Germany plans for Peek oil

[Mega]

http://www.spiegel.de/international/...715138,00.html

Mike

[Starving Steve]

Re: Germany plans for Peek oil

The solutions for Germany are to drill for more oil in the North Sea, to construct more atomic power plants, to extend the life of current atomic power plants, to build more hydro-electric dams, to experiment with synthetic fuels, to frack shale rock to extract natural gas, and to use cheap coal. Duke Power Company uses multiple energy sources to deliver energy at 7cents per kwh to its customers in the South-eastern US, and that is how Germany should proceed. In addition to this, Germany might consider importing up-graded oil from Alberta.

Needless to say, there is no reason why Germany has to sell its soul to Iran and Libya, the way the UK has in order to secure its energy supplies for the future.

Also, Germany wouldn't be in this energy quandry now if it would have said "NO!" to the Greens and never have gone down the path of windmills, solar panels, geo-thermal, and conservation as a so-called, "viable green energy plan".

[Aetius Romulous]

Re: Germany plans for Peek oil

Germany ADMITS to planning for Peak Oil.

I would argue that Americans have been planning for Peak Oil since GWB took office, and that Iraq and Afghanistan are evidence of that plan in action. The American approach is unique, in that it does not include alternatives or conservation, but simply greater accumulation of oil security to service the oil drenched US economy as it exists. It does not ask, "how can we conserve what we have?" but rather, "how can we get more?".

It's not a very good plan in my opinion.

[don]

Re: Germany plans for Peek oil

Germany ADMITS to planning for Peak Oil.

I would argue that Americans have been planning for Peak Oil since GWB took office, and that Iraq and Afghanistan are evidence of that plan in action. The American approach is unique, in that it does not include alternatives or conservation, but simply greater accumulation of oil security to service the oil drenched US economy as it exists. It does not ask, "how can we conserve what we have?" but rather, "how can we get more?".

the American way of life is non-negotiable....(Dick Cheney)

[Starving Steve]

Re: Germany plans for Peek oil

Forget everything they teach in ecology and economics classes in college because the truth of the matter is that MORE IS BETTER, in just about everything.

MORE ENERGY CONSUMPTION CO-RELATES NICELY WITH A HIGHER STANDARD oF LIVING, AND A HIGHER STANDARD oF LIVING CO-RELATES NICELY WITH A DROP IN THE FERTILITY RATE OF WOMEN.

Would anyone care to look at the starvation in Africa and SW Asia, the culture in Africa and SW Asia, the absence of water management in Africa and SW Asia, the fertility rates of the population in these lands, the standard of living in these lands, and the consumption of energy per capita in these lands? Would anyone care to look at the locusts and flies in Pakistan and say that I am wrong?

Why the floods in deserts? Why the droughts in deserts? Why the locusts in deserts? Why the starvation in deserts?

Should I spell it out even more directly: What do people do with their time in SW Asia and Africa? These are some of the richest counties on Earth, and yet starvation and war and locusts and floods, why?

Just walk-out of your ecology classes and your economics classes in universities to-day. Everything you are being taught is wrong. The way to reduce population growth is to raise the standard of living in desert lands. And the way to raise the standard of living in desert lands is to consume more energy per capita. That means more drilling and more dams and more planning and more engineering. It means getting religion OUT of government, and it means for the population to stop wasting its time with worship and wars.

Maybe Africa and SW Asia should copy what America and Canada have done? Maybe build a consumer society and abandon Eastern mysticism and religions? Maybe the way out of poverty is to practice science and abandon faith?

[gnk]

Re: Germany plans for Peek oil

Forget everything they teach in ecology and economics classes in college because the truth of the matter is that MORE IS BETTER, in just about everything.

MORE ENERGY CONSUMPTION CO-RELATES NICELY WITH A HIGHER STANDARD oF LIVING, AND A HIGHER STANDARD oF LIVING CO-RELATES NICELY WITH A DROP IN THE FERTILITY RATE OF WOMEN.

Would anyone care to look at the starvation in Africa and SW Asia, the culture in Africa and SW Asia, the absence of water management in Africa and SW Asia, the fertility rates of the population in these lands, the standard of living in these lands, and the consumption of energy per capita in these lands? Would anyone care to look at the locusts and flies in Pakistan and say that I am wrong?

