Peak Oil, peak Gas Peak Coal.

[Admiral Valdemar]

What she said. Time to face destiny.

[Broomstick]

Life is not just about bare survival.

I make my own entertainment. My sole indulgence is the internet, and, Hell, I can justify that as being necessary for school, since it is. My medical expenses really do make my life a brutal crawl in which mere survival is the only possible outcome

Yes, you do have medical concerns and I see you putting those before, say, a large screen TV or a lot of other things. That is your priority. If someone lives an otherwise frugal lifestyle but pays for a computer gaming system, WTF is the problem? I certainly wouldn't condone going into debt for that sort of thing but that's not what we're talking about it, is it? My in-laws think my collection of books is a foolish, stupid indulgence but I suspect you might approve of that one. The problem is living beyond one's means.

But by that time I'd hope to be ensconced in a little apartment in Paris, eating every night at a Cafe after coming home on an electric train from the powerplant I work in. What more of a high life can someone aspire to?

Well, my idea of a 'high life" involves several thousand feet of altitude - then again, I'm not opposed to alternatively powered small airplanes, nor would I use credit to fund that particular hobby. If I don't have the resources to do it I shouldn't be doing it. Outside of that, though, I live an extremely frugal lifestyle, which is how I could afford flying on $50k a year income while supporting my family, staying out of debt, and saving a little on top of that.

As for Paris - I've been to Paris, eaten at the street-side cafes, ridden the Metro, visited the museums.... I enjoyed it immensely, but it's been over a quarter century and I haven't been back, so I guess it's not a high priority for me. Personally, I found the French countryside and smaller cities more appealing.

I have no real belief that things will ever improve for me; my reason for going to school is to get the skills I need to be able to keep treading water as things get worse.

Well, speaking as someone who has been poor, then well off, and now poor again I can say that one should roll with the punches. I am certain, given your at times maniacal drive and your intelligence, you will do much better than you are now, and the survival skills you're using now will see you through future times when your fortunes slip.

[Broomstick]

A cynic might say that you want things to get terrible for everyone because you don't believe they'll ever get any better for you; if you can't have what everyone else has, why should they? Is that a fair assessment or not?

No. I don't desire these things in the first place. The written word is both my main fascination and point of interest in life. My ideal goal for life is to own a sailing yacht--that I live on as my only home.

Then go for it.

So, no, I don't aspire to have all your electronic crap, and I'm not bitter that I'll never get it.

In other words, you've chosen your priorities instead of living under the delusion you can "have it all".

Let us call it schadenfreud at the Embarrassment of Riches, certainly?

Yeah. Schadenfreud.

Personally, I would be happy to see an end to the consumerist, over-consumptive culture myself, but I also feel that if people have the resources to accomplish something they should be allowed to do so unless there is an extremely compelling reason otherwise. "I don't approve" isn't good enough.

My own personal ambitions in life are in short built around knowledge rather than possessions--and that's why preserving human progress is, to me, a sufficient reason to justify almost any action.

I agree human knowledge is valuable, but I don't think some of the draconian measure you mention will be necessary to preserve it.

Mankind has had an unprecedented period of prosperity in the 20th Century, at least certain segments have - people have forgotten that ups and downs are NORMAL, disasters are NORMAL, the trend is NOT continuously upward.

I have perhaps up to a half a million dollars I'd spend on other people, given the chance, and I'd like to make at least that much to guarantee I can do, in a reasonably short timeframe. To that end I'd gladly live in closer quarters than what I have now even working a job which could, with a Engineer's Degree or Doctorate by my mid-30's, make substantially more than most other people on this board.

Which you will then spend as YOU chose - so why are you criticizing someone spending their money on THEIR choice?

I guarantee that no matter what you do with that half million there will be a dozen critics saying you made a poor decision and it would have been better spent in some other manner.

