Well, I happen to think it's likely that we're near or past peak oil right now, and I also think it's likely to be an extremely good thing for mankind in the long run.

In the short run, it's going to hurt a lot. Live like the Amish? Probably not that far, but perhaps more like the Great Depression.

However... I think that our oil dependence has been more of a curse than a blessing in that it removed most incentive for discovering other power sources as well as doing more with less energy. Once oil becomes expensive, that incentive returns with a vengeance.

And people, historically, have worked absolute miracles when their backs are against the wall. It's not unreasonable to think that running out of oil will ultimately lead to a great leap forward for man.

So call me long-term, peak oil optimist.

Whether or not "going back" to an Amish approach to life is desirable or not (to you or me or anyone), I get the impression from your article that you don't know much about the Amish.

They are certainly not "living off scraps", and they are not just miserably and dourly getting by. In fact, they live a rich and abundant life. And they do it on their own terms. Of course, they will just keep ticking right along after Peak Oil, unless they are overwhelmed by extremely hungry transhumanist mobs :-)

Neither are they knee-jerk Luddites. They pick and choose which technologies they will adopt, and they develop and perfect them. Your horse-and-buggy picture was no doubt intended to portray primitiveness, but the Amish technology around horses is highly evolved. Plus, they grow their own tractor fuel (hay and oats), and they get brand new tractors (foals) every year, for free! And their agricultural yields are quite high.

They take their time about adopting new technologies, which is something our society seems incapable of doing. They think about it, and they argue about it. They simply are not bedazzled by the latest foolish electronic gizmo.

The main criterion used by the Amish in judging whether a technology will be adopted or not is if it will harm the community down the line. Their analysis of this can be quite sophisticated. Our analysis of this is nonexistant, with predictable and observable results. I.e., no community at all.

In my opinion, if we are very, VERY lucky, our post-peak-oil experience will eventually arrive at something vaguely like the Amish approach. But I doubt we will be that lucky, that graceful in our decline, or that sane in the outcome.

Whatever shakes out, I really don't see us flying around above the sparkling city, among floating thingimabobs, with perfect white teeth and anti-grav units on our backs. Seriously, that picture looks just like a 1950's fantasy of the future from some World's Fair or something. In other words, like a pure living hell.

Transhumanism purports to be some bold new vision of something or other, but to me it looks an awful lot like the same old project, the same old pollyannish fidgety-monkey technological wet-dream.

But I could be wrong.

:-)

- sgage

Ok sgage, but what are your alternatives? You aptly defended the Amish way of life, but made no mention of alternatives to a future you don't want to have. Just what type of future DO you want to have? :)

I don't begrudge the Amish. They have chosen their way of life, and I'm sure most of them are quite content and happpy. However, going to space, expanding life beyond the womb planet of Earth, living to a 1000 and beyond, becoming transhuman, are all NOT possible within an Amish infrastructure. Even if an Amish-like existence were forced upon me, I would work as hard as possible to continue reaching towards a future that includes space travel, intelligence increase and life extension.

Despite that contrast, I do like the simplicity of the Amish. I make efforts everyday to simplify my life as much as possible, without sacrificing my own evolution. There can be a fine line between personal simplicity and evolution. I want neither unwanted and excessive noisy complexity or stagnant simplicity. If the future consists of more of the same we have now, then yeah, the Amish life looks appealing. However, there must be a third way, like what I experience at Burning Man each year, that is inclusive in everway. Within Burning Man, I see the seeds of an evolutionary pathway that transcends hierarchy, that fosters personal and community evolution, that is environmentally sustainable, that is technologically progressive, all in a way that maximizes authenticity on every level.

The question becomes then how can we as a species transition away from the current mess, towards such a future?

An amish way of life would require that 80% the world population dies off, since the densified city requires a lot of energy to function. Amish-like societies would also require people to relinquish their transhumanist yearnings, since such yearnings would be directly at odds with maintaining the status quo.

If there is one thing I have learned, relenquishment is no longer an option. Even if society collapses all around us, there is still a very high probability that nanotech development will continue, despite potential slow-downs from such a collapse.

To be fair, only some of the proponents of the "hydrogen economy" claim the need for big centralized reactors to generate the hydrogen (for those who are unfamiliar with the argument, the notion is that very high temps, generally only found in certain kinds of nuclear reactors, make it easier to split hydrogen from more complex molecules). Lots of people who are all for a hydrogen shift remain highly dubious of the nuclear-generated-hydrogen idea, and are actively researching other, less centralized, methods of producing sufficient quantities of H2.

As I said in the WorldChanging post you linked to, the remaining obstacles to greater and *greener* hydrogen use are significant challenges, but by no means impossible ones.

Thanks James for weighing in. I know that most advocates of the H2 economy, like myself, want decentralized solutions, but they are yet to be forthcoming.

I'm hopeful that improvements in solar power efficiency and cost, along with more efficient storage and production h2 methods will come along to make it feasible before a major 'correction' hits when peak oil is reached.

Hi Paul,

Thanks for replying...

First off, I was moved to defend the Amish mostly because you so grossly mischaracterized them as being "200 years" backward and "living on scraps", neither of which are even remotely true. I would bet that they're more comfortable, happy, secure, and well fed than either you or I. So I rose to that bait.

And I don't necessarily advocate that we all adopt the Amish way - for one thing, I'm not religious :-) Though I believe we have a lot to learn from them about sustainability and community.

Some further comments:

"Besides, those advocating Amish lifestyles are luddites, because they don't believe we should progress."

The actual historical Luddites weren't against progress, they were against having their world and their livelihoods destroyed. Guess what - they were right to be alarmed. You seem to be confusing "progress" with "no-holds-barred capitalism" and "techno-gadgetry".

But progress means a lot more than gee-whiz corporate technology. A super high-tech F-16 with "precision munitions" reducing Fallujah to rubble is technologically cutting edge progress, but surely you can see that it's the same old thing. In no way does it represent any kind of real human progress. We need some other kinds of progress a heckuva lot more than technological progress.

"This site is about creating a future without limits. Bio-luddisim is anathema to that."

What you call bio-luddism I would call "reality based thinking". A future without limits? Surely the future has no limits, no matter what. But you are actual, not virtual. You need air, food, water. What kind of limits are you talking about?

