Talk:Hubbert peak theory/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions about Hubbert peak theory. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Someone Else's General Comment

I just did some grammatical and punctuation clean-up, but you may find my opinion useful since I knew very little about the Hubbert theory -- I just came here looking for more information about it after reading Exit Mundi's fun yet frightening bit on it.

The good thing about a heavy grammatical and punctuation clean-up is that it causes you to read very carefully the entry's structure and content. I don't mean to offend anybody by what I'm about to say, but after such examiantion, I would like to respectively suggest that this article may need a bit more work than I'm willing to invest, with respect to a few points.

First, someone who knows this subject well needs to go through and start consolidating text together, removing duplication. There is a lot of areas where stuff is talked about multiple times. I am relatively certain hydrogen is introduced as an alternative several times within the article, for example. And the "The Theory" subsection seems to repeat a lot of the information contained in the first couple of paragraphs.

Second, I'm concerned that the article overreaches. Although the subjects it delves into are extremely fascinating, this strikes me a huge essay that does not solely deal with the Hubbert peak, but goes on to talk about the potential energy crisis, ways to solve the potential energy crisis, ways to live in a crisis-stricken world, and the accompanying social implications. I would suggest that the large scope of the article means either that it needs to be split up into different entries (perhaps with a parent 'root' entry that joins them together), or that it needs to be renamed.

Finally, I'm concerned either that the article itself delves into POV, or that, at the very least, it sometimes falls victim to POV language. A good example is, "Thermal depolymerization and biodiesel are interesting, since they provide energy in a form that can be easily be stored and used as transportation fuel."

So, anyway, that's an outsider's perspective, coming fresh to the article. Hope it's useful to some of you.

WCityMike 02:31, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)

Agreed, the article ballooned in size relatively recently when the "alternatives to oil" section was added, probably also when the POV phrase crept in too, I will fix that. There is a proposal on the table to move or vastly reduce the alternatives to oil section into a new article or appropriate pre-existing one. zen master 02:38, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Another layman's comment:-

Would be interesting to try to summarise opinion within the energy production industry (oil, coal, nuclear, sustainable) and in academia as to whether

- the Hubbert peak is a myth and production can continue to increase ad infinitum

- the peak will happen but not until 2050/2075 or whenever

- it will happen soon (2010/2020 etc)

follow this with a discussion of the economic and political implications of each of these possible outcomes (for instance, continuing increased oil production might cause other problems (global warming): a peak in 50 years time might come late enough that other energy sources are online (fusion): a peak in the next few years might cause problems X, Y and Z. The "alternatives" section belongs in its own article.

Again as a non-expert, claims that oil prices would rise gently and steadily following the peak as supply of other energy sources rises to meet demand seem off the mark when you look at the volatilty of oil prices, which react strongly to short term shortages or oversupply.

(opinion follows)

Energy is the currency of civilisation. Until 200 years ago we were forced to live within our income (that is, energy from the sun, sustainable wood supplies, water power, wind power). Then we discovered a vast wealth of stored capital (coal and oil) and have been spending it since as if it were income. We either need to start living within our means - or rapidly discover another store of energy capital or a new source of income. Political and industrial leaders (let alone the public) have not IMO yet recognised this.

Exile 13:19, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

General Comment

IMHO this article has become rather bloated and has somewhat strayed from the main subject of the article to cover the much broader topic of global energy options going forward. There's some great stuff here but the article is too dense and detailed in places. I think serious consideration has to be given to referencing other articles and moving some of the content from this page to new or existing articles. Do others agreee? Nick Fraser 07:42, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

See split proposal way below. zen master 08:27, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Until somebody comes up with a good split plan, one article is ok. There are several tangents that could be moved to other articles however. See discussion under the "rm 'Other'" heading for one example. Another is the section on hydrogen which doesn't do much for this article. This information really should be in places like Hydrogen fuel, Hydrogen car and Hydrogen Economy. This would help keep the article on topic and allow readers to pursue information they find most relevant.Amadeust 17:41, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

How about the article Energy development as mentioned below that chronicles humanity's development of evolving energy exploitation regimes and culimnates with current status and trends? Tom - Talk 22:14, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)

Capital intensive

Zen Master,

Renewable energy is more capital intensive. That's why it hasn't been built out yet.

The largest 3.4 MW GE wind turbines are currently just over $1/rated watt installed on easy land. Natural gas fired turbines are about $0.22/watt, installed. The wind turbine will deliver an average of 25 - 40% of it's rated power, and will require some kind of load balancing. If the load balancing is pumped storage (reversible turbines at the bottom of a dam), figure another $0.30/delivered watt, for a total of somewhere around $3.50 per delivered watt. That's a capital cost more than 10x the cost of the gas-fired turbine.

Does $0.22/watt also take into account the costs of exploration & exploitation of gas reserves? Jonathan 8 Nov 2004

The cost of exploration and exploitation (usually called extraction) is contained in the cost of the gas, built into the marginal cost of operating the gas turbine. And as I point out in the next paragraph, the marginal cost of a wind plant is already lower than a gas turbine. (Of course, so is hydro and coal, which is why gas is used as a peaking resource.)

