The Hirsch report: PEAKING OF WORLD OIL PRODUCTION

[Elessar78]

It is certainly possible......there will of course be plenty still there,but not recoverable w/o advanced technology(which they are starting to invest in)

Ask him how much Iraq and Iran have undeveloped

It wasnt some morbid prediction. The guy just completed his first marathon! So I think he expects to live awhile. The writing for post-oil is on the wall in SA: heavy investment in the development of cities that are geared to be financial centers, my biological father was working with a saudi investor who was interested in his biofuels project in SE Asia.

[mardi gras skin]

Heck, how many people have solar panels on their houses which are proven technology and would save em a bunch of money. They don't have the panels because they find the initial cost upsetting or they think it will make it their house look ugly, or they just don't think about it.

Do you have solar panels? How much did they cost and how much are they saving you a month? When do you expect to make your money back?

I'm looking at calculators that say it would be a $ 45,390 initial investment after incentives and save me a little over $3000 a year. Doesn't sound great considering I would have to take equity out of my house to make it happen.

I love the idea of alternative energy sources. But the investment has to be something I can afford and I need to see some kind of return on the risk.

[AsburySkinsFan]

Liberals are praying for people to buy into the oil peaking nonsense. I do not even need to tell the ND haters to google or search youtube for the video of Obama in 2007 and 2008 saying energy prices need to go up before their agenda can be implemented.

The left in the US with mandates and lawsuits to prevent further exploration and drilling as well as propaganda when it comes to drilling in desolate places cough ANWAR, artificially create an energy crisis, but we know dometically we have enough of our own oil to last for centuries.

Prices would go down when we drill more since the speculators would not be able to get away with driving up the stock price. And newsflash the energy companies will not lose money if there is ever a salt water powered energy source since they would already have investment in that area also.

Yes, everyone listen to NavyDave!! Please ignore the chicken littles as this whole "oil peak" thing is just a Liberal propaganda lie to bring about Liberal energy legislation, after all China and India aren't chewing up almost as much oil as we are, our use isn't also up....oh and oil is a naturally renewable resource of which we have plenty. So use what you want without worry, it'll last forever.

/snarky rant

I love how those on the Right scream about kicking our national debt down the road to our children, but when it comes to environmental stuff they have zero problem doing just that.

[Burgold]

Do you have solar panels? How much did they cost and how much are they saving you a month? When do you expect to make your money back?

I'm looking at calculators that say it would be a $ 45,390 initial investment after incentives and save me a little over $3000 a year. Doesn't sound great considering I would have to take equity out of my house to make it happen.

I love the idea of alternative energy sources. But the investment has to be something I can afford and I need to see some kind of return on the risk.

No, I don't. I believe my community wouldn't allow it anyway, but like you on the cost basis I'd probably lean against it, but it would be a good thing to have. I'm not really sure what the real cost would be after tax incentives etc, but I did buy a hybrid even though it'll take a heck of a lot of tanks of gas to equalize the difference in the price of the car.

I just chose solar panels as an example because it's tech that we readily have and one that seems to work. Heck, for much less we could have solar collectors to heat our water or we could drive five mile an hours slower or set the thermostat five degrees cooler in the winter.

[mardi gras skin]

on the cost basis I'd probably lean against it, but it would be a good thing to have.

We can disagree about how to make a difference in the world with our disposable income but I was hoping that the NPR reporter knew something I didn't when you said, "how many people have solar panels on their houses which are proven technology and would save em a bunch of money." If that were true, I'd be all in.

I'm not really sure what the real cost would be after tax incentives etc,

The price I put up included the tax incentives. I had a much higher number that didn't include incentives but I edited it.

but I did buy a hybrid even though it'll take a heck of a lot of tanks of gas to equalize the difference in the price of the car.

I was given a used Durango that had absurdly high miles on it. It was only worth $500 on trade in so my Dad just gave it to me. I've massaged it and kept it going for 4 years now. Its a gas hog but when you figure the ecological impact of producing a new car, the net result isn't so bad. And, it saved me a ton of money that I've been able to put to good use elsewhere.

I think some of the conversation regarding alternative energy can be a bit too linear. There are costs and savings that aren't usually considered when people make decisions.

[Burgold]

We can disagree about how to make a difference in the world with our disposable income but I was hoping that the NPR reporter knew something I didn't when you said, "how many people have solar panels on their houses which are proven technology and would save em a bunch of money." If that were true, I'd be all in.

.

Fair enough. I remember some old reports and might be able to dig up some data, but I was mainly just talking theory. You got to admit though... saving 3 thousand bucks a year isn't chickenfeed. That is indeed saving a bunch of money.

