This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Peak Everything: An Interactive Look At How Much Of Everything Is Left
Scientific American has done a great summary of peak commodity levels as well as depletion projections for some of the most critical resources in the world including oil, gold, silver copper, not to mention renewable water, as well as estimating general food prices over the next half century. Generally speaking, regardless of whether one believes in peak oil or not, the facts are that stores of natural resources are disappearing at an increasingly alarming pace. And instead of the world's (formerly) richest country sponsoring R&D and basic science to find alternatives, the US government continues to focus on funding a lost Keynesian cause, debasing the dollar and perpetuating a system that will do nothing to resolve any of these ever more pressing concerns. Furthermore, as by 2020, the US will have around $23 trillion in debt (per CBO estimates), the government will be far too focused on using anywhere between 50-100% of tax revenues to cover just interest expense, than funding science and research. Then again it is probably only fitting that future generations will be saddled with not just $100 trillion in total sovereign debt, but will be running out of water, will see sea levels rising ever faster, will have no flat screen TVs, and will be using Flintstonemobiles to go from point A to point B. All so a few bankers and ultra-wealthy individuals don't have to recognize total losses on their balance sheets filled with trillions in toxic debt.
Some key highlights from Scientific American, as well as the year in which a given resource either peaks or runs out:
Oil - 2014 Peak
The most common answer to "how much oil is left" is "depends on how hard you want to look." As easy-to-reach fields run dry, new technologies allow oil companies to tap harder-to-reach places (such as 5,500 meters under the Gulf of Mexico). Traditional statistical models of oil supply do not account for these advances, but a new approach to production forecasting explicitly incorporates multiple waves of technological improvement. Though still controversial, this multi-cyclic approach predicts that global oil production is set to peak in four years and that by the 2050s we will have pulled all but 10% of the world's oil from the ground.
In many parts of the world, one major river supplies water to multiple countries. Climate change, pollution and population growth are putting a significant strain on supplies. In some areas renewable water reserves are in danger of dropping below the 500 cubic meters per person per year considered a minimum for a functioning society.
Renewable Water
Indium - 2028
Silver - 2029
Gold - 2030
Copper - 2044
Coal - 2072
Food Prices over next 40 years
Researchers have recently started to untangle the complex ways rising temperatures will affect global agriculture. The expect climate change to lead to longer growing seasons in some countries; in others the heat will increase the frequency of extreme weather events or the prevalence of pests. In the US, productivity is expected to rise in Plains states, but fall further in the already struggling Southwest. Russia and China will gain, India and Mexico will lose. In general, developing nations will take the biggest hits. By 2050 counteracting the ill effects of climate change on nutrition will cost more than $7 billion a year.
Full interactive analysis on resource depletion:
»
- 28515 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
Exhaustion Bitchez!
Peak people?
Reversion to the mean
If only.
Can we start with Peak Politicians?
Peak Pussy!!!
Oh yeah... all HAILZ to pink pussy and a +1000 to those who adhere to the discipline of "two in the pink, one in the stink."....(as I lick and sniff my fingers). That is all. AMEN.
Sustainability Bitchez!
Time to sign up for Colonel Cooper's wood splitting classes...
Long 47
Long 79
Love 69
Tyler, EXCELLENT post .... So I'm surprised a simple graph projecting the Earth's population [which would emphasize the peak everything theory, as we are in the beggining phases of a commodity cycle, via EM populations] is missing. ? :O
Malthus redux, bitchez!
Petrobras is doing the largest share offer ever in history (60-75 billion dollars expected) this week to start drilling pre-salt oil 10 bbl proved reserves, may have up to 50 bbl - for comparision Russia's total reserves today are around 60 bbl...
Less redneck Hummer limos and more sissy Prius will reduce demand as well
And who knows how much oil, metals, etc there may be in Africa once they become the new emerging countries...
But I do think oil prices and other commodities will go up, but for other reasons Benny money printing currency debasement and BRIC emerging middle class becoming global consumers.
And who cares about copper and metals, they are recyclable...
less Hummers and more Prius will probably INCREASE demand - Jevons Paradox http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox . If cars become too efficient and fuel too cheap, too many people in developing countries will drive cars. the increase in efficiency per car is massively outweighed by the shear increase in number of cars.
I
think you don't understand world consumption is
25 BILLION BARRELS A YEAR! 10 billion is nothing.
the dust to dust is an important consideration. another is knowing where a technology is in its development cycle. straight internal combustion engine powered cars have been under development for over a century, electric powered cars far less, especially in mass production. one has to start somewhere. the status quo is unsustainable. is the opposite of uninformed do-gooders informed do-badders?
It's the difference between willful stupidity and honest ignorance; only the latter is correctible.
And before those with tiny peepies drive their hummers into the sunset, remember that better isn't necessarily good.
Actually electric cars were first developed about the same time as gas cars. At one time it was a tossup whether the cars of the future would be gas, steam or electric. In 1900 total production was about evenly divided and the smart money was on electrics. All they needed was a really good battery. We're still waiting.
So just what exactly is your position again, Cameltoe? Uh..I mean camoes?
> start drilling pre-salt oil 10 bbl proved reserves, may have up to 50 bbl
Ah, but the rates of flow, my dear?