"An Amish infrastructure would work for Earth, only if:

1) The worlds population gets cut by 80% or more."

I don't know about 80%, but we're way over carrying capacity by any measure. Neither an Amish infrastructure nor any other will "work" without some rather serious population control. And blasting people into space isn't going to solve this particular problem. Population reduction will. You can be sure that this will be accomplished one way or the other.

"2) Progress beyond rural stability is not desired."

I guess I'm not really sure what you mean by "progress". It's a question of size and sustainability of cities, and what area of land they need to draw from. Clearly, something like LA is out of the question. This is NOT a moral or aesthetic judgement - just reality.

We have come nowhere near realizing human potential yet. "The Problem" we face is not technological. We're not going to "clever" our way out of this with some snappy technology. If we're lucky, we'll keep cool long enough to muddle ourselves out of it in some sort of style. But your "transhumanist" fantasy is just that, and it's nothing new. It's just more of the same thing that got us into the pickle we're in.

OK, so what's my plan? It's simple, really. Humans need to find some other way to amuse themselves besides flashing lights and lots of consumer crap. It seems to be an old primate thing. Nothing I can do about it though.

Reality is what happens whether you believe in it or not. Maybe some day we'll have some kind of "future without limits" (whatever that means), but I believe we have quite a few mileposts to go before then.

What is the point of being human? What is happiness? What is contentment? Surely these have nothing to do with technology...

Cheers,

- sgage

Dude! You edited your post while I was in the midst of replying to it! Not fair! :-)

"An amish way of life would require that 80% the world population dies off, since the densified city requires a lot of energy to function."

And food, and water, and waste removal, and...

Getting back to Peak Oil, and speaking of food... have a look into the "agricultural" usage of petroleum - you'll be amazed. It's not just energy, either - it's chemical feedstock for fertilizer, herbicides, pesticides, etc. The food you eat is just as much a manufactured product as the computer you're typing on. Part of any "solution" to the "problem" will be to return agriculture to a solar basis.

Then it will be "without limits". You see, there are two kinds of infinity - one kind is the notion of some endless quantity just sitting there to grab, another is a nice ample quantity per unit of time, but available forever. The Sun is (virtually) the latter.

BTW, I sort of agree with JohnFen. There will be (will have to be) some leap forward. What that will be is anyone's guess. Though I'll bet you $5.00 that it won't be anti-gravity backpacks :-)

Seriously, Paul, this is a great topic and a great discussion. I would only stress that human progress comes in a lot more flavors than merely "technological", and the technological can not make up for lacks in other departments.

Humanism first, then, some day, transhumanism, or post-humanism, or whatever. I have no problem with space exploration, or colonization, but not at the expense of Earth and those that will always live here. I guess I feel that there's no rush. We are very VERY young as a sentient species, and have LOTS of shit to work out...

- sgage

"

Hi Sgage,

I'm not sure how familiar you are with the site, or my own personal philosophy. But if look at the last year of my posts, you will see the entire reason for starting this site, is that IT WILL take more than just technological advancement to survive the next 50 years. Below are two links, including the very first post which kick-started this site, that I think succinctly express my reasons for starting it, and my own personal philosophy.

Turning On Higher Intelligence

My reasons for starting Future Hi

There are numerous technical solutions available to help us kick the oil habit. We don't need to build more nuclear power plants or mine the moon for helium-3. There are at least 5 benign alternative technologies each of which alone could replace our dependence on oil.

They are:
Fuel Grade Methanol
Solar Concentrators (mokindustries.com)
Biodiesel from Algae
Cold Fusion (finally proven beyond doubt)
Methane Hydrates

Of course there are many others, like wind power which are coming on strong. But the one's I've mentioned above are the most promising in terms of numbers.

I haven't listed the hydrogen economy, but if cars end up running on hydrogen it would be a huge positive for sustainability. The cheapest way to produce hydrogen currently is from natural gas. And there are huge global reserves of natural gas. It is highly unlikely that hydrogen could be produced cheaper with nuclear energy. The reason nuclear power failed in the US is it turned out to be too expensive, so this is probably nothing to worry about. Once cars run on hydrogen, hundreds of different ways to extract hydrogen will be developed and some of them will be sustainable and produce hydrogen more cheaply than from natural gas. Hydrogen is everywhere. Mok Industries already claims that they have the cheapest method of producing hydrogen from solar energy.

However, I personally think that we're going to skip the hydrogen revolution and go straight to the low energy nuclear reaction (LENR) solution instead, which will turn out to be the simplest and most environmentally positive energy technology. This could hit within a decade if the technology receives even a small amount of funding. I'll submit an article discussing this incredible breakthrough field of science separately if anyone's interested.

The peak oil people have raised an important issue, but their pessimism is misguided. It is China's and India's rapid transition from third world to first world that is straining the world's oil supplies. However, since these countries are just beginning to use oil, their economies are not yet dependent on them, so there's tremendous leeway in demand. Prices will simply rise until demand in these two countries is reduced. This will not however, produce any kind of calamity, and it's a very good thing that these two nations are becoming prosperous.

The fact that oil prices appear to be staying high for the foreseeable future is a great boon to the development of the alternatives. As long as oil was dirt cheap, it was almost impossible for companies to commit the necessary R&D to get these new technologies to the street.

I know many people think otherwise, but the truth is that we'll look back on this time as one of incredible promise and fertility. The world is changing rapidly for the better. Time to wake up and smell the coffee!

Cheers,
Dlight

While I agree that we ought to move past petroleum usage for sustainability reasons, I haven't yet been convinced of the Peak Oil theory. There is evidence to suggest that abiotic oil production continues within the interior of the planet (that's oil that doesn't come from carbon decay), and many of the "scientists" behind Peak Oil mysteriously seem to work for major petroleum concerns. http://www.davesweb.cnchost.com/nwsltr71.html

Note also that OPEC production is currently at a 25-year high: http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20041203/bs_nm/markets_oil_dc_34

But again, oil is a very dirty technology and not very efficient. And it has a habit of creating wars - even if oil hasn't peaked, it's still costly and difficult to obtain. (I tend to side with J.R.R. Tolkien's belief that the internal combustion engine is the greatest evil ever wrought by man.) 80% of the biosphere gets its energy directly from the sun. Why can't we? If the powers that be actually wanted to make solar work, you can bet the technology would advance considerably from where it is now.

