Peak oil may be closer than claimed

[mwyalchen]

The world is much closer to running out of oil than official estimates admit, according to a whistleblower at the International Energy Agency who claims it has been deliberately underplaying a looming shortage for fear of triggering panic buying.

The senior official claims the US has played an influential role in encouraging the watchdog to underplay the rate of decline from existing oil fields while overplaying the chances of finding new reserves.

The allegations raise serious questions about the accuracy of the organisation's latest World Energy Outlook on oil demand and supply to be published tomorrow – which is used by the British and many other governments to help guide their wider energy and climate change policies. ...

... A second senior IEA source, who has now left but was also unwilling to give his name, said a key rule at the organisation was that it was "imperative not to anger the Americans" but the fact was that there was not as much oil in the world as had been admitted. "We have [already] entered the 'peak oil' zone. I think that the situation is really bad," he added. ...

... John Hemming, the MP who chairs the all-party parliamentary group on peak oil and gas, said the revelations confirmed his suspicions that the IEA underplayed how quickly the world was running out and this had profound implications for British government energy policy.

He said he had also been contacted by some IEA officials unhappy with its lack of independent scepticism over predictions. "Reliance on IEA reports has been used to justify claims that oil and gas supplies will not peak before 2030. It is clear now that this will not be the case and the IEA figures cannot be relied on," said Hemming.

"This all gives an importance to the Copenhagen [climate change] talks and an urgent need for the UK to move faster towards a more sustainable [lower carbon] economy if it is to avoid severe economic dislocation," he added.

Full article: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2 ... rgy-agency

[DJ Droood]

I'm not sure if the thread is still archived, but peak oil was said by someone to have occured about two years ago, around November...the bad economy has kept prices from spiking temporarily.

[Merlyn]

Interesting view.
Though Americans are far from the only use of gasoline, what we in the US see is the staving off of alternatives.
What happened here when prices went double, a year ago was really also a problem for OPEC.
We are already working with synthetic oil, converting diesels to use waste vegetable oil which frankly almost doubles the mileage per gallon and making hybrid cars.
The spike in gasoline prices spurred a great deal of investment in alternative energy here. This alarmed OPEC and they dropped the prices.
this however is too late to stop the advancement in technology. A very large percentage of commuting vehicles could very easily be electric. Needing to only go back and forth to work is well in the limits of hybrid and electric cars already.
This also is coupled with a hold on drilling for oil, natural gas and the changing coal technology which is just now coming to be. What is mentioned as "angering Americans" is kind of odd, as what it means is Americans finally solving the problem and cutting the dependence on oil, which will more anger the Oil producing nations as they will no longer be reaping in the cash for it.

Its a catch 22 for them. If and when we run out of oil, Oil producing nations will go broke.
Gotts get my solar panels soon

Merlyn

[Corwen]

There is only so much waste vegetable oil, and even electric cars need electricity that is normally generated by burning coal or oil. Even nuclear power plants have massive carbon footprints. We need to stop buying unnecessary stuff made in factories, stop flying except in emergencies and cut our car use. There is no other way.

The UK Government has recently announced the construction of 10 new nuclear plants, this is almost the only way out for them since they have squandered the incredible opportunity we had to lead the world in renewables (we are the windiest and 'waviest' country in Europe). The uranium needed for these plants will be mined in the Kalahari, destroying the San Bushmen's ancestral home. To power the mines, the Namibian Government will build a massive coal fired power station, burning 2.4 million tons of South African coal per year. This of course won't show up on the UK's carbon balance sheet...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2 ... bia-mining
http://www.survivalinternational.org/news/4286
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 17643.html
http://www.greenpeace.org/international ... ns/nuclear

I think I might start a new thread about this.

[DJ Droood]

There is only so much waste vegetable oil, and even electric cars need electricity that is normally generated by burning coal or oil.

