Peak Oil

[kookbreaker]

The opening post referenced a webstie which was pure panic-mongering, but it was American and the end of oil may well seem like the end of the world if you have that perspective. We have seen how Americans reacted to Kyoto.

Cheap American Bashing noted.

I take it that you refuse to defend you claim that there are only 25 years of Nuclear fuel left?

That is part of the point being made by this UK site. They are suggesting we use the remaining oil to establish an oil-light economy BEFORE the oil runs out and makes those efforts so much more difficult. This is just sensible planning instead of sticking your head in the sand, not panic mongering. Panicking is no good, and neither is pretending there is no problem.

This is not the image you have portrayed:

JustGeoff says
Please, Daddy, tell me everything will be OK.
Please, Daddy, tell me everything will be OK.
Please, Daddy, tell me everything will be OK.
It will be OK, won't it Daddy?
NOT IF YOU KEEP PRETENDING THERE IS NO PROBLEM IT WON'T, NO.

Your approach has not been a calm one.

Not screaming bloody murder or raising your voice about future fossil fuel problems is not equivelant to saying there is no problem.

 

[Solitaire]

The opening post referenced a webstie which was pure
panic-mongering, but it was American and the end of oil
may well seem like the end of the world if you have that
perspective. We have seen how Americans reacted to Kyoto.

Again, just because we no longer need to pump oil out of the
ground does not mean that we feel like it is the end of the world.
When the sorce of oil changes I assure you that I won't panic.
Just flip through the pages on this site, please.

 

[a_unique_person]

This just in from Newsweek.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4287300/

David Goodstein: The prediction that it will peak—that is to say the crisis will come when we reach a peak when half the oil has been used up—that prediction quantitatively is unquestionably true. But the quantitative question of when the peak will occur depends on extremely undependable numbers. The so-called proven oil reserves as reported by various countries and companies around the world are often just guesses and they’re often not even honest guesses. Among those who would analyze those figures, some have predicted that it will come as early as this year; others, within this decade. It could possibly be in the next decade. But I think that’s about as far as you can push it.

What people don't seem to realise is that there is going to be a lot of competition out there for the oil, that is, demand will be growing and output falling. Indian and China are experiencing massive surges in economic growth, and all those people out there want what we in the west have, a car.

There is plenty of shale and sand oil out there, but production of it is much more expensive and energy intensive than processing traditional crude oil.

 

[a_unique_person]

This sort of detachment from reality is very dangerous indeed.

There will never be an energy crisis?

We still have enough oil to last for several centuries????!!

If you got that data from Lomborgs book, I suggest you do not place much faith in anything else he wrote.

I suppose you also believe the US invaded Iraq to rid the world of chemical weapons (the fact that Wolfowitz actually admitted it was really because "the entire country is swimming in oil" and "we had to agree on the WMD reason for bureaucratic reasons" obviously had nothing to do with it).

Lomborg is a whore for the right. He understands nothing beyond the educated layman's level. If you read beyond the initial arguments he gives, his book is laughable. I have already posted some of them before, but the thread was ignored. Eg, references that a pathetic in their ineptitude, plain wrong, misleading and much of his arguments that were debunked on Sci-Am.

He only ever presents a superficial set of figures for his arguments, that fail to consider the deeper implications for the issues he is writing on. For example, shale oil, while plenitiful, requires massive energy and infrastructure for extraction. The cost of extracting it may be getting cheaper, but is that while energy is cheap? That is, when the price of energy rises, so will the price of shale oil, as it takes a lot of energy to extract it.

Hydrogen, as the previous link I quoted points out, is being pushed by the president as a replacement for oil. But the BIG difference here is that hydrogen is not an energy source, it is just a means of transporting energy. It still has to be created using energy.

