Peak Oil and Population Overshoot

[Didacus]

argent_paladin,

Very interesting information on the population statistics. Does your source mention if the yearly increase in population might in the foreseable future turn into a yearly decrease? just wondering.

I am not, repeat, am not an advocate of the 'die-off' theories. I am however, knowledgeable enough to recongnize the world we live in was built almost entirely on the foundation of oil, and that the lack of this ressource will be a huge blow to the industrialized world - even if the world population was to stay stagnant for the next 100 years.

Our lifestyles will be dramatically different in 30 yeasrs than it is today - how much and for the better or worse? I don't know myself, I just know that forceably it will have to be very different.

The new technologies you refer to have already served to re-establish current estimates of world oil reserves. And you are correct that these reserves wehre significantly increased due to this technology. However, no amount of technology can produce more oil than there exists. Furthermore, these technologies offer better total extraction, but also cause much faster declines of extraction after a well's peak. The perfect example is Cantarell, the balck-gold mine of Mexico which is projected to decline in production by over 15% starting this year (if it has not started already). Cantarell is the third biggest oil field in the world, the size of which will never be found again.

Ghawar, the giant amongst giants of oil ifeld (Saudi Arabia), is over three times the size of Cantarell and its depletion is estimated at 52%.

Every giant oil field discovered are declining, no other giant oil fields are left to be discovered, and current new discoveries replace only a fragment of oil being consumed, and cannot replace the loss capacities of extraction.

This year (or perhaps 2004) marked the first time in history that supply could no longer meet demand for oil. Oil prices will never again return to 20 or 30$ per barrel. tehy will, from this point forth, follow a rockety but constant increase in cost.

[morostheos]

[quote name='argent_paladin' date='Jul 25 2005, 03:17 PM']Of course, one great solution is to start building a lot more nuclear power plants, since it is a clean, safe, efficient form of energy.
[right][snapback]658365[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Alas, nuclear power plants are not really a clean, safe, efficient form of energy either. There is certainly opportunity in nuclear power, but it is also not a cure-all, just like hydroelectric, solar, and wind power are not cure-alls. The main problem with nuclear power is no one has yet figured out what to do with the nuclear waste. It has been years and years since nuclear power plants have opened up, and most of them still just put the spend fuel rods in big ponds behind their facilities, as "temporary" storage, until a nuclear waste despository is created. But even if that does occur, there is still the danger of nuclear contamination, not to mention the security danger of regularly hauling spent plutonium and uranium across the country. Plus, you still have to take into account the cost of mining the raw materials.

There is no such thing as a free lunch. It stinks, doesn't it?

[Socrates]

[quote name='Didacus' date='Jul 25 2005, 01:52 PM']argent_paladin,

Very interesting information on the population statistics.  Does your source mention if the yearly increase in population might in the foreseable future turn into a yearly decrease?  just wondering.

I am not, repeat, am not an advocate of the 'die-off' theories.  I am however, knowledgeable enough to recongnize the world we live in was built almost entirely on the foundation of oil, and that the lack of this ressource will be a huge blow to the industrialized world - even if the world population was to stay stagnant for the next 100 years.

Our lifestyles will be dramatically different in 30 yeasrs than it is today - how much and for the better or worse?  I don't know myself, I just know that forceably it will have to be very different.

The new technologies you refer to have already served to re-establish current estimates of world oil reserves.  And you are correct that these reserves wehre significantly increased due to this technology.  However, no amount of technology can produce more oil than there exists.  Furthermore, these technologies offer better total extraction, but also cause much faster declines of extraction after a well's peak.  The perfect example is Cantarell, the balck-gold mine of Mexico which is projected to decline in production by over 15% starting this year (if it has not started already).  Cantarell is the third biggest oil field in the world, the size of which will never be found again. 

Ghawar, the giant amongst giants of oil ifeld (Saudi Arabia), is over three times the size of Cantarell and its depletion is estimated at 52%.

Every giant oil field discovered are declining, no other giant oil fields are left to be discovered, and current new discoveries replace only a fragment of oil being consumed, and cannot replace the loss capacities of extraction.

This year (or perhaps 2004) marked the first time in history that supply could no longer meet demand for oil.  Oil prices will never again return to 20 or 30$ per barrel.  tehy will, from this point forth, follow a rockety but constant increase in cost.
[right][snapback]658415[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

I've done a research paper on global population trends. Even the pro-contraception, pro-abortion U.N. now admits that at current trends, world population will probably begin actually falling before the end of this century. [url="http://www.un.org/esa/population/unpop.htm"](U.N. Population Division Website)[/url]

Dr. Steven Mosher of the pro-life [url="http://pop.org/main.cfm?id=268&r1=1.00&r2=5.00&r3=0&r4=0&level=2&eid=802"]Population Reserach Institute[/url] says the U.N. projections seriously underestimate the population lowering trends of global urbanization, and that the population decline will be sooner and sharper than predicted.