Plus vegetable oil, or corn ethanol needs...vegetables....which, of course, needs lots of farm land, so you end up taking away from food production to keep the cars running out to the megamart. As well, the energy in-energy out of creating biofuels makes them worthless as a "renewable" energy source. I think the whole idea of biofuels was quickly and quietly discredited a couple of years ago.

[Merlyn]

Vegetable oil use for diesels is only practical as recycled waste. And we have plenty of McDonald's to produce enough used Veg oil let alone the rest of the restaurants. Much like we recycle waste motor oil to heat homes, we can use this resource for what it is. It is a higher mileage fuel and the conversion is easy. which makes use of older cars and makes them green. No sulfur, and refinement is hardly needed, saving tons of more energy.
So yes, it is a very real resource, and I have friends who use it, and county trucks as well.
What we really are doing in the US might surprise you!
Electric cars are really only practical for commuting at this point, but that is changing. They should be used, to eliminate the concentrated pollution in cities and suburbs. We of course would do best if they were recharged by wind or solar. That idea is taking root now. Solar-geo-thermal homes would remove the need for more power plants by a large margin, as peak use is in the summer, during the day, cooling homes and businesses. This is all very real and easy to do.
They just have to get off their butts and do it!

Merlyn

[Corwen]

Vegetable oil use for diesels is only practical as recycled waste. And we have plenty of McDonald's to produce enough used Veg oil let alone the rest of the restaurants. Much like we recycle waste motor oil to heat homes, we can use this resource for what it is. It is a higher mileage fuel and the conversion is easy. which makes use of older cars and makes them green. No sulfur, and refinement is hardly needed, saving tons of more energy.
So yes, it is a very real resource, and I have friends who use it, and county trucks as well.
What we really are doing in the US might surprise you!
Electric cars are really only practical for commuting at this point, but that is changing. They should be used, to eliminate the concentrated pollution in cities and suburbs. We of course would do best if they were recharged by wind or solar. That idea is taking root now. Solar-geo-thermal homes would remove the need for more power plants by a large margin, as peak use is in the summer, during the day, cooling homes and businesses. This is all very real and easy to do.
They just have to get off their butts and do it!
Merlyn

Sadly I doubt all the waste oil produced by McDonalds would even power their own fleet of vehicles, let alone contribute much to the general public's transport needs.

Electric cars are all well and good, but where are all the solar cells and wind turbines going to come from? What will power the factories where they are made? I really hope that the US takes some initiative for large scale renewable projects, not just window dressing as we have in the UK. Despite the tremendous wealth we have in wind and wave energy we are still planning for our main needs to be provided by Russian gas and African uranium.

I agree with you about the use of passively heated and cooled homes, very sensible. I wish my caravan had a little more thermal mass I can tell you! Its fine while the stove is going, but a couple of hours after that fire goes out we may as well be sleeping in the field!

[Merlyn]

I am already geo-thermal, and it is an amazing difference.
Getting a house on solar requires lowering it's electric use, to something solar panels have a chance working with.
In my old house, about half the size as this one, it cost twice as much in electric and gas each month. The grid is still good, and will keep me from having to use battery power at night, but during the day my house will feed it, paying me back. A retrofit like this in solar isn't cheap, but.. in less than two years of use it pays for itself.

Now.. if all future homes were built solar-geo-thermal then the future need for expanding the grid with power plants would drastically reduce.
People should look into it, as many new companies are forming and doing it now in the US, we had one come out a while ago.
After two years... no electric bill, not out of reach at all. Banks should lend for this as the money is getting spent by the home owner either way.

Veggie diesels I think are a good use of old Mercedes, they are the simplest to convert, as well as Volkswagens, and when they finally rust, and die at least we can stop them from fouling the air as they do because of their age. It's far from any one answer. It gets rid of the waste problem from Veg oil as well.
How much do we waste? http://www.thevoicenews.com/news/2003/0 ... s/f01.html
Electric is IMO good for small commuter cars, not a solution so much for much else. You have to drag around a heavy battery. But they could cut pollution where it is the worst.

