New at Reason

David Weigel | April 26, 2006

Ronald Bailey asks the 31 billion barrel question: Is the planet running out of oil?

Comments

|4.26.06 @ 12:42PM|#

I haven't read the article yet...but I'm gonna bet blind and guess that Bailey concludes....

"No".


Off to read the article now

|4.26.06 @ 12:52PM|#

What Mr Baily here completely ignores is #1 only so much of the organic carbon cycle has and will ever become oil in the first place, #2 we are obviously consuming more oil than nature creates.

Idiotic.

JMJ

|4.26.06 @ 12:57PM|#

Peak Oil doesn't bother me at all; it's simply an adjustment that will be made. I've read doomsayers talk about how we'll end up back in the 13th century, but that's crap. We know how to provide electricity to most of America (and most of the populated world, for that matter), and we can do it with little or no oil (the few things that require oil can use substitutes).

When the oil becomes short, people will turn to plug-in hybrid cars. Within 10 years (and maybe 5), there will be battery tech that will enable a Prius to drive 300 miles on battery only (there are already 150 mile battery cars), and have a 1 hour recharge time (that tech already exists). The engine will be a flex-fuel ethinol/biodiesel unit.

Long haul trains will install the 3rd rail and run on grid power and batteries. Long haul trucking will become a quaint memory. Planes, too.

Grid power will come from renewable sources and nukes. People will spend more time closer to home instead of globe-trotting.

It will far more early 20th century than 13th.

|4.26.06 @ 1:01PM|#

There is no such thing as the peek oil. We can never run out, it is impossible, the supply is infinite because due to the laws of the economics. There is an infinite amount of hydrocarbon molocules inside the planet of earth. If we run low it get more expensive so we will search more for it, as long as we keep looking we allways find it.

Peek oils and glabal warmings are only just liberal plots to keep us from driving our more biglier SUVs and to not fight the Iraqi terists who are responsible for planning and carrying out the 911s. We should invade the entire mid east then drain out all our oils and send it back to the America where it ritefuly belongd. They use radio waves to put the idea in the liberal heads about the peek oils and more warming other nonesense stuff that be lies and not truths that they tell us on the liberal medias that the show in the Tv that we look at.

|4.26.06 @ 1:10PM|#

Have you folks even read the article? Bailey doesn't say we'll never run out of oil, or that the supply is infinite, or that nature is creating more than we're using. In fact, at the end he says:

"One day, the oil age will end. As with all resources, there is ultimately a finite supply of oil. So it is not yet clear how the world will power itself for the bulk of the coming century. But we have at least another three decades to find alternatives to petroleum."

And he's right. At some point we'll stop using oil, because oil will be too expensive and alternatives will become cheaper. That's not even close to saying "we are obviously consuming more oil than nature creates," or "There is an infinite amount of hydrocarbon molocules inside the planet of earth."

|4.26.06 @ 1:11PM|#

Remember that meeting Cheney had with oil executives? I always have wondered if they were talking about this.

Peak oil doesn't mean running out of oil. It means running out of cheap oil. That's all. The great American people are going to have to get used to $3 gas. Do you really need a Hummer?

The Canadian oil sands become economic. And coal to liquids. Nukes look plausible again. There's a buttload of heavy stuff in Venezuela but we currently have issues with the guy there. So I don't think we're all going back to subsistence agriculture.

(PS: what OPEC and the Saudis say about their reserves. . . if they told me the sky was blue I'd have to independently verify it).

|4.26.06 @ 1:17PM|#

"The U.S. Energy Information Administration believes gasoline prices will remain below $3 per gallon in 2006."

Hey, let's be fair--the article was probably written quite some time back. Like maybe one week...

|4.26.06 @ 1:20PM|#

Nice article. I also suggest people should read it before they try to put words in RB's mouth.

|4.26.06 @ 1:29PM|#

There may not be an infinite supply of oil, but there apparently is an infinite supply of douchebags.

|4.26.06 @ 1:34PM|#

Yeah read the article dumbasses. Jeez.

|4.26.06 @ 1:46PM|#

Aside from the "Read the article" comments, and those from the people that DIDN'T read the article, does anyone else have an insight or prediction about the future of Peak Oil?

|4.26.06 @ 1:49PM|#

JMJ sayeth,

"What Mr Baily here completely ignores is #1 only so much of the organic carbon cycle has and will ever become oil in the first place, #2 we are obviously consuming more oil than nature creates."

However, Ron Bailey sayeth,

"One day, the oil age will end. As with all resources, there is ultimately a finite supply of oil."

Jersey McIgnorant actually read something? That's unpossible!