We have hoards of energy available; To sustain our civilization for at least 100 years. That should be more than enough time to transition to sustainable energy sources, and decrease our expendiature.

We have Coal. You can sulpherize it. We have Nuclear. Sure, these wastes are terrible. But you can't say we don't have plenty of energy around.

Are people seriously going to avoid Nuclear, and turn Amish, just because they don't like Nuclear waste storage? Something tells me: "No."

BTW, Hydrogen economy doesn't mean "Nuclear." You can hook anything up into the hydrogen economy, is my understanding. You can charge a hydrogen fuel cell from any type of electricity. Wind, Coal, Nuclear, Oil, whatever. Now I may be wrong, but my understanding is: That is *the entire point* of Fuel Cell technology: To make it so you can power anything from anything. Right now, your car requires gas. But with Fuel Cell technology, it can run on Wind.

But the ultimate thing, I believe in all of this, is that in 40-50 years, we're going to start exiting our brains from our bodies, and living in vats. It'll be much more efficient, and we won't really need our bodies for much. We already live in worlds that are almost entirely virtual. We care about television, we care about stories, we care about efforts, we care about communities. Our lives are almost entirely mental lives. We worry a lot about communications. That we have to maintain a physical body is just this thing. Even the environmentalists live in entirely virtual worlds: They live in their own, deeply personal, romantic notion of nature. Not one has ever really been in a forest. They have only been in their idea of forest.

So, I think our trend is towards virtualization, and I think we're going to move into 3'x3'x3' rooms. I think we'll all be effectively vegan, and I think we won't be consuming all that much energy.

Weird ideas, I know, but: I have difficulty seeing it go any other way.

"we won't really need our bodies for much"

this is what the deceiving God says to the protagonist in Serial Experiments: Lain (a great japanese anime). he urges the girl to kill herself as her body is not necessary anymore and calls her to live with him in virtual eternity, where she can have all the powers over the virtual mind-world...

I recommend checking out that movie. it's incredibly deep.

Dlight: I think you're missing something big when you say it's "China's and India's rapid transition from third world to first world that is straining the world's oil supplies".

Lion Kimbro: I'm with you. I'm sure if everyone who thought we don't need bodies for much, everyone who condemned environmentalism with paper-thin sophistry, everyone who buys into world-denial, everyone who's lost sight of the bonds between themselves, their bodies and nature - if we took all these people and made them live in virtual worlds in vats, the situation here would probably improve miraculously.

Using solar to drive hydrogen production

Gyrus:
While the US is the largest consumer of oil, our usage is growing by less than 2% a year, which oil production could easily keep up with. China and India's consumption are growing in the double digits. China alone is adding 1000 cars a day! If there was an endless supply of oil, it would only take a few years for their usage to outstrip ours, after all their combined population is 2.38 billion. India and China are projected to have about 600 million cars each by 2050, having long left the US in the dust.

http://in.rediff.com/money/2004/oct/23car.htm

Of course this growth may be limited by the price of oil if oil production can't keep up.

Lvx23: Solar technology has already advanced far beyond conventional PV. Mok Industries claims to be able to produce solar energy for less than 5 cents per kilowatt of capacity. That's at least 30 times cheaper than coal and hundreds of times cheaper than conventional solar. The future is already here. The "powers-that-be" are irrelevant, they're dinosaurs....

Cheers,
D

http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,65936,00.html?tw=wn_tophead_1

I think technology will relieve us in time to deal with the oil-problem.

Just take a look at these links, all about producing hydrogen:

http://www.techreview.com/articles/04/12/rnb_120604.asp

http://www.kurzweilai.net/news/news_single.html?id=2098

http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,64797,00.html

http://www.kurzweilai.net/news/news_single.html?id=2916

And there is also a recent newsflash about a new cheap way of producing hydrogen using nuclear power. I can't find the link anymore.

There's also the problem of hydrogen-storage ofcourse. But I've seen many newsflashes about that subject as well, and to me it's looking like technology will be in time to deal with this peak oil stuff. It could start stretching our oil supplies in a few years, if only science will keep working on it (which it will).

Furthermore, solar panels are increasing exponentially in efficiency, and they will be able to compete with convential energysources by 2010. I suppose I could give a link to the source, but the site I read it on is Dutch (ergo: unreadable to most people reading my post), so why bother.

Nanotechnology will definately revolutionize renewable energy.

I think the people who believe in the whole peak oil scenario do, in fact, genuinely BELIEVE that this is the way it's gonna work out. But based on many articles regarding the subject that I have read (yeah, I'm one of those people who does his own research), I think their beliefs are incorrect.

So my advice would be: don't let yourself be scared by it, because technology really is moving exponentially faster, and it looks like we'll be able to invent our way out of this, even though some pessimists think otherwise.

Just my two cents.

Jay

P.S. You got a kick-ass site, dude.

Wow, thanks for all the ideas and links everyone.

What do you say to the skeptics, who say that it takes oil to give us enough energy to make all the solar panels and hydrogen parts, and that there won't be enough of it to transition over in time?

I suppose it would be hard to say one way or another. What I have learned is that there will be something to pick up once oil runs out, although it still remains an open question whether there will be a 'pinch' sometime between now and then.

Paul,

The skeptics are probably assuming that the world is truly stupid enough to let it come to this scenario: a few years before the hydrogen economy, we're all gonna die because we didn't start early enough with researching renewables.

If the peak oil thingy is going to end life as we know it, it must come real soon, because renewables are becoming cost-effective pretty rapidly. Many countries are already aiming for 10% renewable energy by 2010. If this percentage will keep on increasing (and I don't think there's a reason to assume that it won't), then I'd say we'll be able to make the transition from fossils to greens quite smoothly.

Leading experts knew about this problem decades ago. It seems reasonable to assume that these same people have been doing some planning since then.

Check out the nice exponential graph in this article:

http://www.jxj.com/magsandj/rew/1999_04/comingofage.html

On a sidenote:

Things rarely work out as bad as we expected or feared them to; Y2K, anybody?