Wind power hit a snag that solar would not. as the land rights for new power lines were fought tooth and nail here.
So I am not holding my breath for that.

Merlyn

[DJ Droood]

Veggie diesels I think are a good use of old Mercedes, they are the simplest to convert, as well as Volkswagens, and when they finally rust, and die at least we can stop them from fouling the air as they do because of their age. It's far from any one answer. It gets rid of the waste problem from Veg oil as well.
How much do we waste? http://www.thevoicenews.com/news/2003/0 ... s/f01.html
Electric is IMO good for small commuter cars, not a solution so much for much else. You have to drag around a heavy battery. But they could cut pollution where it is the worst.

Veggie diesel and converted cars and the like are no more than toys for the clever gear head. Sure they work, but one only needs to see the volume of rush hour traffic on any city street, and multiply it by hundreds of thousands of other cities to realize there simple aren't enough Happy Meals.

Electric will get better and easier (swap out battery "filling stations" rather than charging your own battery, enabling less hassle and longer trips) Unfortunately, nuclear is the only viable option for producing that much electricity. I can see no other way. Distopian/Utopian agrarian communes after the nasty post-collapse fallout, perhaps. I think those with capital will build a lot of nuke plants before they let that happen, however.

[katie bridgewater]

Unfortunately, nuclear is the only viable option for producing that much electricity.

My father has a saying:

the answer to traffic problems is fewer cars not more roads...

I really think the only solution to the global energy crisis is to REDUCE the amount of energy we all require to live.

We are collectively unbelievably profligate in our use of electricity, and there is no excuse. The amount of energy consumed per capita has risen steadily and visibly in my lifetime. The lowest per capita use of energy is found in failed states around the world. None of us in Europe or the US would choose to live like that, but what was wrong with the standard of living in 1980 that we still need more, and more and more...? Even if every nation switched entirely to renewables, we'd still be using up other resources too fast for the planet to keep up. When every person in China uses as much as the average European or American currently consumes, well, I don''t need to spell it out really...

I lived off-grid for most of my adult life, and managed to live a really quite comfortable life (compared with the majority of the world's population) with just 3 12V lightbulbs, a wood burner, a small stereo and a 12V water pump. It hasn't stopped me having lots of fun, making music, training and working as a teacher, or keeping clean and well fed. People often tell me they 'couldn't manage without their home-comforts', but I find more comfort in knowing I have caused less damage than I might have done. And in case you think I sound smug or self-congratulatory, it's important that I say I have never been interested in being a martyr or in the whole environmental guilt-trip thing. There are so many lovely aspects to living more simply and sustainably that it wasn't a difficult path to chose, and besides, I think my dad has a point...

[DJ Droood]

And in case you think I sound smug or self-congratulatory, it's important that I say I have never been interested in being a martyr or in the whole environmental guilt-trip thing. There are so many lovely aspects to living more simply and sustainably that it wasn't a difficult path to chose, and besides, I think my dad has a point...

People aren't going to live in a caravan and walk to the ditch to pick nettles until they have to, and currently they don't. This may sound rude, but I'll be honest...you sound more disillusional than smug...sort of like the Marxists you see trying to hand out their Workers newspapers to the business people downtown. I'm not saying you are wrong...that people need to/should use less resources...but it isn't going to happen until after a great Die Off. In a sense, you are playing the same game as Big Oil, as your outcomes will be the same...a collapse, followed by the survivors living like medieval peasants. That is the only way your vision would be realized, and I can't see people buying in. Perhaps you see signs of a Great Awakening that I don't, and I am the disillusion one. The best thing I can say for your stance is you will at least be ahead of the game if and when people are forced to live like that. But honestly, that vision sounds like post-plague London, and I think it will drive more people to want nuclear reactors. Beware the law of unintended consequences.

