Skip to main content

View Diary: Peak oil: BP, Conoco and IEA all say it's there (299 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  what's striking (21+ / 0-)

    is that oil sand were supposed to be profitable at 25$/bl 4 years ago (when oil was at $30), then at 50$/bl two years ago (when oil reached$60), and now it's 80$/bl??

    That strongly suggests that oil sands production costs reflect the fact that they need massive energy input to be produced, and thus their cost increases as that of their main input does. In other word, they have a mediocre ERoEI (energy return on energy invested).

    •  ERoEI is the main point most people don't (10+ / 0-)

      get.  You can still have ethanol, shale oil, windmills, solar panels, etc -- but the energy to manufacture a lot of those sorts of alternative energy sources currently relies on oil, and the ERoEI is not so impressive.  Put another way, there's no easy way out of oil usage (at least not yet envisaged -- and not likely to be found, according to most).  

      As an Iraqi-American academic born and raised in New Orleans, this voter is not pleased.

      by naltikriti on Sat Nov 10, 2007 at 12:07:28 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  The energy to produce windmills (9+ / 0-)

        The energy to produce windmills, and to a lesser extent solar panels, is proportional to the capacity. IE 1W costs a certain amount of petrol. They basically keep turning and generating electricity for ever (over 30 years) with almost no intervention, at least as a percentage of energy produced.
        The energy to produce energy from tar sands and other expensive fossil fuel is proportional to the output. IE 1W.h costs a certain amount of petrol.

        •  Yes, (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Hardhat Democrat

          actually, producing electricity isn't the problem. solar, wind, geo-thermal, and other alternatives can really make a difference. The problems that maybe intractable are transportation and agriculture. It is estimated that it takes 10 calories of petro chemical energy to produce 1 calorie of energy in the form of food. Without incredibly cheap oil (which is what hitting the peak means), how long do you suppose that will be sustainable?

          •  Meat is going to get very expensive. n/t (0+ / 0-)

            "It was believed afterward that the man was a lunatic, because there was no sense in what he said." "The War Prayer" by Mark Twain

            by Quanta on Sat Nov 10, 2007 at 01:25:05 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  Correct, but that's only because... (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            pletzs, naltikriti

            we've turned away from sustainable agricultural methods, and turned 'food production' into a giant petrochemical reliant 'industry' centered on giant monocultural fields and CAFO's.

            A return to local and sustainable methods of agriculture will lower that ratio significantly.  I'm no expert on this issue and do not have exact numbers, but we do have the entire history of humankind prior to the last 50 years or so to back up that point.  

            Prior to Cargill and Tyson and ADM, etc... turning agriculture into 'agribiz', and prior to the ridiculous amounts of chemicals now being sprayed on our food and land (which also seep into our water...) and the ridiculousness of shipping 'fresh produce' on trucks from Southern California to Maine and North Dakota, etc... year-round; humans always had enough to feed themselves.

            •  Well, yes, but... (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Hardhat Democrat

              the ability of humankind to support something like 6 billion individuals should not have been possible prior to industrialized agriculture (although I'm no expert either).  This is to say there's a population implosion potentially out there on the horizon -- and we should all hope to survive that contraction in food supplies.

              As an Iraqi-American academic born and raised in New Orleans, this voter is not pleased.

              by naltikriti on Sat Nov 10, 2007 at 04:45:07 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  But see, that's another misconception.... (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:

                that the only way we can continue to feed ourselves is via 'industrial methods' of agriculture...

                Again, I wish I had hard numbers and expertise on my side, but it's never been proven that industrial methods of agriculture are any more 'productive' than sustainable (organic, etc...) methods, except for possibly in terms of sickening us and poisoning our environment.  Industrial 'agribiz' is clearly a leader there....

                As a matter of fact, if we do keep eating our industrial diet, that just may be the solution to overpopulation - with it's attendant diseases (mad cow, diabetes, etc...).  Our diet is killing us.

                This is actually one issue related to our (many...) current problems that I'm not pessimistic about, although that may just be because I live in Portland, OR...

                Ideas like this being spread across the country, along with the recent rise in Farmers Markets, etc... do give me hope.  I do wish we hadn't turned such a large amount of productive agricultural land in the US into suburban and exurban developments, though....

                •  Well, perhaps, but... (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Hardhat Democrat

                  I can't imagine a situation in a post-oil world where populations concentrated in cities like Mexico City, Cairo, NYC, Istanbul, Shanghai, etc are going to be able to maintain that kind of concentration while gardening their own food.  If you have to rely on what animal and wind power can provide, you're limited to local agriculture by definition.  In such a scenario, I see a lot of mega cities not just dispersing, but dieing.  

                  Industrial agriculture certainly makes us sick, but it also allows for the possibility of billions more of us getting sick together...

                  As an Iraqi-American academic born and raised in New Orleans, this voter is not pleased.

                  by naltikriti on Sat Nov 10, 2007 at 05:13:01 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Well, mega-cities are a different issue.... (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    naltikriti, yoduuuh do or do not

                    I agree there, too - although I'd exclude NYC from that list - NYC is still within a reasonable distance of productive agricultural land on all sides, in Upstate NY, NJ, CT, even within the city itself....the sprawl surrounding NYC has certainly taken a toll on same, but not a deadly one, I'd say....