A key point is that the flow might not offset the flow decline from the dying supergiants.
ditto bitches, "now i sleep." the skeleton from
"the lost skeleton of cadavra"
.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pe9Fs10IIk0
The reality is that all this Keynesian economics leads to wasting of commodities for the sake of + GDP. Our grandparents would save everything, not throw out TVs that work or cash for clunker out a working auto. Its cheaper to replace than repair
That is the TRUE effect of this monetary policy & when commodities run out, the infinite $ chasing the remains leads to the parabolic rise past what the population can afford
We are a wasteful society and it is 100% due to Keynes economics.
It's a bit chicken and egg, but the availability of a magic energy source (oil) also reduces any need for traditional thrift with either materials or time. You can achieve such unbelievable amounts of work by burning oil or using it to turn into anything else that you can in essence cheat the rules that governed us for hundreds of thousands of years. try moving a boulder 100 yards or making a tooth brush without oil. before we had oil, we didn't waste ANYTHING because it was so damned hard to get more or get anything done. We're just obscenely spoiled in comparison to what you might call a "natural" reality. Keynesian economics developed because of oil. There weren't any more limits in physical production, so the limits in economics didn't exist any more either. There was always going to be more production potential. Well, all good things come to an end.
Great point. The left's love of Keynesianism is totally at odds with its love of conservation, and few realize the contradiction.
That statement might have some merit if more than 10% of the right (or left) knew what keynesianism is.
You must be new around here - This is ZERO HEDGE.
Lack of understanding about "Keynesianism" (or anything else, really) has never prevented anyone from posting loads of B.S. about it.
Most people here reason in black & white: Keynes = bad, Austrian School = good.
Don't worry, you'll get used to it.
I take issue with missinglink's continual rants about the left-wing. Almost every comment she posts is pointing a finger at the left. It's like she's saying that if the Republicans have never got in and if they do they would fix everything.
BTW, you can click on a commenter's name and find out when they joined ZH.
YEAH, right on Missing_link, just like how everyone loves the idea of catching clahmydia and gonorhea in Delaware, just from walking around.
I assure you that no one who is serious about ecological conservation has ever elected anyone to a position which could affect economic policy.
And your logic only fails to apply to "the right" because you don't recognize the MIC as a Keynesian stimulus.
A-Men i should have listened to that man more than i did.
"Stay out of those flop houses',those whores won't work as hard for you're money as you did"
Whats youre favorite Grandpa saying?
Dont take any wooden nickels.
Really though, his true words to me,
"If you push someone far enough, they will lie to you."
He knew I was lying, God I miss him and all my others.
We are a wasteful society due to capitalism. The "cheaper to replace than repair" is a function of markets (as in emerging ones, buying TVs and cars), not the behavior of a drastically smaller subset of savers.
You don't need Keynes to blow credit bubbles.
opps
The reality is that all this Keynesian economics leads to wasting of commodities for the sake of + GDP. Our grandparents would save everything, not throw out TVs that work or cash for clunker out a working auto. Its cheaper to replace than repair
That is the TRUE effect of this monetary policy & when commodities run out, the infinite $ chasing the remains leads to the parabolic rise past what the population can afford
We are a wasteful society and it is 100% due to Keynes economics.
couldn't agree more
Interesting.
Gee, Paul Erhlich, recycled, yet again. We are running out of stuff, man. With pretty graphs from the people who will also provide you with some very pretty graphs describing non-existant global warming.
Exactly. This would scare me accept I read it all before. It was completely wrong. Scientific American is considerably less credible to me now than Paul Erlich was to me then.
We have plenty of stuff and we can find it faster than it will be consumed in a free market. What we're losing is the really precious thing - people with the courage to take risks and a form of government ensuring their liberty, not their retirement.
Sorry to say this, but you're a fucking idiot.
Believing in Peak Oil is like believing in gravity...you either accept fact or you are a raving moron.
Believing in (pick one: Peak Oil, Global Warming, Islam, Keynesianism, God, Krishna, scientific socialism) is like believing in gravity..you either accept fact or you are an raving moron.
Listen, you stupid fuck, there is ZERO similarity between Islam and Peak Oil. ONE is a faith, the OTHER is a scientific fact.
Do you even VAGUELY comprehend the DIRECT implication of rejecting Peak (as if it weren't already PROVEN)???
You idiots act as if Peak possibly *could* never happen. This means you assert that oil production can continue to grow FOREVER.
INTERNET RAGE!
But seriously, saying that you believe in a two word summation of a complicated problem, and that anyone who doesn't believe in said two word summation is a "stupid fuck" doesn't really contribute to the conversation.
You don't think that it is possible, just possible, that maybe the "peak" is dozens, hundreds, or thousands of years away? Perhaps advances in technology render your simplistic summation a bit premature? After all, someone a hundred years ago would have been screaming about peak whale oil, but he turned out to be tilting at windmills with such talk.
do you even VAGUELY understand the mathematics of growth?
Those who do realize, a priori, how absurd your questions are.
Nobody 100 years ago was screaming about peak oil, doofus; Peak was a mathematical construct built by M. King Hubbert in the 1950s. Know what...it HAPPENED! Right when he forecast that it would and the US entered inexorable production decline after it.
