Peak Oil

[darkfish01]

As we all know, gas prices have fluctuated dramatically this past year, up from $4 a gallon this summer down to below $2 in the past month or so. I'm sure this has caused much concern about the future of oil and our dependency on it.

"Peak oil is the point in time when the maximum rate of global petroleum extraction is reached, after which the rate of production enters terminal decline."

Some say that it could rapidly devastate societies heavily dependent on oil if proper measures are not taken to switch towards other energies.

Others think that it is all pish posh, and that no such thing could happen as there is much oil in the world that has yet to be tapped, which could be used through this century.

Your thoughts?

[jrthebassguy]

I don't know if we've reached the peak so to speak, that's not my call to make (or anyone that isn't a scientist in this field, for that matter). But I would like to see us lessen our dependency on oil - not because I'm big on the "green" movement but because I'd rather not be at the whim of oil companies and OPEC.

[bassrique]

Have we reached it? There are strong arguments on both sides.

Let's just build beaucoup nuclear plants. That makes sense either way.

[hbarcat]

I'm guessing that we'll hit the "peak oil" point about 20 years from now.

That's just a guess based on little more than intuition guided by my own humble experience, but I'll put my guess up against any guesses the "experts" want to make.

[Philbiker]

Peak oil is real. Unfortunately most of the people who are associated with the term are doomsday kooks. The wild fluctuation in prices of oil in recent years certainly appears to be an indicator that it may be upon us. It's not the end of the world.

[Anthbass]

Originally Posted by bassrique

Have we reached it? There are strong arguments on both sides.

Let's just build beaucoup nuclear plants. That makes sense either way.

Winner. Mmm, I can taste the trace radioactivity in my drinking water already...

[bassrique]

Originally Posted by Anthbass

Winner. Mmm, I can taste the trace radioactivity in my drinking water already...

Is hard to tell [on the internet] if you're messing with me or not.

[Gard]

Originally Posted by Anthbass

Winner. Mmm, I can taste the trace radioactivity in my drinking water already...

...and the air you breathe, and the food you eat, and on and on ad infinitum....

I don't know if you're serious or pulling legs, but the fact is that radioactivity is EVERYWHERE, all the time. There is no escaping it, and it won't help anyone if there are NO nuclear power plants. You cannot avoid it, no matter what, you can only limit your exposure to a certain degree.

I lived within 5 miles of a plant for several years, I fished, swam, and surfed (very BADLY) within site of it the entire time. I knew people that had been living within site of the plant all their lives.

No ill effects.

Yes, if you have idiots running the asylum (Chernobyl), things can and will go wrong.

However, you can have the same or worse issues by using other sources of generating electricity....coal fired plant, anyone?

Given a choice, and from having experience at living near BOTH, I'll take the nuke, thanks.

[TallLankyBastyd]

Originally Posted by Gard

I lived within 5 miles of a plant for several years...

Well...
.
.

.
.
...that explains it then.

[Gard]

Originally Posted by TallLankyBastyd

Well...
.
.

.
.
...that explains it then.

[Anthbass]

Originally Posted by bassrique

Is hard to tell [on the internet] if you're messing with me or not.

The sarcasm meter was 'pegged' with regards to my response. I don't feel nuclear energy is a viable, long range alternative for this planet [providing it continues to support life forms, that is].

[Gard]

Originally Posted by Anthbass

The sarcasm meter was 'pegged' with regards to my response. I don't feel nuclear energy is a viable, long range alternative for this planet [providing it continues to support life forms, that is].

And what is, right NOW?

Coal? Oil? CNG???

Definitely NOT solar, wind, hydroelectric/wave/tide, biomass, nuclear fusion, or geothermal, at least not yet. Some of these are at the least decades from any hope of being viable! We also need to work to improve efficiency, both in terms of power output vs. fuel input, and in use of power.

All of these need to be explored, improved, and generally worked on, but what do we do in the interim, until they are truly viable? Continue burning coal, et al?

Of all of the presently viable alternatives, the LEAST damaging to the environment is nuclear fission. I for one am not interested in going back to reading by candlelight while the technology catches up. Use what is viable now, and press hard to develop better options as quickly as possible is the best of all choices.

[Pilgrim]

Originally Posted by darkfish01

Others think that it is all pish posh, and that no such thing could happen as there is much oil in the world that has yet to be tapped, which could be used through this century.

Your thoughts?

Yeah, those are probably the same people who think that Detroit kept the 100-MPG carburetor off the market and who can hear the black helicopters hovering over the horizon.

I've spoken to a guy who really DID think that there was an infinite supply of oil. It was frightening to think that he is entitled to vote.

Originally Posted by Gard

Of all of the presently viable alternatives, the LEAST damaging to the environment is nuclear fission. I for one am not interested in going back to reading by candlelight while the technology catches up. Use what is viable now, and press hard to develop better options as quickly as possible is the best of all choices.

I'm of exactly the same opinion. We know how to build safe nuclear plants, and they have less long-term impact than any other form of energy production. We'll work out a way to deal with the waste, and it will be something much smarter than pumping it below the ground where we can't reach it if we ever find a way to use it for reactor fuel or otherwise neutralize it. My brother works in waste disposal at the Hanford site in Washington, and he agrees with me that we have the technology for storing nuclear waste for a period of 100-200 years safely. In that time period we'll figure out a way to deal with it.

[flipper_gv]

Originally Posted by Gard

And what is, right NOW?

Coal? Oil? CNG???

