Syriana
Oil alternatives
John Howe wrote:
“We are on a collision course with disaster. In the last four generations we have built a very tall house of cards and enjoyed a party provided by plentiful, low-cost fossil fuel. We’ve developed the technology to convert plentiful energy into an easy lifestyle...There still may be a last chance to achieve a sustainable civilization. It is up to us as intelligent individuals acting in concert to identify and follow that path. We are the problem. We are the only hope for the solution. Time is critical. Every moment wasted means less chance for survival. In the last two years we may have lost our best chance for a safe landing.” (Written in 2003)
In a nutshell the theory:
Global peak oil is soon, and follows a bell curve. We may have passed the peak (the US peaked in 1970). This will have tremendous impacts on society, and could literally destroy western civilization. Literally, not figuratively. In twenty years we could look back on the days we’re living now with longing, wishing we’d not squandered our chance. Peak oil theorists were predicting in the late nineties that wars in the Mideast would expand because of oil, we’ve discussed Iraq, and the caucuses last time. This could be not just a Vietnam like misadventure, but part of a series of resource wars likely to spread. The game being played in Syriana is predicated on this theory.
So is the theory accurate?
Two sets of arguments against this theory: 1) oil reserves are not as bad as peak oil theorists predict; and 2) alternates will be able to take the place of oil.
My view: I hope both of these are right, at least enough to mean we go through a difficult transition to a more modest lifestyle than a collapse. But I’m not overly optimistic. Like with the stock market optimists in 1999, the optimism is more faith based that the party can go on and on than evidence based. But our future depends on them.
Oil reserves will last: This argument has some persuasiveness. There have been continual discoveries of oil, and oil reserve estimates, if you can believe them, suggest we are still far from peak. While the extreme optimists seem to think oil will never run out, others note that their interpretation of the evidence suggests that the pessimism of peak oil theory is misplaced. Peak oil theorists argue that these critics accept the most optimistic claims, and ignore evidence of decreasing oil discoveries and the fact that there is historical evidence that as countries pass their peak they do decline significantly. They also point out increasing demand plays havoc with the optimistic models, which tend to assume stability.
Alternative oil sources – shale and tar sands: Already tar sands are used to produce oil, and oil shale is in many locations. The optimists look at this as a simple issue of market demand – at a certain price the technology to adequately exploit these resources will be put in place. This would cause environmental damage through massive mining, and could be very costly. Optimists claim these sources mean there is no oil shortage in sight for generations, if ever. Pessimists doubt the feasibility of cheap enough extraction, and the ability of this kind of source to be developed fast enough to prevent the collapse.
Solar: Clearly we get enough energy from the sun that if we had an efficient way to capture and store that energy, we would have no problem. Unfortunately the technology and materials are under developed, and there is no way solar can step in and save us if peak oil theory is correct. But if the peak is farther away, or if Solar can be developed in concurrence with others, the impact of the oil shortage could be weakened.
Wind: Wind has been in the news in New England, as some attempts to build wind farms create backlashes. In some places in Europe wind power is significant, but in the US it isn’t. Like with solar, the energy it would require to produce the equipment, and the investment to get it to a significant amount would be huge. And so far the pace is growing, but not enough.
Biofuels: Feasible, but when one takes into account the loss of food production (or the clear cutting of forests and the impact that would have on the environment), there’s no way that this can truly replace oil.
Nuclear power: Fission reactors (common) require fuel and while they can provide considerable energy, the mining of uranium and fuels needed is such that we probably can’t get the kind of output we need. Moreover, the Cold War weaponry used much of the material. Nuclear fusion would be great – but it remains elusive and there isn’t much chance that it’ll be developed soon.
Gas hydrates: There are potentially vast sources of fuel in crystalline solids under permafrost (Siberia has a methane producing site) or ocean depths between 2,000 and 8,000 feet – high pressure and near freezing temperatures. But its really speculative.
Coal: Coal can be turned into a fuel, but costly. Coal burning industries are increasingly clean, and coal could, with significant investment in clean burning technology, play a major role – but it’s also got limited quantities.
Hydrogen: Very expensive and volatile. There is almost no chance this could develop into a replacement for oil, the hydrogen powered prototypes are extremely complex and expensive – and there doesn’t seem to be any path for real improvement. Hydrogen fuel is an energy transfer, now almost all from fossil fuels (hydrogen doesn’t occur enough naturally). But to get it in mass quantities in a way that does not simply burn fossil fuels to produce it, you’d need nuclear or solar power to be the conversion source. Possible – as are the technological hurdles – but not quickly.
Bottom line: Best hope about peak oil theory: That it is overly pessimistic in predicting current reserve levels and future discoveries, and that oil will persist long enough to allow the development of alternate sources. None of the alternates except solar can really supply large amounts of energy, and that requires massive development (such as nano technology to reduce solar panel size. Solar along with hydrogen could be a future energy combo – but not quick enough if peak oil theory is accurate.
What this means?
1. Oil is not a ‘forever’ resource, and peak oil theorists are entirely correct in noting that this is possible – perhaps likely – and that as a society we’ve been fooled by the ease of a cheap-energy lifestyle that nothing could endanger our standard of living. That is simply wrong.
2. Humans have a capacity to ignore or deny the reality of crises until they happen. Thus as long as the price seems reasonable and people can make optimistic claims, most people won’t take it seriously. The downside of this is that alternates become ignored, and things that could be done haven’t been – and there isn’t much emphasis.
3. The events of the last five years – a sudden and significant increase in oil prices, increased war and violence in the Mideast, more power centralized in the government – with more secret powers and abilities to even circumvent aspects of the constitution – are in line with what that theory might predict. That, in fact, may be the most startling aspect, the theory seems to be playing out in the initial peak/post-peak predictions. China’s deals with Iran, Iran’s buoyant policies, America increasingly reverting to militarism – but not a very effective militarism.
4. Global warming: also put aside, but even more certain than peak oil. A benefit of peak oil may be less pollution in the atmosphere. This, however, also pushes us towards solar, nuclear, and wind rather than coal
5. Islam: The rise of Islam corresponds to both the sudden importance of oil, and the increased interventions of outsiders desiring that resource. It is a force in large part because the political and economic leaders in the region are easily “bought off” by the West. It is in their interest to work with the West – they are the minority elite. But the majority does not benefit, and anger gets channeled. Either nationalist movements or in this case, religion, which transcends those interests. This also means that Islam is not really the “enemy” (Islamic extremism), but rather a natural reaction to the way events are unfolding. So you won’t defeat it – it’ll morph to another movement or simply persist – as long as current conditions are valid.
6. Politics in the Mideast: Oil rich states (as well as those without as much oil, such as Egypt) face numerous challenges: How to give power to the masses when this undercuts their wealth and support? How to change in response to the modern era without chaos. How to deal with threats and outside intervention by more powerful actors? Iran the most effective, and we may be seeing a shift towards a different kind of situation, one that may not be as malleable by the West.
7. American foreign policy, and policies in the region?
Do we:
a) try to get control of as much oil as possible to protect our economy;
b) focus on trying to foster stability
c) counter China and Russia and try to dominate
d) look to cooperative institutions to develop alternatives
Or….what?