Are we ready for an oil shock?

Eddiethehill

I was talking to some friends recently about what would happen in the event of a repeat of the 1970s oil shocks.

I can remember the queues at the petrol stations and as a lad being able to stand in the middle of the Navan road (now the N3) without a single car in sight because there was no oil. I may be confusing the Arab oil embargo with a tanker driver strike though.

What I am wondering is "Does the present crowd, Charlie, Mary etc. have any kind of strategic oil reserve for Ireland?"

I have not heard anything about it in the media. Is there a load of oil stashed away somewhere like the US oil reserve?

Thanks.

ivuernis

I'm not sure about an actual Irish strategic reserve but if there is one I doubt it's more than a few months supply. The US oil reserve is about 3 months of US oil consumption. The EU has one too, probably around the same size the US reserve, maybe it's an aggregate of all the EU members' oil reserves.

As for an oil shock, it would depend on the cause, e.g. Iran stopping its exports (about 5% of world output I think) or a terrorist attack on one of the major Saudi Arabia oil facilities. Doubt you'd see queues at the pumps straight away but the effects on the world's markets would be immediate and may lead to recession if a cut on the world's oil production from either scenario was more than short-term.

Of course with Peak Oil probably just around the corner we're in for the mother of all oil shocks which will play itself out for years to come.

silverharp

Oil embagos are probably unlikely this time around, but Peak oil will be interesting to say the least, "demand destruction" will take on a whole new meaning. basically oil will be bid up until people stop using the stuff, if you fill your tank once a month it will be annoying, if you fill your tank once a week, you will have to change your lifestyle, sombody should really let the NRA know. Which will arrive first, Peak oil, or that extra lane on the M50?

One intersting issue will be how oil exporters will behave when they realise that their supplies are depreciating, for instance it would be in Iran's interest to cut it's exports so it maintains self suffeniency for longer, me thinks though the US will consider this an act of war on the US suburbs.

Gurgle

silverharp wrote:

Which will arrive first, Peak oil, or that extra lane on the M50?

I'm thinking that will be a close run race.
My money is on energy-neutral anti-gravity beating them both to the post. There'll be oil left in the ground and no need for it anymore.


(lol, we're doomed)

Pocari Sweat

Oil is used to make a whole range of products, diverse as the human imagination, a massive plastics industry, used in the construction and maintenance of roads in tarmacadam and many other uses.

The quicker we work out ways of not burning it, and saving it for more productive uses, the better.

However, after oil production peaks in 2010, there will be a sharp increase in oil price increases and as well as major worries about not burning the stuff that we have got left (which will mainly end up getting burned anyway) we will have other worries like world recession, coupled with massive infaltion driven by oil costs that affect everything, transportation the basic costs of products, the gross price of transporting them etc.

We are gonna see some serious shiit, when peak oil production comes along. We will probably get used to it gradually as we approach 2050 when reserves will reach half, and we have sorted out ways to avoid queing up in petrol stations and making do with long power cuts.

Maybe you should start investing some shares in established chandlers or bicycle makers. Maybe we won't be as fat as we are in 20 or 30 years because we will all be skint and walking a lot more. Look on the bright side.

sceptre

ivuernis wrote:

I'm not sure about an actual Irish strategic reserve but if there is one I doubt it's more than a few months supply.

90 days down in Bearhaven.

Of course it's always been 90 days down in Bearhaven and I'm unsure as to whether they've added any storage in the past decade even though our consumption has gone up. nor am I sure if the tanks are actually kept full.

Officially though, 90 days down in Bearhaven.

ivuernis

sceptre wrote:

90 days down in Bearhaven.

Cheers! I guess in a crisis it would be rationed so if it's 90 days current consumption rates it could be made to last much longer if used sparely.

Kelter

These guys are pretty cool. The head guy adressed all the major players in Ireland recently (SEI, DCMNR, ESB, BGE, CER etc)

They don't care about the environment, but care a lot about security of supply. It makes for interesting reading, particularly the oil shockwave report

http://www.secureenergy.org

Eddiethehill

Kelter wrote:

These guys are pretty cool. The head guy adressed all the major players in Ireland recently (SEI, DCMNR, ESB, BGE, CER etc)

They don't care about the environment, but care a lot about security of supply. It makes for interesting reading, particularly the oil shockwave report

http://www.secureenergy.org

Mmm Kelter! I watched the video of the simulation. The were talking about oil at 160USD a barrel.

I was thinking that if a bad, sudden oil crisis were to start causing social unrest and threatening governments, then the currency used to buy oil on the world market would probably change, not from USDs to Euros or Yens, but to aircraft carriers and air forces.

Think of what usaually happens when there is a bread shortage, prices do not go up, - there is a mad scramble of panic buying and the shelves are empty before most people even realise it.

This is just human nature in action. A gradual extended crisis over a number of years may give us oil addicted societies pain but a chance to adapt. A sudden shock could be much worse.

I don't want to sound alarmist, but if it came down to getting enough fuel to get through a bad winter, in a world where oil is at a premium, the country with the most muscle will get the best share.
(well maybe that is alarmist!)

I am worried that without oil, Ireland would not be able to feed itself. No fertiliser, no tractors, combine harvistors, forklifts, lorries. Maybe we could ration things out to favour agriculture, but things would sure be different.

