Requiem For The Oil Drum

[woodgeek]

Yes. That would be one possible outcome.

 

[jharkin]

Like this one?

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/Looking-Back-on-the-Limits-of-Growth.html

Looks like he didn't get the memo from the Oil drum folks... everything is fine....nothing to see here... party on dude.

 

[woodgeek]

??? There are multiple possible limits to growth for humans. I think science is a good tool for sorting out which threats are the biggest, and engineering will be useful for confronting or adapting to those threats.

I am v worried about global warming, which is backed up by more than a century of good empirical science by thousands of researchers publishing in peer reviewed journals, whose major conclusions have not changed significantly over that period and is consistent with the historical climate data.

In contrast, peak oil was promulgated (in the latest round) by a handful of enthusiasts publishing themselves on a website, with a big messy comments section, selling fiction and non-fiction books on the topic, and hounding/banning folks with a contrary view. What passed for empirical evidence was based on 'fits' to cherry picked geological data and economic info over short time horizons, and extrapolating the fit forward for a couple decades. History (and longer baseline data) showed a contrary view that PO theory had become popular and faded multiple times previously, during periods of high prices and prior to major exploration and development cycles.

Of course oil and all FF are finite, but there are enough of all of them that their shortage or price does not currently appear to represent an existential threat.

 

[Grisu]

First, I think the "demise" of the Oildrum is widely exaggerated. It is simply that they have said what there is to say. Now it is just waiting for the predictions to come true (or maybe not although I am not too hopeful about that). I was quite a frequent visitor at the Oildrum myself for some time but have not looked at it much for the last year. I was also getting tired of reading the same over and over again. There is now a minority that believes in PO, a minority that rejects it and a majority that does not care. Those boundaries will only shift when PO will become reality, not through more posts on some websites or articles in newspapers.

Second, I also believe that climate change is real as will be water scarcity, soil erosion, shortages in industrial metals etc. etc. Humankind will essentially run in a "peak everything" scenario within this century. Too bad, we will also lack the energy then to mitigate any of those effects. I am also sure that we will not stop pulling FFs out of the ground because of climate change or pollution. We may find something better (unlikely), we may not have the integrated economy anymore to support the technology to do so (very probable IMHO) but voluntarily we will not leave anything behind. One current proof: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-23722204
Here are some potential scenarios by the EIA. Be optimistic and take the green line assuming we will be able to extract close to 4 trillion barrels of oil.

Unless there is 0% growth in oil consumption my children will certainly see peak oil and have then to live in a world that has to cope with an annual decline of 10%. Now, 0% oil production growth will not allow our economy to grow like we are used to it which will shred our monetary system. Hence, our economy may take a nose dive before we ever run out of oil. An when you tout the climate change research then you should also note that PO models are getting more refined. Here are two of the IMF trying to integrate economic and geological factors:
http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/wp/2012/wp12109.pdf
http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/wp/2012/wp12256.pdf
We will be living in interesting times; that's for sure.

 

[Delta-T]

i think oil only has a few years left as a serious energy idea. its high density energy, and fairly easy to transport...those are its main features IMO. Electric vehicle, will drive oil into the ground in a decade. once we have storage under control, all manner of renewables will grow exponentially. We can keep the price of oil high enough to be unappetizing for mass use by reducing refining. The developing world wins in this scenario because they will not have such a vast infrastucture based on FF use (gas stations, oil for HH...not unlike the developing world and cell phones...easy to adopt when you're not forced to build and maintian a legacy hard line system like we are here). Just my opinion of course.

 

[Grisu]

I just wish the guys who actually are supposed to develop the batteries we will need for all that renewable energy would be so optimistic: http://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/201207/electriccars.cfm
"Paul Alivisatos, Director of LBNL, and a Fellow of APS, summarized research needs: “It remains true today, as in the past, that we need a fundamental understanding of the physics of how energy-conversion processes take place, at a much deeper level, in order to achieve a truly sustainable energy future.”
With other words we don't even have the basic understanding yet to design better batteries not even talking about building them.