[Merlyn]

In The US, the electric car was killed by GM in favor of the hybrid. Japan has scurried to produce both for fear of being shut out of the market.
Peanut oil isn't the answer to the world, but it is an answer to older diesels which face the scrap heap. But as importantly, recycling anything is good for all.

Katie has the right idea.
Get to the zero foot print. Screw waiting for the rest of the world, they will have to catch up eventually. Nuclear plants are not a good answer as the waste is a very serious problem, as is the huge centrifuges and energy used, the destruction of the natural habitats to mine uranium and the side affects of highly enriched fuel for bombs. I would much rather see a much better solution. Three mile island and other reactors stand as waiting nightmares about to happen any time. Not in my back yard!

True DJ Droood, the lemmings will all fall off the cliff. Far too few have any skills at all, and could not even change their own oil, let alone manage well pumps, HVAC geo-thermal or even consider doing something like Katie does. China is fast becoming industrial and we have dozens of countries working in that direction. But the real problem I see is the serious lack of skill sets, the dangerous reliance on ignorance and marketing that caters to the stupid.

Aside from going Geo-thermal, I went work-at-home. This saves 15000 miles of travel to and from work each year as an average taken over ten years.
It also saves 440 hours a year which is spent productively or drinking my favorite beer!
By far a better life all around.

It is true, the world will go to crap because it can and the majority of people in this world are unable to do anything else.
Peak oil (really the lack there-of) is really the main motivation to do something about it. So it's a double edged sword IMO.

Merlyn

[DJ Droood]

It is true, the world will go to crap because it can and the majority of people in this world are unable to do anything else.
Peak oil (really the lack there-of) is really the main motivation to do something about it. So it's a double edged sword IMO.

Merlyn

it reminds me of what my Mom was fond of saying when I was a kid, every time she heard of some horrible war in the news...."If only they could harness all that energy for good." Yea, if only, mom...I'm still waiting.

who likes to be a naysayer against "positive" ideas and hopefulness? Not me. I just think reality is about to trump idealism, and it is good to have our eyes open.

[Merlyn]

reality is about to trump idealism,

And a whole lot more!

[Corwen]

People aren't going to live in a caravan and walk to the ditch to pick nettles until they have to, and currently they don't. This may sound rude, but I'll be honest...you sound more disillusional than smug...sort of like the Marxists you see trying to hand out their Workers newspapers to the business people downtown.

DJ, for your information there are reckoned to be around 100,000 caravan dwellers in the UK, 200,000 people live in what are called mobile homes, and according to the Residential Boat Owners association 15,000 people live in boats, though I think that is a big underestimate as this is an area fraught with planning and licence issues, so there are a lot of people about who officially 'spend a lot of time on their boat'! . So Katie and I are by no means alone in choosing to live in what you might call an unorthodox way of life. In fact more and more people live this way in the UK, as conventional housing gets constantly more expensive.

Living this way has a lot of advantages, firstly you have a sense of independence that people living in flats don't have. Living this way is cheap, so many boaters and travellers only need to work part time, and aren't tied to a big mortgage. Living in a small space gives you much closer contact with nature and your neighbours, human or non human.

Then of course the emissions of 'small home' dwellers are enormously reduced. Boaters especially rely on solid fuel heating, most using wood stoves, and since moorings with electrical hookups are rare, generating their own power with solar, wind or by running their engines. Heating and maintaining any kind of small house is tremendously better for the environment even if you use conventional means. Mobile homes built to modern spec are very well insulated.

I haven't even mentioned the greenest of them all, but there are many people living hidden away in yurts and benders who, because they don't have and can't get planning permission don't show up on any statistics. I have met many of them, and know they are out there!

