[Update: Kevin answers with a crushing blow via Prudhoe Bay…]
I’ve been following Kevin Drum’s excellent series on ‘peak oil’ with a lot of interest; I think that Kevin’s interest in the strategic issues around energy policy is appropriate and significant.
But I’m less certain that his point – that we’re at or near an absolute level of peak oil production, and that an absolute decline in oil produced matched with increasing demand from an industrializing Asia risks severe economic dislocation – stands up.
I’m not an oil economist, but my guess is that as technology improves and prices rise, supplies do move upward. And we don’t eat oil. Economic efficiency – the unit of productivity per BTU – just keeps moving up.This weekend, I noticed a casual side note in an article about a local oil company, Occidental Petroleum:
Although the U.S. fields are mature, Occidental is known for using cutting-edge technologies to find more oil and pull it from the ground. It’s a key reason why its reserves keep growing faster than its production.
Take Elk Hills. When Occidental bought the field seven years ago from the U.S. government, its proven reserves were the equivalent of 425 million barrels of oil. Since then, the company has produced about 235 million equivalent barrels, yet its proven reserves now total 462 million barrels.
Occidental credits an aggressive program that included using 3D seismic surveys to find oil, drilling 1,200 new wells on the property and injecting water, carbon dioxide and acid into wells to stimulate output.
This doesn’t put paid to the concept of peak oil, nor to the very real issues our over-reliance on oil and particularly imported oil presents to our economy, environment, and security.
But my guess is that the notion of commodity catastrophe – one that has been raised since the 18th century – is one that takes place gradually, not in the short time span that leads to social collapse.
In a simple form, the auto dealership row near our home is a good example of that gradual change. All the SUV’s have promotional pricing on them. Good riddance.
You can only understand Kevin Drum’s peak oil obsession with the ideological filter that comes with it.
The religiously perceived truth is that we will suddenly run out of oil, and those evil Republican red staters with SUVs and suburban houses will fall into peonage while tragically hip urbanites inherit the mud hut earth.
Let us remember that was the Navy Bunker fuel reserve that AlGore sold to his buddies, and it was part of that supposedly ballanced budget.
It still pisses me off every time i think of it.
I agree. As a Saudi Petrol Minister said: _The Stone Age didn’t end because lack of stones._
Like any other, the Petrol Age will be ended by technology, thus the interest Saudis have in keeping oil prices as low as possible in order to slow down the introduction of new developments, such as fuel cells (far more efficient) or Very High Temperature Gas Reactors, able to produce efficiently either electricity or hydrogen.
Jim,
Kevin Drum’s “Coda” entry, which sets out his view of the future and explains why (a) an energy policy that addresses both supply AND demand is a good thing and (b) why the world isn’t going to end here struck me as much more level-headed than your characterization.
I’d encourage people to read Kevin for themselves and decide.
May I suggest “this”:http://www.worldoil.com/magazine/MAGAZINE_DETAIL.asp?ART_ID=2594&MONTH_YEAR=May-2005 article at World Oil. It’s a look at mitigation technologies and when they would have to be employed relative to the peak.
“I’m not an oil economist, but my guess is that as technology improves and prices rise, supplies do move upward. And we don’t eat oil.”
Both statements are true but not too relevant. Certainly increased prices will lead to improved technology for extracting oil. In the short term this delays oil peak production, but for a finite resource (which petroleum certainly is{on a finite planet}) extending the time to peak production merely makes the curve steeper on the depletion side of peak.
We do not eat oil, but US farmers each feed 200 citizens only by the use of prodigious quantities of oil. When that oil becomes more expensive, food prices will rise (and oil price impacts on food prices are being noted in the press right now).
“Like any other, the Petrol Age will be ended by technology, thus the interest Saudis have in keeping oil prices as low as possible in order to slow down the introduction of new developments, such as fuel cells (far more efficient) or Very High Temperature Gas Reactors, able to produce efficiently either electricity or hydrogen.”
Note that fuel cells do not produce energy, but merely convert it from some fuel (reformed gasoline, hydrogen, methane, etc.) to electricity. Thus fuel cells are not relevant to energy shortages, since they are a conversion rather than production device. For petroleum, the reformer/fuel cell/electric motor cycle is less efficient than direct combustion in a hybrid vehicle. Reactors of all kinds will succeed or fail in the market,absent the GWB’s recent proposed subsidies.