Pocari Sweat

ASPO showed figures that after peak oil in 2010 the decline of reserves to around half of todays oil supply in 2050 means that overall during the 40 year period from 2010 to 2050 this balances out to around 3/4 of our current supply.

So we are more or less going to have a quarter less oil balanced out over 40 years after 2010. There are probably going to be large increases in the use of nuclear, which is far more efficient and cleaner, fusion power is currently under a 10 year trial, bio fuel production is increasing, wind power and renewables are on the increase, major changes in building regulations starting from next year in Ireland for better thermal efficiency of new housing will cut oil heating costs in half, an increase in the use of solar panels will offer a long term return in cheaper heating, yet smaller more efficient car engines, hybrids, and all sorts of technological advances in mobility, the list is endless.

We are slow in getting off our arses, but there are many solutions to fill the gaps, and if we don't do it straight away, I would say by 2020 we may at least feel milder affects of the reduced supply of oil than we will initially in 2010.

Like coal, it is dirty stuff really, it fecks up the atmosphere, increases CO2 in the atmosphere, oil tankers ultimately sink and cause major ecological feck ups like the Exon Valdis in Alaska, mental countries like USA and Saudi go over the top with their potty over use of the stuff and over extravagant attitudes by having too much of the stuff.

Coal was a bit 1800's and Oil was a bit 1900's, but the time has come to feck them both right off, the swines.

SeanW

Pocari Sweat wrote:

Coal was a bit 1800's and Oil was a bit 1900's, but the time has come to feck them both right off, the swines.

Got it in one.

silverharp

http://321energy.com/editorials/simmons/simmons063006.html#

This is a slide show by Matt Simmons, worth a flick through. in the later slides he has a much faster depletion rate. Pocari has a 25% depletion over 40 years, this seems optimistic to me, or is that for all oil and gas, I'm sure the depletion for convention oil is 50% less over 15 to 20 years, but will check.

Kelter

Personally, I'll believe what the experts say. If you have a look at the oil shockwave report, you will see that experts from a large number of fields were asked about the consequences of the various things that occur. Now I know that many people are synical, and say that the experts are being too conservative, but they are still more expert than anyone else, so it is just illogical to ignore them.

Besides, what they predict is really really bad. It would cause a world resssion, it would more than double us petrol prices. That really is a big deal, really.
Maybe you don't understand. This is a group of top experts and officials who got together to answer this exact question. They really are more qualified to answer the question than anyone else. Really, do read the report. It is easy to read and really really good

http://www.secureenergy.org



Look at the experts that put this together, they are not a bunch of greenies, they are not a bunch of republicans. They are a fair mix of experts

Carol Browner Principal of the Albright Group and former
Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency

M. Gates President, Texas A&M University and
former Director of Central Intelligence

Richard N. Haass President of the Council on Foreign Relations
and former Director of Policy Planning at the
Department of State

General P.X. Kelley usmc (Ret.) Former Commandant of the Marine Corps
and a member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

Franklin D. Kramer Independent Consultant on Defense and National Security Issues and former Assistant Secretary
of Defense for International Security

Don Nickles
Principal Partner, The Nickles Group and former United States Senator for the State of Oklahoma

Gene Sperling Senior Fellow for Economic Studies and Director of the Center for Universal Education, Council on Foreign
Relations and former National Economic Advisor
and Director of the National Economic Council

National Economic Advisor Linda Stuntz Founding Partner, Stuntz, Davis & Staffier
and former Deputy Secretary of Energy

R. James Woolsey Vice President, Booz Allen Hamilton and
former Director of Central Intelligence

rand beers, former Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director for Combating Terrorism

david e. frowd, former Head of Strategy and Planning
in Shell’s Upstream Headquarters in the Hague and former Head of the Energy Team in Shell’s Global
Business Environment Departmentcolonel

randall j. larson usaf (ret.), Founding Director, The Institute for Homeland Securityronald

e. minsk, former Special Assistant to the
President for Economic Policy at the National Economic Council regarding Energy Policy and Issues

joseph j. romm, former Acting Assistant Secretary at the Department of Energy

spacetweek

silverharp wrote:

Oil embagos are probably unlikely this time around, but Peak oil will be interesting to say the least, "demand destruction" will take on a whole new meaning. basically oil will be bid up until people stop using the stuff, if you fill your tank once a month it will be annoying, if you fill your tank once a week, you will have to change your lifestyle, sombody should really let the NRA know. Which will arrive first, Peak oil, or that extra lane on the M50?

Silverharp, don't confuse traffic with fuel. Just because oil runs out doesn't mean traffic will evapourate, in the short term (particularly following a shock) it might reduce, but people will simply switch en masse to biodiesel or electric cars. Traffic in the future will be as bad or worse than now. We still need to build roads.

bonkey

Kelter wrote:

Personally, I'll believe what the experts say.
...
they are still more expert than anyone else, so it is just illogical to ignore them.

You appear to be suggesting that their is concensus amongst the experts. Is there?

