Peak Oil

I've just recently come across some videos online that talk about peak oil theory. They are from Chris Martenson and are the following:

Part 1: Peak Oil

Part 2: Energy Budgeting

Part 3: Energy & Economy

I was just wondering what everyones opinion on peak oil theory is and essentially whether or not you find the theory valid.

I understand that there are energy alternatives, and economics will essentially tell us when to switch to which form (assuming no government intervention). But what I am wondering is if it could not be reasonable to currently be living in a world where we use say 1,000 joules of energy per person per day, and then due to slowing oil production be forced to live in a world of say only 800 joules of energy per person per day.

This would mainly arise from the fact that oil yields a much higher energy surplus then other energy alternatives. Since it was just "sitting under the ground" there once existed a time where one barrel's worth of energy was required to tap an oilfield which would then release 100 barrels of oil...therefore a 99 barrel surplus was created.

I'm not sure if I'm explaining this well but I am essentially trying to think about things more from an energy perspective then say economics as I feel economics just tells us how we allocate these resources, while the energy side of things essentially says we are just running out of these non-renewable resources.

I think that there are lots of smart people. If they are free they will find good solutions.

I did listen to all of Martenson's crash course. It was well done, I wasn't too convinced about the peak oil stuff though.

Also $40/barrel ftw.

Thanks for the response Nomad. I do agree there are lots of smart people out there, thankfully, but I also feel they do not have much power in our current system and have a harder time being heard. Politics is certainly running the show right now.

I also agree that IF they are free they will find good solutions, but essentially what I'm proposing is that we are not so free right now and if we were to hit peak oil with our current level of government intervention we would not be able to transition very smoothly at all to this lower level of energy surplus.

Don't get me wrong, I don't think the world would come to an end or anything, I'm convinced we as a whole species are incredibly intelligent and will definitely get by....what I am not so sure of is how many wouldn't be able to make it in such an environment with less energy surplus and how tough the changes would be with our current capital allocated in the way it is.

I feel that government involvement makes things much more inefficient and is of course not ideal, however it is able to survive in a world of expanding energy surplus. However, I feel that nation states may begin to falter in an environment where the energy surplus is declining because in such an environment efficient allocation of resources would be more paramount.

I also enjoyed Martenson's crash course as he clearly put alot of time into putting it together and it appeared atleast to me to be rather logical and not emotional (I'm a logic knit). I had not really been exposed to the Peak Oil theory before and so that is sort of what I'm trying to find more about now. I am not convinced of it YET simply because I haven't discussed it enough with others, or done enough research on my own, but I certainly wouldn't rule it out as a flawed theory at this point. I especially enjoyed him pointing out that questioning the existence of peak oil is incorrect as there will inevitably be a peak in production guaranteed simply because we live in a world of scarce resources.

Lastly regarding $40 / barrel I agree is damn low and in my opinion I wouldn't expect it to stay at these levels in the medium term. I also don't fully understand the oil market due to it's involvement with governments, OPEC, hedge fund involvement, current liquidations etc. I am sort of trying to approach this peak oil topic more from a science/energy direction.

Haven't watched Martenson (yet), but here are some of my thoughts:

1. We're good for at least another hundred years right?

2. What about nuclear?

3. I think 2 and 3 combined make me not worry about this really. I mean, I don't really have the energy to worry about THIS too (no pun intended). Collapse of the dollar, meteor strike, cancer, false flag fascism, etc. So I'm going to go ahead and keep focusing on liberty and assume the rest will be alright.


Reasonable?

I can't remember where I just read this, but at current levels of use we will run out of uranium for reactors in 200 years. I imagine levels will increase though I can't guess how much.

Nielsio wrote:
1. We're good for at least another hundred years right?

I don't think so with oil...certainly not until the peak where we will begin to see a decrease in production. I believe estimates range from saying we have hit peak oil already to we will hit peak oil in about 30 years. The problem to society being put forth by the peak oil theory isn't so much we will run out as it is that we will begin having the energy decline and not have an alternative that could replace this energy surplus.

Nielsio wrote:
2. What about nuclear?

Yeah, I'm not up on my nuclear that much so have a hard time factoring it in. In the video it is sort of quickly dismissed as saying that America alone would require 7 times as many nuclear plants as those currently in operation.

I'm also not exactly sure what the return on energy is for a nuclear power plant. Like when factoring in how much energy is required to build and construct the plant relative to it's output.

I'm just guessing that building a large scale power plant would take atleast 5 years maybe longer, so if we had hypothetically hit peak oil already and are beginning a period of less energy surplus then nuclear as an option wouldn't be up and running in time to offset the drop of energy surplus from declining oil production. Not to mention that these plants being constructed would require lots of energy in the construction phase in an environment that would be declining in energy surplus. And lastly in an environment with incredible levels of government intervention and a feverish environmental movement.

Also it should be mentioned that nuclear energy as our primary energy source, even if could get up and running very quickly and did indeed offer a comparable energy surplus to oil, would not easily transition or fit into our current capital structure in agriculture and transportation. We currently have everything "setup" off of a high energy density liquid fuel source. This transition would not only take lots of energy itself to change, albeit in an energy declining environment, but would also take time.

Nielsio wrote:
3. I think 2 and 3 combined make me not worry about this really. I mean, I don't really have the energy to worry about THIS too (no pun intended). Collapse of the dollar, meteor strike, cancer, false flag fascism, etc. So I'm going to go ahead and keep focusing on liberty and assume the rest will be alright.

Yeah, I know what you mean. There's so much else going on right now so this one has just been added to my list for the time being. I'm really just looking after myself and trying to not only protect my wealth but increase it so as to be better prepared for potentially tougher times ahead.

Nielsio wrote:
Reasonable?

I think so...I'm not nearly knowledgeable enough on this topic to really come to solid conclusions so was just throwing it out there to see if any others had thought much about this before.

What do people know about hemp energy? I thought I heard Ron Paul say something about it being the cleanest and most renewable way to fuel cars.