IEA report predicts oil declines of 6.4 - 9.1% annually -- FINANCIAL TIMES

[IrateCitizen]

The Financial Times recently leaked IEA figures predicting annual shortfalls of between 6.4% and 9.1% unless significant investment is made to offset declining fields. Essentially, this requires a new Saudi Arabia every few years, according to Richard Heinberg.

The IEA has countered that the figures are from an earlier draft of the World Energy Outlook, and those figures have been revised since then.

So, if the revised figures show a decline of between 4% and 7% per year, is that supposed to make me feel better?

Article link and my additional comment HERE

Richard Heinberg's comment on Post-Carbon Institute HERE

[Viking12]

1. There's more oil under North Dakota than Suadi Arabia, doncha know.

[Terry in Austin]

2. The oil decline story - how many Saudi Arabias?

The Financial Times on a new IEA report:

Without extra investment to raise production, the natural annual rate of output decline is 9.1 per cent, the International Energy Agency says in its annual report, the World Energy Outlook, a draft of which has been obtained by the Financial Times.

In Richard Heinberg's analysis of the article, he points out that new annual production capacity needed just to keep up with the decline rate is 6.8 million barrels per day -- the equivalent of a new Saudi Arabia every 18 months.

Even with the the IEA's "revised" decline rate of seven percent, that's still 5.3 million bpd. A new Saudi Arabia every two years, then.

Either way, the question is this: will new production actually meet the stay-even point? Short answer: No. Petroleum Review's http://archive.odac-info.org/news_archive/documents/2007/2007Sep10.htm#OneD">megaprojects report from last year shows new production topping out in 2009 at 5 million bpd, and going down to about 645,000 bpd in 2014.

An industry http://www.energybulletin.net/node/5266">rule of thumb says you can expect a production rate of 200,000 bpd for each 1 billion barrels of proven reserve. To put this in perspective, Brazil's much-heralded new Tupi field, at 5 billion barrels, would eventually add 1 million barrels per day to world production. So we would need five new Tupis every year just to stay even.

We might not be "running out" of oil, but it's clear that there's not going to be "enough," by whatever the current definition might be.

[kristopher]

4. "Enough" for what?

We've already seen the future with the price spike this past year. That was based largely on speculators manipulating the market but soon the supply/demand equations will produce the same results - high petroleum prices.

GM's Volt gives a great preview of the response that type of price structure will elicit. The average driver in the US would see a large decline in gasoline usage. An informed guess would be that it would probably equate to a change in miles-per-gallon from the current average to well over 100mpg, probably closer to 150mpg. In less than a decade we could reasonably expect that technology to develop to the point where petroleum can be phased out for use in the personal transportation fleet.

[Terry in Austin]

5. Enough to "meet our needs"

That's the way the discussion is usually phrased. There's kind of a sense of entitlement behind what people assume their "needs" are when it comes to energy. We've gotten used to a certain level of energy and anything less than that is not "enough."

A net oil decline of even five percent annually is a huge amount of energy that we no longer have. Energy we count on. One popular attitude is that we'll make up the shortfall -- meet our needs -- with non-petroleum sources of energy. I'd like to see a solid case made for that proposition.

Yes, we'll power a certain amount of stuff with alternate energy that we previously powered with petroleum. The only hitch: just how much is that "certain amount?" There's no reason to believe that we will be able to produce enough alternate energy to fully make up for the energy we lose due to oil decline. If somebody can make the case that this is feasible, they've still got it to do.

Most likely, we'll need to reprogram ourselves, from the current "enough" to another "enough" that is going to end up being much, much less. I know, I know -- in America, this is heresy! ;-)

[kristopher]

7. You need to read a wider variety of publications

Your statement that no one has made the case could more correctly stated as "I haven't read of anyone making the case". Plenty of very knowledgeable people have "made the case"; I'd recommend the academic journal Energy Policy as a good place to start, another good source of ongoing bits and pieces type info is an industry magazine called "EnergyBiz".