 

[Delta-T]

we still don't know why/how gravity and megnetism really work...hasn't stopped us from doing some pretty fantastic stuff.

 

[btuser]

I just wish the guys who actually are supposed to develop the batteries we will need for all that renewable energy would be so optimistic: http://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/201207/electriccars.cfm
"Paul Alivisatos, Director of LBNL, and a Fellow of APS, summarized research needs: “It remains true today, as in the past, that we need a fundamental understanding of the physics of how energy-conversion processes take place, at a much deeper level, in order to achieve a truly sustainable energy future.”
With other words we don't even have the basic understanding yet to design better batteries not even talking about building them.

Asking the DOE to solve renewable energy challenges is akin to asking the FDA to safeguard the health of America, or the DHHS to solve, uh, anything.

 

[woodgeek]

First, I think the "demise" of the Oildrum is widely exaggerated. It is simply that they have said what there is to say. Now it is just waiting for the predictions to come true (or maybe not although I am not too hopeful about that). I was quite a frequent visitor at the Oildrum myself for some time but have not looked at it much for the last year. I was also getting tired of reading the same over and over again. There is now a minority that believes in PO, a minority that rejects it and a majority that does not care. Those boundaries will only shift when PO will become reality, not through more posts on some websites or articles in newspapers.

Second, I also believe that climate change is real as will be water scarcity, soil erosion, shortages in industrial metals etc. etc. Humankind will essentially run in a "peak everything" scenario within this century. Too bad, we will also lack the energy then to mitigate any of those effects. I am also sure that we will not stop pulling FFs out of the ground because of climate change or pollution. We may find something better (unlikely), we may not have the integrated economy anymore to support the technology to do so (very probable IMHO) but voluntarily we will not leave anything behind. One current proof: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-23722204
Here are some potential scenarios by the EIA. Be optimistic and take the green line assuming we will be able to extract close to 4 trillion barrels of oil.

Unless there is 0% growth in oil consumption my children will certainly see peak oil and have then to live in a world that has to cope with an annual decline of 10%. Now, 0% oil production growth will not allow our economy to grow like we are used to it which will shred our monetary system. Hence, our economy may take a nose dive before we ever run out of oil. An when you tout the climate change research then you should also note that PO models are getting more refined. Here are two of the IMF trying to integrate economic and geological factors:
http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/wp/2012/wp12109.pdf
http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/wp/2012/wp12256.pdf
We will be living in interesting times; that's for sure.

The quality of the postings in the last few years had degraded badly, to the point of being amateurish photologs, back of the envelope calculations and speculative meanderings. That 4T barrel number is interesting....I learned form the Oil Drum that we have (so far) extracted about 1T barrels. In 2007, they said we had another 1T barrels left to extract, and we were thus on the peak (halfway), and all the curves looked like your plot, but with the peak in 2008-2010, where your green curves intersect. If you are convinced that we still have another 1T barrels to go before peak (i.e. we are just halfway to the peak), and the PO will occur in the 2035-2075 timeframe....well they would have laughed you out of OilDrum back in the day, calling you a dirty 'cornucopian'!

I guess running a doom and gloom website doesn't work well when the 'end is nigh' becomes 'the end is in 20-60 years'.

If we are just waiting for prediction to come true....I think peak oil demand will come in the next 100 years, and then production will fall after that. I'll update this post every 10-20 years.

 

[woodgeek]

I just wish the guys who actually are supposed to develop the batteries we will need for all that renewable energy would be so optimistic: http://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/201207/electriccars.cfm
"Paul Alivisatos, Director of LBNL, and a Fellow of APS, summarized research needs: “It remains true today, as in the past, that we need a fundamental understanding of the physics of how energy-conversion processes take place, at a much deeper level, in order to achieve a truly sustainable energy future.”
With other words we don't even have the basic understanding yet to design better batteries not even talking about building them.

