At NASA, we frequently have to step back and retreat to the last recognizable common ground on technical issues. If we hope to expand the dialogue about Peak Oil, we must do the same. Below are what I consider uncontroversial, solid facts related to energy and oil production. While several of these statements may appear ridiculously obvious to those who are in any way familiar with oil production, we must begin the discussion at the least common denominator -- the bare facts on which everyone can agree. If you are unfamiliar with the basic arguments of Peak Oil, I encourage you to explore these resources.
Please provide feedback on whether you agree or disagree with this list and we’ll see if starting from common ground will allow a wider audience to collectively develop more meaningful ideas about Peak Oil mitigation.
1. Oil must be found before it can be produced.
No commodity can be exploited if its existence is unknown. No oil can enter production if it is undiscovered. An absence of discovery therefore yields a future absence of production.
2. Oil must be produced before it can be used.
No commodity is useful if it is not brought to a useful state. Oil reserves are useless if they are not transformed into a usable product. Oil reserves are therefore of no use until they are brought to the surface, refined, and moved to the point of desired use.
3. On the scale of the lifetime of our current civilization, oil is a finite resource.
Any energy source is finite given the appropriate amount of time. The sun will eventually exhaust its nuclear fuel, but over the course of a human lifetime (or even the human species’ lifetime) solar energy will not be depleted. Oil production will peak within the lifetime of our current civilization. There is no position in the debate (including abiotic oil proponents) which disagrees with this point. Oil is renewable on the scale of the Earth’s lifetime, but our species would likely be extinct before oil reserves can be replenished.
4. If demand for oil is higher than the available supply of oil, not everyone who desires to use oil will have the option.
A fundamental economic principle: when demand exceeds supply, a shortage exists. Some who want to use oil will not have the option. The usual moderator for this situation is an increase in price.
5. Petroleum products have the highest energy density of any portable energy storage medium.
There are no known alternatives that match the energy density of products derived from fossil fuels.
6. The current economy would suffer if the cost of energy increased by a large percentage.
There are no suggestions that increases in energy costs improve the quality of the economy. There are major disagreements on the effects of high energy costs on the economy.
7. In a closed system, growth of any kind must eventually stop.
This is a founding principle of any scientific study, be it physics, chemistry, biology, or economics. If we take the earth as a closed system, then all growth must, at the very least, reach a maximum at some point: oil production, wealth, population, and so forth. Our choices determine when and how growth stops.
8. All known alternative energy sources currently have higher initial investment requirements than does oil.
Solar energy, wind energy, nuclear energy, coal-to-liquids, and others present a high cost-per-Watt than oil energy. This does not take into account the total life cycle costs, in which alternatives like solar and wind become among the most cost-effective energy sources.
9. Replacing the current oil-based infrastructure requires time.
Another fundamental principle of all science: going from point A to point B requires a finite amount of time. There is argument over how much time is required to replace our existing infrastructure.
10. Replacing the current oil-based infrastructure requires money.
A key to economic theory: a desired action can not be realized without applying an amount of currency. The amount and sources of funding are up for debate.
11. Replacing the current oil-based infrastructure requires energy.
In order to restructure our energy system, we must expend energy to manufacture replacement technology. This further reduces the amount of energy available after an infrastructure replacement.
Can retreating back to these key points allow us to renew open discussions about the risks and probabilities of oil depletion? Perhaps these bare-bones facts will encourage more people to investigate the available data on their own and develop their own conclusions. We can all agree that energy deeply affects our lives, but there are far too few people exploring the possibility of a world with less available energy.
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Magnoliacom
Furl
Nice Job
I just wanted to tell you that I liked your presentation of some of the peak oil basics. Simple and to the point.
best,
Dave Cohen
APSO-USA
Thanks
Thanks for the encouraging words, Dave. I appreciate you stopping by -- you do some fabulous work at ASPO and The Oil Drum.