The marginal cost of operating the wind plant is already much less than the gas turbine, because the gas turbine burns natural gas. At some point, gas prices will be predictably high enough that the lower marginal cost will matter. But right now, it's close, and the gas turbine is the safer investment (if you are just thinking about money).

One of the reasons windmills are more capital intensive is their low duty cycle. Another is that wind is a much more diffuse energy source (J/m^3) than methane, so you need way more physical stuff to interact with, extract, and collect that energy.

I agree, though, that wind seems to be where its going right now. There is an interesting game of chicken going on. As fuel prices rise, a wind power build out rises in cost as well. Build the wind plants too early and you lose money on the underperforming plant, until energy prices pick up, which takes more time because the wind plant pushes out the Hubbert Peak. Build the wind plant too late and you spend avoidable money on embodied energy.

The U.S. "wasted" the investment in the Hoover and Grand Coulee dams in the 1930s. When they came on line there was little need for all that power. But it's really nice to have a domestic asset like that in your pocket when a war comes -- power from the Grand Coulee smelted 90% of the aluminum flying combat over Germany during WWII.

The "investment" was more in the economy via Keynesianism rather than in building the dams themselves. With respect to short term economic effect it didn't really matter if the workers dug holes and filled them in again. The point was that it was a way for the government to fill the unemployment gap and distribute income to people who were going to spend it and therefore spur the economy. Today, Military Keynesianism is practiced instead. This has the long term effect of granting the US access to foreign energy resources through the direct deployment of force.

I think you are sort of right. Military spending is being used, to some extent, to inject a stimulus into the U.S. economy. I suspect that dams are a better investment that tanks and guns, because during periods of peace you actually get to use them, and they increase productivity in other parts of the economy. Military spending does that too (I don't have to hire someone to watch over my house when I go to work each day), but I think dams and roads are more effective, on a marginal basis from our current baseline. Right now I think windmills might be pretty effective. Of course, I also think we've got to chase down a bunch of scary enriched uranium, but instead we're trying to force democracy down the throats of people terrified of tribal warfare with modern weapons.

On a different topic, does anyone know who placed the Fischer-Tropsch information on this page? I am interested in similar processed and would like to learn of more sources on this topic. Thanks Amadeust 22:11, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It was I that added the Fischer-Tropsch comment to the page (I was new to the Wiki ways). I have done a reasonable amount of internet searching on the topic and have a collection of PDFs from various places. It's a personal interest of mine, since I think it will probably have a significant impact on the fossil fuel industry in the nearish future. Jonathan 17:11, 4 Dec 2004 (AEDT)

A $100B/year wind plant build out would be a really cool jobs program in the U.S., but it would leave the Dakotas looking pretty ugly. It would cost less than the Iraq war and employ 1M Americans, though. Five years of that kind of investment and we'd see real changes in our balance of trade.

Thanks for the info. But I believe your analysis is missing the additional "cost" of greater pollution from fossil fuels compared with renewable energy? This is even more a factor when discussing the expected exponential rise of non conventional oil production which has an even larger environmental impact. Also, the "cost" you mention does not point out the finite nature of fossil fuel reserves, whereas renewable energy only suffers from a finite energy flow. On a short term basis looking at things from just an investors' perspective renewable energy is more capital intesive yes, but are you arguing that the hubbert peak page should only describe the short term perspective? Long term renewable energy infrastrucutre is a good investment, what is the value of oil production infrastructure after we start to run out of oil? Zen Master 18:14, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The environmental "cost" of burning fossil fuels isn't known, and is external to the people making investment decisions. My sense is that the national security costs of fossil fuels are larger than the environmental costs, and are also more easily estimated.

30-year treasuries are yielding 5.375%. That means that the state of a powerplant 30 years from now is just 21% of its present value. Basically, the business guys can't see past the end of the Hubbert Peak because it's too far away.

The business community is in denial or is ignorant about resource depletion. If, as some Peak Oil proponents predict, we are at the peak (or on the plateau), then the significant business risk associated with divergent fossil fuel supply-demand dynamics should leave an investor a wee bit concerned. However, no matter how 'efficient' the market economy is, it certainly isn't pro-active. It achieves its equilibrium after some wild swings to the extremes. I cannot bring to mind any instance where the market economy is pro-active about a looming structural change. A market economy would most certainly have not built anything like the Hoover or Grand Coulee dams. Jonathan 9 Nov 2004

Oil companies will profit from resource depletion. As the commodity gets more rare, the price skyrockets and their tax on the flow does too.

And as you say, the market is not going to engineer a soft transition. Soft transitions are an extremely hard way to make money. Individual investors (or at least, the winners) benefit from wild gyrations in the economy. And the winners tend to be the ones who write the rules.

The crucial point is that maximal return on equity is often not in the interests of the vast majority of people, who cannot practically lower their market exposure. Basically, we can't all switch from cars to bikes because our homes, businesses, and commute patterns aren't set up to handle that.

So the role of government is to engineer the soft transition. That's only going to happen when the governed believe it is a priority. It happened in France: in the 1970s, they realized they had no domestic oil production and total dependency on foreign oil and gas left them wide open to the vagaries of the outside world. They converted their entire electrical generation system to nuclear (base load) and hydroelectric (peaking) over the course of twenty years. Bam. Done. They actually overbuilt slightly, and export a fairly large amount of electricity these days, which is a small hedge against oil and gas in other sectors. But the next step for them is harder: replacing the oil burned in cars. Once again, the easiest way is to get people out of cars and into technology that already works that uses electricity: trains. What do we see in France? Lots of trains, trams, and high gas taxes. Many other countries in Europe are heading down the same path.