Declining petroleum supply is the least of our problems since most of it goes to personal transportation and for that we have alternatives. A much more difficult issue to deal with is replacing coal. Even that can be done fairly easily with existing technologies, but eliciting the commitment to doing it when there isn't yet a shortage is a real challenge.

For something more accessible try this:

http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2008/10/clean-energy-2030.html

http://google.com/energyplan

[Terry in Austin]

10. And you need to get it

The numbers just aren't there, pal. For you or for any variety of publications. Sorry.

[kristopher]

11. So you are saying your ignorance is your proof?

You fallaciously claim no one has shown how a renewable infrastructure can be made to work. I pointed you to a couple of places (among many) where, in agonizing detail, it is discussed frequently. You obviously haven't read these publications yet you assert your ignorance is correct.

[Terry in Austin]

13. The burden of proof is on the positive

For such a fan of logical argument, you should know that. Now, with that out of the way, let's get back to the point.

Actually, I agree with you: a renewable-energy infrastructure can be made to work. I have no doubt about it -- the technologies all work and we can build the stuff. And we'd better build as much of it as soon as we can. Are you with me so far?

Good. Now, we can have a little bit of renewable energy, or we can have a lot, or we can have a whole lot. Notice that this part is distinctly quantitative. So, how much shall we have? Why, of course, let's have enough to "replace" our fossil-fuel use so we can go on living at the level we've gotten used to.

Bzzt! Big problem. Here's the quantitative reality: 100 exajoules per year. That's what it takes to live our lives at the present standard of living. Most of that energy is from fossil fuels. If somebody wants to argue replacement, then they have show how the renewable numbers are going to replace the fossil-fuel numbers.

But arguments that are actually honest about the numbers end up with implausible scenarios: covering half of a state with solar panels, county-sized algae ponds, windmill farms big as forests, etc., etc. It's difficult to take them seriously.

So. We are indeed going to have the renewables. We'd better have them, and fast. But 100 exajoules' worth? I don't think so. I view such a claim as either naive or dishonest. Unfortunately, though, it's a claim that's too often made (or implied) by renewable-energy advocates. I don't really know if you make it also -- I hope not.

[kristopher]

14. Your reasoning has two flaws (besides

Your reasoning has two flaws (besides the burden of proof BS), both based on erroneous presumptions. First, we don't need 100 quads. That is the gross input to our present system based on thermal generation, not the amount of useful energy that is actually doing work. Approximately 65% of your 100ej is wasted. That's why energy efficiency is always listed first when you see discussions of moving to a renewable infrastructure. The second erroneous presumption you make is the one where you think you know what you're talking about.


Didn't it ever occur to you that the many, many scientists (or even perhaps Al Gore) working on this issue just might know something you didn't learn on a blog? You were provided a way to rectify your lack of knowledge, instead, you chose snark and ignorance. Heck of a job, there, Brownie.

[IrateCitizen]

15. Pointing out the speck in another's eye while ignoring the mote in your own?

The second erroneous presumption you make is the one where you think you know what you're talking about.

Then...

You were provided a way to rectify your lack of knowledge, instead, you chose snark and ignorance. Heck of a job, there, Brownie.

Physician, heal thyself.

[kristopher]

16. Considering the degree of willful ignorance, I was being restrained. nt

[GliderGuider]

17. No, you were just being your usual egoic self. Nothing new there.

Do you ever wonder why you run into so much opposition in this forum?

[kristopher]

18. I don't think I do.

The only "opposition" is from people spreading manure scented ignorance and calling it the truth.

[GliderGuider]

19. Ah.

[GliderGuider]

6. The market for new automobiles in the USA alone is about 10 million per year.

In order to completely cushion the effect of an immediate 10% drop in oil production, those ten million new cars per year (about 10% of the current fleet) would all need to be electric, starting right now. Can we produce and sell 10 million electric cars per year right now? How about 5 years from now? And what about the light trucks that also need to be replaced at 10% per annum? And the long-haul trucks for whom economies of scale (truck-pooling??) are not possible?