Get used to scaremongering in the future. We've got nanotech and bioengineering revolutions coming up too, and those aren't without risk either. I'm sure there's more dangerous stuff to think of, if you think creatively for a few minutes. ;)

Jay

P.S. I just discovered a rad new site, that also has something to say on energy: http://massivechange.com/index.php?topic=energy

well.

hydrogen is nowhere near an adequate substitute for oil. it takes up more space than oil by quite a bit, relative to the amount of energy it generates. it tends to crystalise metals it is in contact with, rendering strage tanks brittle. it also, because it's the smallest atom there is, tends to leak out of strage at a rate of 2% per day... on top of the fact that hydrogen doesn't replace petroleum based fertiliser and pesticides.

there is also an infrastructure problem. while I fully beleive there are raw power alternatives to oil, the act of retrofitting our whole infrastrucutre to whatever this is, would take a minimum of 30 years, and by the time it becomes economical to swtich to something besides oil, under our existing economic regime, the whole money system will be devastated beyond repair.

furthermore, the last 50 years of accelerated petro agriculture have depleted our topsoil and groundwater to critically dangerous levels. nothing is going to put those nutrients and water back anytime soon. we've been pouring petro fertiliser into what has become a dead sponge of land that's what they call a 'ghost acre'

in the future, i beleive we're headed for a downsizing and decentralisation of the scientific endevour. your genetics and nanotech manufacturing lab will be powered by solar panels on the roof, and biodiesel reactors. the equipment will be scavenged and recycled.

in the end, I imagine we'll leapfrog hard tech into pure biological construction. bacteria will be doing all the heavy lifting. the information web will be incorporated into our bodies in the form of protein nanocomputers or somesuch.

in the short run, we're headed to a serious contraction in our population. we're so far beyond our carrying cappacity right now that it's too late to dodge anything besides catastrophic reduction. the refferences are all there. no magic bullets will come in time to change it.

[quote]
hydrogen is nowhere near an adequate substitute for oil. it takes up more space than oil by quite a bit, relative to the amount of energy it generates. it tends to crystalise metals it is in contact with, rendering strage tanks brittle. it also, because it's the smallest atom there is, tends to leak out of strage at a rate of 2% per day... on top of the fact that hydrogen doesn't replace petroleum based fertiliser and pesticides.
[/quote]

Of the three issues that stand in the way of a fullblown hydrogen economy, this would be the storage problem (the others are production and use). We're still working on that, so don't jump to conclusions to early.

Hydrogen is the way to go, says the majority of the science network that covers this world. Who are we to question them, especially when they explain their motivations quite well?

[quote]
there is also an infrastructure problem. while I fully beleive there are raw power alternatives to oil, the act of retrofitting our whole infrastrucutre to whatever this is, would take a minimum of 30 years, and by the time it becomes economical to swtich to something besides oil, under our existing economic regime, the whole money system will be devastated beyond repair.
[/quote]

We won't need the whole hydrogen economy all at once. Slowly switching to it will stretch oil supplies, making sure that the transition will be smooth.

[quote]
furthermore, the last 50 years of accelerated petro agriculture have depleted our topsoil and groundwater to critically dangerous levels. nothing is going to put those nutrients and water back anytime soon. we've been pouring petro fertiliser into what has become a dead sponge of land that's what they call a 'ghost acre'
[/quote]

Solutions have always brought along more problems. Problems for which we, thankfully, find yet more solutions in due time. These solutions also bring along new problems. You'd almost think that we're fighting an uphill battle here. But wait... would you really want to go back 200 years in time, when life was full of disease, poverty, and hard work?

[quote]
in the future, i beleive we're headed for a downsizing and decentralisation of the scientific endevour. your genetics and nanotech manufacturing lab will be powered by solar panels on the roof, and biodiesel reactors. the equipment will be scavenged and recycled.

in the end, I imagine we'll leapfrog hard tech into pure biological construction. bacteria will be doing all the heavy lifting. the information web will be incorporated into our bodies in the form of protein nanocomputers or somesuch.
[/quote]

Can research laboratories really keep on working with solar panels while amidst an oil crisis, ignoring the rest of the world's destruction? I'm not so sure if it works that way.

[quote]
in the short run, we're headed to a serious contraction in our population. we're so far beyond our carrying cappacity right now that it's too late to dodge anything besides catastrophic reduction. the refferences are all there. no magic bullets will come in time to change it.
[/quote]

I'd say there are plenty of referrances that all say technology will, in fact, bring us the 'magic bullet' to solve this problem. Take a look at Daniel Alexandre's link, for example.

On the other hand, I haven't really seen any evidence that the current oil peak (which is actually a platform) is ending anytime soon.

A few links on which Oil Peak disaster scenarios are nicely dismantled.

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/brucebartlett/bb20040610.shtml

http://www.williambowles.info/ini/ini-098.html

http://www.williambowles.info/ini/ini-0292.html

Hello there people. Both scenarios you offer are sad. In both cases their minds have reached a vegetative state. The amish have to enslave themselves to a hateful,vengeful,jealous god in order to maintain their way of life for survival. The energy centered society has enslaved itself to maintaining/locating sources of energy in order to fuel it's greed for more to survive. I say "free the mind" and the future will take care of itself. Someone will have a "moment of brilliance" and discover something that nobody has been able to see up until then (i.e. hydrogen distallation,solar particles,whatever). My point is, what does it really matter to have all the energy in the solar system? It will be controlled by people like George Bush anyway. If you be a good sheeple and do as you are told,then George will give you enough energy to get by with. Keep on tripping people, this will help to find the answers needed to survive in the future.

I realise that this forum is slanted toward techno optimism, so i don't feel it all that worthwhile trying to rock anyone's boat, but those links rebutting peak oil are pretty flimsy.

abiotic oil is a joke. tom Gold has not one shred of support among anyone except oil companies who regularly use suspect research to misreport their proven reserves to keep stock prices up, and shills for the buisness as usual economists who think money can create oil.

the link mentioning matthew simmons ignores litterly hundreds of pages of actual data in terms of oil production and extraction.

did you know that oil discovery peaked about 40 years ago? and that we are not right now discovering enough new oil to replace even a small fraction of our projected growth rates for the next five years? the only reason we haven't hit the wall yet is because of spare capacity, and the reason the prices have been so crazy lately is simply because of the loss of spare capacity.

there are plenty of well-supported research sites on the matter, that can argue this a lot better than i ever could. just google peak oil and see what kind of hope the alternative scenarios really hold.

alternatives right now represent something on the order of less than 1% of our existing energy use. after 2007 give or take a year, we are looking at a minimum 3% decrease in supply, per year, and a minimum 3% increase in demand per year

if hydrgen is going to take up the slack, then someone is going to have to figure out how to make it an energy source, instead of a low efficentcy storage medium, which it is now. and not in twenty years, but in a year.

the psychedelic future is on the way, but it's going to be a low-energy, green tech future with a lot less people.

if there are actual working alternatives in place, or even close to in place, then I'd sure like to hear about them.