The real problem here is that people of inadequate intelligence cannot GRASP what Peak is or even means. So, they assume it is some sort of crackpot "faith" or it's a matter of sheer opinion.
It's not. Peak has happened and will happen. EVERY SINGLE WELL peaks. Every single FIELD of wells peak. Every single arrangement of fields called a country peaks. The world also will or has peaked. C&C peaked in 2005. This is the high EROI stuff; we're already past the maximum production rate the earth can sustain.
Look, how many fucking times can I break this down to you people? Look up GOLD, an element near and dear to this board. It peaked TEN YEARS ago. Do you suppose oil is less "finite" than gold is? Production CANNOT GROW FOREVER.
I'm sorry, but you cannot expect me to take your idiocy seriously..."technological advancements"? Like the one that obviated the US peak in 1970? Pull your head out.
and the comment about whale oil is irrelevant to the topic ostensibly being discussed. hydrogen fusion (or similar magic) or even windmills may make the seeming implications of peak oil irrelevant but they don't "disprove" peak oil.
This is the conundrum....we don't want to switch to non-fossil fuel when this relatively cheap shit is available, but we won't have enough time to switch over to an alternative (as if we have a viable one anyway) fast enough to save ourselves from the economic implications of another oil spike.
Meanwhile, we have to do battle with people who don't understand science and whose eschatology makes the planet a throw-away in the end.
Do not expect a rational evaluation of sustainability from closet nihilists.
In the history of the world, what has been sustained? Everything morphs. Constantly.
Scientific fact- oxymoron.
The facts of science continue to be revised, addended and rediscovered as new information is discovered. X-rays were going to cure cancer, oops-they cause cancer. Evolution has broken down into so many subcategories, it takes a career to choose one. The appendix was a useless organ to be removed when other surgery was being performed, oops- it is part of the lymph system and import for bile production (same with those testy tonsils). Global warming, oops-global cooling effects global warming. Need new models. Anti-biotics, oops-statins, oops- the FDA approval-oops, chemical safety, oops-engineering models on wind reasonance in bridge construction, oops- unified field theory- can't put physics back together again.
Science is faith. It is a reflection of our ignorance more often than our intelligence. The need to be right and have an understanding of the world around us drives us to accept implausible theories on a regular basis- remember the earth is flat?
Before you worship at the alter of science, try to remember that for all that science has achieved it has failed miserably in just as many instances. Consequently, stupid fuck can be just as easily be used to describe the scientist.
Further, many scientists are very willing to misrepresent data for the purpose of economic gain, destroying the trust necessary for people to accept new ideas. You may say these are a minority, but as it continues to happen and cost people their lives (especially in medicine) who wants to be in the minority that dies because of it?
Peak oil? I am much more worried about peak stupidity and intolerance, the latter of which you appear to be suffering from. Civility is very inexpensive and with some luck, we could continue to produce it without ever reaching a peak.
Sean-
I'm even more impressed when the argument is based on "Scientific Concensus."
- Ned
I second that! How could anyone not understand the last giant field found Cantarell was in 1973! If there is so much oil why would we mine it or drill for it a mile deep in GOM at a cost of 75$ a barrel? I understand how people would deny the logic because they are frightened the world they knew has already changed. Morons is a little harsh, how about ignorant of the facts?
Also, how about 'fearful of what this would mean for them, so they pretend its not happening'.
'I must not fear, fear is the mind killer'.
Exactly.
Everybody knows the more you use, the more you have left over.
With recycling, this is exactly the case. What will happen is that prices will increase to the point that recycling becomes economical, or practically required, at which point the in-ground scarcity of a given metal will be moot. This is certainly already the case with gold.
GD, just idiotic....sure, we'll recycle the used oil that we've turned into plastics and drive our cars on it.
Did you ever study even highschool science? Do you understand what "exothermic" and "endothermic" mean? Do you even have a cursory grasp of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics or of Conservation of Energy?
A price increase in energy means LESS energy to use in basic terms, which means less things getting done, which means NO GROWTH.
Ahem.
There are ways to recycle plastics back into oil, you know.
Some are being prototyped as we speak: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn12141-giant-microwave-turns-plasti...
(This being said, I agree with most of your positions).
jfc...and this after I said "exothermic" and "endothermic."
Microwaving plastics to get oil will not be positive EROI
If you're recyling plastics into oil then you're not recycling plastics into plastics.
Also, you missed the far easier method that anyone with a bit of skill :) can do in their garage:
http://bigthink.com/ideas/22993
actually this is starting to look more viable all the time
http://www.ebaumsworld.com/video/watch/81076811/
and how is it certainly already the case with gold? recycling what? the tiny bits in computers and cell phones? at what cost, especially if done with reasonable environmental and labor standards?
nearly all the gold ever mined is in jewelry, coins and bars. bullion and central banks seem to be working quite hard to meet mounting demand with a fractional reserve/paper gold substitute. the weight of evidence seems markedly in the other direction.
Here is a very easy prediction: whatever resource you are talking about, if its price goes high enough, people will find ways to recycle even tiny little bits back onto the market. Sure, it may be very dirty, but they will make it work.
There are already companies specialized in recycling gold used on PCBs, even tiny PCBs, such as those of cell phones.