We don't even have a decade to get to that point, especially in light of the Net Oil Export Problem and the fact that Mexico's oil exports are falling by 16% per year as their production declines by 10%. In a decade we will need to have most of the vehicle fleet replaced with electrics - say 100 million cars, light trucks and transport trucks. In ten years.

I'd say I want some of what you're smoking, but too many people are already smoking it.

[kristopher]

8. You need antidepressant meds, dude; not weed.

[Nihil]

9. Clap harder! Clap harder kiddies ...

... or Tinkerbell will die!

You *do* know that each time you introduce reality into the whimsical
discussion of "could be" and "potentially" dreamers that a V2G fairy
dies somewhere on the web?

:crazy:

[kristopher]

12. GG sock puppet desho?

Atamaga byoki ka na?

[Nihil]

20. If you had a clue, you might try writing it in English.

As it is, you are just an ignorant wanker so babbling to yourself
to puff your own ego is about your limit.

Sit on it.

[kristopher]

23. kawaisou akanbo...

[Nihil]

25. See .20

:eyes:

[GliderGuider]

21. Is that all you have, kisama?

Ima imashe kuso!

Hey, this is fun :-)

[kristopher]

22. The Japanese seldom, if ever, revert to such gutteral utterances.

Most 'curse words' are best translated as things like 'stone head' or "you guy" (said sneeringly).

You've produced an effort very akin to your other analytic works. Way to go Brownie.

[GliderGuider]

24. Glad it touched you.

[pscot]

3. They did note that this is all happening

faster than expected.

[lutherj]

26. I see the discussion has moved beyond the reality of peak oil, and now is

centered on whether renewables will be able to adequately compensate. Looks like we're making progress.

[kristopher]

27. Why keep using the misnomer "peak oil"?

That is too indicative of an unprovable premise and a paranoid cult of doom; why not just stick to what we know as factual -
(1) as the price of petroleum rises can we shift to alternative resources?
(2) As climate change looms, will we muster the political will to deal with it in the face of present economic uncertainties?

[lutherj]

28. Ahh, I think I'm starting to get your point. Your two points do sum up the issue

pretty well, and I agree that when you start reading about peak oil and all the attendant literature it is easy to become overwhelmed by the prophecies of doom. (Although, when I read about climate change, water resource issues, top soil erosion, etc., I can become pretty overwhelmed too). But we might as well focus on the possible and the achievable. We may in the future be living with less energy per capita, but nonetheless we may well be living a better and more sustainable lifestyle with less throw-away plastic stuff from China.

Having said that, though, I can't help seeing peak oil as a defensible model. It seems inevitable to me that oil supply will peak and begin an irreversable decline, and when it does it would most likely have a traumatic effect on civilisation. If the peak occurs now or in the next two years and we experience a 9% annual decline rate, then we're in serious trouble. The immediacy of that prospect could help motivate people to make necessary changes sooner rather than later. However, after several years contemplating this, I have reached the conclusion that the only effective proactive response would be at the regional or national level, and since this obviously isn't happening I'm just going to have to chill and hope for the best.

Here's a quote from James Kunstler's blog that strikes me as appropriate:

"I reject the label "gloom-and-doomer" where these difficult transitions are concerned. There's a lot about the way we live now that is disgusting, degrading, demoralizing, and socially toxic -- from our suicidal diet of processed fat, salt, and corn syrup byproducts to the spiritually punishing everyday realm of the highway strip to the fantastic loneliness and alienation of a people made hostage to a TV-consumer nexus of corporate colonialism. We're done with that. We just don't know it yet. Mr. Obama may not know it, either, but he is a trustworthy soul to hold our hands as we enter this unknown territory."

[kristopher]

30. Supply demand

Whatever the cause - geological, economic, or political, the key element in crafting policies related to petroleum and energy is supply/demand. The current situation is a result of increased global demand and lack of investment in bringing new production on-line. The lack of investment is easily explainable in economic terms related to the pending imposition of carbon caps and a global move to phase out fossil fuels. The result, as it would be if the cause were definitively geologic, is a steadily increasing price for the commodity.