If there isn't, then which experts do we believe?

silverharp

spacetweek wrote:

Silverharp, don't confuse traffic with fuel. Just because oil runs out doesn't mean traffic will evapourate, in the short term (particularly following a shock) it might reduce, but people will simply switch en masse to biodiesel or electric cars. Traffic in the future will be as bad or worse than now. We still need to build roads.

fair enough, but I am making an assumption that any replacement will be more expensive as we lose the cheap oil subsidy, private transport for the masses may not be affordable. I hope there are nifty little electric smarts for city commuting, but I don't think it will be an option to commute from Wexford or Carlow into Dublin for instance. The basic point is oil gives you the most outputs from the least inputs. I believe hydrogen for instance would require 10 time more traffic movements to move the stuff around, it would take 10sq km of solar cells to power up a car in the time it takes to fill your tank. You can't move off a high energy souce to a less dense energy source without usage changing.

Capt'n Midnight

silverharp wrote:

I believe hydrogen for instance would require 10 time more traffic movements to move the stuff around, it would take 10sq km of solar cells to power up a car in the time it takes to fill your tank. You can't move off a high energy souce to a less dense energy source without usage changing.

Yeah Hydrogen is about 10 times lighter than oil or water so bulky stuff. But you could procude many other organic substances instead. Methanol / ethanol might be usable in fuel cells too providing much greater energy density than coventional fuels. Coal + Water + similar energy wastage as in petroleum reforming = methanol etc.

Pocari Sweat

One question is, in the future say from 2020 will cities grow or decline?

One one hand, cities have centralised populations and commuting to work is defined in a small area with high density efficient transport systems, but travelling into cities on the commute is going to be expensive by car especially. Will rural workers who currently commute, relocate into the cities and increase the growth of cities because of the decline in oil?

Or is it nearer the depiction of the experts who say cities will decline because of the sheer energy requirements needed to sustain them currently and the massive drop in energy recources coupled with increased population in the future?

The resident thread experts i think that can tackle this particular complex question are Sean W and silverharp, and I would also give capt'n midnight a crack at it too.

SeanW

I believe it will be a combination of both: I studied some of this before, and as it now stands, most of the really, really large densely crowded cities are in the 3rd world, where you have to live in the city to get work and basic services.

But, in the 1st world, we've gone down the suburbs/city hinterlands route already.

I don't believe that distributed populations are more energy efficient than properly built cities. Certainly not for transportation which is something I've been looking at very closely along with other members of railway passengers group Platform 11.

People who live in rural areas or poorly planned/small cities use their cars much more than those who live in well planned cities. It's totally unustainable if it depends solely on petro-fuels. Then we look at the provision of services like electricity, water, telecomms and again, AFAIK it's more efficient to serve people in a small area than for a huge suburban sprawl/rural areas, but I'm open to correction on that.

So on the one hand it does look like cities are in for a resurgence, but not necessarily. Remember when it comes to oil/energy prices and transportation we have a "cheat." Railways. Steel wheel on steel rail is fundamentally far more efficient than road transport when moving large numbers of people/goods. If the price of oil/biodiesel went to hell, then all we'd have to do is electrify some/all of our railways, get better planning, more train stations etc, and people would still be able to commute long distances at little more cost than they do now, someone who lives in Athlone and works in Dublin or vice-versa for example, could get the bus from their neighborhood to the train station, take the train and get to their destination, instead of driving. Of course we have to get our act together now in terms of settlement patterns and urban/rural planning now if that's to happen.

Because we're NOT going to run short of electricity, just oil and gas.
Electricity can be made from a wide variety of sources. We may also see a resurgance in public transportation, some of which can be fuelled by electricity.

An oil shock would still hurt though, and it would hurt a lot. But most of us would survive okay - just that the economy would go seriously South and we'd all have to change our habits.

If you ask me, the people who are in real trouble are the Americans. In the U.S. most development in the last 50+ years has been huge amounts of low-density suburban sprawl enabled by highways, most of it 100% car dependent. Or should I say, SUV/Hummer/pickup truck dependent. This being each and every large, old city such as New York being surrounded by this suburb in every direction for up to 100 miles: an unfixable mess. Also, American weather varies much more than ours from freezing cold to blazing hot, so long walks/bike rides are out of the question.

Pocari Sweat

That raises another question, although it is a bit retrospective, and off thread.

When the nuke cold war was at full tilt between the US an Soviets, who would have ultimately won an all out nuclear war. Yanks or Ruskies?

I have a philosophical answer but it is fairly clear cut.

silverharp

SeanW wrote:

If you ask me, the people who are in real trouble are the Americans. In the U.S. most development in the last 50+ years has been huge amounts of low-density suburban sprawl enabled by highways, most of it 100% car dependent. Or should I say, SUV/Hummer/pickup truck dependent. This being each and every large, old city such as New York being surrounded by this suburb in every direction for up to 100 miles: an unfixable mess. Also, American weather varies much more than ours from freezing cold to blazing hot, so long walks/bike rides are out of the question.

Spot on, for instance compare Eropean development after ww2, there were no oil reserves so development to some extent reflected this. The complete opposite in the US.