Also, note that “ages” have ended for many reasons other than technology (such as geology, religion, cultural change, etc.).
What is relevant to declining worold oil supplies is coal, especially US coal. Agreed that “collapse” is an unlikely scenario, but crash efforts in energy conservation and coal conversion are almost guaranteed as energy prices escalate. Expect US coal-to-liquids plants to be developed in the next decade, with predictable environmental impacts, especially on greenhouse gas generation/climate change.
Personally, I am wondering when the undeniable physical effects of climate change will break thru the hard-shell of Republican ideology and denial of science. The process is starting with the Governator/McCain and I expect it to continue, but I do not pretend to predict the rate/scale of change.
And what “denial of science” would that be? Perhaps if the left wasn’t so reliant on junk science for so many of its pet projects those on the other side might be more inclined to listen.
Tom, the last person to claim that human-caused global warming was a “consensus” was shown to be faking her data.
_Thus fuel cells are not relevant to energy shortages_
If you can double the “efficency”:http://www.siemenswestinghouse.com/en/fuelcells/index.cfm of an energetic conversion, you need half as much as fuel. Such an improvement is pretty relevant, especially for countries with some oil production.
Secondly, countries with no oil resources, such as Japan, are improving existing nuclear technology in order to produce hydrogen. To do this in an efficient way temperatures over 950ºC are needed. Current high temperature nuclear reactors operate at 800ºC. Advanced nuclear reactors are being built: a “new pebble bed in South Africa”:http://www.eskom.co.za/nuclear_energy/pebble_bed/pebble_bed.html, an advanced PWR in France…
Once the 950ºC mark is reached, hydrogen can be produced directly from heat in a efficient way (50%) using “Iodine-Sulphur chemical cycles”:http://www.world-nuclear.org/sym/2003/pdf/schultz.pdf (PDF) Moreover, some heat derived from the process may be converted into electricity. Hydrogen can be poured into existing natural gas pipelines up to a concentration of 2 or 3% and, with minor changes, till 20%.
There are already technical solutions to weaken the role (imported) oil plays in our society. Their development is what Saudis, among others, fear.
#6 Tom Says:
bq. I am wondering when the undeniable physical effects of climate change will break thru the hard-shell of Republican ideology and denial of science.
Personally, I hope that there are a few Repubs (and Dems) that are wise enough not to be convinced by the “experts” that we must have a socialist political reaction to a change in the climate.
Let me illumnate several assumptions you seem to be making:
* One doesn’t need to “deny” science to have skepicism with scientific climate predictions.
* One needn’t be afraid of a warmer climate — perhaps the benefits out weigh the costs.
* One needn’t assume a gov’t program to ‘solve’
the alledged ’cause’ of the as yet unrealized climate change.
—
Some relevent factors to consider:
* Future predictions of CO2 and climate warming are all hinged on the assumptions that vast numbers of current low energy cosumption countries (the 3rd world) will begin to use energy at increased rates. If this is so then the 3rd world will have undergone a tremendous increase from its current std of living. Hooray!! We should celebrate. It is certainly worth a 1 or 2 degree increase in global temp.
* Future predictions of CO2 and climate warming are all hinged on the assumptions that fossil fuels are being used in ever vaster amounts than currently. That is in contradiction to the “oil peak theory”. Only one doomsday scenario is can be true (or neither, really). Hooray, time to celebrate again.
1 or 2 degree increase in average global temperature means that locally the temperature can increase by 10 degree. That is not exactly noting.
H2 is a really bad fuel. Not because it is dangerous but because it leaks.
It is easy to subsitute oil with coal. But gasoline etc will cost about 3 times more than what they cost now at the refinery
Tom, the last person to claim that human-caused global warming was a “consensus” was shown to be faking her data.
Er, no she wasn’t. See Tim Lambert for the details.
The way oil reserves are calculated is the by this method:
Given a PRICE how much oil can be extracted.
