Is Peak Oil the End of Civilization?
Doomsayers claim that peak oil will produce worldwide panic and disaster, but the lessons of history make a very different prediction.
Filed under Environment
| Skeptoid #100 May 13, 2008 Podcast transcript | Listen | Subscribe |
|
Think back to the days following 9/11, when all commercial and civilian air traffic was grounded. People were stranded everywhere. Only take it a step further: Take away the trains, the buses, and the rental cars. Imagine every gas station closed, and cars abandoned on the roadside as they too run out. People can't get to work and the nation's businesses can't even declare bankruptcy because there's no way to get to the courthouse to file the papers. The mail stops. Supermarkets are empty because there are no delivery trucks. And then, in a final shriek of terror, the power plants shut down, darkness falls everywhere, water pressure stops, and humanity devolves into a battlefield of hand-to-hand combat over who gets to eat the neighbor's dog.
This is the extremist scenario painted by peak oil advocates. Peak oil refers to the point at which world oil production must start to decline as reserves are emptied and pumps run dry. Oil is a finite resource, and so there's no doubt that at some point, peak oil will occur. The world's appetite for oil continues to grow exponentially, fueled by the explosive growth of most of the world's population in China and India. When the rift between increasing demand and decreasing supply gets to a breaking point, advocates say that the apocalyptic scenario described above must happen.
In some places, peak oil has already happened. In the United States, oil production peaked about 1970, when we produced about 3.4 billion barrels per year. Today we produce about 1.5 billion. The curve has followed the 1956 prediction by American geophysicist M. King Hubbert who described the oil production of any given region over time as a bell curve. This is called Hubbert's curve. Every region in the world has its own separate curve. Some, like the US, are already on the downside. Others, like Canada, which is just beginning to exploit its oil sands, are only just now hitting the steepest climb on the upside. In addition to Canada, the middle east and China are also still climbing their upsides. Russia has just barely tipped past its peak. The most pessimistic estimates for world peak oil say that it's already happened; the most optimistic give us another 30 years before we peak.
Oil production in any given region is not determined simply by physical factors such as the amount of reserves remaining and the technology required to develop it, but also by political and economic pressures. For example, Russia peaked way back in the Soviet days when their economy was falling apart, but their oil industry recovered throughout the 1990's and they've managed to find a second peak. The same could happen in the United States, if continental shelf and rocky mountain reserves were to be developed. They probably won't be, due to political pressures, but it's nice to know that they could be, if things came down to eating your neighbor's dog.
The biggest error made by the peak oil doomsayers is in failing to recognize the adaptive nature of the world economy. When demand goes up and supply goes down, prices go up, and consumers look to alternatives. As alternatives become more popular than the original, prices drop in reaction to the reduced demand, and eventually a marginalized industry disappears. Markets react and adapt. Currently, we have very high gasoline prices. Consumers are reacting by clamoring for alternative fuel vehicles. Many industrial products depend on oil, such as fertilizers, solvents, and plastics to name only a few; and as the price of producing these climbs, industry turns to alternatives. Alternatives become increasingly commoditized and prices come down. Oil becomes less relevant, and eventually nobody will care when reserves finally do run dry.
If consumers and industry failed to react to oil prices that climb astronomically for decades, then yes, it could be possible that we'd have an overnight shutdown of everything and the world would turn into a tumultuous battlefield of cannibalism. But neither consumers nor industry have ever acted this way, don't now, and aren't likely to in the future. Everyone wants to spend less money, and the most expensive options will always be least desirable.
Part of the reason that the doomsayers don't see this is that what's most visible right now is gasoline prices, and the total nonexistence of any viable alternative fuel vehicles. That's our worldview: Expensive gas, diminishing production, no alternatives. But outside of this worldview, some very interesting things are happening. Believe it or not, tremendous research is going on to develop alternative fuel vehicles: Supercapacitor technologies, fuel cells, hydrogen production. Silicon Valley is investing into alternative energy like a bat out of hell. And worldwide, industry is developing alternatives to petroleum based plastic like fructose. Agricultural fertilizers can be made from seawater or atmospheric nitrogen, but they're not in production because the market has not yet reacted that far. Eventually, when the price gap closes, these non-oil based sources may become the inexpensive standards.
