At the precipice of Hubbert’s Peak
On April 16, 2007 US Energy Information announced that gasoline prices had gone up for the 11th consecutive week. The average cost for a gallon of gasoline was $2.876. This is 71 cents higher than January 29th and 9.3 cents higher than this time last year. Based on this and other indicators over the past few years the era of cheap oil is over. This lack of cheap oil is going to change the world, as you and I know it. Will it make us better or worse off? As with everything else – a little from column A and a little from column B.
In 1956, Marion King Hubbert predicted that the United States’ oil production would peak between 1965 and 1970. It peaked in 1970. This means that since 1970 the United States has produced less and less oil every year. It has led to more and more importation of oil every year, as well. Today the United States is a net importer of oil; over two-thirds of the oil used in the United States is from abroad. Hubbert further estimated that world production would peak in half a century. That would place it in 2006!
The fact of the matter is that it is time to change the way we think about energy, productivity and lifestyle. Hubbert’s peak may not have been reached in 2006, but it is coming and in human terms soon! Once we have reached that point the price of energy can only go up. The short-term effects are outstanding, since the demand for gasoline is, in the near term, inelastic – meaning that people will buy as much or nearly as much gas regardless of cost. We, therefore, must start planning now. This planning is a two-step process. On a micro level, get yourself a more fuel-efficient car or a bicycle or move closer to the subway. On a macro level, we must invest in alternative forms of energy – wind, solar and nuclear. If these steps are not taken it will be dangerous for the United States, civilization and ourselves, individually.
According to Hubbert, the discovery and production of oil move basically along a bell curve. Therefore there are two mirror bell curves – one for discovery and one for production. As the discovered reserves are exploited, the world’s production moves up the second bell curve. The amount of anything is finite. Therefore, at some point the world will reach the halfway point and produce less and less oil.
Now several things have happened since 1956 that would put such an assumption in doubt. The discovery of oil in Alaska and the North Sea were larger than the rate of Hubbert’s increase in discovery. Also, there were the oil shocks of the 1970s which increased price to a point where the laws of supply and demand slowed both demand and thus production. Therefore, the “sky is falling” folks who predicted Hubbert’s peak in 1989 or 1995 or 2000 have been proven wrong. (I know not who predicted it in 1989 but they were well off the mark.)
The recent spike in oil prices can therefore be attributed to not only the war in Iraq and the ensuing instability. But, it can be seen, as Kenneth Deffeyes argues, that there is a lack of excess capacity. This lack could be a symbol that the end is near. He placed the date of Hubbert’s peak at Thanksgiving Day 2005. Joining the courus, Colin J. Campbell and Jean H. Laherrere argued in 1998 that convention oil could reach its peak within ten years. Recent events in Iraq have shown that perhaps we can push back the oil peak even further. The consulting group HIS has said that there could be 100 Gigabarrels more in Iraq than initially thought. With no statitistical experience or real hard data in front of me I am going to place Hubbert’s worldwide peak as December 21, 2012.
Hubbert’s peak is not a theory. There is only so much oil. Geological processes will not allow ancient biomass to be converted at the current speed of demand and production. Those who deny Hubbert’s peak are usually those who deny Global Warming. (If you deny global warming, you probably don’t agree with a single thing I say anyways so you can probably stop reading this – but don’t complain to me when you’re paying $15/gallon to gas up your Ford Explorer.) So the really question is neither whether nor when but rather what are we going to do about it?
First I’ll handle personally. This is just easier. The transaction costs of you and I changing the way we do things are considerably less than changing society. I find there are some simple things to do to lessen our needs for energy.
1. Bike and Walk! The anti-personal responsibility people see the world as binary, either you drive a car or you do not. Anybody who rides a bike or walks to save fuel is a hypocrite because sometimes you ride in cars or drive a car. Fuck them! Obviously if you live in the outer suburbs or if it is the middle of winter (or middle of summer) it is not really reasonable to ride your bike to work. But what about when you are going to the corner store to get a quart of milk? Is it not reasonable to ride or walk then?