I mean, really, unless you are a true-blue comment-troll, how could you even contemplate making such a statement? Might as well say, "4 plus 3 equals 28!" Makes as much sense.

Ah, Jersey, such entertainment you provide!

|4.26.06 @ 1:55PM|#

WSDave,

I'm an archeeteckt, not a geologist, so, I can't really offer much in the way of technical predictions about "peak oil". I will say this: it's not as if, one day, the spigot will go from full-blast to empty in an instant. As supplies gradualy dwindle and crude exploration & extraction become more difficult and costly, petro prices will also gradually rise. As such, humanity will gradually adapt. We adapted into oil, and we'll adapt out. Will it be easy? Of course not. But it won't be the earth-shattering civilization-ruining mega-disaster that the doomsayers make it out to be.

|4.26.06 @ 1:58PM|#

Very good article overall.

"But we have at least another three decades to find alternatives to petroleum. �Trusting markets is the only way we can assure energy abundance in the future,� notes the University of Houston�s Economides. �It�s also the only way that we will ever transition to something other than oil and gas.�

Economides sounds like a nice guy to go to for free-market dogma quotes.

What about trusting markets and progressing to a 2 dollar a gallon oil tax over 5 years? Markets are notoriously bad about events a generation away, so why not give it a nudge?

But detonating the oil weapon would end up disarming the energy militants for a generation, after consumer cutbacks produce a new glut.

In the long run, we will all be dead. Aren't we only talking about a generational timeframe? Is the premise, from the techno-optimist side, that we may run out of oil in a generation.

One more thing, what is the proposed solution to people like Chavez inefficiently producing oil?

Isn't the problem a sharp drop off in oil, not inefficiently produced oil (Isn't it actually better that right now without many alternative options that oil is extracted more slowly resulting in so far manageable increase in cost (using this model due to artificially low supply)?

|4.26.06 @ 1:59PM|#

Exxon has given Reason money in the past. I think that's all you really need to know.

I've seen Exxon's business plan:
1. Trick people into thinking that Exxon will still be in business in 1990... errr... 15 years from now.
2. ????
3. Profit.

If you want some cutting edge stuff that illuminates where we're headed, check out the works of TR Malthus.

|4.26.06 @ 2:01PM|#

Evan - seriously. I mean, how did our ancestors ever survive?

Things change, humans adapt. That's pretty much the only thing we're really good at.

|4.26.06 @ 2:09PM|#

Jersey, you're the idiot in the room.

Humanity will adapt so long as it is free to. I'm not worried about oil running out.
I'm worried about liberty running out.

|4.26.06 @ 2:10PM|#

Doomsayers never solve problems because they don't even define them accurately.

|4.26.06 @ 2:10PM|#

TheCoach,

You say markets "are notoriously bad about events a generation away..." and suggest the state is better. Let's see a list of the top three "events a generation away" the market was "bad" enough "about" to make it "notorious." And then maybe some examples of the state doing better.

|4.26.06 @ 2:12PM|#

If the oil runs out, I still expect Exxon to be in business, probably selling alternative fuel and chemicals.

The real problem when the oil runs out is going to be the political ramifications in the middle east as that is pretty much the bulk of the economies there. Outside of Israel and some of the very small countires/emirates there isn't much of a diversified economy in many of those countries. Social unrest may get worse.

Ventifact|4.26.06 @ 2:15PM|#

theCoach:
What about trusting markets and progressing to a 2 dollar a gallon oil tax over 5 years? Markets are notoriously bad about events a generation away, so why not give it a nudge?

I'd be wary of giving the government a large source of revenue from oil. Far from stimulating the transition away from oil, it will give incentive to beauracrats to keep us using oil. I don't see the government being happy about letting their tax income shrink.

Ventifact|4.26.06 @ 2:18PM|#

Russ-
True, the transition might be a lot harder for oil producers than for users. But, at least any social unrest that the transition generated might be able to sort itself out without our darn interference if we didn't care so much about oil anymore.

|4.26.06 @ 2:18PM|#

OK Mitch, I'll bite. Let's compare, say, California's efforts to control the growth of pollution with, say, Rumania's from 1960 to the present?

|4.26.06 @ 2:22PM|#

Mitch, no, wait! compare California with Texas, er, hold on, I can't think of any place on the planet that allows markets to freely operate. Somalia?

|4.26.06 @ 2:29PM|#

I, for one, like high oil prices. If this situation persists, I might, someday, be able to charge customers as much for my engineering work as my accountant charges me for filling out tax forms.

|4.26.06 @ 2:31PM|#

It will far more early 20th century than 13th.