Zac,

The same way some people are slated towards optimism, so are you slated towards pessimism. The same way there are hundreds of pages that would have us believe that an oil peak disaster is coming, so are there hundreds of pages saying that this is not the case.

And, in all honesty, I think the latter are quite a bit more down to earth than the former. The former tend to lean to the scaremongering side, IMO.

Bruce Bartlett is an older guy with decades of experience. He is right when stating that people have been consistently wrong about peak oil for the last 30 years. Also, I don't think it's realistic to say abiotic oil is a joke. The idea is obviously being taken seriously by science.

I only looked for peak oil rebuttal links for a few minutes. I'm sure there are plenty more. And since the peak oil stuff is pretty recent, I'm sure there will be plenty of rebuttals coming in the near future.

Furthermore, I still don't think we can engineer ourself to what you refer to as a psychedelic future once a disaster of this magninude has struck. Analysis of historical economy would have us believe everything would come to a grinding halt for at least a few years.

There are no working alternatives in place yet. But we'll have them not too many years from now. But I already explained my take on that bit.

A link with a less 'flimsy' rebuttal, for those of you that are interested:

http://www.gasresources.net/Lynch(Farce%20this%20Time).htm

Zac:
I'm glad we have at least one peak oil proponent to argue the case. On most other progressive forums the pessimists outweigh the optimists by 20 to 1.

The peak oil guys always seem to ignore the fact that global reserves keep increasing, not decreasing, so mysteriously we seem to have more years of oil left every year.

However, I think it is a fair statement that oil supplies are tight and will become tighter as demand from India and China ramps up.

Where the peak oil people lose their rationality completely is when they start discussing natural gas. They claim that natural gas is running out too and almost as fast. A bit of research shows this is nonsense. There are about 5000 trillion cubic feet (TCF) proven reserves of natural gas currently. About half of these reserves are "stranded" meaning they cannot reach their markets by pipeline.

However, "proven reserves" is actually a very conservative number.

http://www.naturalgas.org/overview/resources.asp

Actual global reserves are approximately 40 - 50,000 TCF. Currently the worldwide annual use of natural gas is only about 70 TCF. This gives us at least 570 years of reserves. Yes, nearly 600 years!

This doesn't even consider methane hydrates, which have recently been shown to be practical to harvest and which the US alone has 227,000 TCF.

http://www.netl.doe.gov/scng/hydrate/about-hydrates/about_hydrates.htm

How can natural gas replace oil? The best solution is “fuel grade methanol” (FGM). Methanol (the simplest alcohol) is a liquid and so can be carried in ordinary oil tankers, and is extremely clean burning creating just water and carbon dioxide. It can be used in existing natural gas plants to generate electricity with only minor modifications.

It’s called “fuel grade” because methanol currently is expensive because it’s made in high purity designed for chemical manufacturing. An FGM factory will produce 4.4 million gallons per day which is about ½ a percent of total US consumption of gasoline and diesel. (In a single plant!) These factories can be built in 2 to 3 years. There are currently at least two of these in the works, one in QATAR and one floating off the coast of Africa.

http://www.methanol.org/pdf/QatarFuelGradeMethanolProject-JointPressRelease.pdf

Methanol can power internal combustion engines. There are also fuel cells (DMFC’s) that run directly on methanol. The most practical fuel cell car built yet runs on methanol: http://popularmechanics.com/automotive/auto_technology/2003/1/fuel_cell_cars/print.phtml

Methanol is far safer than gasoline and burns with virtually with no pollution. Of course using fuel cells you at least double the energy efficiency and eliminate pollution entirely. Methanol could replace gasoline without having to change the current infrastructure of gas stations.

If the hydrogen economy takes off, methanol could be an excellent, easily transformable source of hydrogen.

http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=37110

All the currently stranded reserves of natural gas could be made into methanol if necessary, dramatically easing or eliminating the pressure on oil.

Another peak oil claim is that fertilizer is made from oil and we’ll all starve if oil runs out. However, fertilizer is actually made from natural gas (and nitrogen from the atmosphere) and as we can see, there’s no foreseeable shortage.

http://www.noble.org/Ag/Soils/NitrogenPrices/Index.htm

The solutions are out there. Doom and gloomers should look elsewhere for their apocalypse.

well, the bottom line is, no one knows for sure. Even energy investment bankers like matthew simmons, who advised the bush administration, and makes his money financing oil exporation, admits that it's extremely hard to accurately forecast the future based on present data. so anyone who claims to know for certain, pro or con, what will happen in the future is suspect.

