Surviving the End of the Oil Age

Mike_C · 26-01-2006 4:57pm #1

I was at a very interesting a thought provoking lecture last night in UCC on the topic of Permaculture. As it was an introduction to the course the lecturer outlined why we needed to reduce our high energy demand.

Mother nature laid down approximately 2 trillion barrels of oil over 90 million years ago. In less than 150 years we have consumed 1 trillion barrels of this natural resource. Globally we are consuming oil at a rate of 84 million barrels a year, using simple math that means we have less than 50 years supply left! Thats assuming our oil addition remains constant.

My questions are 1) how does this money conscious forum see our energy guzzling world survive the END OF THE OIL AGE
2) what price must oil/gas reach so that fossilfuels are no longer a viable home heating option
3) are the alternatives likely to produce enough energy to meet our current fuel demands

I hope this is the right forum to discuss this issue

jhegarty · 26-01-2006 5:07pm

Mike_C wrote:

I was at a very interesting a thought provoking lecture last night in UCC on the topic of Permaculture. As it was an introduction to the course the lecturer outlined why we needed to reduce our high energy demand.

Mother nature laid down approximately 2 trillion barrels of oil over 90 million years ago. In less than 150 years we have consumed 1 trillion barrels of this natural resource. Globally we are consuming oil at a rate of 84 million barrels a year, using simple math that means we have less than 50 years supply left! Thats assuming our oil addition remains constant.

My questions are 1) how does this money conscious forum see our energy guzzling world survive the END OF THE OIL AGE
2) what price must oil/gas reach so that fossilfuels are no longer a viable home heating option
3) are the alternatives likely to produce enough energy to meet our current fuel demands

I hope this is the right forum to discuss this issue

i better duck after saying this....

the only option i see for the long term is nuclear power...

Mike_C · 26-01-2006 5:33pm

No, nuclear is a global option but in Ireland, with the whole sellafield thing its not really a goer . Also it would take too long for it to be planned, objected to, bankrolled etc however we may have to plug into sellafield some cold day

quattfa3 · 26-01-2006 7:58pm

I agree with jhegarty.

Nuclear power should be touted by politicians, the science adds up, but the irrational public backlash prevents anyone from putting their head above the parapet.

You might be interested in reading "The End of Oil" by Paul Roberts. He gives detailed insight into an array of energy options but he summarily dismisses nuclear power as a politically unappealing and non-renewable. It is an unfortunate bias in an otherwise fairly balanced book.

The Irish Times has seen a string of letters recently on the subject of nuclear power. These are in response to some articles written by Prof William Reville from UCC on a UN report on the Chernobyl "disaster". It's an interesting spat between scientific integrity and emotive, but misplaced, sentimentality. On a scarier note one of the participants in this "debate" is Adi Roche, a woman who has done fantastic charity work but cannot accept the considered study of hundreds of scientists. This is a woman who ran for the office of Uachtarán na hÉireann!

Worth a goo to get an insight into this mentality is The Perception of Risk by Paul Slovic.

I disagree with your assertion (MikeC) that Ireland will never go nuclear (with one proviso: Ireland imports energy, like we export waste). "When" is the question, and the answer is going to come when people start seeing power cuts or price hikes. These inconveniences, when they come will broaden horizons.

There are vast stores of hydrocarbons left to be exploited but the environment cannot take it. If we truly want a sustainable future we should lobby our representatives and face up to a nuclear future (until some non polluting, dependable and economically acceptable alternative is developed).

What's the name of your course and who's lecturing on it?

Mike_C · 26-01-2006 10:32pm

The course is Permacultue:design for sustainable living, its a 10 week introductory course given by Graham Strouts.

I agree that nuclear power is probably one of the best potential energy sources for the future although it also being a finite resource, but Ireland will be in the dark long before the environmental, ecological and NIMBY issues will be dealth with.

How expensive will oil have to become before biofuels are economically viable?

Farmers in this country and throughout europe are being subsidised to leave their fields idle, would it not make more economic sense if this subsidy was paid for the production of energy rich crops?

