[Peak Oil] Mainstream enough for Nature

[Androsphinx]

Nature have an interview with John Deutch, MIT Chemistry and former CIA director, on oil-based issues:

What is the significance of $100 oil?

The rise in oil prices indicates the inevitable truth that we are using up low-cost energy reserves in the ground. We should expect that over time, on average, oil and gas prices will increase. That increase will cause three things to happen: less oil and gas will be consumed; there will be a shift from oil and gas to renewable energy sources; and, happily, new technologies will become more attractive. I'm quite optimistic.

What is causing this price rise?

Demand for oil and gas, especially from rapidly growing Asian economies such as India and China, is a real driver. I think that the International Energy Agency projects that oil consumption will go up from 80 or 90 million barrels per day worldwide to about 120 million barrels per day by 2030. The fastest growth will be from Asian economies.

Is $100 oil here to stay?

Energy experts know that prices fluctuate. Although I think it is perfectly possible that oil prices will decrease from the present level to as low as $40 or $50 per barrel, I don't think we will see it drop to $20 again. And if you look at it on a decade-by-decade basis, the march of oil prices will be up, and gas prices too.

Will prices ever get high enough to cause a global recession?

Talented economists point out that oil is less of a major factor in world economy than it was 20 or 30 years ago. But it's certainly the case that as the price goes up, there will be adverse economic consequences for different countries, and some nations will suffer more than most. The small importing countries in Africa and the Caribbean, they will really suffer.

Are we approaching a peak oil scenario?

Higher (and stable) prices open the economic window for new technologies. There is no [price] threshold; it is gradual. For example, biofuels from biomass are thought to cost $40–50 per barrel when produced at a commercial scale; synthetic liquids from shale or coal cost perhaps $50–70 per barrel.

I know it's the same optimistic, free-market-will-save-us business, but it seemed interesting that the concept of "Peak Oil" is mainstream enough that Nature could refer to it without clarification.

[Admiral Valdemar]

It's hardly that mainstream yet. Go to a random person on the street and ask what they think about peak oil and let me know how many can give you a straight answer without asking "What's that?".

The energy industry has known about it since Hubbert brought it up in '56. Wall Street and London etc. simply ignore or try and remain ignorant to such things via wishful thinking.

[Androsphinx]

It's hardly that mainstream yet. Go to a random person on the street and ask what they think about peak oil and let me know how many can give you a straight answer without asking "What's that?".

Well, the readership of "Nature" are hardly the random people on the street either (except here, I guess). But this was the first time I'd seen it in mass-avaliability print without an clarification, which I guess is a good sign.

[Admiral Valdemar]

The Indy and NYT have mentioned if before on the front pages, though usually with a little disclaimer. I think everyone gets the concept, just not that they should use PO as the term for such an event.