Comments on: Transitioning to a post-peak oil world

A Boulder, Colo., nonprofit is urging communities across the country and the world to prepare for the chaos that could come from the end of cheap oil. Daniel Terdiman reports for Road Trip 2009.

[SactoGuy018]

Of course, thanks to the developments in biofuels over the last ten years, we may be getting diesel fuel, gasoline and kerosene from biomass on a large scale soon. Once that transitition happens (most likely by 2025), we'll all be wondering how "quaint" it was to get motor fuels from non-renewable crude oil.

[man_w_balls]

Good ideas. But what about densely urban areas like New York City? Probably won't be much space to do community farming there.

Do they have plans for self-sustaining electricity and water? I would like to continue having those utilities.
A basic plan for the electricity could involve car alternators from scrapyards + car batteries + AC inverter boxes. Just power the alternator pulleys with wind, water, etc...

[Cobralord]

And what about all those movements to end suburban "sprawl"? Government planners for years have been trying to get people to live in more densely packed neighborhoods to cut down on transportation and infrastructure costs.

[meh130]

We really need to decouple those who are trying to leverage the peak oil concept to reduce fossil fuels for political reasons ("green", climate change, etc.) from those who are examining peak oil from an economic standpoint. Right now, the "Peak Oilers" are eerily reminiscent of the Ehrlich inspired "Population Bombers" of the early 1970s, and the Carlson inspired "Silent Springers", the latter who efforts doomed generations to death in the third world.

First, the world is awash in fossil fuels. There is still a lot of untapped crude oil. Second, there is plenty of natural gas. Third, there is an enormous amount of coal in the world. Natural gas can be Fischer-Tropsched to a diesel/kerosene fuel, as can gas derived from coal. These gas to liquid (GTL) solutions become much more feasible as the price of a barrel of oil rises due to peak oil. As do biofuels.

The answer is not biofuels. Biofuels may play a part of the eventual answer, but alone, they are not the answer. Biofuels seem an easy answer for many because they are a simple substitute. But we saw what a disaster it was to push Ethanol in 2007 and 2008. Corn prices skyrocketed, agricultural commodities were economically linked to oil prices, and became subject to rampant inflation when a refinery lost power due to a hurricane. I mean, come on, we had microbreweries going out of business because hops was too expensive because farmers were planting corn instead of hops because the price or corn was overinflated. We had tortilla riots in Mexico City. This has to be thought out before blindly assuming burning our food will solve our fuel problems.

What is the answer? If we could generate more electricity from non-fossil methods by moving existing fossil electric generation, and net new electric generation to primarily nuclear power, augmented by solar (perfect for daytime peaks), move more heating from heating oil to natural gas in the north, and from natural gas to electric in the south, we would free up fossil fuel for transportation uses, which is what is is best suited for. Increasing available electricity brings the option of moving long-range freight trains to electric drive, freeing up more fossil fuel for other forms of transportation. Then GTL and biofuels (preferably biodiesel, not ethanol) augment declining petroleum stocks.

The reality is, you are not going to ever fly airliners on electricity alone. And if the whole country eventually goes to electric cars, trucks, and trains, you will never produce enough electricity with solar and wind. You will have to go nuclear. Or live in the dark and walk.

When I see a "Peak Oiler" with one of those "More Nukes, Less Kooks" bumper stickers, I'll know they are serious. King Hubbert, who first proposed peak oil, was pro-nuke.

[wolivere]

Good response and along the lines of what I was going to post.

Bio fuel sounds good, but reality is there is not enough crop space to both feed us, and to support Bio fuel. Last year was the perfect example.

As you have stated we have more potential oil reserves today then in the 70's. When we look at oil sands, and shale oil. The reserves are huge, and Canadian oil sands becomes profitable when oil is above $25.00, although today they say they need $50 oil to make it really profitable. But that said the reserves are huge, and the US has even larger reserves of Shale Oil, which becomes profitable in the $70 range.

The US is very dependent on Coal for Electrical generation, but that is changing, and as pointed out we can not get enough wind farms to support the US or Canada, they can supplement they can't replace. Canada gets the majority of its Electricity from Hydro Electric, but then again we are only powering the population = to California.