                    I do agree about Cairo, Dubai, cities in China and India, etc... Those places never had such populations until just recently, when certain (very short-term) regional-specific externalities allowed same (cheap labor and outsourced production in China and India; Oil in Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, etc....).

                    I wouldn't include NYC, Philly, Chicago or Detroit in the same boat as those places, though.

                •  I did read somewhere recently that it is much (4+ / 0-)

                  more efficient to grow food locally and use the old methods of rotating a variety of crops and allowing the pigs and chickens to root and fertilize. Maybe it was in the book by Jane Goddall et. a. entitled Harvest for Hope. Trucking food across country in refrigerated trucks doesn't keep it fresher longer. I tried some carrots from a nearby grower at a Whole Foods on both sides of the continent. The ones that had been shipped had a very short freshness "lifespan," and were added to the landfill (I didn't have a compost pile at that end).

                  We'd be a lot better off with fresher, non-pesticide laden food. I have never gotten so many positive compliments about my appearance as I have in the past few months when I've eaten most vegetarian and mostly from farmer's markets (organic or pesticide-free). I feel healthier as well, and always considered myself as a healthful eater, at least compared to what I see in others' shopping carts.

                  One recent study (wherever it was) showed progress with individuals overcoming insulin resistance (one of the major problems of having too much subsidized junk food) when people ate a whole foods diet of fruit, nuts, grains, vegetables, something closer to what humans evolved to eat.

                  We can eat much better using much less energy by eating locally and using meat as a condiment/side dish. Having meat products every meal and everyday isn't something humans have always done. Factory farming allows the mass production of meat at a great cost to the environment and our health, even if we ignore the suffering of animals in feed lots and chickens raised stacked in crates whose beats are snipped off to facilitate close-quarters. The lives of pigs in factory farms is even worse for all concerned, so I've removed pork from my diet.

                  Not having access to air and sunlight and being shot up with hormones (to increase weight) and antibiotics because of crowded condition doesn't produce the most savory meat. I wonder how nutritious an egg is if the hen has never been outside and her feed contains arsenic (a common additive). Cattle evolved to eat grass, not subsidized corn, and have a host of medical problems because of this and the crowding in feedlots. Our coal-fired power plants have added mercury to the oceans and streams so that someone eating a fish from a river in Oregon is ingesting mercury from a coal plant in China.  Low cost stuff has its higher costs.

                •  Not really true, unfortunately (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:

                  When I was growing up in central Illinois in the 1950's and 1960's, 100 bushels of corn per acre was considered a pretty good yield on some of the most productive corn-growing land in the world.  

                  I couldn't quickly find present average yields for central Illinois, but the average for the entire state is now 164 bushels per acre, and that includes a lot of much less productive land in the northern and southern portions of the state.

                  There's a chart in this article that shows the increase in average corn yields in Indiana from 1930 to 2003, and it's a pretty dramatic upward trend from less than 30 bushels to more than 140 bushels.  

                  "Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither liberty nor security." -Ben Franklin

                  by leevank on Sat Nov 10, 2007 at 08:21:28 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  But that is not for human consumption... (0+ / 0-)

                    those giant monocultural fields are growing 'field corn' used to fatten up cows (who are not meant to eat corn...) on factory farms, and for other wasteful purposes and viewed as 'inputs' into an industrial agricultural system - not to mention the poisonous, irreversible destructive effects on the land of all the chemicals used in growing same, and the reliance upon cheap fossil fuels to truck that stuff to points all over the country.

                    There are many other factors to consider here besides 'corn yields'.  And even if we were to just focus on those numbers, even they won't be possible to sustain for much longer.

        •  Thank you for correcting him (0+ / 0-)

          His complete pessemism is wearing on me.  Windmills and solar pannels last a long time with minimal maintanence.  Things always need to be repaired or replaced but in the long run they are very efficient.  The problem the technology has is that in the short term it is expensive.

          Also, the fact that technology is improving needs to be kept in mind.  naltikriti says most don't think the problems we have will be solved.  Who that most is supposed to be I don't know but solar and ethenol technology are improving.  It isn't as fast as many of us would like but there is no need to think that we are doomed.

          We are faced with a dificult long term problem and we have waited to long to address it.  So now it is looming over us and appears unconquerable, but if we address the problem rationally and work it out step by step it is something that we can deal with.  We need radical change to occur in our mindset to do this but as things like peak oil and global warming get worse reality will be forced upon us.

          "It was believed afterward that the man was a lunatic, because there was no sense in what he said." "The War Prayer" by Mark Twain

          by Quanta on Sat Nov 10, 2007 at 01:23:47 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  We should call it ER/ EI (4+ / 0-)

        it's actually a fraction.

        "Imagine all the people/ Sharing all the world" -- John Lennon

        by Cassiodorus on Sat Nov 10, 2007 at 12:28:13 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Or (3+ / 0-)

      It means that investment costs for equipment and construction are pretty much tied to the cost of energy (which they are).

    •  The moonscape it will create... (8+ / 0-)

      in Alberta, Canada by it's extraction is also causing opposition from Canadians in addition to any costs involved in extracting the oil sands. This picture sums up the reality that skinning the Earth for resources/profit results in there.

      Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket

      So who will come to save the day? Mighty Mouse? Superman? Bad dreams are good in the great plan... Joni Mitchell

      by codigo rojo on Sat Nov 10, 2007 at 12:57:18 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site