Thomas Gold thought that there was 100X as much oil as was currently estimated. Based on the fact that hydrocarbons are not produced biologically but by interstellar and planetary chemical interactions. Continuously deposited on earth as it formed. There is some evidence he was correct.
Oil shortage estimates tend to raise the value and the amount of an oil companies’ proven reserves. Very profitable for stockholders.
praktike,
What about the recent Scientific American article showing that increased CO2 in the atmosphere is preventing an ice age.
And other data showing that increased solar output accounts for 70 to 90% of the observed temperature rise?
There is some other recent data showing that the moon may account for a lot of global warming because of tidal effects on the earth’s atmosphere.
Climate science still has a lot of very big gaps. And a very short period where we have accurate data sets.
Tell you what though. When Europe starts meeting its Kyoto goals and developing countries are included I might consider suggesting it be adopted by America. Until then I think the evolution of technology is our best hope. Such evolution requires a robust economy. i.e. no Kyoto.
Joe A,
Throwing away half the energy to start is not a good prescription for reducing energy useage.
M. Simon,
you don’t throw away anything, you spend half as much as fuel in order to obtain the same amount of electricity. Moreover, a solid oxide fuel cell produces less NOx than a gas turbine, which is the main environmental problem of this equipment.
a,
Today, there are extensive hydrogen distribution networks in Houston, TX and the Rhein region in Germany, that interconnect producers and consumers. Hydrogen pipelines work.
Moreover, you can use natural gas ones up to a concentration of 20%, with some minor adjustements. You may not remember this, but in European cities, before natural gas came, was distributed a synthesis gas obtained from coal, that carried a minority percentage of hydrogen.
I agree that its application in cars is unlikely, but it may become the solution to decouple critical industries from external oil supplies.
Simon, the ICE caps are melting on mars year over year ,, too many SUVs?
And gee, that 11 year sunspot cycle seems umm er .. out of wack .. to say the least.
But all it took was one volcano to show the koyoto hucksters to be a fraud.
Enough CO2 in one day to destroy their entire case. and enough SO2 to turn the global sunrise and sunsets orange for almost 2 years.
So global warming on mars … the hocky stick fraud.
Hey, southern UK was a good place to grow grapes during the last warming.. and by the way, have you noticed how many 1000+ year old ports are inland in the UK ? and not because of sediment fill either.
Warming is gonna happen, just like the last time, as for the ice age, we cant prevent that either.
The sun is not a constant, we certainly know that now, and hey .. how about thos X20+ class flares that saturated the instrument that wasnt supposed to ever be saturated, (because this cycle is so abnormal)
But its all bunkem anyway, the entire aim is to get UN control over energy useage, hence the economy so that their beloved blood stained and horrific socialist failure has another chance to escape the dust bin.
The target is western capitalism, that contrasts leftist failure misery and holocaust by its success and benevolence.
Agenda 21, and Koyoto that its part of, is the last gasp of the communist internationale, and if pushed by communist achedemics as a tool to attack the west.
Its all a leftist fraud.
Wanna scare them, show them the data about how much gas and water we lose to space, how without the mag field it would be worse, why the contental induction cycle thats part of the carbon cycle is so important for our envelope to exist at all, and horror of horrors … we are due for a mag pole shift, that might be where the greater ice age comes from.
btw, according to the leftist wackjobs of 20 years ago, we should be starving, not a food glut, oil was posed to be gone long ago, the ice age was posed to come, the population bomb, silent spring was a fraud etc.
Come to think of it,, has the left advanced anything that has not turned out to be a fraud ?
I cant think of anything.
AFAICS, their record of being wrong is unblemished.
I guess we are not supposed to take notice of that.
Raymond’s comments are a perfect example of “denial of science”, full of assertions with not one reference or data source.
Since I live in Boulder, Colorado I have several friends who are serious and somewhat apolitical science geeks at the National Center For Atmospherice Research (NCAR) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration(NOAA), currently directed by Bush appointees.
Not one working atmospheric scientist that I know doubts the existence of anthropogenic climate change. Clearly there is substantial uncertainty about the time scale and magnitude of human-caused warming, but the existence and direction of the changes is no longer an issue in the scientific community.