Just wait until Gold, (or Oil, or whatever commodity) goes into, say, thousands of dollars per pound.
I love you! I needed that :)
Landrew:
We've gotta stop meeting like this. Marla is getting jealous.
suck that shit outa the air!
Personal oxygen miner , bullish! Clean air has gone the way of the dodo. I think humans are doomed because they forget they need the air to breathe. The air we breathe now is full of crap and less oxygen as the days go by. Meanwhile we dont change a thing, keeping on polluting. This wont end well, but will end.
"Gee, Paul Erhlich, recycled, yet again."
Peak Theories.
My favorite part was;
"The most common answer to "how much oil is left" is "depends on how hard you want to look." As easy-to-reach fields run dry, new technologies allow oil companies to tap harder-to-reach places (such as 5,500 meters under the Gulf of Mexico). Traditional statistical models of oil supply do not account for these advances, but a new approach to production forecasting explicitly incorporates multiple waves of technological improvement. Though still controversial, this multi-cyclic approach predicts that global oil production is set to peak in four years and that by the 2050s we will have pulled all but 10% of the world's oil from the ground."
Whoopsie...and here I had been told by very learned experts (some of which are no longer with us probably because they stressed themselves into a heart attack over it) with charts & stuff that peak oil had already happened.
Oh well, back to the drawing board...LOL.
I bet at 10k an ounce it might be worth straining sea water for gold too ;-)
OK, idiot, just look at the numbers. Whether crude oil peaked at a flow rate of 74m barrels/day in 2005, or will peak at 76m barrels/day in 2014, is completely irrelevant. Fact is, we are on a plateau of 72-77 m barrels / day, in a world in which 2.5 billion Chinese and Indians (not to mention the other developing countries) are wanting what we have : cars, plastics, vacations...the numbers don't work ! And that plateau will not last long, just look what happened to US and Mexico oil production after Peak was in the rear view mirror.
Struck a nerve or just nervous? ;-)
And if demand is cut what happens to your precious timeline Einstein...hmmm?
You seem...breathless...you OK?
- he's getting nervous
Heh ;-)
Demand WILL get cut. What use is paying for your oil when it's at the cost of a future generation? At SOME point people will turn their backs on oil, as the cost will be too high. And then? Yeah, production will collapse; as a matter of fact, production IS starting to collapse- number of oil workers is in decline and so is exploratory drilling, which means that there won't be the "go" juice avilable to jump-start any economic surge (read "next ponzi scheme"). A decline in production will mean a reversion to "economies of scale," which will further push affordability limits. While you're looking from one direction this thing is going to come up from behind and whack you. And, chances are that when we finally realize this it's not likely that we'll be able to hang out here and tell you "I told you so." But, you're free to make your own prediction; I'd be curious whether you're putting your money where your mouth is: shot oil, long condos, long fast cars etc. etc.
The problem with the theory is the assumption's & timeline in my view. The theory is based on what they think they know at a given point in time.
They assume they know how much oil there actually is. They assume demand will remain constant or accelerate. Thus they think they can predict a timeline with accuracy to the year. And concentrating on the head of a pin (monitoring declining well production in relatively small geographical areas) does not validate anything globally.
The problem is of course they do not know how much oil there is. They cannot know future demand because the world is not a static place. Their pet modeling, India & China consumption, would come unglued (pardon the pun) should a plague or war envelope these areas, not out of the realm of possibility with Pakistan an enemy of India and both nuclear armed & both (China & India) teeming armpit to armpit with people. Also, the theory is not elastic enough to take in the variables of other sources taking it's place. And, of course, the "theory" has a history of being wrong in it's timeline prognostications of the past.
Whether it's genuine "science" or a Wall Street marketing tool know one can really say. There are certainly vested interests involved from many places.
I agree, oil, is most probably a finite resource, leaving aside abiotic theory. But 2014 seems pessimistic to me. Pessimistic by design or flaw is for everyone else to decide.
I also find it fascinating this talk of Mayan calendars & the year 2012. Surely if they had some magical window into the future they would have used it to save themselves ;-)
Yes, OECD oil consumption has been cut by about 10% over the past 5 years. But you may want to look at the growth in Chinese / Indian / MEast consumption. Fact is, their consumption demand growth (in barrels/day) will soon outweigh OECD consumption declines.
Oh it'll work, it just won't be as easy.
If plastics wind up becoming more expensive, we'll just switch back to steel, or some ceramic composite. If fuel becomes too expensive, we'll switch back to less fuel intensive modes of transport. I, for one, look forward to the return of the Zeppelin.
How are you going to generate the energy to create that steel or ceramic composite?
You probably believe that electric cars will solve our problems, totally missing out that electricity is NOT an energy source (it's an energy carrier!- 50% generated by rapidly depleting coal reserves).
Nuclear power plants for the Fischer-Topler conversion process. Sitting on two trillion tons of coal buddy. Also, consider the transition from a pyramid shaped management paradigm to asymmetric information society. So I am bullish for mankinds future long-term. Short and medium term I hedge against the probability of world war and further erosion of purchasing power.
Do you people just make up shit? "Sitting on two trillion tons of coal"
Care to provide the reference?
