When will the world reach peak fossil fuel production?

[mheslep]

How can you be confused? All the speakers are named in the snippet.

The question is about the source. There's no quote or transcript of Hirsch's remarks provided here, just an effectively anonymous interpretation from someone who claimed to be there.

 

[apeiron]

The question is about the source. There's no quote or transcript of Hirsch's remarks provided here, just an effectively anonymous interpretation from someone who claimed to be there.

It was written by David Summers, Curators Professor of Mining Engineering and Director
Rock Mechanics and Explosives Research Center, Missouri University of Science and Technology, who chaired the coal session.

It is unlikely he is wildly misrepresenting anything that was said .

I can't see how you can maintain that the report is "effectively anonymous", etc. But I suppose it deflects attention away from the actual content of what was (allegedly :zzz:) said.

 

[mheslep]

It was written by David Summers, Curators Professor of Mining Engineering and Director
Rock Mechanics and Explosives Research Center, Missouri University of Science and Technology, who chaired the coal session.

It is unlikely he is wildly misrepresenting anything that was said .

I agree it is unlikely (now that you've identified him), but credentials are not the final http://wtc7.net/articles/stevenjones_b7.html" on these matters. See, e.g.:

I present evidence for the controlled-demolition hypothesis [of the World Trade Center on 911], which is suggested by the available data, and can be tested scientifically, and yet has not been analyzed in any of the reports funded by the US government.

Dr Steve Jones, Professor of Physics, BYU, speciallizing in Muon-catalyzed fusion, metal-catalyzed fusion, archaeometry, solar energy. (since placed on leave by BYU).

I can't see how you can maintain that the report is "effectively anonymous", etc.

Because you didn't reference the author originally and the article doesn't contain any byline or signature (at least not in plain view)!

You are apparently operating under the principle that the burden is on the reader to both identify the source and discover whether or not it is independent and reliable, instead of on the poster. This is contrary to the guidelines, and tedious, as we've been through this https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2810729&postcount=22".

 

[apeiron]

You are apparently operating under the principle that the burden is on the reader to both identify the source and discover whether or not it is independent and reliable, instead of on the poster. This is contrary to the guidelines, and tedious, as we've been through this https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2810729&postcount=22".

Don't be ridiculous. You just didn't look very hard. You are trying to make something out of nothing because fussing about who said these things excuses you from having to deal with what they said.

 

[mheslep]

Some elbowing of the 'peak' further out in time:
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/dd1e9400-7ef1-11df-8398-00144feabdc0.html

Oil and natural gas markets are set to remain oversupplied until 2015, the International Energy Agency said on Wednesday, forecasting in its annual medium-term outlook report “comfortable spare capacity” for both energy commodities.

and

“For the next few years, the oil market is marked by more comfortable spare capacity than envisaged last year, and the duration of the current gas glut is set to last beyond 2013, at least in some regions.”

 

[mheslep]

Another commodities bet ala the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon%E2%80%93Ehrlich_wager" The wager, made in 2005 for US$5000, was that the price of oil would triple by Jan 1, 2011. Mr Simmons' estate paid Mr Tierney his due.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/28/science/28tierney.html

One would think reality would dry up the pool of those willing to bet liberally on calamity against human resourcefulness, or at least have them asking for better odds, but the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malthusian_catastrophe#Traditional_Malthusian_theory" gene appears stubborn. So count me in the Tierney camp, looking for similar wagers.

 

[mugaliens]

Oversupply? Gas glut?

If that's the case, why are gas prices are nearly 300% higher than they were a decade ago, particularly when inflation over that time has only been 31%, cumulative?

 

[Phrak]

Oversupply? Gas glut?

If that's the case, why are gas prices are nearly 300% higher than they were a decade ago, particularly when inflation over that time has only been 31%, cumulative?

What's your source?