Paul is a nice guy, but is not IMO going to develop a revolutionary battery. Why do we need batteries for renewable energy? Studies say we can overbuild RE resources like wind about 60-80%, and then idle them when we have an excess, and have very few outages. Outrageous wasteage you say? What about needing 150% extra primary energy for thermodynamic losses in FF heat engines? IOW, intermittancy in RE has a cost premium of 60 to 80% extra, when the the penetration gets high, none before that. NO new mass storage tech required.

 

[Grisu]

The quality of the postings in the last few years had degraded badly, to the point of being amateurish photologs, back of the envelope calculations and speculative meanderings. That 4T barrel number is interesting....I learned form the Oil Drum that we have (so far) extracted about 1T barrels. In 2007, they said we had another 1T barrels left to extract, and we were thus on the peak (halfway), and all the curves looked like your plot, but with the peak in 2008-2010, where your green curves intersect. If you are convinced that we still have another 1T barrels to go before peak

That is not at all what I wanted to say with that graph which was actually published by the EIA. They just assumed different total extraction numbers and how probable they are. So with 95% probability we will extract 2.2 trillion barrels, 50% probability 3 trillion and 5% probability 3.9 trillion. What that means is that even when we assume a pretty much best-case scenario that has only a 5% chance we will see the peak within the lifetime of our children if not ourselves. So far, we have about 80 countries that passed peak already and maybe a dozen that have not reached it yet. Once all are through their peak global production will fall, too.

(i.e. we are just halfway to the peak), and the PO will occur in the 2035-2075 timeframe....well they would have laughed you out of OilDrum back in the day, calling you a dirty 'cornucopian'!
I guess running a doom and gloom website doesn't work well when the 'end is nigh' becomes 'the end is in 20-60 years'.

When you have a train running towards a broken bridge when do you want to pull the breaks? When is it still safe to stop or when you just have a few feet left? The problem with PO will be that we will only know for sure that we passed it once it is well in the rearview mirror. At that point we will be struggling for survival in an economy that just collapsed.

If we are just waiting for prediction to come true....I think peak oil demand will come in the next 100 years, and then production will fall after that. I'll update this post every 10-20 years.

Oil will always be in demand given its widespread use. E. g. our chemical industry would be unthinkable without oil.

 

[Grisu]

Paul is a nice guy, but is not IMO going to develop a revolutionary battery. Why do we need batteries for renewable energy?

How do you power an electric vehicle without a battery?

Studies say we can overbuild RE resources like wind about 60-80%, and then idle them when we have an excess, and have very few outages.

How much electricity can we generate that way? I saw a study ( http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/daed.2006.135.4.112) that suggested even when we use all suitable land for wind power generation we get ~2 terawatt of electricity. Current global energy consumption: 17 terawatt. Did your studies also say how much of the rare metals needed are still available to build all those windmills?

 

[woodgeek]

That is not at all what I wanted to say with that graph which was actually published by the EIA. They just assumed different total extraction numbers and how probable they are. So with 95% probability we will extract 2.2 trillion barrels, 50% probability 3 trillion and 5% probability 3.9 trillion. What that means is that even when we assume a pretty much best-case scenario that has only a 5% chance we will see the peak within the lifetime of our children if not ourselves. So far, we have about 80 countries that passed peak already and maybe a dozen that have not reached it yet. Once all are through their peak global production will fall, too.

Got it. But that distribution of the amount of extractable oil increases over time. Fifty years ago, the best guess was 1T barrels. In the Oil Drum heyday, they said 2T was it. Now the EIA says the best guess is 3T. In 30 years, maybe the number will be 5T.

When you have a train running towards a broken bridge when do you want to pull the breaks? When is it still safe to stop or when you just have a few feet left? The problem with PO will be that we will only know for sure that we passed it once it is well in the rearview mirror. At that point we will be struggling for survival in an economy that just collapsed.

I hear you, and would apply the same analogy to AGW. We need to put the brakes on CO2 now.

