PEAK OIL: Going Mainstream

[JihadJane]

President Obama admits that we are at Peak Oil:


"For decades, we have known the days of cheap and easily accessible oil were numbered. For decades, we have talked and talked about the need to end America's century-long addiction to fossil fuels. And for decades, we have failed to act with the sense of urgency that this challenge requires. Time and again, the path forward has been blocked—not only by oil industry lobbyists, but also by a lack of political courage and candor."

See @ 9:58 minutes onwards:



Unfortunately, he doesn't seem to have a plan about how to respond to this reality.

 

[Nosi]

This is true, but imagine the graph of oil consumption/demand.

If we don't make some drastic changes soon, demand for oil in say 2030 will not be anywhere near as low as it was in 1950. In fact, demand will far outstrip supply after we reach the peak.

That is, even if there is a substantial flat spot at the peak, the effect of ever increasing demand would be the same as if demand were constant and production dropped off precipitously.

Two words. "Fuel blends" will get more & more play.

 

[Dymanic]

Two words. "Fuel blends" will get more & more play.

The energy economy version of "derivatives". Take a product with a known value and dilute it with a product of dubious or unknown value in the hope that the value of the one will be sufficient to soak up the doubt and uncertainty of the other.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Coming back to the following post be drkitten



By the above reasoning, food demand could never exceed supply, because the price would rise to equalise supply and demand, so fammine wouldn't exist.

Or am I missing something?

I don't see how this follows from the comments you quoted.

I for one said nothing about price. I just pointed out that even if post peak oil production drops off slowly (or even remains flat), there will still be problems because oil consumption (actual demand--not anything like "want") continues to rise.

So when we reach a level in a few years equal to production of oil in the mid 20th century, we will be at those levels of production with a much higher rate of consumption. So there won't be enough.

We can't expect a gradual reduction in oil consumption that is the reflection of the gradual increase there was historically. Or, if anyone expects that to happen, exactly when do they see that reduction beginning?

Even as we made very modest improvements in gas mileage in the US fleet, we've taken to driving more miles per vehicle and continued increasing the number of vehicles. Short of some dramatic technological breakthrough, there's no reason to think we will reduce consumption until we have to.

 

[drkitten]

I for one said nothing about price. I just pointed out that even if post peak oil production drops off slowly (or even remains flat), there will still be problems because oil consumption (actual demand--not anything like "want") continues to rise.

This is physically impossible.

It is literally impossible for consumption to exceed production; you can't burn what hasn't been produced. If production magically drops to 95% of current levels, so will consumption.

So when we reach a level in a few years equal to production of oil in the mid 20th century, we will be at those levels of production with a much higher rate of consumption. So there won't be enough.

That's right. Which means that consumption will automatically drop to the levels that we saw in the mid 20th century.

We can't expect a gradual reduction in oil consumption that is the reflection of the gradual increase there was historically.

Sure, we can.

Or, if anyone expects that to happen, exactly when do they see that reduction beginning?

Instantly. Or, more accurately, as soon as production starts to drop and the various "strategic petroleum reserves" are tapped out. As already pointed out (post #174) that's something like a month after production drops, so that's a pretty good version of "instantly."

Even as we made very modest improvements in gas mileage in the US fleet, we've taken to driving more miles per vehicle and continued increasing the number of vehicles. Short of some dramatic technological breakthrough, there's no reason to think we will reduce consumption until we have to.

And that's exactly what will happen. We will have to. Supply and demand. When production starts to fall, people who want oil will bid higher for the remaining supply. If you can't afford $5.00/gal at the pump, you WILL drive less. You won't have any choice about that. If you can afford $5.00/gal, but can't afford $10.00, you might start driving less a little later.....

Consumption will mirror production. There's literally no other choice. If production starts to drop off, so will consumption.

 

[Chaos]

This is physically impossible.

It is literally impossible for consumption to exceed production; you can't burn what hasn't been produced. If production magically drops to 95% of current levels, so will consumption.

Well, to be fair, demand continues to rise. And consumption does so as well, as long as production (at a reasonable price level) can keep pace.

Sure, we can.

Only if production decreases equally gradually.

 

[jimbob]

drkitten,

It is impossible for consumption to exceed production (including strategic reserves), but I would argue that it is possible for demand to exceed production.

 

[drkitten]

And consumption does so as well, as long as production (at a reasonable price level) can keep pace.

So, you assume that when production drops, production will still manage to keep pace with increased consumption?

Do try to keep up, please.

Only if production decreases equally gradually.

Well, that' seems (empirically) to be what happens. Any individual oil well will gradually lose production; they don't go from a hundred zillion barrels on Tuesday to nothing at all on Wednesday. And not all wells lose production at the same rate, so the ones that deplete faster will drop off while the ones that deplete more slowly will not. Both of these argue for a gradual decrease in production.

 

[drkitten]

drkitten,

It is impossible for consumption to exceed production (including strategic reserves), but I would argue that it is possible for demand to exceed production.

Not in any meaningful sense. Unless you're talking about "demand" as meaning "how much oil people would use if it were free," in which case "demand" for anything is presumptively infinite.

In which case the demand for everything (which is infinite) exceeds the supply of anything (which is finite). Not especially meaningful or useful.

 

[drkitten]

President Obama admits that we are at Peak Oil:


"For decades, we have known the days of cheap and easily accessible oil were numbered. For decades, we have talked and talked about the need to end America's century-long addiction to fossil fuels. And for decades, we have failed to act with the sense of urgency that this challenge requires. Time and again, the path forward has been blocked—not only by oil industry lobbyists, but also by a lack of political courage and candor."

