The Long Emergency

"Peak Oil" is about as threatening as the (now largely forgotten) Y2K bug. Let me explain why I believe this to be so:

I. Demand and consumption are both elastic and do not necessarily correspond to supply.

The classic Peak Oil theorists are essentially Malthusian--believing that as supply grows, demand and consumption grow until the peak is crossed. Logic suggests that this is a gross oversimplification of the real world. Even oil-addicted societies can deploy methods designed to conserve the oil supply (as as done in the early 1970s, but later abandoned until the gas crisis of 1979).

Furthermore, gas-electric hybrid automobiles, such as the Toyota Prius (which I drive) or the Honda Insight, reduce gasoline consumption by as much as 67 - 75% per user. Suppose hybrid technology becomes the dominant automotive trend over the next ten years? The supply of oil will not change, but the demand and the consumption rates would plummet.


II. Alternatives to oil exist and are already cost effective.

Most Peak Oil adherents argue that alternatives to oil are pipe dreams or false hopes. For example, they argue that bio-diesel will not mitigate the oil shortage, because bio-diesel crops require oil-based fertilizers to produce. I disagree. Organic farming methods can eliminate the need for fossil-fuel based fertilizers,
but even if fertilizers are still needed, the use of oil for fertilizer is probably more efficient than the use of oil for internal combustion, so once again, the supply doesn't necessarily correspond directly to consumption.

Peak Oil alarmists argue that hydrogen is no better, because hydrogen is a carrier of energy and not a producer, and hydrogen requires more energy to extract than it saves in usage. Both of these claims, while technically true are utterly meaningless if they are placed in practical context. Oil is itself, a "carrier" of energy--not a producer; it, too, has to be extracted and that takes energy. Most of the energy required in extracting oil for use as an internal combustion engine fuel is derived from the burning of other fossil fuels.

On the other hand, Hydrogen can be produced using renewable energy. As for hydrogen requiring more energy to extract than it saves, this claim is only true because the technology for its extraction as an automotive fuel is in its infancy. Petroleum oil also had its share of "growing pains" as a resource. Unlike hydrogen and renewables, however, fossil fuel technology is highly subsidized by the government.

In any case, much of the negative, pessimistic claims about hydrogen are quite thoroughly debunked by Amory Lovins, who is the CEO of the Rocky Mountain Institute, here:

http://www.rmi.org/images/other/Energy/E03-05_20HydrogenMyths.pdf


III. Renewable energy is a viable alternative and developing rapidly.

Peak Oil alarmists argue that renewable energy could replace fossil fuels, but not before a serious economic (and perhaps societal) catastrophe, primarily because renewable energy technology cannot be developed fast enough to prevent it.

This pessimism (or perhaps deliberate fear mongering) is unwarranted. In the March / April issue of Solar Today, Donald W. Aitken, Ph.D. describes how Germany is on a course to generate all of its electricity from renewable resources by 2050. In fact, they are ahead of schedule. An abstract of the article is available here:

http://www.solartoday.org/2005/march_april05/Germany.htm

The previous issue (January / February) of Solar Today includes an article about the rapid deployment of solar electricity generation technology in Japan.

Even China is getting on the bandwagon. The demand for hybrid automobiles is higher in China than it is in the US.

Peak Oil pessimists (and/or ideologues?) argue that the standard of living that we "enjoy" here in the United States is what all industrialized nations aspire to achieve, but Canada, Japan, and much of Europe all enjoy similar standards of living but use less energy. There's no reason to assume that China will follow the American model, particularly when the alternatives are cheaper and better!


IV. Peak Oil assumes that oil has biotic origins; it may not.

The idea that the world is running out of oil is based on the notion that oil is a "fossil" fuel, i.e. that it is the remains of organic material. Suppose that isn't the case? Suppose, as some Soviet geologists argued for half a century, oil has abiotic origins and is instead the byproduct of chemical processes that occur below the earth's crust? Keep in mind that oil is known to exist on Jupiter's
moon Io, and possibly on Venus. Did Paleozoic and Mesozoic lifeforms develop space flight? Not very likely.

The Peak Oil crowd argue that the abiotic origin theory is pseudo-science, perhaps as unbelievable as "cold fusion", but what evidence do they present to back up such a pejorative and ad-hominem attack?

Here are some--sadly obscure--discussions about the possibility that oil my not be the remains of organic matter:

http://www.davesweb.cnchost.com/nwsltr52.html

http://www.davesweb.cnchost.com/nwsltr55.html

http://www.davesweb.cnchost.com/nwsltr59.html

http://www.davesweb.cnchost.com/nwsltr64.html

http://www.davesweb.cnchost.com/nwsltr70.html

While the abiotic oil theory is by no means any less controversial than Peak Oil, it is also no less a legitimate hypothesis.