I agree; but calling it a mere "adjustment" is a bit of an understatement. Some significant chunk of the population is going to find that they can't afford their "non-negotiable" way of life anymore. And they're going to be pissed off.

|4.26.06 @ 2:37PM|#

Ammonium: Let's not forget my Exxonsecrets listing.

Timothy|4.26.06 @ 2:47PM|#

The same people who think we should move away from oil complain that oil prices are high...make up youd damn minds, folks.

|4.26.06 @ 2:47PM|#

rhywun,
Agreed, and it will be a problem. But overall, people will become thinner (from walking more, at first) and more self-reliant. The following generation will be just as spoiled as this one, however, because by then we will have a handle on the hybrid economy, and things will go back to sloth.

|4.26.06 @ 2:53PM|#

One would think that the prognosticating success of dung like Bankruptcy 1995 would be enough to get people to give up on pinpointing the exact date that the sky falls. We may well be near or on the peak, but sometimes that peak can stay flat for a long time before we start heading down the other side.

|4.26.06 @ 2:54PM|#

"You say markets "are notoriously bad about events a generation away..." and suggest the state is better. Let's see a list of the top three "events a generation away" the market was "bad" enough "about" to make it "notorious." And then maybe some examples of the state doing better."

Okay Mitch...off the top of my head, the Market wasn't doing much about air and water pollution until the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act came along. The Market wasn't really gung ho about removing lead from paint and gasoline. The Market wasn't out ahead of the curve on acid rain. And the Market wasn't going to do fuck all about CFCs and ozone depletion. Brilliant innovations like emissions trading came along after the Market was, as Coach said, "nudged" into doing so. And it was nudged into doing so because of two classic market failures: the failure to account for negative externalities and the short-time horizon of said accounting. The elephant in the room in all of these instances was the dreaded state.

Let me know if that works for you.

|4.26.06 @ 3:06PM|#

budgie: I note that nearly all of the pollution problems you identify occurred in open access commons. Markets can't work in an open access commons--thus establishing property rights is prior to markets--have the "state" do that, and markets work just fine, as you point out regarding SO2 markets.

Interesting historical note, in the 19th century the "state" pre-empted property rights in rivers, lakes and estuaries making them open access commons which then allowed people to pollute them without having to pay anyone for the damage.

R C Dean|4.26.06 @ 3:06PM|#

Spot the fallacy:

|4.26.06 @ 3:07PM|#

I've been looking for an article like that for weeks. Thank you Ron for clarifying a lot of points for me. I have questions though:

"peak oil" seems to have become such a popular phrase, it's easy to subscribe to without really understanding. Apparently it's supposed to be the point at which reserves are halfway depleted, causing production to start decreasing. As production starts decreasing while demand continues to increase, the market is supposed to suffer. The article brought up some very good questions about that theory for me. First of all, and forgive me if this is a completely stupid question, why exactly does reaching the halfway point of total supply cause the rate of production to start declining? If i have a bucket of water and i'm pumping water out of it, the speed that i can pump the water does not drop off after the bucket is half empty, right? Again, i hope i'm not way off base. Second, what was all that about not even having the capability of accessing more than 35 percent of a conventional reservior's supply? If i understand that right, then my question is, does peak oil come when half of the real supply is gone, or when half of what we are currently technologically cabable of accessing is gone? If it's the latter, then new technology that allows us pump more than we previously could have out each reservoir would offset any "peak" dramatically.

|4.26.06 @ 3:13PM|#

bungie,

Get on airplane to Dhaka, Bangladesh, toot-sweet. You will quicky find that the pollution you complain about has just been moved, not removed.

|4.26.06 @ 3:29PM|#

These are good points Ron. I was taking Mitch's bait.

The problem is that so few posters on H&R are willing to grant the state any role at all in this process. In fact, I would argue that environmental issues expose libertarianism as an extremely limited academic exercise that refuses to face the need for real-world tradeoffs and compromises. I know this tendency has been addressed ad nauseum, but apparently it still hasn't sunk in with so many true believers.

The state has a huge role in seeing that the rule of law is enforced, that externalities are accounted for, and that all of this market activity rests upon an adequate structural framework (as in monetary, legal, infrastructural). Plus, current science and policy are not even close to establishing private property rights for air, water, layers of biospere, chunks of hydrological cycles etc. Hence, these things are going to be open -access commons for quite a while yet. One has to go with the second best solution in this case...states nudging markets.

The Somalia example was facetiously trotted out, but for strict anti-statists, why not posit Somalia as sort of Zion for anti-statists? The state is dead there, or at least comatose. Book your flights now. I can see the brochures now...Private security! Private transport infrastructure! No public goods! Pay only for services rendered!

|4.26.06 @ 3:31PM|#

"Get on airplane to Dhaka, Bangladesh, toot-sweet. You will quicky find that the pollution you complain about has just been moved, not removed."

