After oil supplies dry up, what's Plan B?

[4dsc]

Of course we don't have a plan B. Too many people still in denial and many more don't even know whats going to hit them in the next decade!



But long before oil actually runs out, economists and energy analysts warn that extreme scarcity will cause prices to soar so high that it will no longer be feasible to use petroleum on a wide scale. It is the imminence of this supply-demand shortfall that has people like National Petroleum Council member Matthew Simmons and Reps. Roscoe Bartlett, R-Md., and Tom Udall, D-N.M., worried - very worried - about our economy's ability to withstand the end of oil.

Cheap and plentiful oil is the foundation of our economy. Everything from food production and distribution to the manufacture of clothing, footwear, medications and plastic goods relies heavily on petroleum. You name it, and we need oil to produce it, ship it and, in many cases, run it.

In February, the U.S. Government Accountability Office dropped a quiet little bombshell: a report on peak oil concluding that there is an urgent need for a swift, coordinated government strategy to assess and develop alternative energy technologies to avert "severe economic damage."

The agency concluded: "(T)he United States, as the largest consumer of oil and one of the nations most heavily dependent on oil for transportation, may be especially vulnerable among the industrialized nations of the world." Stark though its conclusion is, the GAO may in fact be understating the gravity of the situation.

The report followed on the heels of a 2005 peak oil risk management report commissioned by the Department of Energy, which warned of the "extremely damaging" and "chaotic" impacts that will ensue if "intensive," "aggressive" and "expensive" mitigation measures are not put in place at least 10 years ahead of time. Both reports landed with a dull thud and have been dutifully ignored. In other words, there is no Plan B.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2007/08/26/INF7RM3OC.DTL

[phantom power]

1. Based on my experience, most people seem to think "plan B" is biofuels.

I'm pretty sure people are going to find the future very disappointing.

[MADem]

12. Well, don't forget all that oil under the artic circle--it wasn't for nuttin' that Putin sent a sub

to plant a flag up there. He was sending a signal that when that shit melts, he wants what is under it....but don't forget, as I said downthread, cough/choke, coal liquefaction, and propane to run cars....

[Fovea]

2. a 50% reduction in world population

hitting the industrialized nations hardest.

[Deja Q]

5. In other words,

the "real" reason for offshoring?

:tinfoilhat:

I doubt it. England, Canada, and Europe aren't being remotely so badly hit.

[Fovea]

17. The point was

that in industrialized societies, even the agriculture is oil dependent.

If we had a 19th Century agriculture, we would be far less affected by an oil shock.
But every aspect of 21st century life is oil dependent. The true 'third world' economies, where agriculture is
traditional and sustainable may have a far smaller mortality wave when energy and chem feedstocks become the critical cost of production.


The real reason for offshoring is to destroy the value of labor domestically, as at least in IT, offshoring is not a big success story.
But man has it dropped the value of a programmer here in the US.

The so called green revolution of the fifties and sixties put us in this pickle. And we will have a brutal time getting back to sustainable agriculture.
And by sustainable, I do not mean to imply that it will sustain the current world population. Really, that is the dismal core of my argument.

[One_Life_To_Give]

27. More like 90% reduction in Human Population

Hitting those earning under $2000/yr hardest.

[Deja Q]

3. I disagree.

I've seen more home communities being built, with local stores and other items built in. Which also includes gas stations, but if hydrogen, ethanol, or other fuels becomes a reality it'd be easy to retrofit everything.

Somewhere, somehow, someone is thinking. But only to a certain extent. Which is more feasible than thinking outlandish and impossible things. (After all, railway hasn't been totally abandoned...)

Didn't some news agency recently say China has already overtaken the US?

And most of the US' usage comes from driving anyway. Recursion; this goes back to ethanol, walking, biking, cargo rail transit, and other means.

[lakeguy]

8. ethanol won't cut it...

not with a near 1:1 eroei, energy return on energy invested. what did oil start out at, 30:1? the only way we come close to reducing demand is with electrified mass transit.

[Strelnikov_]

30. More like 100:1 at the beginning of the oil age

Spindletop and his brethren made for some damn cheap go-juice.

[Jim__]

4. That well may be the real reason we're in Iraq.

Back in the 70's, Jimmy Carter started a government program to find alternative energy sources. When dumbo came to power in '81, he cancelled that program.

[Deja Q]

6. Context of the time.

No, not a bright thing to do. But the technology for solar and other means was nowhere near as possible as it is now.

Especially with the multitude of news sources popping up vast improvements in solar, processor, and other technologies.

We MIGHT have reason to fear for the long run.

And maybe we MIGHT NOT.

[valerief]

7. Our govt is preparing us to look forward to magic beans next.

Stop thinking so much. Watch wrestling on teevee.

"Junior, stop bothering me now while I listen to Preacher Keepyerheadupyerass on teevee. Go eat another stick of butter and play with your automatic rifles."

This is the Merka of our future.

[Double T]

9. The out of control ever increasing world population will deal with the oil problem........

with our own self induced extinction. No oil, No people, No Problem; the earth will have another 100 million years to regenerate and re-evolve another selfish human like creature.