Very good list
But my pedantic quibble is that item number 7 is not like the others ;-)
"Growth" itself must be rolled back to common ground. I think in this you are talking about certain forms of physical growth ... but I shouldn't put words in your mouth.
I do know that emotional sorts of growth may not have physical constraints (do we need more oil per capita for more happiness?). And in terms of future economy, the increased virtualization of knowledge and wealth (bits not bricks) also fuzzes the term.
For that reason, I'd say some sorts of growth, while not infinite, might be "very large" in this civilization's timescale. But sure, certain physically limited sorts of growth may stall sooner.
Yup
I agree with you, odograph, it doesn't fit. I need to be a bit more specific with regards to energy in that one.
I've received some other feedback on some other drawbacks in the list. For instance, on number 5 some argued that nuclear energy can be considered portable -- I myself worked on a study exploring flying a nuclear turbojet on a C-17 (so it should have occurred to me that nuclear can be "portable"). Perhaps adding the word "practical" in there would salvage it?
I will compile the feedback I receive and post an update on this list soon.
An excellent idea
Listing the peak oil basics is great idea and one that is long overdue.
I do agree with odograph that number 7 needs some clarification. It seems that growth could be easily confused with rate of production.
Perhaps you could say that in any closed system the rate of production (extraction) must eventually return to 0, and that growth of the rate of extraction must return to 0 before or at the same time as the rate itself.
Hope this helps.
Good suggestion
I think that's a good way to approach it. I was far too general in talking about growth -- I'm really after capturing the idea that all energy production rates must eventually peak, as you said.
There are easy counters to these
1. Oil must be found before it can be produced.
COUNTER 1. We haven't found all of the oil yet. Our capacity to find oil continues to improve.
2. Oil must be produced before it can be used.
COUNTER 2: We are still improving oil production. Our capacity to produce oil, e.g. from massive reserves in the Canadian tar pits, continues to improve.
3. On the scale of the lifetime of our current civilization, oil is a finite resource.
COUNTER 3: We have no idea how long oil will last, nor do we know when or if we will stop using it. Just as the stone age didn't end for rocks, so also the oil age won't end for lack of oil. (I think that's Friedman).
4. If demand for oil is higher than the available supply of oil, not everyone who desires to use oil will have the option.
COUNTER 4: If demand for oil is higher than the available supply at a given price point, the price will rise, and people will find alternatives to using oil. (e.g. solar, wind, hybrid cars, smaller cars, etc).
5. Petroleum products have the highest energy density of any portable energy storage medium.
COUNTER 5: Bio-diesel has a similar capacity. Bio-ethanol is close too. Our ability to make energy storage systems to meet our needs continues to grow.
6. The current economy would suffer if the cost of energy increased by a large percentage.
COUNTER 6: Our economy is already rapidly finding ways to conserve expensive oil. The market for large SUVs has tanked, and that for hybrids and small cars continues to increase. We replace older air conditioners, washers, and refrigerators with more efficient newer ones at a regular rate. Solar and wind are now almost cost competitive with oil, and continue to improve. At current growth rates (25% per year), we could get the majority of our power from wind in less than 20 years.
7. In a closed system, growth of any kind must eventually stop.
COUNTER 7: Human civilization is not a closed system, and in the long term, it is not constrained to Earth. The Earth isn't even a closed system. It continually gets energy such as sunlight and materials from external forces such as comets. There's so much room for growth, e.g. nanotechnology, that we don't even know about, it's dangerous to speculate an end to technological growth.
8. All known alternative energy sources currently have higher initial investment requirements than does oil.
COUNTER 8: Not necessarily. Conservation is in effect an alternative energy source that has very low investment requirements (e.g. less than $3.00 for a CF bulb).
9. Replacing the current oil-based infrastructure requires time.
COUNTER 9: Replacement of oil will be done non-linearly. If we reduce oil consumption by 5% per year, we will use only 35% as much oil per year in 20 years. In 100 years, we'll be down to less than 1% of current oil consumption.
10. Replacing the current oil-based infrastructure requires money.
COUNTER 10: Replacing expensive oil with cheap wind and solar can be profitable.