Also, I'm vastly concerned about what the world is going to look like in 70 years, because in 70 years I'll still be living and working in it, when you're likely dead. You see, my father is 90 years old and still works (ed. -- yes, that means I was born when he was sixty-five. My father, not my grandfather), and most of my relatives on both sides of the family have lived into their mid-90s. And my father doesn't take care of himself nearly as much as he should. I could easily, easily live to be 110, and if medical science progresses enough, 120, and I could certainly work at a professional job until 90 or even 95.

Actually, since I escaped the family's hereditary heart disease, that pretty much describes my situation - my father's family (those that survived WWII) frequently lived into the late 90's. My mother's family, where they didn't drop dead in their 40's from the family curse, typically lived into their 80's. Living to 100 is a realistic prospect for me as well. Granted, I do have 20 year head start on you so making it to 2100 is probably not likely but I, too, could be here 60 years from now and I'd rather live in a comfortable situation than a hellhole.

Also, I'd sort of like to raise a family of adopted children at some point, and guess what, I'm already thinking ahead to the fact that if I'm raising kids, I don't want them living on a doomed shithole of a planet.

And THAT can be quite expensive - however, I will not restrict your right to prioritize your life and resources as you see fit. Please do not tell me what to do with my money or property or other resources (barring criminal actions).

If this means that I need for a bunch of yuppies to kill themselves as their incomes go from 200,000 USD a year to something more like mine and Amy's right now, that we survive on just fine, then I'm going to laugh at them as they jump from their corner offices.

Well, yeah, I'll laugh to at assholes who would choose death over poverty. Poverty sucks on many levels, but I still find life very much worth living even when struggling. Maybe it's just that I've never defined myself by my net worth, my job, or how many toys I have.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

The problem is the energy cost of things, Broomstick, and the environmental cost. You cut down a hundred trees to build a schooner, they regrow, the world goes on. You buy a Yukon Denali, you're contributing to the destruction of the planet. I think I DO have a right to be angry and to declaim against activities which are harming my future. And that includes the use of automobiles, and more than a few of the production processes for the components in consumer electronics.

[Broomstick]

There is actually some infrastructure in place for recycling automobiles and trucks - I see trains go by every day with crushed metal parts from the same (as well as other things) on the way to the nearby steel mills to be melted down and re-used.

The electronics industry is more problematic - not only are toxic elements involved in components, but what recycling there is frequently involves people in the third world manually breaking them down, exposing them to these toxins, in deplorable conditions, often exposing their families as well.

I agree, environmental concerns are an issue. But while a car generally only lasts 5-10 years I routinely fly airplanes that are older than I am, and still in very good condition. The big issue with aviation is fuel - but if fuel is $10 a gallon that problem will solve itself as people such as myself will not be able to afford to fly. Given that the airplanes also get better mileage than many SUV's and the Hummers (I've figured the airplanes I used between 15 and 20 mpg, depending on the airplane, and some of the newer designs do even better. The big exception being the Stearman, which gets something like 4-5 mpg, but then it IS primitive technology AND a military design to boot.) what I did had much less impact on the planet's resources than what my prosperous neighbors with the 10 mpg SUV's do on a daily basis. Yes, I am biased about aviation, I freely admit that, but it's Teh Eval that some idiots think it is. We don't throw out airplanes after half a decade, so those metals and plastics are being used, not rotting in a pit somewhere. Autos that get tossed - MUCH more wasteful. I object to kneejerk RAR! AIRPLANES BAD! RAR! or anything RAR! [favorite bugaboo of the week] BAD! RAR! The damage done by aviation is miniscule compared to what the auto does on a global basis, but it's much easier to scapegoat aviation than to convince North America, Australia, New Zealand, and Europe to look in the mirror and say "hey, one billion autos just might be an environmental issue - maybe I should find ways to cut back on using the vehicle." Always easier to restrict the OTHER guy than yourself.

I also do not object to a tradesman using a truck or van if he has reason to do so (need to carry crew and/or tools to jobsites, for example). What pisses me off is single-person commuting in behemoth vehicles. As I'm sure it pisses off you.

[tim31]

Duchess, I seem to recall references in the past to blasting about the countryside in a borrowed Passat. More economical than an Escalade or Suburban, certainly, but I'm sure you would have derived personal satisfaction from it. I assume there was no other way to get where you were going?