Since, taking into account known reserves, climate change is a much more immediate threat than running out of oil (we want to stop using it well before what we know we have runs out), your desire to move the discussion to the next level is well founded.

http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2008/10/clean-energy-2030.html

http://google.com/energyplan

[IrateCitizen]

33. The question has never been about "running out of oil"...

Rather, the question has been about the end of the age of cheap, abundantly available petroleum and the beginning of the age of petroleum scarcity. Whether that phenomenon occurs due to the geological peak or as a result of demand overwhelming available supply or political unrest in producing areas does not matter. What matters is simply that we have entered a time in which petroleum will never be cheap and always readily available again.

This change in resource availability will have certain effects. One of those will be the lack of capital available to invest in "other technologies" because of the simple fact that our economic growth is predicated upon growing supplies of energy (which come overwhelmingly in the form of fossil fuels). Since remaining oil is in smaller amounts, in places that are harder to reach or politically unstable, the very act of exploring and drilling costs much more per unit of energy retrieved. Since there is less capital (and ready equipment, in the case of deep-sea drilling rigs) to be had, then there is consequently not as much exploring and drilling. Therefore, given increased demand from Asia and a plateau of supply, there simply isn't enough oil to go around and meet everyone's desired consumption levels.

This is a paradigm shift in the American experience. Due to the influence of the frontier (see Fredrick Jackson Turner, "The Significance of the Frontier in American History"), the American mindset is one of ever expanding possibilities and resources. We are likely going to try and solve the predicaments posed by limited resources with the thinking characterized by expanding resources. Also likely, we will not change this course until some form of collapse occurs -- simply because that changed course runs contrary to our shared cultural narratives. Although 1890, the year the frontier was officially declared "closed" by the U.S. Government, may seem like a long time ago, it is important to note that if we trace our American beginnings to Jamestown in 1607, the American consciousness was shaped the frontier for 285 years, nearly 3/4 of its existence.

[kristopher]

34. The problem with that is your second paragraph.

The oil companies are the only ones with massive capital, they have more than enough to continue exploration in the 24% of the world's surface that has yet been surveyed - if they thought that running down current known reserves wasn't their best way to utilize their resource
The idea that we wont change course is wrong in so many ways it is hardly worth arguing about. Basic economics shows that as the price rises (for whatever reason) we will use substitutes if they exist and as they become economically preferable. This last spike demonstrates the point perfectly; for example, Al Gore called for the end of fossil fuel use in 10 years. He isn't a dreamer or an idiot, nor is he uninformed about the difficulties involved. He just knows that it is a matter of political will and nothing else. Markets and economies are subsets of governments, and in the scheme of things governments are stronger than both. It may not be the most efficiently functioning system at inception but a country that is organized by a strong central planning authority to accomplish massive public works infrastructure is seldom if ever too poor to do what must be done.

While I agree that lossing cheap petroleum energy is a paradigm shift, I don't buy into your overlaying a "frontier mindset" onto this particular issue when there are so many other, stronger, more current and valid models to look to (such as basic economic theory). And while it may seem the era of cheap energy is over, I'd disagree. The EROEI of petroleum 120 years ago was about 1:100. It is now about !:15-20 and declining; and it is the same with coal and nuclear.
On the other hand, the EROEI of solar is 1:20:40 in climbing rapidly, wind is 1:50-80 and it is also climbing rapidly.

We are in a period of technological transition, not energy collapse. If you can't see that, then please excuse me saying so, but you aren't looking very hard.

[GliderGuider]

35. You need time and capital to make a transition like this,

We're out of time with respect to oil supplies - the decline is starting already, certainly in the export markets. The pool of capital is becoming smaller day by day as the financial crisis unwinds and debt evaporates. That doesn't mean the transition is impossible, but it means it's not a slam-dunk. Of course the transition will be made easier if we don't need to replace all the activity we're currently doing (i.e. the slowdown means we don't need as much energy to run what's left of the global economy). But that's a two edged sword, as it's our level of economic activity that we're relying on to fund the transition.