Cities would tend to get smaller I guess, on the upside telecommuting will increase however it could be argued, will the jobs based on globalisation, marketing etc still exist? One other trend would be more people needed to work on the land again, food miles will have to drop, which implies more locally grown food.
As SeanW mentioned, cities in Texas may not be so pleasent to live in when brown outs become commonplace, so there maybe a retreat to more temprate climates. Ireland won't be such a bad place to hang out imo

ivuernis

SeanW wrote:

Because we're NOT going to run short of electricity, just oil and gas. Electricity can be made from a wide variety of sources. We may also see a resurgance in public transportation, some of which can be fuelled by electricity.

If you look at the breakdown of electricity generation in Ireland alone (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_Supply_Board#Facilities) you will see that out of the ESB's 11 major plants 9 are reliant on fossil fuels (oil, gas, coal, peat). With oil and gas depletion the demands on the electricity generating system both in Ireland and many other countries will result in higher continual higher electricity prices and also likely increase the chances of shortages.

Of course there is the nuclear option but that's a whole other argument.

In countries like the US and China a large and increasing proportion of electricity is generated via coal as both countries have large deposits. As oil and gas deplete coal will (unfortunately) be used more and more thus adding even further to global warming.

Renewables will have to become more widespread but the $64,000 question is will they supply enough to both (a) offset oil and gas depletion and (b) provide a viable alternative to dirtier fuels like coal so as to begin the long slow process of alleviating global warming whilst also meeting energy demands.

Eddiethehill

This thread has been most informative, and people here are we aware of what is happening, but I still detect an air of "Oh! we will get through this with the minimum of fuss, Americans are the ones who will really suffer". It is really like saying "We Irish are small enough and smart enough to switch to alternatives and survive."

I think this view is false and dangerous,

Just a couple of points...
Switching en masse to biodiesel and electric cars. This is not so simple when you think about the fuels themselves

Electric powered
My diesel van engine generates about 56KW in order to move around.
Most weeks I drive at least 200 miles which takes about six hours behind the wheel
That means I consume 336 KW hours just driving around to make a living.
I assume that I would have to get a much more fuel efficient vehicle but where can I buy one?
Lots of people in the same boat as me would be doing the same thing. The vast majority of vehicles being produced currently are standard diesel designs which cannot be converted to electric types.

Bosdiesel
Boidiesesl is a crop that must be grown, processed and transported to where consumers can buy it. Is is not a very efficient fuel to produce as it really only contains the energy of the sunlight that went into growing it. It would need to be grown on huge monocultural plantations just like any other modern day conventional crop. It would need a lot of energy inputs in order to make the energy outputs available. I can convert my van to run on biodiesel but when everybody else does the same will there be enough fuel to go around?

We can generate a lot more renewable elecreicity and grow a lot more vegetable oil, but it worries me a lot when people assume that that is the answer. A little adjustment to our lifestyle, better housing insulation, changing to greener cars will not allow us to go on as before.

If I mention the subject to friends/family they just glaze over and almost always mention something like wind turbines or biodiesel or even hydrogen and return to their previous thought processes. I find it a very depressing situation.

We Irish seem to label anybody who does try to plan for an energy-poor future as a greenie or a tree hugger or worse, a crank. (well maybe I am a crank and all this is just in my head!)

When we get right down to it are we as a society any better than the Americans we castigate so mush as energy wasters?

[Rant over, sorry for the long post.]

Foxwood

SeanW wrote:

If you ask me, the people who are in real trouble are the Americans. In the U.S. most development in the last 50+ years has been huge amounts of low-density suburban sprawl enabled by highways, most of it 100% car dependent. Or should I say, SUV/Hummer/pickup truck dependent. This being each and every large, old city such as New York being surrounded by this suburb in every direction for up to 100 miles: an unfixable mess.

This is a model that Ireland has taken up wholesale in the last 10 years (at least the Yanks had the excuse of doing it 30 years before the problems were obvious).

You often hear the claim that almost 50% of our population live in "the Greater Dublin area". London has almost 5 times the popuation in an area no bigger than "the Greater Dublin area".

By the way, according to the CIA World Fact Book, Ireland has 95,736 km of roads (2002 figures) for 4M people. Germany has 231,581 km for 82M people. That's 40 times the population with less than 2.5 times as much paved road. Even the US has less road per head f population than we do.

(I know that the Americans and Germans have more lanes than we do - that's not the point. We have an environment that's even more affected by the road network than they do).

silverharp

Eddie or anyone else there you should read a book called The Long Emergency by James Kunstler, there an interview here you can read or listen too, I havn't read it in a while but I'm sure it goes through the book.

http://www.financialsense.com/Experts/2005/Kunstler.html

Eddie you are right, most PO stuff I have read basically says that moving to lower density energy sources can't be done without big problems unless the planning is well thought out, well there is no planning. Look at the UK, they are planning new airports and new terminals around London, these will be bankrupt in 10 years time.

ivuernis

Eddiethehill wrote:

I still detect an air of "Oh! we will get through this with the minimum of fuss, Americans are the ones who will really suffer".

It is really like saying "We Irish are small enough and smart enough to switch to alternatives and survive."

I think this view is false and dangerous,

I think you are spot on with that analysis Eddiethehill. Ireland is in as much trouble as the United States if you ask me. We have very little indigenous fossil fuels (small amount of gas and the peat bogs which should be preserved rather than exploited). Add to this our poor urban planning which has resulted in massive urban sprawl, the lack of a decent public transport system (both inter-city and in the main urban centres) and you can see definite problems ahead w.r.t rising energy prices for Ireland. Remember how isolated this country was on the edge of Europe pre the "Celtic Tiger" and pre our EU membership. An energy constrained world could see a return to this type of a situation.