As for your gas guzzler, I remember having to rent an SUV a few years back for a week and was shocked at the per week difference. My normal car was an econobox Toyota Echo and it would cost me about 10 dollars for a fill up which would last about 10 days. With the SUV a fill up cost me about 20 bucks and would only lasted about four or five days. It was crazy, but I needed the volume for the charity thing I was helping with. So, I figure over fifty weeks that might be as much as 2,000 bucks difference. As in your solar example, while 2,000 is a lot of money that's still not a lot when comparing a free car versus laying down 30 k. Still, that's a lot of fumes in the air and a ton of burned fuel.

[SnyderShrugged]

The Feds will never really support alternative energy in a real, tangible sense. They lose too much money in fuel taxes. They talk a good game politically, but we'd be fools to think they are actually serious. Remember that pol who complained that they were losing too much revenue because people were driving more hybrids and less fuel consumption overall so he wanted to tax milage instead?

[mardi gras skin]

Fair enough. I remember some old reports and might be able to dig up some data, but I was mainly just talking theory. You got to admit though... saving 3 thousand bucks a year isn't chickenfeed. That is indeed saving a bunch of money.

Yeah, its really not a game of gotcha. If it made economic sense, I would be all over alternative energy and that was why I was interested in your post. As it came time to buy new appliances, we always went for energy star because we were able to find good deals bringing the initial cost down and it saved us money each month. But the interest on a $50,000 refinance would swallow up the $3000 annual savings. I'll wait a little longer.

As for your gas guzzler, I remember having to rent an SUV a few years back for a week and was shocked at the per week difference. My normal car was an econobox Toyota Echo and it would cost me about 10 dollars for a fill up which would last about 10 days. With the SUV a fill up cost me about 20 bucks and would only lasted about four or five days. It was crazy, but I needed the volume for the charity thing I was helping with. So, I figure over fifty weeks that might be as much as 2,000 bucks difference. As in your solar example, while 2,000 is a lot of money that's still not a lot when comparing a free car versus laying down 30 k. Still, that's a lot of fumes in the air and a ton of burned fuel.

It wouldn't work in all situations but it works for us as a second vehicle that sees limited use. Ecologically, it takes a lot of exhaust fumes to compensate for impact of building a new car.

[Burgold]

Yeah, its really not a game of gotcha. If it made economic sense, I would be all over alternative energy and that was why I was interested in your post. As it came time to buy new appliances, we always went for energy star because we were able to find good deals bringing the initial cost down and it saved us money each month. But the interest on a $50,000 refinance would swallow up the $3000 annual savings. I'll wait a little longer.

Yeah, I'm in the same tug of war sometimes. Better for the world or better for my wallet. Sadly enough, I think my wallet wins a few more battles than it should.

[mardi gras skin]

Yeah, I'm in the same tug of war sometimes. Better for the world or better for my wallet. Sadly enough, I think my wallet wins a few more battles than it should.

If it came to my wallet or the environment, that would be easier. But the choices are, better for a not-yet-ready alternative energy source or better for Haiti, our community crisis center, my local church, friends in need, etc.

Alternative energy needs to show me that, of all the good I can do with my disposable income, its ready to take its place at the table.

[mcsluggo]

to hell with "peak oil"... i am worried about "peak food"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malthusian_catastrophe

Tommy Malthus clearly lays out that at given population growth rates, food production will be unable to keep up, by.... oh.... around 1850?

Price, people, price. Neccessity is the mother invention? Price is the father. When price rises, people get innovative-- either to find more supply or to find better substitution alternatives. And ..... interestingly enough.... the CURRENT price of oil/gas/electricity/whatever isn't "stupid", it actually DOES factor in current expectations of future supply and demand. We are not going to go to sleep one day with the price of gas $3 and wake up the next day with it $100 (for THESE "peak oil" factors, at least---- if al queda or martians figure out an "oil virus" or something, then all bets are off)

Will the economy will be very different some day with very expensive oil? Shocking! fortuntately the economy has never in the past had to adopt and to change drasically with the introduction of, say, electricity? or cars? or computers? And besides, when i look at 1969 , the fact that gas was 8 cents a gallon CLEARLY shows us that the economy was more vibrant and successful then. I honestly don't know how we survive in this current schlock.

[PeterMP]

Its a gas hog but when you figure the ecological impact of producing a new car, the net result isn't so bad.