[kristopher]

36. That simply isn't true.

If you need evidence, look to the ramp up for weapons and weapons platform development during WWII - another period of economic hardship. In fact, right now is the perfect confluence of events to bring about change to a renewable infrastructure since virtually every major problem we have is addressed by the change-over. Your thesis simply doesn't hold water.

[GliderGuider]

37. A war has entirely different characteristics than an energy changeout

A war is expected to be of limited duration. That sets a limit on the expectations of sacrifice for the taxpayers who fund it. Also, the taxpayers do fund it, through government expenditures that are not expected to be recouped. War materiel is not considered to be an economic investment. Expenditures on energy infrastructure are considered to be investments, and investors will expect them to turn a profit. That changes the dynamics of the energy transition situation considerably, compared to a war.

Also, during WWII it was the rich industrialized nations that bore the cost of weapons development, and global economic recovery following the war was entirely dependent on very cheap energy (aka oil from Texas and the Middle East). And the US national debt in 1950 stood at over 90% of GDP. If the US GDP falls by 20% or so in the next few years (as it could if the looming depression materializes) you'll already be above that level, without even having "fought the energy war".

Don't get me wrong -- I know that people can make enormous sacrifices and can change their behaviour radically when they understand that they must. Some of us are coming to that understanding already, but the world at large is not at the point of believing that the benefits of moving away from oil will be worth the perceived cost. That remaining large fraction will only be convinced by the sound of the shit hitting the fan. And unless we have that large fraction on-side, little or nothing will change.

Comparing this undertaking to the effort required to fight WWII is facile and intellectually lazy.

[kristopher]

38. That has to be the most idiotic thing you've written in a long time.

And it has a lot of competition. I'll just place this "prediction" right up there with you claiming $147 a barrel oil was sure proof of peak oil and your collapse while denying the obvious influence of speculators, competition and the existence of hundreds of analysis attributing the supply level to deliberate economic decisions. What is most amazing is how adept you must be at reconciling the persistence of your failures/errors while still churning out the same garbage using the same false premises.

[GliderGuider]

39. No attempt to address the substance of my argument?

Just another ad hominem. Why am I not surprised? Disappointed, but not surprised.

Your position that our success in fighting WWII carries structural lessons for the energy crisis remains an an article of faith unless you can support it. I've given two reasons why a war isn't like an energy transition, with the implication that the lessons from the first cannot be applied willy-nilly to the second. Unless you address the arguments, they stand -- no matter how much you may dislike me personally.

[kristopher]

40. You've given no arguments.

You proceed very much in the vein of a creationist; when one nonsensical claim is shattered instead of just admitting the false premise you are starting from, you switch to anther equally absurd proposition. In this case you said that economic conditions would prevent large scale technological response to a crisis; I proved that wrong by citing the simplest and most obvious refutation of that premise - the massive build-out of WWII. Now you make unrelated, obtuse and irrelevant claims and assert that unless I continue to play along with your nonsense, you must be correct. Sorry, but that claim is no more true in your case than it is when I drop the conversation with any other tiresome zealot.

You have a track record of failure that exceeds that of the Bush administration. Wake up and smell the coffee, dude; your fundamentals are fallacious.

[GliderGuider]

41. Here's a bit of data to support my statements

Here's a graph of US military spending as a percentage of GDP from 1940 to 2003: http://www.truthandpolitics.org/military-relative-size-graph.php?meas=GDP

The United States spent just under 40% of its GDP on the war, but that only lasted for about 3 years. While the infrastructure that was built to support the production outlasted the war, that level of effort couldn't be sustained for long. It was a one-time-only short-duration push that takes it out of the realm of a fundamental energy infrastructure transition.

I'm not saying we can't make big efforts, and I'm not saying we won't make some kind of energy transition (after all, we'll have to) -- I'm just saying that gearing up for a war is a poor comparison.

[kristopher]

42. The comparison is extremely apt.

Particularly wind turbines to aircraft. You just can't stand to admit the world isn't going to end unless we build-out nuclear. Athough you don't focus on it, that is the subtext to everything you post.

