Oil-in-crisis

* note the additional links below in the text are not working as in pasting this mail i lost the html - if links required go here http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/Introduction.html

All oil production follows a bell curve, whether in an individual field or on the planet as a whole. On the upslope of the curve production costs are significantly lower than on the downslope when extra effort (expense) is required to extract oil from reservoirs that are emptying out. Put simply: oil is plentiful and cheap on the upslope, scarce and expensive on the downslope. The peak of the curve coincides with the point at which the world's endowment of oil has been 50% depleted. “Peak Oil” is the industry term for the top of the curve. Once the peak is passed, oil production begins to go down while cost begins to go up.

In practical and considerably oversimplified terms, this means that if 2000 was the year of Peak Oil, worldwide oil production in the year 2020 will be the same as it was in 1980. However, the world's population in 2020 will be both much larger (approximately twice) and much more industrialized than it was in 1980. Consequently, worldwide demand for oil will outpace worldwide production of oil by a significant margin.

The more demand for oil exceeds production of oil, the higher the price goes. Ultimately, the question is not “When will we run out of oil?” but rather, “When will we run out of cheap oil?”

The most wildly optimistic estimates indicate 2020-2035 will be the year in which worldwide oil production peaks. Generally, these estimates come from government agencies such as the United States Geological Survey, oil companies, or economists who do not grasp the dynamics of resource depletion. Even if the optimists are correct, we will be scraping the bottom of the oil barrel within the lifetimes of most of those who are middle-aged today.

A more realistic estimate is between the years 2004-2010. Unfortunately, we won't know we hit the peak until 3-4 years after the fact. Even on the upslope of the curve, oil production varies a bit from year to year. It is possible that worldwide oil production peaked in the year 2000 as production has dipped every year since. The energy industry has quietly acknowledged the seriousness of the situation. For instance, in an article recently posted on the Exxon-Mobil Exploration homepage, company president Jon Thompson stated:

By 2015, we will need to find, develop and produce a volume of new oil and gas that is equal to eight out of every 10 barrels being produced today. In addition, the cost associated with providing this additional oil and gas is expected to be considerably more than what the industry is now spending.

Equally daunting is the fact that many of the most promising prospects are far from major markets — some in regions that lack even basic infrastructure. Others are in extreme climates, such as the Arctic, that present extraordinary technical challenges.

If Mr. Thompson is that frank in an article posted on the Exxon-Mobil Webpage, one wonders what he says behind closed doors. The Saudis are no less frank than Mr. Thompson when discussing the imminent end of the oil age. They have a saying that goes, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet airplane. His son will ride a camel." As the charts in this article graphically illustrate, the Saudis are not exaggerating.

Big deal. If gas prices get high, I'll just carpool or get one of those hybrid cars. Why should I be concerned?

Almost every current human endeavor — from transportation, to manufacturing, to electricity, to plastics, and especially food and water production — is inextricably intertwined with oil and natural gas supplies.

In the US, approximately 10 calories of fossil fuels are required to produce 1 calorie of food. If packaging and shipping are factored into the equation, that ratio is raised considerably. This disparity is made possible by an abundance of cheap oil. Most pesticides are petroleum- (oil) based, and all commercial fertilizers are ammonia- based. Ammonia is produced from natural gas, a fossil fuel subject to a depletion profile similar to that of oil. Oil has allowed for farming implements such as tractors, food storage systems such as refrigerators, and food transport systems such as trucks. Oil-based agriculture is primarily responsible for the world's population exploding from 1 billion at the middle of the 19th century to 6.3 billion at the turn of the 21st. As oil production went up, so did food production. As food production went up, so did the population. As the population went up, the demand for food went up, which increased the demand for oil.

Within a few years of Peak Oil occurring, the price of food will skyrocket as the cost of producing, storing, transporting, and packaging it will soar.

For more on oil and food production, read the following articles when you get the chance:

Oil is also needed to deliver almost all of our fresh water. Oil is used to construct and maintain aqueducts, dams, sewers, wells, as well as to pump the water that comes out of our faucets. As with food, the cost of fresh water will soar as the cost of oil soars.

Oil is also largely responsible for the advances in medicine that have been made in the last 150 years. Oil allowed for the mass production of pharmaceutical drugs, surgical equipment and the development of health care infrastructure such as hospitals, ambulances, roads, etc. . . .

Oil is also required for nearly every consumer item, sewage disposal, garbage disposal, street/park maintenance, police, fire services, and national defense. Thus, the aftermath of Peak Oil will extend far beyond how much you will pay for gas. Simply stated, you can expect: economic collapse, war, widespread starvation, and a mass die-off of the world’s population.

Exactly what it sounds like. It is estimated that the world's population will contract to between 500 million and 2 billion during the Oil Crash. (Current world population: 6.4 billion)

Are you serious? That's as much as 90% of our current population. How could that many people perish? Where does that estimate come from?

That estimate comes from biologists who have studied what happens to every species when it depletes a key resource in its environment. Two notable examples are explained below:

Bacteria in a Petri dish will grow exponentially until they run out of resources, at which point their population will crash. Only one generation prior to the crash, the bacteria will have used up half the resources available to them. To the bacteria, there will be no hint of a problem until they starve to death. Before that happens, the bacteria will begin cannibalizing each other in last-ditch efforts to survive.

But humans are smarter than bacteria, right? You would think so, but the facts seem to indicate otherwise. The first commercial oil well was drilled in 1859. At that time, the world's population was about 1 billion. Less than 150 years later, our population has exploded to 6.4 billion. In that time, we have used up half the world's recoverable oil. Of the half that's left, most will be very expensive to extract. If the experts are correct, we are less than one generation away from a crash. Yet to most of us, there appears to be no hint of a problem. One generation away from our demise, we are as clueless as bacteria in a Petri dish.

Over the course of history, many human populations have suffered from die-offs. The die-off most analogous to our current situation is the one that took place on Easter Island during the early 18th century. Easter Island was discovered by western civilization in 1722 when Dutch explorer Jacob Roggeveen landed on the island. At the time, Roggeveen described the island as a wasteland. The islanders he encountered led a particularly primitive existence, even by 18th-century standards. The island had no firewood, few species of plant life, and no native animals larger than insects. The islanders possessed no wheels, no draft animals, few tools, and only 3-4 flimsy, leaky canoes.

Despite the barren existence, Easter Island was populated with huge, elaborately constructed, stone statues. Roggeveen and his crew were completely perplexed by these statues, as it was clear whoever built them had tools, resources, and organizational skills far more advanced than the islanders they encountered. What happened to these people?

According to archeologists, Easter Island was first colonized by Polynesians sometime around the year 500 AD. At the time, the island was a pristine paradise with lush forests. Under these conditions, the island's population grew to as much as 20,000. During this population bloom, the islanders used wood from the forest trees to power virtually every aspect of a highly complex society. They used the wood for fuel, canoes, houses, and; of course, for transporting the huge statues. With each passing year, the islanders had to cut down more and more trees as the statues became larger and larger.

As the trees disappeared, the islanders ran out of timber and rope to transport and erect their statues; springs and streams dried up, and wood was no longer available for fires. The food supply was also diminished as land birds, large sea snails, and many seabirds disappeared. As timber for building seagoing canoes vanished, fish catches declined and porpoises disappeared from the dinner table. With the food supply greatly diminished, the islanders resorted to cannibalism to sustain themselves. The practice became so common that the islanders would insult each other by saying, “The meat of your mother sticks between my teeth.”

Before long, local chaos replaced centralized government, and a warrior class took over from the hereditary chiefs. By around 1700, the population began to crash toward between one-quarter and one-tenth of its former number. People took to living in caves for protection against their enemies and the statues were torn down in clan warfare. Once the home of a highly complex society, Easter Island had turned into an atoll of the barbaric.

Easter Island looks like a metaphor for us today. The islanders were isolated in the middle of the ocean with nobody to turn for help, with nowhere to flee once the island collapsed. In the same way today, one can look at Planet Earth in the middle of the galaxy, and if we too get into trouble, there's no way we can flee, and no people to whom we can turn for help out there in the galaxy.

I still can't imagine that number of deaths. It's just too ghastly to imagine. Only 10% of us are going to make it? How can that possibly be?

I know how you feel. This is all very difficult to handle, both emotionally and intellectually. As former UK environmental minister Michael Meacher recently stated, in an issue of Financial Times, “It's hard to envisage the effects of a radically reduced oil supply on a modern economy or society. The implications are mind-blowing.” Perhaps the following explanation, while considerably over-simplified, will help illustrate the future we are marching towards.

