On Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 4:15 PM, Jim Devine <[email protected]> wrote: > Gar Lipow <[email protected]> wrote: >> Yeah, in terms of the reality: it is worth remembering that arguments >> about peak oil are about timing not about whether it will happen. > > I don't think so. Peak oil as you define it, if attained, does not > automatically mean steadily rising prices and true costs of extraction > and refining of oil (where true costs include the environmental > impact).
More or less it does. String of pearls theory as Commoner explained it in 70's. Scatter a string of pearls on the ground, and at first they are easy to pick up. It is getting the last ones that is a bitch. So after supply peaks and begins dropping, most likely each barrel is a little harder to extract than the rest. The factors you site below can be countervailing factors up to a point. I guess at the extreme you get the case of passenger pigeon Michael likes to cite - The price of passenger pigeons was the same as the price of chicken right until the last one died. > > It's the latter which really counts, since it's what imposes > increasing costs on humanity and nature. But prices need not rise, > because of the possibility of (a) rising efficiency of the utilization > of known stocks of oil to produce usable oil; and (b) growing > efficiency in the use of usable oil, as when substitutes are found, > along with (c) discovery of new stocks of oil. > > Even then, if oil prices rise steadily, it's possible that rising > productivity of labor in the production of other things could dampen > or even reverse the negative effects on humanity and even nature. Of > course, whether or not working people receive the benefits of > increased productivity depends on the success of working-class > struggle. > > But, I agree: we have to get out of using oil and coal and the like, > to save the earth from global warming and other natural disasters. If > peak oil happens, that will help the transition away from fossil fuel. > That's why I hope peak oil is really going to happen. Not so sure. One obvious solution if oil really peaks in the sense of price rising is to make oil from coal. More greenhouse gas intensive, other horrible side effects, more expensive than oil currently, but if oil prices rose high enough would probably be competitive. Similarly most biofuels are worse for the environment than dead dinosaur oil. My view leans the opposite way as yours. I think there is a good chance the peak oil people are right, but I hope they are wrong. I think both environmental and general leftist cause will do better if we don't hit peak oil. But reality will turn out to be whatever it turns out to be. Mind you I'm not sure the wonderful one-horse shay scenario is actually better than the standard peak oil one. Maybe I should hope they are right. > > BTW, U.S. National Public Radio recently reported on new techniques > for getting natural gas out of the ground, so that natural gas could > be extracted at significantly lower costs. Some environmentalists > (who? I don't know) were cited as saying that increased use of natural > gas is a good way to transition from oil and coal to renewable sources > (which are currently expensive). Anyway, that's what they said. Is it > reasonably true? or a bunch of lies, ignoring large environmental > costs or use of ultra-scarce water resources? > > Inquiring minds want to know. Briefly - at least some new techniques involve extract gas from rocks, which means lower net energy, and less greenhouse gas savings more water etc. Other new techniques mean just accessing natural gas that was previously not accessible not with clear paths thanks to global warming that has already taken place. Even at best, if we could substitute conventional natural gas for 100% of oil and coal, it would lower emissions by less than 40% and then start increasing again. Barry Commoner proposes a mixture of natural gas, increased efficiency and renewables back in the 70's with a gradual phaseout of natural gas that might well have finished by 2000. A really good idea then; we probably don't have time now. And, as you guessed natural gas is water intensive, though not as water intensive as coal or oil. What we really need is a fast transition to a combination of efficiency, conservation and renewables plus moving agriculture and forestry to regenerative models. If we move fast enough on that, conventional gas reserves are plentiful enough to power the transition. If we move slowly enough to need unconventional natural gas in large quantities, the fit has hit the shan. > Jim Devine / "Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti." (Go your own > way and let people talk.) -- Karl, paraphrasing Dante. > _______________________________________________ > pen-l mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l > _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