JK,

You mean the market hasn't sorted it out yet!?!

Captain Holly|4.26.06 @ 3:31PM|#

Okay Mitch...off the top of my head, the Market wasn't doing much about air and water pollution until the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act came along.

Bzzzt. Wrong. The Market has done alot to alleviate pollution, at least in Utah, as I outlined in an comment just the other day. For example, most of the dirty, inefficient smelters that operated some 100 years ago in Salt Lake County went out of business long before any clean air regulations came into effect; they were shut down because they were no longer competitive.

But there's other examples, such as households switching from dirty coal and wood stoves to clean natural gas for reasons of cost and convenience. Or railroad companies replacing coal-fired locomotives in the 40's and 50's with relatively cleaner diesel ones. Or more recently, people buying smaller Japanese-made cars after the first oil shocks hit in 1973. All of those were market-driven solutions, and none of them were precipitated by Government regulation.

Private companies naturally want to use the most efficient technology, especially when the cost of production increases. Government-run enterprises have no such motivation; they exist only for job creation. It's no coincidence that the dirtiest factories in the world are those in Communist China and the former Soviet Union.

Sandy|4.26.06 @ 3:49PM|#

Where's Jennifer? Somebody check on her quick!

|4.26.06 @ 3:53PM|#

You mean the market hasn't sorted it out yet!?!

I mean people are gonna do what they're do, shithead.

|4.26.06 @ 3:55PM|#

Kip,
Your bucket analogy isn't quite right. A more correct analogy would be that you have a bucket that is half filled with oil and the other half water. In your bucket you have a straw that is sealed at the bottom, has holes in the sides, and was fully submerged in oil when you started pumping. When you begin pumping you get 100%oil. As the oil is removed water takes its place such that the bucket always stays full. Almost immediately your production of oil will drop off and you will produce water with your oil, thus decreasing your net oil yield. The oil reservoirs remain 100% saturated, either with oil or water. At some point the cost of pumping and separating the oil/water mixture will exceed the value of the oil.

And to be more correct most reservoirs have a shape that is narrower at the top and wider at the bottom.

|4.26.06 @ 4:02PM|#

Ron, By Rumania I assume you mean Romania? From 1960 to the present? You mean that big chunk of time when the Communists were in charge?

|4.26.06 @ 4:06PM|#

Greetings, Sandy. What can I say that I haven't said before? I've maintained that rising oil and gas prices will cause serious economic problems for this country; looks like we're at the point where there's no need to even argue about it. Just wait a couple of years and see what happens.

Sandy|4.26.06 @ 4:24PM|#

I know. I just wanted to make sure you weren't in a ditch somewhere. ;)

fyodor|4.26.06 @ 4:45PM|#

The state has a huge role in seeing that the rule of law is enforced

That part is perfectly consistent with libertarianism.

that externalities are accounted for

It may very well be, and this is related to what Ron Bailey said to you, that if property rights were assigned properly and adequately, "externalities" could be dealt with no differently than any other property crime. That said, it may also be the case that some "open commons", such as the atmosphere, are inevitable. If so, then it may be true that strict libertarianism may not be the most appropriate course for such matters. Far from discrediting all of libertarianism and rendering an academic exercise, however, this would merely identify one specific area (the area of the "inevitable commons") where a free market based on strict property rights did not best assign responsibility.

fyodor|4.26.06 @ 4:54PM|#

budgie,

I would also like to point out that the issues you raised, in addition to all relating to an "open commons" as Bailey pointed out, have nothing to do with coping with change over time, which seems to be the applicable issue here. Taxing oil (moreso than already) would certainly "nudge" us towards finding alternatives sooner (Ventifact's belief to the contrary notwithstanding), but it's far from clear, to put it mildly, if that would necessarily mean a net reduction in pain. Even though Jennifer's vision of the future may possibly be correct, Bailey's may just as well be. Personally, I think it's even more likely. But even if Jennifer's is correct, taxing oil would only bring the predicted pain of high costs on sooner. It's like cutting off someone's head so they won't risk a concussion! Well, there's probably a better analogy than that somewhere... Hmmm, maybe it's more like a tanning salon, radiating yourself to protect yourself from radiation....

|4.26.06 @ 5:05PM|#

But even if Jennifer's is correct, taxing oil would only bring the predicted pain of high costs on sooner

If we lived in the best of all possible worlds with a wise and uncorrupt government, I'd love the idea of taxing gasoline and using the money to rebuild our nation's railroads, both for transport of goods and for commuters. But even if we had a gasoline tax for the specific purpose of railroads, with the current guys in office it wouldn't help, because we'd end up with stupid bullshit like a $250 billion commuter railroad connecting two towns in Alaska with a combined population of 150.