As explained above, worldwide oil production follows a bell curve. Thus, if the year 2000 was the year of peak production, then oil production in the year 2025 will be about the same as it was in the year 1975. The population in the year 2025 is projected to be roughly 8 billion. The population in 1975 was roughly 4 billion. Since oil production essentially equals food production, this means that we will have 8 billion people on the planet but only enough food for 4 billion.

With that in mind, visualize the following situation: you, me, and six other people were locked in a room, with only enough food for four of us. At least four of us will die from starvation. Another one or two will likely die as we all fight each other for what little food we have. That's what will happen if we are fighting with just our fists. Give each of us weapons, and you can imagine what that room will look like when we’re done with each other.

Clearly, we have a real problem, but you're describing the worst-case scenario, right?

I'm describing the most likely scenario. The worst-case scenario is extinction, as the wars that will accompany the worldwide oil shortage will likely be the most horrific and widespread that humanity has ever experienced.

Where are you getting this information from? Who else is talking about Peak Oil? What type of backgrounds do they have? How do I know they’re credible, not crazy?

When you are done with this site, I encourage you to do a Google search for “Peak Oil.” You will find, much to your dismay as well as my own, that everything you read in this site is supported by an analysis of hard facts reported by highly respected sources. Some of the more notable sources are described below. As you will see, this is not the usual “end of the world/the sky is falling” crowd.

In fact, the most troublesome aspect of Peak Oil is there seems to be a correlation between an individual's credibility and scientific background and the degree to which they are concerned (even terrified) by the ramifications of Peak Oil:

A. Dr. David Goodstein: Professor of Physics and Vice Provost of Cal Tech University

B. Matthew Simmons: Investment Banker, Energy Advisor to George Bush, Member of Dick Cheney's Energy Task Force

C. Dr. Colin Campbell: Former Exploration Geologist for Texaco, Chief Geologist for Ecuador, and Founder of the Association for the Study of Peak Oil and Gas

*Over 50 Articles From Publications Such as The San Francisco Chronicle, The Los Angeles Times, Barons, New York Times, Newsweek, The Financial Times, The Washington Post, Business Week, etc. (click on "Articles")

Watch those interview with Bush's Energy Advisor, Matt Simmons. Simmons describes himself as a "lifetime Republican" and a big fan of George W. Bush.

Peak Oil was not on my radar screen till I realized that both Matt Simmons and Michael Moore are both extraordinarily concerned about this situation.

Anytime an avowed leftist and liberal icon like Michael Moore is in complete agreement with a member of the Bush administration, it's safe to say the shit has hit the fan.

Is it possible that we have already hit Peak Oil and are now in the first stages of the Oil Crash?

It is likely that we are now in the "Petroleum Plateau", which is the top part of the bell curve that is almost flat. We will begin going down the downslope of the curve at some point between 2005-2020. Unfortunately, it's likely to be sooner than later.

In March 2004, the price of oil hit $38 a barrel, the highest since 1991. The average nationwide price of a gallon of gasoline in America reached a record high of $1.77 this month. In some parts of the country (San Francisco, CA.), gas has already hit $2.40 a gallon. Many analysts are predicting gas prices will exceed $3.50 a gallon by the summer of 2004.

You can think of "Peak Oil Production" as a synonym for "Peak Job Creation." As of December 2003, the "adjusted" unemployment, which has been squeezed out of as much meaning as conceivably possible, still hovers in the 6% range. However, if you factor in the quality of employment, then the real numbers are closer to 12%-15%. We need to create over 250,000 new jobs per month just to keep up with population growth. Creating new jobs is essentially impossible now that oil production is peaking. Without an excess supply of energy, the economy cannot grow, and the necessary number of decent paying jobs cannot be consistently created.

From time to time, there will be months such as March 2004, when a healthy number of jobs are created. These months, however, will not happen consistently, ever again.

The rolling blackouts experienced in California during fall of 2000, the massive East Coast blackout of August 2003 and the various other massive blackouts that occurred throughout the world during late summer of 2003 are simply a sign of things to come.

World grain production has dropped every year since 1996-1997. World wheat production has dropped every year since 1997-1998. Recent food price hikes in China could be the sign of a coming world food crisis brought on by global warming and increasingly scarce water supplies among major grain producers. Last year in the US, a quarter of the US fertilizer factories shut down permanently, and another quarter were idled until prices settled back following a spike in natural gas prices.

(Source: Richard Heinberg, "Oil and Gas Update", Museletter Number 142, January 2004)

If you were to look at any one of these pieces of evidence in isolation, it would not tell you much about the situation the world is in. However, when you look at all of them together in the context of Peak Oil, the fact that we are already crashing becomes obvious.

What about the oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Preserve (ANWR)? If the environmentalists got out of the way, couldn't we just drill for oil there?

At current rates of oil consumption, the ANWR contains enough oil to power the US for only six months. The fact that it is being touted as a "huge" source of oil underscores how serious our problem really is.

What about the oil under the Caspian Sea? I heard there was a massive amount of oil underneath it.

As recently as September 2001, the Caspian Sea was thought to be the oil find of the century. By December 2002, however, just after US troops took Afghanistan, British Petroleum announced disappointing Caspian drilling results. The "oil find of the century" was little more than a drop in the ocean. Instead of earlier predictions of oil reserves above 200 billion barrels, the US State Department announced, "Caspian oil represents 4% of world reserves. It will never dominate the world's markets."

Furthermore, the area has the potential for wars and disruptions that could make the Persian Gulf look tame by comparison. Unstable countries surround the Caspian, including Russia, Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Iran, and Azerbaijan. Proposed pipelines to carry the oil run through hotspots such as Afghanistan, Pakistan, Turkey, China, Russia, Ukraine, Bulgaria, and Kyrgyzstan. Meanwhile, the region is isolated and unforgiving, so the expenses associated with drilling would be enormous.

Despite these monumental obstacles, oil is becoming so scarce that even the disappointingly modest amounts located in the Caspian Sea will remain extremely important from a geopolitical standpoint.

What about so-called "non-conventional" sources of oil? Doesn't Canada have an enormous amount of this type of oil?

So called "non-conventional" oil, such as the oil sands found in Canada and Venezuela, is incapable of replacing conventional oil for the following reasons:

1. Non-conventional oil has a very poor Energy Profit Ratio and is extremely difficult to produce. It takes about 2 barrels of oil in energy investment to produce 3 barrels of oil equivalent from those resources. The cost of Canadian non-conventional oil projects is so high that in May 2003, the oil industry publication Rigzone suggested, "President Bush, known for his religious faith, should be praying nightly that Petro-Canada and other oil sands players find ways to cut their costs and boost US energy security."

2. The environmental costs are horrendous and the process uses a tremendous amount of fresh water and also natural gas, both of which are in limited supply.

3. Although non-conventional oil is quite abundant, its rate of extraction is far too slow to meet the huge global energy demand Dr. Colin Campbell estimates that combined Canadian and Venezuelan output of non-conventional oil will be 2.8 million barrels per day (mbd) in 2005, 3.6 mbd in 2012, and 4.6 mbd in 2020. These are drops in the bucket, given today’s consumption of 75 mbd, which is expected to increase to 120 mbd by 2020.

I just read an article that states that known oil reserves keep growing. What do you have to say about that?

That article is most likely citing data from sources that are about as reliable as an Enron accounting team.

A. United States Geological Survey (USGS) and Energy Information Agency (EIA) "Cooking the Books"

In recent years, the USGS and the EIA have revised their estimates of oil reserves upwards. This has led many observers and commentators to believe that the possibility of severe oil shortages is a thing of the past.

While USGS and EIA reports on past production are largely reliable, their predictions for the future are largely propaganda. They admit this themselves. For instance, after recently revising oil supply projections upward, the EIA stated, "These adjustments to the estimates are based on non-technical considerations that support domestic supply growth to the levels necessary to meet projected demand levels."

In other words, they predict how much they think we're going to use, and then tell us, "Guess what, nothing to worry about — that is how much we've got!"

The USGS and the EIA aren't the only parties guilty of "cooking the books." For instance, during the late 1980s, several OPEC countries drastically increased their reported oil reserves with no corresponding major oil discoveries. Why was this? The reason is that an individual OPEC member’s quotas are proportional to their proven reserves. Since the larger the quota, the more money they can earn, this obviously gave them a strong incentive to 'adjust' their figures. As Dr. Campbell and Jean Laherrere have explained, "such reserve growth is an illusion."

Almost certainly not. According to a recent report from the Colorado School of Mines entitled The World's Giant Oilfields, the world's 120 largest oilfields produce almost 50% of the world's crude oil supply. The fourteen largest account for over 20%. The average age of these 14 largest fields is 43.5 years." The reserves in the world's super-giant and giant oilfields are dwindling at an average rate of 4-6 percent a year. The study concludes that "most of the world's true giants were found decades ago."