What about other resources? Do they peak as well? Yes, they do, at least non-renewable ones do. It's generally believed that we're either just past or right about at the peak of gold production. Some 150,000 tons of gold have been mined throughout history, and the US Geological Survey estimates that there's another 90,000 tons still out there. Considering there's been a constant increase in gold mining efficiency, this all sounds about right. In many countries around the world, gold production has been dropping in recent years as reserves have been tapped out. But, do we need to expect a worldwide panic over gold? Probably not, since it's largely a luxury item and its industrial uses are relatively modest. We expect to see prices rise as supply diminishes, and probably a number of market adjustments until we settle into an eventual equilibrium of old gold being reused to meet demand.
There are other more serious resource peaks. Peak phosphorous, for one. Phosphorous is a crucial ingredient of both synthetic and organic crop fertilizers. And glyophosphate is a principal ingredient in herbicides used in super-high-yield genetically modified food crops. Both have seen dramatic price hikes in recent years as rock phosphate, the source of nearly all industrial phosphorus, is being mined out. If I stopped talking now, this would seem an alarming, terrifying prospect, and you might see doom & gloom web sites predicting global disaster the way you do with peak oil. Peak phosphorus is a painful situation for farmers, but it's one that's not insoluble. In the short term, farmers invest in the phosphorus companies, thus offsetting their production costs with dividend income. In the long term, the fertilizer producers continue their research into alternative supplies. High on their list is seawater, which is after all, the eventual depository of all agricultural runoff. This proposal is essentially an accelerated leveraging of nature's existing cycle.
Another peak that we're starting to hear about is peak silicon. In this case, it's not a physical shortage of silicon; it's the engineering limits of what you can do with silicon to make computer chips. Such a peak would mean that the capabilities of computers could no longer grow with our increasing demand on them. The doomsayer pundits could make an argument here too that overnight we'll start each eating other and burning down our cities and running around with babies on pitchforks. But in fact what happens is that the silicon industry fades and the graphene industry rises. Graphene is only one of numerous next-generation computer chip technologies that obsolesce silicon.
Generally, what tends to happen in any industry, is that by the time an existing resource runs out, inventive scientists have already come up with something better. When a production peak looms (be it oil, phosphorus, silicon, or anything), this provides a kick in the pants to accelerate development. Market economies work in such a way that investors are encouraged to fund such development, and the bigger the looming problem, the bigger the investment to meet it.
Mark Twain used to speak nostalgically of the sad disappearance of the riverboat industry. It was killed by steam trains. Steam trains were later killed in turn by diesel electrics. The glory days of rail travel were ended by the advent of airlines. Eventually airliners aren't going to be able to burn jet fuel anymore. What will happen then? Today, I have no idea; much like Mark Twain had no idea that airliners would one day replace his beloved steamboat. To assume that the current state of technology represents the last and final stage of development is a completely ignorant viewpoint. To listen to the doomsayers is to be completely uncritical and unskeptical. I don't know what's around tomorrow's corner, but all the evidence of history tells us that it's probably not a big scary dragon.
You should follow me on twitter here.
© 2008 Skeptoid Media, Inc. Copyright information
References & Further Reading
Cordell, Dana, Drangert, Jan-Olof, White, Stuart. "The story of phosphorus: Global food security and food for thought." Global Environmental Change. 1 May 2009, Volume 19, Issue 2: 292-305.
Deffeyes, Kenneth S. Hubbert's Peak, the Impending World Oil Shortage. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2001.
Grubb, Adam, Anderson, Bart. "Peak Oil Primer." Energy Bulletin. Energybulletin.net, 11 Dec. 2009. Web. 16 Dec. 2009. <http://www.energybulletin.net/primer.php>
Swartz, Spencer. "World Need for OIl Expected to Ease, International Energy Agency Says Conservation Efforts Will Trump Any Global Economic Recovery." The Wall Street Journal. 4 Nov. 2009, Nov. 4: A13.
Tinker, Scott. "Of peaks and valleys: Doomsday energy scenarios burn away under scrutiny." News Releases and Features. Jackson School of Geosciences, University of Texas, 25 Jun. 2005. Web. 16 Dec. 2009. <http://www.jsg.utexas.edu/news/rels/062505a.html>
VanDerwater, Michael. "Oregon Builds a Solar Forest." Solar Today. 1 Jul. 2008, Volume 22, Number 4: 20-21.
Reference this article:
Dunning, Brian.
"Is Peak Oil the End of Civilization?" Skeptoid Podcast. Skeptoid Media, Inc.,
13 May 2008. Web.
2 Sep 2010. <http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4100>
Discuss!