Meanwhile the U.S. spends billions on "smart coal". The basic problem is that graphite has a higher melting point than every metal, and so gas and liquid phase chemistry is not going to reform it into anything else, and solid phase chemistry isn't going to use recoverable catalysts to do anything useful with it. Maybe Yucca Mountain is the first little step to our transition.

I was working on putting the French example into the article, but Zen Master deleted it. Hmph.

Iain McClatchie 17:42, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You keep talking about the cost from an investor's viewpoint as if there is another viewpoint. So long as the government expects private industry to provide power, there isn't. If governments want private industry to factor in externalized costs like national security or environmental damage, governments have to make those things part of the cost structure. That's how things work. The U.S. government is justly afraid to raise gas taxes because they worry about sharp economic dislocations. These are tough problems.

Well, Governments are the ones that ultimately bear the cost of pollution so wouldn't it make sense for them to factor that into any energy equation? Isn't the point and/or implications of Hubbert Peak theory to be thinking longer and differently than an investor does? Certainly the consumer's view is another valid viewpoint since they are the one really paying? Is it possible renewable energy actually makes sense but not to an investor or oil company because there are little if any profits to be had? Do investors potentially underestimate what a consumer wants environmental protection wise? Just because the environmental "cost" is unknown with precision does not mean it should be completely discounted as if it were 0.

Governments don't pay for anything. Taxpayers do. One way or another, we or our children will pay the externalized costs of everything we do.

The energy price spike predicted by the Hubbert Peak theory is a business opportunity. To make money off that opportunity, the price spike has to happen, shifting money from those who didn't prepare for the spike to those who did. But this spike and money shift are not in the interests of most people. The job of the government is to intervene in cases like this where market forces do not act in the interest of most people. I think the way to do the intervention is to price some of the externalized cost of fossil fuels into their consumption, and I have ideas about how to do that, blah blah blah.

But we're talking about public policy, and this Wikipedia article should be about facts. What makes this article poor right now is that it has far too much opinion and not enough fact. The article should present the basic theory, present the facts leading to particular predictions, report predictions made by reputable people (and who made which predictions), and that's it. Talk about the consequences of declining energy consumption per capita is just talk, not facts. Talk about our ideas for public policy is just talk. It's all got to be excised from this article.

The way I think about Wikipedia articles is this: Imagine a newspaper reporter who knows nothing and is assigned to write a story about Peak Oil. He or she should be able to find this article in Wikipedia, read it, and have a good overall idea of what the story is and good leads to learn more about the issue. Whining about big bad business has no place here. Facts about how different countries are intervening in their own markets to attempt to buffer their economies from the Peak is what should be here. Iain McClatchie 00:59, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Tax payers then should have more influence on the Government than oil companies? As pointed out in the article the problem historically has been the mistake of economists seeing everything in terms of prices and money. Economics and energy production does not violate the First law of thermodynamics. Energy is unlike any other commodity. If oil extraction and production ever require more energy than is contained in what is extracted then we suffer from a net energy loss, this is true regardless of the price of oil. This point could be reached with billions of barrels of oil or equivalents still in the ground. Also, markets require a steadily expanding economy to be successful, not easy to do in an environment of dwindling oil supply.

You seem to be saying wikipedia articles should never deal with the future? As long as all reasonable or possible future scenarios for a given situation are presented what is wrong with that?

As to your reporter analogy, neutral point of view, which is the mantra of wikipedia, does not mean absence of POV, it means a balance of point of view I believe. If you are serious about this complaint we can refer to wikipedia's neutral point of view guidlines, I haven't read them fully. The key for wikipedia is encyclopedic not journalistic as I understand it.

Please point out places in the actual Hubbert Peak article where there is "whining about big business"? I reserve my opinion for talk pages where it is fair game I believe. All the opinion in the article you seem to be referring to is in the "effects" or related sections, though it's not really opinion to describe the different possible scenarios were we to run out of oil. Are you saying wikipedia should have no article or content that ever describes anything having to do with "fuel shortages"? It may be ok to move the effects and running out of oil scenario sections to a new article titled something to the effect of "here are some possible scenarios if we run out of oil". However, the theory that is the accurate model for predicting the rate and date of future oil depletion seems like as good a place to put such info as anywhere else, why decouple cause and effect so needlessly? If you believe the article is in any way too "doomsday" in nature feel free to add your own adjectives and/or expand the "market solution" section or otherwise clean up the page, I myself have removed doomsday nomenclature. Zen Master 04:10, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

What do you mean about the national security costs of fossil fuels exactly? I honestly believe all economic considerations (including oil) should be completely decoupled from US foreign (military) policy, if we are in Iraq to spread freedom we should only do that, any oil we get from Iraq should come after the natural process of spreading freedom. We've put the cart before the horse, which is why it isn't working.