Matthew Simmons has stated succinctly, "All the big deposits have been found and exploited. There aren’t going to be any dramatic new discoveries, and the discovery trends have made this abundantly clear." On a similar note, according to Dr. David Goodstein, "Better to believe in the Tooth Fairy than the possibility of any more large oil discoveries."

Yes. Once an oil find is made, it takes about 5 years for production to come online. As stated in the previous question, the last remotely decent year for oil finds was 2000. This means the last decent year for new production to come online will be about 2005. By 2008-2010, those projects will be in decline.

I heard that some scientist has a theory that fossil fuels actually renew themselves. If that's true, wouldn't it cast doubt on the validity of Peak Oil?

The scientist you speak of is a man by the name of Dr. Thomas Gold. In his 1999 book, The Deep Hot Biosphere, he proposes a theory that oil comes from deep in the Earth’s crust, left over from some primordial event in the formation of the Earth, when hydrocarbons were formed. If his theory were true, it would mean that fossil fuels are actually renewable resources.

Any Earth scientist will take a perverse delight in reading the book, because it is entertaining stuff, but even a beginner will see the gaping holes where Gold has deftly avoided the vast bulk of mundane evidence regarding our planet's hydrocarbons.

Oil sometimes does occur in fractured or weathered crystalline rocks, which may have led people to accept this theory, but in all cases there is an easy explanation of lateral migration from normal sources. Isotopic evidence provides a clear link to the organic origins. No one in the industry gives the slightest credence to these theories: after drilling for 150 years they know a bit about it. Another misleading idea is about oilfields being refilled. Some are, but the oil simply is leaking in from a deeper accumulation.

Finally, the deep-earth hypothesis has a fatal flaw: If oil were, indeed, formed under intense heat and pressure in the center of the Earth, it would tend to disintegrate as it rose from the regions of high temperature and pressure to the benign, cooler, low-pressure world closer to the Earth's surface.

In 1972, the Club of Rome (COR) shocked the world with a study titled The Limits to Growth, which concluded that:

1. If the population continued to grow and industrialize as it had been, society would run out of renewable resources by the year 2072. A mass die-off would ensue.

2. Even if the supply of resources was magically doubled, a collapse would occur as a result of pollution.

Often, whenever somebody makes an "end of the world"-type prediction, they are derided as a "Club of Romer." This is extremely unfortunate, as it appears the COR turned out to be correct. Says who? None other than Matthew Simmons, who stated in 2000, "In hindsight, The COR turned out to be right. We simply wasted 30 important years by ignoring this work."

The oil shortages of the 1970s were the results of political events. The coming oil shortage is the result of geologic reality. You can negotiate with politicians. You can threaten, blockade, or invade Middle East regimes. You can't do any of that to the Earth.

As far as the US oil supply was concerned, in the 70s there were other 'swing' oil producers like Venezuela who could step in to fill the supply gap. Once worldwide oil production peaks, there won't be any swing producers to fill in the gap.

The "end of the world" is here, once again. So what's new? Y2K was supposed to be the end of the world, and it turned out to be much ado about nothing.

What's new is that this is the real thing. It isn't a fire drill. It isn't paranoid hysteria. It is the real deal. .

Peak Oil isn't "Y2K Reloaded." Peak Oil differs from previous “end of the world” scenarios such as Y2K in the following ways:

1. Peak Oil is not an “if” but a “when.” Furthermore, it is not a “when during the next 1,000 years,” but a “when during the next 10 years.”

2. Peak Oil is based on scientific fact, not subjective speculation. The individuals sounding the alarm are scientists, not psychics.

3. Government and industry began preparing for Y2K a full 5-10 years before the problem was to occur. We are within 10 years of Peak Oil, and we have made no preparations for it.

4. The preparations necessary to deal with Peak Oil will require a complete overhaul of every aspect of our civilization. This is much more complex than fixing a computer bug.

5. Oil is more fundamental to our existence than anything else, even computers. Had the Y2K predictions come true, our civilization would have been knocked back to 1965. With time, we would have recovered. When the oil crash comes, our civilization is going to get knocked back to 1765. We will not recover, as there is no economically available oil left to discover that could help us recover.

Many people mistakenly believe that anarchy will set in the moment we pass the peak. While such a scenario is highly unlikely, things will get dicey early on.

Capitalism is by far the best economic system on the planet. This doesn't mean it's invincible. Although a market economy is superior to all other economic models, it has an achilles heel: if it lacks the energy it needs to grow, it collapses very quickly. Even a 1-2% energy shortfall can have catastrophic effects on an economy that requires growth.

Once we pass the peak, oil production will decline by 1.5-3% per year. Demand, however, will continue to increase by 1.5-3% per year, every year. This equates to an additional 3-6% shortfall every year.

That means 10 years after the peak, we will have between 30-60% less oil than we need. 15 years after the peak, we will have between 45-90% less oil than we need.

Even if, by some miracle, oil production remains at its current level for the next 10 years, we will have between 15-30% less oil than we need by the year 2014, as demand will continue to go up, regardless of what happens to production.

The market won't address this situation until these shortages actually hit. By then, it will be too late - the economy will be completely devastated. There will be no money or energy to invest in the modest alternatives we have available.

This inability of the market to resolve this for us is explained in greater depth on Page II and Page III.

To make matters worse, natural gas is set to run out in the next few years, while coal is set to get very expensive. (See Page II)

What about alternatives to oil? Can't we just switch to a different source of energy?

Unfortunately, the ability of alternative energy to replace oil is based more in mythology and utopian fantasy than in reality and hard science. Oil accounts for 40% of our current US energy supply. None of the alternatives to oil can supply anywhere near this much energy, let alone the amount we will need in the future as our population continues to grow and industrialize. When examining alternatives to oil, it is of critical importance that you ask certain questions:

3. Is the alternative capable of being adapted for transportation, heating, and the production of fertilizers, plastics, and pesticides?

4. Does the alternative have an Energy Profit Ratio (EPR) comparable to oil? Oil used to have an EPR of 100 to 1. It only took one barrel of oil to extract 100 barrels of oil. This was such a fantastic ratio that oil was practically free energy. In fact, at one point in Texas, water cost more than oil!

Oil's EPR is now down to 10 to 1, which is still pretty good. If a proposed alternative energy source doesn't have an EPR comparable to oil, the amount of good it does us is very limited. Keep these questions in mind as we examine the shortcomings of the oil alternatives in the following questions.

Can't we use coal to replace oil? I know it's dirty and could hurt the environment, but who cares about pollution if the alternative is starving?

Like oil, coal is a fossil fuel. It accounts for 25% of current US energy supply. Although we have at least 200 years of coal left in the ground, it is unsuitable as a replacement for oil for the following reasons:

1. It is 50% to 200% heavier than oil per energy unit. This makes it much more difficult to transport than oil.

2. Coal mining operations run on oil fuels as do coal-mining machinery and transportation. As oil becomes more expensive, so will coal.

3. Pollution is also a major problem. A single coal-fired station can produce a million tons of solid waste each year. Burning coal in homes pollutes air with acrid smog containing acid gases and particles.

4. Currently, coal has an EPR of 8 to 1. That ratio used to be 100 to 1. By 2030-2040, that ratio will be 1 to 2. It will take two units of coal to extract one unit of coal. When any resource requires more energy to extract it than it contains, it ceases to be a resource. Thus, while the Earth may be endowed with a generous supply of coal, by 2030 it will be of little use to us.

Like oil and coal, natural gas is a fossil fuel. It accounts for 25% of current US energy supply. As a replacement for oil, it is unsuitable for the following reasons:

1. US natural gas production peaked around 1970. By the year 2000, US domestic production was at 1/3 of its peak level. While natural gas can be imported in its liquefied form, the process of liquefying and transporting it is extraordinarily expensive and very dangerous. Demand for natural gas in North America is already outstripping supply, especially as power utilities take the remaining gas to generate electricity.

2. Gas is not suited for existing jet aircraft, ships, vehicles, and equipment for agriculture and other products.

4. Natural gas also does not provide the huge array of chemical by-products that we depend on oil for.

What about Hydrogen? Even Arnold, who owns 10 Hummers, says he's a proponent of hydrogen fuel cells. Everybody talks about it so much; it must be good, right?

Hydrogen accounts for 0.01% of the US energy supply. As a replacement for oil, it is unsuitable for the following reasons:

1. Hydrogen must be made from coal, oil, natural gas, wood, biomass or even water, but in every instance, it takes more energy to create hydrogen than the hydrogen actually provides. It is therefore an energy “carrier,” not an energy source.

