Hirsch on CNBC: Peak oil problem "as massive as one can possibly imagine"

[depakid]

Robert Hirsch, author of Peaking of World Oil Production: Impacts, Mitigation, and Risk Management (a.k.a. http://www.acus.org/docs/051007-Hirsch_World_Oil_Production.pdf">the Hirsch Report), appeared on CNBC this morning.

He said flat out that new technologies and new drilling won't solve the peak oil problem, and that we should expect $12-15/gallon gasoline followed by rationing.

HOST: ...Dr. Hirsch is a senior energy advisor at Management Information Services and Dr. Hirsch, thank you for joining us this morning.

HIRSCH: My pleasure.

HOST: You know, we've been talking all morning long about energy prices. Watching crude oil prices touch above $127 for the first time overnight leads a lot of people to start wondering about peak oil and the peak oil theory. You've been writing about peak oil for some time, so did you see this coming?

HIRSCH: Yes we did. Not quite the way it's turned out, but this is not a surprise.

HOST: You say, "not quite the way it's turned out". What's happened that's different from what you were predicting?

HIRSCH: Well, I wasn't particularly predicting. I'm a student of this and have focused on what we do about the problem after it really hits. Peak oil--the idea is that it would hit a sharp peak and then production in the world would hit a sharp peak then drop off. And what's happened is that we hit plateau in world oil production, and that plateau has been ongoing since about the middle of 2004.

HOST: Dr. Hirsch, there are a lot of people when we talk about peak oil who say there are going to be technologies that are always developed. There will be new ways to get oil, whether it's from coal, whether it's from the oil shales, and they say that means we will never actually hit peak oil. What do you say to those people?

HIRSCH: They're incorrect, and the reason that they're incorrect is that they don't understand the magnitude of the problem and how long it's going to take to bring substitute liquid fuels on and to introduce energy efficiency on a massive scale. That's something that we analyzed and it takes decades. And the reason, simply, is that the magnitude of the problem is enormous.

More of the transcript and the video: http://www.theoildrum.com/node/4019

Also a follow up with T. Boone Pickens.

[UndertheOcean]

1. Thank you

[speedoo]

2. K&R, and bookmarked.

[profgoose]

3. k/r...and of course bookmarked...

...seeing as how it's from our site. :)

thanks much all. spread it far, spread it wide...

[ramapo]

4. Amazing how everybody is all surprised by this

I guess a thirty-year nap will cause a shock to the senses when you finally wake up.

[profgoose]

5. ha...

...you ain't seen nothing yet. Just wait.

Sure, oil may even come back down price-wise...but it's so far beyond what (so, so many...) people can fathom.

Ask Gliderguider... :)

[Delphinus]

30. Not surprised -

have been doing what I can to "prepare" - but it certainly knocks the breath out of me to see my gas prices at $3.99 per gallon. :(

[tridim]

6. Grow hemp for victory. nt

[endarkenment]

7. Planet stupid: 35 years of head-in-sand idiocy

We have known since the early 70's right where we were headed and, other than a brief interlude of conservation in the mid-to-late 70's we have resolutely headed in exactly the wrong direction. We are fucked, but what is truly maddening is that lots of really bright and powerful people knew quite well just how fucked we were going to be and decided to let it all happen. They got together every year in Davos and other hot spots for the planetary elite, to discuss what? How they would ride out the storm? Where the safe havens would be?

[depakid]

9. Cornucopians always like to go back and cite Limits to Growth in their attempts to rationalize

that we live in what Herman Daly might call a relatively "empty world "



http://www.feasta.org/documents/feastareview/daly.htm

Trouble is, that the only thing Meadows, et al. got wrong (even back then- without mentioning the 30 year update- which is must reading for systems thinkers) was the timing.

[profgoose]

11. @depakid--did you see Daly's "Steady-State Economy" piece over at TOD?

http://www.theoildrum.com/node/3941

A failed growth economy and a steady-state economy are not the same thing; they are the very different alternatives we face. The Earth as a whole is approximately a steady state. Neither the surface nor the mass of the earth is growing or shrinking; the inflow of radiant energy to the Earth is equal to the outflow; and material imports from space are roughly equal to exports (both negligible). None of this means that the earth is static—a great deal of qualitative change can happen inside a steady state, and certainly has happened on Earth. The most important change in recent times has been the enormous growth of one subsystem of the Earth, namely the economy, relative to the total system, the ecosphere. This huge shift from an “empty” to a “full” world is truly “something new under the sun” as historian J. R. McNeil calls it in his book of that title. The closer the economy approaches the scale of the whole Earth the more it will have to conform to the physical behavior mode of the Earth. That behavior mode is a steady state—a system that permits qualitative development but not aggregate quantitative growth. Growth is more of the same stuff; development is the same amount of better stuff (or at least different stuff). The remaining natural world no longer is able to provide the sources and sinks for the metabolic throughput necessary to sustain the existing oversized economy—much less a growing one.