Further ERROR of you unicorn-believers is that you fail to note that all that mass of resources is subject to exponential decay due to exponential extraction, because, well, if we have so damn much of it we can just dig that much MORE of it up. Look up Jevons Paradox.
Thanks for playing!
There is no way for peak oil to end peacefully. We have gone to war over oil twice in 10 years. Gulf War I and II. And we will go to war again.
One very real possibility is a preemptive nuclear war on China and India by US. Didn't Dick Cheney say that the American Way of Life is NOT NEGOTIABLE?
Do you think we will go quietly into the night without a fight?
We are the only country to deploy nukes against another country and we will do it again for our own survival.
George Orwell
Although I doubt "we are out" the cost of accessing new fields will not only be the drilling cost, but now the insurance of deep water drilling after the wonderful gulf spill debacle. Companies who wanted to drill a mile down, may consider waiting until the cost vs reward is more in line. Im not one who believes in fossil origin of fuels, but the easy stuff has its limits, much like gold. If gold hits 50k, I might start looking for it in Florida.
- deep, hot, earth, eh?
Rusty, I only fear the hurricane.
So, no such thing as Peak Oil? US oil production really didn't peak? How about Mexico?
Wordlwide oil production, 1960 - 2009:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/pdf/pages/sec11_10.pdf
And from just south of the US border, Mexico's Cantarell oil field, the third largest oil field ever discovered (http://www.ensec.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=224:oi...):
As the Cantarell field proved itself prolific, Pemex became one of the world’s largest oil exporters. The increase in production beginning in the 1980’s also saw a commensurate increase in exports to the United States. Production at Cantarell boomed until 2003 when its output peaked at 2.1 million barrels per day. Of that overall production, exports to the United States reached their peak in 2004 at 1.6 million barrels per day.
On the back of Cantarell, Mexico became the United States’ second largest supplier of oil, but since the peak of Mexico’s oil exports in 2004, it has gradually lost surplus production. Supplies to the United States have decreased. Mexico fell to third place in terms of the United States’ top foreign suppliers of oil in 2008 with 1.3 million barrels per day. And if international projections and outlooks for Mexico’s oil production are even remotely accurate, Mexico will continue to slip down the list of top foreign oil sources serving the US market.
Recent news on Cantarell points to a slight slow-down in the production decline but the larger picture still remains bleak for the field and for Pemex’s short to medium term oil production outlook. Indeed, Cantarell has now slipped to Pemex’s second largest producing area, second to the Ku-Maloob-Zaap field.
Most disturbing is that with Cantarell’s precipitous decline in production coupled with a lack of sufficient replacement production at other fields, many projections indicate that Mexico will become a net importer of oil by as soon as 2020; the International Energy Outlook 2009 indicates that net imports could reach 300,000 barrels per day in 2030. This obviously has serious implications for Pemex, Mexico’s national treasury, and US energy security.
As M.L. King Hubbert noted, with enough data points you can forecast the larger whole. He nailed US output, and another big data point in the global picture has also pushed past its production peak.
These are hardcore, indisputable facts. Feel free to research your own sources for the data.
Excellent article - more things to think about..."Peak Indium" too?
"future generations...will have no flat screen TVs, and will be using Flintstonemobiles to go from point A to point B. All so a few bankers and ultra-wealthy individuals don't have to recognize total losses on their balance sheets filled with trillions in toxic debt."
i always knew i was ahead of my time. my car IS the equivalent of a flintstonemobile and my tv's have knobs and dials.
The Munder Lost Keynesian Cause Fund
The rate of alarmism has been increasing since Malthus and Ludd the Frankenstein myth.
When left to their own devices, man continues to ascent from the level of scraping a miserable living out of the soil with his fingernails to the Information Age and beyond.
When shackled by government, for his own "good" (defended by alarmism of some catastrophe or another), he is forced back down into the mud.
You need to study the history of Easter Island. Or maybe just look at Haiti.
The "We all are going to die" meme sure gets those researchers funded though doesn't it?
Fear of "we are all going to die" also provides an ever decreasing return for supply-side economics. People do things for the opportunity to benefit as reason one to anything. Now with global warming the meme was "Now your all REALLY, REALLY going to die". The stick sucks, start with some carrots.
How long can you keep shifting the actual debate? Are you getting paid to actually provide NO information?
Fact: Finite planet = finite resources
Fact: Growth = increasing consumption of finite resources
Fact: Death is certain (why you focus on this obvious point is a mere distraction)
Fact: 2 + 2 = 4
Educate yourself, understand the first two laws of thermodynamics (the very shit that allows you to do what you do in the first place), read up on Jevons Paradox. Pretty basic stuff. Or else, as Trav says- shut the fuck up (cause you're just abusing time and energy).
BEarster,
This is the same escalated rate of alarmism that I experienced when I saw Jack Lemmon and Walter Matthau perform their duo in "Grumpy Old Men."
They should have just billed it as a porno with a duo (threesome) tag teaming Sophia Loren. This would be a great case for alarm indeed.
What the fuck are you talking about, VeloSpade? Are you out of your mind, or have you lost it long ago?
I've seen better days.
Oh, ok, well that explains everything.
Yeah, just like the foul odor emanating from your cunt.