2. Liquid hydrogen occupies four to eleven times the bulk of equivalent gasoline or diesel.

3. Existing vehicles and aircraft and existing distribution systems are not suited to it.

5. The cost of fuel cells is absolutely astronomical and has shown no downtrend.

Hydrogen is such a poor replacement for oil that "Hydrogen Fuel Cells" should be called "Hydrogen Fool Cells." Dr. Jorg Wing, a representative of the auto giant Daimler/Chrysler made this clear at the Paris Peak Oil Conference when he explained that his company did not view hydrogen as a viable alternative to petroleum-based engines. He stated that fuel-cell vehicles would never amount to a significant market share. Hydrogen was ruled out as a solution because of intensive costs of production, inherent energy inefficiencies, lack of infrastructure, and practical difficulties such as the extreme cost and difficulty of storage.

You may be wondering, "But didn't Bush say in the 2003 State of the Union speech that he was giving billions to develop the hydrogen economy?" Yes, he did say that, but he didn't mention that the money was going to fund using nuclear power to get the hydrogen. The limitations of nuclear power are discussed next.

What about Nuclear Power? If we're desperate, we won't have any choice but to use it.

Nuclear power accounts for 8% of US energy production. As a replacement for oil, it is unsuitable for the following reasons:

1. Nuclear power is extremely expensive. A single reactor costs between 3 and 5 billion dollars, not counting the costs associated with decommissioning, increased costs for scarcer nuclear fuels; increased costs to safeguard nuclear facilities and materials from sabotage, terrorism, and diversion; increased likelihood of major, multi-billion-dollar accidents and their disrupting economic effects.

3. Retrofitting current vehicles to run on nuclear-generated electricity would further increase the expenses related to a nuclear solution.

5. Uranium requires energy from oil in order to be mined. As oil gets more expensive, so will nuclear power.

7. A nuclear power plant requires tremendous amounts of oil to construct. When you take into account the amount of energy used to construct a nuclear plant, no plant has ever produced much more energy than it took to construct it. Nuclear power has only existed because the oil used to construct nuclear power plants has been so cheap.

8. Even if we were to overlook these problems, nuclear power is only a short-term solution. Uranium, too, has a Hubbert's peak, and the current known reserves can supply the Earth's energy needs for only 25 years at best.

Solar power currently supplies .007% of the US energy supply. As a replacement for oil, it is unsuitable due to the following reasons:

2. Not practical for transportation needs. While a handful of small, experimental, solar-powered vehicles have been built, solar power is unsuited for planes, boats, cars, tanks, etc.

4. Solar is susceptible to the effects of global climate change, which is projected to greatly intensify in the decades to come.

5. Estimates are that about 20 percent of US land area would be required to support a solar energy system that would supply less than one-half of our current energy consumption. To develop such a system would require phenomenal level of investment and new infrastructure. This land requirement can be expected to diminish arable (food producing), pasture, and forest lands to some extent, with the most critical loss being arable land.

Despite these limitations, a typical solar water panel array can deliver 50% to 85% of a home’s hot water, though. Recent advancements in solar panel technology suggest that solar's EPR could reach 10, if proper investments are made. Using some of our precious remaining crude oil as fuel for manufacturing solar equipment would be extremely wise.

Wind power accounts for .007% of US energy supply. As a replacement for oil, it is unsuitable due to the following reasons:

1. As with solar, energy from wind varies greatly with weather, and is not portable or storable like oil and gas.

Despite these limitations, wind power is the most promising of the various oil alternatives. According to a 1993 study done by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, wind could generate about 15% of US energy, if proper investments are made. According to a recent Danish study, wind's EPR could be as high as 50 — by far the highest of any of the available alternatives. The fact that wind is our most promising alternative indicates that replacing oil is essentially impossible. For instance, in order for wind to be used as hydrogen fuel, the following steps have to be taken:

1. Build the wind farm. This step requires an enormous investment of oil and raw materials, which will become increasingly expensive as oil production drops.

2. Wait for X number of years while the original energy investment is paid back.

3. Construct an infrastructure through which the wind energy can be converted to hydrogen. This requires an enormous investment of oil and raw materials, which will become increasingly expensive as oil production drops.

4. Retrofit our current infrastructure to run on this fuel. This requires an enormous investment of oil and raw materials, both of which will become increasingly expensive as oil production drops.

6. Pray that we can repeat this process enough times before economic obstacles and war completely cripple our ability to do so.

To a certain degree we can, but biomass, ethanol, and biodiesel will never be able to replace fossil fuels for the following reasons:

1. Depending on who you consult, ethanol has an EPR ranging from .7 (making it an energy loser) to 1.7. Methanol, made from wood, clocks in at 2.6, better than ethanol, but still far short of oil.

3. While a handful of folks have adapted their vehicles to run on biodiesel, this is not a realistic option on a large scale. There is simply not enough biodiesel available in the world to replace even a fraction of the energy we get from oil.

4. Current infrastructure, particularly manufacturing and large-scale transportation is adaptable to plant-based fuels in theory only. In reality, retrofitting our industrial and transportation systems to run on plant fuels would be enormously expensive and comically impractical.

Ethanol production survives only by the grace of a subsidy by the US government from taxpayer dollars. Continuing the production of ethanol is purely a device for buying the Midwest US farm vote.

[Not surprisingly] the fact that the company which makes 60% of US ethanol is also one of the largest contributors of campaign money to the Congress – a distressing example of politics overriding logic.

"Thermal Depolymerization" (TD) which can transform many kinds of waste into oil, could help us raise our energy efficiency as we lose power due to oil depletion. While it could help us ameliorate the crash, it is not a true solution for the following reasons:

1. Like all other forms of alternative energy, we have run out of time to implement it before the crash. Currently, only one TD plant is operational. Thousands of such plants would need to come online before this technology would make even a small difference in our situation.

2. TD is really nothing more than high-tech recycling. Most of the waste input (such as plastics and tires) requires high-grade oil to make it in the first place.

3. It is unclear what the EPR of oil derived from TD is. How much energy does the TD process require to produce a barrel of oil? If the EPR of oil derived from TD does not approach the EPR of traditional oil, it will not alleviate our problems.

The biggest problem with TD is that it is being advertised as a means to maintain business as usual. Such advertising promotes further consumption, provides us with a dangerously false sense of security, and encourages us to continue thinking that we don't need to make this issue a priority.

What about free energy? Didn't Nikola Tesla invent some machine that produced free energy? Couldn't we just switch to something like that?

While free energy technologies such as Cold Fusion, Vacuum Energy and Zero Point Energy are extremely fascinating, the unfortunate reality is that they are unlikely to help us cope with the oil depletion for several reasons:

2. We currently have no functional prototypes. Were a functional prototype of a free energy device unleashed on the public tomorrow, our oil-and-gas-fueled economy would be plunged into chaos. It is unlikely that such a scenario would be allowed to play itself out.

3. We've already had our experiment with "free energy." With an EPR of 100 to 1, oil was so efficient and cheap an energy source that it practically was free.

4. The development of a "free energy" device would just put off the inevitable. The Earth has a carrying capacity. If we are able to substitute a significant portion of our fossil fuel usage with "free energy", the crash would just come at a later time, when we have depleted a different resource. At that point, our population will be even higher. The higher a population is, the further it has to fall when it depletes a key resource. The further it has to fall, the more momentum it picks up on the way down through war and disease. By encouraging continued population growth, so-called "free energy" could actually make our situation worse.

5. Even if a functional free energy prototype came into existence today, it would take at least 25-50 years to retrofit our multi-trillion-dollar infrastructure for such technology.

No, not at all. Whatever civilization emerges after the crash will likely derive a good deal of their energy from these technologies. All of these alternatives deserve massive investment right now. The problem is that none of them can replace oil, no matter how much we wish they could. All the optimism, ingenuity and desire in the world doesn't change the physics and hard math of energy. Even in the best-case scenario, we will have to accept a drastically reduced standard of living. None of the alternatives can supply us with enough energy to maintain even a modest fraction of our current consumption levels. To survive, we will have to radically change the way we get our food, the way we get to work, what we do for work, the homes we live in, how we plan our families and what we do for recreation. Put simply, a transition to these alternatives will require a complete overhaul of every aspect of modern industrial society. Unfortunately, industrial societies such as ours do not undertake radical changes voluntarily.

I don't think there is really anything to worry about. According to classical economics, when one resource becomes scarce, people get motivated to invest in a replacement resource. When the price of oil gets too high, renewable energy will become profitable and companies will begin investing in it.