A very worthwhile report to read is Robert Hirsch's "Peaking of World Oil Production: Impacts, Mitigation and Risk Management" which was prepared by the US DoE and then subsequently pulled before re-appearing. It can be downloaded here:
http://www.projectcensored.org/newsflash/The_Hirsch_Report_Proj_Cens.pdf

There is also a very informative interview with the author here:
http://media.globalpublicmedia.com/RM/2005/11/Hirsch.20051117.mp3

It can be depressing stuff even for someone who's been following the energy situation for quite a while now. Unfortunately what measures are currently being undertaken are token gestures by most governments, it is still very much business-as-usual. Although we must shoulder some of the blame as our lifestyle choices are contributing to this situation also. The problem is here and now and needs to be dealt with before it becomes insurmountable.

ivuernis

Eddiethehill wrote:

If I mention the subject to friends/family they just glaze over and almost always mention something like wind turbines or biodiesel or even hydrogen and return to their previous thought processes. I find it a very depressing situation.

I get that reaction too, almost to the point where I won't bring up the subject anymore unless someone else brings it up. People don't like hearing about it as it turns upside down their views of the future, which is understandable, but the coming energy situation is something that will have long reaching implications and is not just a matter of a little bit here and a little bit there, sure we'll all drive hybrids and everything will be okay, it's much more fundamental than that. I'm not saying a mad max future is in store, but it certainly has the potential to cause serious problems down the line. Energy and climate change are intertwined and how we deal with them in the next 10-20 years will shape the course of the 21st century.

SeanW

I would certainly accept the point that Ireland is in for some pain. But the reality is that Coal and Nuclear power are based on plentiful fuel supplies. So we don't have to fear any more than short power interrupts. We will also have an Interconnector to Britain. What's more as it stands we have wind power supplying up to 1/10th of our power, more hydroelectricity (Ardnacrusha once left the ESB with a nationwide surplus) there's peat and coal, so even if all the Natural Gas disappeared tomorrow, those parts of our society that depend on electricity would continue to function, albeit barely.

But that's not going to happen - the more likely is that Natural Gas will become more unreliable and expensive, pushing a move towards alternative. I'm hoping against hope that this alternative will be Nuclear, as it's a safe, clean, virtually CO2 free form that produces vast quantities of electricity. (4 standard reactors would supply ALL of Irelands power if we embraced Nuclear Electricity now, with F all greenhouse gas emissions)

But that's a discussion for another thread.

The problem is of course, with transport. But again, I believe that oil prices continue to rise, alternatives will gain popularity, including alternative lifesytles (appartment living and reduced car usage) there will be time for a transition. I am, however, saddened by the government's "biofuels blindfold" they should have used a mandate/subsidy system to keep the Sugarbeet farming sector alive and use it to make ethanol to add to petroluem. But they didn't and the entire Irish sugar industry is dead something I know we'll regret later.

It may be painful for some, very difficult for many, the point I'm making though is that unlike the Americans we're not fundamentally screwed.

ivuernis

SeanW wrote:

But the reality is that Coal and Nuclear power are based on plentiful fuel supplies.

Only based on current consumption rates. Both coal and uranium will deplete far quicker (i.e. before the 21st century is over) if they are ramped up to replace oil and gas depletion.

SeanW wrote:

What's more as it stands we have wind power supplying up to 1/10th of our power,

Where do you get the figure of 10% of our power from wind energy? Sustainable Energy Ireland says there is currently 231 MWs of installed wind power capacity installed in Ireland (http://www.sei.ie/index.asp?locID=270&docID=-1). This is roughy 5% of the capacity of the 10 largest ESB power plants (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_Supply_Board#Facilities).

SeanW

I said up to 10%. When the wind is high and demand is low, I've seen it reach as high as 1/7th. Look at the Eirgrid Portalfor statistics by the quarter-hour. Wind power ranges from providing sweet toss-all power on a bad day, to providing a significant chunk on a good day. Been looking at that site occasionally, and I've seen estimates going into the upper 400s but that is rare.

Certainly coal, once burned, is gone forever, but Nuclear fuels can be recycled. Currently, most nuclear fuels are used on a once-through basis, but they can be recycled. However the reprocessing action has the potential to be environmentally hostile, such as what goes on at Sellafield.

But again it is an option. And I believe a better option than using coal, which is filthy, pours CO2, acid rain compounds, mercury, arsenic, other posions, soot, and radiation into the environment at an unbelievable rate. Coal should be an option of last resort but I get the feeling it will instead be the first.

Eddiethehill

SeanW wrote:

It may be painful for some, very difficult for many, the point I'm making though is that unlike the Americans we're not fundamentally screwed.

"Fundamentally screwed" is I think a matter of interpretation.

I make a living in the service industry. I do not make anything essential to life, and my customers are mostly people who also work in the service industry. None of us grow anything, or make anything (well anything important in the greater scheme of things).

I repair broken machines which keep my customers working, sometimes I sell them replacement machines as well.