See “RealClimate”:http://www.realclimate.org/ for a good overview of current science with many of the uncertainties and current issues highlighted, along with links to supporting research.
I did not bring up climate change to belabor Kyoto, but because many make an easy assumption that declining oil will mitigate climate impacts. However, as #5’s great link indicates, many of the responses to the “Great Crossover” of oil supply and demand may actually exacerbate climate change.
From a certain perspective, climate change gives a reality check to the human race. We can go on cherry-picking data and constructing ever more unlikely scenarios (sure, it’s the moon’s fault and, sure, doubling historic CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere cannot have a climate impact because that would be a “leftist fraud”) but the physical processes continue, independent of our beliefs. At some point a reconciliation between divergent belief and reality will occur. In the scientific community it happens every day as hypotheses are tested and discarded.
McCain and the Gubernator earn my respect because they have considered new evidence and adapted their positions in response. Others will follow, sooner or later. Climate change deniers will have a prominent place in the history books alongside the Flat Earthers.
Britain was partly covered by a thick layer of ice and when this weight was removed the ground snaps back. That is probably the reason that some harbours are now inland
Yes, Tom, and see Climate Audit for the work of McIntyre and McKitrick showing the fundamental flaws of the work of Mann et al at RealClimate.
“Bush Taken In By Leftist-Fraud”:http://uk.news.yahoo.com/050607/323/fkmrv.html
WASHINGTON (AFP) – US President George W. Bush said global climate
change is a “serious long term” problem and insisted that the United
States, which rejected the Kyoto protocol, was leading research into
finding solutions.
Climate change was one of the key issues to be raised by British
Prime Minister Tony Blair during a summit with Bush at the White
House.
Bush told a press conference afterwards, “I’ve always said it’s a
serious long long-term issue that needs to be dealt with, and my
administration isn’t waiting around to deal with the issue.
“We lead the world when it comes to dollars spent, millions spent on
research about climate change,” the US president said.
“We want to know more about it. It’s easier to solve a problem when
you know a lot about it.”
The United States has been widely criticised for withdrawing from a
commitment to ratify the Kyoto protocol on climate change, which set
targets for reducing pollution that causes global warming.
But Bush said that the United States will have to change its high
energy consuming habits and move away from “a hydrocarbon society”.
He said he hoped gas-guzzling American drivers would turn to
alternatives such as hydrogen fuel powered cars.
“Our country is going to have to diversify away from the type of
automobiles we drive. It’s beginning to happen here. We’ll have more
fuel cells, cars driven by fuel cells on the road next year than the
past year, and more after that. We’re beginning to change.”
Bush also said the United States was spending a lot of money on
producing coal that creates less pollution.
“That’s going to be very important for a country like ours and a
country like China. And one of the issues we’ve got to figure out how
to deal with is how we share that technology with developing nations.”
Climate audit is a good site. Note that McIntyre and McKitrick clearly say that their work does not “disprove” global warming but only adresses the “hockey stick”, one small part of the overall climate change theory.
Note also that McKitrick is a “geological exploration financier” and McIntyre is a geologist (no atmospheric scientists) and that most reviewers consider M&M’s work flawed and discredited.
With both sites available, anybody can wade thru the (very) gory detail and make up their own mind.
For a very non-scientific, seat-of-the-pants view, look out the window of a plane the next time you fly from Denver to NYC, London to Frankfurt, or Singapore to Delhi. Is the hypothesis that humans are not impacting climate even plausible when you observe the scale and ubiquity of human alteration of the Earth’s surface?
“Science Academies From G8 Nations Issue Statement Recognizing Human-Caused Climate Change”:http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,3858,5210711-103681,00.html
From the article …”The statement, from the science academies of the G8 countries, says the scientific evidence on climate change is now clear enough to compel their leaders to take action.
It says: “There is now strong evidence that significant global warming is occurring. It is likely that most of the warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities…
The scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify nations taking prompt action. It is vital that all nations identify cost-effective steps that they can take now, to contribute to substantial and long-term reduction in net global greenhouse gas emissions.”
But of course, what would the National Academy Of Science, The Royal Society,etc., know about science when compared to an authority like Raymond?