[depakid]

13. I did indeed

and it's interesting to note that while ecological economics is a seemingly new "transdiscipline," many of the foundational concepts go back many years. JS Mill wrote about them prior to the "marginalist revolution," and Quesnay and the Physiocrats discussed them prior to the Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations.

One of the key points that Daly makes time and again is that in order to understand "how things work," we have to change our pre-analytic vision:

No system can grow- and growth is what debt based economies are predicated on, without also increasing its energy inputs OR drastically improving energy efficiency.

Neoclassical economists somehow think that the "circular flow" of the macroeconomy is divorced from natural laws like thermodynamics and functions as some sort of perpetual motion machine.

The reality is that that the macroeconomy doesn't exist in isolation:



It's integrated and wholly reliant on larger systems:



Once one understands the overriding paradigm, it's much easier to plug the smaller pieces (like the articles here and on the oil drum) into a longer term, reality based perspective.

[kristopher]

8. Duh...

"...bring substitute liquid fuels on and to introduce energy efficiency on a massive scale..."

Clever fellow to avoid mentioning the substitution that has proved to be viable - battery electric. I predict that by 2018 1/2 of the US personal transportation fleet will have transitioned to battery electric, and every country in the world with an integrated grid will be on track for a similar transition.

Wonder what that will do to his prognostications?

[GliderGuider]

10. And what happens if the troubles bite before then?

What happens if we get $800/bbl oil in 2012?

Successful substitution depends on on three factors: technology, capital and time scale. We've got the technology. I'm not so sure about the other two.

[kristopher]

12. Despite your fearmongering there is no evidence that is in the cards.

Nothing aside from your laughably childish attempts to predict the future with a ruler.

[GliderGuider]

25. The price of crude oil is up over 25% in 4 months.

[rustydad]

14. You may be right

But I doubt it. It will take a well functioning society with an up and running economy to replace 50% existing fleet of ICE vehicles with electrics. And it will take a huge expenditure in electrical generation and distribution systems. Ever see a picture of LA at night, the car headlights on the freeways and boulevards? Imagine half of them running on batteries and being plugged in at the same time every night. Ain't gonna happen. We are entering a terminal depression and just getting enough food will be a formidable task individually. Bob

[kristopher]

15. Actually all it takes is rising energy prices

Actually all it takes is rising energy prices to motivate people seeking cheaper transportation to compromise on what they "must have" in a car.

We are already seeing it in a big way. I'd predict higher numbers much sooner if the factories to produce the batteries were already up and running.

[depakid]

17. Still unable to grasp scale, scope and limitations...

As Queensland Sustainability Minister Andrew McNamara stated on the 17 May:

"I think people are going to be in for a shock when they find it's too expensive to drive their cars to work and then, when they get down to the station, they find the train is full and they can't get on board."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=115&topic_id=148997e

Unfortunately, even in parts of America where public transport is an option, there isn't enough capacity (nor is there sufficient lead time to build enough capacity) capacity to absorb the sorts of numbers one would reasonably anticipate as petrol become unaffordable. Moreover, if you've ever been involved in a rollout of a new product (much less a whole host of new products and infrastructure) you'll recognize what a complicated process ramping up production is.

Interesting discussion of that with respect to something as "simple" as making currency "friendly" to the blind here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=3316967&mesg_id=3317687

[kristopher]

18. And you are still unable to document your false assertions

Leaving you reduced to substantiations via opinions of others that are operating on out of date "common knowledge".

All one has to do to know your predictions are false is to look at the turnover rate of automobiles and manufacturing capacity in the automobile industry. Batteries are the only real bottleneck.

[depakid]

19. No sense in playing the counterfactual game with cornucopians

because they play by different rules than those of us in the reality based community: AKA magical thinking.

Though I will ask this: practically speaking how long do you think it would take to replace half the personal transportation fleet and build the required infrastructure (even assuming MASSIVE funding and subsidization were available to defray costs off of the "little guys" who are already on slender margins)?

And how would your proposal apply to commercial trucking (if at all)?

[kristopher]

22. Heavy industry is a different issue.

That, eventually, is where biofuels come in.

As to your other questions, I gave you the answer already. Look at the turnover time in the US personal transportation fleet. There is very little new infrastructure required since the grid is already in place and the vehicles can be tailored to the basic service now offered. Upgrading parking lots is also a relatively small infrastructure investment.