Why the floods in deserts? Why the droughts in deserts? Why the locusts in deserts? Why the starvation in deserts?

Should I spell it out even more directly: What do people do with their time in SW Asia and Africa? These are some of the richest counties on Earth, and yet starvation and war and locusts and floods, why?

Just walk-out of your ecology classes and your economics classes in universities to-day. Everything you are being taught is wrong. The way to reduce population growth is to raise the standard of living in desert lands. And the way to raise the standard of living in desert lands is to consume more energy per capita. That means more drilling and more dams and more planning and more engineering. It means getting religion OUT of government, and it means for the population to stop wasting its time with worship and wars.

Maybe Africa and SW Asia should copy what America and Canada have done? Maybe build a consumer society and abandon Eastern mysticism and religions? Maybe the way out of poverty is to practice science and abandon faith?

You're right that consumption equals a low fertility rate. BUT...

Do the math. The US has just under 5% of the world's population, yet consumes (by last count) around 23% of the world oil supply.

So, I ask you, can the rest of the world, the 3-4 billion that aspire to have an industrial american-style consumption-based life and live like you and I do, or do we have to give something up? And even if we give something up, is there still enough left over for everyone else? What does that mean to our monetary system and domestic economies that rely on permagrowth? To unemployment? To the financial system? To pensions and SS? To governments' ability to function and provide services?

We're hitting limits, and I say it is happening right now. It's not some "event" with a firm date... the process has already begun and is well under way.

I gave up on thinking about global solutions. No multinational cooperative solution will be discovered or implemented. It will be a free for all. It always is. Let's be realistic and face the harsh reality. Just think about your and and your family's needs and prepare the best way you know how and can.

[GRG55]

Re: Germany plans for Peek oil

You're right that consumption equals a low fertility rate. BUT...

Do the math. The US has just under 5% of the world's population, yet consumes (by last count) around 23% of the world oil supply...

Okay, let's do the math. Oil consumption per capita is one of those statistics that gets regularly trotted out and used to imply there's something "wrong" with the developed economies. It is a much abused and misused statistic. It's what the developed economies produce with that energy that counts. USA population is 310 million according to the latest [2010] census estimates, and the IMF estimates annual US GDP at $14 trillion. Indonesia, with a population a bit less than the USA [238 million], and no doubt a materially lower per capita oil consumption, has a GDP of $539 billion.

Germany, with roughly 81 million people driving Volkswagens, Mercedes and Porshes, generates annual GDP of $3.3 trillion. Egypt with almost the same population [79 million people] contributes a whopping $188 billion.

China, which also has a far lower per capita oil consumption rate than the USA, produces approximately $1600 of output per barrel of oil used. Egypt produces $810 per barrel. The USA produces more than $2000 of output with that same barrel, and Germany produces more than $3500 per barrel.

So which economy "deserves" to receive the "next" barrel of oil to "invest"?


Nominal GDP for ten largest economies:

So, I ask you, can the rest of the world, the 3-4 billion that aspire to have an industrial american-style consumption-based life and live like you and I do, or do we have to give something up? And even if we give something up, is there still enough left over for everyone else? What does that mean to our monetary system and domestic economies that rely on permagrowth? To unemployment? To the financial system? To pensions and SS? To governments' ability to function and provide services?

We're hitting limits, and I say it is happening right now. It's not some "event" with a firm date... the process has already begun and is well under way.

I gave up on thinking about global solutions. No multinational cooperative solution will be discovered or implemented. It will be a free for all. It always is. Let's be realistic and face the harsh reality. Just think about your and and your family's needs and prepare the best way you know how and can.

We've been "hitting limits" all through mankind's existence.

There is NO shortage of energy available to us in all its myriad forms. Although the developing world economies are growing faster, and slowly closing both the absolute, per capita, and per-unit-of-oil gap with the developed economies, just because they aspire to a higher standard of living for themselves and their children does not mean that this century is going to be an economic and energy consumption replication, on the other side of the globe, of what happened in Europe and the USA in the "age of oil" in the last century.

The last time there was this much hysteria about "resource depletion" and global shortages was during the 1970's commodity inflation. What I am hearing today reminds me so much of the "population bomb" nonsense that Paul Ehrlich was touting at the time. Thirty years ago Julian Simon called Ehrlich's bluff...and, amid much scepticism from economists and politicians the world over, was ultimately proven correct.

