Red Star Wants to Talk Peak Oil

1. I just wrote an article about ethanol-based E85 this week, so this ties in what I’ve been researching recently.
   I’ve known about the Peak Oil thing for some time now, and I don’t disagree with its reality. I just find myself personally unable to do much about it, especially since we live in a world in which global warming can be routinely denounced as “a myth.”

   So, it’s a good article, but it’s also yet another dire warning, a la Al Gore’s speech. Those of us who already know are on board with trying to come up with a solution, but we lack the power to do much. Those who dogmatically oppose it won’t listen. I hope the article has the power to change some minds in the middle and open their eyes to a serious problem that the world will have to eventually face.

   Sustainable living isn’t a lifestyle choice; it’s a coming human imperative.

2. I hate to say it, but this article was perhaps the stupidest thing I’ve seen all month if not all week.

   Why? The author seems to imply that oil will somehow *suddenly* become unavailable. Given the basic laws of economics–at a level even Raul Grijalva undertands–as it gets more scarce its price will go up. (That is, of course, unless price controls are enacted. Then there will be shortages. Happens every time, whether the controls are “universal healthcare” or rent ceilings…and I’m sure Mr. Boegle is old enough to remember lines at the pump due, again, to controls.)

   That means people will start looking to alternatives. Things not economical today will become more economical in the future, ranging from cellulosic ethanol to uber-safe and environmentally friendly pebble-bed nuclear reactors, to extraction of oil from oil sands currently left untapped, to processing of coal into diesel fuel. The decline of the petroleum supply will no more be a disaster to the US economy or the general welfare than was the decline of the whale-oil supply.

   Cars idle in the streets, no heat or AC, no transportation, all of that is the fantasy of an academic so far away from his field and so reluctant to adopt relevant ways of thinking (i.e., to think like an economist when it is called for) that he becomes a crank.

   And yes, I’d be happy to flesh out this argument, do a better job of writing it, and submit a guest opinion.

3. Scratch that bit about the “author”–I mean McPherson. The author for his part takes him too seriously to even give him so much coverage!

4. Well, first we have to kill all dem damn editors!

   Seriously, the Saxon piece was fairly well-done; a step up from police reports and there was no mention of dialysis for aliens, Fife, or dat Big Badass Breakup Goddess Carolyn Hax. Nor of Anna Nicole nor of pertussis, nor of dat Carl’s Junior over there caught on fire! No Tony Snow has a growth in his gut, OMG, in this piece! The most useful part of the piece was the visit with the City official, the gist of which was something like, ‘…we kinda see it, but things just aren’t bad enough to do anything…’ which, Red Star suggests is as about as forthcoming as yur gonna get. The open question being can the economy and institutions adjust fast enough if whatever calamity (take your pick — peak oil, global warming, Rachel Ray stays over for breakfast) actually comes to pass, and at what cost? But for now, it’s just not bad enough and the crisis mindset and action just isn’t there. In general, figure on two to three, maybe four decades of dicking around on things like peak oil, global warming, cancer, whatever. Sad to say people go MEGO over reporting like this,or they go brainstem and figure on economists.

5. As far as the price of oil going up reflecting its at a peaking point do NOT count on a huge spike indicating that it is GRADUALLY shutting down production.

   I was an Executive of The Circle K Corporation during the GAS SHORTAGE of the 1970’s. When we were CUT OFF by our suppliers we shut off the pumps with FULL TANKS!( two 10,000 gallon tanks per store) Take that on a larger scale; when supplies are low the suppliers will have oil but WE WILL NOT!

   The shut down in the 1970’s was SWIFT and QUICK NOT gradual! We have NO storage facilities at the local level to take us beyond ONE MONTH at the TANK FARM. This IS NOT a FAIR COMPASSIONATE IDUSTRY!

6. Haha. Ben Kalafut makes me laugh, ranging from his easy pronunciation that there’s nothing to worry about, his effortless dismissal of actual concerns, his gratuitous Grivalja-slam, and his random diversion into universal health care.

   As such, I’d love to read more of his humor writing, and I encourage him, even if the Weekly turns down his generous offer to write a guest rebuttal, to post his theories on Peak Oil implications on his blog.