Let me give you some numbers: What is the fuel efficiency of your car? The amount of energy required to bike is 653 mpg (0.36L/100km). Walking is equal to 235 (1L/100km). Meanwhile a bus gets 231 mpg per passenger. So if your car were filled with people would it match anything like this? And are you telling me you couldn’t use more exercise?
2. Computers! – This is another easy one. How often do you walk away from your computer and not return to it for hours if not all day. Set those energy settings to turn off the monitor in fifteen minutes.
3. Share – older eras of human development never broke itself down into the nuclear family. They did things on in larger groups. But think about it, do your neighbors watch some of the same TV shows you do? Do you have a coworker who you have to drive by his/her neighborhood to get to work anyways? Why don’t you do these things together? Surely, only one of you driving or only one TV on at a time saves energy.
Perhaps if we all did these three simple things we could save some energy and delay Hubbert’s Peak – plus be more prepared when it came. And, each one of us would save money: Today! To paraphrase Sally Struthers “do you want to have more money? Sure, we all do!”
The macro side is obviously more complicated. Getting the government and society at large to change is hard. We obviously must work on it or the environment and market forces will do it for us.
1. Alternative Energy – Alternative energy will soon not be the alternative. Do we want it to be on our terms or someone else’s? Nuclear and wind power can be built and exploited today! We can continue if not expand hydrogen cell and solar research over the next decades. If we were to remove the ethanol subsidies and tariffs we could get less expensive fuel from Brazil today which could only lead to expanding the sugar ethanol production – less oil.
2. CAFÉ standards! – While the Heritage Foundation or Cato Institute may not like this, make cars be more fuel-efficient. I mean that seems pretty obvious!
3. Build more trains – Americans hate trains. And, trains hate Americans, because outside of the Bos-Wash corridor I do not think I would take a train for transportation. A quick look into the French TGV shows three reasons I it would be good for mass intercity travel.
a. This thing can move – 357 mph (575km/h)
b. Fuel efficiency – 80% full train gets 506 mpg (0.45L/100km) per passenger
c. Train stations are usually downtown – when you get there you do not have to rent a car.
Hubbert’s Peak is coming. The only question is do we want to go down the mountain fast or slow? And, do we want to have a hard or soft landing when we get there?
In 1956, Marion King Hubbert predicted that the United States’ oil production would peak between 1965 and 1970. It peaked in 1970. This means that since 1970 the United States has produced less and less oil every year. It has led to more and more importation of oil every year, as well. Today the United States is a net importer of oil; over two-thirds of the oil used in the United States is from abroad. Hubbert further estimated that world production would peak in half a century. That would place it in 2006!
The fact of the matter is that it is time to change the way we think about energy, productivity and lifestyle. Hubbert’s peak may not have been reached in 2006, but it is coming and in human terms soon! Once we have reached that point the price of energy can only go up. The short-term effects are outstanding, since the demand for gasoline is, in the near term, inelastic – meaning that people will buy as much or nearly as much gas regardless of cost. We, therefore, must start planning now. This planning is a two-step process. On a micro level, get yourself a more fuel-efficient car or a bicycle or move closer to the subway. On a macro level, we must invest in alternative forms of energy – wind, solar and nuclear. If these steps are not taken it will be dangerous for the United States, civilization and ourselves, individually.
According to Hubbert, the discovery and production of oil move basically along a bell curve. Therefore there are two mirror bell curves – one for discovery and one for production. As the discovered reserves are exploited, the world’s production moves up the second bell curve. The amount of anything is finite. Therefore, at some point the world will reach the halfway point and produce less and less oil.
Now several things have happened since 1956 that would put such an assumption in doubt. The discovery of oil in Alaska and the North Sea were larger than the rate of Hubbert’s increase in discovery. Also, there were the oil shocks of the 1970s which increased price to a point where the laws of supply and demand slowed both demand and thus production. Therefore, the “sky is falling” folks who predicted Hubbert’s peak in 1989 or 1995 or 2000 have been proven wrong. (I know not who predicted it in 1989 but they were well off the mark.)
