If all it takes is one US Congressman, then so be it. Kudos to Roscoe Bartlett for bringing the peak oil issue front and center to Congress. He has also taken an extraordinary step in modern day Washington - as a Republican he has voted against HR 6 - the Energy Bill.
Bartlett recognizes what President George W. Bush will not publicly acknowledge - that time is running out on the age of oil for the US and the world. And we should be doing far, far more about it than the current legislation, which is simply a giveaway to energy companies.
The lies that are being fed to the American people on energy issues are truly stunning. Again, as I have written earlier, the capitalist class in the US is either in very deep denial or is embarking on an evil strategy to keep the consumptive and lucrative oil culture of the US dancing as long as possible so they can make the most profits before the storm breaks.
The shields against lawsuits against those that have polluted groundwater stocks with MTBE are merely rubbing salt in the wound and completely in line with the rapaciousness of the business class in the US.
The bottom line is that there is NO WAY that the US can do much under the current mindset to alleviate the shocks that are coming on peak oil. We simply cannot drill our way out of it domestically and the best conservation efforts will only buy us months. We simply are not sitting on enough oil compared to our rising needs, to make much of a difference.
All the oil in ANWR buys the US 6 months of domestic consumption.
Bartlett is correct that a “Manhattan Project” crash course to immediately conscript the energies, intelligences and infrastructure of the nation to the development and deployment of alternatives to oil is absolutely necessary. In fact, it should have started 20 years ago.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Bennett Dawson
The sooner we get a non oil baron president, the better the chance that our country can finally take the steps needed to move on toward a non oil based society.
It baffles me that, knowing that oil is a limited resource, we allow our elected representatives to pretend that "all is well, no reason to panic, everything will work out okay in the end..."
Folks, IT WON'T! I may not be around fifty years from now, but my kids probably will. I'd like to know that our country, and the world, is taking steps to avoid a second dark ages, one where the world's resources have been stripped, sold, and burned. I hate the idea that we're willing to push this right up to the edge of the chasm, before working to develop the technologies that will keep us from an enormous crash and burn.
Orbiting Solar Power Satellites - Jobs, inspiration, freedom from nuclear waste, and cleaner air. NASA could be working towards a first launch, if only we let them.
This is not a dream, this is reality, or could be if we force our elected reps to deal with one of the few long term issues that really matters to the US, and the world.
Thanks for this post.
2 - Dave Nalle
LOL, Bush is an oil baron now? How does starting and then folding an oil company make him an oil baron? Bush's main business success was as CEO of the Texas Rangers baseball organization, which he actually handled very well. His negotiations with the city of Arlington to get the new ballpark built were his great accomplishment. His career in oil came at the worst possible time. No one could make money on oil in Texas in the 70s and he failed just like everyone else.
Dave
3 - Bennett Dawson
Regardless of GW's personal business success in the industry, his family and campaign contributors (they still own oil related businesses, right?) profits from the oil based energy system we have.
Don't go off on me Dave, regardless of your assertion that GW is, or is not, an "oil baron", the rest of my post is what I wanted to put up for discussion.
When do we start developing non-oil based energy sources?
4 - Dave Nalle
We already have, Bennett - it's called nuclear power. What we need to do now is get the anti-nuke people to go away and reestablish the legitimacy of nuclear power so that we can develop it the way that countries like France have done. It's been what, 20 years since we built a new nuclear plant? That's just foolish given the energy situation.
BTW, I'm a big fan of SSPS, but as far as I can tell there's no interest whatsoever in developing them seriously. Back when Gore was in the congress and I worked for him I wrote up a detailed assessment of the viability of them and even Gore didn't try to do anything with it. At the time I think it seemed too science fictional. Today the main problem is that NASA really isn't up to a project of that scale.
Dave
5 - Bennett Dawson
Have to agree with you on this one. But oh so sadly. Nuclear is thousands of steps above coal burning power plants, but its downside of waste is hard to ignore. SPSS has everything going for it, except politicians.
That said, I'd vote to build a second Vermont Yankee in an instant.