Classical economic theory works great for goods within an economy. Relying on it to address a severe and prolonged energy shortage, however, is going to prove disastrous. Classical economics works well so long as the market indicators arrive early enough for people to adapt. In regards to oil, market indicators will likely come too late for us to implement even the modest solutions we have available. Once the price of oil gets high enough that people begin to seriously consider alternatives, those alternatives will become too expensive to implement on a wide scale. Reason: oil is required to develop, manufacture, transport and implement oil alternatives such as solar panels, biomass, and windmills.

There are many examples in history where a resource shortage prompted the development of alternative resources. Oil, however, is not just any resource. In our current world, it is the precondition for all other resources, including alternative ones. To illustrate: as of the winter of 2004, a barrel of oil costs $38. It would cost in the range of $100-$250 to get the amount of energy in that barrel of oil from renewable sources. This means that an energy company won't be motivated to aggressively pursue renewable energy until the cost of oil doubles, triples, or quadruples. At that point, our economy will be close to devastated. Our ability to implement whatever alternatives we can think of will be permanently eliminated. In effect, we will be a lifeless barge of a nation floating on some very rough seas.

In pragmatic terms, this means that if you want your home powered by solar panels or windmills, you had better do it soon. If you don't have these alternatives in place when the lights go out, they're going to stay out.

The “invisible hand of the market” is about to bitch-slap us back to the stone age.

The oil companies are so greedy, they will come up with a solution to keep making money, right?

Expecting the oil companies to save you from the oil crash is about as wise as expecting the tobacco companies to save you from lung cancer. Corporate officers are bound by law to do what is in the best interests of the corporation, so long as their actions are legal. Their legal obligation is to make money for the company, not to save the world, not to serve their country, not to clean up the environment, not to bring glory to God, not to anybody but the corporation. For all intents and purposes, this means it is illegal for an oil executive to aggressively pursue renewable energy. Occasionally, a company will stroll out a "renewable energy" initiative, but this is almost always more for publicity and public relations purposes than it is for profit.

The truth is that you probably don’t want the oil companies to aggressively pursue renewable energy. The profit margin of renewable energy is so poor that if oil companies attempted to pursue it, they would quickly go bankrupt. This would cause a collapse of the stock market, which would result in an economic meltdown.

Furthermore, the oil companies are likely to profit from the initial stages of the crash. How? Simple — say, for example, that in February 2004, it takes $10 to extract and refine a barrel of oil. If a company sells that same barrel in March 2004, they will likely fetch about $38 for it. However, if they wait until the oil crash hits hard, they may be able to sell that same barrel for considerably more.

Expecting the oil companies, the government, or anybody else to solve this problem for us is simply suicidal. You, me, and every other "regular person" needs to be actively engaged in addressing this issue if there is to be any hope for humanity.

I think you are underestimating the human spirit. Humanity always adapts to challenges. We will just adapt to this, too.

Absolutely, we will adapt. Part of that adaptation process will include most of us dying if we don't take massive action right now. Adaptation for millions does not equal survival for billions. The human spirit is capable of some miraculous things. We need a miracle right now, so the human spirit had better get its ass in gear, pronto! Unfortunately, there is no law that says when humanity adapts to a resource shortage, everybody gets to survive. Think of any mass tragedy connected to resources such as oil, land, food, labor (slaves), buffalo, etc. The societies affected usually survive, but in a drastically different and often unrecognizable form.

Just look at Easter Island. The islanders had one of the most socially complex and technologically advanced civilizations for their time and resource base. They were certainly endowed with as much intelligence and ingenuity as any other group of people. Yet they were unable to adapt to a critical resource shortage until their population was reduced by 98%.

What if somebody invents some new, miraculous technology or makes some discovery that can replace oil? In fact, I just heard of an inventor who has a device/new resource he claims will replace oil. It sounded pretty promising.

Before you stake your survival on a life raft that you've never even seen, you should ask yourself some questions:

•Is it suitable for a variety of uses, including transportation, heating, and the production of fertilizers, plastics and pesticides?

•Is there any infrastructure currently in place to handle this currently nonexistent invention or discovery?

•If this resource or discovery is implemented, how will it affect our transportation, agricultural and industrial systems? Can these systems be retrofitted to handle this new resource or discovery?

•Could it be implemented before billions of people die? Or would it be implemented only after that ghastly horror has motivated us to implement it?

•How much oil would it take to develop it? To manufacture it? To transport it? To install it?

•How much of a shock to the stock market would this invention or discovery create? How many factory farms, auto manufacturers and energy companies would it put out of business?

•Have you considered the fact that the multi-trillion-dollar energy industry has been investing ungodly sums to this end with no success?

•Have you considered that without cheap oil, none of our current technology could have been produced on more than a prototype-experimental scale?

You need to ask the tough questions before you stake your life on something that doesn't even exist yet.

We'll think of something. We always do. Necessity is the mother of invention.

Yes, and lots of cheap oil has been the father of invention for 150 years. No invention was mass-produced and no resource was distributed without an abundance of cheap oil.

This issue seems to be a "blind spot" for many people concerned about the ramifications of Peak Oil. Typically, when addressing Peak Oil, people focus on finding a magic bullet alternative to oil. Even if such a resource existed, it would not solve our problems unless it was implemented in conjunction with a complete overhaul of our monetary system. The reason is simple: the monetary system is really just a reflection of our energy system.

Our monetary system is designed for one thing: growth. For any system to grow, it requires a constantly increasing supply of energy. We had a constantly increasing supply of energy as we moved up the upslope of the oil (energy) production curve. Now, however, we are stuck with a system that requires growth, but we are about to be denied the excess energy needed for that growth. Our monetary system was not designed for this contingency. If it can't grow, it collapses. There is no other alternative.

If the monumental scope of our problem wasn't clear to you already, hopefully it is now. Dealing with the oil crisis requires much more than just finding a replacement for oil. It requires replacing a growth-based monetary system with a steady-state system. This is an undertaking whose mythic proportions cannot be overstated.

George W. Bush is not the problem and John Kerry is not the solution. Like Bush, Kerry is extremely wealthy, a Yale graduate, and a member of the secret society, "Skull and Bones." Kerry has promised to continue Bush's war on terror, which as you will see in Part VII, is really just a war for oil. He has paid lip service to developing alternatives to fossil fuels, but has never come close to mentioning the true scope of the crisis. He voted for the Patriot Act, was a key figure in the passage of NAFTA, voted yes for the war in Iraq and did so by unconstitutionally ceding the power to declare war from Congress to the President. When he did, he must have realized that he was helping to create a situation where by he would have the power to declare war should he be elected to office.

Put simply: electing Kerry into office will do nothing for us, unless they find a way to convert botox or ketchup into oil.

Peak Oil has been reported rather extensively in the alternative media. It has been getting increasing coverage in the mainstream media, but the coverage is usually confined to the back page of a newspaper or an obscure part of a news agency's Website. There are a couple of reasons why you haven't heard more:

Every major media corporation trades on Wall Street and is heavily invested in, or sponsored by the energy, transportation, pharmaceutical and agribusiness industries. If the media was to publicly announce the truth about Peak Oil, investment in the stock market would evaporate, the economy would plunge, chaos would ensue, and the whole deck of cards would come crashing down before our leaders and corporate elite have a chance to secure their own well-being.

The ramifications of Peak Oil are so serious that it is hard for anybody, including journalists and politicians, to accept them as reality.

Furthermore, the facts of Peak Oil are very "doom and gloom." Few journalists are willing to risk their careers by honestly reporting these facts. They would immeaditely be branded a "conspiracy theorist" or "doomsayer."

It's much safer and more lucrative to report on Martha Stewart, Kobe Bryant, Scott Peterson, Tyco Juror Number 4, and Michael Jackson than it is to report on something like Peak Oil.

The average American may not be emotionally prepared to deal with Peak Oil. Peak Oil is a literal death sentence to much of our population as well as a figurative death sentence to the energy-intensive American way of life. When faced with such news, most people choose to "kill the messenger." As Jimmy Carter found out in 1980, making the end of the age of oil an issue is political suicide.

In light of the energy situation we are facing, why is the Bush administration spending money and cutting services like there's no tomorrow?

When the cost of food soars, the military draft is reinstituted, Social Security officially dissolves, gas hits $6.00 a gallon, the stock market crashes, and returning veterans are denied the health care that was promised to them, large-scale rioting will erupt.

The only way to control the population will be through the institution of a fascist-style police state. The Patriot Act and related legislation are the foundation for that state.

Any country with significant oil reserves. As you watch the news, you will notice hints are already being dropped. "Iran has WMD" or "Syria isn't cooperating in the war on terror" or "Saudi Arabia is funding terrorism" or "The war on terror will last for decades." The stage is being set so that the American public will accept these future invasions.

