Will The End Of Oil See The End Of My Town?

[TithonusSyndrome]

Pretty much. The only possible thing that could prevent that is a breakthrough of net-gain fusion that's cheap and accepted by the public.

Or, more realistically, nuclear fission becomes economically competitive and accepted by the public (the former being more important, since when the choice is nukes or nothing, I will bet the people will accept nukes).

It's for this reason that I've begin to investigate the nessicary requirements to pursue a career in nuclear power, though I'm not having much luck.

[Admiral Valdemar]

Did you know cities existed long before oil was a source of power? Whereas Suburbs... didn't? And much of the rurals of North America... Didn't?

It's called history. If you can't figure out how these things were done then, let alone now when we have new options, I really can't help you.

I had a response for all of this, but I really can't take the time to get embroiled in such a discussion. Take that as victory if you choose.

That would be the "We didn't have near seven billion people when cities used horses" argument.

If you think NYC, London or Tokyo can survive past Peak Oil with no mitigation, think again. The entire UK was nearly brought to a stand still from three weeks of fuel protests.

The suburbs die first, because they are horribly wasteful and only exacerbated this issue.

In a nutshell, there are NO economic means of mitigating a peak if it is now (which is now near certain) nor are there technological means. CTL, GTL, electric cars, hydrogen, plug-in hybrids, solar, hydro, mass transit. All are nowhere near implemented enough to make any difference and no one is going to put their dollars behind them seriously until it's too late.

It's already too late.

[Darth Wong]

City planners, sociologists, and environmentalists have warned about overpopulation and urban sprawl for more than 30 years now. Maybe that's part of the problem; everyone's heard it before and has become accustomed to the warnings, so they assume it's just a case of alarmists crying wolf.

[Admiral Valdemar]

People get that way with climate change as well. It's been in and out of the media spotlight for decades, so it either ain't happening, or is part of some agenda someone wants to push for nefarious purposes.

The PO crowd is often take the same way, but with populations and consumption at bursting point, the coming gasoline shortages (or at least, massive price hikes) this summer will make it more mainstream. Already a half dozen news pieces, documentaries and online seminars have been found in the last 18 months warning of the issue, along with a few US gov't reports that are, conveniently, ignored by the MSM. Anna Nichol gets better ratings than the end of your car and suburb based life.

And if anyone cared to look at the more important points of Syriana, you'd know that was about securing the last deposits of oil for US consumption by any means necessary. Hey, wait a minute, that reminds me of something.

[Starglider]

In a nutshell, there are NO economic means of mitigating a peak if it is now (which is now near certain) nor are there technological means. CTL, GTL, electric cars, hydrogen, plug-in hybrids, solar, hydro, mass transit. All are nowhere near implemented enough to make any difference and no one is going to put their dollars behind them seriously until it's too late.

It's already too late.

When I first heard about and started researching peak oil, circa 2001, I came to the same conclusion. However after I met Leena she started pointing out how much progress had been made on improving industrial Fischer Trospch yields (since the famous Nazi Germany application), and assorted recent work on promising replacements (first article I had to hand, but google and you'll find lots). Energy is going to get more expensive, at least in the short term (longer term cheap solar and commercial fusion both look good), and there will probably be major lifestyle changes and some hardship as demographics adjust. But I don't think we're going to see a civilisation-ending crash or a mass dieoff, and coal should last long enough to develop genuine long-term solutions. I'd put runaway global warming, bioweapons, nuclear war, nanotech accidents and runaway non-altrustic AGI above peak oil on the existential risk importance scale, though it probably does rate above an asteroid impact.

[Ted C]

So I was wondering, with the end of oil in forty years (give or take) will the death of the town follow? And with it the death of all small towns across Canada and the US?

1) I seriously doubt oil will disappear in 40 years. It will be scarcer and more expensive, but it won't go away.

2) Other energy sources will become more feasible in 40 years. Ethanol, biodiesel, and hydrogen are legitimate fuels which will probably be developed and deployed in that time. Nuclear, solar, wind, and cleaner coal systems can also take up some of the slack (and are necessary parts of a clean hydrogen infrastructure).

So, I think the answer to your question is "no".

[Dooey Jo]

There's also ethanol fuel. Many buses around here run on that. And it's cheaper than gas too, but then, our gas prices would probably make you Americans pass out, so

[Ted C]

There's also ethanol fuel. Many buses around here run on that. And it's cheaper than gas too, but then, our gas prices would probably make you Americans pass out, so

The sheer volume of traffic on American roads makes a single-fuel solution to oil dependence impossible. You could press every acre of arable land in North America into growing biofuels and still probably not generate enough to meet demand, here.