[Terry in Austin]

44. "The subtext of everything you post" is pretty obvious

in your case, kristopher.

[Nihil]

50. Careful ...

... he'll be accusing you of being a "GG sock-puppet" and
calling you a baby in mediocre Japanese if you dare to
criticise ...
:eyes:

[Terry in Austin]

57. Oh, snap!

He Who Must Not Be Contradicted... rats, I forgot.

[GliderGuider]

45. Nuclear?

When have I ever said we had to build out nuclear? And now you're playing at being Jacques Derrida, deconstructing my posts for their subtext? Sorry, you're just projecting again. I believe global enlightenment is our only real hope, not global nuclear power.

[IrateCitizen]

48. OMG, that one is funny!

Particularly wind turbines to aircraft.

Wait, wait. Lemme guess...

Because they both use wind and propellers!!!!

One is a means of transport (that uses energy), the other is a means of harnessing energy for human use.

Then again, I guess that's an apt comparison if you close your eyes and pretend that using energy and creating energy are the same thing!!!

[IrateCitizen]

47. The problem in 1940 was lack of capital alone...

The US still had abundant resources, especially in petroleum, waiting to be brought to bear. The Keynesian stimulus of WWII war spending was what finally pushed the use of these resources.

We no longer have that luxury, as we no longer have the resource base (especially in petroleum).

What does not hold water is your comparison of these two periods.

It is also interesting to note that the economy began to sputter again in 1946-47, as demand for war materiel ended. A drive for household consumption was used as the engine to avoid another depression. Seeing how this push toward "more" was what was required to avoid another depression, and that consumerism is at the root of a lot of the environmental and energy predicaments we face, do we really want to choose a model that emphasizes increased consumption of resources as the way out of this mess?

[kristopher]

52. Aircraft and wind turbines are similar manufacuring challenges and

the comparison is apt. The biggest difference is, as you wrote, that one consume energy and the other collects energy. This means that at the end of the production boom, instead of tens of thousands of aircraft sitting in junkyards rotting, we have an ongoing energy collection system that is providing energy at an energy cost (EROEI) similar to what was extant for petroleum in the 1940s. So instead of leaving a faltering economy, we would be laying the groundwork for building a cleaner, sustainable society on the surplus energy.

[NickB79]

59. It's funny you mention WWII as an example

One country, the US, was able to ramp up weapons development and construction to win the war.

The other country, Germany, slowly saw their war effort and manufacturing grind to a halt and lost, badly.

Guess which country was experiencing massive fuel shortages?

[GliderGuider]

60. Couldn't Germany have just switched to wind turbines????

That's the one thing that "substitutionists" tend to overlook. The physical and energetic qualities of oil as a fuel are simply unmatched by anything else that is available at the scale required to replace oil and preserve business as usual as the oil supply declines.

[kristopher]

62. Oh my, you have us pegged.

What idiots we are to have overlooked the different characteristic of the differing forms of energy and energy carriers ad the role those characteristics play in designing an answer to climate change.

I would have sworn I'd written frequently of that specific issue when discussing, among other things, the role of biofuels; the relative efficiency of electric drive vehicles versus internal combustion engines; and the role of Compressed Air Energy Storage in a renewable power infrastructure.

I must have been dreaming...

[kristopher]

61. Along with massive infrastructure destruction, manpower depletion

and a whole host of other problems created by having an insane person directing the utilization of resources.

Also, again you may want to take into account that each unit of energy expended building, installing and operating a wind turbine returns itself 50X-80X. Solar 20X-40X.

When you build a bomber or fighter, the associated energy consumption is just beginning. When you are building renewable energy collection systems, the energy used is rapidly paid back and a surplus is produced for several subsequent decades.

Thinking is good for you....

[GliderGuider]

65. And Russia?

About all they had left in 1941 was willpower and oil. They were able to move their manufacturing plants behind the Urals and increase production because they had oil for transporting the raw materials in and finished goods out.

USA and Russia: Oil, victors.
Germany and Japan: No oil, losers.