A true state of alarm is waking up to find yourself having mad sex with Charro
Especially when she breaks out into an ethnic case of "scratching" as you witness the inflamed rashes on her chest and face oozing puss all over everything and anything she comes into contact with.
Yeah, all of this while she was singing, "la cuccharacha" as you penetrate her crotcha.
Is this a true story?
Absoluteley.
Dude!
are you crazy?
For answer to this question see answer in reply #2 above and below.
This is the last time I am ever going to....
.. speak to you again!
I mean it this time!
and the second time
but this time is for real
not make beleive
like all of the other times
when it happened once
but was yet so real
HI-JACKER!!!!
THE END!
Yes
Considering that current oil production is around 86 million bpd, it's hard to respond to a forecast that oil production will in four years reach a peak of what looks like about 76 million bpd.
As a conservationist and environmentalist, I have to say it's sad how many conservationists and environmentalists want so badly to believe that peak oil will save the world and the human race from itself that they eagerly endorse what are meant to be sensationalized scare stories, but which they take as good news. Oil is getting more expensive to find and produce, but it's not peaking anytime soon. Unless maybe if you believe Timothy Geithner is underestimating the strength of the recovery.
>>
Considering that current oil production is around 86 million bpd, it's hard to respond to a forecast that oil production will in four years reach a peak of what looks like about 76 million bpd.
>>
You have made a very common and easy mistake to make.
Quite a few sources quote "oil + condensate" as "oil". There is a difference between "All liquids" and "crude". The 85ish number is total liquids. Oil is most of this, but not all. About 10 mbpd of it is things like butane and other -anes that are liquid at room temperature.
To make it even more complex, they are called Natural Gas Liquids, which are distinctly different from Liquid Natural Gas. Natural gas, Methane, is liquid only at very cold temps.
Oil is oil, however. Your car won't run on butane.
Coal to liquids and gas to liquids have already powered cars. 18 trillion barrel equivalents if we want to use these other fossil fuels to power cars and we don't mind the smoke. And we will use them if we don't find a cheaper alternative before oil prices skyrockets as it begins to run out.
How many fucking times do you people have to have this shit explained to you?
Google EROI or EROEI. Fucking make peace with this and stop being ignorant.
trav7777, these people worship at the altar of ignorance. If you try to explain to them that 2+2=4, they will try to say that is some kind of conspiracy of intellectuals.
"EROI or the Eastman Rochester Organ Initiative is a project run by the Eastman School of Music with the goal of creating a unique collection of organ instruments in Rochester, New York."
"eROI: Leading interactive & email marketing agency - establishing powerful brands online through email marketing, website design, e-commerce, ..."
I've always been partial to the kidney, myself...I have tons of recordings on my ipod
trav7777 is correct.
Coal to oil conversion has been around for a very long time, And Has Never Scaled.
You can't flip switches and say tomorrow we will do something different. It doesn't work that way. If that pipeline is broken too severely for repair in the midwest, you don't wave your hand and have another get created in a few hours. If you decide you have to bring methane from Titan, you can't wave your hand and make it happen in a few hours (or decades).
If you don't have decades, you're dead. Simple as that. Prepare to die.
There is no physics law of the universe that says you survive. Or that your family survives. Most won't. Period.
This is not political. There is no agenda here crying out for namby pamby environmentalist crap about driving less and "switching to renewables". That's all silliness. The physics of electric cars and electric everything fail. Forget that crap. That stuff is just executives trying to have "executive" on their resume while they burn up the government grant and go try to parlay that resume entry into a real executive job.
Reality is, the odds that anyone reading this will die of natural causes are very small.
No agenda? That's a laugh. The agenda being pushed here is the same as environmentalism, force people to stop consuming. In effect, the agenda is to push poverty in the name of preserving resources for future generations (and, incidently, enriching a few). Like the environmentalists, the resource Malthusians fail to understand that resources run out ALL THE TIME, and it isn't the end of the world. All it means is that we transition to a new resource regime. This might mean some poverty, but humans are good at innovating under difficult circumstances to create things that are better than what their parents had, using less resources.
Christ on a crutch, you won't fucking QUIT, will you?
No matter how many times you have this shoved in your face, you REFUSE to abandon your stupid faith!
Look, moron, shit CANNOT GROW FOREVER. This is a finite world and a finite universe. So long as energy supply grows, what we think of as an economy can. Once net energy supply inflects, which it WILL, growth stops.
A new "resource regime"? Like what? Unicorns? It took THOUSANDS of years to transition from wood to other hydrocarbons.
I'll give you some credit for being astute about restricted energy supply means restricted growth. But are you another "We're all going to die" individual on this board? If so, see you in 2013.
No. I very clearly said life goes on.
We'll die if we have a lot of idiots who run off to do idiotic things when rational thought is what needs to come to the forefront.
For an example, consider Los Angeles, it's food supply, and a five-year horizon. At the start of Year 1 there is enough fuel to provide food to LA per normal. At the end of Year 5, available fuel is reduced by 50%.
1. We can "appropriate" sufficient fuel to bring us back to normal through the use of our military.
2. We can discover new sources of fuel that cost 2 to 3 times as much to harvest as they do now. Cost of things produced with fuel will rise accordingly.
3. We can (LA-specific) leave the available fuel reduced by 50% and simply increase the price of the food that is delivered to LA (takes fuel to produce and deliver the food). And reduce food deliveries to 50% of normal.