My goal, if it's going to hell? Do what I can for my children. Feed them, clothe them, educate them. If I have to do all those things using my own mind and labour, I feel confident. Like Broomstick, I like to buy books because if the tv stops working, the books will still be legible. I keep several packets of strings on hand for my guitars, so I can still entertain myself and mine without power.

I worry for my family. My mother works in childcare; she has years of clerical experience, but decided to change jobs to see out her working days doing something she loved. My older sister is a teacher in a remote community. She lives with her husband on a large farm. They are heavily dependant on oil. Of my younger sisters, one is also a teacher in a larger coastal town. The other lives in Sydney working in experiential marketing. My father is an O&G, and will probably never have trouble finding work, but has designs on retiring in ten years; his current lifestyle would be unsustainable.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Duchess, I seem to recall references in the past to blasting about the countryside in a borrowed Passat. More economical than an Escalade or Suburban, certainly, but I'm sure you would have derived personal satisfaction from it. I assume there was no other way to get where you were going?

The other person in the car was also going to where I was going. And the nearest train route involves traveling to D.C. and THEN Atlanta, instead of a straight shot overnight, because there is no more Floridian.

The current car Amy and I use, a 2003 Corolla with a 4-cyl engine, gets about 39mpg in highway driving under good conditions, and never less than 30mpg even in commuter driving, and right now it's easily possible for us to use it no more than about twice a week for a total of 40 miles driven over that week.

[Korto]

What I'm curious about is, if when oil becomes scarse and if we start using gas and coal in its place (seems likely), what does that do to the 75 year prediction for gas reserves? And then when gas dries up, if coal is used to replace that, too, how long would the coal last then? Are these estimates just based on current use (and current growth), or has anyone considered that a shortfall in one fossil fuel may mean whatever remains will have to shoulder the additional burden?

I figure for my country, coal to fuel is the stop gap that can keep us going for nigh on 300 or more years...
<Snip>

And that's fine, except we export coal. How long would it last if we're supplying not just ourselves, but (as a hypothetical) all of China and a decent chunk of Europe? Same goes for NZ, a thousand years per capita may not mean much if you're supplying the rest of the world.

[CaptainZoidberg]

It's not that simple. Firstly, we can't call peak until it's in the rear-view mirror; it is close though. Not 2015-40 as some energy analysts and organisations would have told you until recently.

So you're saying it's going to happen before 2015. Why not just attach a number to that so that your prediction is in no way ambiguous and possible to skew?

Like, the GDP per capita will decline 20% from its 2008 value by 2024.

Secondly, a perfect bell curve is by no means the only way it can play out. Hubbert Linearisation doesn't take into account things like export land declines, geo-political tension or other surprise events that may or may not mitigate/exacerbate the situation. We, again, have scenarios, so I'll find some more up-to-date ones and give you an idea.

Ignoring short term variations, the US production was a pretty even bell curve.

But it is a measure of production. I think we can all agree that for any unit of energy, you can get only so much work done with it to produce goods to fuel economic growth. It is simplistic to say energy declining by such and such, will mean the economy goes down by this much. But it is a good indicator for baselines to allow for planning.

Not really. Advancement in some fields like consumer electronics or information technology involves an increase in GDP and labor used, but not a linear increase in power.

I take it you also don't accept climate change.

No, I accept climate change (but I'd also like to see more specifics from them). I took a geography class at my community college, and the professor had his Ph.D. He said that global warming was pretty much solid science, and showed us a good chunk of evidence.

I'm not qualified to make a judgment, but everyone I know who works in the natural sciences thinks global warming is legitimate.

I'm sorry I can't give you an exact date.

If you know peak oil will occur, say, before 2050, you could say "The per capita GDP will go down XX% from its 2008 value by 2050".

This is reality, not a computer game.

Oh, I don't doubt peak oil one bit. I just think that if you're going to say "Peak oil is coming very soon, and will have dire consequences", you ought to attach some numbers to that claim so that there won't be any wiggle room in judging whether you were right or not.