 

[Quasi]

Kyoto would have given developing nations billions/trillions of dollars. They cannot even manage to hold onto a system of government for very long. How wisely do you think that money would be spent?
As for the Lomborg issue, I doubt any of you deniers have even read the book, or his response to the SA article, which I have read all three. There is no use arguing about the SA article because Lomborg himself has responded quite nicely.
It is interesting how people are so easily lulled into believing doom and gloom, but when someone comes out and says its not all that bad and its getting better, they are burned on a cross.
Oh, and our society is not built on oil- its built on science. Because of this, we will predict, adapt, and grow. Clearly none of you see this picture because the false data presented in this post somewhat matches your preconceived idea about what is going on. There was no oil crisis in the 70´s. There is no oil crisis now. I suppose because of the religioous fanatacism with which people cling to in this issue makes debate impossible as you refuse to look at the data. What can we say? You are arguing from ignorance. I have already pointed out that peak oil is just "Limits to Growth" wrapped in a shiny new marketing brochure to deceive the public into buying their crappy piece of plagiarism. Same lame arguments. It is so easy to retort with "he is a conservative lackey." Nice straw man, but he is an openly homosexual vegetarian and a long time member of Greenpeace. Sound like he is on the right to anyone else here? Nice try, please post some actual criticism of the data, from the book or from the SA article. (/Crickets chirping.)

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Kyoto would have given developing nations billions/trillions of dollars. They cannot even manage to hold onto a system of government for very long. How wisely do you think that money would be spent?

Kyoto was about getting the western world, the biggest producer of greenhouse gases, to start trying to reduce those emissions. Every other major power was either already on-board or waiting for US assent before they agreed. No meaningful action could be taken without the US. The US deliberately and wantonly trashed the treaty out of pure self interest. Let's not re-write history, eh? Everyone in the west, especially in the environmental movement knows only too well how important kyoto was and how devastating it was that the US decided it was not going to take its responsibility for its own actions seriously. Your reason for why the treaty wasn't signed is pure fantasy/propaganda and if you believe it then you are a fool. The treary was not signed for ONE reason : It would have meant the US would have had to raise prices of gasoline to its own internal market, which would have been politically unacceptable to the US public. Please do not compound the irresponsibility with lies.

It is interesting how people are so easily lulled into believing doom and gloom, but when someone comes out and says its not all that bad and its getting better, they are burned on a cross.

Lomborg has been attacked because he does not know what he is talking about.

There was no oil crisis in the 70´s.

Wasn't there?

I suppose because of the religioous fanatacism with which people cling to in this issue makes debate impossible as you refuse to look at the data. What can we say? You are arguing from ignorance. I have already pointed out that peak oil is just "Limits to Growth" wrapped in a shiny new marketing brochure to deceive the public into buying their crappy piece of plagiarism. Same lame arguments. It is so easy to retort with "he is a conservative lackey." Nice straw man, but he is an openly homosexual vegetarian and a long time member of Greenpeace.

Er...openly homosexual vegetarian!?

Are you going to accuse me of supporting black cuban disabled lesbians next?

Somebody has run out of arguments......

 

[Quasi]

This just in from Newsweek.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4287300/



What people don't seem to realise is that there is going to be a lot of competition out there for the oil, that is, demand will be growing and output falling. Indian and China are experiencing massive surges in economic growth, and all those people out there want what we in the west have, a car.

There is plenty of shale and sand oil out there, but production of it is much more expensive and energy intensive than processing traditional crude oil.

One gem from his interview: "This is not my research field. I do research in a completely different field." Appeal to authority anyone?

Again, here the same arguments are being made ("Limits to Growth" comes to mind again.) He claims that since oil field discovery has declined, that peak oil will be here soon. He does not realize that known reserves have greatly increased as technlogy is allowing a lot more oil out of old and new wells, which is reflected in the original Just_Geoff post, where the peak oil guy cannot understand the massive jump in oi reserves, so he claims it is a lie. So there is no need to waste time and money looking for more oil fields. Do you continue to look for grocery stores further and further from your home, or continue to shop at the nearest location? Of course not. Once again, we see that since rates are changing, he argues doom and gloom. But the calculations, technology and processing methods get better and better every year, so if you look at long trends, the data is meaningless unless you take these factors into account. Also, again, he argues that it will be impossible to replace oil. I use high efficiency light bulbs and do not even own a car. I pay about 10 euros for electricity a month in a 68 square meter apartment, when the realtor told me it would cost about 70 euros using standard bulbs. So here I and anyone else can reduce their energy consumption by many factors, and the technology is inexpensive. People refuse to do so because energy is so cheap right now. People will buy more efficient utilities when the older ones become more expensive. Quite simple, apparently too much so for this guy. Things change, perhaps he does not appreciate this. I suppose this argument is really about how fast and not when, as it is obvious that oil will eventually run out. I do not believe this is controversial. I am arguing that we do have alternatives in the pipeline so to speak, and that the transition will be gradual, based on the rate of growth in alternative energy and the continued abundance of oil.