It's not just Middle East countries that are on the hit list. Venezuela and Columbia have significant oil reserves, as do many countries in West Africa. While you may not see full-scale invasions of these countries, you are likely to see increased military intervention.

What's going to happen when recently industrialized China decides it needs what little cheap oil is left as bad as the United States does?

Well, at least we don't have to worry about Russia anymore. After 9-11, they said they would support us. They're our friends now, right?

If Russia is considered a "friend," the US doesn't need any enemies. Russian President Vladimir Putin has been building up Russia's nuclear capability since 1999 because he (justifiably) fears the US is trying to muscle in on the relatively modest oil reserves located in the Caspian Sea.

Russia flexed its muscles after the April 2002 summit to try to settle the Caspian Sea issues. Within hours of leaving the summit, President Putin ordered the largest naval exercises in the Caspian Sea's history, which were carried out for two weeks in August 2002. While Russia insisted that this exercise was designed to confront problems of terrorism and poaching, many saw it as a clear show of its military dominance in the area.

Many high-level officials in the Russian government remember the “good ole days” when they were at the helm of one of the world’s two superpowers. They remember well that US foreign policy played a hand in the Soviet collapse. They would like nothing more than to give the US a dose of its own medicine. By uniting with countries such as France and China, they might get their chance.

What about other "Westernized" countries? Don't they need oil also? What are we going to do about them?

No country is safe. Several high-level officials in the Bush Administration have been publicly pushing a plan to force nations to "choose between Paris and Washington."

On a similar note, Canada is required by NAFTA to sell 60% of its natural gas to the US. When Canada begins to experience the energy shortage, they may seek to change the terms of that law. The US is unlikely to allow them to do so.

Yes. Every young man, and possibly many young women, have been earmarked as soldiers for future oil wars.

It won't matter if the president at that time is John Kerry. In much the same way it took a Democrat to get welfare reform through (Clinton in 1996), it will probably take a Democrat to bring back the draft. Kerry has all but promised he would do so if elected.

Is there any chance we will resolve this situation without an all-out world war?

There will be no peace. At any given moment for the rest of our lifetimes, there will be multiple conflicts in mutating forms around the globe. Violent conflict will dominate the headlines, but cultural and economic struggles will be steadier and ultimately more decisive. The de facto role of the US armed forces will be to keep the world safe for our economy and open to our cultural assault. To those ends, we will do a fair amount of killing.

According to former Australian Prime Minister Keating, "There is every chance that the American policy will lead us into a Mad-Max world, while the US seeks to cocoon itself behind a screen of national missile defense."

Mr. Keating's assertion notwithstanding, such comparisons tend to be problematic as they trivialize the seriousness of our situation. History, not Hollywood, is likely the best guide for what we should expect. Again, any good book on the fall of the Roman Empire should provide you with a reasonable approximation of what the next 5-50 years will be like. Factor in modern-day weaponry, and you can see that we have a real mess on our hands

The optimists turned out to be wrong. The jury has rendered the verdict. The optimists have lost. Much field data now proves their total thesis was wrong. The pessimists unfortunately, and ironically, might also be wrong. But most assume that this day of reckoning is still years away. They too might also be too optimistic. My analysis is leaning me more by the month, the worry that peaking is at hand, not years away.

There is a difference between an "optimist" and a fool. An optimist is somebody who looks at bleak facts and decides to make the best of the situation they can. A fool is somebody who looks at bleak facts and decides to ignore them because they are too upsetting. If you want to ignore the harsh reality of Peak Oil, feel free.

If a "hole-up-in-the-woods-with-guns" model of preparation appeals to you, I encourage to you read as much as possible about other civilizations that have crashed and burned. While the survivalist model works in Hollywood, it often fails in reality. When our society collapses, the rural areas may well go first. In that case, little enclaves of survivalists sitting on stockpiles of food, weapons, and gold will be too tempting a target for the bandit cultures that evolve in post-collapse rural areas.

Speaking of bandit cultures, you can be assured that your in-laws will come looking for food and supplies if you have them stockpiled.

As stated previously, the end of the oil age is a life-and-death game. I think it unwise to base your life plan on a macho Hollywood fantasy. At the same time, I can't blame you if the first thing you do after reading this book is go out and get yourself a gun.

Do you think the government is going to implement measures to handle this situation?

It’s highly unlikely, as the industries that control our government would be hurt by these measures.

Exactly, any solutions will likely be local. It is imperative that you understand this.

Talking to your neighbor will be much more productive than writing your Congressman.

What are some steps that I can personally take in the next few days to begin addressing this situation?

The following list is by no means exhaustive. These are just some simple steps you can begin taking immediately.

2. Educate others. If you're not sure how to go about doing so, consider lending them this book or emailing them a link to lifeaftertheoilcrash.net.

3. Seek out like-minded folks. There are Peak Oil groups forming all over the country. I have a list of these groups available on my site, www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/groups

4. Perform Google searches for Peak Oil whenever you get the chance. As more people search for "Peak Oil," the folks at Google will take notice. This may result in increased mainstream media coverage.

5. Adopt a vegetarian/vegan diet, or at least reduce your meat consumption as much as you can. Meat is an extraordinarily energy-intensive form of food.

6. Start using your bicycle or public transportation instead of your car, whenever possible. If your community has a car cooperative, join it. If your community doesn't have a car cooperative, start one.

8. Reduce your use of electricity as much as possible. Consider investing in items such as solar-powered lanterns, battery chargers, radios, hot water heaters, laptop chargers, bicycle-powered generators, etc.

9. Consider converting your vehicle to biodiesel. This will provide you with more flexibility as gas prices become prohibitively expensive.

10. Consider taking an organic farming class or joining a local food cooperative. You need to start learning about soil and non-oil-powered agriculture.

12. Investigate alternative forms of health care such as bioenergetic healing, self-hypnosis, etc. Pharmaceutical-based health care will soon become too expensive for anybody but the super-wealthy.

14. Begin thinking how you are going to survive through blackouts, food/water shortages and economic breakdowns.

15. Begin accepting death. Even if you survive, you will witness an unprecedented amount of death and suffering during the later stages of the oil crash. You may as well begin preparing now.

16. Develop a sense of humor. As you can tell, I have not let the fact I spend my days researching and writing about the “end of the world” dampen my sense of humor. The future is not going to be pleasant. A sense of humor will make it much easier to deal with.

Would it be a good time to look into buying a solar-powered home, if I have the financial resources to do so?

George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, and Al Gore sure seem to think so. Each have state-of-the-art solar-powered, "off-the-grid" homes. Bush's has been described as an "environmentalist's dream home." Cheney's house is equipped with state-of-the-art energy-conservation devices installed by Al Gore. Think they know something we don't?

As things begin to collapse, do you think society will finally make good on Shakespeare's admonition to "kill all the lawyers."

Why do you think this is happening? What do you think the “big picture” is?

Some evolutionary biologists believe that whenever an ecosystem has an excess of a particular resource, a species will arise to make use of that resource. Over time, this new species will exhaust the resource they were adapted to exhaust. This brings the system back into balance. At that point, the species has fulfilled its evolutionary purpose. It will then go extinct. According to biologists David Price:

The short tenure of the human species marks a turning point in the history of life on earth. Before the appearance of Homo sapiens, energy was being sequestered more rapidly than it was being dissipated. Then human beings evolved, with the capacity to dissipate much of the energy that had been sequestered, partially redressing the planet's energy balance. The evolution of a species like Homo sapiens may be an integral part of the life process, anywhere in the universe it happens to occur. If organic energy is sequestered in substantial reserves, as geological processes are bound to do, then the appearance of a species that can release it is all but assured. Such a species, evolved in the service of entropy, quickly returns its planet to a lower energy level. In an evolutionary instant, it explodes and is gone.

My take on Mr. Price’s theory is this: Many eons ago, God was spending a leisurely morning in her office when one of the angels, perhaps Michael or Gabriel, walked in. The angel said to God:

God, we got a problem down on earth. You see, all the energy from the sun has been accumulating inside the earth as this black gooey stuff we decided to call oil. This wasn’t a problem for the first few billion years, but now it looks like earth has more stored energy than it can handle. Me and the other angels tried to fix the problem, but so far we haven’t been able to figure anything out.

God sat in her chair and thought for a moment. Then, in what amounted to the ultimate “Eureka” moment, God jumped out of her seat and exclaimed, “I know what I’ll do! I’ll create a species that’s dumb enough to use the stuff!”