Zen Master 20:40, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I believe that significant dip in the worldwide oil supply (say, -10%) would cause large-scale unemployment in the U.S. I think that all recent administrations have acted as if they felt the same way. We are willing to go to war to protect our energy supplies, and by extension the industrial base that energy feeds which keeps us the world's lone superpower. This is a terrible situation to be in, for us and most everyone else, and the (partial) solution is energy independence. It's a very long way off, and I'm concerned the U.S. may end up doing what Japan did in the late 1930s instead. But like I said, that's opinion, doesn't belong in the article. Iain McClatchie 00:59, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

"Our" oil supplies? You must mean someone else's oil reserve. Going to war for oil is such a waste because it compounds pre-existing inefficiencies. If the world is running out of oil the most efficient solution is investment in renewable energy infrastructure. Grabbing all the oil for use now only makes the depletion curve steeper when it happens. Absent a replacement for oil it will happen, someday. Zen Master 04:10, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Hey, I've been off=line for a while, and just now skimmed this article for the first time. Will take more time to read it later, but in response to this section, I would just like to point out that that there is a way to make a huge amount of conventional energy available for future use at very little cost, and it's the one that's repeatedly overlooked: Conservation. We could easily get by with a comparable standard of living in the United States with about HALF the current energy use just by rational conservation. Just my quick point for now. jaknouse 17:17, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I wasn't trying to be sneaky.

I just thought the line that said "Due to complex political, economic, and wildly varying demand factors, oil production on a global scale does not closely resemble a Hubbert curve and is generally asymetrical" explained why global oil didn't peak in 1995.

The way I understand it, the oil shocks of the 70's helped delay a global peak. He could be right and global oil has already peaked in 2000 and we're now on the oil plateau. For the sake of accuracy I added that to show he was incorrect in his second prediction, which I think is important regardless of whether it can be explained or not.

Ok, sorry. It seemed like your comment was trying to discredit Hubbert the man and the theory indirectly as being "totally wrong" or "unapplicable". To me a "minor" edit is one that corrects spelling or punctuation. As you hinted at above, Hubbert in 1971 actually gave a range of between 1995 and 2000 for the peak in global oil production based on the low and high estimates of global oil reserves available at that time, we should update the article with that info. http://www.oilcrisis.com/hubbert/ Question: if the peak was delayed a few years by less demand/curtailed supply how less steep does that make the depletion curve considering just conventional oil? Giving society more time to adjust to dwindling oil supply by slowing the rate of depletion seems like a good thing. We should add many charts to the Hubbert Peak article, including charting the rate of demand. How much oil is coming from non-conventional oil sources, that needs a chart too. If 2000 is the peak then depletion is happening now unless something is making up the difference? And all this while global oil demand/usage is increasing according to recent figures, that doesn't jive. Apparently, we really do need to hope sites like Athabasca come through with an exponential increase in oil production. What would be the first signs that depletion is happening, just waiting for production figures to be less and less?

Zen Master 06:41, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The Peak Oil proponents pretty much all make the point that the peak will never be known until we are well and truely on the slide down the other side. Jonathan 8 Nov 2004

Guide to Diffs on Merged Versions of Hubbert peak and Hubbert Peak

The contents and histories of two pages have been merged to produce this article. The normal expectation is that following a "(diff)" link from the Page history will show exactly the changes introduced by the revision that the line describes. With a merged-history page, this is often not the case:

The "(diff)" link always causes comparison between that line's revision and the revision documented on the next lower line of the Page history window.
The merged history orders the revisions strictly by date and time, so consider two revisions that may be adjacent in the merged history:

one a revision that before the merge was part of the history of Hubbert Peak, and
the other one formerly in that of Hubbert peak

The later of the two will not be the outcome of editing the earlier, but rather of editing a revision that at that time immediatly preceded in the history of the same page.

Thus to know what changes that edit involved, a user must consult not the "(diff)" link, but a comparison between that revision and the revision that preceded it in the former history of its former page.

The following "Former History ..." sections are provided to guide users in making such comparisons.