 

[a_unique_person]

One gem from his interview: "This is not my research field. I do research in a completely different field." Appeal to authority anyone?

Tricky does work in the oil industry, and seems to agree generally with the thrust of the story. (Tricky, if you are reading, please tick the yes or no box on the form).

Again, here the same arguments are being made ("Limits to Growth" comes to mind again.) He claims that since oil field discovery has declined, that peak oil will be here soon. He does not realize that known reserves have greatly increased as technlogy is allowing a lot more oil out of old and new wells, which is reflected in the original Just_Geoff post, where the peak oil guy cannot understand the massive jump in oi reserves, so he claims it is a lie. So there is no need to waste time and money looking for more oil fields. Do you continue to look for grocery stores further and further from your home, or continue to shop at the nearest location? Of course not.

Not a valid comparison, the grocery store is a bottomless pit while the suppliers keep supplying it.

Once again, we see that since rates are changing, he argues doom and gloom. But the calculations, technology and processing methods get better and better every year, so if you look at long trends, the data is meaningless unless you take these factors into account. Also, again, he argues that it will be impossible to replace oil. I use high efficiency light bulbs and do not even own a car. I pay about 10 euros for electricity a month in a 68 square meter apartment, when the realtor told me it would cost about 70 euros using standard bulbs. So here I and anyone else can reduce their energy consumption by many factors, and the technology is inexpensive. People refuse to do so because energy is so cheap right now. People will buy more efficient utilities when the older ones become more expensive. Quite simple, apparently too much so for this guy. Things change, perhaps he does not appreciate this. I suppose this argument is really about how fast and not when, as it is obvious that oil will eventually run out. I do not believe this is controversial. I am arguing that we do have alternatives in the pipeline so to speak, and that the transition will be gradual, based on the rate of growth in alternative energy and the continued abundance of oil.

You mean you hope it will be a gradual and orderly transition. Oil is the best form of transportable energy we have. And as has already been pointed out, the replacement, hydrogen, is not an energy source.

There are large reserves of oil, but the cost of extracting it will go up. If we use the cost of oil for extracting shale oil, oil that is embedded in rock, the rising cost of the energy required to extract it will increase the cost of the oil. We won't be using cheap crude oil to extract it.

Energy savings can be made, and this is the cheapest form of energy there is. But the rest of the world is queuing up for the western life style. Between them, India and China will have an appetite that will dward anything the western world has ever done. The Chinese economy is currently growing so fast that it will be bigger than the US economy in 20 years, IIRC.

Here is a thread I started on Lomborg.

http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=28211&highlight=lomborg

 

[Quasi]

1) Kyoto was about getting the western world, the biggest producer of greenhouse gases, to start trying to reduce those emissions. Every other major power was either already on-board or waiting for US assent before they agreed. No meaningful action could be taken without the US. The US deliberately and wantonly trashed the treaty out of pure self interest. Let's not re-write history, eh? Everyone in the west, especially in the environmental movement knows only too well how important kyoto was and how devastating it was that the US decided it was not going to take its responsibility for its own actions seriously. Your reason for why the treaty wasn't signed is pure fantasy/propaganda and if you believe it then you are a fool. The treary was not signed for ONE reason : It would have meant the US would have had to raise prices of gasoline to its own internal market, which would have been politically unacceptable to the US public. Please do not compound the irresponsibility with lies.




2) Lomborg has been attacked because he does not know what he is talking about.



3) Wasn't there?



4) Er...openly homosexual vegetarian!?

Are you going to accuse me of supporting black cuban disabled lesbians next?

Somebody has run out of arguments......

1) So you deny the Kyoto treaty will trade money for emissions credits? Again, what do you think the south american and african dictators would do with that money, simple question. Two, there is no definitive proof that humans cause the majority of GHG/GW. Therefore, Kyoto would make a handful of dictators rich at the cost of the middle class and lower class americans. Go ahead, tell us you want to increase gas by double or quadrouple, or even by 25 cents per gallon, see how far you get before the tar and feathers come out. Bad solution. Damaging the US economy would have far worse environmental impact than allowing it to grow and change.