http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/061203_simmons.html

The only clear picture emerges in retrospect, and not quickly either. What has demonstrably happened in the past is that regions peak and decline, often unexpectedly. the us did this, and the former soviet union did this, decades ago. lots of other regions have done this. demonstrably.
It makes no real difference whether there is or is not some arbitrarily huge amount sitting in the ground, either of oil or ng. peak oil is not about total depletion, but about how fast you can get the stuff out of the ground and how much it costs.
there's a big difference between 2 trillion barrels of light sweet crude under high pressure close to the surface in an accessable area close to existing transport routes which comes from a handfull of super giant fields, and light sour crude which is only good for making ashphalt which comes from tar sand or oil shale, in remote regions or in deep water, in inaccessable or dangerous parts of the world, or is dispersed among dozens of minor fields, each of which has six or seven dry holes with nothing in them to go along with it. these are all factors constraining cost and extraction speed. it's not like we've been waiting for decades to start using all the cheap easy to find oil lying around. the very fact that we had to invent new technology to find and extract it, makes it by definition more expensive. as soon as the energy profit ratio is close to 1:1 it's a waste of time to try getting it out of the ground, regardless of how much there is.
you can't have it both ways after all. if there's tons of oil and gas, then why all the talk of alternatives? why is the us making dozens of new coal fired power plants? COAL. why have the major oil companies been merging, and buying each other out? I'm sure some of you heard about shell falsifying it's proven reserves. this happens all the time and it's part of the reason why none of the projections can be trusted. with the stroke of pen somone reclassifies or adds proven reserves based on what they're investing to find new oil. regardless of what's actually coming out of the ground.
the reply to all the alternatives is simple and the same across the board: it doesn't matter if it works or not, because nobody ANYWHERE is implementing any of them on a scale sufficent to meet a shortfall in oil and gas. in order to do it you need energy which is in short supply, and time which is running out.
hydrogen is not a source. so if you want to talk about it, tell me where the energy to make it is coming from. natural gas? if the so-called hydrogen highway in california is going to appear, then the us has to divert natural gas from fertiliser, from home heating, and to even get it here, now that north america is declining in prodcution, you need to liquefy and transport the stuff in cryonic tankers to specially designed port facilites. that proceedure is outrageously expensive and dangerous. If we have so much then why are fertiliser factories closing down? why have fertiliser prices skyrocketed in the last year?
I've looked at everything you've put up. take some time to examine what the 'pessimists' are actually saying, and look past the shrill doomsayers who may be correct but don't have the facts at their command. look at the best case, not the weakest one. because you wouldn't want to stake your life on it.
I don't consider myself a pessimist or an optimist. the reality is too complex for that. the future is something upredictable from where we are right now. I preffer to take responsiblity fo my own evolution, my own future, rather than wait for something i have no part in, to transform the world out from under us.

ZAC wrote:
"nobody ANYWHERE is implementing any of them on a scale sufficent to meet a shortfall in oil and gas."

Why doesn't 30,000 tons a day of fuel grade methanol count as sufficient scale? (Two plants currently being built.)

How about 200 million barrels per year of synthetic oil by 2008, produced in Pennsylvania with coal as the carbon source (nasties like mercury removed) and 4/5ths of the energy coming from the sun?

http://www.fuzing.com/vci/000052afa282/Mok_Industries_LLC

These are huge numbers which can and will replace oil. Oil is not some magic or holy irreplacable substance. We've only relied on it so heavily because it's been so incredibly cheap. Keep in mind that only six years ago inflation-adjusted oil prices hit an all-time low.

http://inflationdata.com/FTF/images/charts/Oil_inflation_LG.htm

Now that oil prices appear to be staying higher, the practical alternatives will kick in with a vengeance.

The current technological explosion in virtually all fields of science, like nanotech, biotech, materials science, cold fusion etc. are opening up hundreds of new energy options.

Plus the Iraq war is making it clear to everyone that dependence on foreign oil is extremely foolish.

The oil era is coming to an end.

ZAC wrote:

"you can't have it both ways after all. if there's tons of oil and gas, then why all the talk of alternatives"

I have made a big distinction between oil and natural gas. While oil may be getting tight, natural gas supplies remain cheap to mine and are incredibly abundant. FGM is a far better and safer alternative to cryonic LNG for transporting natural gas from stranded areas.

"nobody ANYWHERE is implementing any of them on a scale sufficent to meet a shortfall in oil and gas."

Why doesn't 30,000 tons a day of fuel grade methanol count as sufficient scale? (Two plants currently being built.)

How about 200 million barrels per year of synthetic oil by 2008, produced in Pennsylvania with coal as the carbon source (nasties like mercury removed) and 4/5ths of the energy coming from the sun?

http://www.fuzing.com/vci/000052afa282/Mok_Industries_LLC

These are huge numbers which can and will replace oil. Oil is not some magic or holy irreplacable substance. We've only relied on it so heavily because it's been so incredibly cheap. Keep in mind that only six years ago inflation-adjusted oil prices hit an all-time low.

http://inflationdata.com/FTF/images/charts/Oil_inflation_LG.htm

Now that oil prices appear to be staying higher, the practical alternatives will kick in with a vengeance.

The current technological explosion in virtually all fields of science, like nanotech, biotech, materials science, cold fusion etc. are opening up hundreds of new energy options.

Plus the Iraq war is making it clear to everyone that dependence on foreign oil is extremely foolish.

"I prefer to take responsiblity for my own evolution, my own future, rather than wait for something i have no part in, to transform the world out from under us."

I agree with you completely on this. But how is focusing on oil depletion helping with this? Only alternative energy sources have the potential to let us produce our own energy and eliminate our reliance on the powers-that-be.

Well, yes, there's ample alternative energies on their way... hydrogen is just one form. I am more inclined to think of more sci-fi scenarios, which would easily be possible in the coming years of nanotechnology and other systems. One fun example is the space elevator enabling cheap production of solar panels in space (by this time they will be much more efficient and cheaper... possibly employing the synthetic photosynthesis technique), and beaming this energy to earth. Then we have the dilemma of power transfer. If we are to believe that Nikola Tesla's theory of ionospheric energy transmission is possible, then we're dealing with the idea of free wireless energy for the whole planet. I am personally convinced of the "something else entirely" 3rd picture scenario. A world that is open to our imagination. as for peak oil and our current systems, i will quote the words of Jim Foetus "We're in a Calamity Crush" (passion for calamity). i think we're reaching, or have reached the critical mass for change on many systems, so this will carry over into other systems and operate at a higher degree of awareness and dynamicism, which daunts any so-called forecasts into 2050 or somesuch long-ways forecast that dont matter.

Above link by eddireva is spam.

Well, I do definitely think that peak oil will happen soon and the effects will be felt very quickly. I'm under the impression that since our current level of population and population growth are attributable almost completely to the relatively cheap energy we've been getting from fossil fuels that after peak oil happens, we will quickly drop back to our sustainable population level.

This, though good for the planet in the end, means that many many many people will die. I see this as negative and the resource wars that will accompany the population and resource drop as negative, but in the end what is left will be a sustainable population of humans with a new outlook on life on planet Earth... assuming they haven't blown planet earth to bits... which is entirely possible.