 

[nismaratwork]

Another commodities bet ala the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon%E2%80%93Ehrlich_wager" The wager, made in 2005 for US$5000, was that the price of oil would triple by Jan 1, 2011. Mr Simmons' estate paid Mr Tierney his due.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/28/science/28tierney.html

One would think reality would dry up the pool of those willing to bet liberally on calamity against human resourcefulness, or at least have them asking for better odds, but the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malthusian_catastrophe#Traditional_Malthusian_theory" gene appears stubborn. So count me in the Tierney camp, looking for similar wagers.

I'm not sure that it's fair to call the eventual expiration of a limited reserve of fossil fuel, "Malthusian". I would say that's just reality, and how you interpret the potential fallout could be construed as Malthusian. Oil is a wasting asset by its very definition, and even if the USA, Western Europe, and some others manage with other power sources, we can see how oil plays a roll in the growth of China, India, and other nations which are becoming ever more industrialized.

Human resourcefulness is great, but you're asking for people to put their FAITH in their fellow man?! Yeah, I have faith in both the great pumpkin, and that people will suddenly begin to solve more and bigger problems than they create.

Or in the words of Dana Gould, "Maybe the government should figure out how I can get on an airplane with my F*****G eyedrops before I set them loose on global warming!"

Well, I'll wait until I see world governments doing something other than their current and historical behaviour, 'Senators, Rome is overcrowded and too many dwellings are of wooden construction.' RESULT: Rome burns, politicians rebuild. You underestimate the human ability to ignore a problem until its upon us (we do it with our own mortality every days soooo...) and then rebuild. How do you, 'rebuild' a shattered portable energy economy? It's not as though we can go back to unicorn piss gasoline... or can we? Human resourcefulness... build me a gas-pissing unicorn!

 

[mheslep]

I'm not sure that it's fair to call the eventual expiration of a limited reserve of fossil fuel, "Malthusian". ...

Tierney did not. Nor did I.

 

[mheslep]

...
If that's the case, why are gas prices are nearly 300% higher than they were a decade ago, particularly when inflation over that time has only been 31%, cumulative?

Really? Care to make a wager on that?

Spoiler

~50-60% increase in real terms over 2000. Same price today in real terms as ~1983

http://www.randomuseless.info/gasprice/gasprice.html

 

[nismaratwork]

Tierney did not. Nor did I.

What is then?

 

[mheslep]

What is then?

When the prediction includes something calamitous, like that failed forecast of a tripling of oil prices in only five years, or per Websters, an unavoidable "widespread poverty and degradation."

 

[russ_watters]

One would think reality would dry up the pool of those willing to bet liberally on calamity against human resourcefulness, or at least have them asking for better odds, but the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malthusian_catastrophe#Traditional_Malthusian_theory" gene appears stubborn. So count me in the Tierney camp, looking for similar wagers.

Like playing 777 in the lottery every day or betting on an impending recession 5 years into an expansion period, this is a wager that seems like they must eventually win - not that I'd ever let them forget the years (decades!) of losses to focus on the win if it happens...

...but there are hints that for the US at least, the basic prediction of Peak Oil will never happen but instead may be rendered moot by technology and legislation, with the recession making for a sharp peak. Essentially, recent data suggests that due to that combination, we passed our peak in 2006 and may be starting a long-term and permanent decline, burning 20% less by 2030. And this is starting without a dramatic rise in gas prices.
http://www.boston.com/yourtown/cambridge/articles/2010/12/20/us_gas_demand_should_fall_for_good_after_06_peak/

 

[mheslep]

Like playing 777 in the lottery every day or betting on an impending recession 5 years into an expansion period, this is a wager that seems like they must eventually win - not that I'd ever let them forget the years (decades!) of losses to focus on the win if it happens...

Absent the abolision of price signals, I seriously doubt the Peakers win ever such bets. All that has to happen is that other transportation energy sources - biofuel, hydrogen, solar/nuclear/whatever/ powered electrics - become as capable and cheaper per mile than petroleum, then the planet never depletes its reserves of oil. In such a case people would leave the (increasingly worthless) stuff in the ground.