Former History of Hubbert Peak

2004 Nov revisions

10:00, 2004 Nov 30 horos (added section on fast breeder reactors and sstars to nuclear energy section)
01:33, 2004 Nov 21 WpZurp m (if going to use non-conventional in one place, then might as well use univformly everywhere)
00:03, 2004 Nov 21 Michael Hardy (Lately I've frequently seen this: treating "non" as a word rather than as a prefix. Is it something that prevails only among people under 25? That's my guess.)
00:01, 2004 Nov 21 Michael Hardy
19:42, 2004 Nov 19 Zen-master (rv, please cite your claim of 2050, I believe that is an old claim)
16:54, 2004 Nov 19 198.136.250.65 (add Deptartment of Energy viewpoint to peak oil analysis)
02:17, 2004 Nov 19 WpZurp m (add wp-links)
21:38, 2004 Nov 18 WpZurp m (tease out reason for better jobs)
21:34, 2004 Nov 18 WpZurp m (factor in another economic consideration)
21:21, 2004 Nov 18 WpZurp m (add wp-links)
21:14, 2004 Nov 18 WpZurp m (discuss higher level social benefits/disadvantages of the voluntary simplicity approach)
20:48, 2004 Nov 18 WpZurp m (clarify voluntary simplicity arguments a bit more -- am trying to connect with lower resource use)
20:41, 2004 Nov 18 WpZurp m (give more explicit resource savings)
20:32, 2004 Nov 18 WpZurp m (hydrogen from GMOs)
20:27, 2004 Nov 18 WpZurp m (dereference wp link)
20:24, 2004 Nov 18 WpZurp m (draw out argument a bit more)
20:16, 2004 Nov 18 WpZurp m (voluntary simplicity)
20:04, 2004 Nov 18 WpZurp m (include a bit of common sense in with the predictions of famine)
19:27, 2004 Nov 18 WpZurp m (include Orinoco tar sands to bump up reserves to two-thirds)
19:26, 2004 Nov 18 WpZurp m (include Orinoco tar sands to bump up reserves to two-thirds)
06:22, 2004 Nov 17 219.89.176.245 (Non conventional oil - 1/3rd -> third)
01:45, 2004 Nov 17 Sam Hocevar m (asymetrical -> asymmetrical)
05:14, 2004 Nov 12 138.23.203.216 (Hydrogen)
05:09, 2004 Nov 12 138.23.203.216 (Nuclear Power)
05:08, 2004 Nov 12 138.23.203.216 (Nuclear Power)
01:59, 2004 Nov 10 Zen-master (Market solution)
00:35, 2004 Nov 5 EZ m (book added)
23:58, 2004 Nov 4 EZ m (link added)
22:36, 2004 Nov 4 Zen-master (Renewable energy cleanup)
22:28, 2004 Nov 4 Zen-master (Effects of a world peak)
22:13, 2004 Nov 4 Zen-master (partially reverted, POV clean up, you seemed to be commingling statements about the U.S. with usage data from France?)
21:17, 2004 Nov 4 EZ m (German reference added)
20:53, 2004 Nov 4 Iain.mcclatchie (Nuclear Power -- more facts, pointers)
19:05, 2004 Nov 4 Zen-master (clarified hubbert's global oil prediction)
01:16, 2004 Nov 4 Zen-master (coalesced into paragraph Fischer-Tropsch Processes - This could use it's own article and a link perhaps?)
00:54, 2004 Nov 4 61.95.12.82 (Alternatives to oil)
00:30, 2004 Nov 4 61.95.12.82 (Hydrogen)
04:26, 2004 Nov 2 Meggar (Non conventional oil)
05:06, 2004 Nov 1 Zen-master (cleaned up a sneaky non-minor edit. Remember, the model is accurate, it's the data fed into the model that produces different results)

2004 Oct revisions

15:31, 2004 Oct 31 Richard Cane m (Added global oil production peak prediction)
19:48, 2004 Oct 29 Iain.mcclatchie m (Hydrogen - Wordsmithing)
17:22, 2004 Oct 29 The Anome (Political implications - oil reserves)
17:17, 2004 Oct 29 The Anome (Political implications - As of 2004)
17:16, 2004 Oct 29 The Anome (Political implications - -> h3)
17:11, 2004 Oct 29 The Anome (Political implications - it would be reasonable to expect ... political and economic tension)
17:10, 2004 Oct 29 The Anome (Political implications - final?)
17:02, 2004 Oct 29 The Anome (Political implications - Others view this as a conspiracy theory with no basis in fact.)
17:01, 2004 Oct 29 The Anome (Political implications)
16:58, 2004 Oct 29 The Anome (==Political implications==)
16:41, 2004 Oct 29 Iain.mcclatchie (Alternatives to oil -- move hydrogen)
16:38, 2004 Oct 29 The Anome (The theory - spelling.)
16:23, 2004 Oct 29 Iain.mcclatchie m (Market solution)
19:19, 2004 Oct 28 Zen-master (moved image next to TOC, saves space)
18:47, 2004 Oct 28 Zen-master (clean up and copy edit of Non conventional oil)
18:40, 2004 Oct 28 Zen-master (added Increased fuel efficiency section to Effects of a world peak)
13:51, 2004 Oct 28 Zen-master (copy edit of recent Market solution changes)
13:50, 2004 Oct 28 Zen-master (copy edit previous cleanup in Renewable energy)
13:36, 2004 Oct 28 Zen-master (follow on to previous clean up, moved two sentences to market solution section)
13:29, 2004 Oct 28 Zen-master (Watch your POV word choices, "market solution" should == "renewable energy". Renewable energy is not more "capital intensive". Do you work for an oil company? We need fuel efficiency section also.)
06:29, 2004 Oct 28 Iain.mcclatchie (Renewable energy is capital intensive)
02:29, 2004 Oct 28 Zen-master (more cleanup, added sections, added info including one sentence mention of Athabasca, Renewable Energy section needs a lot more info)
01:27, 2004 Oct 28 Zen-master (started small but turned into a big cleanup)
18:47, 2004 Oct 27 GuloGuloGulo (Reworked the Introduction)
00:09, 2004 Oct 27 Iain.mcclatchie m (fix sense -- curve obviously does not dictate actions in the physical world.)
22:58, 2004 Oct 26 The Anome (The theory - The rate of oil extraction at any given time would then be given by the rate of change of the logistic curve)
22:41, 2004 Oct 26 The Anome (The theory - which follows a bell-shaped curve)
22:41, 2004 Oct 26 The Anome (The theory - The rate of oil extraction at any given time, according to this model,)
22:40, 2004 Oct 26 The Anome (The theory - In 1956, Hubbert created a mathematical model of petroleum extraction which predicted that the total amount of oil extracted over time would follow a logistic curve. The r)
17:13, 2004 Oct 26 Alan Oldfield
19:52, 2004 Oct 23 The Anome (External links - Category:Futurology)
13:05, 2004 Oct 19 Quadell m (move interlang links to bottom)
06:56, 2004 Oct 19 81.56.65.90
22:11, 2004 Oct 17 Meelar (writing, wiki)
16:03, 2004 Oct 16 Quadell (+pic of oil prices)
13:36, 2004 Oct 15 203.113.210.57 (Effects of a world peak)
13:26, 2004 Oct 15 203.113.210.57 (Effects of a world peak)
06:13, 2004 Oct 13 207.172.83.26 (re-reverted, wikipedia is not an advertisement for the oil shale industry. after discussion is completed it perhaps can be added back with modifications. (discussion should take place before added))
11:20, 2004 Oct 12 141.20.25.44
10:44, 2004 Oct 12 One Salient Oversight (Reverted - see discussion page)
07:14, 2004 Oct 12 207.172.83.26 (Removed redundant not applicable info, it's mentioned already and there was no mention of how it currently requires more fuel to process than is produced and the extremely large environmental impact)
17:08, 2004 Oct 11 204.212.175.30 (The theory)
06:19, 2004 Oct 11 One Salient Oversight m (Effects of a world peak)
04:59, 2004 Oct 11 One Salient Oversight (Effects of a world peak -Details on Athabasca Tar Sands)
04:35, 2004 Oct 11 One Salient Oversight m (See also)
01:49, 2004 Oct 10 24.19.45.139 (Wider applications)
15:33, 2004 Oct 9 207.172.83.26 (should have been plural, sentence shortened instead)
14:33, 2004 Oct 5 80.176.216.242 (The theory)
14:20, 2004 Oct 5 80.176.216.242 (The theory)
15:06, 2004 Oct 1 213.203.153.60 (grammar fix)