I'm not sure what you mean by disillusional as that isn't a word in English. If you mean delusional, then I disagree, because as I have said lots of people live this way, and a significant number want to, but I'll come to that in a minute. If you mean disillusioned, then we are certainly not that, we are very happy living how we do, and although we re looking for land of our own to buy, we have no intention of ever living in a house. After our whole adult lives living like this, the idea of house dwelling, everyone all shut away yet so close to each other, just gives me the shivers! Grim!

I'm not saying you are wrong...that people need to/should use less resources...but it isn't going to happen until after a great Die Off. In a sense, you are playing the same game as Big Oil, as your outcomes will be the same...a collapse, followed by the survivors living like medieval peasants. That is the only way your vision would be realized, and I can't see people buying in.

Firstly the way we live isn't the only way to live with more or less zero emissions. If you live in a small or easily heated house or flat, cycle or use public transport and drive minimally, don't fly and choose your food and gadgets carefully then you are already living within the Earth's means. There are lots of ways to reduce your impact.

We are already seeing a whole cultural shift towards the authenticity of food, possessions and experiences like travel, a direct response to the commodification of life. As yet this is a small movement in the face of international corporate capitalism, but human beings follow fashion and the paradigm is changing.

Lots of people are trying to find ways to live low impact lives. The UK planning system is constantly being challenged by those who would build their own low impact dwellings. In some areas there is already provision for this, and I honestly think it is only a matter of time before, under strict guidelines, low impact rural dwelling becomes another option. In the US and Canada there are already many who think enough is enough. Just check out the Tiny House blog, for instance (http://tinyhouseblog.com/). In UK towns the greening of many cities is already underway, there is a huge growth in allotment gardening for instance.

Every single person in this growing movement who chooses to live simply and with consideration for the planet as a whole (so that others may simply live, as it says over our door) makes it easier for those who follow, so if its all the same to you we'll stick to our guns!

Perhaps you see signs of a Great Awakening that I don't, and I am the disillusion one. The best thing I can say for your stance is you will at least be ahead of the game if and when people are forced to live like that. But honestly, that vision sounds like post-plague London, and I think it will drive more people to want nuclear reactors. Beware the law of unintended consequences.

Well as you see I disagree. Living simply is a positive and pleasurable way to live, as I sit in front of my log fire listening to the owls in the tree above. It has its challenges, but they are all things (like taking responsibility for building my own structures, disposing of my own sewage etc) that make you grow as a person and increase your capabilities and sense of self worth. I don't think anyone has gone away after visiting us planning to buy a bigger house and get some more gadgets!

[DJ Droood]

So Katie and I are by no means alone in choosing to live in what you might call an unorthodox way of life. In fact more and more people live this way in the UK, as conventional housing gets constantly more expensive.

Oh. I'm sure you leave a smaller footprint, make fewer "greenhouse gases" (if you are convinced that this makes a difference)...actually, I'm not so sure now, since I read your last confession about wood burning.... But your voluntary penury (if it is voluntary) is a choice that only a sub-culture has the luxury of making. If everyone was to chose this lifestyle, your country would quickly run out of land, firewood and ditch nettles, and then the die off would begin anyway. Your "anti-civilization" model, like that of the urban scavengers, is both parasitic and misanthropic.

I'm not sure what you mean by disillusional as that isn't a word in English.

I did mean "delusional"...my spell check changed it to disillusion, and I added an "al" on the end without checking closely, but thank you for being as pedantic as you are sanctimonious! Suddenly the promise of nuclear energy seems far less grating than having to live beside you in a tent.

Firstly the way we live isn't the only way to live with more or less zero emissions. If you live in a small or easily heated house or flat, cycle or use public transport and drive minimally, don't fly and choose your food and gadgets carefully then you are already living within the Earth's means. There are lots of ways to reduce your impact.

Utopian nonsense. you are simply hiding, waiting until the End Times....which might not be a bad strategy...like I said before, get the jump on everyone else....you will probably survive better than many others...but if you think your strategy will somehow "heal the world", well....I should know better than to argue with the "faithful".