Point 1 conceivable would leave the availability and cost of food in LA approximately where it is. But folks would die in carrying out Point 1. In Points 2 & 3, food would be priced higher than some (many?) folks could afford in LA. Some folks would leave. Some folks would riot and kill others. Now multiply this by other sizable cities.
It is true that we are not all going to die as the supply of oil dwindles. But under the thought experiment proposed here, a significant number of us might.
So, this is all it comes down to, denial about the sure discontiuance of fossil fuels because some people believe that there will eventually be population reduction?
Stuff your head further into the sand, or wherever else it is that it's stuck, as clearly you don't have a clue, or are to afraid to acknowledge reality.
Ha ha... "Raging Debate," some name given that you exhibit exactly NO ability to debate (which requires back and forth about points and facts).
Enough with the childish label flinging and let's get down to facts and logic. The "we'll just tranistion to the not-yet-existent 'resource regime'" hopium logic just won't cut it.
"resources run out ALL THE TIME, and it isn't the end of the world"
um when was the last time the world ran out of oil, fertilizer, arable land, uncontaminated fresh water? please clarify what you mean by "run out" and what you define as "poverty" from using less resources. is not going on a cruise ship for two weeks every year poverty? is not flying on jets poverty?
I would say "run out" is when demand outstrips supply for an extend period.
our innovations have (nearly) all been about using more resources per person than previous generations, not less.
Logically I know you are right "Reality is, the odds that anyone reading this will die of natural causes are very small" however, I still have not come to grips with the reality of it. I prepare and in the back of my mind I doubt it will matter.
>>
Logically I know you are right "Reality is, the odds that anyone reading this will die of natural causes are very small" however, I still have not come to grips with the reality of it. I prepare and in the back of my mind I doubt it will matter.
>>
Exactly. That's why there is no agenda to restrict consumption. Consume all you want. It's not going to matter. Behave any way you want. It's not going to matter.
My personal fave among the rebuttals is "There once was no oil being used in society and people lived their lives just fine, and so will we."
I just agree. "Yes, you're correct. 1 billion people lived those lives without oil. About 1 billion will again. Soon."
So what sort of time frames are we talking about here? The few that I've heard thrown about basically state we're screwed within a couple of generations. Good fun while it lasted.
>>
So what sort of time frames are we talking about here? The few that I've heard thrown about basically state we're screwed within a couple of generations. Good fun while it lasted.
>>
Time frame til what? Until the oil reserves under the ground are 0? That will be infinite on the calendar. All of it will never be extracted.
Until, and This Is Critical, some particular someone does not get their order for oil filled? Until some country needs oil to ship food from point A to point B, but some other country outbid them? That's just around the corner.
When it's clear that there are XXXXX barrels available per year and YYYYY barrels of demand (and YYYYYY is greater than XXXXX), I can assure you with 100% confidence that China is not going to decide that the US must continue to have a disproportionate share.
If there's less oil than is demanded, and if someone isn't getting it when they place their order, then the obvious solution will be to suppress demand -- of someone else. You can do that by destroying their highways (if you're squeamish about doing their cities instead).
OK we are all going to die that is readin this and we are all idiots to boot for not recognizing that. I can already convert certain bio matter to fuel in my own town. What do you think all of those billions of people are going to do with their time? Continue considering how to immediately die? My numbers put the death toll of a WWIII event and collapse of society at 35%.
But we're all idiots and are going to die anyways in your book so I guess I will just commit suicide now instead of further preparing to make sure I am not one of the 35%.
"I guess I will just commit suicide now"
Now, now... please don't start giving us hope.
Okay, Crash is right, 86 mbpd is not all oil, and actual oil production is around 73 mbpd. So Scientific American thinks we can only increase crude oil output by another roughly 3 mbpd, and that will be the peak. The industry thinks it will grow output by around 4 mbpd by 2014, after many projects have been delayed due to lower than forecast demand due to the crisis.
Actually there's a very good reason why the oil and gas industry counts NGLs et al as oil: liquid hydrocarbon fuels is for them all one big market. The composition of raw materials and final products adapts according to whatever is most cost-effective to produce, process and use, accounting for all conditions including political meddling.
Well NASA looks like you need to get with it. No more love triangles or outreaching. Instead get that Asteroid Mining program going stat so that future generations can have flat screens.
Ironic Fight Club quote time:
"In the world I see - you are stalking elk through the damp canyon forests around the ruins of Rockefeller Center. You'll wear leather clothes that will last you the rest of your life. You'll climb the wrist-thick kudzu vines that wrap the Sears Tower. And when you look down, you'll see tiny figures pounding corn, laying strips of venison on the empty car pool lane of some abandoned superhighway."
For you younguns who don't remember the 70's, the last time the world's resources were considered finite, we had such Malthusian cinematic gems as "Rollerball", "Logan's Run", and the classic "Soylent Green". I guess you could throw a "Mad Max" movie in the mix also.
What bring humanity's doom in today's movies? Vampires, zombies, and aliens, or a DoD project gone haywire (Skynet included), and one really dumb movie about climate change freezing NYC.
They were ahead of their time, its just what we will pay for resources that will change dramatically, the masses will be rationed.