2) I do not see any factual argument here, just another ignorant statement, and it is curcular too. He is wrong because he is wrong. Is your position so weak that you cannot state a single fact?

3) The 1970s oil crisis was not caused in any way from a lack of oil or peak oil. Pseudo-environmentalists used the event to sell books and to fund their "non profit" corporations. It was also used by OPEC to make a lot of money and to assert their power over the US. It was also an important catalyst to wake up the US to their dependence on foreign oil, which led to political and diplomatic changes. I agree here, that it is unfortunate that it did not lead to a permanent change in energy consumption habits, but oil became very cheap after the crisis.

4) To call someone who is obviously very liberal a conservative is silly. The personality traits of Dr. Lomborg are more common in liberal minded people than in conservative (especially the US.) So to call him conservative in order to prove your point is humorous at best, and is really a dodge of the facts. Talk about lazy, please state some facts as regards his book or reply to SA.

As mentioned earlier, we can reduce our energy consumption in the US and Europe significantly by using more efficient utilities. As I said, my electricity bill is only ten euros per month, and I cook at home using an electric stove and have a medium sized refrigerator. Compare this to an inefficient home, there is quite a difference. So not only can we transition relatively quickly if needed, as the technology is readly available in terms of using less energy, I fail to see any looming oil shortage. Any guess as to over one decade to a crisis is total crap, and over the next ten years alternative energy will get cheaper and more abundant. I still see no valid argument for wasting billions or trillions of dollars on this issue when it will happen slowly over time without dire intervention or crisis.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

He does not realize that known reserves have greatly increased as technlogy is allowing a lot more oil out of old and new wells, which is reflected in the original Just_Geoff post, where the peak oil guy cannot understand the massive jump in oi reserves, so he claims it is a lie.

Of course it is a lie! The jumps occured when OPEC was re-negotiating its quotas relative to each other, and the countries whose oil reserves suddenly got bigger needed bigger quotas. Think about it! Either the oil always existed and the previous claims about reserves were lies, or the new oil only exists on paper. Either way there is no new oil!

So there is no need to waste time and money looking for more oil fields.

Nonsense! Engineers have looked everywhere. They ARE looking - they just aren't finding much.

So here I and anyone else can reduce their energy consumption by many factors, and the technology is inexpensive. People refuse to do so because energy is so cheap right now.

In the US they refuse to do so because they think cheap fuel is their birthright. They seem to think raising petrol prices is an attack on America.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

1) So you deny the Kyoto treaty will trade money for emissions credits? Again, what do you think the south american and african dictators would do with that money, simple question. Two, there is no definitive proof that humans cause the majority of GHG/GW. Therefore, Kyoto would make a handful of dictators rich at the cost of the middle class and lower class americans. Go ahead, tell us you want to increase gas by double or quadrouple, or even by 25 cents per gallon, see how far you get before the tar and feathers come out. Bad solution. Damaging the US economy would have far worse environmental impact than allowing it to grow and change.

The kyoto treaty was about curbing western emissions. If it means that some third world dictators would get economic benefits then this is not an argument to trash the kyoto treaty. It is a classic RED HERRING. It is a bogus argument.

As for "Damaging the US economy would have far worse environmental impact than allowing it to grow and change.", this is what makes me laugh in American faces. The US economy is now going to be FORCED to change. I hope it hurts. It would be richly deserved it did. The people and government of the US are driven by greed and self-interest - over and above the level of greed and self-interest displayed by others in the west. In the US, greed and self-interest have become the new GOD.

3) The 1970s oil crisis was not caused in any way from a lack of oil or peak oil.

I know that.

4) To call someone who is obviously very liberal a conservative is silly. The personality traits of Dr. Lomborg are more common in liberal minded people than in conservative (especially the US.)

That is because "middle of the road" in the US is what other people call "right wing". The right-wingers are neo-fascists.

I still see no valid argument for wasting billions or trillions of dollars on this issue when it will happen slowly over time without dire intervention or crisis.

Those who do not take action now to avoid the worst consequences of a long-term permanent large rise in oil prices will simply have to pay a heavier price later. It is the US who is going to suffer the most here. Europe is already changing.

 

[Quasi]

Tricky does work in the oil industry, and seems to agree generally with the thrust of the story. (Tricky, if you are reading, please tick the yes or no box on the form).