[frogcycle]

15. That's the most likely scenario

whether lack of oil or the climate change starts wiping people out comes first is tbd - but the madness cannot go on forever. Some of the densest-population areas are also the poorest, and when they have nothing to live on but what they can obtain as hunter-gatherers, it won't be disease that starts exterminating people, it will be rampant extermination of the competition.

As the situation gets worse, that will spread. Civilization is really a very thin veneer - humans can turn to vicious animals - hyenas fighting over the last scrap - in an eyeblink.

Probably not extinction, but a real serious downsizing. Our dominance of the planet will be much shorter than that of the dinosaurs.

[mike_c]

10. shivering in the cold and dark....

The way people did for most of the last few millenia.

[MADem]

11. Coal liquefaction, and cars that run on PROPANE, like in Europe!!

Get used to more pollution and more mine disasters, perhaps...?

Until someone invents the BACK TO THE FUTURE car that runs on nuke power and garbage....!

[frogcycle]

13. all the alternative sources combined

will not suffice without dramatic breakthroughs in technology. As well, of course, as massive increases in production capability.

Downsizing consumption is mandatory. We have far too much, both people and goods, being moved around inefficiently. The daily commuter-jam to/from big cities is absurd. The number of coast-to-coast 18-wheelers is absurd. The amount of light blasted into space all night long is absurd. And on and on. Life will change dramatically, and the sooner we get people to accept it and start doing something about it, the less impact the "crunch" will have.

100 years from now the world will NOT be "the same only more-so". The love affair with the automobile will have come and gone. Commutes will NOT have become longer and longer. Houses will NOT have become bigger and bigger, requiring absurd amounts of energy to heat and cool for 4 or 5 people. It cannot happen, because the oil bath will end, and there is no viable replacement in the same quantities. The only hypothetical ones are coal and nuclear. If we burn that much more coal we'd accelerate climate change to the point that world economy would be destroyed, and we'd be in the damned stone age (aside from destroying much of the environment). It is not feasible to build that many nuclear plants in time to pick up the slack (disregarding all other arguments against them).

The marketplace will drive it one way or the other. Cost of oil (and lack of) will cause conservation and development of alternative methods to get things done. It can be terribly painful, or it can be proactive.

[Delphinus]

21. We would also accelerate the end of coal.

Exponential growth is the term (IIRC) from an interview of Professor Albert Bartlett (no relation to Roscoe), University of Colorado (Boulder?).

[cornfedyank]

14. clubs and spears n/t

[skids]

16. The price spike is one of the only things that gives me hope...

...not that I have much hope.

Most people won't conserve or look to renewables until they are pretty much forced to. That would force them to. Yes the economy will be a wreck, and there's good chances for a dieoff and of course yet more war, but at least with price spikes we don't have a "sudden death" scenario where we go from "normal" to starvation in under a year. It's a little extra time for those who should already be reacting to react and do something to ameliorate what will no doubt be horrible consequences.

[losthills]

18. It'll work itself out.

Everything that we use oil for can be done better with alternatives. The tools are already at hand. It's true that we have stupidly allowed our whole civilization to be run by the stuff, but oil is not essential for survival or civilization.

We will not run out of oil overnight. What will happen is that it will slowly become more and more expensive, and as it does the alternatives will become more appealing. We will wean ourselves off of oil as the price of it increases, and we will be better off for having done so.

If we took Global Warming seriously enough we would, and should be phasing out our dependence on oil now, but I don't see it happening and I don't expect to until basic economics kicks in...

[Delphinus]

22. You have more faith in human-kind than I do.

I agree that we will be better off after weaning ourselves off, but I don't see humanity doing it willingly or without a lot of conflict.

[frogcycle]

23. no, I don't think so

it may work itself out, but not in as placid a way as you describe. More like the overpopulation of Pompeii "worked itself out"

[Subdivisions]

32. If we already have better alternatives for everything we use

oil for, then why aren't we?

[4dsc]

33. There's no alternative to oil!!

We live in an oil based society and our economy depend's upon oil..

But I too would be interested in knowing what is going to replace oil in his/her mind.. Please do tell us your plans..

[Trillo]

19. Bussard and or Seward?

both Bussard's Fusion and Seward's Clean-Energy Tube™ look interesting. With Bussard, since he's 79, time would seem to be critical. Seems like there's been a lot of deliberate stalling of his research.

I don't have the technical knowledge to determine if there's something valid in either inventors processes but I do get ticked when The Powers That Be's actions seem designed to insure the continuation of oil as primary energy sold, simply because it seems really stupid in a post peakoil world.

[NNadir]

20. The plan is coal liquefaction.

It will be a disaster of unbelievable scale, but dangerous fossil fuels are already a disaster of unbelievable scale.

People couldn't care less.

It doesn't have to be this way. The oil fetish and fears around it are self perpetuating. There is in fact, nothing particularly special or necessary about oil, but the illusion that it is so has been paralytic.

At this point very little can be done than accept the tragedy we chose because we were listening to silly mystics rather than make sober rational choices.