[Admiral Valdemar]

When I first heard about and started researching peak oil, circa 2001, I came to the same conclusion. However after I met Leena she started pointing out how much progress had been made on improving industrial Fischer Trospch yields (since the famous Nazi Germany application), and assorted recent work on promising replacements (first article I had to hand, but google and you'll find lots). Energy is going to get more expensive, at least in the short term (longer term cheap solar and commercial fusion both look good), and there will probably be major lifestyle changes and some hardship as demographics adjust. But I don't think we're going to see a civilisation-ending crash or a mass dieoff, and coal should last long enough to develop genuine long-term solutions. I'd put runaway global warming, bioweapons, nuclear war, nanotech accidents and runaway non-altrustic AGI above peak oil on the existential risk importance scale, though it probably does rate above an asteroid impact.

These technologies all suffer from the Law of Receding Horizons and massive underinvestment and environmental problems along with lack of infrastructure today to replace oil alone, nevermind gas and nations where coal is past energy peak.

While they would act as a mitigation factor, as would nuclear and solar, they are not a solution by any means and such concepts, to act as a parachute for a possible energy deficit cliff, need to be implemented two decades prior to peak. Peak is more likely 2006 now, hence the plateau of late.

[Starglider]

These technologies all suffer from the Law of Receding Horizons

True, and this is a killer for marginal projects such as thermal depolymerisation and some renewables, were they the only option. But mining more coal is sufficiently energy-positive and straightforward that the problem isn't acute. There will be steady long-term price rises as long as we still use any kind of fossil fuels, but I don't think there will be the destructive feedback loop the more fanatical oil people love to rant about.

massive underinvestment

Perhaps true historically, but not recently. Oil companies are throwing a lot of money at 'non-conventional oil' projects because they see them (correctly) as a way to stay on the gravy train and preserve the value of their existing investments.

lack of infrastructure today

That's the big attraction of synthetic crude, no new infrastructure is required, just expanded mining and extra units at refineries.

While they would act as a mitigation factor, as would nuclear and solar, they are not a solution by any means and such concepts, to act as a parachute for a possible energy deficit cliff, need to be implemented two decades prior to peak. Peak is more likely 2006 now, hence the plateau of late.

True for solar and nuclear, but the lead time for large scale syncrude is much shorter.

environmental problems

Oh absolutely. The environmental problems will be horrendous, both in terms of hugely increased CO2 and particulate emissions and the local devestation that cost-optimised (i.e. strip and open-cast) coal mining causes. The militant environmentalists will go nuts, and lots of rural communities will experience severe pollution and poor health. Global warming will get worse and it will mostly be due to the US, though China's contribution will ramp up fast. The costs of adapting to climate change while add to those of switching to less efficient fuels, as will the political destabilisation. Frankly it's going to be a nasty mess. There are possible ultratech fixes to get us out of this, but they're unlikely to become available for some time yet.

[Admiral Valdemar]

True, and this is a killer for marginal projects such as thermal depolymerisation and some renewables, were they the only option. But mining more coal is sufficiently energy-positive and straightforward that the problem isn't acute. There will be steady long-term price rises as long as we still use any kind of fossil fuels, but I don't think there will be the destructive feedback loop the more fanatical oil people love to rant about.

The issue is that despite coal production increasing, as an energy share, it has declined in recent years. There's also the lack of any real coal network improvement in the US, for instance, which is already running to capacity.

Perhaps true historically, but not recently. Oil companies are throwing a lot of money at 'non-conventional oil' projects because they see them (correctly) as a way to stay on the gravy train and preserve the value of their existing investments.

That's the big attraction of synthetic crude, no new infrastructure is required, just expanded mining and extra units at refineries.

Such unconventional resources are never going to meet current needs, much less growing demand. They are far too costly and prone to above-ground factors such as hurricanes, environmental damage etc. This doesn't address the refinement shortfall. Why are refineries being cancelled if we're running into oil?

True for solar and nuclear, but the lead time for large scale syncrude is much shorter.

Oh absolutely. The environmental problems will be horrendous, both in terms of hugely increased CO2 and particulate emissions and the local devestation that cost-optimised (i.e. strip and open-cast) coal mining causes. The militant environmentalists will go nuts, and lots of rural communities will experience severe pollution and poor health. Global warming will get worse and it will mostly be due to the US, though China's contribution will ramp up fast. The costs of adapting to climate change while add to those of switching to less efficient fuels, as will the political destabilisation. Frankly it's going to be a nasty mess. There are possible ultratech fixes to get us out of this, but they're unlikely to become available for some time yet.

It also merely means you push back the peak a decade at most before global coal reserves start reaching energy peak. Coal has many environmental problems even with still fairly experimental carbon sequestration. I don't doubt people will look to syngas as a panic option though.