Fortunately for me my skills can easily converted to repairing things that are essential for survival.

What is a marketing consultant or loss adjuster going to convert to? Most of these people are wealthier than me in monetary terms, but in a post oil world they may find their skills useless. They may even have to get their hands dirty in order to make a living. [OK that was a cheapshot:D ]

I do not want to come over as a reverse snob as these people got where they are today by dint of their own hard work, but at the end of the day, if your (methane or biodoesel or hydrogen) tractor needs fixing you call a mechanic, not a Human Resources Associate.

We have devalued skills that were once commonplace and now import our plasterers and welders from Eastern Europe or farther afield. All this in order to prosper in a globalised market with cheap abundant energy. Wealth creation for us is now in the service sector. In this we are sadly emulating the American modlel. (grrr!)

This was brought home to me when a neighbour asked me to help him install a timer on his immersion heater. I found the task trivial, he was stumped. He has a masters degree in his profession.

OK, not everyone has an aptitude for hands-on work, but come-on!. He never in his 20-odd years of study had to actually DO anything with his hands.

We have raised generations of Irish people now who are suberbly well educated for a globalized economy, but ill-equipped to live after globalisation winds down (and wind down it certainly will).

[Dear God I'm an aweful moaner aren't I? ]

Pocari Sweat

I think it was when we were apes and discovered the ten digits on our hands, this developed our minds because of evolutionary hands on manipulation, which got us to where we are now. Or into this mess, whichever way you see it.

Eddiethehill

Pocari Sweat wrote:

I think it was when we were apes and discovered the ten digits on our hands, this developed our minds because of evolutionary hands on manipulation, which got us to where we are now. Or into this mess, whichever way you see it.

Douglas Adams in one book had a society that put all it's useless people into an automatic spaceship and sent them "ahead" on a great planitary migration to a new better world. The rest of the society to follow later...

silverharp

Eddiethehill wrote:

Fortunately for me my skills can easily converted to repairing things that are essential for survival.

What is a marketing consultant or loss adjuster going to convert to? Most of these people are wealthier than me in monetary terms, but in a post oil world they may find their skills useless. They may even have to get their hands dirty in order to make a living. [OK that was a cheapshot:D ]

you are right in that any dislocation will change the social order, but I think the concept of thriving in choas comes to mind, I am in one of those professions that will be less demand in a post PO world, however as I see the writing on the wall, I have started planning for this, if it doesnt happen great, if it does I should do better then average. A plumber for example who has pumped any his money into spanish property for instance will be wiped out before he has a chance to make good.

Pocari Sweat

I'm looking at buying land and then building, and with a new building regs shake up in 2007 which pushes the market to timber frame, and peak oil round the corner, should I just buy the land first and wait a few years to build after prices settle with imminent chaos of world markets?

If we are discussing peak oil 4 years before it happens, surely the general populous are going to get wind long before 2010, maybe by 2008, most will be getting the jitters and the economy will start rocking?

Still is land going to get scarcer and scarcer, is it worth getting that now?

silverharp

Pocari Sweat wrote:

Still is land going to get scarcer and scarcer, is it worth getting that now?

My own view is to wait, I think there would be a property crash as PO sets in and land prices should fall in the short term, I also believe that there could be a 3-5 year period where everyone is sold the story that the high prices will bring on new supply, you could also have a recession where demand falls faster then supply where there would be the appearance of a glut.
At the moment you would have to pay celtic tiger prices for land, that being said why not buy some now.

gonk

silverharp wrote:

Eddie or anyone else there you should read a book called The Long Emergency by James Kunstler

I read this, and while I found it thought-provoking I felt it was flawed in that he concentrates on peak oil and the end of cheap fossil fuel energy without addressing much or at all the probably much greater issue of global warming, which will require us to greatly reduce the use of fossil fuels anyway, even if there was an abundant supply still available.

Also, his predictions are based on current and growing energy use without taking into account what we can do to reduce energy demand by adopting more efficient technolgies, many of which are already available, e.g., replacing traditional incandescent light bulbs with CFLs and LEDs etc. - see the lead story in today's Independent for a very good analysis of what could be achieved in this one area.

http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/article1155236.ece

silverharp

gonk wrote:

Also, his predictions are based on current and growing energy use without taking into account what we can do to reduce energy demand by adopting more efficient technolgies, many of which are already available, e.g., replacing traditional incandescent light bulbs with CFLs and LEDs etc.

It’s part of the solution to be sure, if each person uses x kj of energy per year there is no reason that this can drop without quality of life changing. However in the bigger scheme of things I believe this isn’t the critical issue, it is Jevons paradox that says something like if you save energy in one area then it will be used somewhere else, an example is if a company gets a ¼ of its staff to work from home, the employees and employer both save money, but what will happen, the company will expand and the employees will do more driving at the weekend or take more holidays. If the US cut their oil consumption by 20% in the next 5 years, then China or someone else will use the extra energy, because the price didn’t go up as fast as it would have otherwise, it is not a reason not to do these things and it will slow the pain on the way down the energy curve but is doesn’t answer the fundamental question that the underlying infrastructure is not designed to have say 3% less inputs per year going on infefinetly

Gurgle

silverharp wrote:

It’s part of the solution to be sure, if each person uses x kj of energy per year there is no reason that this can drop without quality of life changing.