Part of my PO skepticism has to do with powerful negative (rather than positive) feedbacks on price. Back in the day, the Drummers assumed the price could go to $200, $400, $1000/barrel, and never come back. The 'problem' is that at $100 tar sands oil, ultra deepwater and oil shales all look like a good business proposition with existing tech. I.e. at sustained prices of $100 they will all be developed at a large scale, as we have seen. At $150-$200 coal to liquids and gas to liquids look like stupid easy ways to make $$. IOW, At $200 there is almost an unlimited amount of (synthetic) oil to be had from converting coal. From an (existing) tech perspective, sustained prices above $150-$200 appear effectively impossible. Here 'sustained' means the 2-4 years required to build a lot of plants.

And then learning curve makes all this (existing) tech cheaper. Maybe the $100 shale oil and tar sands and ultra deepwater can, with some development make money at half that in 5 more years of operation/learning/amortization? Then the current demand/supply equilibrium price could drop to that level...If we went for Coal to Oil in 2025 or 2035 at $150 (current $$), maybe after a few years, it could drop back to $75-100, etc.

Sounds kinda skeezy, but the history of oil development and technology reads just like the above. Two steps forward on price to develop tech, then one back on learning curve, with short term (2-4 year) spikes on top.

Oil will always be in demand given its widespread use. E. g. our chemical industry would be unthinkable without oil.

Not sure about this at all. Only thing oil has going for it is price. I can make syngas and syncrude from any biomass, garbage, coal or lignite at prices not much higher than current oil price. And that stuff works fine for making the whole slew of petrochemicals. And even in a no-FF future, there is plenty of (cellulosic) biomass to make the existing (non-fuel) petrochemicals we currently consume. Just not that big a stream.

 

[woodgeek]

How do you power an electric vehicle without a battery?

Koreans are fielding a stretch of highway where the cars are fed juice via high freq magnetic waves through the pavement, basically a split transformer. If batteries remain expensive, existing batteries work for around town, and put the korean HF transformers on the interstates.

How much electricity can we generate that way? I saw a study ( http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/daed.2006.135.4.112) that suggested even when we use all suitable land for wind power generation we get ~2 terawatt of electricity. Current global energy consumption: 17 terawatt. Did your studies also say how much of the rare metals needed are still available to build all those windmills?

Yup, clearly we need some solar and offshore wind. and to move some solar energy east and west a timezone or two, schedule loads (i.e. heavy industry, DHW tanks) for the daytime, etc. The 17 TW you cite is primary energy, with thermodynamic losses included. It only takes ~7TW of RE to replace 17 TW of primary FF power, maybe 10-11TW if you require it to be fully dispatchble.

 

[Grisu]

Koreans are fielding a stretch of highway where the cars are fed juice via high freq magnetic waves through the pavement, basically a split transformer. If batteries remain expensive, existing batteries work for around town, and put the korean HF transformers on the interstates.

Good that I don't have a pacemaker, then. Sure, a lot is possible but do we still have the energy and resources to achieve all those technological wonders?

Yup, clearly we need some solar and offshore wind. and to move some solar energy east and west a timezone or two, schedule loads (i.e. heavy industry, DHW tanks) for the daytime, etc. The 17 TW you cite is primary energy, with thermodynamic losses included. It only takes ~7TW of RE to replace 17 TW of primary FF power, maybe 10-11TW if you require it to be fully dispatchble.

Careful, that is current use and does not include further population growth neither growing living standards in developing countries. If by 2050 all humans wanted to use as much energy as an average US citizen we would need ~100 TW; essentially unattainable with renewable energy. Here is a short summary of the article I linked to: http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/3000/followup-why-dont-we-ditch-nukes-em-and-em-coal

 

[woodgeek]

Good that I don't have a pacemaker, then. Sure, a lot is possible but do we still have the energy and resources to achieve all those technological wonders?

We apparently have enough that the best selling vehicles are still SUVs and Ford pickups. I suspect that a EV with a split transformer will require fewer resources (including highly earth-abundant and recyclable steel) than a F-350.