In any case, the resource wars would be a bigger impact if the gov'ts finally figure out what's happening. If the stock market sees the bigger picture, it'll be gone overnight. The US economy is collapsing as it is and one does not give a national energy grid a face-lift with no credit.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

The issue is that despite coal production increasing, as an energy share, it has declined in recent years. There's also the lack of any real coal network improvement in the US, for instance, which is already running to capacity.

We are building another 1,000 miles of track to provide more access to the Powder River Basin, which has plenty of reserves for us to access for quite some time to come.

Getting coal to market is not really an issue here; if we have to we can just lay more track. It is neither hard nor expensive to do. The real infrastructure problem is on the end-use range, i.e., powerplants. But it's not a serious issue--remember that oil is a very small percentage of the fuel source for electricity generation in this country.

We can, however, add mass transit very easily and quickly. There is plenty of rail car production resources, and bio-diesel can run diesel locomotives just fine if it's used in a strictly rationed fashion. If things really were to get as close to your dire predictions as you suppose, I'm quite sure that people would be willing to commute to work in old box cars. The main issue with a lasting solution is stringing enough copper wire, which can I suppose be solved by using third-rail feeds instead. We won't be running out of steel any time soon..

If we have to revert to partially manual labour for farms, well, there's plenty of that to obtain, and we've got lots of horses in this country kept as pets, that could be usefully and gainfully employed as draft animals, even if the casualty rates would be initially sickening.

The main issue here is that if things do get that bad, a command economy will be necessary, and the situation will begin to resemble, as best as I can put it, the USSR of 1920 or so. Broken-backed, having just fought a vicious civil war right after WW1, and coping with economic desperation and famine on a mass scale, but still an organized and functional society. It will certainly result in an end to democracy, however, as such a system won't be able to survive such extremities.

[SirNitram]

The problem isn't rail or workers. It's power. The Oil Crash is gonna scramble the entire equation(I take to calling it a Crash because it could well not bother to wait until we run out; economics will react in it's usual bizarre ways), top to bottom. Electrical use will go up. To keep things working, basically, you need a shitload more electricity.

Are there ways to do it? Yes. Are they economically viable? A few are.

Will they be done in time? Not unless someone lights a fire under some asses damn soon, and even then, we wind up depending on the big crash/peak waiting patiently for us.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

The problem isn't rail or workers. It's power. The Oil Crash is gonna scramble the entire equation(I take to calling it a Crash because it could well not bother to wait until we run out; economics will react in it's usual bizarre ways), top to bottom. Electrical use will go up. To keep things working, basically, you need a shitload more electricity.

Are there ways to do it? Yes. Are they economically viable? A few are.

Will they be done in time? Not unless someone lights a fire under some asses damn soon, and even then, we wind up depending on the big crash/peak waiting patiently for us.

So we ban electrical use in homes, say, four days out of the week, to provide a reserve for businesses and industry until the problem can be corrected. That more than halves our residential power consumption right there.

The Soviets did it all time. We'll just be pushed into the same place they were in the 1980s.

[SirNitram]

Artificial shortages have many of the same negative economic effects as natural ones. It's less a question of meeting normal needs for industry and commerce and more taking up the slack for oil. There might need to be stopgap conservation methods when oil crashs because of the oil power plants, but that's not what I meant.

Frankly, I think if you could convince enough venture capitalists that the power market is going to go nuts in a couple of years, you could secure the funding to start making a dent. Hell, look at what they threw at the internet when there wasn't even anything there.

[wolveraptor]

Are there any reasonable estimates as to when oil shortages will be severely felt? I want to know how old I'll be before everything changes on me. Christ, banning electricity for 4 days of the week would be pretty extreme, not just in terms of computer use, but in terms of common appliances, such as lightbulbs and microwaves. Plus, as of now, I live in a suburb, albeit a rich one. The schools might even discontinue free bus-service.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Are there any reasonable estimates as to when oil shortages will be severely felt? I want to know how old I'll be before everything changes on me. Christ, banning electricity for 4 days of the week would be pretty extreme, not just in terms of computer use, but in terms of common appliances, such as lightbulbs and microwaves. Plus, as of now, I live in a suburb, albeit a rich one. The schools might even discontinue free bus-service.

*shrugs* It might be in a decade, it might be in 80 years. It will be in this century. Peak oil is a highly debatable subject, other than the fact that it will happen, and definitely within the lifetimes of anyone born today. Some people say that peak oil has already taken place. I don't think the evidence for that is conclusive. But if it has already happened, then we'll probably start to see major disruptions within a decade.

Depending on how bad things get, residential electric power usage could simply end for several years, unless you get your's from an off-grid source. We'll need to, first of all, implement enough power to get us through peak oil, and then, since people will start taking these things seriously, decisively switch to clean sources of power. The combination of those events could take quite some time.