Hmmm. I don't see anything about "at Peak Oil" anywhere in there.

He acknowledges that cheap oil isn't infinite. That's not news. He says that we've known that for decades (which we have). That doesn't mean that we've run out or are anywhere near running out right now. It does, however, mean that we should plan for eventually running out.

I know that the days of my working career are also numbered. That's why I have a retirement plan. But I also believe that the days of my working career are numbered somewhere in the tens of thousands. Just because I know that I will retire or die eventually doesn't mean I'm doing it tonight.

So, basically,

You're wrong again.

 

[jimbob]

drkitten,

It is impossible for consumption to exceed production (including strategic reserves), but I would argue that it is possible for demand to exceed production.

Not in any meaningful sense. Unless you're talking about "demand" as meaning "how much oil people would use if it were free," in which case "demand" for anything is presumptively infinite.

In which case the demand for everything (which is infinite) exceeds the supply of anything (which is finite). Not especially meaningful or useful.

By that logic, isn't fammine impossible?

If demand for food exceeds supply, the price would rise until the demand fell to meet the new supply?

I would argue that our current way of life requires a certain amount of oil usage, and that if supply falls below that, then there would be problems. I am not denying that some demand is elastic, but I would argue that some isn't... Or at least is not very elastic.

 

[Chaos]

So, you assume that when production drops, production will still manage to keep pace with increased consumption?

Do try to keep up, please.

Hello? If you had bothered to read the part you didn´t quote, you´d know what I was talking about: Consumption keeps rising along with demand, as long as production can keep pace. Obvious, if produciton can´t, consumption won´t.

Well, that' seems (empirically) to be what happens. Any individual oil well will gradually lose production; they don't go from a hundred zillion barrels on Tuesday to nothing at all on Wednesday. And not all wells lose production at the same rate, so the ones that deplete faster will drop off while the ones that deplete more slowly will not. Both of these argue for a gradual decrease in production.

If all oil wells are producing at 100% capacity, yes - but I seem to recall they don´t.

Sure, production won´t drop from 100% to 0%, but if you´re initially producing at less than full capacity, say to keep up prices (OPEC has been known to do that sort of thing), then you can initially keep up production levels by increasing the percentage of capacity at which you produce - until capacity drops below the previous production level, in which case the drop will be somewhat more drastic than the decline in capacity intially was.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

President Obama admits that we are at Peak Oil:


"For decades, we have known the days of cheap and easily accessible oil were numbered. For decades, we have talked and talked about the need to end America's century-long addiction to fossil fuels. And for decades, we have failed to act with the sense of urgency that this challenge requires. Time and again, the path forward has been blocked—not only by oil industry lobbyists, but also by a lack of political courage and candor."

See @ 9:58 minutes onwards:



Unfortunately, he doesn't seem to have a plan about how to respond to this reality.

Oh noes!!! We'll be out by next week!

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Any individual oil well will gradually lose production; they don't go from a hundred zillion barrels on Tuesday to nothing at all on Wednesday.

The peak oil nutters seem to think it can. That's why we need to do something NOW!!!! (with "now" being anytime in the past 30-40 years)

 

[Dymanic]

The peak oil nutters seem to think it can. That's why we need to do something NOW!!!! (with "now" being anytime in the past 30-40 years)

This is the same strawman you trotted out a couple of weeks ago. When challenged to support it, you decided to bail. Have you changed your mind about that? Shall we review some of the prior testimony?

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

This is the same strawman you trotted out a couple of weeks ago. When challenged to support it, you decided to bail. Have you changed your mind about that? Shall we review some of the prior testimony?

You better fill up your gas tank. We'll be out of oil tomorrow!!!!

 

[Dymanic]

You better fill up your gas tank. We'll be out of oil tomorrow!!!!

Yeah, that's what I thought. If you decide you'd like to participate in an actual discussion on this subject instead of just popping in every once in a while to toss off a quick inanity, I'd suggest that you might start by providing at least one example of a 'peak oil nutter' claiming that "we'll be out of oil tomorrow".

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

I'd suggest that you might start by providing at least one example of a 'peak oil nutter' claiming that "we'll be out of oil tomorrow".

You don't read your own posts? If you'd prefer not to, you could also check out Jihad Jane's inane contributions.

 

[drkitten]

Sure, production won´t drop from 100% to 0%, but if you´re initially producing at less than full capacity, say to keep up prices (OPEC has been known to do that sort of thing), then you can initially keep up production levels by increasing the percentage of capacity at which you produce - until capacity drops below the previous production level, in which case the drop will be somewhat more drastic than the decline in capacity intially was.

Not significantly; if a well is capable of producing at 100 zillion barrels a day, but you're only producing 80 zillion, then you will produce 80 zillion for longer, until you get to a capacity of 80 zillion barrels a day. Initially, 80 zillion barrels was 80% of capacity, gradually increasing to 100% of the decreased capacity.

Then it will drop to 79 zillion, and then 78, and so forth. It will still be a gradual dropoff, nothing like a cliff. The drop from 100% of 80 to 100% of 79 will not be particularly "drastic."

 

[lomiller]

This is the same strawman you trotted out a couple of weeks ago. When challenged to support it, you decided to bail. Have you changed your mind about that? Shall we review some of the prior testimony?

Do you mean the part of the thread where you disavowed your claims of an actual peak and continued to insist you would have “peak oil” even without a peak? I take it from the context of this post you are back to arguing for an immanent decline in oil production?