I remember a time when Peak Oil was considered a crack pot theory, just a shade above JFK and UFO's.

Today's conspiracy nut is tommorrow's rational centrist.

Interesting link on the Saudi's damaging their fields.

If we have reached the peak-oil plateau, we had better be attending to the demand side. Better yet, find a way beyond fossil fuels. Create and massively fund at the federal level a development agency to do just that. No ham-handed Synfuel approach. Many congressional Democrats would go for this, I believe. Bring the Republicans on board, any way you can. Ladle pork to them, if necessary. This would be wasteful, initially, sure. But at least it would get them into the game. Throw a gob of putty at the wall and hope some will stick.

Peak Oil was considered crackpot?  I think the general idea of Hubert's theory has been widely accepted as legitimate by anyone with an interest in the subject for many years, it's the actual crackpots that took the idea and ran with it to imply that civilization would totally collapse within the near future a we "ran out" of oil that were (rightly) considered insane.  

Remember that Hubbert predicted the peak of US oil production. The theory was never crackpot, like ryanmala said.

I've seen countless interviews and debates over the years where the Peak Oil author (there's been a few) was derided and generally dismissed as a bit of a nut. The most recent was last month with Newsnight putting some chap up against Irwin Stelzer. The general trust of the debate was that the PK oil bloke was at best ill informed and at worst a bit unstable.

So, my knowledge of the theory is very much filtered through pop media, which makes me both uniquely Ignornat (see name badge) and more representative of the general public.

Reformer, actually, I think the Republicans would be really into that idea.  I'm thinking I read an article in National Review lately advocating exactly what you just did, something like put 0.05% of GDP into new energy research.  No pork necessary!  They want to become less dependant on OPEC even if they are optimistic about oil supply.

The U.S. Geological Survey published a striking poster several years ago which addresses the scenario of oil production on the brink of decline.  I placed a copy on the wall in the Government Docuements room in our library and observed a number of interested conversations triggered as a result.  The disclaimer is notable, and amusing:  "This paper is published with the approval of the Director of the U.S. Geological Survey, but the interpretations and opinions presented are the author's, not those of the U.S. Geological Survey, whose scientists have diverse opinions on this and most other subjects."

A PDF version of is available here:  pubs.usgs.gov/.../of00-320.pdf

Well worth a look.

JT...thanks for that link to the poster. Looking at the poster it appears the 2008 is turning into the peak of the rollover.

Liberal...we already have a research agency that does exactly what you're proposing. It's calle NREL in Golden Colorado. The National Renewable Energy Lab was created to do federally funded R&D into technologies that would eventually lead to less oil dependence and more independence and reliance upon renewables like solar, wind, geothermal, and hydro. But guess what! Every Republican president since Reagan has cut the funding for NREL to such a degree that they can barely retain research scientists let alone fund and research energy projects.

Perhaps if the shallowness and cynical nature of the Republican party towards renewables had not been allowed to shape energy policy for the last 30 years, we'd be in a better situation when it comes to rolling out market-ready technologies. But now we're going to play catch up to just the demand side and hope that simultaneously the market and governments are promoting and developing smarter and more efficient technologies and products that use less energy. Of course we start individually at home. Here are the stats from the USGBC website.

In the United States alone, buildings account for:

•    70% of electricity consumption,

•    39% of energy use,

•    39% of all carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions,

•    40% of raw materials use,

•    30% of waste output (136 million tons annually), and

•    12% of potable water consumption.

singlespeed, please clarify.  Are you saying that, to use the top item as an example, buildings account for 70% of the U.S.'s electricity consumption, or that buildings in the U.S. account for 70% of worldwide electricity consumption?  Your use of the phrase, "the United States alone" implies it is the latter, but that seems pretty high even for us.  Which is it?  Thanks.

Buildings account for 70% of the electricity consumption IN the U.S.

Yeah it is a big number but think about it. We spend 80-90% of our daily lives inside. Every office building, factory, daycare, grocery store, house, church is using electricity 24/7 at some level.

So a large percentage of the power produced in the U.S. is used by buildings. Newer buildings are more efficient than they used to be but it's the aging build stock that are under insulated, poorly ventilated and using HVAC equipment that is energy intensive and inefficient.

Tie that energy use to all of the other embodied energy that goes into building a house or office park and you begin to see how big a footprint our built environment has on the overall environment. Cars aren't necessarily the main cause. They're the easiest to pick on but rethinking and redesigning our built environment is a major factor.

I suspect if the U.S. cut back its use of gasoline by 10%, that would make an enormous difference and significantly stretch the time we have to develop viable alternates,

Most of the people who drive SUVs and pickup trucks in the city could surely trade same for an automobile that would use 10% less fuel, and do so without hardship.  I could swap my BMW 5 series for a Mini and have just as much fun on half the gas.

there's a lot we could do before we'd think we were making any big sacrifice.

Meanwhile, what really pisses me of, we got the big Heads Up on this in 1974.  But, we have not done a damn thing in 34 years.

I get why we haven't.  We're fat and happy.  but, how about the Japanese and others who have no petroleum of their own?  You'd think they'd be more worried.  Yet, not one nation on the planet has any notable initiatives going to develop truly useful alternate energy. And please don't tell me about windmills, they ain't it.

Wait, the French are the notable exception.  They get more than 75% of their electric power from nukes and are a net exporter of electricity.

Why are we not doing that?  What an enormous difference that would be making today.

The answer is stupidity like the China Syndrome, Jane Fonda, and the rest of the Luddite Left.

by the way, we can buy time with interim fossil technologies.  Coal could be made clean, and the means of extraction could be made less damaging.

Yes, it will be expensive.  But, a lot cheaper than just sitting until we run dry.

Not to mention that burning petroleum will some day be looked at like burning hardwood.  It will be needed for lubrication, medicine, plastics, chemicals, etc.

Inflation? Anyone? Oh thats right Keynes magically abolished inflation and we're not allowed to talk about it ever again.

Chan....

The reason nuclear power hasn't taken off in the States has nothing to do with Jane Fonda, the China Syndrome or luddites of the Left. It has to do with the fact that it's expensive to do. Unless you want to nationalize it, which is what France did, we'd still have to build a huge amount of nuclear facilities to even cover current energy demand let alone the projected doubling by 2030.

Under the Winners and Loser E&E Post I listed many reasons why nuclear doesn't and won't work in the States and it has nothing to do with being scared of nuclear.

My question is to you as a Right leaning individual (I assume because of the Lefty Luddite snark) is what exactly do you have against renewable like wind, solar, and geothermal? I mean if we can build 20 plants for the same cost as a nuclear facility it would be logical for "pro-market" folks to be all over that since we're getting more bang for our buck. Or is it this feeling you have that if you embraced renewables that your friends would call you a tree-hugging, latte sipping, peacenik?

I'd consider the fact that if we don't have to rely on other nations for our energy sources including the high grade uranium needed for nuclear reactors by investing in domestic renewable sources of energy while slowly weaning ourselves off of oil and coal for energy production is perhaps the best path.

But I get this sense that the Right's resistance to renewables has less to do with reality and more to do with just being contrary.

Start drilling. Open up ANWR and drill on the coasts. And get moving on solar, wind, everything else.