But I wouldn't be at all surprised if we soon see a rise in gas taxes to build new highways that (I believe) will soon become useless because gas will be so expensive that we'll no longer have enough cars to need the highways anyway.

Larry A|4.26.06 @ 5:06PM|#

You say markets "are notoriously bad about events a generation away..." and suggest the state is better.

IMHO the beauty of markets is that they don't try to predict events a generation away. Markets respond to what is happening now far faster than government can, and are therefore self-correcting.

Governments attempt to make long-term predictions, react to them by passing and petrifying laws, and therefore manage to screw up both the future and the present.

For example, U.S. agriculture policy is still addressing the coming famines that were due twenty to forty years ago rather than the "new" global problem of obesity.

Ventifact|4.26.06 @ 5:21PM|#

Property rights provide an excellent justification for regulating environmental issues. Many activities, especially pollution-creating activities, that you do on your property inevitably affect distant people and property. There's nothing about spraying dangerous pesticides on my property that is protected by property rights, when the chemicals are sure not to stay on my property. A well thought out libertarianism recognizes and incorporates into itself the material facts of the world, it does not need to ignore them.

Also, there is nothing about public property that makes it free and open to pollution and other misuse. It's owned by everyone, and those people still have the right to prevent people from bashing their land for free.

|4.26.06 @ 5:36PM|#

What Mr Baily here completely ignores is #1 only so much of the organic carbon cycle has and will ever become oil in the first place, #2 we are obviously consuming more oil than nature creates.

oil does not have biological origines...ever wonder why there are hydrocarbons on titan??? I'll bet you it isn't from dino dropping.

idiot

fyodor|4.26.06 @ 5:39PM|#

Jennifer,

Let me know when the uncorrupt folks get elected! :-)

|4.26.06 @ 5:51PM|#

If we lived in the best of all possible worlds with a wise and uncorrupt government, I'd love the idea of taxing gasoline and using the money to rebuild our nation's railroads,

Oh My "F"ing God...did Jen just advocate subsidiszing the "F"ing railroad!?!?!

ok Jen i am going to have to take your libertarian card back now.

:)

anyway in the era of just in time manufacturing (ok that was actiully the 1960s) railroads have proven themesleves to be worthless.

hey ever wonder how they get materials and goods from the site to the train then off the train to the customer??? oh yeah trucks. but yeah lets use trains becouse they are alwasy on time and get materials and goods to where they are needed eficiantly.

BWUAHAHAHA!!

|4.26.06 @ 5:52PM|#

Jennifer,
"But I wouldn't be at all surprised if we soon see a rise in gas taxes to build new highways that (I believe) will soon become useless because gas will be so expensive that we'll no longer have enough cars to need the highways anyway"

So I take it you're not on board with my plug-in hybrid vision of the future?

|4.26.06 @ 5:56PM|#

I think it's funny as hell that back in the 70's and 80's, all the liberals were decrying the Rambo-like fantasies of the Apoco-suvivalists (those people who were afraid of a nuclear war or economic melt down), yet here the liberals are living out their own Eco-survivalist wet dream through Peak Oil.

|4.26.06 @ 5:59PM|#

So I take it you're not on board with my plug-in hybrid vision of the future?

It might help our hypothetical grandchildren, but I don't see them coming about in time to save us. I do agree somewhat with the "cornucopians"--someday, probably, somebody will stumble upon an invention or discovery that will make petroleum energy technology as obsolete as stone weapons. But I think it is extremely unlikely it will come about in time to prevent those of us here now from going through some very nasty economic times.

Larry A|4.26.06 @ 6:03PM|#

Also, there is nothing about public property that makes it free and open to pollution and other misuse. It's owned by everyone, and those people still have the right to prevent people from bashing their land for free.

Having the "right" isn't the problem. It's having the incentive.

I certainly, over the last ten years, had the "right" to complain that the Corps of Engineers weren't properly maintaining the levees protecting New Orleans. As did every other U.S. taxpayer.

But I live in Texas. Therefore I don't either care or know enough to complain. Had the taxpayers of New Orleans constructed the levees they would have had far greater incentive to make sure the job was done right.

And of course anyone constructing levees to specifically protect their own property has overwhelming incentive.

|4.26.06 @ 6:10PM|#

anyway in the era of just in time manufacturing (ok that was actiully the 1960s) railroads have proven themesleves to be worthless.
hey ever wonder how they get materials and goods from the site to the train then off the train to the customer??? oh yeah trucks. but yeah lets use trains becouse they are alwasy on time and get materials and goods to where they are needed eficiantly.