Definitely NOT solar, wind, hydroelectric/wave/tide, biomass, nuclear fusion, or geothermal, at least not yet. Some of these are at the least decades from any hope of being viable! We also need to work to improve efficiency, both in terms of power output vs. fuel input, and in use of power.

All of these need to be explored, improved, and generally worked on, but what do we do in the interim, until they are truly viable? Continue burning coal, et al?

Of all of the presently viable alternatives, the LEAST damaging to the environment is nuclear fission. I for one am not interested in going back to reading by candlelight while the technology catches up. Use what is viable now, and press hard to develop better options as quickly as possible is the best of all choices.

we have a winner

Nuclear power FTW

[WalterBush]

Seeing as to how we've developed drilling techniques and chemical processes that allow us to extract oil we couldn't get at before (thus extending our supply) and we have the ability to delve deeper in the ocean for oil (again, increasing supply) and shale oil looks more like it'll be economically viable in a few years,I'm willing to believe that we've got oil to spare for a couple of centuries, at least.

The US also has more coal underground than any other nation; coal technology becomes cleaner all the time. I for one am interested in seeing coal-to-gas technology become a reality in the US. And of course, we should be going nuclear; Chernobyl was built by the Soviet Union, not a nation known for its craftsmanship, attention to detail, or social/environmental responsibility. Other countries have been doing it meltdown and heavy water free for ages, and we can, too.

In other words, IMO, unless we're incredibly stupid and irresponsible over a period of decades, I think we'll be fine using oil until we've developed something better.

[jkritchey]

Originally Posted by WalterBush

In other words, IMO, unless we're incredibly stupid and irresponsible over a period of decades, I think we'll be fine using oil until we've developed something better.

Don't the last 5 decades count in your calculation? How about the last 3? Do they apply to the 'period of decades'?

[WickedPissah]

Originally Posted by darkfish01

As we all know, gas prices have fluctuated dramatically this past year, up from $4 a gallon this summer down to below $2 in the past month or so. I'm sure this has caused much concern about the future of oil and our dependency on it.

"Peak oil is the point in time when the maximum rate of global petroleum extraction is reached, after which the rate of production enters terminal decline."

Some say that it could rapidly devastate societies heavily dependent on oil if proper measures are not taken to switch towards other energies.

Others think that it is all pish posh, and that no such thing could happen as there is much oil in the world that has yet to be tapped, which could be used through this century.

Your thoughts?

I think the Saudis just found some huge untapped oil dealie.

[WalterBush]

Originally Posted by jkritchey

Don't the last 5 decades count in your calculation? How about the last 3? Do they apply to the 'period of decades'?

Nah, not really. We (as a species, worldwide) slurped up a lot of the oil that was close to the surface, and easily refinable. I'm more concerned about the effect that China, India, and other boisterously developing nations may have on the price of a barrel, if we're not using our own supply here in the US.

Again, the technology for drilling oil, using coal, and nuclear power plants has only improved in efficiency and output. I don't see the worldwide supply in any danger, and the only reason it causes a panic in the US is that we import a ton of oil instead of using what we've got and investing in other forms of energy, which puts us at the mercy of other nation's markets. IMO, of course.

By stupidity, I mean failing to develop new energy technologies and make existing ones more efficient; oil use in and of itself isn't stupidity.

[StyleOverShow]

Originally Posted by WickedPissah

I think the Saudis just found some huge untapped oil dealie.

Nope. In fact, in 2000 the Saudi's hired someone other than the Americans to do their underground inventory (I think a french firm got the contract) and there has been speculation that the report indicated that had half of what was estimated. That puts them on a foreseeable time line, an end of their era.

And the huge natural gas reserves map, along the northern slope of AK, that we saw during the presidential campaign is chemically locked (with water?) and there is current no technology to separate it at a commercially viable price.

IMO, we need to conserve the world's oil supplies, get as much as we can out of solar, wind and geo-thermal, but put our minds and shoulders behind energy technologies. Like Ike and the highways, or Kennedy and the lunar excursion, we need focus and resources.

Since nukes take years to come online and there still is that nasty waste storage problem, I don't really put much store in them for help during the next decade.

BTW, I propose that the cash flush oil companies buy the auto industry outright and make cars themselves keeping the US out of yet another Czar industry.

[jkritchey]

Originally Posted by WalterBush

Nah, not really. We (as a species, worldwide) slurped up a lot of the oil that was close to the surface, and easily refinable. I'm more concerned about the effect that China, India, and other boisterously developing nations may have on the price of a barrel, if we're not using our own supply here in the US.

Again, the technology for drilling oil, using coal, and nuclear power plants has only improved in efficiency and output. I don't see the worldwide supply in any danger, and the only reason it causes a panic in the US is that we import a ton of oil instead of using what we've got and investing in other forms of energy, which puts us at the mercy of other nation's markets. IMO, of course.

By stupidity, I mean failing to develop new energy technologies and make existing ones more efficient; oil use in and of itself isn't stupidity.

I think I'd count them. 50 years we began a pell mell rush to suburbanization without any thought given to the changeover to personal transportation. In doing so, we abandoned rail lines and other mass people movers. 30 years ago the OPEC embargo attempted to teach us that oil was a finite resource. We didn't learn much from that lesson.

I'm not opposed to finding and using more oil based energy. But if there is no intelligence used to understand the direct and indirect impact of that decision, then we'll just keep bouncing from crisis to crises. IMHO...