What you ask of me impossible, and as we see with well understood climatological models, we can still be way off even with the best supercomputers. The actual evidence seen now, however, shows a worsening situation beyond the predictions most favoured.

I'm not asking for the exact moment of peak oil, I'm just asking for a prediction that can be tested.

[Stuart Mackey]

And that's fine, except we export coal. How long would it last if we're supplying not just ourselves, but (as a hypothetical) all of China and a decent chunk of Europe? Same goes for NZ, a thousand years per capita may not mean much if you're supplying the rest of the world.

Then don't supply the rest of the world, or rather only supply those nations that you have a realistic chance of helping, ie not a drop in the bucket, and they can offer you something serious in return, like Japan. Free trade is fine, but its not a death pact.

[tim31]

Fair enough. I wasn't having a dig, of course, merely curious. On the note of usage, on a weekly basis I cover no more than 300 kilometres and often not more than 200. I walk whenever possible and would walk to work if I didn't desperately need the thirty minutes of sleep that doing so would remove.

We flew home from Sydney on Wednesday evening after visiting my dad for a week. He lives in the middle of the city, about a block from a train station that is itself one stop away from Central, so all rail lines on the network are easily accessible. However, we caught a cab to the airport, for two reasons: 1.) with two small children and all that comes with them, it was easier, and 2.) the line that runs to the domestic and international airport terminals, which was constructed for the 2000 Olympics, is entirely privatized. Even taking into account that the kids would have been free, it cost a fraction more to catch a cab, and we didn't have to fight for a seat during commuting time.

I am hopefully of Australia reviving and expanding its rail network in the face of diminishing road use, but I fear that the private sector will try and glean a decent buck from it.

[Big Phil]

My single issue with these threads about peak oil, is that AV, Duchess, and J are NOT geologists and petroleum experts (that I know of); they're educated amateurs. Why people keep asking them for advice on what to do after peak oil is beyond me. It's a bit like asking Shep for advice on defense department matters instead of Stuart. Shep is a talented amateur, but Stuart's actually worked in defense, not just read about it.

Mind you, that doesn't mean they're wrong; just that there are conflicting reports out there and its hard for layperson like me to know which to believe.

[Butterbean569]

Few questions I have:

* I've heard about big reserves in Montana/Wyoming/Canada....is this bogus media hype or are they true hope for getting North America through peak and into the 'new age' of energy (i.e. nukes, solar, wind)? I'm pretty confident we'll be keeping anything we get out of there....how long could it realistically hold us over?

* In the next two decades, would America be able to make all *electricity* based off nukes, wind, solar? I figure we can power everything off this stuff, and use the remaining oil/nat gas/coal for transportation purposes...?

* If everyone's so certain that this is going to happen (as I am), why don't you all open up a TDAmeritrade account (as I did) and invest all you can afford in Oil, Nat Gas, Wind, Railroads, and Solar (as I have been doing)? Assuming you have the spare money to invest, that is... Do you think it will get so bad that financial assets will be worthless in 20 years regardless? I figure if I attach a good portion of my savings to oil/nat gas + invest in alt energy and railroads, I should be able to keep pace w/ inflation and the recession/depression....any reasons why my plan wouldn't work out? Worked well so far, my portfolio was up 10% in May....

* What would you prefer: Capitalism/free-markets working naturally to try and fix this, or a planned economy? If not capitalism, why? Only reasons I could see Capitalism not working out is b/c it may take too long to react, or it may end up destroying the Earth even quicker (i.e. global warming). Yes, I'm an Economist Major, so you know which I'm supporting...but on the other hand I have no doubt that people would sacrifice the environment even more to keep their $$$...dismal science indeed.

* On a scale of 1-10 (one being total collapse, ten being ongoing growth as we've seen it in the past century, five being a plateau to where we at now), in the next 20 years what would you predict for: US/Canada, South America, China, Russia, EU?

Hopefully should get some interesting replies...

