Each year, the Energy Information Administration of the United Statd Department of Energy submits a summer report called the International Energy Outlook.  This is filled with data and analysis on the ever changing world energy file.

This summer, the 2009 report provided some very significant revelations.  it predicts a sharp drop in projected future world oil output and a corresponding increase in reliance on what is called unconventional fuels.  These are principally seen as oil sands, ultra-deep oil, shale oil and biofuels.

So here's the headline for you: For the first time, the well-respected Energy Information Administration appears to be joining with those experts who have long argued that the era of cheap and plentiful oil is drawing to a close.

Almost as notable, when it comes to news, the 2009 report highlights Asia's insatiable demand for energy and suggests that China is moving ever closer to the point at which it will overtake the United States as the world's number one energy consumer.

Clearly, a new era of cutthroat energy competition is upon us. As recent as 2007, there had always been a projected increase in the production of conventional oil and the findings of more reserves.

This peak in oil reserves has been predicted for many years by the Hubbert curve.  They have tracked the rise and fall of most oil reserves and monitored demands.  Demand has always increased faster than production and production has always been finite.  It was also suggested that many countries in the OPEC group over projected their reserves so that they could export more oil as oil export was based on reserve supply.

So where did the oil go?  Increased use, plain and simple.  More automobiles, more production, more gadgets.  Associate  that with cheap prices and people consumed.  Even with the price spike last summer, the demand for fuel did not necessarily change dramatically as the price rose.  Some switched.  Some cut down their use.  Some got rid of that second vehicle. 

But even now, with prices of oil aroud the $70 range, nothing has much changed.  Roads are still clogged at rush hour.  We are still buying that fruit from Chile and South Africa.  Wall-Mart is still selling as much as they used to, even with the dampening of the recession.  Regina is now going to get a mega store in which we can buy everything, food, clothing, hardware, etc.

So what do we do now?  Some would say that we need to get more efficient with our energy use and this will solve the problems.  But there is a problem with this.

A British economist, William Stanley Jevons, looked at the energy use in the early 20th century and came to this conclusion.  If the fuel was used more efficiently, in those days it was coal, the reduced demand created by the efficiency would be used up by greater use of the efficient systems, thereby not reducing the amount of coal used but creating more goods and using the same amount of coal.

If one was to extrapolate this to current conventional oil use and automobiles, even if we were to increase efficiencies of automobiles by 50%, people would simply use the automobile 50% more and demand the same amount of fuel now being used by the inefficient gas guzzler of today.  And the supply of oil would still run out.

What is seen as the true direction necessary to deal with peak oil, at least by Richard Heinberg,  is a peak oil depletion protocol.  This means that we would match our demand for the decreasing supply of conventional oil with a matching decreasing demand for the oil.  If oil supplies are decreasing at 2% per year, we would eliminate the demand for oil by a matching 2% per year. 

This would mean a different mindset.  We would be looking at mobility as the problem and looking at other ways to get around thereby getting rid of most automobiles not purchasing more or replacing the gas guzzlers with more efficient ones.  This would mean replacing active energy supply with passive systems, like solar and wind, active transportation like bicycles and walking.  In the early stages, it would mean switching away from cars to public transit.  But eventually it would mean replacing commuting with tele-commuting or simply reducing the complexity of life with simplier systems of governance and production not demanding that commute.

It would mean growing a lot more of our own food.  It would mean travelling less and doing what you need on the train, boat and bus rather than the personal automobile and plane.  It is likely to mean putting a lot more of the prairies back into native grass and growing bison.  It would mean building more insulated modest homes, perhaps an R3000 home which needs no external energy supply other than a windmill, no external water supply and no waste water treatment system.  Maybe, all meals would be made from scratch at home or collectively in local community kitchens.  Most lawns and school yards would have been replaced with gardens and xeriscaped landscapes needing little maintenance.  Many roads would be removed and accessible for gardens.

Some people have started down that path to sustainability and voluntary simplicity.  Look to them for knowledge and experience.  Start small.  Take easy manageable steps.  Look for opportunities for change.  Talk to others.  Help others.

Comments

Only registered users can write comments.
Please login or register.

Powered by AkoComment 2.0!