...but there are hints that for the US at least, the basic prediction of Peak Oil will never happen but instead may be rendered moot by technology and legislation, with the recession making for a sharp peak. Essentially, recent data suggests that due to that combination, we passed our peak in 2006 and may be starting a long-term and permanent decline, burning 20% less by 2030. And this is starting without a dramatic rise in gas prices.
http://www.boston.com/yourtown/cambridge/articles/2010/12/20/us_gas_demand_should_fall_for_good_after_06_peak/

Thanks for that link.

"People wildly underestimate the effect that all this is going to have" on gasoline demand, says Paul Sankey, an analyst at Deutsche Bank. Sankey predicts by 2030 America will use just 5.4 million barrels a day, the same as in 1969.

 

[mugaliens]

What's your source?

http://www.eia.doe.gov/petroleum/data_publications/wrgp/mogas_history.html" .

http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl".

Do you not concur with data as published by the U.S. Department of Energy or the U.S. Bureau of Labor and Statistics?

 

[russ_watters]

http://www.eia.doe.gov/petroleum/data_publications/wrgp/mogas_history.html" .

http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl".

Do you not concur with data as published by the U.S. Department of Energy or the U.S. Bureau of Labor and Statistics?

There is a lot of data in a lot of different tables there. Please be more specific about where you got your numbers. What exact dates and prices did you use?

 

[mheslep]

http://www.eia.doe.gov/petroleum/data_publications/wrgp/mogas_history.html" .

http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl".

Do you not concur with data as published by the U.S. Department of Energy or the U.S. Bureau of Labor and Statistics?

And?

US gasoline avg price, regular, retail conventional:
Jan 01, 2001 1.377 (1.75 in 2011 dollars)
Jan 03, 2011 3.034

or a 73% increase over 10 years ago. US premium is similarly up 66%.

 

[CAC1001]

Absent the abolision of price signals, I seriously doubt the Peakers win ever such bets. All that has to happen is that other transportation energy sources - biofuel, hydrogen, solar/nuclear/whatever/ powered electrics - become as capable and cheaper per mile than petroleum, then the planet never depletes its reserves of oil. In such a case people would leave the (increasingly worthless) stuff in the ground.

One thing on this though, energy isn't so much what concerns me as usage of petroleum for materials. I mean everything from tires to plastics to laundry detergent, you need petroleum to make. Even if we could power our cities all on solar power, we still need petroleum for making things, right?

 

[nismaratwork]

There is a lot of data in a lot of different tables there. Please be more specific about where you got your numbers. What exact dates and prices did you use?

Seriously? I understand the need to present a concise citation, but I found that pretty easy to read through, and the calculator was... a calculator. Surely you have more to offer on the subject than this.

 

[nismaratwork]

One thing on this though, energy isn't so much what concerns me as usage of petroleum for materials. I mean everything from tires to plastics to laundry detergent, you need petroleum to make. Even if we could power our cities all on solar power, we still need petroleum for making things, right?

Well, there is some successful research into using corn byproducts as a substitute. It's hardly a solution, but then, it may be that the supply of petroleum byproducts carries us through until other options are perfected. Others here doubtless are better informed about this issue.

 

[apeiron]

The malthusian vs the cornucopian mindset is worthy of a more technical discussion here.

Is there any evidence or model that says human ingenuity must run ahead of the game here?

Past civilisations have collapsed because of resource limits. But this time round might be different because we have fully liberated human ingenuity with laisser-faire economics?

Personally I think we are running too many exponential curves at once - consumption of cheap fossil fuels, population growth, water degradation, ecological services run-down, climate change - to not hit the buffers.

For Malthusians, the modelling seems easy in this regard. But what is model for cornucopian analysis?

I guess it could be a Moore's law approach as spun by Kurzweil and the Singularity crew for example. But further thoughts anyone?

Economists always say market signals lead to substitution. Which is fair enough as far as it goes. But is there a model that says ingenuity runs ahead of our problems in some more formal sense?

 

[mheslep]

One thing on this though, energy isn't so much what concerns me as usage of petroleum for materials. I mean everything from tires to plastics to laundry detergent, you need petroleum to make. Even if we could power our cities all on solar power, we still need petroleum for making things, right?