[The Duchess of Zeon]

On your scale, in the next 20 years, with 5 being a plateau with no further improvement, 1 total collapse? A 4.

The reserves in Montana/Wyoming/Canada are Oil Shale, which is enormously expensive to refine into oil and has all kinds of practical difficulties. You CAN however burn it with little processing, so it can be used exactly like low-grade coal, which has the effect of adding decades of fossil fuel use before we run low on coal.

We need hydroelectric, too. Microhydro installations emasse on existing agricultural dams would help a lot; really, 20 years unfortunately won't completely eliminate our power production by fossil fuels, but we can eliminate oil and natural gas electricity production and just rely on coal as the last fossil fuel for electricity.

[phongn]

* I've heard about big reserves in Montana/Wyoming/Canada....is this bogus media hype or are they true hope for getting North America through peak and into the 'new age' of energy (i.e. nukes, solar, wind)? I'm pretty confident we'll be keeping anything we get out of there....how long could it realistically hold us over?

A long, long time. But it costs a fortune to extract the precious energy from oil tars and oil shale. Now, there could be some sort of breakthrough but don't get your hopes up. What's more likely, I think, is that we'll get moderate production in an era of sky-high oil prices.

In the next two decades, would America be able to make all *electricity* based off nukes, wind, solar? I figure we can power everything off this stuff, and use the remaining oil/nat gas/coal for transportation purposes...?

No. That would require astoundingly massive investment in construction: coal power plants represent 49% of electrical generation in the US and natural gas another 20%. Fortunately, even the more pessimistic US coal reserves are so enormous (100+ years left) we'll be able to keep the lights on.

What would you prefer: Capitalism/free-markets working naturally to try and fix this, or a planned economy? If not capitalism, why? Only reasons I could see Capitalism not working out is b/c it may take too long to react, or it may end up destroying the Earth even quicker (i.e. global warming). Yes, I'm an Economist Major, so you know which I'm supporting...but on the other hand I have no doubt that people would sacrifice the environment even more to keep their $$$...dismal science indeed.

There need not be a schism between the two. Government incentive and regulation can push the market to other alternatives. And large-scale projects like the TVA can also be done if needed.

On a scale of 1-10 (one being total collapse, ten being ongoing growth as we've seen it in the past century, five being a plateau to where we at now), in the next 20 years what would you predict for: US/Canada, South America, China, Russia, EU?

I'm not so pessimistic as many here, but somewhere around a 5±1 or so doesn't sound unreasonable to me.

[Darth Wong]

Ontario's power generation breakdown as of right now, from the OPG website:

3993 MW fossil
5622 MW nuclear
5289 MW hydro
14904 MW total

Currently, work is underway to expand Darlington NGS from 4 units to its original plan of 8 units, at roughly 875 net MW per unit. This means we're bringing an additional 3500 MW of nuclear power onstream: almost as much as we currently generate with fossil power. I think it's worth stating here that a single 8-unit plant like Darlington (once it's finished) can make 7000 MW of power by itself. Two such plants could supply almost all of Ontario's power generation needs, especially when added to the hydro power. Three of them would give us enough power to waste it and laugh.

[Coyote]

Are there stated plans to phase out the fossil fuel use, or is it just expanding nuclear to meet expanding demand while keeping the fossil burning?

[Darth Wong]

Are there stated plans to phase out the fossil fuel use, or is it just expanding nuclear to meet expanding demand while keeping the fossil burning?

The Ontario government has announced plans to scrap all fossil-burning power plants, but their original timeline was hopelessly unrealistic, so it's an open-ended plan right now. Nevertheless, the intention is there. Bringing another 3500 MW onstream will help, but they still need more. However, in these tight economic times, I don't think they can scrounge up the funds to build another Darlington any time soon.

It's too bad, because another Darlington would leave us sitting pretty. As it is, their plan to bring 3500 MW more nuclear power online won't be enough unless conservation efforts are more effective than they have been in the past.

[Big Phil]

At what point do we have to start worrying about Peak Uranium or Peak Plutonium, if there is a wholesale switch to nuclear power generation?