Not a valid comparison, the grocery store is a bottomless pit while the suppliers keep supplying it.



You mean you hope it will be a gradual and orderly transition. Oil is the best form of transportable energy we have. And as has already been pointed out, the replacement, hydrogen, is not an energy source.

There are large reserves of oil, but the cost of extracting it will go up. If we use the cost of oil for extracting shale oil, oil that is embedded in rock, the rising cost of the energy required to extract it will increase the cost of the oil. We won't be using cheap crude oil to extract it.

Energy savings can be made, and this is the cheapest form of energy there is. But the rest of the world is queuing up for the western life style. Between them, India and China will have an appetite that will dward anything the western world has ever done. The Chinese economy is currently growing so fast that it will be bigger than the US economy in 20 years, IIRC.

Here is a thread I started on Lomborg.

http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=28211&highlight=lomborg

Interesting that you bring up India and China. What are they doing, and what are they planning on doing about energy? Are they relying on a lot of solar etc. If they plan for large growth, they must also see the problem. Again, I am not denying that oil will run out, or that India or China will not need large amounts of energy, but they will use the cheapest available energy, and will use it efficiently.
The supermarket is a source of food. It is abundant. When the quality or quantity decreases, you would seek another supermarket. People adjust their habits and spending. If energy rises, people will buy more efficient cars, use public transport more, and use more efficient utilities. Is this controversial? Do you deny there are plentiful high efficiency stoves, refrigerators and light bulbs? Are there not cars which get better gas mileage compared to SUV's? I see a lot of room for reduced energy consumption with existing products. The problem is that you do not see that we can reduce energy consumption significantly, as energy becomes more expensive. The authors of doom and gloom are looking at current use and growth. People in China and India will likely buy very fuel efficient cars, and bicycles are also very common. The price of gas is very high in other parts of the world, therefore this scenario is most likely. Am I totally out to lunch here

 

[a_unique_person]

Politicians are under pressure particularly in the US, to supply cheap energy. Hence, the start of the oil wars. And as they have found out, a war for cheap oil is a very expensive business.

Lomborg is a twit, though, and there was a reply to his reply on the SciAm article. It makes interesting reading as well.

And he is not a member of Greenpeace. That was his first lie.

 

[Doubt]

Time to take a break from the following:

1.) Environmental issues. Green house gas emissions and peak oil are different but connected issues. Running low on oil has little to do with the problems of Kyoto.
2.) Geoff’s “I hate the US” rant. Sorry, but your problems with the US have no impact on what will happen when peak oil is reached. Population density and local resources makes comparisons between the US and European energy use an apples and oranges case.
3.) Arguments about oil not being replicable. Oil is replaceable. All the alternatives cost more and that will put a damper on the global economy, not just the US. Then the world adapts. Who is supposedly prepared now does not tell us who will come out ahead later. In the case of the US, there is less incentive to change because we still have more resources than Europe.

For those interested in the technical aspects of coal conversion:

http://www.wws.princeton.edu/cgi-bin/byteserv.prl/~ota/disk3/1982/8208/820803.PDF

The article is about coal liquefaction. Good read for those who are interested in the technology.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Doubt

3.) Arguments about oil not being replicable. Oil is replaceable. All the alternatives cost more and that will put a damper on the global economy, not just the US. Then the world adapts. Who is supposedly prepared now does not tell us who will come out ahead later. In the case of the US, there is less incentive to change because we still have more resources than Europe.

Erm.....you have more money than Europe, but that is not why there has been a failure to change in the US. The failure is all to do with US attitudes toward global and national responsibility. You don't seriously believe that the European nations signed up to the Kyoto treaty because "they have less resources than the US" do you? The European nations signed it because they recognised there was a serious problem and that they needed to take action to address it. The populations of these countries responded by accepting the need for change. The Americans didn't sign it because they do not care, and because they thought they could get away with it.

Have you been to Germany recently? Do you have any idea how seriously the Germans take looking after their own environment and conserving the worlds resources? You could not have a sharper contrast to the disgraceful attitudes and behaviour displayed by the United States.