[razzleberry]

24. don't ignore biodiesel

vast tracts of land could
be converted to
palm oil and jatropha

[AdHocSolver]

25. The corporations got us in this mess. We need to elect a government that will get us out.

Back around 1912, Thomas Edison and Henry Ford had plans to develop an all-electric vehicle that you could recharge by plugging it into your house electrical outlet. Edison was designing the car in his laboratory complex and Ford was going to build it in his factory. Electric cars were popular back then, because they were non-polluting and quiet, compared to internal combustion engine powered cars. Unfortunately, a mysterious fire destroyed Edison's laboratory, and put an end to the venture.

Up until the early 1950's, trains and electric trolley cars were widely used for transportation in the U.S. Then, a push for privatization of transportation ensued. Municipalities around the country began selling off their trolley cars and light rail systems to private corporations, which immediately tore up the tracks and destroyed the rail cars. It seems that many of these private transportation companies were financed secretly by General Motors Corporation.

You can read about these and other interesting events in Edwin Black's book, "Internal Combustion".

Back around the mid-1970's, after the so-called Arab oil embargo, the government mandated fuel efficiency standards. Within five years, cars were getting much better gas mileage, since the auto companies were fined for cars that they sold that couldn't meet the mandate. Within a few years, oil imports dropped by some 25 percent. Our Republican presidents gutted those laws that imposed the mandates. The only way to stop the squandering of oil is to impose new mandates with teeth on all cars and trucks to improve fuel efficiency. The technology exists today to improve gas mileage for all vehicles by 25 percent or more within five years. The auto companies will not do this on their own. They need to have incentives. This technology can be implemented with little increase in cost to the consumer.

In the long term, using bio-fuels, ethanol, or hydrogen fuel cells will get you nothing. Any technology that relies on internal combustion engines as the main driving source will deplete our oil supplies, be expensive, and keep us totally dependent on the oil companies. Besides the fact that fuel cell technology is years away from practicality, you will still have to go to an oil company "gas" station and pay, maybe $4.00 a pound for hydrogen that will get you the equivalent of 10 MPG. And, you will still be putting out pollution and greenhouse gases, maybe less than now, but still more than desirable.

The only sane and effective way to solve this dilemma is to reduce demand and usage of oil. Oil is necessary for the manufacture of plastics, chemicals, medicines, and food. Burning it up in cars at the rate we do now (which is totally unnecessary and done only to create profit for the oil companies) is insanity. The depletion of oil will cause the price of everything you buy to go up. The price of milk is going up now because of the use of ethanol made from corn in gasoline. Why? Because the oil companies are driving up the cost of corn used to feed dairy cows. Very soon the cost of baked goods, soft drinks, and candy (all made with corn syrup) is going to rise as well.

The technology exists today to produce vehicles that produce little pollution and get the equivalent of 40 to 100 MPG (depending on size and weight). Economies of scale can bring production costs in line with the costs of current vehicles. The cost of maintenance would be far less than with internal combustion engine cars. No regular oil changes or tune-ups. No expensive gas-wasting transmissions. This technology is the plug-in electric, and hybrid electric vehicles. During the 1990's, General Motors produced electric vehicles named EV-1 and EV-2, which were test driven in California. The development was mandated by a zero-emission law set up by that state. The test drivers loved the car and many of them asked to purchase these vehicles. GM's response was to recall the cars and destroy them. Then GM put out publicity statements that the cars were "impractical" and that no one would buy them (an obvious lie). Check out the movie "Who Killed the Electric Car".

Besides mandating fuel efficiency standards, the other policy that our government needs to implement is to divert some of the money now spent on enlarging the expressways into expanding and improving mass transit such as trains and light rail. A train carrying 500 passengers between two cities that are 400 miles apart could save thousands of gallons of fuel compared to those same people riding the same distance in their SUV's, two to a vehicle.

[depakid]

26. Nice to see articles like this in mainstream papers

Even if it's the SF Chron.

This is also promising (or at least- some communities are taking the issues seriously).

Small but growing numbers of municipalities are initiating a process that federal and state leaders should have begun 30 years ago, when domestic oil reserves peaked. They are, in short, figuring out Plan B.

In May, Oakland appointed an Oil Independent Oakland by 2020 Task Force. In June 2006, Portland, Ore., formed its own Peak Oil Task Force, which got busy fast: By March of this year, it had released its first major report, urging the city to "act big, act now," even without further study or analysis. The report prompted the city to pass a resolution to accelerate oil and gas conservation measures to halve Portland's fossil fuel consumption.

Here's the report: http://www.portlandonline.com/osd/index.cfm?c=ecije

Last year, San Francisco passed a resolution to assess the city's vulnerability to oil depletion and to develop a transition plan. Other cities, from Austin, Texas, to Bloomington, Ind., are confronting the stark reality and trying their best to figure out how to soften the blow.

[kestrel91316]

28. Everything is under control. Plan B is The Rapture.

Now run along.

[Strelnikov_]

29. ..

[Pooka Fey]

31. Plan B = Bring Out Yer Dead