Whatever message WWII has for an oil-depleted world is actually ominous rather than hopeful.

[FREEWILL56]

63. Although I think I understand what it is you mean by this WWII comparison

I don't believe the fast ramping of efforts will ever happen even though it can and should be done. My reasoning is that during the onset of WWII it was a sudden attack and not a gradual going to war even though it took us quite some time to participate once war was declared. We were immediately threatened and that forced action and many don't feel that threatened by oil energy issues let alone something as global warming. If using your train of thought and that we suddenly found ourselves without oil resources, then that scenario would certainly be played out with an all-out effort IMHO. If and when oil starts its decline (not trying to debate if it started or not) it will be gradual, with some up and down bumps and barring something else in the mix, for many won't take notice or care as they'll just accept as normal the high prices and lowered availabilities without seeing the need to do something extraneous about it until it's too late to transition easily.
If I may use the WWII example and adlib somewhat to the scenario with a whatif, whatif Japan hadn't attacked us when they did and waited until we were nearly the last to be conquered? Japan would've had a greater foothold on resources minimumly, with the extra time to do us more harm as well. Germany, at the time, would've had more time to develope their jets and an atomic bomb. See my point? Without that fear factor that we are in deep dodo if we don't do something soon about alternative energy sources, then the outcome and circumstances surrounding them could have vastly different and possibly devasting results for our country. IMHO, our dependance on oil is a national security issue and is one that won't be solved ultimately with more exploration and drilling as those smaller newly found resources will be used up quickly in an oil dependant society even when we invade to get the oil from other countries. This buys only time until the inevitable does happen and with the oil industry, car industry, and the government to the most degree keeping us more trained on oil dependance, the impact will happen later and it shouldn't.
Now it could go hand in hand and gradually be ramped up while oil dependance goes down if the government had the foresight and wisdom to do so. Not holding my breath as the government can't be bought off with foresight and wisdom.:think: :freak:

[kristopher]

64. You make a solid argument

The rapid scenario that was being discussed is more a reflection of the OP and reactions to it than it is a recommendation or belief in the way things will actually shake out. However, if you pay attention to the verbiage that is being thrown around by the politicos talking about the move to renewables, you'll often hear terms like "Manhattan Project", which indicates an all out effort, albeit one that would undoubtedly fall short of WWII scale because of competing infrastructure priorities.

It is hard to know how this will play out. A lot of high level people are extremely worried about climate change and see a need for decisive action that would be difficult for adversely affected business interests to roll back if there is a change in the political landscape. That argues for a strong effort aimed at creating a competing business structure with a vested interest in ensuring the continuation of renewable deployment even if the Dems lose power.
Obama's energy plan has a strong emphasis on such a US business development and product deployment model.

[Terry in Austin]

43. Time and capital and fossil-based energy

A post-oil energy infrastructure doesn't come cheap, in terms of the energy necessary to build it. Cement is very energy intensive, as are steel, glass, plastics, and all the rest of it.

The gross energy output of an initial renewable energy infrastructure wouldn't likely be enough to "bootstrap" itself into existence on a scale that could sustain anything resembling "modern" life.

Investing fossil energy in this project is key, and it needs to be done wisely. It's our last shot. It's a little bit like being at a certain point in the history of Easter Island, where the natives could use the last few trees left on the island to build boats and get to someplace habitable. Or, they could build another statue...

[kristopher]

53. Perhaps you should research the fundamentals of your claims before making them

You'd learn a lot by comparing the Energy Return on Energy Invested for the various technologies. That information directly and unambiguously contradicts your assertions and conclusions.

[Terry in Austin]

56. Perhaps

And perhaps I might listen to the scolding of someone who seems intent on acting like some fussy blowhard more preoccupied with talking down to all who don't agree with him on every fine point than with having any actual discussion about E&E.

It is not worthy of you, surely. Furthermore, it taints the contributions that you do make. I'm determined to believe that you're not just what you seem and to be able to take you seriously. You obviously care about the subject, have a lot of the right ideas, and an interest in seeing them discussed and developed.