You repeatedly label the obvious as a fantasy so you obviously are basing that on specific knowledge about why it is impossible - otherwise you are just full of &%it, right? So as I've said several times now, tell me SPECIFICALLY why it can't be done and I'll tell you why you're wrong.

[depakid]

28. Fantasy is just that

And many of us have heard these star trek fantasies all of our (sometimes long) adult lives.

You beg to differ with the status quo and the consequences that flow therefrom.

Seems to me, the burden (the opportunity?) lies with you to be more than a reductionalist, and show us all a quick outline about how to save the car culture- with recognition of the scope and scale of what that would take.

[kristopher]

23. That is common mistake that doesn't take into account the differences in technologies

This is a discussion that we've had many times here.
We don't need to "replace the amount of fuel burned in this country".

All we need to do is replace the amount of power that is used to propel the vehicles of this nation down the road. There is a huge difference.
Internal combustion engine: 12% efficient.
Battery electric drive: 90%+ efficient.

It matters.

We consume 40,000,000,000,000,000 (40 quadrillion) BTUs per year of refined petroleum.

Our personal transportation infrastructure is about 75% of that.

How many quads to we have to add to the grid if we shift our personal transportation to battery electric drive?

You can read the full exchange here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=148825&mesg_id=149026

It's short.

[robertpaulsen]

16. $12 to $15 a gallon, no doubt. The question isn't if, but when.

I don't think Hirsch addressed the timing in this interview. I'm pretty sure I've read that he believes we will hit peak sometime before 2015. Which pretty much backs up his point in the interview that we're running out of time.

This article really highlights the immediacy of the crises we face:

The Progressive Crises: Global Warming and Peak Oil

Every Progressive should recognize and incorporate, deep in their soul, the plain fact: Peak and Global Warming are the most serious threats to Progressive ideals, concepts, policies, and aspirations through the 21st century ... AND today.

These are not just let's wait until tomorrow issues, that should be put in the back of the line to deal with after other issues, we must address them with urgency today if we hope for a progressive world tomorrow.


Without better energy policies starting now, the future could be bleak economically for decades to come with the impending strike of Peak Oil. Amid recessions and depressions, what happens to mental health programs? What happens to music in the classrooms? Training programs for economically disadvantaged among us? Will there be funding for these and other progressive causes? I doubt it. Don't you?

With ever-increasing environmental stresses, global refugee and food crises, multiple-Katrina-like challenges and choices over whether to protect or abandon America's coastal infrastructure, will Head Start funding be secure? Will Americans focus on expanding GLBT rights? Will there these and other progressive concerns be the top of the agenda?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/a-siegel/the-progressive-crises-gl_b_102392.html

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

21. I fear that global war will be on the agenda

unless all the governments of the world get their best scientists together in an international Manhattan project-of-projects to come up with something fast. One thing that war will accomplish is that it will greatly decrease the world population, which is one of the unmentionable contributors to the problem of decreasing resources. But war, famine, and disease that accompany a world economy in collapse may leave very few survivors. I fear that the coming wars (if they come) will be very, very ugly.

[bananas]

31. In 2006, Consumer Reports estimated gas would rise to $6/gal over 5 years

This was the infamous article which made a simple math error on their Prius calculations.
I don't know what estimates they're using now.

"Know, too, that our latest comparison is based on a mathematical model that assumes that the price of regular gasoline will gradually rise over the next five years to almost $6 a gallon and average $3.66 a gallon for the entire period--a scenario that favors hybrids. This assumption, based on recent gas-price trends, including the fast run-up last spring and the collapse this fall as summer gasoline demand wanes, sees the average cost per gallon as being greater than that used in the April 2006 analysis. This assumption is also significantly higher than the current long-term government forecast, which predicts that average all-grade prices will decline through 2014. In the government's worst-case scenario, the gasoline cost will rise to only $2.45 a gallon by 2011, the five-year end point of our study."
http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/cars/new-cars/resource-center/fuel-economy/high-cost-of-hybrid-vehicles-406/overview/index.htm

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

20. At $15/gallon it would cost about $15,000 a year in gas to drive a Cadillac Escalade

Based on putting 12,000 miles a year on the car. If gas goes that high, you won't be able to give away the giant dinosaur called the SUV.

[NickB79]

24. Look on the bright side

Rip the seats out of that beast, put in some potting flats, and you have a greenhouse!

[murray hill farm]

26. or a chicken coop!

I think an old car, painted up for fun would make an excellent coop.

[Dover]

27. AND they've known this was coming for years, and even bought up green companies

so it's not like they've been working on creating the transition to efficiency or we wouldn't be in this pickle.

What sacrifices are they willing to make for this MAJOR oversight?

[Javaman]

29. hopefully rationing will come before 12 buck gas.

I know I know, but I can dream can't I?