But if oil becomes too expensive to be used for our everyday transportation needs as it is now, then the whole "just in time" retail delivery model becomes outdated, and we go back to the days of companies having nearby warehouses of goods to sell, rather than taking daily deliveries of them.

And I agree fully that railroads aren't as good as cars and trucks with cheap gasoline, but even in a worst-case gas-free scenario, using a horse-drawn wagon to transport goods from a railroad station to a store ten miles away beats the hell out of using a horse-drawn wagon to transport goods to that store from the factory a thousand miles away.

|4.26.06 @ 6:18PM|#

Jennifer,

Electric cars are available now to buy if people want them. But they are expensive, especially when you consider that electricity is not free. we have more than enough coal, natural gas, and nuclear material to handle all our electric car needs, and other electric needs, for decades beyond when oil becomes uncompetitive. Note that oil will never run out, it will still be in the ground too pricy to extract.

So the issue is price, not availability. We are already starting to see a switch to hybrids, even though they seem to be too expensive to buy right now with gas "only" at about $3/gallon. As oil becomes more and more expensive, more and more buyers will switch to alternative cars of one sort or another.

To those who want to add significantly to gas taxes, you are merely accelerating to inevitable to one carbon burning fuel to another, and accelerating the pain of the switch. There are plenty of people seeking ways to come up with alternatives to gasoline. If we wait long enough they may, or may not, come to the rescue before things become too painful. Again, no need to accelrate that day artificially.

Consider the following story from last week:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/04/0418_060418_coal_energy.html

It is about an apparent breakthrough in Fischer Trospch, which is a process of turning coal to diesel, in this case apparently clean(er) diesel. No mention on what price this becomes cost effective, but South Africa has been doing something like this for some time, just a dofferent formula.

|4.26.06 @ 6:19PM|#

Jennifer,
"It might help our hypothetical grandchildren, "

We're having hypothetical grandchildren? I'll tell my wife (she'll want to join us). ; )

|4.26.06 @ 7:21PM|#

My hypothetical child is on the honor roll of his hypothetical grammar school.

|4.26.06 @ 8:35PM|#

"Far from discrediting all of libertarianism and rendering an academic exercise, however, this would merely identify one specific area."

Hence, why I painstakingly singled out that specific issue--the "if there were property rights assigned to cubes of air" tripe--as a weak spot without calling anyone a fuckwit. Although it gets more tempting by the second.

|4.26.06 @ 9:14PM|#

"My" grandchildren, "our" grandchildren--if they're hypothetical anyway, does the possessive pronoun really matter?

Sheesh.

|4.26.06 @ 9:35PM|#

if they're hypothetical anyway, does the possessive pronoun really matter?

It does if you want them to get on the honor roll. Sheesh, indeed!

Wild Pegasus|4.26.06 @ 9:37PM|#

A combination of cheap solar cells, improved hybrid technology, improved fuel cell technology, improved flex-fuel technology, and more efficient petrol utilisation will produce cars that run hundreds of miles on a tank of gas. Gas will only be necessary for long-distance trips.

Of course, I should point out that the gas-reliant economy has been built on state subsidy. Interstate highways, subsidized suburbs, expressways into/out of cities, and sterile separation of home and business through zoning have made us a heavily car-dependent economy. And that makes us a petrol-dependent economy. A free market in transportation, and a more liberal view of real (estate) property would have resulted in an economy much less dependent on petrol and oil.

- Josh

|4.26.06 @ 9:46PM|#

Peak oil will not be a problem. Hybrid and electric car technologies are advancing rapidly, as has been stated in this thread.

Jennifer,

I suggest that you read some science mags or something. Ignorance leads to fear. In your case, ignorance of science is leading you to fear peak oil.

|4.26.06 @ 9:52PM|#

ignorance of science is leading you to fear peak oil.

Not ignorance of science, but the fear that an economy largely dependent on oil will not be able to make a forced switch to an economy largely dependent on other energy sources without first suffering some economic disruptions.

|4.26.06 @ 11:56PM|#

Actually, budgie, the problems of pollution are in fact government caused.

Back in the good -ol' days of the early 19th century, if I built a factory upwind of your house, and it then became covered in soot, you could sue me for damaging your property and expect to win.

This resulted in the development of primitive efforts to control emissions.

Unfortunately, some bright lawyer came up with a brilliant argument: that factories were a public good in that they employed people and produced needed goods, and that forcing them to pay for the property damage their pollution caused was not in the best interests of society. Juries started to buy this notion as did judges, and eventually it became established precedent.