Man is the ONLY species on this planet that has the ability to innovate and progress from generation to generation. Some other species use "tools" or have organized societies, with division and specialization of labour for example, but every generation is a replication of the last. Only man has demonstrated the ability to build on the knowledge of those who came before, and continue to innovate...with no end in sight yet. And that is what will allow us to deal with these important issues that seem to so burdensome to some of you here.

[c1ue]

Re: Germany plans for Peek oil

China, which also has a far lower per capita oil consumption rate than the USA, produces approximately $1600 of output per barrel of oil used. Egypt produces $810 per barrel. The USA produces more than $2000 of output with that same barrel, and Germany produces more than $3500 per barrel.

So which economy "deserves" to receive the "next" barrel of oil to "invest"?

The point is valid, but GDP per barrel of oil as a measurement value is a very poor reference point.

After all, how much of these 1st world GDPs are due to incestuous FIRE loops aided and abetted through loans from the 2nd and 3rd world central banks?

Perhaps a better gauge would be value of physical goods produced alongside another value of non-tangible goods produced.

[gnk]

Re: Germany plans for Peek oil

Okay, let's do the math. Oil consumption per capita is one of those statistics that gets regularly trotted out and used to imply there's something "wrong" with the developed economies. It is a much abused and misused statistic. It's what the developed economies produce with that energy that counts. USA population is 310 million according to the latest [2010] census estimates, and the IMF estimates annual US GDP at $14 trillion. Indonesia, with a population a bit less than the USA [238 million], and no doubt a materially lower per capita oil consumption, has a GDP of $539 billion.

Germany, with roughly 81 million people driving Volkswagens, Mercedes and Porshes, generates annual GDP of $3.3 trillion. Egypt with almost the same population [79 million people] contributes a whopping $188 billion.

China, which also has a far lower per capita oil consumption rate than the USA, produces approximately $1600 of output per barrel of oil used. Egypt produces $810 per barrel. The USA produces more than $2000 of output with that same barrel, and Germany produces more than $3500 per barrel.

So which economy "deserves" to receive the "next" barrel of oil to "invest"?


Nominal GDP for ten largest economies:





We've been "hitting limits" all through mankind's existence.

There is NO shortage of energy available to us in all its myriad forms. Although the developing world economies are growing faster, and slowly closing both the absolute, per capita, and per-unit-of-oil gap with the developed economies, just because they aspire to a higher standard of living for themselves and their children does not mean that this century is going to be an economic and energy consumption replication, on the other side of the globe, of what happened in Europe and the USA in the "age of oil" in the last century.

The last time there was this much hysteria about "resource depletion" and global shortages was during the 1970's commodity inflation. What I am hearing today reminds me so much of the "population bomb" nonsense that Paul Ehrlich was touting at the time. Thirty years ago Julian Simon called Ehrlich's bluff...and, amid much scepticism from economists and politicians the world over, was ultimately proven correct.

Man is the ONLY species on this planet that has the ability to innovate and progress from generation to generation. Some other species use "tools" or have organized societies, with division and specialization of labour for example, but every generation is a replication of the last. Only man has demonstrated the ability to build on the knowledge of those who came before, and continue to innovate...with no end in sight yet. And that is what will allow us to deal with these important issues that seem to so burdensome to some of you here.

Regarding the math:

Yes, the US produces alot, but it also consumes a lot. Almost 70% of gdp is consumption - which is extremely energy intensive - all along the supply chain, from resource extraction to manufacturing to transport. I don't just look at gdp figures when looking at oil consumption - I look at lifestyle. And MOST of the world is no where near the West's lifestyle - including the SUV driving suburban living American. But they want to be, and no one can blame them.

Yes, energy in its myriad forms will always be available. But for the past 100 years, the West has enjoyed an enormous energy subsidy. I believe man has an arrogance about him - he looks at the technological wonders he creates without acknowledging the resources that allowed that technology to become possible and available. Let's give oil it's due credit for the past 100 years. Especially the cheap stuff that used to pop out of the ground needing little refinement.

Let's think in terms or EROEI - energy returned on energy invested. It is diminishing, on the whole. A system does not grow as fast if the inputs do not produce significant outpouts. And if the outputs are dimishing, on average over time, watch out. That is, the energy in a barrel of oil used to produce about 100 barrels of oil, now on average, it's in the teens. Ethanol is a wash. Tar sands are an almost wash. Shale gas and oil is not much better.