A few billion years later, we’re pretty close to accomplishing our original purpose. As a result, we stand on the brink of extinction. Hopefully, if we show God we are capable of doing something other than just consuming oil, she’ll find a new purpose for us

Main final use form: electricity (some heat and motor fuel)

In the long term (assuming the unlikelihood of producing nuclear fusion), renewable energy sources are the only hope for mankind. They are the only forms which will not run out and are therefore less likely to lead to resource wars. Unfortunately the costs of manufacture and the length of time needed to fully develop are major obstacles, as well as the inability of most of the forms to replace oil and gas for transport and agriculture.

The "Present" and "Potential" figures are from information in "Energy: a Guidebook" by Janet Ramage 1997. Values show present (1997) contribution and maximum realistic potential in exajoules per year. For comparison, oil contributed 135 EJ per year (1997), gas 79, coal 91 and nuclear 8. They are shown graphically in chart E4.

Unit cost is also from "Energy: a Guidebook" and was in pence per kilowatt-hour (1997 figures). Since the actual numbers are of limited value, they have been changed to an index with small-scale hydro (2.9 p/kWh) as 1. To see the original data from which the index was calculated, click here.



Biomass	Main final use form: motor fuel and electricity. Present: 52 EJ/y Potential: 100 EJ/y Unit cost index: 2.1 EPR: 0.7–1.8 (ethanol)

Like the fossil fuels, biomass indicates fuels generated from living matter. Unlike those, however, biomass is defined as fuels created from plants which are recycled, being regrown to be used again. They include wood, straw, sugarcane residues, rice husks, human sewage, dried dung and also (although it doesn't quite fit in the definition) domestic rubbish. Biomass is generally used in small scale electricity generation, often for an individual house or family's benefit.

As well as electricity generation, biomass fuels can be used to create alternative transport fuels such as ethanol. Unfortunately, to grow enough biomass to supply present use petrol and diesel would leave little farmland left for food. And, since modern agriculture is so dependent on hydrocarbons for fertiliser and pesticides, it would be difficult to grow enough after oil and gas have declined.

One advantage is, as long as the used products are completely regrown, there is no carbon dioxide pollution. The main disadvantage is the low energy output of most biomass fuels as shown in chart E2.



Hydroelectricity	Main final use form: electricity. Present: 8 EJ/y Potential: 70 EJ/y Unit cost index: 1 to 1.5 (small to large scale plant) EPR: 11.2

Using the moment of fresh water to generate electricity can range from small local turbines in a river, providing power to a house, to massive dams (the largest is the Itaipu plant between Brazil and Paraguay which has a capacity of 12 GW, ten times that of a coal or nuclear station). They have several advantages over other renewables. One is predictability: few rivers dry up completely and they tend to flow strongest in the winter when demand is higher. Another is storage: dams can hold the water and release it just when needed. Disadvantages are that you have to have somewhere suitable for use, with another flow of water to produce the electricity and a regular supply. The high costs in money and energy, and the damage to the environment are major problems with large scale hydro-plants.



Wind Power	Main final use form: electricity. Present: 0.02 EJ/y Potential: 180 EJ/y Unit cost index: 2.4 EPR: 0.03–2

Wind farms present the best hope for a substantial fossil fuel replacement from renewables (in the electricity supply area). The potential is far greater and the costs are reasonable. The primary disadvantage (apart from the unsightliness which is a matter of opinion) is that wind flow is unreliable. When the wind is too low or too high, the generator cannot run. The farms can be placed where the wind is most reliable but that is still no guarantee so we would need other forms of electricity generation to provide backup.

Both the visual pollution and the variability could be partially solved by placing the farms out at sea at different locations. In the UK, for instance, it is unlikely that the same wind speeds would be encountered in the north of Scotland, in the Irish Sea, in the North Sea and the English Channel all at the same time. At least some of them would be generating. Unfortunately, to rely on such a system that would require much duplication and consequently more expense. It would also not help small countries or those without large coastlines.

Nevertheless, wind power is the alternative with the fewest technical, environmental and economic obstacles.



Sea Power	Main final use form: electricity. Present: 0.002 EJ/y Potential: 1 EJ/y (tidal) Unit cost index: 2.8 (tidal), 5.2 (wave) EPR: 15 (tidal)

Sea power comes in two principal forms: tidal where the rising and falling of the tides spins turbines to generate electricity, and wave power where the force of the waves is transferred to some form of power generation. The great advantage to both is reliability since it is possible to predict the heights and flows of the sea to a high accuracy (although areas with low tidal variations, such as the Mediterranean, will be able to benefit less).

Tidal power can be compared to a hydroelectric dam: a barrage holds the high tide back, then lets it out through turbines to generate electricity, or the tide is allowed to flow through a turbine continuously as it rises and falls. The former produces short bursts of high output, the latter longer periods of smaller output. Wave power can be similar to tidal in that the waves force a column of air through a turbine; or it can make use of a floating generator which uses the up and down motion of the waves to produce power.

The main disadvantage is the lack of suitable areas for building large scale plants. Areas like the Severn Estuary are few and far between, and the construction of a barrage can create enormous environmental problems. The smaller plants might be more suitable, being built at the base of offshore wind turbines, for instance. The potential for sea power though is small.



Geothermal	Main final use form: heat and electricity. Present: 0.3 EJ/y Potential: 1.5 EJ/y EPR: 1.9–13

The inside of the Earth is incredibly hot and in some areas of the world, that heat reaches close to the surface or even breaks through in the form of geysers or hot springs. That is the principal of geothermal energy, making use of that heat to spin turbines. Unfortunately it is extremely localised and the potential, like sea power, is quite small.



Solar Energy	Main final use form: heat and electricity. Present: 0.005 EJ/y (1997 electricity generation) Unit cost index: 13.1 (PV) EPR: 1.6–1.9 (water heat), 4.2 (power tower), 1.7–10 (PV)

Solar energy comes in two forms: heat-based where the sun is used to heat a liquid to provide either warmth or electricity, and PV (photovoltaic) where light is turned directly into electricity as in the familiar solar panels that we see on calculators.

One of the problems with both systems is, like wind, the supply is unpredictable unless you place your collectors out in the desert. Then you have the massive capital costs of covering large areas of desert with the collectors and transferring the electricity to where it is needed. And deserts are in short supply in Europe. Sunshine also tends to be weakest when you need the heat and energy most, at night or on cold winters' days. In Britain, a square meter (horizontal surface) receives around 900kWh of energy a year. If the average household uses 20,000kWh a year, then even highly efficient solar panels would need to cover 100 square meters to replace our existing energy needs. And don't forget the batteries! (Data from "Energy: a Guidebook").

The principal disadvantage with PVs compared with other forms of replacement energy is their cost. While the costs of production will undoubtedly fall, they are starting from a higher base and it is uncertain whether politicians and businessmen will see them as the answer. The raw material, silicon, is the second most abundant element in the Earth's crust (as is often noted) but producing it from its ores requires a great deal of energy. The efficiency of solar cells is not good, progressing from 6% in 1980 to 13% today. You need to use a lot of energy to produce a little. Fine for calculators but not good for greater power demands (hence the high unit cost above).

On a small scale, using rooftop water heaters, solar power can make a very useful contribution to personal energy needs. Using it to heat all the water may not be practical (in temperate countries at least) but it could certainly be used to pre-heat water to a warmer temperature (say 35°C or so) thus reducing demands on the other energy sources.

The Future

Renewable sources suffer from some of the problems of nuclear power in that they will take enormous amounts of money and energy to develop into serious replacements, and that they only produce heat and energy, and not (apart from biomass) plastics or fertilisers. Given enough time and will, we might be able to develop wind, wave, solar and geothermal systems to replace hydrocarbon electricity generation. Time, of course, is one thing we are desperately short of.

Nevertheless, renewables are the only long term future for our energy needs. If the human population does collapse and we revert to smaller, more independent communities, the use of small term renewables such as wind generators, solar heaters and biomass might be the best we could hope for

Main final use form: oil replacement	EPR: 0.7–13.3 (oil shale)

When most people think of oil, they think of the liquid which shoots out of the ground when the drill reaches it. But this is only part of the oil resource, known as conventional oil. There are other types of oil known by many names such as unconventional oil, heavy oil, tar sands, oil shale, bitumen, etc. The following definitions of tar sands and oil shale come from the book "Hubbert's Peak" by Kenneth Deffeyes:

When erosion brings an oil field to the surface, the smaller molecules evaporate, and a nearly solid tar is left in the reservoir rock...Tarry oil is extracted by mining the sand, contacting it with hot water, and separating the oil.

An "oil shale" contains neither oil nor shale; it is an ordinary petroleum source rock that has never been buried into the oil window [converted to oil]...The rock has to be mined, crushed and heated in closed containers. The leftovers after the oil is recovered fluff up to more than their original volume; the hole where the rock was mined isn't big enough to hold the waste.