[Big Phil]

Also, what is the difference in cost between solar/wind/hydroelectric/nuclear/coal/oil based power generation? In other words, is a coal burning plant dirt cheap compared to nuclear or wind?

[CaptainZoidberg]

At what point do we have to start worrying about Peak Uranium or Peak Plutonium, if there is a wholesale switch to nuclear power generation?

A couple million years from now. Plenty of time to switch to space solar.

According to this guy it's much longer than that:

http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/cohen.html

(professor from University of Pittsburgh, says uranium will last 5 billion years, although I'm guessing it will peak far before that)

[Admiral Valdemar]

So you're saying it's going to happen before 2015. Why not just attach a number to that so that your prediction is in no way ambiguous and possible to skew?


Like, the GDP per capita will decline 20% from its 2008 value by 2024.

Because anything can happen to make such a prediction woefully inaccurate. If the experts can only give a range of years for things to go belly up, then I'm hardly in the position to pluck a year out of thin air.

You seem to think all of this is solely down to geology. It is not. As has been repeatedly discussed on this board (do a search for previous topics related to peak oil for some informative banter), the human element is enough to cause a major downturn that would not ordinarily manifest based on petro-geology. For example, the light sweet crude peak was in mid-2005, but the real fun is happening as of the last quarter of 2007 where OPEC started to run out of spare capacity. It's not a coincidence that the price has increased rapidly since those events popped up on the radar.

The correction this week in prices was short lived. We've just this past 24 hours seen the largest single rise in oil spot price in history (over $6). We're now hovering just below another all time record. This means the commodity was oversold on Tuesday/Wednesday and we're seeing the repercussions come about immediately.

The sudden increase has come from nowhere and the likes of Bloomberg were reporting the markets were going hysterical given they don't know what's going on.

Ignoring short term variations, the US production was a pretty even bell curve.

Because a) the Lower 48 are far older fields, b) as such, they used older technologies e.g. they didn't start with horizontal well drilling, secondary and extended recovery via saline or CO2.

If you look at the newer fields, like Forties and Brent in the North Sea, you'll see they fell off a cliff. The older fields in the US and KSA are better able to extend the decline, as per the HL bell curve, because of the way they're managed. If the UK was used as an example for the world, then we'd have seen the global economy crash overnight.

Not really. Advancement in some fields like consumer electronics or information technology involves an increase in GDP and labor used, but not a linear increase in power.

Which is the efficiency increase I talked about. Again, that only goes so far. You cannot get more energy out of a barrel of oil when thermodynamics is the limiting factor. It is important to also recognise that economic barriers can be overcome provided the Law of Receding Horizons doesn't bite too hard, but the final factor dictating whether a reserve is recovered or not is EROEI.

No, I accept climate change (but I'd also like to see more specifics from them). I took a geography class at my community college, and the professor had his Ph.D. He said that global warming was pretty much solid science, and showed us a good chunk of evidence.

I'm not qualified to make a judgment, but everyone I know who works in the natural sciences thinks global warming is legitimate.

Whether the phenomenon is real or not is not questionable. It's the time-lines, and the IPCC has many possible scenarios, just as PO theorists do too.

If you know peak oil will occur, say, before 2050, you could say "The per capita GDP will go down XX% from its 2008 value by 2050".

It may be happening now. We know that the majority of all liquids increases since 2005 have been down to bio-fuels, CTL and GTL. Heavy sour is harder to refine and while still abundant, won't help much if you cannot get the finished products out fast enough. The others rely heavily on government subsidies, such as US ethanol which is a major boondoggle financially and has only around two thirds the energy of an equivalent volume of fossil fuel liquids.

Oh, I don't doubt peak oil one bit. I just think that if you're going to say "Peak oil is coming very soon, and will have dire consequences", you ought to attach some numbers to that claim so that there won't be any wiggle room in judging whether you were right or not.