2004 Sep revisions

19:41, 2004 Sep 28 207.172.83.26 (Effects of a world peak - fixed typo, added key word link)
19:31, 2004 Sep 28 207.172.83.26 (cleaned up, added info, there is no/little disagreement on the concept just on when it will happen)
18:37, 2004 Sep 28 207.172.83.26 (The theory - added more info)
17:47, 2004 Sep 28 207.172.83.26 (Effects of a world peak - added info and worded better)
16:53, 2004 Sep 28 207.172.83.26 (Wider applications - oil is finite)
16:09, 2004 Sep 28 Roadrunner (Effects of a world peak - NPOV)
16:08, 2004 Sep 28 Roadrunner (Wider applications)
16:04, 2004 Sep 28 Roadrunner (Wider applications)
15:55, 2004 Sep 28 Dbenbenn m (The theory)
14:17, 2004 Sep 28 24.58.8.75 (Effects of a world peak)
13:23, 2004 Sep 28 146.145.27.99 (The theory)
11:47, 2004 Sep 28 194.222.36.69 (fix trivial typo - Wider applications)
11:21, 2004 Sep 28 80.58.23.44 (External links)
09:53, 2004 Sep 28 81.56.239.42 (added link for French version of article)
08:07, 2004 Sep 28 81.218.215.243 (Effects of a world peak)
22:12, 2004 Sep 23 207.111.236.2 (The theory)
07:34, 2004 Sep 23 207.172.83.26 (more clean up and better wordage)
12:23, 2004 Sep 22 Drowstar m (typos)
07:36, 2004 Sep 21 207.172.83.26 (re-worded, added more info, cleaned up)
22:41, 2004 Sep 18 Tregoweth (Further reading - cleaning up, rm Amazon links)
02:06, 2004 Sep 13 200.40.166.42 (Wider applications - peak -> peaked)
02:05, 2004 Sep 13 200.40.166.42 (Wider applications - minor syntax)
20:38, 2004 Sep 7 Michel32Nl (fixed typo)
00:20, 2004 Sep 6 Roadrunner
00:17, 2004 Sep 6 Roadrunner (Effects of a world peak)
00:15, 2004 Sep 6 Roadrunner (Wider applications)

2004 Jul-Aug revisions

03:58, 2004 Aug 25 Hawstom (Effects of a world peak)
12:28, 2004 Aug 16 Quadell m (minor formatting, one sentence)
11:42, 2004 Aug 16 Dissident
07:41, 2004 Aug 10 62.252.0.4 (External links)
07:17, 2004 Aug 10 62.252.0.4 (External links)
07:13, 2004 Aug 10 62.252.0.4 (External links)
13:12, 2004 Jul 29 Quadell (caption)
05:49, 2004 Jul 23 209.237.26.150 (Correct a couple misspellings/typos)
13:54, 2004 Jul 22 The Anome (Effects of a world peak - Others believe that the rise in oil prices world drive the replacement of oil with other power sources, such as nuclear energy, with the possible introduction of a [[)
13:36, 2004 Jul 22 The Anome (See also - rm self-link)
13:34, 2004 Jul 22 The Anome (fmt)
13:34, 2004 Jul 22 The Anome (The '''Hubbert Peak''' theory, also known as the '''oil peak''' or '''peak oil'' theory,)
19:34, 2004 Jul 21 Quadell (Merged with Hubbert Peak and added mucho info)
19:00, 2004 Jul 16 Milk m (fixed oil crash link)
11:24, 2004 Jul 9 Prichardson m (added major peak oil site)