Simply not true.
It can be dropped dramatically by more efficient use of energy.
Energy saver light bulbs reduce your lighting cost by 75% but most people still aren't using them.
Solar panels can reduce your hot water costs by 80% but most people still aren't using them.
A clothes line reduces / removes the need for a tumble dryer.
Heat exchange, hybrid cars, LCD televisions, I could go on and on.

It hasn't been cost effective enough to force people to go this way, but it soon will be.

silverharp

Gurgle wrote:

Simply not true.
It can be dropped dramatically by more efficient use of energy.
Energy saver light bulbs reduce your lighting cost by 75% but most people still aren't using them.
Solar panels can reduce your hot water costs by 80% but most people still aren't using them.
A clothes line reduces / removes the need for a tumble dryer.
Heat exchange, hybrid cars, LCD televisions, I could go on and on.

It hasn't been cost effective enough to force people to go this way, but it soon will be.

I agree, the saying the best solution for high prices is high prices comes to mind, but I don't think domestic consumption of electricity is the main problem, its the fact that our agriculture is based on Petro chemicles, likewise transport, logistics etc.
In the absence of a global carbon allowance per person, we will see high prices bring about good and bad demand destruction.
It really depends how the price of oil behaves over the next 15 years say, does it go up by 10% per year which gives a good price signal and time for everyone to change their ways, or does it say in 2 years time shoot up to $250, cause a depression, oil drops to $40 and the world doesn't know how to act. However I don't buy the argument that the global economy can grow on the back of energy savings

gonk

Gurgle wrote:

Simply not true.
It can be dropped dramatically by more efficient use of energy.
Energy saver light bulbs reduce your lighting cost by 75% but most people still aren't using them.
Solar panels can reduce your hot water costs by 80% but most people still aren't using them.
A clothes line reduces / removes the need for a tumble dryer.
Heat exchange, hybrid cars, LCD televisions, I could go on and on.

It hasn't been cost effective enough to force people to go this way, but it soon will be.

I can't see why governments don't, for example, take the simple step of banning the sale of incandescent light bulbs. This wouldn't cost the state anything, and as has been clearly shown, would overall save the consumer money while reducing CO2 emissions very significantly. Or, as has been done in the US, the electricity companies could simply give away CFL bulbs. It would pay them to do so, as it would relieve them of the need to build extra generating capacity. There is after all ample precedent for banning polluting fuels like lead in petrol or bituminous coal.

Although I have to admit owning a tumble dryer myself I rationalise it by reference to the rainfall in Mayo, where I live. However, I still laugh at the memory of the Doonesbury cartoons satirising the many communities in California which have bye-laws banning clotheslines - where, as the song goes, it never rains.

A very good resource for information on energy demand reduction is the Rocky Mountain Institute's website: www.rmi.org

Ice_Box

Hi
read this!

New solar power much cheaper than oil, says new report

http://www.breakingnews.ie/2006/07/04/story266174.html

gonk

silverharp wrote:

However I don't buy the argument that the global economy can grow on the back of energy savings

This is precisely the point, indefinite economic growth in a finite world is clearly impossible. More efficient use of our finite resources may, however, allow us to switch to a more sustainable economic model.

EF Schumacher's classic "Small is Beautiful" and Richard Douthwaite's "The Growth Illusion" give very clear expositions as to why our current single-minded pursuit of economic growth is quite literally insane. Douthwaite's book is particularly interesting for an Irish audience as although he's English, he lives in Ireland and uses many case studies from Ireland in his writing.

silverharp

gonk wrote:

This is precisely the point, indefinite economic growth in a finite world is clearly impossible. More efficient use of our finite resources may, however, allow us to switch to a more sustainable economic model.

EF Schumacher's classic "Small is Beautiful" and Richard Douthwaite's "The Growth Illusion" give very clear expositions as to why our current single-minded pursuit of economic growth is quite literally insane. Douthwaite's book is particularly interesting for an Irish audience as although he's English, he lives in Ireland and uses many case studies from Ireland in his writing.

I read his book in the 90's, but his predictions were way off, if I remember correctly he has us pegged as an agricultural backwater and didn't anticipate the effects of globalisation on the Irish economy. That being said I would probably agree with hi ideas of sustainable development
As you say our present course is insane, thats why I think we are headed for a major dislocation where present agriculture will fail for instance, I believe it takes 40 calories of energy to grow 1 calorie of food, mostly on the back of oil. maybe the pop of the planet will need to go beloe 3bn again

ivuernis

silverharp wrote:

In the absence of a global carbon allowance per person, we will see high prices bring about good and bad demand destruction.

Global carbon allowances per person would help us tackle not just peak oil but also climate change and global poverty. However, I find it hard to envisage it happening. Maybe it will be deployed on a national scale by some countries but I can't see it on a global scale even though it would bring about the greatest social change for the good ever seen.

silverharp wrote:

It really depends how the price of oil behaves over the next 15 years say, does it go up by 10% per year which gives a good price signal and time for everyone to change their ways, or does it say in 2 years time shoot up to $250, cause a depression, oil drops to $40 and the world doesn't know how to act. However I don't buy the argument that the global economy can grow on the back of energy savings

I think there will almost certainly be market shocks where prices jump up very quickly as the markets come to the full realization of what's happening.