But, what I do see happening is the end of global industry. We know at $70 + oil long haul shipping costs starts to eat into the savings of the mega factories.

I expect we will see an end to the Trucking industry, and a reinvention of the long haul rail system. Which most likely would follow a European flavor and go Electric, instead of Diesel Electric.

Even when we look at the 40's -70's most industry in North America was regional. Yet no one suffered there was no lack of choice.

I can look at examples from my home town of Winnipeg.

During those years the city supported 3 Major Breweries, and about a dozen smaller ones. It had a huge textile industry that supported the garment industry. You had department stores, you had small scale local manufacturing, you had local produce canning, local slaughter yards...etc..etc

During the 80's the big breweries went away replaced my mega breweries, the idea that the savings from one or two huge ones, with low cost shipping made sense. So over all 15-20k in jobs where lost across the country. Local team support vanished, the local community support vanished. And the skilled workers moved or took on other jobs, most in the long haul trucking industry. But... we never saw a savings on the final product did we?

Same with the Textile industry, it became cheaper to ship raw materials to Mexico or China, then bring the product back to the garment industry, then eventually the garment industry also moved.

But as times change I see the trend reversing

Same with Cattle Swine Chicken... there use to be slaughter houses for them, but that moved to mega yards, it was cheaper with low oil to do so.

That has already reversed, and we have to just look at the price of Chicken today to see the outcome.

When these industries move back, the final product may be marginally more expensive then the cheap oil days, but you will also have more higher paid workers in the consumer market to offset the prices.

We all have been suckered in by what I call the Walmart syndrome, as we have seen a shift of the bell curve on wages meaning there is a bigger gap from the top to the bottom; we have more lower waged people buying lower priced product from Box Stores like Walmart. The Walmart syndrome at least to me, is I go to Walmart I buy a pair of shoes for $20 from an over seas manufacturer, my initial savings seam huge. But, the fact is that over the coarse of the year I may end up replacing those shoes three times as they fall apart. Did I save anything buy not buying the $40 shoes at the specialty store? Ones that 3 years later I will still wear?

So yes to me I believe we will see a shift back to the Industries of the 40's-70's. It may cause some initial sticker shock but for the G8 nations I believe we will see greater stability, only the upcoming 3rd world nations will see a drop off as less and less industry is off shored due to shipping costs.

[ArgentOwl]

Daniel, building on meh130's comment on pushing Ethanol in 2007-08. I was just thinking about that when I saw that you will be on the road through South Dakota this time around. As a family, we took Amtrak's Empire Builder from Chicago to Seattle in 2007, which took us through North Dakota (fabulous trip I recommend to anyone, BTW). The nice thing about Amtrak is you get to enjoy full, relaxed conversations with fellow travelers over the course of the journey. But what struck me as we chugged from town to town through ND was the number of _residents_ who were on the train to _commute_ to a job in another town: going one way one day, staying to work a few days, then catching it back in the other direction later in the week to go home.

Who would do that? Turns out a number of them were farmers that had been hard hit by the corn ethanol boom. That seemed counter-intuitive to me. "Wait a minute, guys, aren't you getting record-high prices for corn?" The problem was, the profits were all going to landlords (a lot of farmers rent the land they work, not own it), ethanol processors, and seed and fertilizer companies. As the price of corn shot up, so had the cost of growing it. Prices for fertilizer were double or more. Then speculation began to drive land prices up, and with that, rents swelled. A lot of the older guys were on the edge already trying to compete with mega-farms, and had been through the farm crisis of the 80s and weren't about to get back into bad debt situations. Renters decided to bail for a season or more. When the guys owning their land saw an opportunity to get out, they took it. But they certainly didn't make enough to retire on, and there aren't a lot of jobs in small towns on the high plains. For the younger guys, most of them couldn't even afford to get in and start farming, so they were really stuck after growing up expecting to farm.

I don't know if there's significant corn farming in South Dakota, but I wonder what you might learn about what's happened since, especially since the biofuels industry is now chasing cellulosic ethanol. Seems like losing even more small farmers is exactly the opposite of what we need vis-a-vis the needs this article highlights.

