want and hope for the best? I look at Somalia and the Sudan and think its only the tip of the iceberg.