I see it the other way around, only the energy content is of concern in the long term. Yes hydrocarbon polymers are made from petroleum, http://books.google.com/books?id=84...ymer production world annual OR year&f=false". But they can be recycled or eventually synthesized from some other carbon and hydrogen source given the required energy. That is, the hydrogen and carbon mass is not leaving the planet. The useful energy (i.e. low entropy) from petroleum (or any other source), once spent, is gone forever.

 

[mheslep]

This is an elegant, open minded introduction to further discussion, though as you might guess I disagree with some of the assumptions and view point.

The malthusian vs the cornucopian mindset is worthy of a more technical discussion here.

Is there any evidence or model that says human ingenuity must run ahead of the game here?

Have you http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/13/books/review/Easterly-t.html" I'm about to. He amusingly calls the model "ideas having sex", I gather something about humans being the only species capable of exchange, and once ancient despotism got out of the way of free exchange, displaced haltingly at first, but with time overwhelmingly by classically liberal values and respect for the worth of the individual, prosperity exploded.

I would call the evidence that it does, not that it must, ample, such as the history of http://1366tech.com/v1/mambots/content/multithumb/thumbs/b.0.200.0.0.stories.site.graph_fuels.jpg" without depleting any of them. I gather Ridley's Rationale Optimist provides an onslaught of similar evidence.

Past civilisations have collapsed because of resource limits.

Because? Yes some collapsed, yes there is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classic_Maya_collapse#Systemic_ecological_collapse_model", one of many, that these limits caused the collapse, for instance in the case of the Mayans. Even so, I don't know that this means resource consumption was the fundamental cause, as opposed to something else like cultural and government corruption that led to wanton destruction of environmental resources, and that then these conditions in turn provoked a collapse.

That is, allow me to conjure up a modern liberalized nation, suddenly taken over by a reincarnated Mayan King, who immediately ordered all the markets replaced with temples of sacrifice dedicated to him, and who's only standing order was to cut down trees to keep the sacrificial fires burning 24/7. Such a society might quickly hit resource limits, despite every blessing of existing modern technology, but in such a case I would not cite resource consumption as the cause of the collapse.

I guess it could be a Moore's law approach as spun by Kurzweil and the Singularity crew for example.

As spun by Moore, and yes that's more good evidence.

 

[russ_watters]

Seriously? I understand the need to present a concise citation, but I found that pretty easy to read through, and the calculator was... a calculator.

I figured out exactly what data came from the calculator. I have an idea of where the data came from for the other claim and it appears to me to be at best sloppy and at worst cherry-picked for the purpose of deception. Are you saying you know exactly what data came from the other link and what the resulting calculation was? Seriously? Do share with the rest of the class. We have two vastly different claims and need to reconcile how they can be so different.

 

[russ_watters]

Is there any evidence or model that says human ingenuity must run ahead of the game here?

Past civilisations have collapsed because of resource limits. But this time round might be different because we have fully liberated human ingenuity with laisser-faire economics?

I'd say the evidence is in the fact that society hasn't stagnated or that new societies haven't collapsed for the same reason old ones have. I'd also say that the burden of proof shoe is on the other foot: clearly not all civilizations that collapsed did so because of resource depletion, but the peak oil claim is that society must eventually collapse because of peak oil. Has no society ever adapted to a depletion of resources?

 

[apeiron]

Have you http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/13/books/review/Easterly-t.html" I'm about to.

Haven't read the book (and the unkind would point out that Ridley was a chairman of Northern Rock among other things - a UK poster child for unsustainable growth models in finance) but the basic idea is clear enough.

Yes, broadly speaking, evolutionary theory would seem the natural way to model our adaptive capacity here. And we have a lot of reason to believe in our power to adapt.

But an immediate question presents itself. Is evolution is a theory about progressive advance or the maximising of entropification?

The cornucopian paradigm would seem wedded to a belief that it is all about human progress - things will keep getting better in some overall or global sense.