[wolivere]

meh130

Up here in my home town, the majority of the city housing is Natural Gas, but we also have swings where the Summer highs are in the humid 90's with below -40c in the winters.

The past 4-5 years many people started moving to geothermal. And I also made the move. The difference has been huge at least for us. Our annual costs nose dived, our upfront cost was steep, but the government incentives where good so I am looking at a 5-7 year repayment period. But that aside, I no longer have the noisy outdoor compressor for my air conditioning. My place stays really cool in the summer and stays nice and warm in the winter.

Last year we put a small roof mount wind turbine up, and being out Geothermal pumps use electricity we found our annual bill to be next to nothing. I am looking to supplement in the next few years with a better turbine and solar. Which would effectively take me off the grid. I can never be 100% off grid since there are cloudy days with no wind.. and todays local power storage capabilities can not meet the demands of a 2000+ sqft 4 person house hold with 5 computers and 3 plasma TV's. But I bet in the next few years I can get my power bill to nothing or even a credit status.

Our plans are to get rid of all 3 current cars get two electric cars for local commutes, move to a hybrid van or truck for long hauls and shopping, and keeping the RV diesel for the holiday trips.

It does not take much to make a huge change in your consumption, environmental footprint.

@Argentowl

I hear you, last year in Manitoba, a lot of consumer type crops where not planted as more and more crops for the Bio Fuel industry where planted. The end result was bread costing 400% more.

[Kimsh]

Step out of the 70s. There is a rapidly decreasing store of carbon that we are hurling into the atmosphere, just one more way to think of fossil fuels. Not every one is motiviated only by politics and money.

[vamman]

I'm sure in BOULDER the concept of a metrosexual man might be a bit misunderstood but over in New York the streets are teaming with millions of these well groomed, pedicured men with little knowledge or even desire to deal without the luxuries that exist in our modern world. How do you tell all these people that everything they've been doing since the last 100 years is fastly becoming meaningless? Its not just men either shift your eyes down to the suburbs of California and you will find millions of soccer moms piling kids into their mini-vans and SUVs to head to the big game, then some pizza on the way back, and maybe even phone her hubby after his big meeting in LA. This way of life is going to change and I believe abruptly for people.

These are all people that lack both the knowledge and skill to deal with the crises that are approaching because of our modern way of life. There are literally millions of people on this planet completely dependent on fossil fuels for their existence and if that was to disappear today most of those people would parish.

Business and even global market would mean little or nothing in a world where we are unable to transfer goods and resources from one country to the next. After the mass extinction of people that can't do anything but push papers around a desk, we would see the re-emergence of the local market and barting system that exists not to long ago. The majority of electricity pumped into North American's grids every second is generated by fossil fuels so yes even electricity will become scarce until Nuclear Power Plants, Wind and Water turbines are put in place (but when that happen if nothing is planned for now is anyone's guess). The economies of the western world will collapse while the people of third and second world nations which have never had the types of luxuries that exist in the west will coup and survive and likely even become the world we desire.

What to do about the old, the sick, the millions of people relying on machines to breath for them, pump their hearts for them, even eat for them? What to do about the drinking water crisis? The human population is going to collapse if all we have as a backup plan is biofuels which means we need to waste our food for fuel. You wouldn't think it by visiting America that the world is suffering from a food shortage (their upsized Happy Meal is enough food to feed 5 village men in south Asia) but the rest of the world is already experiencing a food shortage due to our massive population on one planet.

The authors of the books cited in this article refer to a time when our population was in the high millions and local communities were tribes at best. Our ancestors, our sister species, even our evolutionary cousins (monkeys... yes) survived and survive well in tribes but the massive man pile that exists in our urban centers have no hope in surviving off of local markets. The concept of going green and buying locally epically fails to deal with the issue of massive urbanization and completely ignores that their suggestion of adaptation in a place like BOULDER might work great for the time being but when the entire local market becomes overwhelmed with hungry people (there isn't enough farm land to feed all these people) then what?