2004 Apr-Jun revisions

20:52, 2004 Jun 20 66.125.91.157 (External links)
03:49, 2004 Jun 19 168.103.227.223
04:49, 2004 Jun 4 Template namespace initialisation script
08:14, 2004 Jun 2 Yath (link to abiotic petroleum)
20:46, 2004 May 24 Sekicho m (moved ToC down)
18:30, 2004 May 20 Dissident m ({{msg:merge}} Hubbert peak)
18:56, 2004 May 17 ElBenevolente (remove references from see also already wikified)
18:54, 2004 May 17 ElBenevolente (reinsert discussion of abiotic petroleum with caveat)
12:20, 2004 May 17 Topbanana (Removed links to the very speculative theory of 'abiotic oil')
18:32, 2004 May 10 66.68.46.220
01:50, 2004 May 6 Alan Liefting m
01:30, 2004 May 6 Alan Liefting m
10:17, 2004 May 5 81.168.40.2
10:15, 2004 May 5 81.168.40.2
23:32, 2004 Apr 20 61.88.104.161
12:04, 2004 Apr 20 Timwi m (proper see also section)
11:07, 2004 Apr 20 Oliver Crow (editing)
11:01, 2004 Apr 20 Oliver Crow m (spelling: phenomenon)
08:40, 2004 Apr 20 Gonvaled (Another way of looking at Hubbert Peak)
04:40, 2004 Apr 17 ElBenevolente (redirect Hubbert peak)

Former History of Hubbert peak

13:32, 2004 Jul 22 . . The Anome (#Redirect Hubbert Peak)
19:34, 2004 Jul 21 . . Quadell (Merged with [Peak oil]] and made into a rd there.)
11:00, 2004 Jul 20 . . Gonvaled (Added link to peak oil)
22:13, 2004 Jul 13 . . 62.235.102.64 (/* Oil Peak Books */)
17:34, 2004 Jul 13 . . 4.65.89.174 (Style and grammatic fixes)
02:45, 2004 Jul 11 . . Giftlite (/* See also */)
09:28, 2004 Jun 26 . . Bobblewik (added metric values using google converter)
20:53, 2004 Jun 20 . . 66.125.91.157 (/* External links */)
03:51, 2004 Jun 19 . . 168.103.227.223 (/* External links */)
15:43, 2004 Jun 5 . . Jeffq (Spelling fix.)
02:32, 2004 Jun 3 . . Bryan Derksen (Category:Petroleum)
08:24, 2004 Jun 1 . . 209.103.204.193 ()
07:55, 2004 Jun 1 . . 209.103.204.193 (/* External links */)
19:51, 2004 May 15 . . BozMo ()
22:30, 2004 May 8 . . The Anome (increased energy conservation)
22:28, 2004 May 8 . . Wik ()
02:34, 2004 May 2 . . 24.205.142.131 (Added External links to PeakOilAction.org and OilAwareness.meetup.com)
17:00, 2004 Apr 24 . . 209.103.204.195 (Added two more links.)
06:08, 2004 Apr 19 . . Evil saltine (Reverted edits by 65.31.28.135 to last version by 24.19.45.139)
06:07, 2004 Apr 19 . . 65.31.28.135 ()
18:49, 2004 Apr 11 . . 24.19.45.139 ()
18:27, 2004 Apr 11 . . 24.19.45.139 ()
16:23, 2004 Apr 11 . . 209.103.204.207 ()
06:11, 2004 Apr 6 . . 209.103.204.236 ()
01:14, 2004 Apr 6 . . 209.103.204.237 ()
01:06, 2004 Apr 6 . . 209.103.204.237 ()
00:47, 2004 Apr 6 . . The Anome (=See also= * Ehrlich-Simon bet)
00:16, 2004 Apr 6 . . The Anome (getting verbs right)
00:15, 2004 Apr 6 . . The Anome (fdmtr)
00:14, 2004 Apr 6 . . The Anome (reference)
00:08, 2004 Apr 6 . . Roadrunner ()
00:07, 2004 Apr 6 . . Roadrunner ()
00:06, 2004 Apr 6 . . Roadrunner ()
00:01, 2004 Apr 6 . . The Anome (This behavior has the form of a Hubbert curve; see that article for mathematical details.)
23:59, 2004 Apr 5 . . The Anome (rm even more math to avoid duplication)
23:58, 2004 Apr 5 . . The Anome (rm math (has its own article), floated the image)
23:57, 2004 Apr 5 . . The Anome (merging)
23:54, 2004 Apr 5 . . The Anome (more)
23:52, 2004 Apr 5 . . The Anome (The theory of the '''Hubbert peak''' or '''oil peak''' is due to the geologist M. King Hubbert.)
22:28, 2004 Feb 4 . . Karada (#REDIRECT M. King Hubbert)
01:07, 2002 Sep 13 . . The Anome (#REDIRECT Hubbert curve)

Chart removal

This chart is irrelevant/misleading

Oil prices in 2003 and 2004

It has nothing to do with the Hubbert peak. It really has nothing to do with the long term price of oil. If you plot the prices from 1973 to 2004, it looks really different. Roadrunner 07:53, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Please indicate what is wrong with it, what is misleading about it? Zen Master 23:42, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

See here. [[1]]. If you plot the prices from 1973 to 2004 in real dollars, the long term trend is downward.