11. Replacing the current oil-based infrastructure requires energy.
COUNTER 11: Energy can be converted to money and vice versa. See COUNTER 10.
These are not, as you say, "bare-bones facts".
Um...
Dude, I think you waaaay missed the boat here. I *really* hope you're not trying to tell us that you don't believe that oil can be produced before it's even discovered?!?? The statement *wasn't* that we've found all the oil, the statement is a logical cause and effect so we can find agreeable territory. It's defeinitely recognized that more oil remains to be found.
Perhaps I can debunk your "debunking" here:
1. The statement does not say all the oil in existence has now been found.
2. The statement does not say oil production can't or won't improve.
3. Um...are you saying oil is actually an *infinite* resource? If so, no one here can help you...
4. Not true with an inelastic good. Oil has an elasticity factor of less than -0.1
5. Biodiesel may be close, but it does not yet match the energy density of petroleum products.
6. The statement was not whether we could work to use energy more efficiently, the statement was that increases in energy costs would hurt the global economy. This is true: an increase in energy costs would mean a rise in the cost of food, every item at Wal-Mart, affect bank lending rates, and change the economic activity of everyone effected
7. The drawbacks of #7 were already discussed above, but the statement as it stands is not inaccurate. Excepting for solar input, however, the earth can be accurately approximated as a closed system. If we need to expand off of Earth to find more energy sources, then so be it -- but that is an outcome of a differnt joint discussion, not a point for argument.
8. I agree that conservation can get us very far, but we are speaking in literal terms here. Again, what you pointed out is something that needs to be involved in the resulting discussion after recognizing these points, but does not actually counter the basic point. Can you identify an existing energy source with a lower initial investment cost?
9. Lord, man, you're exasperating! You just agreed with the flipping point in your rebuttal! The point is that we can't change the infrastructure overnight!
10. Again, it doesn't say that alternative energy can't be profitable! It says that it requires an amount of money to make it happen.
11. Yegads, you're not proposing that we use money as an energy source, are you? So, the m in E=mc^2 stand for money, huh?
The point of this article is to start discussion from somewhere we can agree, but you jumped right into the argument without stopping to look at what you were arguing about! You can't even identify the way the points are written whether the author is a doomer or an optimist, but you assumed that he was preaching doom and gloom and say the article in that light. Get with the program and try to engage in some legitimate productive discussions if you want to hang around here.
Doom and gloom is the
Doom and gloom from what I've seen is the general consensus among Peak Oil literature, because only a few concerned citizens are addressing it, and if it stays that rarely known, severe economic depression seems inevitable, and the new "New Deal" for that depression may be too severe for many people's tastes.
This website however is not PeakOilDestruction, it is PeakOilDesign, working on solving the issues of oil scarcity, but the name is just one factor that dispels the air of pessimism, I think we'll find other ways.
Comments on Counter points
Good points, though I don't think we can understate the enormity of the changes required to stop increasing demand for oil, let alone reduce it, even by 5% for year. That sounds small but the magnitude of changes required to accomplish that may require much more than just smaller cars or hybrids. Many who drive larger vehicles need them for their jobs and don't really have the option to downsize unless they get another profession. I think this is one of the points attempted to be made of the challenges Peak Oil has for our society.
Water Engineer
Number 8
Maybe I'm not understanding this one, but all things being equal, oil must certainly have a "higher initial investment requirement" to any alternative energies (nuclear being the exception). The cost of oil rigs and refineries alone has to far exceed setting up a windmill or solar factory, no?
It's a fair point and should be included. How about something like "Introducing all known alternative energy sources will initially result in a higher cost-per-Watt than energy coming from the current oil infrastructure."?
???
Hmmm...
That's a thought. I was starting from the perspective that the oil infrastructure is already in place, and so it costs less to get it going. For instance, getting oil from ground to car (including wells, refineries, transportation, etc.) costs less than a solar-electric infrastructure for the same amount of energy. But maybe we can reword this...