This attitude is not a solution folks and not even a bandaid really. We need to seriously consider the direction our species is heading because it is heading in a direction that spells collapse. No species on this planet has left a wider ecological footprint then we have and when our resources dry up so will that footprint (due to mass extinction) the beasts the once roamed this planet freely will likely do so once again.

Some people look to the skies, some people look in their hearts, but at this point no one has a solution and likely no one ever will.

[wolivere]

As mentioned earlier, we are hundreds of years away from running out of fossil fuel for electricity. And most of those estimates are on the low side since they only count current proven reserves that can actually be mined today. We don't talk about deeper reserves or reserves in protected areas. It also counts a 2-3% increase in demand, not counting some countries are moving away from Coal electrical generation. When I see figures that say coal can fuel the plant for 53 years, that is very misleading since those numbers are based on total megawatt demand on the planet, and the entire BTU consumption of all current fossil fuel use.

Well we know that only 40% of the worlds electricity is generated by coal, and we know your car and my car is not powered by fuel derived from coal, so those numbers are really off in left field.

The use of Coal for electricity is also odd, some countries are using more some using less. I see us moving more and more to Nuke power, we have become better at it, it has become safer, and we are getting better at dealing with the aftermath.

I do need to argue the huge man pile argument. Although populations have grown, the simple fact is even when we did not have the car like today we have mega million population cities.

And lets assume we move to a world that did not use fossil fuel for ocean transport, and we moved back to the age of sail. Yes a trip wold take longer crews would be smaller with our ability to automate, we would just have more ships in the pipeline to make up for the length of journey.

We are not going to have a melt down, we are just going to have a shift from the huge global economy the sprung up in the 80's and 90's. And, really even back then I remember people arguing that this globalization was unsustainable. So it should not come as a surprise to anyone.

I am sure local lumber/pulp/paper/steel....etc..etc workers will be dancing for joy.

And really, we have fed the flames of the people who do not like our countries, buying cheap oil adding money to there local economies, buying from mega over seas factories from countries who's global policies are against our own. We are giving money and resources to people who don't like us.

Do you really think the terrorists will have the money to cause trouble if we don't buy oil from nations that back them? Do you think the terrorists who are mad at us for exploiting there home countries for oil will still be upset at our presence when we leave?

We are moving into a new world, a new economy, and to me at least a better place.

[MyRightEye]

Great points, but oil is NOT a fossil fuel. It looks like near-all of you need to do a little research there. Oil is not dead dinosaurs, and we will never run out of oil. Oil is a renewable resource that is being constantly produced within the earth's crust.

While there seems to be some evidence that abiogenic petroleum production exists, that process isn't considered to be a major source of oil. The abiogenic theory was popular in Russia in the 1950s and has some support in the US. But most petroleum geologists believe that the bulk of the oil reserves are 'dead dinosaur' or biogenically based.

There is nothing that prevents both processes from existing though.

For that matter, oil is still being produced via the equivalent of the 'dinosaur' method as plankton and algae settle and are covered by sediments. We just have to wait a few million years for this oil to be available.

In either instance, just because something is a renewable resource doesn't mean that you can't run out of it on a short term basis. If your rate of consumption exceeds the rate of production you will have times when you are 'out' of the renewable resource.

[shootfirst]

I think all this is really funny. Think about it for a moment. Our whole society, the push forward is about expanding. Expanding means not thinking locally, but globally, our whole solar system, and even galactic. No doubt big business does push the small guys out, but many of the jobs that disappear from big business are replaced in a different form. If we run out of oil we will find a different solution. If we do not who cares? Not one person can tell you that living one way or another is better. No one knows the true potential that humanity should seek. If you want to shelter yourself in your local community feel free. I would rather invest myself within a global community, albeit one where not every job is offshored because that is pure lunacy. My point is, the end of the world may or may not come, but humanity does not have the foresight to deal with it. The galaxy, earth and everything was here long before we existed and will be long after we are extinct. Don't worry and don't bring up kids to worry about things that are not within their control. Live your life, do what you know to be right by using your brain and don't think for an instance that what you do to go green is really green because some piece of paper says so. Change will happen, don't fight it roll with it and you will make do one way or another.