If you are ready to hear some advice, it is this: focus more on substance, worry less about form, and while you're at it, learn how to talk to people. Especially when they basically share your stance on the necessity of renewable energy. When you lose your credibility, we all do.

[IrateCitizen]

46. My reply to you was meant more for other readers of this thread...

... than it was meant for you. Your reply was much of what I expected, based on your postings I've read before.

Basic economic theory is a product of a historical period characterized by territorial and resource expansion, first on the part of Western Europe -- the age of exploration (early capitalist development) and imperialism (industrialization's resource and market expansion). Just because its tenets held true during this period does not mean they will hold during one of finite territory and resources.

Such is the outlook of historical positivists who see history as primarily linear, rather than working in cycles. It is also the domain of those who refuse to even explore the possibility of constraints on their techno-wizard view of the future.

[kristopher]

51. Do you always argue from ignorance?

You clearly don't understand economics, which is highly predictive of human behavior, and attempt to disguise your ignorance by using lofty sounding yet totally meaningless rhetoric.

You also have no idea of what forms my world view. However, a nice summary can be found in the texts of anthropologist Marvin Harris, if you'd care to read them. To relate that to someone you might be familiar with, Harris laid the groundwork that much of Jared Diamond's analytic approach is based on.

[IrateCitizen]

54. Summary of your argument: I know you are but what am I?

The projection is so palpable that one can almost touch it.

My understanding of economics is fine. The problem is when positivists like yourself attempt to project its core assumptions infinitely into the future, without bothering to acknowledge the grounds upon which those assumptions are based nor to evaluate whether those assumptions continue to be valid.

[kristopher]

55. You mean assumptions such as

the way people make choices when a depletable resource cost curve crosses the cost curve of a substitute? It doesn't matter whether it is a deposit of flint for arrowtips or barrels of petroleum, people behave the same way when faced with similar parameters.

You are spouting a bunch of trash to mask gross ignorance.

[IrateCitizen]

58. Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah...

... blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah.

Believe me when I say that I wear your condescension toward me as a badge of honor on this forum.

[GliderGuider]

29. Because it's a convenient shorthand? Kind of like "Global Warming"...

This is also known to be factual:

(1) As the price of petroleum falls due to the global economic slowdown there is progressively less ability and incentive to switch to alternatives.
(2) As climate change is already looming, what effective global initiatives have we put in place so far? Why would we expect this dilatory response to change until after a tipping point has been passed?

I like this phrase from Charles Eisenstein's remarkable book, "The Ascent of Humanity" regarding our likely response to the converging set of global crises: "(T)he things that must happen to avert them will only happen as their consequence." To believe otherwise is to have great faith in the rationality of a species that has reliably demonstrated its irrationality for many millennia. That faith is touching, but hardly justifiable.

[kristopher]

31. Unique window of opportunity for policy change

That is what we have with this election. The speculators gave consumers a taste of the near term future and they didn't like it a bit. The demand from India and China is not going away, and like all other economic downturns, we will come out the other side of this one also.
If we elect McCain, then we are fucked since spending all of our money on nuclear will tie us to a technology of declining energy return. If Obama wins and if he follows through with his intent to lay the groundwork for renewable deployment, then we should be fine.

[IrateCitizen]

49. Actually no matter who is elected, there won't be any money to spend...

... because a good chunk of it was created through bad loans sold through mortgage-based securities.

You know, the stuff that caused a near-meltdown of the global economy and spawned the massive bailouts for Wall Street.

[IrateCitizen]

32. Eisenstein's conclusion seems similar to Dmitry Orlov's...

Basically, that only when the collapse happens and renders the status quo utterly and completely unsustainable, will it be abandoned in favor of other alternatives.

Orlov promotes his idea in the tongue-in-cheek suggestion of a "Collapse Party" to enter national politics.

But both cases seem to adopt the "collapse as mother of invention" outlook. When I look at the long view of history and the way in which humans respond to base assumptions of their way of live coming under attack by reality, it is one in which I find a good deal of supporting evidence.