Sustainability Conference I
I attended a sustainability conference this weekend. It started with scariest "documentary" ever seen, "The End of Suburbia", a very one-sided point-of-view film that does not attempt to examine both sides of the Peak Oil issue (or at least the portion they showed didn't). The only two laughs of the first half of the conference were sparked by James Kunstler's use of "clusterf#@&" and "$#!tstorm". Though they carefully crafted the message to point out that "Peak" doesn't mean "End of", the editors then went on to paint a picture of 21st century living devolving into 16th century living. Jim Hamilton's How to Talk to an Economist about Peak Oil is highly recommended reference material, including the comments.
Politically, the film was relatively balanced: when they talked about politicians not getting or acknowledging the problem, they started with photos of the Kerry campaign. When discussing increasing militarization of the Gulf region, a commenter noted the Carter doctrine. Clearly, the Bush/Cheney doctrine and the neocon plan to re-shape the middle east is a continuation of that doctrine (Carter/Reagan involvement in Afghanistan, Iran, Lebanon, Bush I in Kuwait, Iraq, Somalia, Clinton in Kuwait, Afghanistan, Somalia, Iraq, Sudan).
I have two notes on this: In 1956, Hubbert predicted peak American extraction in 1965-1970. It actually occurred in 1970-71. Unfortunately, most of his followers have portrayed production curves as if they were symmetric, half before and half after the peak (notably, Hubbert didn't, if the tail on this is any guide). Technology has been improving, including technology for scraping the last little bit out of every well, so more will be pumped after the peak than before, as shown in the chart below (note that the actual (blue) line is gradually drifting above the pseudo-Hubbert-style symmetric prediction (yellow)). What does this mean for world oil peak? The counterargument is that, yes, technology has been improving, so we're only pumping it dry faster than ever.
Other note: The only alternative fuel covered by the documentary was hydrogen. While I agree with the assessment (hydrogen is not an energy source, it is an energy carrier), hydrogen is not our only potential fuel. Nor is fuel replacement our only potential hope (see next post on this subject).
Politically, the film was relatively balanced: when they talked about politicians not getting or acknowledging the problem, they started with photos of the Kerry campaign. When discussing increasing militarization of the Gulf region, a commenter noted the Carter doctrine. Clearly, the Bush/Cheney doctrine and the neocon plan to re-shape the middle east is a continuation of that doctrine (Carter/Reagan involvement in Afghanistan, Iran, Lebanon, Bush I in Kuwait, Iraq, Somalia, Clinton in Kuwait, Afghanistan, Somalia, Iraq, Sudan).
I have two notes on this: In 1956, Hubbert predicted peak American extraction in 1965-1970. It actually occurred in 1970-71. Unfortunately, most of his followers have portrayed production curves as if they were symmetric, half before and half after the peak (notably, Hubbert didn't, if the tail on this is any guide). Technology has been improving, including technology for scraping the last little bit out of every well, so more will be pumped after the peak than before, as shown in the chart below (note that the actual (blue) line is gradually drifting above the pseudo-Hubbert-style symmetric prediction (yellow)). What does this mean for world oil peak? The counterargument is that, yes, technology has been improving, so we're only pumping it dry faster than ever.
Other note: The only alternative fuel covered by the documentary was hydrogen. While I agree with the assessment (hydrogen is not an energy source, it is an energy carrier), hydrogen is not our only potential fuel. Nor is fuel replacement our only potential hope (see next post on this subject).
<< Home