6 - Eric Olsen
I agree that oil in particular and energy in general is Bush's worst blind spot
7 - Roy Smith
I'm all for nuclear power - as a solution to global climate change. Unfortunately, the peak oil problem is not primarily about climate change, it is about the ENTIRE STRUCTURE of the modern industrial economy. And nuclear power is only a little piece of the solution there.
The main (but by no means only) problem is transportation. Ninety percent of transportation energy comes from refined petroleum products. Assuming the average engine (automobile, truck, train, ship, airplane) has a service life of 10 years (its probably higher than that, but I don't have numbers), it is obvious that it will take a while (less than 10 years at best) to get rid of or significantly reduce the transportation sector's dependance on oil. And by dependance on oil, I mean dependance on cheap oil. So if the peak is this year (as some experts are predicting), then the transportation sector will be in for a very rough time, because the price of oil will shoot up dramatically (on the order of several hundred percent) in order to bring demand in line with supply.
The really bad news is that the rest of the industrial economy depends on transportation. The entire premise for globalization is cheap transportation to move goods internationally. Large cities don't work without reasonably economical transportation (trucks bring your food to Safeway), and even a fairly short term disruption is a large scale disaster (anybody know how long NYC could last before it ran out of food if fuel supplies were interrupted for a month?) And interrupting basic things for survival, like food, water, or transport is a sure recipe for economic devastation on a grand scale.
If the folks predicting peak oil before 2010 are right (and I have no reason to believe they aren't), then I have a difficult time seeing how many, if not all, of the world's industrial economies are going to avoid complete collapse. And that is very bad news indeed.
8 - Roy Smith
As far as SSPS, as my post above (comment #7) demonstrates, SSPS can't save us 1) because it will take years to deploy (assuming we have the political will to do it) and 2) because it makes electricity, and the transportation sector doesn't run on electricity.
SSPS is another solution for global climate change (though I'm a little skeptical on the technical and economic feasability - somebody needs to build a prototype) that does nothing to address the Peak Oil problem.
9 - Keith Gottschalk
SSPS is something quite frankly, I'm not up on, but its very interesting. While I'm foursquare for nuclear power, that keeps the lights burning as others have written, but you can't put a nuclear generator in your car (too bad, really). I also have read where the uranium is also a finite reseource so there is another problem with nuclear power plants that may be insoluble in the long run. Be that as it may, everything should be on the table, now.
10 - Jack Crapse
I am a chemical engineer and have watched this for thirty years. There is no back up. Zero-Zip. I blame this on lack of education and greed, not any president. Even if the president (any president) gave a speach tomorrow he would be attack from every side and more than 75% of the people would not believe it. Half of them believe stories about dropping a pill in water and running it in a gas motor. There is not one alternative source that will stop a crash. Countries without oil are just as poor or poorer than they have ever been. Probably we will start a fusion project which is the best bet for the future. Any other fuel that we have has a multitude of drawbacks. The economic downturn has already started in 2000. All time high on the Dow was about 11,700 of which I will never see again. The decisions that will have to be made will be harsh and and will come too late because of debate. In our society every one thinks they have another day, month, or year to make changes. Unfortualy we have wasted our time of learning and a degree in the arts, social studies, law, and political science is not going to save us. Neither will more jails, watered down schools, SS, broken medical care, unions, or corperate giants. All of these does and will make the problem worse. The only cure that I see is the over weight problem. One had better start educating and thinking for themselves because you are on your own. Any retoric that you follow politicaly will be wrong. Oil peak is not coming, its here. PS; I never said I could spell.
11 - Dave Nalle
>>If the folks predicting peak oil before 2010 are right (and I have no reason to believe they aren't), then I have a difficult time seeing how many, if not all, of the world's industrial economies are going to avoid complete collapse. And that is very bad news indeed.<<
Say 'welcome back railroads'.
Dave
12 - Bennett Dawson
Say 'welcome back railroads'.
Dave
Great answer! Oh, but we've decided to dismanlte Amtrack. Baaaaaad decision.
But seriously, how big of a garden should I plant this year?