The recent spike in oil prices can therefore be attributed to not only the war in Iraq and the ensuing instability. But, it can be seen, as Kenneth Deffeyes argues, that there is a lack of excess capacity. This lack could be a symbol that the end is near. He placed the date of Hubbert’s peak at Thanksgiving Day 2005. Joining the courus, Colin J. Campbell and Jean H. Laherrere argued in 1998 that convention oil could reach its peak within ten years. Recent events in Iraq have shown that perhaps we can push back the oil peak even further. The consulting group HIS has said that there could be 100 Gigabarrels more in Iraq than initially thought. With no statitistical experience or real hard data in front of me I am going to place Hubbert’s worldwide peak as December 21, 2012.
Hubbert’s peak is not a theory. There is only so much oil. Geological processes will not allow ancient biomass to be converted at the current speed of demand and production. Those who deny Hubbert’s peak are usually those who deny Global Warming. (If you deny global warming, you probably don’t agree with a single thing I say anyways so you can probably stop reading this – but don’t complain to me when you’re paying $15/gallon to gas up your Ford Explorer.) So the really question is neither whether nor when but rather what are we going to do about it?
First I’ll handle personally. This is just easier. The transaction costs of you and I changing the way we do things are considerably less than changing society. I find there are some simple things to do to lessen our needs for energy.
1. Bike and Walk! The anti-personal responsibility people see the world as binary, either you drive a car or you do not. Anybody who rides a bike or walks to save fuel is a hypocrite because sometimes you ride in cars or drive a car. Fuck them! Obviously if you live in the outer suburbs or if it is the middle of winter (or middle of summer) it is not really reasonable to ride your bike to work. But what about when you are going to the corner store to get a quart of milk? Is it not reasonable to ride or walk then?
Let me give you some numbers: What is the fuel efficiency of your car? The amount of energy required to bike is 653 mpg (0.36L/100km). Walking is equal to 235 (1L/100km). Meanwhile a bus gets 231 mpg per passenger. So if your car were filled with people would it match anything like this? And are you telling me you couldn’t use more exercise?
2. Computers! – This is another easy one. How often do you walk away from your computer and not return to it for hours if not all day. Set those energy settings to turn off the monitor in fifteen minutes.
3. Share – older eras of human development never broke itself down into the nuclear family. They did things on in larger groups. But think about it, do your neighbors watch some of the same TV shows you do? Do you have a coworker who you have to drive by his/her neighborhood to get to work anyways? Why don’t you do these things together? Surely, only one of you driving or only one TV on at a time saves energy.
Perhaps if we all did these three simple things we could save some energy and delay Hubbert’s Peak – plus be more prepared when it came. And, each one of us would save money: Today! To paraphrase Sally Struthers “do you want to have more money? Sure, we all do!”
The macro side is obviously more complicated. Getting the government and society at large to change is hard. We obviously must work on it or the environment and market forces will do it for us.
1. Alternative Energy – Alternative energy will soon not be the alternative. Do we want it to be on our terms or someone else’s? Nuclear and wind power can be built and exploited today! We can continue if not expand hydrogen cell and solar research over the next decades. If we were to remove the ethanol subsidies and tariffs we could get less expensive fuel from Brazil today which could only lead to expanding the sugar ethanol production – less oil.
2. CAFÉ standards! – While the Heritage Foundation or Cato Institute may not like this, make cars be more fuel-efficient. I mean that seems pretty obvious!
3. Build more trains – Americans hate trains. And, trains hate Americans, because outside of the Bos-Wash corridor I do not think I would take a train for transportation. A quick look into the French TGV shows three reasons I it would be good for mass intercity travel.
a. This thing can move – 357 mph (575km/h)
b. Fuel efficiency – 80% full train gets 506 mpg (0.45L/100km) per passenger
c. Train stations are usually downtown – when you get there you do not have to rent a car.
Hubbert’s Peak is coming. The only question is do we want to go down the mountain fast or slow? And, do we want to have a hard or soft landing when we get there?
posted by Eucleides of America at 12:32 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home