Every single person in this growing movement who chooses to live simply and with consideration for the planet as a whole (so that others may simply live, as it says over our door) makes it easier for those who follow, so if its all the same to you we'll stick to our guns!

You can live anyway you want, obviously, but your "growing movement" seems to be like the growth of mold on the decay of the previous oil culture, but just as dependent on it, in the end.

Well as you see I disagree. Living simply is a positive and pleasurable way to live, as I sit in front of my log fire listening to the owls in the tree above.

Log fire? How selfish! The CO2 produced! And you expect everyone in the UK to live like that? Do you really have enough trees to cut? Or is this just a lifestyle for a privileged "subculture" ? Or perhaps after the die off, there will be enough furniture from nasty civilization to burn for a generation.

[katie bridgewater]

Log fire? How selfish! The CO2 produced! And you expect everyone in the UK to live like that? Do you really have enough trees to cut? Or is this just a lifestyle for a privileged "subculture" ? Or perhaps after the die off, there will be enough furniture from nasty civilization to burn for a generation.

I can't believe you wouldn't know that burning wood is completely CO2 neutral!

The tree absorbs CO2 from the air as it grows, and then when you burn wood, you release the same CO2 back that would be released when it rots anyway. It's very simple science DJ.

We burn about 1-2 bucketfuls of naturally fallen wood per day, on the days we light a fire (which is less than half the days in a year) between 2 of us. If that is selfish, then what would you suggest?

[DJ Droood]

We burn about 1-2 bucketfuls of naturally fallen wood per day, on the days we light a fire (which is less than half the days in a year) between 2 of us. If that is selfish, then what would you suggest?

Looking for a solution that will help humanity and stop fooling yourself? If everyone in your country...what, 60 million people or so?...picked up 2 buckets of "naturally fallen" wood every day, how long do you think that could last? And can you imagine the environmental damage?

As with any fire, burning wood fuel creates numerous by-products, some of which may be useful (heat and steam), and others that are undesirable, irritating or dangerous.

One by-product of wood burning is wood ash, which in moderate amounts is a fertilizer (mainly potash), contributing minerals, but is strongly alkaline as it contains potassium hydroxide[5] (lye). Wood ash can also be used to manufacture soap.

Smoke, containing water vapor, carbon dioxide and other chemicals and aerosol particulates, can be an irritating (and potentially dangerous) by-product of partially burnt wood fuel. A major component of wood smoke is fine particles that may account for a large portion of particulate air pollution in some regions. During cooler months, wood heating accounts for as much as 60% of fine particles in Melbourne, Australia.[6]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wood_fuel

If you want to make a virtue out of your chosen lifestyle, that is understandable...I did so too when I was living on my failed hobby farm in my 20's...but your pedestal is made of wood ash.

I would say if you two are really interested in dialogue and change, you should drop the sanctimony and the religious "you can't call yourself earth-centered" talk. (although I don't know many who would want to use a New Age buzzword like that to describe themselves.) Just some friendly advice. It is just too easy to tune you out, and you may actually have some good ideas worth discussing.

I am going to go and try to convince my partner to post to this thread now, and even up the odds...it may take some work, as she thinks discussion boards are pointless and stupid, so give me time....actually, she probably wouldn't agree with me anyway, so never mind.

[mwyalchen]

thank you for being as pedantic as you are sanctimonious! Suddenly the promise of nuclear energy seems far less grating than having to live beside you in a tent.

I know that internet conversations have a way of going wrong; but I'm a bit surprised at the way this is going.

D J, have you met Corwen in real life? I have, and I find him a warm, generous person who is anything but preachy and sanctimonious...


(I speak as an urban-dweller far more tied into the oil economy than I would like!)

[DJ Droood]

D J, have you met Corwen in real life? I have, and I find him a warm, generous person who is anything but preachy and sanctimonious...

No, I am only going by their internet posts, mostly of late....as usual, real life rarely gets a fair shake on message boards.