[SteveW928]

I don't think I agree with all the doom and gloom predicted here... at least not from oil (and I'm generally more of a pessimist, look for the problems, engineer type). Technologies already exist to replace oil (nuclear and batteries electric cars for less green solutions; to things like utility-scale solar concentrating, hydrogen; and we're not likely far from bio-fuels produced by the 'work' of engineered bacteria, etc.). The problem in implementing these is primarily the will-power to actually do them and the money. Both of these will quickly come about if the oil does run out and prices skyrocket. Since the technologies largely already exist, the transition could happen extremely rapidly.

What I am FAR more concerned about is economic collapse and the resulting chaos. The question is really when. Are we in the start of it now... or will they fudge the numbers well enough and play with the economy enough to buy us another decade or two? I think people are just totally out of touch with how far in debt we are and the rate we're spending. We couldn't believe how much we spent on the Iraq war (how many of us can conceptualize trillions of $)... now we're eclipsing that by how much we're rewarding failed companies for their crazy-poor performance (do people realize we gave GM alone like 1/10th of what we've spent in Iraq?). When our cash runs out (which is already just artificial), the infrastructures collapse, etc.... things are going to get bad. I suppose this could be corrected if people are willing to change... and the government can regulate things to let the air out slowly. BUT, the the article is dead on about one thing... we have a couple generations of people who aren't likely to work on the fix, and are just expecting the government to fix it. If that doesn't change, this is truly not going to be pretty.... and it has very little to do with oil.

[MyRightEye]

AH... someone that GETS it! Thank you...

I think you're spot on the money, pun intended, and I don't believe we have more than a few years... This year, in a few months, we will see the first REAL fall of the US economy. It ill recover for a bit, and then suffer yet another fall. By this point we'll be drowning in inflation and the end of the economy will be at hand. Before or during 2012, it's all over rover.

[cyberspittle]

One of the problems, is that the rest of the world is trying to live like Americans (even though they quite often hate or detest us) with our high consumption models. This may be a product of a disposable society. For example, many fast food restaurants have "happy meals" with toys of low quality and little use. I don't know many kids that play with their happy meal toys more than a week or day. These toys are all made of plastic which is originally from oil. These plastic toys are shipped halfway across the planet. Having a carbon-tax (variable tax based on distance?) on imported items. Sure, prices would go up, but consumption would go down. Call me old-fashioned, but I remember when a toy was a special event revolving around ones birthday or holiday of one sort. I apologize for the transgretion, however, there are many inefficiencies in our global model that agitate the economic world we live in. Although the happy meail scenario is one case (or exception) I think the disposeable society is a more model. IMHO.

[jolietgeorge]

Amazing how an entire culture arises out of a myth. Now we need to focus on a post Easter Bunny world.

[JonFraudCarry]

Why are Liberal moonbats so obsessed with crisis and disaster? There is no such thing as peak oil, there are enough years of oil, coal, and gas to transition us to nuclear. The idea of burning food for fuel, bio-fuel, is criminal. Solar and wind are even more environmentally damaging.

[Kimsh]

As sad as it is that this is a novel concept in the US, putting you decades behind the rest of the world, the comments here are even more depressing. I am continually shocked by the sense of entitlement that US citizens display.
If you feel it is all about you, then do not complain when you are the target of attacks. One goes with the other.

[Cobralord]

I'm all for people learning how to be self sufficient and independent. And we really need to have a diverse energy generating infrastructure. But I think we should move away from bio-fuels and look at hydro and nuclear power, as the unintended consequence of bio-fuels is higher fuel and food costs.
But I'm really disappointed that they didn't look at Toshiba's micro-nuclear reactor as a power solution. Its designed to provide power to small towns.

And we should also keep in mind that even if we ween ourselves off oil as a fuel, its just too useful as substance, we'll still need it for plastics etc.