Careful, that is current use and does not include further population growth neither growing living standards in developing countries. If by 2050 all humans wanted to use as much energy as an average US citizen we would need ~100 TW; essentially unattainable with renewable energy. Here is a short summary of the article I linked to: http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/3000/followup-why-dont-we-ditch-nukes-em-and-em-coal

If europeans have been living with 50% of US primary energy consumption, why in the future will everyone be using US levels of energy? At European levels, that is 'only' 50TW now. In a time of level and decreasing population (2050), heavy industry (city building) is much reduced, is 50 TW still required? And there is plenty of solar resource (again requiring earth abundant Si) to provide that much power, provided folks have enough money to pay for it.

 

[Frozen Canuck]

What I don't see is any allocation for us (human's) behaving as we always have. Essentially killing each other for more stuff or cheaper stuff. Several conflicts over cheaper oil, or the currency that someone's oil is sold for come to mind. Modern warfare is powered by oil, lot's of it too. This will continue & is likely to get far worse in the event of shortages/price increases. We are in a quiet period right now but history says it wont last long.

I also did not see any allocation for the decreasing number of major oil co's. If I control the majority of refining capacity well I simply could care less what the price of a barrel is .... oil will sell for what I say it will sell for. Take it or leave it. Most will be in the position of having to take it no matter how hard it may be. Make a list of the people & co's that do not need oil for their survival & then you have a list of whom I cannot control...directly. Other methods required.

I find that quite often the RE crowd or the we will engineer ourselves out of this group simply fail to account for the human factor, not just pop growth but the nasty, evil, dirty things we are willing to do to each other to have more, or at least to ensure someone has less. Think not?, remember the "let em die" chants/cheers?, that's not the only issue that these folks could be whipped into supporting/fighting for/killing their neighbour for, not by a long shot.

So you see I already have quite a large volunteer army, yes it's an army of fools but an army nonetheless. They only listen to me so your logic/rationale/reason will be useless on them. This makes them quite an effective army , like a machine that will accept no new programming & has no off switch. I just have to be careful when & why I turn them on as they could easily turn on their maker if used in the wrong way/at the wrong time. Gotta get to work on a built in kill switch, after all machines that could turn on their maker are not a good long term investment.

This won't change anytime soon. If I already have control in any or multiple sectors, well good luck getting me to sit down at a negotiating table for a fair & balanced discussion. I will simply continue to take more. After all what interest would I have in your welfare when I am only considering my own? Unless of course you can be made to serve me...then I will care...just a little...or at least pretend to.

Gotta factor in the human equation. Sucks when we do but it needs to be in the equation. Lots of money to be extracted from 9 billion or more people!

 

[Frozen Canuck]

And yes the human equation is far different here than in western Europe.

 

[Grisu]

The other problem that gets rarely mentioned are the trillions of dollars that have been invested in the current fossil fuel infrastructure and that would need to be written off if we switch to most of those fancy new technologies. That is the reason we all cling to the idea of the electric car as a viable alternative. Not because it is the best system that we can think off but because it will allow us to use most of the current infrastructure. Will we switch over to a different technology voluntarily before PO will set in? I doubt it.

 

[begreen]

Paul is a nice guy, but is not IMO going to develop a revolutionary battery. Why do we need batteries for renewable energy? Studies say we can overbuild RE resources like wind about 60-80%, and then idle them when we have an excess, and have very few outages. Outrageous wasteage you say? What about needing 150% extra primary energy for thermodynamic losses in FF heat engines? IOW, intermittancy in RE has a cost premium of 60 to 80% extra, when the the penetration gets high, none before that. NO new mass storage tech required.

The Korean experiment still needs a battery on board. It would be disasterous for the power to go out suddenly and the vehicle not at least being able to get to a safe location or off the road. It's also very costly technology to implement.

This is a tech to watch that may challenge batteries as we know them today.

https://www.hearth.com/talk/threads...or-reaches-lead-acid-battery-capacity.112102/

 

[Frozen Canuck]

Even after PO there will be a lot of big money resistance to a switch. Until of course the big money has controlling interest in the next oil. Easier to buy the other guys ideas (patents) & mothball the thing until you are in a position to profit from them. The game is real easy when you can have a substantial say in it's outcome. Kinda like seeing most of the cards in the deck in a poker game. Serious leg up.