This could mean everyone is gets happier, or healthier, or GPD per capita rises forever, or human population keeps growing, or human social complexity keeps increasing. But to be a model, the cornucopian view would have to be able to spell out its measure of success.

And if this could be argued to be a natural goal, then we could argue that evolutionary theory is the model that predicts we will adapt and keep on moving towards this goal.

However most modern theoretical biologists (the ones I know, like Stan Salthe for instance http://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/9/2/83/pdf) argue instead that evolution is about the acceleration of entropification. The natural goal is to dissipate gradients as fast as possible. And so this being the case, the "genius" of Homo sapiens will be directed towards exactly this goal. Our adaptive capacity is in fact being used to deplete the world of its natural resources.

So if left just to the natural forces of evolution, we would predict that human culture would evolve to "progressively" towards achieving that goal. And this of course appears to fit the facts. We are driven to be wasteful consumers of the otherwise locked away energy of fossil fuels.

Thus while I agree that evolutionary theory is a way to account for adaptive capacity, the same mechanism could have two quite different goals - some handwavey and pious notion of human ascension vs obedience to the second law of thermodynamics. And thus quite different views of the likely outcome.

So the cornucopian view seems to have to not only explain an adaptive capacity sufficient to stay a step ahead of resource depletion, but how that adaptive capacity is going to be used for anything other than the purpose of achieving resource depletion.

Of course, at this point people will begin appealing to things such as the "survival instinct". Or human foresight and choice. But again, let's hear something about the model that supports a belief in such things.

If I was continuing the cornucopian argument, I would now talk about anticipatory systems. I would be looking at the kind of societies that could indeed look ahead, agree "unnatural" goals like turning down the burn rate, and avoiding hitting the buffers.

My model of such a society would look rather different from the laisser-faire economies that Micawaber-like, say keep charging ahead blindly in the safe expecation that something will always turn up to rescue the day.

But that is not the kind of model that Ridley and his like are pushing, is it? So what kind of economic/social model can be shown to have 1) rich adaptive capacity, 2) a defined metric of success, and 3) sufficient anticipatory capacity to make choices far enough ahead of time with some certainty.

Laisser-faire economics would seem to offer only 1. On 2, the metric is usually GDP growth (a measure of entropification really) and perhaps a few quality of life stats like average life expectancy. On 3, there is a faith in market signals. Which is something - though you need a market (and do we have markets for goods like ecological services yet)? And you need honest markets (the credit crunch exposed that little issue bigtime - a shadow banking system orders of magnitude larger than the official one).

Another datapoint to throw into the mix is the question of whether we really are seeing rising rates of human innovation. There is the well-know criticisms of Jonathan Huebner for instance - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Huebner

But to restate the question, a malthusian view of resource depletion seems easy to model. If a resource is finite and its exploitation exponential, the exploiting system can be predicted to hit a sudden wall. Even if the system has proven itself highly innovative in its past, there is no reason to expect it to have the kind of innovative capacity to handle the scale of disruption it must eventually strike.

The model supporting a cornucopian view is not clear to me at all. The best I can think of is that the system at question has been through enough disruptions in the past and has proved it has built up a general disruption handling capacity. But I would expect such a system to have recognisable methods for looking ahead so as to prepare for disruptions in timely fashion. And not to show a boom and bust bubble mentality when it comes to economics.

If we had a cornucopian model like this, we would be able to plug in the performance of countries and see how well designed they really are. We could say with some confidence that society is doing the right things. But I've talked to plenty of cornucopian economists who have said in a hand wavey fashion, humans are remarkably adaptive. However none so far who have been able to back this up with a formal model.

Another term for this is of course resilience. And there is a literature on that in relation to the disruptions of natural disasters. Peak oilers spend a lot of their time talking about building resilience and social capital too. But I guess that is back to the malthusian perspective.

I'm tossing around a lot of ideas here. But it is because I have not come across a robust reason to believe the cornucopian pitch. If there is a model out there, it would be great to be able to kick its tyres.