Yes, the cost to produce some energy may be cheap given the recent demand drop - for example, natural gas used for shale oil. But the overall trend is not good.

Bottom line, there is not enough CHEAP energy to allow the entire world's inhabitants to live like you and I do. Or to support a monetary system that needs to exponentially grow.

In my lifetime, the world's population has basically doubled. Int he 1970s, those preaching doom, IMHO, were early... but ultimately not wrong. Timing is everything - just ask the current doomers how they felt in 2005. I was laughed at in early 2007... But back to oil and resource depletion: Look at US Mideast policy and engagement since the 1970s... it proves the doomers' point. The Mideast story is far from over, and the end will be extremely tragic for the world.

To borrow EJ's recent use of the phrase - it's a process, not an event. And we are well along in that process. Yes, mankind's knowledge is cumulative through the ages. But keep in mind - even 2,000 years ago the steam driven contraptions of Heron in Egypt, the Anitkythera mechanism of (probably Archimedes), a computer of sorts, proved that mankind's technology is nothing without a cheap and abundant energy source. Especially if the technology is to be widely, globally used.

And mankind's history is blotted with periods of dark ages... Just ask the Myceneans, the Minoans, the Egyptians, the Aztecs, the Romans.... I'm not saying we're heading for a dark age, but I just can't see how the next few decades in the West will be like the past few decades. Cheap and abundant credit and energy created a lifestyle we think will continue even though the underlying factors have changed.

As Lord Byron once said: "History, with her volumes vast, hath but one page." That is, history repeats.

[Starving Steve]

Re: Germany plans for Peek oil

There is approximately 200 years of tar sands (heavy oil to up-grade) in Alberta. There is so much natural gas to be taken by fracking shale that North America is floating on natural gas. Europe may have similar quantities of nat gas. Then we have atomic power which is the ultimate cheap power source, and we have vast reserves of uranium, especially enriched uranium in atomic weapons that could (and should) be de-commissioned. Synthetic oil from coal has hardly even begun. Plus we have vast reserves of oil in the deep sea that can (and should) be drilled and pumped-out... So, mankind has hardly even begun to develop the Earth's energy reserves.

The world does not need oil from the Middle East. Better to let that region dwell in its religious wars, its stupidity and backwardness, its starvation, its floods, its droughts, its locusts, its disease, and its human misery.

There are plenty of energy resources for everybody on this planet, and we all can enjoy a much higher standard of living if we use our heads. A higher standard of living would empower mankind to lower its birth rate. That would further increase our standard of living.

If some bird habitat has to be damaged or moved in future, then so be it. There is plenty of habitat for birds and other living things on this planet, regardless of what mankind does.

[Mn_Mark]

Re: Germany plans for Peek oil

There are plenty of energy resources for everybody on this planet, and we all can enjoy a much higher standard of living if we use our heads.

I agree. And the best way to stimulate people to use their heads is a free market with very low taxation, minimal regulation, tightly targeted pollution regulations to protect the few true common resources like air and water, and non-corrupt enforcement of property rights. Let those who create great innovations accrue great fortunes and get out of the way. Stop using taxpayer money to try to centrally plan the economy, punishing some and rewarding others (like banksters and home builders). Let the businesses of those who don't produce anything much that others want or need fail, and leave the successful alone. Let charity return to its proper role as a voluntary donation rather than an "entitlement" to be extracted from others' wallets against their will.

Do that and you can forget about worrying about "peak oil". It will be nothing but a business opportunity quickly addressed by the most creative minds on the planet, in search of profit.

[GRG55]

Re: Germany plans for Peek oil

The point is valid, but GDP per barrel of oil as a measurement value is a very poor reference point.

After all, how much of these 1st world GDPs are due to incestuous FIRE loops aided and abetted through loans from the 2nd and 3rd world central banks?

Perhaps a better gauge would be value of physical goods produced alongside another value of non-tangible goods produced.

GDP as an absolute value is a too easily manipulated statistic I will admit, however, I think it's fine for relative comparisons between jurisdictions.