The rapidly aging population in much of Europe (much of which is already seeing actual population decline) is already causing economic problems.

I'm not an expert, but I think human technology and ingenuity can find working solutions to the oil "crisis" before it all runs out. What's the point of all this pessimism and doomsaying anyway?
These enviromentalist types love to spread a fear-mongering attitude that says agressive "population control" pograms are the only solution for the world's problems. Any solution that does not involve population control is dismissed as ineffective.

Edited July 26, 2005 by Socrates

[argent_paladin]

Didacus, I assume that when you say that no new nuclear power plants have been built, you mean in the USA. Europe, which tends to be much more environmentally conscious than the US has embraced nuclear power and is still building plants, as is China. I think that as the oil fields production declines, there wil be new calls for nuclear power plants.
Also, as you say, shale-oil extraction is only viable for oil prices above $100 a barrel, but it is almost certain that that process will become more efficient. So, suppose that in 10 years we can extract tar sands and shale oil for $80 a barrel, which isn't too radical of a prediction. What would the impact be on our lifestyle from that higher price? Well, not very much because though the nominal and real price of fuel would increase, it would be pretty much the same as a percentage of GDP and income per capita, which is the important part. And as you say, we have a gigantic potential supply of these fuel sources. Couple that with increased energy efficiency and a slowing population increase as well as better forms of alternative energy and I doubt that there will be any long-term energy shortage.
I would be happy to wager with you that in 2010, the price of oil will be about the same as today or even lower, in real terms. And I guarantee that as a percentage of GDP it will be lower.

[Didacus]

[quote name='morostheos' date='Jul 25 2005, 08:21 PM']Alas, nuclear power plants are not really a clean, safe, efficient form of energy either.  There is certainly opportunity in nuclear power, but it is also not a cure-all, just like hydroelectric, solar, and wind power are not cure-alls.  The main problem with nuclear power is no one has yet figured out what to do with the nuclear waste.  It has been years and years since nuclear power plants have opened up, and most of them still just put the spend fuel rods in big ponds  behind their facilities, as "temporary" storage, until a nuclear waste despository is created.  But even if that does occur, there is still the danger of nuclear contamination, not to mention the security danger of regularly hauling spent plutonium and uranium across the country.  Plus, you still have to take into account the cost of mining the raw materials.

There is no such thing as a free lunch.  It stinks, doesn't it?
[right][snapback]658930[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Nuclear power plants are the safest and cleanest non-renewable energy source available to humanity today.

I would take that 3 kg of spent plutonium before those 5 tons of CO2, SO2 and others gases any day. One is easily controlled, the other simply cannot be managed.


The only two problems with nuclear power, technically, is that they require huge initial investments, and the mining operations required bites deep into the energy return on energy invested of the overal operation.

But one needs to look at how much more nuclear energy would be required to replace oil and other fossile fuels (because Natrual Gas and carbon are not that far behind oil in depletion - US):

4.8 times more nuclear facilities would be required to replace oil
3.2 times more new nuclear facilities would be required to replace NG
3.0 times more new nuclear facilities would replace coal

Thus in total, for the US, one would require 11 times the nuclear facilites in existence in the Us today to replace the energy needs being consumed - assuming interchangeable efficiency (which is not the case).

[Didacus]

[quote name='Socrates' date='Jul 25 2005, 09:27 PM']I've done a research paper on global population trends.  Even the pro-contraception, pro-abortion U.N. now admits that at current trends, world population will probably begin actually falling before the end of this century.  [url="http://www.un.org/esa/population/unpop.htm"](U.N. Population Division Website)[/url]

Dr. Steven Mosher of the pro-life [url=http://pop.org/main.cfm?id=268&r1=1.00&r2=5.00&r3=0&r4=0&level=2&eid=802]Population [snip]

I'm not an expert, but I think human technology and ingenuity can find working solutions to the oil "crisis" before it all runs out.  What's the point of all this pessimism and doomsaying anyway?
These enviromentalist types love to spread a fear-mongering attitude that says agressive "population control" pograms are the only solution for the world's problems.  Any solution that does not involve population control is dismissed as ineffective.
[right][snapback]659030[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

I undertsand what you're saying about the pollitical thrust some groups are pushing, and I definately want to distance myself from them. Fear-mongering and dooms-dayers are harmful in the worst ways.

I do not believe there will be a die-off... what I believe will eventually happen is that the industrialised lifestyle enjoyed in Europe and North America will be adjusted - that is what is unsustainable, the culture of consumerism. It is also what caused the problem. The world will be enpoverished in general, not just the third world.

I would not count of things like: "I'm not an expert, but I think human technology and ingenuity can find working solutions to the oil "crisis" before it all runs out. " . That sounds too much like 'faith in science" to me. I've talked to engineers and scientists, believe me, don't put your faith in science. And human ingenuity is self serving almost every time.