I don't disagree with too much of what you are saying, but I think this is likely wrong. When people do these comparisions and say just staying with the older car is better, if you really look at the calculations, they are normally assuming an older car that is getting pretty good gas mileage (I don't have solar panels on my roof (though I did construct a small wind turbine recently), and part of it is economical and part of it is I have a lot of trees that shade my house so to get full benefit of it I'd have to cut them down (though if the economy doesn't fall a part in the next 2 years (so we continue to save money at the current rate) even with the negative impact of the trees), I will likely go in that direction, and unless something suprising happens in the next 10 I will definitely go in that direction, but that has to more to do with being independent of the grid, then really costs, savings, or postively affecting the environment (and so at the point, the trees will likely come down to give us more independce from the grid)).

I don't remember the page, but at one point I saw where somebody went through the calcuations, and the other people that did the math about a new car vs. and old car and concluded you were better of driving the old car were pretending like the choice was a new "good" gas mileage car or the equivalent of some early-1980's Datsun.

If everybody was driving the equivlent of a Datsun from 25 years ago, we'd have a lot fewer problems.

I'd guess if you really looked at the numbers, from solely an environmental stand point, you are pretty far into the red as compared to buying a good gas mileage new car (and even that's a false choice because you can recent used cars that get really good gas mileage).

[mardi gras skin]

I don't disagree with too much of what you are saying, but I think this is likely wrong.

Its a second car that doesn't get as much use. Fewer miles a year brings the impact of the Durnago down but the the new car causes problems at production. If that new car sits in my driveway most of the time, it has still done its damage.

And I've never seen more extensive use of the parenthesis in the Tailgate. That was impressive.

[Hubbs]

Do you have solar panels? How much did they cost and how much are they saving you a month? When do you expect to make your money back?

I'm looking at calculators that say it would be a $ 45,390 initial investment after incentives and save me a little over $3000 a year. Doesn't sound great considering I would have to take equity out of my house to make it happen.

I love the idea of alternative energy sources. But the investment has to be something I can afford and I need to see some kind of return on the risk.

What about the resale value? If you're trying to sell your house, and you've got an enhancement that saves $3000 a year, that's going to bump up the bids by a significant amount.

[twa]

Hubbs by that thinking every new house would have them

wonder why not?

[thedoc4454]

We have the Bakken field in the Dakota's and with new drilling techniques the amount of recoverable oil is between 250 to 400 billion barrels. A caveat to that is that it's the finest light sweet crude anywhere. There is a new oil fields off the coast of Brazil which is suppose to be of like size, and to that what the eco- left won't let us get to in the Gulf and off our coasts, what's in Alaska ( probably the real mother load ) the shale oil, and oil sands out west and in Canada, and your looking at probably a few hundred years of oil if we had the backbone to get it.

One other thought, why no discussion of natural gas? We can run our vehicles on it now ( and do ) it's cheaper than gas, it's cleaner than gas, and we are never going to run out of it, because it's renewable .

T Boone Pickens has pointed out that if we could convert just all the 18 wheelers in the country over to natural gas we'd never have to buy another drop of foreign oil again.

[mcsluggo]

Hubbs by that thinking every new house would have them

wonder why not?

i didn't see where he made any sort of conjecture on the size of the bump in home value, relative to the $45k cost. an enhancement that saves you $3k a year increases the value of a house, period. the cost of the enhancement is $45k, period. chances are that the "enhancement bump" is less than the $45k, in whih case the question becomes, by how much? AND... a related question is if the difference between "bump" and $45k is small enough, would it be a good place for a targeted subsidy?

[Gibbsisgod2006]

Peak oil may have reached certain oil fields such as Ghawar oil fields in Saudi Arabia or the Burgan oil fields in Kuwait but Canada has equivalent to all of Saudi Arabia’s reserves. The oil sands located in Fort McMurray, Alberta has about 1.7 trillion barrels of recoverable oil and possible more. There is talks about running a pipeline from Canada down to refineries in Oklahoma and Texas. Also new drilling methods will help America be able to recover oil form deposits that were deemed too expensive to recover.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110209/ap_on_re_us/us_shale_oil

[Stadium-Armory]

Here in Boulder Colorado, we're starting to see more houses with solar panels,. The sun here is blazing, and it apparently makes economic sense if you have the initial capital to invest. My wife and I have talked about it briefly, but never looked in to the actual financials.

I looked up a couple local companies this morning to see what they suggest the business case is for installing panels:

http://www.sunrunhome.com/why-solar

http://solarpowerrocks.com/colorado/

http://www.solarips.com/

Lots of interesting stuff going on in this arena, but I don't ever see it replacing petroleum in the sense that we can easily "bolt it on" to our existing infrastructure. For some applications, like houses, it seems to make a good bit of sense. Transportation is one thing, but consider the amount of petrol that goes in to everything around us - the plastics in our daily lives. The nylon in our clothes, the paint on our walls, tvs, computers, carpeting, remotes, phones, sun glasses, shoe soles all are petrol dependent.