I think I read recently that irish sugarbeet growers will soon be paid not to grow this energy rich crop, surely it cannot be too difficult to convert sugar to bioethanol at our sugar factories. if the fuel could be produced cheaply, the technology to use this fuel will develope and spread similar to oil dependent technology has done over the last 150 years

air · 27-01-2006 12:05am

There isnt enough fuel available for us to run totally on nuclear for more than a few years AFAIK.

rooferPete · 27-01-2006 3:43am

Hi Mike C,

A great subject / topic and even if it is the wrong place I'm glad you posted it here, as far as I can see most of our youngish educated population who are building their own homes are already getting prepared for alternative fuels.

I was once asked on a roofers forum what type of roof could I forsee myself fitting twenty years from now, my answer was a roof tile that linked together and formed a photovoltaic panel for whole house.

Sadly the forum was USA based and I was given one hell of battle (debate) about oil and gas reserves which for some reason many believed that Washington already had the hidden oil reserves mapped out ??????????

Nuclear may be the way we go but we must look at the energy cost of actually building a nuclear power station, the frightening question of waste storage has still to be answered, who knows it may be the energy cells of the future the way to use it just hasn't been discovered or developed yet.

What is alarming to me is that even all this knowledge of a finite rescource is generally agreed upon, the amount of oil and gas that is wasted on a daily basis is nothing short of a crime against ourselves (humanity).

I can't understand why our daily A > B transport should differ so much in the amount of energy being used to complete the same journey, one person in a guzzling SUV can only travel at the same speed dictated by the small car in front, yet one does 50 mpg while the other is doing 20 mpg at best.

Intersting topic.

.

Mike_C · 27-01-2006 10:55am

Pete, can you suggest a better place for this discussion, I've tried to raise this issue in another forum with little feedback. I have followed this forum for a while now and know that the people here are reasonably clued in on affairs of the pocket!

Yes nuclear reactors will take alot of energy to create, Technology is developing to adapt our energy demand to biofuels but will we have to wait for the power cuts before a real change of attitude towards energy abuse occurs. Can the alternatives really sustain our energy addition?

CJhaughey · 27-01-2006 11:15am

This would be better in Green issues TBH.
In fact I think there is an existing thread on peak oil already.
maybe it could be merged? Mods?

hartytkd · 27-01-2006 11:27am

Mike_C wrote:

Yes nuclear reactors will take alot of energy to create, Technology is developing to adapt our energy demand to biofuels but will we have to wait for the power cuts before a real change of attitude towards energy abuse occurs. Can the alternatives really sustain our energy addition?

One of the major problems is finding energy to power the generation of nuclear and biofuels. For example all the machinery and process used to extract, refine nuclear fuels and the facilities to utilise them are powered mostly by fossil fuels such as oil or coal (for electricity).

As for biodiesel and other biofuels, these require the use of a lot of fertilisers and pesticides to make them viable (along with any other large-scale agriculture). Unfortunately both these are both made from processing oil. Not to mention the need to power the machinery neccessary for cultivation, processing, transportation etc of the boifuels.

If there is not enough oil (or if the price is too high for the remaining amount left which is what I believe will happen - and I work in the oil sector) then there will be no energy to power alternative energies, since both demand so much oil to be workable.

I'm not knocking alternative energy by any means - I agree with the principle totally - but just looking at the whole picture, one can become very pessimistic about what happens when the oil is gone. I can see a situation where humans will just have to re-adapt to living lives of low-enery consumption i.e. pre 1900s style.

Occidental · 27-01-2006 11:39am

The tide's already started to turn at a domestic level. Two or three years ago, an oil fired boiler was a no-brainer for rural sites. Now people are looking at solid fuel and wood pellet burners, heat exchange systems, wind power and solar energy. The initial uptake has been slow, but there's a lot of demand out there and I'd expect a big increase in these markets over the next few years as suppliers get up to speed and more reasonably priced products appear. A few tax breaks from the government towards renewable energy might also help.

On a national scale, wind turbines and wave energy would seem to make sense. Once again, a bit of leadership from the government and a bit of co-operation from the ESB wouldn't go amiss.

rooferPete · 27-01-2006 12:01pm

Hi Occidental,

A quick post before I start "real work".

I agree all the technology you pointed to is being used and some just old technology that was dumped in favour of an easy to clean house (wood stoves) is coming back not just for fashion but people being practical.