This stopped the nascent emission controls industry in its tracks. Once the government decided to ignore property rights in favor of the "public good" of polluting heavy industry there was no need to curb pollution. In fact, it was a bad idea to do so since it would put one at a competitive disadvantage in relation to a rival who did not "waste" money on the technology.

By refusing to respect the right of a person to enjoy their property without having it despoiled by some other person, the courts in fact sabotaged the free market; it allowed factory owners to commit acts of aggression with impunity against those whose properties they polluted.

In essence this is the problem of government interference in peaceful economic activity in nutshell - the government identifies some economic actors whom it wishes to encourage above and beyand others, it then enacts laws or regulations designed to enrich their favored firms or industries. The laws and regulations inevitably act to harm those who are outside the favored group. Inevitably the injuries build up and become increasingly visible. Too often, unfortunately, the victims incorrectly conclude that what they need is violence to advance their interests, and turn their minds to getting favorable treatment for themselves at the expense of everyone else. Inevitably their victims are motivated to seek favorable treatment and the vicious buildup of distortions and malallocated resources continues apace.

|4.27.06 @ 12:44AM|#

It's simple: either technological civization will be long gone in, say, a million years or we'll have made appropriate adjustments.

Think REALLY long term. One hundred years is nothing.

|4.27.06 @ 12:47AM|#

While I have never believed in Peak Oil, let alone all the doomsday criers, it is reasonable to assume that we are entering the end of oil.

For the next three years of Bush the US will have 'occupying' forces in two MidEast countries, with the Iranian center getting ready to breakout into all out regional war (with or without nukes) and a huge South American distracter. Most of this will not change after the 2008 elections either. One reason why markets work so well is they have 'wobbly knees' in reaction to added risk.

But more then that, and a point the Baily ignores, is that Oil is trading high in large response to a weakened dollar. The prices of Gold and Oil over the past few years have been closely intertwined.

For hybrids currently to be cost effective gas needs to be $3.50-3.75 to fully pay for the additional cost. E85 FlexFuel is closer to $4.30. But the real magic number is $4.60, at that point mass conversion to alternative and hybrid technology become not just more economical, but wholly necessary.

So please, Oh pretty please Big Daddy Bush, keep barking at Iran, poking at Chaves, and Iraq ablaze, don't forget to cut taxes and spend the credit max! This time the oil price mechanism was pushed by the US (Though, let me add, I highly doubt their was any �conspiracy� to do so), and may well be the last time anyone pushes it ever again.

|4.27.06 @ 12:59AM|#

Are the economic disruptions in the short term from switching sources early likely to be smaller or larger than ones in the long term when the resource is scarce and there is no longer a choice?

|4.27.06 @ 2:03AM|#

Anyone ever play the Fallout video games (big fun if you haven't)?

Anyhow, you can get a car in the games and the car runs basically on a mini nuclear reactor in the car. The waste goes into a black box type of container which is removed and replaced.

This is to say, when the first car with it's own nuclear recator comes out, I'm buying it. If I don't have the money, I'm stealing it. Talk about King of the Road.

Bumper Sticker for my Nuke Car: "Oppenheimer is my Co-Pilot"

|4.27.06 @ 8:03AM|#

I'm not worried about oil running out. I'm worried about liberty running out.

|4.27.06 @ 1:58PM|#

Not ignorance of science, but the fear that an economy largely dependent on oil will not be able to make a forced switch to an economy largely dependent on other energy sources without first suffering some economic disruptions.

an economic disruption exactly like the one that hit us when we stopped using horses and heating our homes with wood.

that sounds like the kind of economic disruption i like.

James Anderson Merritt|4.27.06 @ 3:06PM|#

There is an amazing amount of organic matter on the sea floor, and an appreciable amount of sea floor always being subducted by the movement of the continental plates. While it is cute to say that oil consists of "dead dinosaurs," as if the oil supply were fixed at a particular level millions of years ago, with no way to make more, the fact of the matter is that the earth continually mulches vegetation and whatever other organic matter is on or in the crust. The question is, how quickly is oil produced by this process, and how quickly does the new oil rise close enough to the surface to be available to us? From everything I have seen and read, I don't think that geologists and other scientists are anywhere near to understanding the process, though the recent announcement of successful thermal depolymerization (technically successful I mean, not necessarily economically viable), suggests that we can at least simulate an accelerated version of that process. There is also the tantalizing suggestion that our "accelerated" simulation isn't that accelerated, after all -- that geologic oil production may happen fairly quickly, and that our current view of oil production being a multi-million-year process involving dead dinosaurs is only because the oil fields we have found and exploited so far have themselves been so ancient, or because it takes so long for the crust to thrust oil deposits close enough to the surface for us to reach them.