Gurgle

Ice_Box wrote:

New solar power much cheaper than oil, says new report

Read that earlier.
The only misleading part is the use of the word 'new'.

As with all environmental scavenging energy solutions, the offputting part is the initial investment. The bigger the scale of the project, the better the efficiency. E.g. putting solar panels on your roof will pay off in about 10 years or so at current energy prices but a massive scale power plant could be paid back in as little as 3-5 years.

I imagine that as the oil runs out, we will see massive investment in this type of project by the oil companies. They are under as much pressure as anyone to find new ways of powering the world. Fair enough they'll cash in enormously on the last few trillion barrels but I can't see Esso or Shell announcing that they're shutting up shop worldwide and making all employees redundant when the oil runs out.

BendiBus

I've just found this on the BBC website.

There could be some interesting reading in it.

Eddiethehill

gonk wrote:

This is precisely the point, indefinite economic growth in a finite world is clearly impossible. More efficient use of our finite resources may, however, allow us to switch to a more sustainable economic model.

EF Schumacher's classic "Small is Beautiful" and Richard Douthwaite's "The Growth Illusion" give very clear expositions as to why our current single-minded pursuit of economic growth is quite literally insane. Douthwaite's book is particularly interesting for an Irish audience as although he's English, he lives in Ireland and uses many case studies from Ireland in his writing.

I have not had the opportunity to read these, but you did get me thinking...

The idea of continual economic growth is central to capitalism. Not just 21st century capitalism, but capitalism in it essence. Our economy, as well as everyone elses' has this as central component.

Our financial system is a part of this. We invest in trade and industry to avail of the benefits of economic growth. And benefit we certainly do!

There may be other models we can use, like co-op movements or eco-village communities or some other steady-state approach, but at the moment growth is the only real game in town.

Sometimes I imagine the global economy as a rainforest. It mimics nature in that people and enterprises are always trying to exploit new opportunities. This can be to our immense benefit as the growth of medicine or the internet, or to our detriment such as the way the motor industry took off on cheap abundant(though non-renewable) energy. It even goes down silly routes such as the ringtone industry etc.

The checks and balances which keep nature from converging to a single species are there also in our economies. Overstreatch or run out of cashflow and your busness dies.

So what happens when a natural system reaches an impasse? A rainforest also has a model of continual growth, fed by sunlight, water, and nutrients supplied by its ansestors. Does it abandon the growth model in favour of some steady state model? I don't think so. The grow and be damned approach seems nature's way.

So where does that leave us? The idea of a forest dying back when resources get constrained is easy to envisage. It is just what we would expect. For a civilisation the idea is horrific. But this is what I fear is in store for us.

I'm a bit downhearted today as I was reading some of the material referenced from this thread. How we are running headlong into disaster of our own making. Too many people, too much pollution, remorseless competition for remaining resourses.

All the positive predictions are based on a return to a simpler and less wasteful life. But these are all for communities small enough and smart enough (and rich enough) to be able to isolate themselves from external factors. I notice they sometimes have a survivalist tint to them as well

Maybe someone can cheer me up with a utopian vision where everybody (first, second and third world) gets through this and we all live happily ever after.

Is mise...

ivuernis

Eddiethehill wrote:

Maybe someone can cheer me up with a utopian vision where everybody (first, second and third world) gets through this and we all live happily ever after.

Can't really help you there I'm afraid, I'm of the opinion that it will get worse before it gets better (if it gets better). I try not to be a pessimist but I can't see too many positives in the current world imbalance. At its simplest our economic growth is based on a draw-down of the Earth's natural resources and currently were are doing so at an unsustainable rate. There are 6.5 billion people living on the planet, all cannot live an even remotely western type lifestyle even if that's what capitalism promotes. Neither can I see the western world cutting back on half of its consumption to help alleviate the misery of the majority. Something's got to give at some stage, what that will be I don't know but I doubt it's going to be pretty. On a personal level the only thing one can do is lead a lifestyle that is immune as feasibly possible to the downsides of capitalism, e.g. reduce debt as much as possible, become skilled in more than one area of expertise, find enjoyment in simpler things like art, music, books, etc. rather than aspiring to keep up with the rest of the rat race and all that that entails. On a macro scale we can only hope that we'll come to our senses before it's too late and maybe on a personal level the best thing to do is to try and inform other people as much as possible about the potential dangers ahead without alienating yourself as the resident doom-monger.

Gurgle

Eddiethehill wrote:

Maybe someone can cheer me up with a utopian vision where everybody (first, second and third world) gets through this and we all live happily ever after.

Everything will be fine.

*pats Eddie on head*

Eddiethehill

Gurgle wrote:

E.g. putting solar panels on your roof will pay off in about 10 years or so at current energy prices but a massive scale power plant could be paid back in as little as 3-5 years.

This is an exaggeration surely? If real big solar projects were that profitable then why don't they exist now? If the oil producers did not build them someone else would. I think 3 to 5 wears is way too optimistic. If Iam wrong please direct me to where I can buy some shares.:)

Is Mise...