Advantages

There is an enormous amount of unconventional oil, often in areas not associated with conventional oil. The Orinoco belt in Venezuela could contain 1.2 trillion barrels of heavy oil, while the tar sands and shale deposits of Canada and the former Soviet Union may contain the equivalent of 300 Gb of oil.

As the result is oil not electricity, this alternative to conventional oil could at least supply us with the products that other energy sources could not – plastics, fertilisers, etc. It is not ideal as it is energy intensive to produce but, once conventional oil has declined, it may be one of the few options available.

Disadvantages

Unfortunately the extraction of unconventional oils requires huge investment costs, produce great amounts of pollution and long lead times. Estimates of the amounts likely to be produced from Canada and Venezuela combined are from 1 to 2 Gb per year between 2005 and 2020 (ASPO). As the world currently consumes 27 Gb a year, it is not going to make a great deal of difference over the problematic next few decades.

The Future

At the moment, unconventional oil makes up only 5% of all oil and the costs are prohibitive. But the optimists believe that when conventional grows scarce, the higher prices of oil will make unconventional oil able to fill the gap. The pollution involved will certainly restrict their use until the oil decline is well under way. Even now, the time and money to increase the production (to go from 5% of the total to 100% would be a 2000% increase!) would be enormous

Main final use form: heating and electricity	EPR: 100 (1940s) to 8 (1970s)

When oil exists below a certain depth, the heat of the earth breaks the molecules and it becomes natural gas. It is not necessarily found (in significant quantities) alongside oil. It is mainly composed of methane, the simplest hydrocarbon.

Advantages

Gas has many benefits to the power companies, producing more energy per tonne than oil and coal, and fewer pollutants such as carbon dioxide. It is used to create nitrogen fertilisers for agriculture. It will last longer than oil (but not necessarily that much longer).

Disadvantages

Gas, being a hydrocarbon, suffers from the same problem of depletion as oil. Otherwise, the main disadvantage is that it is not as easy to transport, requiring either pressure pipelines or special ships which pre-process it into LNG (liquefied natural gas). Both of these are at great risk to terrorism (a fully loaded LNG ship is apparently equal to 55 Hiroshima nuclear bombs). Gas is best used for electricity production and heating, so cannot supply the fuels and products that oil is used for. Conversion to a fuel suitable for aircraft and ships uses large amounts of energy and money.

The Future

Natural gas is in a similar situation to oil. Gas does not have a Hubbert Curve production cycle as oil. Because it is largely self-pressurised and 'flows' easier than oil, it is usually produced at less than maximum output. Consequently gas production tends to stay on a plateau then suddenly dropping. Nevertheless, for a large area there is a time of maximum production and that peak is expected to be around 2020. As oil declines, more electricity generation will be turned over to gas, depleting the stocks further. Gas can only prolong the carbon society by a short time, it is not the answer.

Main final use form: electricity	EPR: 80 (1940s) to 30 (1970s)

Advantages

Coal is far more abundant than oil and gas. There is about 200 years of coal left (but only 100 years if it was used to replace oil and gas). Coal does not peak like oil. The largest reserves are often in areas which are low in oil and gas, thereby reducing the risk of resource wars (see Chart AC1). Coal can be converted into oil (at a rate of 6 units coal to 1 unit oil) and gas.

Disadvantages

Coal is far more polluting than oil and gas, producing ash and flue gasses which contain sulphur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, arsenic among others. Its extraction can create subsidence, spoil heaps and strip mining damage, as well as many deaths among miners. It is less convenient to store and use, and it produces up to twice as much carbon dioxide.

Something like 50% of the energy used to mine coal comes from oil. It is also more difficult to transport and control than oil so usage is expensive and wasteful.

The Future

Concerns about global warming will restrict expansion of coal until the oil decline becomes severe. Then it is likely that many countries will turn to coal in desperation, particularly those who cannot get hold of oil/gas or who have large reserves of coal themselves. The increase in global warming though may be tempered by the fall of world population and decline of technological society. The increase in pollution, especially locally, may be the greatest problem.

Main final use form: electricity	EPR: 4

The use of nuclear power causes...approximately one-third as much CO2 -emission as gas-fired electricity production. The rich uranium ores required to achieve this reduction are, however, so limited that if the entire present world electricity demand were to be provided by nuclear power, these ores would be exhausted within three years. Use of the remaining poorer ores in nuclear reactors would produce more CO2 emission than burning fossil fuels directly.

This statement comes from an important website (Nuclear Power - the Energy Balance) on nuclear power and how it might not be the panacea it is often claimed to be. Nuclear power as it exists at the moment involves nuclear fission, splitting uranium or plutonium which releases immense energies. Nuclear fusion is the other type of power source but is not yet available and will not be for many years, if ever.

Advantages

Despite claims to be carbon dioxide free, energy generation from nuclear power does contribute to global warming, although not as much as oil, gas and certainly coal. Unlike renewable energies, the technology and structures for nuclear power are already in place so, unless we wanted to build more, much of the cost and work has already been done.

Disadvantages

Nuclear electricity generation does have an awkward balance - keeping down carbon dioxide omissions would rapidly use up the stores of rich uranium, while using other grades of uranium would increase the amount of carbon dioxide emitted. To replace oil on its own, we would need to build hundreds of new stations, each with the resulting cost and radioactive pollution. It takes many years and a great deal of energy to both build and decommission nuclear power plants. The public has already been scared off of nuclear power and the politicians would not risk returning to that source, certainly while the public is unaware of the oil depletion danger. Like most alternatives, nuclear power can only supply energy, not the multitude of other products that oil gives us (see Oil Products.)

The Future

Nuclear power is already in place and is too important to ignore completely. It would make sense to continue with the existing stations while the rich uranium is still available, to carry the load while converting to a fossil-free society. Whether more would be built is probably more to do with politics than energy problems. Eventually though, nuclear power would need to be phased out before the carbon dioxide emissions became too great and while there was still the ability to cope with decommissioning and waste disposal.

Nuclear Fusion

Nuclear fusion was once (and still is by some) considered the saviour of humanity. It involves combining atoms rather than the normal process of splitting (fission). It uses hydrogen rather than uranium as a fuel so would involves no mining, no radioactive fission products, no reprocessing, no plutonium and limitless fuel. Unfortunately fifty years and billions of euros, dollars and roubles have not come close to solving the problem of how to achieve this (outside of a hydrogen bomb). Given enough time, we might be able to solve it but, sadly, time is what we are short of.

Main final use form: carrier for electricity	EPR: 0.8

Some people have suggested that hydrogen will be the answer to oil depletion (as far as transport is concerned), with misleading terms such as 'carbon dioxide free', ‘clean’ and ‘cheap’ being bandied around. Unfortunately it is not. Hydrogen is better looked upon as a carrier for energy rather than energy itself, a potential way of turning electricity into a portable fuel.

Advantages

The hydrogen itself does not produce anything more dangerous than water when it is converted to energy (but see below). If all vehicles were converted to hydrogen, the result would be quieter, less polluted urban areas. Unlike the other energy sources, it can be used for personal transport.

Disadvantages

Hydrogen is not mined but produced and that requires energy, the very problem we have. It has been calculated that it takes 1.3 billion kWh (kilowatt hours) of electricity to produce 1 billion kWh of hydrogen (BioScience, Vol. 44, No. 8, September 1994.). If you use oil or gas (the present day choice), the result is carbon dioxide and a reduction in the fuel source. It is also wasteful of energy – the production of the electricity and hydrogen would use more oil than if you had used it directly in the car as petrol.

It is also far more difficult to store and transport than oil products. It is a very dangerous substance (think of the Hindenburg). To replace all the cars, lorries, busses with hydrogen engines and fuel tanks, and to build the infrastructure to service them would cost vast amounts of energy and money.

The Future

As one of the few transportation fuels available outside of oil, hydrogen has an important part to play in a sustainable future. While it is hard to see it replacing all of the present day's transport, it might be feasible to power public transport if that was expanded to replace individual vehicles. It would need to be produced with nuclear and renewable energy although, at the moment, only about 0.01% of hydrogen produced is made with renewables. The question is whether it would be more economic to simply have electrically- powered vehicles with batteries.

Alternate Energy Sources

Renewable Energy

Biomass

Hydroelectricity

Wind Power

Sea Power

Geothermal

Solar Energy

The Future

Unconventional Oils

Advantages

Disadvantages

The Future

Natural Gas

Advantages

Disadvantages

The Future

Coal

Advantages

Disadvantages

The Future

AC1. World Reserves by Region

Nuclear Power

Advantages

Disadvantages

The Future

Nuclear Fusion

Hydrogen

Advantages

Disadvantages

The Future