 

[woodgeek]

All very good points. People are still people, will still fight wars over something, and greed will make the world go around, as it does now. I don't think we will build a new RE infrastructure in the next 5 years b/c of global warming concerns, and then have a sing along. Just saying that technical solutions and RE resources exist to keep us from a (more or less) imminent PO doom. Whatever humans decide to do at a macro-level over the next **50 years** or so will be driven by many hard to predict factors, but IMO FF and oil scarcity are likely to be way down the list. Making a buck, keeping the kids warm, and national security will prob all rate a lot higher.

I think RE will be developed when there is big money to do so, and that will depend on subtleties with the pricing of both RE and FF (i.e. RE subsidies, carbon tax, future cheap oil, etc). Might be next ten years, might be 50 from now. But not impossible for technical or geological reasons.

On the oil front, I think the new tech/development is shifting the playing field a bit. Canada is getting a boost, the US is in less of a hole. The UK is struggling (as the North Sea is depleted). Let a bunch of countries go big for fracking and where will we be? This will all change geopolitics in hard to predict ways. I for one will be not surprised though when we annex Alberta as our 51st state, we will rename it Upper Texas.

 

[woodgeek]

The Korean experiment still needs a battery on board. It would be disasterous for the power to go out suddenly and the vehicle not at least being able to get to a safe location or off the road. It's also very costly technology to implement.

Indeed EVs will need batteries. Will they need to be better than what we have now? A couple times cheaper? Maybe. Does this require a 'revolution', I don't think so. Could oil fall to $50 for a decade or two and kill off the entire current crop of EVs? Maybe. Could oil go to $200, and foster some real rollout on EV tech, maybe, but I'm not ready to bet on it. Neither one would constitute PO doom.

This is a tech to watch that may challenge batteries as we know them today.

https://www.hearth.com/talk/threads...or-reaches-lead-acid-battery-capacity.112102/

I am always surprised that the 'in production' tech (e.g. Li-Ion batteries) gets no love despite being with a factor of 2-3X from being a killer app, in favor of 'in lab' tech whose feasibility and ultimate pricing are totally unknown. Of course, I will be the first in line to buy the graphene powered, retro styled, manually steered, 2033 model year Ford 'Carbo 3000'.

 

[Frozen Canuck]

On the oil front, I think the new tech/development is shifting the playing field a bit. Canada is getting a boost, the US is in less of a hole. The UK is struggling (as the North Sea is depleted). Let a bunch of countries go big for fracking and where will we be? This will all change geopolitics in hard to predict ways. I for one will be not surprised though when we annex Alberta as our 51st state, we will rename it Upper Texas.

Nope, not hard to imagine at all. Btw in the patch we have been called Texas north since before I was a kid. A leftover I think from the Colorado & Texas wildcats that opened the field here.

Let a bunch of countries go big for fracking and where will we be?

When this happens & it will, we will finally find out whats in the fracking cocktail, when we foul the water for say a city of 10 million. 10 thousand & meh no one cares, 10 million & some eyes will open.

 

[begreen]

Indeed EVs will need batteries. Will they need to be better than what we have now? A couple times cheaper? Maybe. Does this require a 'revolution', I don't think so. Could oil fall to $50 for a decade or two and kill off the entire current crop of EVs? Maybe. Could oil go to $200, and foster some real rollout on EV tech, maybe, but I'm not ready to bet on it. Neither one would constitute PO doom.

I am always surprised that the 'in production' tech (e.g. Li-Ion batteries) gets no love despite being with a factor of 2-3X from being a killer app, in favor of 'in lab' tech whose feasibility and ultimate pricing are totally unknown. Of course, I will be the first in line to buy the graphene powered, retro styled, manually steered, 2033 model year Ford 'Carbo 3000'.

Li-Ion batteries are getting lots of love. They are what powers our car and Teslas. And development continues on them. But the holy grail is to have the charge be as quick as a gasoline stop. Super capacitors have that ability.