I do not think that we will ever find any "renewable" energy source that will keep us at the level of energy production and use that we currently are at. Even though there are renewable energy sources, they can not be harnessed without the use of non-renewable components. For instance, solar panels require silver. Hydrogen fuel cells require platinum or plastic (which is of course made from oil). Also, hydrogen is very difficult to contain (being the smallest element) and requires alot of energy to process and contain as well. Nuclear energy requires uranium. Methane hydrates from the ocean floor are currently too costly and difficult to collect, and the energy needed to get them would far outweigh the energy we would get from them.

Wind, solar, and geothermal power are also intermittent. They require a backup source of power even if we could harness them for long periods of time. Methanol and ethanol and bio-diesel are great sources of energy. However, if we wanted to plant enough crops to generate power, we wouldn't have enough room for the crops we need to eat. We are running out of arable land already. Hemp causes the same problems.

Thermal depolymerization (turning waste into oil) is an interesting idea, and currently the single TD plant that exists is pupming out 100-200 barrels of oil per day. It's predicted to max out at 500 barrels per day. With 1000 of those plants pupming out 500 barrels per day, we would be producing 500,000 barrels of oil per day. That's 1/60th of what we currently use.

If we started RIGHT NOW on setting up an entirely new system based on alternative fuels (which we aren't and won't), we might have enough energy with all of them combined within a few decades to be able to stabilize the population level at a fraction of what it is now and continue to feed and shelter those people. However, once the oil's gone, unless a miracle happens, there won't be another worldwide industrialization on planet Earth. It's just not possible.

Also, this new system would require people to abandon all ideas of capitalism and money, because the only possibility would be either a large centralized energy system or small localized energy sources. Either way, people would have to live in close-knit tribe-like communities that would support one another.

The Summary? Mother nature is about to even things out, and that's not going to go in our favor as a species. Adam Smith's free had of the market is about to bitch-slap us back into the stone age.

I am a geologist, oil explorationist and former energy consultant. It is my view that we are on the road to some serious problems in the next 20 years. To avert catastrophe there needs to be major societal and political changes in regard to the use and conservation of fossil fuel. Alternate energy solutions (wind, solar, coal, nuclear, tar sands etc) cannot fill the gap in the time remaining before a crisis hits. Nonetheless we should try to do everything we can to avert disaster. It also happens that I am a Christian. Notwithstanding the terrible example of many Christians, who frustrate me greatly with their dogmatism, shallowness and mediocrity, I remain convinced that the prophesies of Jesus in Matthew 24, will take place and that the world as a whole has a date with spiritual destiny. The world will be shaken and oil may very well be the catalyst. It is unfortunate that Christians are not leading the charge for peace, love and responsible stewardship of the planet (environment) as well as truth. These are the things Jesus stands for, not mediocre consumerism and legalism.

FWIW

What? You're crazy. If jesus were alive today, he would be running a mall chain department store!

It is unfortunate that Christians are not leading the charge for peace, love and responsible stewardship of the planet (environment) as well as truth. These are the things Jesus stands for, not mediocre consumerism and legalism.

Thanks, Scooter! Very refreshing to know there are folks like you among Christians. While not a practicing Christian myself (though I was raised Catholic) I'm very interested in progressive memes amongst the nation's Christian community. I suspect there are a lot of people like yourself who understand that Christ spoke of peace, love, compassion, and a sustainable lifestyle. They need to come together and unite against the rising tide of judgement and hate that seems to have overtaken contemporary Christianity.

But I digress.

As a matter of fact, George, he is alive today and he ain't running no department store (a I don't think he is running any TV networks either! IMHO)

IVX - I'm very interested in progressive memes amongst the nation's Christian community Send me an email and I'll shoot you some links if you are interested.

[quote]I do not think that we will ever find any "renewable" energy source that will keep us at the level of energy production and use that we currently are at.[/quote]

If you have done research, I don't see how you can come to a conclusion like this.

Peak oil disaster people never come up with any solid arguments. It's always "I think there's gonna be a disaster.", and that's it. When they do come up with arguments, their cases are incomplete and biased, such as the lifeaftertheoilcrash.net site.

I also don't see how this can be turned into a religious discussion. Assuming Jesus and God exist: Don't expect them to do anything about a possible impending disaster. They have let far worse things happen in history. They simply have no role in this, whether they exist or not.

are they as incomplete and biased as your arguments?

[quote]are they as incomplete and biased as your arguments?[/quote]

Are you sure you have studied the links on hydrogen production?

Do you also know what the implications of exponential growth are?

http://www.kurzweilai.net/articles/art0134.html?printable=1

I've been studying the phenomenon for a few years myself. I can safely say that my knowledge is complete. And if my links, sources, or lines-of-reasoning are biased, then they are biased towards truth.

I'm not sure you're understanding me clearly.

I'm not talking about the possbilities of technology. I'm fully prepared to entertain the notion that someday we'll have a source of free electricity that we can use to split hydrogen off from water. you do understand that hydrogen doesn't actually exist in free form right? that we have to use energy to get it? if we can agree on that...

1)where does this energy come from? your claim of 760 years of natural gas seem to conflict with people who actually work in the field. and by work, i mean work with the gas itself, not crunching numbers in some hypothetical world. for that matter , most of what you say seems divorced from hands on reality. you're talking about what's possible, and I'm talking about what's actually happening here on earth, right now. I'm sure you've heard of nikola tesla, right? I don't doubt that many of his ideas were workable. but we're not living in a science fiction tesla world right now, so there obviously a big difference between what's possible and what's actually happening. which leads me to...

2) where does the infrastructure for this as yet unrealised energy source come from? it's not like we invent free hydrgoen tomorrow, and we're all flying fusion powered saucers the day after. by very very optimistic estimates, it would take a couple decades to retool the infrastructure we have now to work on anything besides oil or something very like it. the systemic problems asscoiated with peak oil are taking effect already, and people will be going hungry right here in less than a decade. i imagine the dollar will tube within a year.