As for physical goods vs non-tangible...I don't see the need for the distincion. An economy should produce anything that a consumer is willing to buy at a price that generates a margin. My insurance broker comes to see me once every year. He uses fuel to get to my residence. He produces nothing tangible, but he saves me time and the trouble of having to go into the city centre [which I loathe]. I pay for that service indirectly in the insurance premiums I pay. What's the difference between that and the now defunct Fuller brush salesman that used to sell my mother all manner of useful and tangible household gadgets at the door?

[jk]

Re: Germany plans for Peek oil

i just bought my first smartphone, made by motorola. most of the value is from the design and software, not the materials. the most valuable materials, however, are a ti designed chip and the screen from i-don't-know-where. but, although the phone is from a u.s. based company, i have no idea where the design was done. the os is open source android which google produces and, as far as i can tell, gives away. i've installed an alternate home/launcher to replace motorola's. it's coded by a guy in uruguay. it was free but i decided to donate $2.99 for it. how do you capture all that in the numbers?

[gnk]

Re: Germany plans for Peek oil

There is approximately 200 years of tar sands (heavy oil to up-grade) in Alberta. There is so much natural gas to be taken by fracking shale that North America is floating on natural gas. Europe may have similar quantities of nat gas. Then we have atomic power which is the ultimate cheap power source, and we have vast reserves of uranium, especially enriched uranium in atomic weapons that could (and should) be de-commissioned. Synthetic oil from coal has hardly even begun. Plus we have vast reserves of oil in the deep sea that can (and should) be drilled and pumped-out... So, mankind has hardly even begun to develop the Earth's energy reserves.

The world does not need oil from the Middle East. Better to let that region dwell in its religious wars, its stupidity and backwardness, its starvation, its floods, its droughts, its locusts, its disease, and its human misery.

There are plenty of energy resources for everybody on this planet, and we all can enjoy a much higher standard of living if we use our heads. A higher standard of living would empower mankind to lower its birth rate. That would further increase our standard of living.

If some bird habitat has to be damaged or moved in future, then so be it. There is plenty of habitat for birds and other living things on this planet, regardless of what mankind does.

You're not addressing my main point. I'll rephrase:

How can a system continue to grow exponentially if the necessary inputs (energy) create diminishing outputs? Yes, there are other forms of energy, but they require an increasingly higher amount of energy to extract.

Think of it another way - the diminishing productivity of debt:


One can argue that the trend in the chart above also applies to the trend of energy extracted from energy used.

So think it thru... how can a monetary and financial system, an industrial economy, continue to grow (and it must grow or it contracts - there's no "equilibrium") if greater inputs are required to maintain a continued growth in outputs?

I believe that the modern (post?) industrial economy heavily relies on the "trinity" of money, credit, and energy. These three are really one. They represent eachother. And all three need to grow in order for our economy to grow. Of course, the opposite of growth is contraction, i.e. debt deflation, depression, etc...

[GRG55]

Re: Germany plans for Peek oil

You're not addressing my main point. I'll rephrase:

How can a system continue to grow exponentially if the necessary inputs (energy) create diminishing outputs? Yes, there are other forms of energy, but they require an increasingly higher amount of energy to extract...

To extrapolate that trend ad infinitum is a fallacy...it won't happen. And there won't be a diminishing output of energy in aggregate. To suggest either of these outcomes is to ignore human history. What is already happening is that cheap and abundant forms of energy are being converted into more valuable forms [sunlight into electricity, for example].

Think of it another way - the diminishing productivity of debt:


One can argue that the trend in the chart above also applies to the trend of energy extracted from energy used.

So think it thru... how can a monetary and financial system, an industrial economy, continue to grow (and it must grow or it contracts - there's no "equilibrium") if greater inputs are required to maintain a continued growth in outputs?

I believe that the modern (post?) industrial economy heavily relies on the "trinity" of money, credit, and energy. These three are really one. They represent eachother. And all three need to grow in order for our economy to grow. Of course, the opposite of growth is contraction, i.e. debt deflation, depression, etc...

The economy that will grow in the future won't look like the economy that we are in today, any more than the economy that was growing in, say, New England in 1750 looks anything like economy of New England in 2010. Albeit the transition looks likely to be disruptive for many, but then clinging to the past because of a fear of change or a fear of what the future might hold is also a long standing, well known human tendency

Your fundamental argument requires that one completely suspend all belief that humans can continue to progress and innovate. Once again I will argue that there is absolutely no evidence there is any limit to human ingenuity...and if by chance there is one, we are nowhere near reaching it any time soon.