Tom,
Let’s agree:
* there is an observed warming (small, but growing)
* There is a (large) anthropomorphic CO2 increase
* That such a C02 increase implies increased warming
Not immediately relevent are:
* The exact amounts
* How much of the current warming is anthropomorphic vs. due to other natural factors
Even given the above, you haven’t addressed my other points in post #10.
Why should the gov’t react with strong socialist programs (Kyoto) to a long term change in the climate?
–Fred
Fred,
I would argue that government response to Kyoto is not inherently socialistic (tho that option certainly exists).
For example, we currently give oil companies an oil depletion allowance, which is a specific tax policy intended to encourage exploration for and production of petroleum products. Nobody that I am aware of calls the depletion allowance “socialistic” tho it could be considered “big business welfare”.
Similar directed tax policies can be implemented to encourage energy efficiency and renewables and would be no more or less socialist than the current trillion dollar structure of tax policy and infrastructure investment which serves to incentivize fossil fuel production and consumption.
A simple example would be a national investment in high-speed rail rather than high-speed highways(interstates). The first investment serves to reduce greenhouse gas emissions for a given number of passenger miles, but neither investment is more or less socialist, they are just different travel modes. Similarly, investing public dollars in a sidewalk or a bikepath rather than another automobile lane does not change the total public investment, making it more or less socialist, it just directs the investment in a direction with greater returns in public health and greenhouse gas reduction.
I would argue that the first steps to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and adapt to increased oil prices should reduce subsidies (becoming less socialist, rather than more) rather than increase them. For example, if the state/local/municipal road network was funded by user-fees (driver pays) instead of income/property tax-generated general funds, that would serve to reduce taxpayer-subsidized artificially cheap automobile use, reducing greenhouse gas and government intervention in the economy, while redistributing funds to more economically productive purposes (how economically productive is the every-day traffic jam/gridlock in every major US city?).
In a small way, toll roads are a market-based solution to gridlock and climate change and many other like examples exist.
Tom,
It sounds like you are saying that gov’t’s current policies are benefiting some and hurting others. But, you can imagine some different gov’t policies that would hurt some, but that would be worth it (national railroads).
I do have to concur with you that gov’t intervention that we already have does benefit some and hurts others. I don’t condon the existing tax breaks; I instead think that we would be all better off if we agreed to minimize gov’t involvement, including the elimination of existing tax breaks that favor group X, tech Y, or big donor Z.
I applaud your understand and advocacy of market based transportation solutions (toll roads). If these are put in place as protected gov’t monopolies as they are here in CA, they are likely to be expensive boondoogles. Let’s hope for better.
However, I acknowledge that personal choices can add up to negative costs for all (polution). The gov’t has a role to play in setting equitable rules and standards for everyone to assume their share of the costs. On the otherhand, having “experts” design one grand solution is historically demonstrably false. I find the most equitable solution is often the simplest: let each individual decide for himself how to handle the issue.
And so it should be with our climate change.
Cheers
–Fred
Yes Tom. it a leftist fraud.
Too many SUV’s on mars ?
Earth is believed to have warmed approx .6C (about 1.1F) since 1880. … Earths estimated absolute global mean temperature is 14C +/- .7 C (roughly between 56 °F and 58 °F).
The estimate of total global warming since 1880 is less than the error margin of averaged measured temperatures for the period 1951-1980.
As for your leftist concensus, its leftist, and cant be trusted
Mars,, the Volcano in the Philapines,, and the sunspot cycle,,, as well as the past record (without the fake intentional leftst fraud hocky stick) shows the socialist koyoto scamers to be leftist liars
Its that simple
As for anti science, science rocks, using fraud science to advance the socialist dream has my utter contempt.
The error margin of average global temperature have a strong correlation with the error margin of the estimated rise in temperature so your point is wrong.
What about Mars?
If your nuronic inverter has problems with the first, how are you to understand the melting ice caps on mars ?
These guys cant even factor the wobble on the earths axis, much less the mag pol drift and reversals,, much less the variance in solar output.
Lastly, what happened to the warming after pentubo ?
And even worse… what happened to all that CO2 … poof its all gone !