The big question regarding the cost of each unit is the manufacturing cost, grants are helpful but each item must be made using oil or gas sometimes indirectly by using electricity.

As the natural reserves deplete the manufacturing costs are increasing, steel, cast iron etc take a lot of heat to produce, it's almost like a vicious cycle, each time we see an increase in oil prices the knock on effect is the appliances are more expensive to produce.

I believe that is why the nuclear energy subject has been hovering in the background, but even a top of the range ultra safe nuclear power station is going to use a lot of energy to build.

Maybe our own greed or "Polyanna" frame of mind with regard to the cost of the energy as opposed to it's long term availability has stopped us from thinking outside the "Box" ?

This may be an interesting link I recommend stay on the main pages first then look at the highlighted details later, http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/

.

Tazz T · 27-01-2006 12:06pm

Sweden has done a lot of research into this subject and reckons that with the accelerating use of oil by India and China, there is just 20 years oil left.

Currently, China is putting 5 million new cars on their roads every year. In the past five years car ownership has increased by over 200%. Between 2010 and 2015, China will be producing more cars for its citizens than American, that's in excess of 17 million per year. The building of motorways has increased by 100% since 2000 and the chinese have plans to double this again by 2020. That's in addition to the equivalent of a major world city being built every year. Obviously this puts greater stress on the planet's oil reserves. China does produce some of its own oil (consumption began exceeding production in 85 and has accelerated ever since) but this is expected to run out by 2015, by which point China and the US will be the world's two biggest oil consumers and competing for what's left on the planet...

...which could lead to some very unsettling times ahead.

Whatever happens, it's more than likely that the world's oil reserves will have run out during the lifetimes of most people posting here. Now that is a scary thought.

Mike_C · 27-01-2006 12:54pm

Hi everyone, thanks for participating in this debate. I would ask the mods not to dump this discussion into Green Issues. Unfortunately in this country once something is labeled green we tend to shy away from discussing "hippy" things. Try talking to a building developer about incorporating solar panels in your new semi-d estate or even beefing up on the insulation!!!!
As the future of our energy supply and demand is a topic which effects all of us home builders/owners .
I have not done the research into this yet but I will throw the question out if all households in Ireland were to install wood pellet stoves, how much land wood need to be under managed forests, (i suspect it would have to be a coppiced forest to produce enough wood over many years, not that horrible spruce type forestry that is covering so much of ourlandscape these days)

CJhaughey · 27-01-2006 2:24pm

I would say that the discussions in the Green forum are as level as you will find on here.
However I agree that for many people that the mere suggestion of being Green is enough to put them off.
Further more they don't *dump* discussions they recycle them

Mike_C · 27-01-2006 2:42pm

Point taken CJ, just would like this topic discussed on a wider platform. Until recently I was one of those guys that scoffed at energy saving stuff. Energy is the biggest addition this country, even world faces currently, it is unlikely alternatives to oil will become economical while the masses are kept in the dark about these issues.

CJhaughey · 27-01-2006 3:18pm

Why do people have to look at wood pellet stoves?
The energy used to transport wood to and from the factory and the energy involved in the creation of the pellets are all factors that need to be worked in to the equation.
If people simply burnt wood blocks there would be a whole sequence of energy usage taken out of the equation.
The masses aren't kept in the dark many simply choose to ignore the mounting evidence.

prospect · 27-01-2006 3:33pm

I am firmly of the belief that a solution will be found (if not found already and shut-up) when the need arises.

When the pressure is on, and there isn't hundreds and billions of dollars worth of oil left to defend, the evolution of replacement energy sources could speed up considerably.

Mike_C · 27-01-2006 4:42pm

Prospect, At what stage does the NEED arise, why must we completely deplete world oil reserves first, why not impliment change now rather than when it is forced upon us. remember ireland does not have our own oil source, and has a rather limited gas supply. Who is going to find the solution, I know I'm not but we (society) must become more aware of where our energy is coming from and who is actually in control.

meditraitor · 27-01-2006 4:45pm

Cannabilism is the answer

squire1 · 27-01-2006 4:54pm

I agree with everybody here. It's a real head scratcher of a debate. Prospect posted what I was tinking about, when need arises a solution will be forund, but the problem is figuring out when alternative sources of energy become financially viable.