[Didacus]

[quote name='argent_paladin' date='Jul 25 2005, 11:16 PM']Didacus, I assume that when you say that no new nuclear power plants have been built, you mean in the USA. Europe, which tends to be much more environmentally conscious than the US has embraced nuclear power and is still building plants, as is China.
[/quote]

I don't recall saying there was no new nuclear plants being built...l

France is the world's #1 as far as nuclear power is concerned. However, considering their non-exitent fuel-energy sources internal to France, even with a 80%+ energy coming from nuclear, they would be a paralysed nation without the constant importation of oil

China is by far the most interesting example: Every single energy source is grwoing astronomically in demand in China. And this is not due to population increase, it is due to industrialisation of the poor. Coal, Natural gas, nuclear and hydro are all booming in China and cannot kepp up iwth demand. (China is undergoing the largest hydro project in history right now, progjected to be completed in a little more than 10 years).


[quote name='argent_paladin' date='Jul 25 2005, 11:16 PM']I think that as the oil fields production declines, there wil be new calls for nuclear power plants.
[/quote]


Read the news here nad there on the enregy sector, the push is already underway world wide, an dcurrently the alternative being most pushed is natural gas. So much has natural gas been pushed as an alternative in the past 5 years that for the first time in November 2004, Natural Gas became more expensive than oil for a brief amount of time. NOw the energy contained in Natural Gas is essentially the same cost as energy from oil, and the push to change infrastructures of power plants from burning oil to burning NG is still going strong.

The interesting thing I note is even if the push away from oil is being made - world wide, and the enrgy 'baskets' of nation show oil, as a percentage of toher energies as declining, the sum of oil consumed increases nonetheless. Even though other sources of energy are expanding faster than oil, our overall depency on oil keeps increasing every year, even as the price of oil nearly trippled in the 5 years.

[quote name='argent_paladin' date='Jul 25 2005, 11:16 PM']Also, as you say, shale-oil extraction is only viable for oil prices above $100 a barrel, but it is almost certain that that process will become more efficient. So, suppose that in 10 years we can extract tar sands and shale oil for $80 a barrel, which isn't too radical of a prediction. What would the impact be on our lifestyle from that higher price?
[/quote]

As the price of oil increase the price of everything increases. If oil stabilizes at 100$ per barrel by 2010, that essentially means everyone's income is cut in half! Best thing you can for yourself - clear all your debts before then!

[quote name='argent_paladin' date='Jul 25 2005, 11:16 PM']Well, not very much because though the nominal and real price of fuel would increase, it would be pretty much the same as a percentage of GDP and income per capita, which is the important part. And as you say, we have a gigantic potential supply of these fuel sources.
[/quote]

For this to be true, wouldn't mean that inflation will proportionally follow the price of oil? Hence, we would require to sustain a 200% inflation rate from today to 2010? Not impossible - very improbable.

Who has not been affected by the increase in gas prices in the last 2 years alone? We had truckers gong on strike over it in my corner of the world. Airplane tickets have a fuel surcharge, as does delivery companies. Filing up my car cost me 25$ a pop, instead of 20$ (GeoMetro, small thing), that 5$ is one less beer at the bar!

[quote name='argent_paladin' date='Jul 25 2005, 11:16 PM']I would be happy to wager with you that in 2010, the price of oil will be about the same as today or even lower, in real terms. And I guarantee that as a percentage of GDP it will be lower.
[right][snapback]659163[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Name what you wish to bet... I'm more than willing to take you up on it. Socrates cna be our witness! Whwat says you Soc?

[morostheos]

[quote name='Didacus' date='Jul 26 2005, 08:34 AM']Nuclear power plants are the safest and cleanest non-renewable energy source available to humanity today.

I would take that 3 kg of spent plutonium before those 5 tons of CO2, SO2 and others gases any day.  One is easily controlled, the other simply cannot be managed.
The only two problems with nuclear power, technically, is that they require huge initial investments, and the mining operations required bites deep into the energy return on energy invested of the overal operation.

But one needs to look at how much more nuclear energy would be required to replace oil and other fossile fuels (because Natrual Gas and carbon are not that far behind oil in depletion - US):

4.8 times more nuclear facilities would be required to replace oil
3.2 times more new nuclear facilities would be required to replace NG
3.0 times more new nuclear facilities would replace coal

Thus in total, for the US, one would require 11 times the nuclear facilites in existence in the Us today to replace the energy needs being consumed - assuming interchangeable efficiency (which is not the case).
[right][snapback]659331[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
I wasn't arguing that oil, coal or natural gas are better than nuclear power, but just that nuclear power certainly has it's drawbacks too. 3 kg of spent plutonium have a potential to take a lot more human lives than 5 tons of CO2 and SO2. The main problem with spent plutonium is that it is not easily controlled. We have no way of containing it for the duration of its half-life (thousands of years), and radiation pollution can cause very serious problems.

I agree that nuclear power will become increasingly important as fossil fuels diminish, but I think other sources such as small-scale wind and hydroelectric plants are more sustainable. These alternative sources will take longer to build up, especially to meet worldwide energy needs, but are much safer than nuclear power.