I honestly don't see the point. If you're here to corner me into blurting out a date so you can then say "No, you were wrong", then you're missing the bigger picture. There is a major problem right now. Who cares if it's 2009, 2012 or 2020? The effects are being felt today and rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic doesn't accomplish anything.

This isn't a new problem either. Hubbert anticipated oil to peak in 1995. When it didn't and, in fact, got even cheaper and more abundant, he was decried as a fraud. Same goes for the Club of Rome's Limits of Growth paper. So while these jackasses were gloating over watching the Malthusian doomsayers remove that egg from their collective faces, the world decided to carry on with BAU and throw us further down the Olduvai Gorge of energy despair.

If we had any sense - and seemingly we don't - we'd have addressed this problem in the '70s. The exact period Robert Hirsch mentions as being the opportune time to get off this stupid fossil fuel habit. But of course, the North Sea and Prudhoe Bay arrived to save the day. Until now.

I'm not asking for the exact moment of peak oil, I'm just asking for a prediction that can be tested.

Tested for what? Are you going to check if the world has imploded or not by the arbitrary date I'm meant to report? As I say, such predictions are meaningless if the major troubles are already rolling on to us in ever harder waves. How long do you think the world can survive $100+ oil without severe economic difficulties? Most estimates I've seen from the talking head economists have been from six to twelve months, as if oil is going back down to $38 again soon. Look at Goldman Sachs' predictions, and $200 is the going rate for the end of this year. Futures are all in contango and the moving average in the short and medium term are showing a baseline of around $120 now. This is serious today. I guarantee it will be more serious next year. If you have any idea on how far we can go before the globalised economy falters and collapses like a house of cards, I'd be interested in hearing it. Because the long and short of it is: nobody knows.

Few questions I have:

* I've heard about big reserves in Montana/Wyoming/Canada....is this bogus media hype or are they true hope for getting North America through peak and into the 'new age' of energy (i.e. nukes, solar, wind)? I'm pretty confident we'll be keeping anything we get out of there....how long could it realistically hold us over?

If you're talking about the heavy oils, then it will help, just not by much. They're expecting around 2 mbpd from Alberta by 2015 or so, and that's about it. That just about makes up for Mexico's decline. Of course, you will need nuclear and desalination plants to run such projects, simply because Canada doesn't have the natural gas to carry on with their current extraction rates, nor do they have the water for that and agriculture.

On a related note, I have it on good authority from a friend in BP that Thunderhorse may start pumping its first oil this month. It's several years and billions overdue, so it's about time. The Gulf of Mexico could do with more production as VenMex crash.

* In the next two decades, would America be able to make all *electricity* based off nukes, wind, solar? I figure we can power everything off this stuff, and use the remaining oil/nat gas/coal for transportation purposes...?

No.

* If everyone's so certain that this is going to happen (as I am), why don't you all open up a TDAmeritrade account (as I did) and invest all you can afford in Oil, Nat Gas, Wind, Railroads, and Solar (as I have been doing)? Assuming you have the spare money to invest, that is... Do you think it will get so bad that financial assets will be worthless in 20 years regardless? I figure if I attach a good portion of my savings to oil/nat gas + invest in alt energy and railroads, I should be able to keep pace w/ inflation and the recession/depression....any reasons why my plan wouldn't work out? Worked well so far, my portfolio was up 10% in May....

I have spare cash, but not to play the futures market with. I do have investments in green energy and China's economy, though I question what they'll get me if the financial system goes into meltdown, which is a very real possibility Der Spiegel had a great article about.

* What would you prefer: Capitalism/free-markets working naturally to try and fix this, or a planned economy? If not capitalism, why? Only reasons I could see Capitalism not working out is b/c it may take too long to react, or it may end up destroying the Earth even quicker (i.e. global warming). Yes, I'm an Economist Major, so you know which I'm supporting...but on the other hand I have no doubt that people would sacrifice the environment even more to keep their $$$...dismal science indeed.