5 most recent comments | Show all 55 comments
Remember, you should always read with skepticism the comments of anyone too lame to put their real name & city.
Just because peak oil doesn't mean "the end of civilization" doesn't mean it isn't a horrific prospect.
You're right that while peak oil is a verifiable phenomenon the issue is what this MEANS. Some people think it's a non-issue, others see it as presaging horror.
There are two things your response doesn't address: over-population, and what "alternatives" means.
Professor Albert Bartlett of the University of Colorado has an absolutely terrific look at the arithmetic of population growth and energy use. It's all about the numbers, and it's terrifying:
http://www.globalpublicmedia.com/dr_albert_bartlett_arithmetic_population_and_energy
The word "alternatives" is a sort of escape hatch. It is an all-purpose term, and it's false: supposed alternatives--biodiesel, ethanol, solar, etc.--are not opposites of oil but in fact dependent on oil for their production.
It takes energy to "make" energy, and that energy comes mostly from petroleum. The output of energy compared to the inputs of energy to make these "alternatives" is a mere pittance when you look at it. See the work of Robert Rapier.
We COULD have used our increasing oil production to establish a new paradigm, which Hubbert himself heartily suggested back in the 70s. But we've waited too long. On the backside of peak oil, we'll be clamoring just to keep pace with simply providing for people rather than establishing new infrastructure.
It may not be the end of the world, but it will be then end of what we hold dear.
Mike, Maine
April 04, 2010 3:47am
Comparing evolving technologies to raw materials is wishful thinking. I never see what is in my mind the obvious conclusion, there will be a need for less people on the planet. This may come about by design or consequence.
Jim Anderson, Katy
May 27, 2010 8:47am
When viewing this topic skeptically, I think it's important to not expect anything from the future. Trusting that "science will provide an alternative with time and demand" is not skeptical thinking, even though it might be true. Science can bottleneck; we see it today in medicine, which, after decades of supplying new "miracle cures" to a plethora of previously deadly diseases, has now slowed down to a trickle of new treatments and pharmaceutical drugs per year (many of which treat diseases with existing medication).
And let's look at a specific example, mass air transport. You simply can't fly huge commercial airliners without consuming vast amounts of fuel, and that means burning oil. You can't use electricity alone to fly a Boeing 747, and you never will. It's an example of a device designed for a very specialised purpose, taking advantage of a very specialised resource, but not one that's going to last forever.
Running out of oil won't be the end of the world, but we're not even close to becoming totally independent of it. I think there will be a lot of unforeseen bumps (and some pleasant surprises) along the way - as is the case with every period of technological growth. Whatever happens, there's one thing I'm sure of - the future won't be anything like what I'm expecting!
Liam, Salisbury
September 01, 2010 3:51pm
Liam, while I agree that it isn't safe to 'assume' that 'science will fix it', however in this case it does appear that 'science will fix it'.
Even the specific example you use is solvable by current, proven technology. You can use an electric source (it would have to be an abundant one like nuclear or advanced solar) to capture CO2 from the air, do some chemical processes, and convert it to hydrocarbons like gasoline. Coal can also be made into jet fuel. Hydrogen can be used as a jet fuel (although that requires new aircraft).
As for never being able to fly a Boeing 747 on electricity alone, that may well be true. However, it doesn't matter because you might be able to fly a Boeing E-997 (or whatever) on hydrogen ram-jet, or electric-oxygen turbojet with nano-tub batteries. But even these solutions ignore the possibility that mass air transit ITSELF might be replaced by high speed rail, or Futurama tube tech, or whatnot. I don't know.
Isn't that just awesome?
Brandon, Falconer
September 01, 2010 6:25pm
Make a comment about this episode of Skeptoid (please try to keep it brief & to the point). Anyone can post:
You can also discuss this episode in the Skeptoid Forum, hosted by the James Randi Educational Foundation.
Join the Skeptalk email discussion list.
What's the most important thing about Skeptoid?
![[Valid RSS]](/images/valid-rss-rogers.png "Validate my RSS feed"){kind=small}
Im guessing you might have already got this about episode 100, but theres a very good book that I read thats called $20 a gallon that talks about what will happen when oil runs out, first of all, its not a doomsday book, and it actually talks of it happening fairly smoothly, and it gets into just about every aspect of whats going to change that you can think of, Im guessing you'd enjoy reading the "good" side of peak oil
Blair, Hagen
March 06, 2010 9:18am