It is certainly reasonable to speak of "peak oil" in the sense of having extracted all of the (currently) easily and cheaply extractable crude, or in the sense of our rate of demand exceeding the earth's rate of supply. But so much about the situation is still unknown -- including whether or not either of those two situations actually apply in our case -- and so it is also entirely reasonable to speak of oil as a "renewable" resource (albeit on a geologic timescale), or to expect technological breakthroughs that allow us to extract or produce vast amounts of oil from currently impractical sources.

As I see it, the questions of whether or not it is WISE for us to continue to burn fossil fuel, or wiser to begin a transition to alternative "clean" energy sources, are completely separate from the question of whether the oil supply is now peaking or ever can peak.

|4.30.06 @ 8:48PM|#

OK, the H&R community has moved on from this thread, but J. A. Merritt's post is so terribly incorrect I must post a response in case anyone ever comes back to this thread.

First and foremost, subduction is not responsible for generating oil. Basically, layers of organic-rich goo that get buried by other sediment layers can become oil. However, this is purely a process controlled by sediment deposition. Moreover, oil is unstable at very high temperatures -- it cannot survive even too much burial (the deeper something is in the earth, the warmer it gets), much less subduction. If it is heated too much, it breaks down and disappears. Here's a sense of scale: burying organic-rich goo under enough sediment to turn the goo into oil without destroying it would place the goo only a few kilometers under the surface, and at no higher than about 175 degrees Celsius (the "oil window"); subduction would place the material at least ~20 kilometers below the surface, at temperatures up to 700 degrees.

Merritt goes on to tell us:
From everything I have seen and read, I don't think that geologists and other scientists are anywhere near to understanding the process [of oil formation], which shows how little he has acquainted himself with science.

Then he claims that [T]he recent announcement of successful thermal depolymerization [...] suggests that we can at least simulate an accelerated version of that process. But as they say "there's more than one way to skin a cat. Just because we've made petroleum-type hydrocarbons doesn't mean we've used the same chemical processes taking place in the earth. (This is a minor point.)

Let us continue with the unfacts:
There is also the tantalizing suggestion that our "accelerated" simulation isn't that accelerated, after all -- that geologic oil production may happen fairly quickly.

He doesn't say to which hypothesis he is referring, but any I've heard of are ludicrous. One particularly idiotic idea along these lines is the "abiogenic" theory of oil production, which posits that carbonaceous material exists throughout the earth and is continually moving upward to provide us with oil, but which theory seems to ignore the fact that any carbonaceous material not within the shallow oil window mentioned above is broken down into graphite. Graphite is inert. It is also pure carbon, lacking the hydrogen that helps make up hydrocarbons, and so graphite that eventually ended up at shallower, oil-safe depths could not convert into oil (even if it were chemically favorable for that to happen, which it is not).

Continuing:
[O]ur current [incorrect] view of oil production being a multi-million-year process involving dead dinosaurs is only because the oil fields we have found and exploited so far have themselves been so ancient, or because it takes so long for the crust to thrust oil deposits close enough to the surface for us to reach them.

1) Oil is believed to come from buried organic goo made mostly of plankton, algae, bacteria, and other tiny stuff. Not dinosaurs.

2) The tens-to-hundreds-of-millions-of-years ages of the major oil deposits in the world are not considered an indication that oil formation takes that much time -- it's because sedimentary and biologic conditions during that part of earth's history tended to be much better for generating oil deposits. Besides, the fact that only old material contains oil should be obvious evidence that oil is necessarily (relatively) old, not evidence against the idea. In any event, regardless of chemical processes that turn organic mud into petroleum, renewal of oil deposits is limited by sedimentation of organic and inorganic material that can become an oil field. And, as you said, this means we must look at events "on a geologic timescale." And let me tell you something: on a geologic timescale, the entire history of Homo sapiens is a vanishingly brief instant. As a result, it is meaningless to call something '"renewable" [...] on a geologic timescale' -- "renewable" is only meaningful on a human timescale, and, more specifically, in this discussion we're especially interested in, like, a few years to a couple decades! Claiming natural processes will renew oil supplies is idiotic.

3) Oil deposits are not "thrust[ed]" near to the surface. They must spend their entire lives near to the surface to avoid destruction by the physical conditions of the deeper interior of the earth. Oil does move closer to the surface from its point of origin, but by flowing through pores in rock, not by being moved via faulting (of which the "thrust" activity of which Merritt speaks is a type).