[Cobralord]

And we really need to ratchet down the global warming hysteria. Its poor science and its leading to poor (more like panicked) decision making.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/06/24/could_australia_blow_apart_the_great_global_warming_scare_97148.html

[root-man]

Please do some research before you spout green myths.
Peak oil is a lie. Look at the evidence and refute it if you can.
http://tinyurl.com/peakoilisalie
This lie along with the global warming scam are being used to wage war on the people of the world.
http://tinyurl.com/globalwarmingisascam
Next you will be crying about the overpopulation myth..
http://tinyurl.com/overpopulationisamyth
Why not talk about something real?
http://tinyurl.com/aerosolcrimes
Too hot to touch!?

[gggg sssss]

horse apples.

We have only used oil for 100 years. we will invent something new for teh next 100. Just keep government planning far far away. If government planning was a good idea there would still be a USSR. If centralized planning was a good idea there woudl still be a British Empire.

And somebody stifle the greeers before they all force us to drink their KoolAid.

[James Anderson Merritt]

To the fellow who said that we don't have enough solar power capacity to deal with the need if the country switched to electric vehicles, three points of information:

1. There is no way that such a switchover could happen overnight. Even if it started in earnest today, a switchover to EVs would take years at minimum, decades probably. That is just how national economies work. The intervening years allow a good amount of time to improve the electrical infrastructure in anticipation of a greater load from the needs of transportation.

2. Using Concentrated Solar Plants (CSPs), at which light is concentrated through reflectors onto a boiler that proceeds to generate electricity with common steam turbines, and assuming the employment of molten salt heat storage for use during cloudy intervals and at night-time, a "solar farm" of just 100x100 miles (or, if you prefer, 400 farms of just 5x5 miles each, scattered throughout the several States) in the desert Southwest could power the entire US personal vehicle fleet, if it were converted to EVs, allowing 20,000 miles per year per vehicle on average. Since the conversion to EVs must be gradual, a continuous program of building "5x5" CSP installations could add power to the grid on a "pay as you go" basis, matching the pace of growth in demand for EV recharging. The biggest trucks or other very large vehicles could continue to burn diesel, biodiesel, or be converted over to CNG or other alternative fuels.

3. We will be able to make even more -- and more efficient -- use of solar and other renewables, as the technology for power storage and supply buffering (aka, frequency regulation) improves during that same long period of transition.

I don't know if, all things considered, we will get behind a massive push for solar energy, but if we did, it looks from here as if the project would be entirely feasible and ultimately practical. Go visit some CSP plants in the Mojave Desert area of California and Nevada and talk to the engineers and project managers there. We have the necessary technology and know-how now. If developed even further over the course of a massive push, the cost-effectiveness, ease of construction and maintenance, and reliability of such plants can only increase.

[ranadesameer]

Folks ? While there may be debate over the science on climate change, one thing I think we can all agree on is figuring out how to use the fuel that we have more wisely. For instance, driving smarter will make our vehicles more fuel efficient. This, my friends, is the low-hanging fruit that we must pick if we are tackle the energy challenges that lie ahead.

I?m working on a campaign called the Drive Smarter Challenge, which is designed to let everyday folks know about the myriad of ways they can cut down on their gas expenses by following some easy tips like not idling their vehicle, properly inflating their tires, and not going over 60 on the freeway. You can learn more tips and read a ton of driving myths at http://drivesmarterchallenge.org/

Holler back and let me know what you think. Peace to the folks in Boulder and across the U.S. Keep spreading the knowledge on energy!

The key to reducing dependance of oil is to cut back on miles driven every day. This means cutting back on the daily commute for most americans.

Telecommuting has been around for years, but is only used by a small percentage of the workforce.

One way to get more people to telecommute is to provide different options. For example, many workers (and employers) would be more willing to telecommute if the workers had facilities that mirrored their traditional office facilities. The solution is for workers to work from remote office located near where they live.

Remote Office Centers lease offices, internet and phone systems to workers from different companies in shared centers located around the city and suburbs. This is a simple solution for workers who want to telecommute, but do not have adequate facilities at home (or do not like the feeling of isolation that comes from spending all day in a home office).

ROCs are fairly new, but can be found by searching the internet for "Remote Office Centers".