7. Did I write “easy pronunciation”? I meant “easy proclamation” — the problem with posting blog comments before I’m fully awake!

8. Mr. Kalafut: I’d be happy to consider a guest commentary submission. Just make sure it’s more coherent than your comment, please.

9. “Things not economical today will become more economical in the future, ranging from cellulosic ethanol to uber-safe and environmentally friendly pebble-bed nuclear reactors, to extraction of oil from oil sands currently left untapped, to processing of coal into diesel fuel. The decline of the petroleum supply will no more be a disaster to the US economy or the general welfare than was the decline of the whale-oil supply.”

   – Ben Kalafut — March 23, 2007 @ 5:14 pm

   Whale-oil was never imperative in the production of crude. When Titusville was first brought on line, they set aside a barrel of oil to run the pump. The one barrel would produce 1000. Today, most wells are lucky to get 10 barrels for one burnt in operation of pumping apparatus.

   Humans have gone from wood to charcoal, mining for coal to pumping crude, and finally to splitting atoms as a way to satiate energy desires. Each time the trade has increased energy density, or energy returned on energy invested. Here is where the difficulty begins. No single alternative has the same energy density as crude. As a whole, then, they will not have the energy density of crude. This means it will take larger scale production of all alternatives just to meet current demand, let alone economic growth.

   Presently, all alternatives require crude oil inputs. Atomic power requires massive quantities of cement, steel, and machinery hours. The production of those components, and the running of the machines to transform them into the facilities do not happen without attendant quantities of oil. To completely replace the number of calories americans currently consume per annum in oil with nuclear production, would require the construction of 1000 standard nuclear power plants. This does not include the cost and resources that would be required to swap out all of the oil consuming devices with electricity based ones, nor the infrastructure to deliver that additional capacity.

   Much can be said of the entire range of alternatives that are touted as being only a market away from sustaining an continuing our current style of society. But when you do like I did, and then go and look for others with credentials in each field that confirm your numbers, you find that there are not enough acres to plant bio-fuel crops, set up solar panel arrays, wind farms, algae ponds, or the next promise and still have room to live and grow food. Further more, each of those economies would/will require huge quantities of crude oil inputs that will certainly outstrip the ability of the world to supply that input once we are at and on the backside of peak.

   Coal is subject to the same finite properties as oil. Currently we rely upon coal to supply 50% of our domestic consumption of electricity. At that rate of consumption our domestic resources might last 200 more years. Then all coal fired plants will have to be shut down or run on imports. Now factor in the construction of hundreds of more plants just to keep up with present consumption.

   Nuclear plants will also run up against resource depletion. One source I found calculated that we have about 50 year of Uranium available if we had to run our present economy solely on electricity produced in standard atomic reactors.

   Oil shale/Tar sands are inappropriately named as they contain not crude oil but its geo-chemical predecessor kerogen. You have to provide incredible amounts of water and heat to separate the kerogen from the ground matter it is glued to. Then you get to run it through a distillation process, more heat and additional pressure, before you can get something that can be sent to a refinery for end product processing. The environmental impact of washing the kerogen is immense and sure to be fraught with problems due to profit margins involved in making money off a product that questionably results in more energy than what it took to produce .

   This is what you find out when you put your librarians degree to the test. It took a year or so, but the research is there to seriously call into question whether the market can respond to the inevitable decline in quantity of oil available each succeeding year. I spent the next two and a half years writing government officials as well as local, alternative, regional and national news outlets of my findings. Even Mr. Boegle fell silent in response of my behest to cover the issue. That was my last attempt to get some public discourse started on the subject. Congrats for finally listening to another University employee with letters after his name.

   There is time to avoid some of the more distopian apocalyptic possibilities that approach us as we speak. That is what I have learned in the years since giving up on the public need for exposure and facing the problem as an individual. I’m learning to grow food. I bike more than I car. In general I try to use less each year. Finally, I live in the hope that our society will find a way to gracefully accept the changes necessary to adapt to a world in which may resemble the pre-industrial period more than our present.

Comments are closed.