Not sure I would agree with everybody starting to burn wood as this would release massive amounts of stored carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Nothing new there but it is just not a viable solution.

The most extreme point of view I have come across is some pack of loonies in the US that advocate culling the human population so that the earth has enough renewable resources to go around. Has mankind reached the point where he has outgrown the planet? Heavy stuff.

Gordon Gekko · 27-01-2006 5:19pm

Has mankind reached the point where he has outgrown the planet? Heavy stuff.

Rev. Thomas Malthus felt something similar back in 1798. Oops.

New sources of energy we haven't even contemplated yet will appear soon. Yes, the world economy will be somewhat slowed by rising oil prices, but once these new sources of energy become more economic than relying on oil/gas, there will be a mass switch over to them.

Benster · 27-01-2006 5:43pm

Good debate, folks.

The idea of having the PV-cell roof of my house recharging the batteries of my home heating and other such appliances is very appealing. However, it is currently horrendously expensive to implement and would end up saving you nothing.

I agree that (even a little) government leadership in the area of subsidies for alternative energy generation would go a long way in fostering the idea in the minds of the general public that this is A Good Thing.

Alas, this and previous governments have not been able to see beyond the length of their own terms in office and seem happy to let the country become more and more dependent on outsiders for our energy needs.

As I sit looking from my office across the Dublin cityscape, I can't help but wonder, though, what difference a few solar cells are going to make in the whole scheme of things. As well as general domestic use, there's so much industry out there that demands a helluva lot more energy than your average 4-bed semi.

To maintain production of the current amount of energy we consume, what are we going to require in the future?
Tens of thousands of wind turbines all across the country?
Hundreds of wave and tidal stream generators around the coast?
Thousands of hectares of bio-diesel-producing crops?

Such a picture is one that appeals to me, as we could be much more self-sufficient and less exposed to global energy shortages. Each type of generation method would act as a backup to the next one and would be all interlinked, grid-like, and topped-up locally by individual domestic generation units (eg your solar-celled roof).

I'm neither an advocate nor an enemy of nuclear power, but with such a grid system of multiple energy generation methods, there would be less of a need to build one large reactor. And less trouble if it went off-line for any reason as well.

Is this just a pipe-dream folks, or do any of the rest of you see sense in what I'm saying?

Cheers,

B.

Doper Than U · 27-01-2006 5:53pm

Tazz T wrote:

Sweden has done a lot of research into this subject and reckons that with the accelerating use of oil by India and China, there is just 20 years oil left.

Could you cite your source on this? I'm not being a smartarse, I've actually been looking into Peak Oil for a good while now. I have taken part in numerous threads on Boards on this very thing, and initally met with rudeness and apathy, but slowly people are starting to get the picture. I'd just like to see what research you're talking about, as it sounds like the Swedish are getting access to things (numbers, data) that really aren't being released at the moment.

If I may recommend a few sites :

www.peakoil.com (Excellent site, all the newest info and debate pertaining to peak oil -- helps to sift the bullsh*t out).

http://www.peakoil.ie/ (ASPO Ireland. Colin Campbell, head of ASPO UK and one of the big names in Peak Oil. A geoglogist with vast experience, he now spends much of his time living in Ireland I believe).

http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/ (Ususally everybody's first point of call when finding out about Peak Oil. A succint but, some feel, over the top projection of how things might turn out. Having seen the response to Katrina, this guy might not be far off. Matt Savinar, the site's owner/admin, knows his stuff and researches heavily).

www.downsizer.net (While not Peak Oil related, the forum is a great resource for anybody wanting to learn how to grow and make their own food. Very "River Cottage" -- which incidentally also has a good forum on smallholding at rivercottage.net ).

I agree, our dependance on oil and gas has to stop. Nuclear is a short term answer for some only. I don't see any techno-fix happening soon. My own opinion is that we're over populated as it is, and can't be expected to live in the same kind of lifestyle of luxury that we're used to. Peak Oil is the end of cheap fuel, already we can see that happening. Oil and gas prices have gone up significantly this last year -- the ESB even admitted it was due to fuel "shortages", but no-one's listening. People are looking for someone to blame, and they're blaming the oil companies. Wrong place to look IMO, OPEC have forgone the need for quotas announcing a "free for all" (ie, OPEC members can pump as much oil as they want). This is usually considered a death knell in the oil industry as was seen in Texas in the 1970's. Point is, OPEC have promised more and more oil over the last year, but haven't been able to deliver. They are running low on sweet light crude and are shipping out the heavy stuff that no-one can refine. They also refuse to release their numbers.