I am sorry if you have a problem with my anti-Americanism, but it is not going to go away, because my attitudes toward America has been the result of a long history of watching and listening to Americans. America has earned its reputation as a war-mongering, interventionist, anti-free-market, anti-environmentalist, culturally backward global bully. I have not been imagining it. In case you hadn't noticed, most of the world seems to agree with me.

edit : When I say "The US" I obviously do not mean every person in the US. It is clear that there is a very lively debate within the US between those who have belatedly joined the calls for change and those who are still supporting the neo-con anti-environmentalist guns-n-money agenda. I am doing whatever I can to add to the pressure on the latter group to make it easier for the reformers to force change, and if that means behaving in a way that you see as "anti-American" then so be it. I guess that many people in the US would argue that GWB is anti-American because of the negative worldwide and long-term consequences of his policies, which include a global anti-American backlash. If you keep letting your dog poop on your neighbours lawn, even after they have asked you nicely several times to stop it, then do not be surprised if they are cheering when your dog falls over dead.

 

[Doubt]

I will pass on Geoff’s anti-Americanism and just move on to the facts.

Doubt

Erm.....you have more money than Europe, but that is not why there has been a failure to change in the US. The failure is all to do with US attitudes toward global and national responsibility.

No, Geoff. Not just money. Over all, the US is resource rich and the EU is a bit depleted. There are very good reasons for the US to consume more energy than Europe:

US 2003 population: 290,342,554
US land area: 9,629,091 sq km

From: http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/us.html

EU 2003 treaty population: 388,830,000
EU 2003 treaty land area: 3,710,471 sq km

From: http://www.fedee.com/basics.html

The EU has 33% more people squeezed into an area only 39% as large as the US. Or in other terms:

The US has 30 people per sq km.
The EU has 104 people per sq km.

Even if the climates were the same and the industrial levels identical, the US would mostly likely have and consume more resources than the EU. Maybe we should put the west coast in storage until we really need it?

Now lets look at fossil fuel reserves.

US oil reserves: 22.4 billion barrels
US gas reserves: 272.7 Trillion cubic feet
US Coal: 282,444 million short tons

EU oil reserves: 13.7 billion barrels
EU gas reserves: 186.1 Trillion cubic feet
EU Coal: 79,011 million short tons

Sources:

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/iea/table81.html
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/iea/table82.html

Where there were different numbers for European gas and oil reserves, I went with the more generous estimate. I also only included the countries in the EU treaty. The coal figure for the EU gets up to 100,000 million short tons if we bring in all of Western Europe.

The numbers above don’t take into account easy access to imports from closest countries. Then energy figures for Europe don’t start to look good at all unless you bring the Russians into it.

Now for who consumes what:

2001 world energy consumption:

US: 97.05 Quadrillion Btu
Western Europe: 72.76 Quadrillion Btu (Includes non EU countries)

Source: http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/international/iealf/tablee1.xls

Now lets look at per capita energy consumption. The US and who was above it in 2001:

US: 341.8 million Btu per person
Canada: 402.6
Netherlands Antilles: 717.7 (That one was a surprise!)
Trinidad and Tobago: 365.2 (Also a surprise!)
Virgin Islands, U.S.: 1125.4 (So much for retiring there)
Gibraltar: 3542.0 (Holy friggin' ◊◊◊◊!)
Iceland: 481.1
Luxembourg: 461.6 (How much power do you need to run a bank?)
Norway: 422.6
Bahrain: 605.0
Kuwait: 469.0
Qatar: 921.4
UAE: 775.5
Singapore: 399.0

For reference:
Western Europe average: 150.8
Australia: 255.2

Source: http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/international/iealf/tablee1c.xls

Yes, sir! The US does use a lot of energy per person. What can be said about the big energy users here? Most have at least one of the following:

Cheap energy.
Low population density (Compared to Europe)
Tough climate conditions.
Well-developed industrial base.

For the US, every source of energy but oil is cheap. Our population is spread out, climate is varied and we have a big industrial base. No surprise we use a lot of energy. Even if we traded in those SUV’s for sub compacts, we will still burn much more energy than you average European.

Canada is an interesting case. Cold and low population density. But most of them live within 100 miles of the US. Could it be that cold is the big factor? Buy some petrol over there some time. Costs more than the US, but less than Europe and they are not driving sub compact cars much either. Could it be true that they need those SUV’s?