 

[apeiron]

I'd say the evidence is in the fact that society hasn't stagnated or that new societies haven't collapsed for the same reason old ones have. I'd also say that the burden of proof shoe is on the other foot: clearly not all civilizations that collapsed did so because of resource depletion, but the peak oil claim is that society must eventually collapse because of peak oil. Has no society ever adapted to a depletion of resources?

Are you so sure? Jared Diamond would be one who argues that carrying capacity is the most general factor in the collapse of societies.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collapse:_How_Societies_Choose_to_Fail_or_Succeed

And the peak oilers optimistic scenario is a bumpy energy descent where we turn away from consumerism and relocalise. So this would be adaptation and an appealing vision to some.

 

[nismaratwork]

I figured out exactly what data came from the calculator. I have an idea of where the data came from for the other claim and it appears to me to be at best sloppy and at worst cherry-picked for the purpose of deception. Are you saying you know exactly what data came from the other link and what the resulting calculation was? Seriously? Do share with the rest of the class. We have two vastly different claims and need to reconcile how they can be so different.

So you didn't need more info, you have a problem with the info? That makes sense, but why not just say that in the first place?

 

[nismaratwork]

Are you so sure? Jared Diamond would be one who argues that carrying capacity is the most general factor in the collapse of societies.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collapse:_How_Societies_Choose_to_Fail_or_Succeed

And the peak oilers optimistic scenario is a bumpy energy descent where we turn away from consumerism and relocalise. So this would be adaptation and an appealing vision to some.

In fact, boom or bust, we're bound to adapt, but adaptation may not be the most pleasant experience for the people living through it.

 

[mheslep]

Haven't read the book (and the unkind would point out that Ridley was a chairman of Northern Rock among other things - a UK poster child for unsustainable growth models in finance) but the basic idea is clear enough.

And has doctorate in Zoology from Oxford. More later, maybe after I've read him.

 

[nismaratwork]

And has doctorate in Zoology from Oxford. More later, maybe after I've read him.

Maybe he wants to return the planet to non-human animals.


OR...

Maybe he's a bunch of wild animals in a PERSON MASK! TA TA TUM!

 

[PhilKravitz]

As many as we're willing to pay for of course.

So far we have been willing to pay for an insignificant number. Do we expect this to change? I do not.

 

[apeiron]

Republican congressman, he say...

What America Needs
The total commitment of WWII
The technology intensity and focus of the Apollo Program to land a man on the moon$275 billion in 2006 dollars
The urgency of the Manhattan Project to develop the atom bomb $1.1 trillion in 2006 dollars
Mitigate Peak Oil $3-4 trillion over 20 years BEFORE peak in 2006 dollars

http://bartlett.house.gov/UploadedFiles/Energy%20Bartlett%20Special%20Order%20Charts%20Feb%2028%202008.pdf

The presentation is a couple of years old, but has good graphs.

The cornucopian view is that fuel substitution will happen in response to market signals. But the problem is that oil is not yet being priced in a way to send signals.

Because energy consumption is the economy, price rises puncture the economy and so collapse the price. If you want markets to deliver, they have to have the right feedback loops built into them.

Anyway, politicians are now worried. Even the IEA has changed its tune. The EIA is becoming the last optimist in the room.

A good summary of how the tune has been changing...

http://resourceinsights.blogspot.com/2011/01/you-dont-have-to-take-my-word-for-it.html

 

[mheslep]

The cornucopian view is that fuel substitution will happen in response to market signals. But the problem is that oil is not yet being priced in a way to send signals.

Because energy consumption is the economy, price rises puncture the economy and so collapse the price.

Seems to be priced sufficiently to make, for example, these alternatives economically viable: tar sand oil in Canada, some biofuels, PHEVs/EVs, more fuel efficient ICE vehicles.

Edit: the price signals might be a little more realistic without the $3-400 billion annual oil subsidies ($500 billion all fossil energy)
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/27c0ff92-7192-11df-8eec-00144feabdc0.html#axzz1BGJ6ZsCl