It's interesting to note that Saudi Arabia are no longer the worlds largest oil producers. Russia is.

Gordon Gekko · 27-01-2006 6:01pm

Not according to the US Department of Energy.

Mike_C · 27-01-2006 6:34pm

Now we're talking. Like your ideas benster.

Does anyone believe anything that comes from the US administration anymore? We know who has control of europes gas...he scaried the crap out of many eu countries last week when he turned the tap off. It would be even scarier if he had control of the oil market too

can ireland realistically reduce its energy demand or become energy self sufficient

Tazz T · 27-01-2006 6:50pm

In the Irish Times today, there's an article saying that Russia is planning a space station on the moon to mine Helium 3. Apparently there's enough there to power special nuclear plants for 1000 years. Doesn't go into the safety options much, but it seems it could be commercially viable. The US have been looking into it too and one cargo load back from the moon can supply all the US's energy needs for a year.

Re: the Swedish research - I'd have to seek that out, but I only stated it as the most pessimistic/conservative report I've come across - the rest of the facts in my post are easily verifiable through a quick google.

Gurgle · 27-01-2006 7:07pm

The world spins, the sun shines, rivers flow, oceans slosh over and back.
No shortage of energy, never was, never will be.

The difficulty is how to get rich while selling it to people.

CJhaughey · 27-01-2006 9:22pm

Squire1
Wood is carbon neutral.
It releases exactly the same CO2 that it absorbed to grow in the first instance.
Benster
The simple solution is to demand less energy for residential heating etc build more efficient housing etc not hard with a little government support.
But as with all cosy cartels the concrete industry won't go without a fight.

rooferPete · 28-01-2006 12:37am

Hi,

A lot of good points raised since this morning, in answer to CJ about pellet fuel it is a by product that was waste but is now fuel.

As to your real point as to whether Ireland can be self sufficient I honestly doubt it especially with the morons in Government and the high up Civil Servents who are the people who really make the decisions.

Take Coillte for example, they balance their books every year by selling off land that should be re-planted or planted for forrestry, they are the people we look to for guidance about self sustaining forrestry ??????

Hi Benster,

I have been watching PV for a while now, the panels are getting cheaper, in Germany and Holland they have sheeted the sides of large buildings with the panels and have buildings that are very efficient.

Of course these projects could not be undertaken without the political will to assist in the funding, in the north of England the local council were having a housing estate re-roofed, they spent the extra to have Lafarge PV panels fitted that match the profile of the concrete roof tiles.

While the replacement energy may already exist I believe it has reached the point where the oil companies would be shifting their business to the new technology if it was proven and profitable for them to do so.

Russia with it's gas supply to Europe is a very good example of how the true power over the people can be held.

A company I do business with in Italy has pushed out their delivery time to Ireland for heating appliances from two to four weeks and have a proviso to expect the delivery time to go to eight weeks due to the home demand caused by the natural gas scare.

I hope I am wrong but it does appear to be Russia is showing Europe where the true power over the people stems from.

As to the oil supplies, I believe OPEC have already issued the warning that they are pumping at close to 100%, maybe China and India have their share of untapped oil reserves, but we must remember they need to build refinaries and more important be willing to sell to the world market.

I believe we are not at the time to worry just yet but a little preparation and some truth could save us all from sudden changes like the MPH to KPH overnight could cause.

.

mad m · 28-01-2006 3:41am

Have to say after reading all posts,maybe not all of the links.I think ill head over to Personal Issues and pour my heart out.

But seriously thinking what lies ahead in future can be worrying.Its amazing some of the facts some members have posted,especially about china and india and the amount of cars they will produce.And especially the amount of barrels of oil that will be needed to be produced in future to meet demands.

It makes you stop and think when you read this thread.

Surviving the End of the Oil Age

Comments