I'm well aware of the law of accelerating returns. are you aware of the dark ages? there are lots of mathematical abstractions you could choose to apply to real life. how about digging me up one to predict the replenishment of topsoil and groundwater? a supercomputer that can match human cognition isn't going to feed anyone. one first generation assembler in a lab isn't going to recreate human society. and honestly, I'm not sure abundant energy at this stage is even a good thing. it'll only make the inevitable adjustment to sustainable living that much worse.

a finite world is no place to unleash a vertical explosion of technological growth. I'm more concerned about a vertical explosion in human ethics and foresight. at the end of the day, toy are toys.

are you really so arrogant to think that your knowledge of anything is 'complete'? and guess what... everyone thinks they're biased towards the truth.

join the club

I'll be honest and say I have no idea who is right. To me there seems to be a great divide between what is technologically possible, what is feasible, and what is "politicaly allowed". Worse, I have no idea how to tell the difference between these.

I can say without question that all the people so far who say that there is plenty of alternative energy solutions to smooth the transition into a post-scarcity society are right (thanks Dlight).

My doubts stem from whether it will ACTUALLY happen from a practical/political standpoint.

For example, if right now gas prices were to shoot up past $5/gallon, it's going to hurt a lot of people, so much that many people could die, starve, loose their jobs, maybe even push the world economy towards a depression. So the question becomes are you and I ready for such a thing? Are our personal houses in order to handle such a calamity?

On a global scale, regardless of who is right, regardless of how bad it gets, or who dies, there will be a portion of humanity that will survive. If their is some kind of economic-political-energy crunch, then those who have the most sustainable solutions in place are most likely to survive. So alternative energy on the local level seems the most prudent and rational action one can take in the short term.

Long term, humanity will survive. Accelerating technology will continue to accelerate, although the growth curve might slow a bit because of these frictions.... but the end result will be humanity (those who are left) realizng the dawn of a new age of abundance, and a future with no end in sight, but the cosmos itself.

p.s. I wrote this while drunk on champaigne - celebrating the first day of a two week vacation. Not bad eh? :)

[quote]you do understand that hydrogen doesn't actually exist in free form right? that we have to use energy to get it? if we can agree on that...[/quote]

I know. Why do peak oil people always want to repeat trivial matters? Have you read the hydrogen production links? Do you really think there's gonna be a problem with hydrogen production in the future?

[quote]
1)where does this energy come from? your claim of 760 years of natural gas seem to conflict with people who actually work in the field. and by work, i mean work with the gas itself, not crunching numbers in some hypothetical world.[/quote]

I never claimed that.

Did you know that Jay Olshanski thinks that there is no way to stop and reverse the aging process, while it is obviously so? Did you know that Richard Smalley thinks there's no such thing as molecular nanotechnology, while it is obviously so?

People in the field don't know anything about extrapolating. They just keep sticking to the intuitive linear view, which is incorrect. You can screw around in a kiddy bath for years on end, and not learn to swim. I'll listen to them when they want to tell me how things have been in the past. When I want to know how things will likely go in the future, I'll turn to myself for advise.

[quote]
for that matter , most of what you say seems divorced from hands on reality. you're talking about what's possible, and I'm talking about what's actually happening here on earth, right now. I'm sure you've heard of nikola tesla, right? I don't doubt that many of his ideas were workable. but we're not living in a science fiction tesla world right now, so there obviously a big difference between what's possible and what's actually happening. which leads me to...[/quote]

I'd have to disagree. But then again, I am one of those guys who actively seeks out articles on breakthroughs in nanotechnology, and what-have-you. If you did that as well, you'd feel a lot more like we're living in a sci fi world, which is indeed the case.

[quote]
2) where does the infrastructure for this as yet unrealised energy source come from? it's not like we invent free hydrgoen tomorrow, and we're all flying fusion powered saucers the day after. by very very optimistic estimates, it would take a couple decades to retool the infrastructure we have now to work on anything besides oil or something very like it. the systemic problems asscoiated with peak oil are taking effect already, and people will be going hungry right here in less than a decade. i imagine the dollar will tube within a year.
[/quote]

We don't need the whole infrastructure all at once. Transitions are smooth, and stretch over years or decades. Once again, I observe peak oil people repeating trivial matters. It is as if they simply don't *want* to learn, or something like that.

[quote]
I'm well aware of the law of accelerating returns. are you aware of the dark ages? there are lots of mathematical abstractions you could choose to apply to real life. how about digging me up one to predict the replenishment of topsoil and groundwater? a supercomputer that can match human cognition isn't going to feed anyone.[/quote]

It will necessarily soar past us right into a singularity, and since it will be thinking billions of times faster, it will deliver the solutions to all our measly little problems on a silver platter in a fraction of a second.

There's more information on www.singinst.org.

[quote]
one first generation assembler in a lab isn't going to recreate human society. and honestly, I'm not sure abundant energy at this stage is even a good thing. it'll only make the inevitable adjustment to sustainable living that much worse.
[/quote]

When nanotechnology takes off, it will happen fast and suddenly. See www.crnano.org for details.

[quote]
a finite world is no place to unleash a vertical explosion of technological growth. I'm more concerned about a vertical explosion in human ethics and foresight. at the end of the day, toy are toys.
[/quote]

The world is in a dangerous position right now. It will either topple over to a dystopia or a utopia. If friendly SAI is invented quickly enough, we can make this thing swing over to the positive side.

[quote]
are you really so arrogant to think that your knowledge of anything is 'complete'? and guess what... everyone thinks they're biased towards the truth.

join the club[/quote]

My knowledge is complete for the purpose that I need it for. It is complete because of the fact that I get my information from as many sources as possible. When I am doing my research, I look for consistency. For where is consistency, there is truth.

If you *think* you're biased to the truth, then you haven't done enough *research*, because if you *had*, you would *know*. As I do.

This guy explains why there is a need for peak oil people, and nicely dismantles the whole thing:

http://www.the7thfire.com/Politics%20and%20History/peak_oil/peak_oil_is_a_known_fraud.htm

http://www.the7thfire.com/Politics%20and%20History/peak_oil/is_peak_oil_a_myth.htm

http://www.the7thfire.com/Politics%20and%20History/peak_oil/peak_oil_sends_in_second_stringer.htm

http://www.the7thfire.com/Politics%20and%20History/peak_oil/mr_peak_oil_responds.htm

[Quote]I've been studying the phenomenon for a few years myself. I can safely say that my knowledge is complete. And if my links, sources, or lines-of-reasoning are biased, then they are biased towards truth.[Quote]

Maybe now you can devote some energy to humility. Your knowlege is complete - I hardly think so. And your argumants are not very compelling either..