Glenn,
First of all, leave it to you to get another ball rolling! I think your
e-mail on "cheap oil" is right on target. Thanks for the links to the
various web sites; I had seen "Hubbert-type" graphs before but it's nice to
have the references.
Let me make a few comments, some from a nuclear energy perspective.
One can argue about exactly when oil production will peak. It's just a
matter of time. The production of all non-renewable resources peak. Since
we know that oil production will peak, we should get ready for the day that
it is priced out of (most of) the market. If, as you say, the oil
production will peak at 30 billion barrels of oil (bbo), extending the peak
by one year will, obviously, require that you and your fellow oil people,
find an extra 30 bbo.
The question then is, how are we (not just the US or "the West") going to
manage. We have to keep in mind that, even though the "developed world"
often acts as if it was , somehow, entitled to all these fossil fuels, there
are some 5 billion people that have just as much right to run cars, plow
their fields with something other than animal or human power and just as
much right to sit in air-conditioned comfort as we are. You quote Price:
"At current rates of consumption, known reserves of Petroleum will be gone
in about thirty-five years; natural gas in fifty-two years; and coal in
some two hundred years." David Price, Population and Environment: A Journal
of Interdisciplinary Studies Volume 16, Number 4, March 1995, pp. 301-19
1995 Human Sciences Press, Inc.
I don't know if Price has figured in his projection 1+ billion Chinese and 1
billion Indians consuming oil at the rate we, in North America, are. If he
has not, his predictions are going to be wildly optimistic. On the other
hand, if AIDS takes off world wide the way it has in Africa, there may be
lots of time.
If we are going to "ration" oil, we need to see where oil cannot (easily) be
replaced. The beauty of oil is that it is a portable energy source. Diesel
oil, kerosene and gasoline have allowed us to have cars and fly airplanes.
There are other portable energy sources, of course, such as coal and wood
and coal-fired boilers in steamships and steam locomotives are well known.
And, yes, during WWII, some cars ran on gas produced by destructive
combustion of wood.
I would think then, that we need to reserve the oil for transportation and
lubrication. Even for transportation, oil should be used only where other
fuels cannot be used. Thus, railways should be electrified and truck
transport reduced as much as possible. Public transit should be by electric
trains, subways and trams. Buses should be trolley buses; they work very
well in Vancouver, BC. (Trolley buses were ruled out in Winnipeg in the
1970s because the overhead wires created "visual pollution", despite the
fact that Manitoba is an electrical energy exporting province)
Using fossil fuels to generate electricity is, IMHO, going to be untenable.
Nuclear power should be used to provide base load with pumped storage to
provide energy for peak demands. In a pinch, natural gas turbines could be
used with hydro where possible.
I agree with you that "the auto will be a thing of the past." I don't think
we will al have to telecommute or bicycle to work. I think that we will
have to give up our quarter acre of grass around our house and start to live
in row houses or apartments and increase the population density so that
public transit can be effective. In Paris, most people within the
"Perepherique" (belt way) are within 5 minutes walking of a subway entrance.
The Metro is 50+% nuclear powered since more than 50% of France electrical
energy is supplied by nuclear reactors.
Oil resources will need to be conserved for farm use, although it may be
possible to run farm equipment on corn-based alcohol or other biofuels. We
may also start to have do without grapes in December because the shipping
costs will be out of this world.
As for alternative sources of energy, we are limited to hydro and nuclear;
everything less is "small potatoes." There are untapped rivers that can
supply us with more hydro power, but the environmental cost is not
insignificant. The frustrating thing is that nuclear power has such a bad
press. Note that Germany has just decided to phase out their nuclear power
reactors at the end of their life, if not sooner. Nothing has been
mentioned how Germany will generate the energy afterwards and nobody seems
to want to ask the question.
Fast breeder (fission) reactors produce more fuel than they consume and can
extend our supply of fissionable materials. The Canadian CANDU heavy water
reactor can be run with a mixed oxide fuel (Th/U) also run as a breeder
reactor and produce U-233, which is fissile. Reprocessing of mixed Th/U
fuel to remove the U-233 is a bit of a challenge because the fuel is
insoluble in nitric acid, unlike UO2.
Controlled thermonuclear fusion may be an alluring solution to the world's
energy problems, but there are lots of problems to be solved. Contrary to
public opinion, fusion reactors do produce large amounts of radioactive
materials through neutron irradiation of reactor components. The pole
pieces of the magnets undergo intense neutron bombardment to the point that,
within a few months (if I remember correctly) most of the atoms in the pole
pieces get knocked out of place in their lattice.
I agree that wind, waves, tides, ocean thermal energy conversion, and
geothermal sources are only bit players.
I think that conservation is still in order. For years, I car pooled to
work. With five members in our car pool, we were each able to cut our
commuting costs by 80% and make do with one car per family. Now that our
work force has shrunk and car pooling is not viable anymore, I've had to buy
a second car. We can do with a lot less air conditioning in our homes,
offices, and cars (note that most cars now come with air conditioning as
standard). We can start shopping closer to home. Some states could do
their bit by eliminating the electric chair ;-).
We already see changes in energy use: cars use a lot less iron than in the
past and some car manufacturers (BMW?) are starting to use recyclable
plastic components. We can do a lot more recycling. We can do with less.
I don't think that we need to look into the future with pessimism. The
handwriting is on the wall, though, and you've highlighted some of the
sentences. The changes will be painful and, as usual, affect the poor and
disenfranchised most. As Christians, we have the opportunity to show God's
grace in all of this and help to minimize the effects of these changes.
Chuck Vandergraaf
Pinawa, MB
> ----------
> From: glenn morton[SMTP:mortongr@flash.net]
> Sent: Friday July 14, 2000 8:31 PM
> To: asa@calvin.edu
> Subject: End of Cheap oil
>
> Before I move I thought I would say something about some possible events
> that will transpire within the next 10 years which will have profound
> effects upon the world long term. Sometime between 2004 and 2010 the world
> oil production will peak out at something like 30 billion barrels of oil
> per year. After that will come a slow, inexorible decline in world oil
> production. Very little that we do will be able to turn that decline
> around.
>
> I write this as a person whose responsibility it is to find new oil
> sources. While we have been wildly successful over the past 3 years, my
> group hasn't been able to change the facts outlined below by much more
> than
> a dent.
<snip>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Jul 15 2000 - 16:22:15 EDT