My Highschool English: C+
Like I said, maybe it's just me, but the wording above seems like you're comparing the "investment requirements" of oil and alternitive energies, not the cost of energy.
This is closer to what I had in mind.
The initial investment requirements of all known alternative energy sources will result in a higher cost-per-Watt than oil currently does.
Number 4
At the cost of complicating the point, it could be strengthened by including the fact that we already live in a world where all those who desire oil don't have access to it.
Good point
Good point. Much of Africa is already starting to vacate the oil economy...
Number 4
This should perhaps be restated in a way that discusses price and reductions. The way it's written makes it sound as though there is a rationing system (by quantity) in place already, with fixed packets of fuel and no black market. In that case, if there is less available, some people would lose their ration and truly have none. In reality, there is always a market, even if it's a black market. So as there is less available, prices will rise enough to cause some people to use less. Most of those who use less won't stop using it altogether, they'll just use less.
You might say "not everyone will be able to pay for the amount of oil they wanted to use."
Number 5
I'm not sure about this one. I agree with what you're trying to say with this, but I think you need to add "convenient" and "existing or foreseen affordable technology". Convenient deals with the fact that it's easy for us to use the energy stored in the fuel, existing technology covers the fact that we don't have technology for desktop fission or fusion and advanced technology is expensive. Even then I'm sure someone who knows something about capacitors would argue that in terms of usable energy, ultra capacitors have high usable energy storage density and we waste most of the energy in oil.
Number 6
Number 6 has at least three major subjective generalities. "The current economy" is always in flux, so if the current economy were to suffer, we would just end up with a different economy. Besides, is this the capitalist system, ignoring all of the people, or the global socio-economic system, or what? As a simple example, I don't tend to think of my kids' school classrooms when I think of the economy, but a big change in available oil would affect their classes. "Would suffer" - a lot of people would say that "the current economy" is already suffering, and a lot of people are suffering because of it. Finally, "cost of energy increased by a large percentage" doesn't have any time component, and uses cost without defining what you mean in this case and "large percentage" without defining that either.
I think this would be a little better stated as "The current world human socio-economic system uses large amounts of petroleum and fast, large reductions in available oil would result in fast, large socio-economic disruptions." That's probably still pushing things. I'm not defining "fast, large" for example. However, it gets at the time issue and indicates the scope of change in petroleum availability will have corresponding, similar scope changes in the current system.
Makes sense...
Those are some good suggestions. I'll work on getting an update to the list put together based on all the comments, and we'll see if we can peg down a good list. Thanks!
Number 6
"The current economy would suffer if the cost of energy increased by a large percentage."
Try this: Less, and more expensive energy dampens economic activity.
"There are no suggestions that increases in energy costs improve the quality of the economy. There are major disagreements on the effects of high energy costs on the economy."
I do not believe that we can refer to the 'quality' of the economy. Drop the first sentence and simply use a modified second qualifier: "If short term adjustments are painful, there are disagreements on the long term structural impact of higher energy costs on the economy."
piece" Harry Winston's
piece" Harry Winston's current collection of timepieces includes both high end jewelry things and exceptional horological accomplishments Among the highlights in the current line are the Biretrosecond timepiece seiko watches which has two separate retrograde displays for the seconds and the Ocean Chronograph omega watches replica bvlgari watches the first all-solid platinum diver's watch Harry Winston Timepieces continues to work each year with a different master watchmaker to produce a new masterpiece replica watches Harry Winston has been the jewel
the two Nighthawks are solar
the two Nighthawks are solar power via Citizen's Eco-Drive mechanism luminous markings and dual time indicators replica rolex replica watches True the Nighthawk's water resistance may be rated to 200m but it was never designed for scuba diving in the first place fake rolex watches Other models of Nighthawk in other countries come with different features for example some of the European models (so-called Euro-Nighthawks) offer customers radio controlled time setting replica hublot watches Always check these few things before buying the Nighthawk watchZenith