Also, EIA has interesting info on per capita energy consumption going back to 1980 and many other interesting bits of data:

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/international/total.html#IntlConsumption

US per capita energy consumption in 1980: 344.6 million Btu
US per capita energy consumption in 2001: 341.8

Western Europe in 1980: 135.5
Western Europe in 2001: 150.8

In fairness, the US was climbing all through the ‘90s. But the economy cooled off and here we are cutting back on energy consumption. What is happening in Europe?

Now for one odd question to anybody reading this. What is the deal with Gibraltar?

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Hi doubt

No time for a long answer because I am due at the pub, but one comment.

There is no point in comparing coal reserves because nobody believes that the coal is going to run out. The problem is that if the developed world tries to use coal-burning to offset the oil crisis then the net result will be an environmental catastrophe way beyond anything in the environmentalists worst nightmares. I think the bottom line is that the lack of petroleum will not cause a global energy crisis but it will mean that cheap air travel and the American ideal of everybody having a car is over. We are not talking about the end of civilisation at all. We are talking about the end of civilisation as it is currently lived in the richest parts of the western world. It is the end of cheap petrol and cheap aviation fuel. The third world can easily change direction because it is still developing and Europe is already changing direction. It only seems like the end of the world if you are American and resistant to change.

 

[kookbreaker]

Now for one odd question to anybody reading this. What is the deal with Gibraltar?

Probably a similar thing with the Virgin Islands. They have few natural resrources of their own, so to get power to those islands requires a lot of power.

 

[DanishDynamite]

Doubt:

There are very good reasons for the US to consume more energy than Europe

[Slightly off-topic] Well, I can see an argument in regard to longer distances on average meaning more energy consumed for transportation, and perhaps there's an argument for longer transmission lines meaning more power losses, but I don't see what the size of energy reserves have to do with a "good reason" to consume more energy.

BTW, how large a part of the US energy consumption is spent on transportation?

Are there any other reasons why a lower population density should affect energy consumption? I mean, the difference between the per capita consumption in the US and Europe is more than a factor 2.

 

[kookbreaker]

Originally posted by JustGeoff Hi doubt

No time for a long answer because I am due at the pub, but one comment.

There is no point in comparing coal reserves because nobody believes that the coal is going to run out. The problem is that if the developed world tries to use coal-burning to offset the oil crisis then the net result will be an environmental catastrophe way beyond anything in the environmentalists worst nightmares.

Depends. Coal can be made to burn clean. It was fun to watch some of the more radical environmentalists scream about coal-plant modernizations recently. Some had apparently secretly hoped that all the old coal plants would die of old age, ignoring the fact that they spewed more and more pollutants as they aged. Coal burning has good potential to be clean with the proper technology.

I think the bottom line is that the lack of petroleum will not cause a global energy crisis but it will mean that cheap air travel and the American ideal of everybody having a car is over. We are not talking about the end of civilisation at all. We are talking about the end of civilisation as it is currently lived in the richest parts of the western world. It is the end of cheap petrol and cheap aviation fuel.

What may also happen is that the American ideal will adapt. The car might go away, more likely it will become more efficient. (despite claims, hybrid cars have been selling decently...not bad for an introduction model) other solutions will present themselves. Personally, I hope for greater de-suburbanization, but my rent will be too high as it is. For all your blind hatred of the US, you forget that America is quite adaptable. Remember that we were at least partially forced into the 'bully' role you despise so much. Before that we pretty much kept to ourselves. You may have thought that was sweet and dandy, but before we become the hated bully Western European nations were in the habit of invading each other every 20 years or so.

The third world can easily change direction because it is still developing and Europe is already changing direction. It only seems like the end of the world if you are American and resistant to change. [/B]

The third world would actually have far more problems. Their developing industries would grind to a halt, leaving them mired. Replacing fuels does require a tech base that they do not posess. Their population would likely revert to using poor burning and polluting fuels like wood, or coal, if they have it. Don't plan on them burning it cleanly.

As for enlightened egalitarian Europe, I'm not impressed. Doubt has shown that the consumption is up, and with populations going down in many EU states there is less demand for industrial growth. You've sung the praises of Germany but fail to note that their population has been going down since 1972, which always puts less strain on any resources. Plus you ignore the depravation of East Germany. Why doesn't that count? After all, they were completely free from influence of the big bad bullying US?