I've got one for you - The Last Chase - 1981 lol
"It is the future. Evil fascists have forced everyone to recycle and drive electric cars, and have oppressed all those poor people who want to drive Ferraris and smoke cigarettes. Hero Lee Majors, an ex-racing car driver, decides to make a statement by pulling out his old race car and driving cross-country at 150 mph (he siphons gas from old gas station pumps)."
Red Barchetta by the band Rush comes to mind.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=epr144KsKGI
duo,
and we can not forget the sainted Carl Sagan, who came to the same conclusions we see here from exactly the opposite set of data. Even made the cover of Time magazine, back when people actually read the thing.
- Ned
(of course, there are those who say "if you remember the '70's, then you weren't there.)
We should pray that the globe warms- this "climate change will cause food shortages" is only true if the growing season is shortened, i.e. the planet cools. Warmer temperatures and more CO2 = GOOD FOR PLANTS!
Full disclosure - I am a climate-change skeptic, flat-earther, holocaust denier, etc, etc, etc
I think the idea of running out of water is a fallacy....The amount of fresh water hasn't changed since the begining of the earth...We will desalinate....Storms forming over the oceans don't rain salt water, but drinkable water.....
You may be correct that the amount of fresh water is relatively stable, although there are significant swings with the ebb and flow of ice ages, but the point you are missing is that now, and in the future, you can't just grab a bucket from the nearest river. The 'fresh' water must be filtered, treated, and purified to make it potable. This takes energy.
Do you have any idea how energy intensive the desalination process is ?
PRODUCTION RATE, moron!
This is a PERFECT thought exercise for you to go through to understand Peak Theory.
Water is immutable, but the reserves of water are IRRELEVANT. What matters is the RATE at which water can be produced for consumption.
Surely you can see that desalination is not energy-costless, right?
If you don't live near the Great Lakes, you could run out of water.
"By 2050 counteracting the ill effects of climate change on nutrition will cost more than $7 billion a year.
...
Artificial Lack has been pumped at humanity for some time -- soon the air itself will be endangered... ooooh, won't have enough of that! No, what Humanity will have to deal with in 2050 is all the genetic garbage being created as "some" humans in their Darwinian Socialistic Stupor are putting into "natural" genetic chains. Example, Franken Salmon -- with genes spliced in from other life forms -- which grows stronger than "natural" salmon and soon the ocean if full of Franken Salmon!
This same puke agi-propaganda is put out about how humans can (and should) be upgraded cause God (which to us psycho Social Darwinist's doesn't exist) didn't really do it well enough -- so we have to tweak it -- splice pig genes into rabbits and hope for the best! (puke)
No, humanity in 2050 will be contending with the lovely D.U. dust and various other toxic spew put forth from unsettled and highly unprincipled mad scientists. We can split a Uranium atom but can't seem to split Hydrogen and Oxygen long enough to make a fuel our of it -- but no -- a 28 year old scientist can blow his factory up whilst investigating water fuel -- and yet -- "nothing to see here sonny -- buy your petrol."
When people of 2050 look back they will be studying the psycho pathic tendencies of the dark ages we are now living in so as to never make those mistakes again. With their atmospheric water generators and other such inventions -- they will be fine.
Humanity as whole seems to suffer when crazy people fear the future and do stupid shit. D.U. is stupid shit with a half life of a billion years. Its not the lack of Nature in the future which haunts the human Family, its the abundance of crack pot nut bags who see fit to give Nature upgrades which are designed for the the prime purpose of putting a "meter box on it."
Fear of Lack -- the pathway to the Darkside.
Solution: fear no agitation propaganda
You ACTUALLY believe that we can use water as a positive EROI fuel...GFD.
Why not just believe in fucking Leprechauns?
Those pesky laws of physics...you people do not even grasp how stupid you sound to somebody educated.
Man, I have not seen a more poignant demonstration of the Downing Effect in my life.
Relax dude!! Ignorant investors create opportunity for us to cash in!!
I don't want investors to understand "peak oil." I want them to listen to Exxon's pitch that there are virtually limitless hydrocarbons in the earth's crust (which is true) but I don't want them to understand how uneconomic it will be to extract those "limitless" deposits at anything like current prices.
So what caused the dude's lab to blow up? You didn't glean my point: If there is enough energy in "some" part of the hydrogen oxygen split (admit my friend, that those two without a bond ARE explosive as a combo) then what blew his lab up? Something of power there to be sure. 2050 - 2010 = 40 years. Again, if some hopped up mad man can un bond a Uranium atom why not a water atom? And not to play into your game of ignorance the very essence of this Nobel Prize turns much of the Maxwellian Newtonian physics on its head:
http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1957/press.html
Its okay, we are grateful for your generation showing us what "not" to do in the future... And to stoop to your level of brute criticism is not needed as I am sure you can wrap your mind around the "future" ramifications of broken symmetry as an interesting modification of so called "laws" of physics. The truth is there is always another innovation (40 years is a long time) waiting around the corner to make silly all these "fear of lack" concepts strewn around like the daily superstition. One thing for sure -- if its 40 years or 400 years there will come a time when we are no longer "burning" stuff to get energy...
Do you run your own economy on basis of "yet undiscovered income"?
+1000