The free markets have got us into this mess, I'm sure as hell not seeing them get us out of it. The only way to address this is via planned action from government, preferably with a guy in charge who has a brain. I'm trying to remember who it is now, because I recall one EU leader is a qualified energy expert and dictates policy accordingly. Most people don't have a damn clue e.g. the Daily Express today quoting oil prices falling the other day, so where's our cheap petrol?

* On a scale of 1-10 (one being total collapse, ten being ongoing growth as we've seen it in the past century, five being a plateau to where we at now), in the next 20 years what would you predict for: US/Canada, South America, China, Russia, EU?

Hopefully should get some interesting replies...

The US is going to fall apart without PO by virtue of your economy, which is dead in the water. Your debt and deficit are far too great, so you can are going to kill the dollar before long with hyperinflation. There goes the world reserve currency (people wonder what China is doing with their billions of dollars saved. Hint: they're subsidising their fuel bills with it before it becomes toilet paper). Even if the US cut all public spending and had 100% tax, you'd not get out of debt. Time to cash in your chips.

Canada, well, they're sensible people. And they have a trillion barrels of oil in the form of road surfacing. They'll cope, so long as NAFTA isn't mis-read (as some do) to mean Canada must give the US a percentage of what they have.

South America is a tricky one. It's hard to really see how they'll go, given their instability already and mix of traditional oil reserves to go with Brazil's more renewable forms.

Russia is kind of screwed now they've peaked. Not as screwed as the EU, though, where we rely on Russia's gas and oil. When that's gone, it's time to see who becomes the new Napoleon.

Also, what is the difference in cost between solar/wind/hydroelectric/nuclear/coal/oil based power generation? In other words, is a coal burning plant dirt cheap compared to nuclear or wind?

Basically, coal or gas CCGT plants are dirt cheap. Nuclear has horrific start up costs which are off-set by the cheap running costs of the fuel. Wind suffers, as with solar and other renewables, from expensive technology with far lower energy densities than the fossil fuels. It is believed that as coal and oil etc. become more expensive, then these will rise to the challenge and become competitive. I don't see that happening for a while yet (look at Germany and their potential energy problems despite the world's greenest energy grid), though I hope for breakthroughs like nanosolar and so on. Unfortunately, as the price of fossil fuel energy goes up, so too does the cost of making such new power plants. They are, after all, made from fossil fuels first.

[aerius]

Also, what is the difference in cost between solar/wind/hydroelectric/nuclear/coal/oil based power generation? In other words, is a coal burning plant dirt cheap compared to nuclear or wind?

Right now coal is the cheapest since the plants are cheap to build and there's no multi-decade long environmental assessment crap with a bunch of delays thrown in for good measure by government red tape. Nuclear and hydroelectric have the lowest generating costs once the plants are up and running, problem is getting them built requires lengthy environmental assessments and shitloads of bureaucratic crap so the final cost often ends up being several times the initial estimated cost. You can build a coal plant for a few hundred million bucks in a couple years, nuke plants are around 4-5 billion or so, the last one built in Ontario cost something like 14 billion. Big hydroelectric projects such as James Bay are also huge multi-billion dollar undertakings that take decades to build.

Nuclear as I recall is around 1.5-2 cents/kWh, hydro's the same or less, coal is around 2.2 or so, gas is 8 cents I think, probably more by now since natural gas prices have gone through the roof. Wind & solar are still around 8-10 cents or so the last time I checked.

[Darth Wong]

Darlington cost $14 billion because of a lot of factors including NIH (Not Invented Here) syndrome. If they'd used more off-the-shelf parts and sub-contracted work, they probably could have cut their costs enormously. But it was used as a local employment generator instead, so it cost a lot more money. Mind you, there are worse ways to blow government money (such as funneling it into some far-off land in some moronic attempt to transform another country's society) than on local employment through public-works projects.

[aerius]

My dad worked for Ontario Hydro R&D when they were building Darlington, he had some very unkind words for the fuckups who were managing the project. Lots of union crap, lots of last minute changes by all sides, which led to more union cap and red tape. He had to do craploads of last minute redesigns on a bunch of stuff, which meant lots of OT pay. He was not a happy person.