[Burgold]

and I think that's another big key to the puzzle, different geographical areas will have different answers. It's not one size fits all. Our desert states will do great with Solar. Mountainous states ought to look into wind. Hydro makes sense for others. And then, there are some for whom it makes more sense to think about coal, nuclear, oil.

[PeterMP]

Lots of interesting stuff going on in this arena, but I don't ever see it replacing petroleum in the sense that we can easily "bolt it on" to our existing infrastructure. For some applications, like houses, it seems to make a good bit of sense. Transportation is one thing, but consider the amount of petrol that goes in to everything around us - the plastics in our daily lives. The nylon in our clothes, the paint on our walls, tvs, computers, carpeting, remotes, phones, sun glasses, shoe soles all are petrol dependent.

For solar to become more important two things have to happen:

1. We need to more effecienty capture solar energy. Even current plants don't do it well enough, which is why biomass alone is not the answer to our problems.

Work here is going in really two different directions:

1. Make organisms that more effeciently capture solar energy. This can be done through a combination of engineering and evolution and has some success.

2. For humans to generate methods more effecient than we currently use to capture solar energy. This gets into various dye based solar cells and quantum dots.

The other issue it the storage of solar energy, which again goes essentially in two different directions:

1. Batteries. We do better with batteries than we did 10 years ago and will likely do better in another 10. Solar energy can already be used to charge batteries pretty well with existing technology. It is a matter of making better, lighter, and cheaper batteries.

2. Producing some sort of chemical (e.g. ethanol or even methane) that can be used with our current infrastructure.

If you are going the biological route (e.g. using algae to capture the energy), not a big problem because a lot of these organisms already do so, so the key is making them do so more effeciently. Here we actually are making pretty good progress. I think if we can get their solar harvesting ability up, we'll be able to engineer them to produce reasonable chemicals for us without too much trouble.

3. Use your man made solar technology to produce some chemistry that is useful. There is already technology by which human solar cells can be used convert CO2 to methane and even to simple alcohols (e.g. ethanol), but that technology has a long way to go, even if we do a better job of capturing the solar energy.

[mardi gras skin]

One other thought, why no discussion of natural gas? We can run our vehicles on it now ( and do ) it's cheaper than gas, it's cleaner than gas, and we are never going to run out of it, because it's renewable .

T Boone Pickens has pointed out that if we could convert just all the 18 wheelers in the country over to natural gas we'd never have to buy another drop of foreign oil again.

That's an exciting idea. I've been reading about how our natural gas supply is ridiculously large. How economically feasible is it?

[Hubbs]

That's an exciting idea. I've been reading about how our natural gas supply is ridiculously large. How economically feasible is it?

I started a thread about this a couple months ago, and I swear to God, it seems to be one of the most difficult topics to get accurate information about. (And yes, ending a sentence with a preposition is something up with which I will put.) I legitimately can't figure out why we haven't become an economy based on natural gas. The best reason I've seen is "oil is still cheaper", but even that is questionable.

[DCsportsfan53]

Electric cars would greatly impact the amount of oil used in the US and allow states to determine how to produce electricity. The beauty of electric is that we are all already wired to receive it and you can produce it from any other energy source. You can make it from burning fossil fuels, nuclear power plant, or capturing sunlight. It allows an areas natural advantages to be brought forward to solve it's own energy situation.

The technology also already exists. We're damn good at making electricity and supplying it already and electric cars are real and exist in the here and now and improving yearly.

The technology is not nearly ready for primetime. No one has addressed the enviornemental impact caused by the mining for materials for the batteries, no one has addressed that battery technology does not allow for long enough vehicle range at this time and most importantly, no one has addressed how an outdated, already taxed nationwide electrical grid is going to handle the added demand of millions of cars being plugged in every night to recharge. Many billions of dollars will have to be invested in infastructure to support that.

[twa]

I started a thread about this a couple months ago, and I swear to God, it seems to be one of the most difficult topics to get accurate information about. (And yes, ending a sentence with a preposition is something up with which I will put.) I legitimately can't figure out why we haven't become an economy based on natural gas. The best reason I've seen is "oil is still cheaper", but even that is questionable.

The large deposits only became recoverable with advanced techniques developed fairly recently

add in identifying fields,securing rights,developing the infrastructure to process and ship all take time ....add in the opposition to drilling and fracking and investing billions.

it's coming and will be a major player in domestic energy