13 - Roy Smith
Railroads are (or were, when we still had time) part of the answer to this - the advantage railroads have over other forms of land transportation is that they can be electrified. Of course that takes a lot of time and a level of expense that was deemed "uneconomical" when oil was cheap.
Another big problem that will be encountered is that most of the chemicals used in modern agri-business (fertilizers, pesticides, etc) are petroleum based, and the use of these chemicals is one big reason that agricultural yields are a lot higher now than they were in the past. Reducing use of these petroleum based chemicals will result, at least for a few years, in a drop in crop yields.
Between these two problems, growing the food and transporting it to our grocery stores), the bottom line is that food is likely to get a lot more expensive and less abundant.
You might not need a big garden this year (it is kind of hard to say with what speed this will happen - James H. Kunstler has nicknamed it "The Long Emergency" to explain it as a very slow motion collapse - inevitable but not rapid). But plant a garden, and make sure you practice techniques that you can duplicate ten years down the road without oil or electricity. And make sure you use "heirloom" type seeds that will propagate to another generation when you save some of the seeds from this crop. And start raising bees so that those crops get good pollination and have viable seeds for the next generation.
14 - Dave Nalle
I will say only two words:
Nuclear Trains!
If we can put a nuclear power plant in a submarine we can put one in a railroad engine.
Dave
15 - Bennett Dawson
This is great Roy, and oh so true! I have a post on my blog about the minimal cost of 40 acres in the country, 'cause it's what I have.
"But plant a garden, and make sure you practice techniques that you can duplicate ten years down the road without oil or electricity. And make sure you use "heirloom" type seeds that will propagate to another generation when you save some of the seeds from this crop. And start raising bees so that those crops get good pollination and have viable seeds for the next generation."
Dave, brilliant man! Nuclear trains moving all cargo (UPS, USPS, loaded trucks, produce, etc etc..)
Short haul only from hubs near cities with electrical Semi's. A TON of fuel saved. Hybrids, or total electric (SPSS remember?) vehicles for public transpo.
SCRamJets for coast to coast flights.
I'm starting to feel a bit better...
16 - El Bicho
"Bush's main business success was as CEO of the Texas Rangers baseball organization, which he actually handled very well. His negotiations with the city of Arlington to get the new ballpark built were his great accomplishment."
Huh? They never won the division until after he left and for six out of ten seasons under his reign they didn't make .500. What exactly did he handle well? The trading of Sammy Sosa?
I wonder if his fellow tax-cutting Republicans in DC would also agree that his great accomplishment in business was the result of getting the voters of Arlington to approve a one-half cent sales tax in an effort to raise $135 million for the ballpark complex.
17 - Roy Smith
Yes a nuclear train is quite possible. So are nuclear aircraft. But the public will never accept the perceived risks unless the risks of much more fundamental things (like starving to death) rise much higher due to lack of oil. And by then it is too late. And nuclear trains still do not address the agricultural chemical problem (see comment #13 above).
It's not the transition to a non-oil based economy which has the potential to destroy industrial civilization; it is the complete lack of planning for the transition. The industrial economy (as it now exists) is not flexible enough to handle something like this without decades of preparation, and the preparation only happens when people are convinced that the risk is real in the first place. People are not convinced, and even if they were, it is not likely that we have decades to prepare.
Happy planting!
18 - Temple Stark
>>His negotiations with the city of Arlington to get the new ballpark built were his great accomplishment.
You mean made the taxpayers and government pay for somethng baseball owners should pay for themselves, not government? is this one of those crtical needs only government can perform? Defense and ballparks?
The nuclear (power) option is obviously the way we're going. But with transportation biodiesel seems a better option then trains (lots of countryside torn up, though also good jobs.)
19 - Dave Nalle
>>Huh? They never won the division until after he left and for six out of ten seasons under his reign they didn't make .500. What exactly did he handle well? The trading of Sammy Sosa?<<
Ah Bicho, so naive. You think that winning games is the mark of success as a baseball magnate? Hardly so. Success is measured by asses in seats, especially in the skyboxes, and that's where Bush absolutely excelled. If you can get a huge new stadium built, get the taxpayers to underwrite it, then fill it with paying customers when your team sucks, you're a business genius.