These guys are egenda forward, they are leftist political egenda driven that couldnt find reality with both hands and a searchlight.
Look at Tom, using leftists quoting other leftist attempting to impress their fellow leftists.
All that noise, and you can point to only 3 items,,, 3 items they must pretend dont exist, because of blows their entire fraud, their entire shakespearean commotion of noise and fury into the nothingness that it is.
And of course, its important to have “fun”:http://www.blog.speculist.com/archives/000145.html at their expense.
bq. Things are heating up on Mars…literally. The planet is experiencing its own version of global warming. The dry-ice polar caps are diminishing. Paul Hsieh speculates that this must be on account of our failure to sign Kyoto.
bq. if two planets so close to each other are both experiencing a rise in surface temperature, isn’t it just possible that it might have to do with that nearby star they both orbit?
“Nasa”:http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/mars_ice-age_031208.html
bq. Mars Emerging from Ice Age, Data Suggest
Scientists have suspected in recent years that Mars might be undergoing some sort of global warming. New data points to the possibility it is emerging from an ice age.
bq. NASA’s Mars Odyssey orbiter has been surveying the planet for nearly a full Martian year now, and it has spotted seasonal changes like the advance and retreat of polar ice. It’s also gathering data of a possible longer trend.
And why the warming ? Earth and Mars ?
“Sun Energy Output At Over 1,000 Year Peak”:http://www.futurepundit.com/archives/002242.html
bq. Sami Solanki, Professor at the Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich Switzerland, says the Sun has been burning more brightly over the last 60 years than over the previous 1090 years.
bq. “We have to acknowledge that the Sun is in a changed state. It is brighter than it was a few hundred years ago, and this brightening started relatively recently – in the last 100 to 150 years. We expect it to have an impact on global warming,” he told swissinfo.
bq. The sun’s brightness hasn’t changed much over the last 20 years. But it has been brighter for the last 60 years than it has been at any time in the last 1,150 years.
bq. According to scientists, the Sun’s radiance has changed little during this period. But looking back over 1,150 years, Solanki found the Sun had never been as bright as in the past 60 years.
Gee you think ? and if your a HAM Radio guy like me, who built his first 1000 watt RF amp before he grew hair in his shorts, you notice things like the Sunspot cycle being all out of wack, that last cycle was amazing, but this one, that was supposed to be over ,, is still raging, the entire dormant period is GONE ! … instead we see X20+ class flares.
Poof goes all your mesurements ,, anyone makeing measurements of earth climate norms when the sun is thawing mars and giving hams unending DX for over a decade … are nothing more but objects of ridicule.
And those that want to look at the volcano data can do it themselves, the agenda forward dishonest evil intented koyoto hucksters foisting another excuse for political power can suck on my anode caps, and ill provide the energy to make it intersting,,, completely for free.
Okay, Raymond. Since you’re so smart, you tell us how much CO2 was released by the Pinatubo eruption, and how much is put out by the United States’ coal combustion in a year.
Then you can tell us how much sulfur for each.
I’ll wait.
Well, Raymond, since you’ve had 3 days and you’re still not answering…
Pinatubo emitted an estimated 20 million tons of sulfur. It did not make a significant contribution to atmospheric CO2.
Volcanic gases are about 98-99% steam. The dry constituents at Iwate volcano vary from 1-3.6% SO2 and 64-76% CO2. If we assume that Pinatubo’s emissions were at the mean of these numbers (2.3% SO2, 70% CO2) the 20 million tons of SO2 would have been accompanied by ~610 million tons of CO2.
Annual human emissions of CO2 are roughly 6 billion tons. In other words, we out-emitted the volcano 10:1 even during its big year. More detailed data is here.
I dug for the CO2 numbers, so I’ll let you find the sulfur data.
EP,
Raymond does have you on the sunspot cycle.
Solar energy output is higher when there are more sunspots.
The 11 year cycle has been pretty regular for at least several hundred years.
The Maunder minimum (of sunspots) is correlated with the Little Ice Age. Which we are just leaving. Temeratures would have to rise another .4 deg. F to bring us back to “average”.
What I would like to see is if the “missing neutrinos” are back. Which might indicate that the sun has started burning hydrogen again.