It's not impossible to speculate that over a period from 2020 - 2040 or 2050 that people will be living off of cabbage in winter, there will be two block long bread lines, all personal automobile usage will be banned, personal electricity will not exist, travel outside of your home state or region will be only with need-based authorization, and only military aircraft will be flying. This sort of severity of course assumes simultaneous peak oil and global warming issues creating a serious and major synergetic negative effect on modern industrial society, and all of our resource capacity having to be devoted to decisively and permanently dealing with the problems. (for example, we may build countless nuclear reactors, simply to use them all to power desalination plants to keep people from dying of thirst, which means we're back to square one and there's still no leftover power available for personal home use.)

[J]

So I was wondering, with the end of oil in forty years (give or take) will the death of the town follow? And with it the death of all small towns across Canada and the US?

It's hard to say, some small towns will live and others won't, there's simply too many variables at work. If I were to broadly generalize, a small town which is mostly self-sufficient in resources and not dependant on tourism or something like that for income is most likely going to survive, there will be changes but the town will mostly be fine. On the other hand a tourist trap town such as Wasaga Beach or any of the other popular cottage country towns is going to be in deep trouble, and many of them won't make it.

Are there any reasonable estimates as to when oil shortages will be severely felt? I want to know how old I'll be before everything changes on me. Christ, banning electricity for 4 days of the week would be pretty extreme, not just in terms of computer use, but in terms of common appliances, such as lightbulbs and microwaves. Plus, as of now, I live in a suburb, albeit a rich one. The schools might even discontinue free bus-service.

5-10 years or so, depending on how long the plateau of the current peak holds though I'd bet on sooner rather than later. There are many signs which point to a peak in production sometime in 2005, despite record prices & demand for oil, production has hit a wall and flattened out since then.

[Admiral Valdemar]

Just to add, there are further fears of reprisals in Nigeria over the sham of an election this weekend been, Antwerp's largest refinery is going to go on strike next month and Ethiopia has had a Chinese run oil field attacked with 70+ killed. Oh yeah, China's demand for crude went up 8.8% over this time last year and their exports are plummeting.

[J]

Yet more wonderful news

Quoting the first paragraphs:

April 25 (Bloomberg) -- Crude oil surged, approaching $66 a barrel in New York, after a government report showed that U.S. gasoline inventories fell to the lowest in 18 months as refinery operations unexpectedly plunged.

Stockpiles fell 2.79 million barrels to 194.2 million, the lowest since Oct. 7, 2005, when refineries were shut because of hurricanes Katrina and Rita. Refineries operated at 87.8 percent of capacity, down 2.9 percentage points from the prior week, the Energy Department said. A 0.5 percentage point gain was expected, according to the median of responses in a Bloomberg News survey.

``This report has to be seen as bullish because refinery runs plunged,'' said John Kilduff, vice president of risk management at Man Financial Inc. in New York. ``Most of us were expecting refiners to increase runs or at least keep them steady but the string of refinery problems is obviously being felt. We can't build gasoline supplies, which is the focus right now.''

Uh-oh...this summer's going to be really interesting...

[Admiral Valdemar]

Once you go below 190 Mbbl. capacity in the system, something last reached during Katrina, then you run into distribution issues. We saw that in Louisiana and had it not been for imports, other states may have seen it too. Those imports won't be coming to the rescue this year if demand keeps pace.

Also, prices are still rising in California despite slightly lower consumption, I hear.

[His Divine Shadow]

It's already too late.

Wee! It's mad max time, only without the massive big block gas guzzlers.

[aerius]

Uh-oh...this summer's going to be really interesting...

On the bright side our oil & gas futures are doing quite well, and the profit on those will probably pay for all the gasoline we'll ever have to buy for the rest of our lives. If I knew I was going to make this much money I would've cashed in my entire $350k line of credit and bought a few extra futures contracts.

[His Divine Shadow]

Only a model but it might be worth looking into these things again:
http://www.geocities.com/MotorCity/9946/gengas_mb.jpg

They where very common in sweden in the 1940s when there was no gas.

[Admiral Valdemar]

Uh-oh...this summer's going to be really interesting...

On the bright side our oil & gas futures are doing quite well, and the profit on those will probably pay for all the gasoline we'll ever have to buy for the rest of our lives. If I knew I was going to make this much money I would've cashed in my entire $350k line of credit and bought a few extra futures contracts.

Enterprising as that is, when the dollar collapses, it won't buy you anything. I'd invest that cash in something like gold or silver before it's too late. The foreclosures on US mortgages is over 4,000% up from last year now, and it ain't slowing.