>>I wonder if his fellow tax-cutting Republicans in DC would also agree that his great accomplishment in business was the result of getting the voters of Arlington to approve a one-half cent sales tax in an effort to raise $135 million for the ballpark complex. <<
I totally disagree with it as a political decision, but that's on the idiots in the Arlington city council. As a business move by Bush and his cronies it was first rate. Bush was the great schmoozer - able to move between wealthy businessmen and red neck rancher millionaires with ease and coax money out of all of them.
Dave
20 - Dave Nalle
>>You mean made the taxpayers and government pay for somethng baseball owners should pay for themselves, not government? is this one of those crtical needs only government can perform? Defense and ballparks?<<
Never said I agree with it as a matter of policy, but from the point of view of the business getting the taxpayers to foot the bill is a great idea.
>>The nuclear (power) option is obviously the way we're going.<<
You think? Then where are the new nuclear plants? Where are our fusion reactors?
Dave
21 - Roy Smith
>> The nuclear (power) option is obviously the way we're going. But with transportation biodiesel seems a better option then trains (lots of countryside torn up, though also good jobs.) <<
Electricity is only a very peripheral concern in the Peak Oil problem. Coal can probably take up the slack as easily as nuclear (of course, the environmental damage would be immense).
As for biodiesel, I don't think it will work because a) it will take years to convert all those things that are currently powered by gasoline engines to diesel; and b) it would probably take more land than the earth contains to produce enough biodiesel to meet the transport fuel need of all the people on earth (according to current consumption habits).
22 - Temple Stark
Um I was agreeing with the idea. Picking the least of evils. I have confidence that we can make it and keep it safe. Balancing that with the idea of global warfare or the EU or the US or China trying to take over the world in its fight for resources, the nuclear option is the way to go.
The EU on the other hand is far more advanced in its progress toward a world without oil. It occurs to me to wonder about synthetic oils but I have not looked into it.
23 - Roy Smith
My point is that making electricity with nuclear power does very little to address the Peak Oil problem. We could fairly easily go to 100% nuclear power for electricity production (France and Japan have both gone towards that goal with no problems), but making lots of electricity still does not solve the transportation fuels problem, which is the heart of the Peak Oil problem. There has been no significant progress or effot made towards changing the petroleum basis of the transportation infrastructure, and even when the will exists for making these changes, the scale of infrastructure changes required mean it will take years or decades to complete. Until then, the economy may be in for a very rough ride.
24 - Sri
If there're lessons we need to take away from Peak Oil and from failed societies of the past (as depicted in Jared Diamond's "Collapse...," they are:
(a) Don't rely on non-renewable sources for your basic energy needs.
(b) Be careful with the environment. There is a point of no return after while whole groups of people will die.
Lesson (a) rules out nuclear and coal, unless they are only used as stop-gap measures, or to assist in getting to sustainable sources.
Lesson (b) says we have to be very careful using up coal and other forms of fossil fuels still not at their peak.
As has been mentioned, sustainable sources will not be enough to produce as much energy as we consume today. The only solution seems to be conservation in conjunction with a massive development of renewable energy technologies.
The idealistic side of me wants the entire world to cooperate and strengthen multi-national organizations to do what's necessary in the face of this crisis.
My pragmatic side goes, "Fat chance!"
It seems more likely that we're just going to look for militaristic solutions to corner the last drop of oil. I wish I could just fast-forward some 30 years or so.
25 - Dave Nalle
>>(a) Don't rely on non-renewable sources for your basic energy needs.
(b) Be careful with the environment. There is a point of no return after while whole groups of people will die.
Lesson (a) rules out nuclear and coal, unless they are only used as stop-gap measures, or to assist in getting to sustainable sources.<<
How is nuclear not a renewable resource? We have to assume that future development will concentrate on fusion reactors and they don't run out of fuel, correct?
Oh, and you forgoc (c) move to a fortified compound and buy a good selection of guns.
Dave