I think that if you do keep this graph in the article (I personally would like to see it removed) it should at least be updated to show what oil prices are currently, what about $44 a barrel? It seems to be trying to give readers the impression that a huge oil crunch is at hand, which really isn't true. Matthias5 23:16, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Chart is misleading. This is a no-spin zone. I am a believer in an impending oil price crunch and that oil prices have already begun the upward climb. But chart is useless. Put in an annotated historic adjusted 3-year moving average price chart or something like that. Prices are still lower than the 70's peak. Tom - Talk 23:30, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)

Hubbert peak sentence needs clarification

I'm not sure this is true:

The Hubbert model most closely resembles the rate of fastest possible oil extraction, if demand is less than expected or supply is curtailed then actual production rates would not match the Hubbert peak model. Roadrunner 07:57, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

That was added to clarify against the errant claim that the Hubbert model is "wrong", the model is accurate, the disagerements are over wildly varying production data fed into the model I believe. Please cite recent claims by an "economist" that the hubbert peak model is flat out wrong? The sentence was added to further explain how and why oil production on a global scale does not closely mirror the hubbert peak model. Zen Master 23:42, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Here are two ....

http://sepwww.stanford.edu/sep/jon/world-oil.dir/lynch/worldoil.html

http://www.economist.com/science/displaystory.cfm?story_id=842272

Oil in terms of price vs oil in terms of energy efficiency

This also isn't true....

This is true regardless of the price of oil.

Most fields are abandoned because of economic issues. People literally turn on and off oil pumps in response to the price of oil. The amount of energy needed to recover oil changes with technology. Roadrunner 08:10, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You may be missing the point on this one. The point here is that old school economists have been thinking of oil only in terms of price, oil is not like any ohter comodity. The sentence is just saying that the way we should look at the situation is ratio of extracted energy over energy used in the extraction process. They need technology that violates the first law of thermodynamics, not possible. Technology may help us extract non-conventional oil like tar sands more efficiently but I believe technology has done almost all it can in terms of extracting convetional oil. Some seem to believe if oil was $1,000 a barrel that would spur immediate investement in oil extraction technologies, but it can't work if it takes more energy to extract the oil than is contained in the actual oil. I changed the sentence to, "Hubbert peak proponents claim this is true regardless of the price of oil" or something like that, I removed the bold around price. comments? Zen Master 23:42, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Can you have a reference to someone who argues this? If there is someone who argues this, then we should include this with references and counterarguments. If you can't then it is advocacy/personal research and doesn't belong in the article. And it's also wrong. It is irrelevant if it takes more energy to extract than it produces. You can imagine a situation where you use things like energy from coal to generate energy to produce oil which is more valuable because you can't use coal directly for things like transportation. Roadrunner 02:13, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'd second roadrunner on this one. As per the economist article, presently about 30-35% of the oil in an oilfield is recoverable. Oil industry types expect that to go up to 50-60%. I don't have proof that this will happen, obviously, but if you look at the historical record, I think you see a clear pattern of technology constantly improving. Do you have any references that claim that there is a physical law that prevents more than 30-35% of the oil in an oil field from being recovered? I agree that in most cases it will never make sense to extract oil when it costs more energy to get the oil than the oil is worth, but technology improvements will lower the amount of energy needed for extraction. The price matters, and it seems hard to envision a time when it won't matter. Matthias5 01:41, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

That may be the mistake economists and others have made thinking about oil. The price is irrelevant if it takes more energy to extract than what is contained in what was extracted. It's not just about improved recoverability percentages, it's also about the peak (hence the title of this article), better technology may only prolong the life of a depleting oil field after the peak, not increase the peak, world wide. Things start to get bad at the peak, improved recoverability percentages will help out but may not allow a return to the days before the peak. I remember reading an article on peakoil.net about price vs energy efficiency, will look for it. The issue is that most everything in society requires oil, if the price of oil rises the theory is that would stimulate additional oil production investment, but because everything else is going to also cost more, that investement could be completely a waste. It takes oil/energy to extract oil/energy. Even the plant that makes wind generators needs oil. zen master 02:12, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

First of all, I agree that it doesn't make sense to use more energy to make something than you get out of the energy source. But not everything in the world makes sense. Think ethanol, for example. Second, if oil becomes more expensive, then people will use less of it. People will demand more fuel-efficient cars. Automakers will happily oblige. If plastics become more expensive, the market price will rise and consumers will switch to non-plastic items, depending on the elasticity of demand. As the price of oil rises, renewables will begin to look more attractive. Plus there will be more effort going into exploration. I'm not happy about oil companies exploring Alaska and Antartica, but if there's an oil crunch, you can bet that they will, with full political support.

I haven't seen this argument made yet, but it seems to me that the reason that US oil production peaked (I'm still not clear: was it *all* US production, or only the lower 48?) was because the *world* oil price was stable/declining. New markets opened up and companies looked for oil where it was cheapest. Suppose that the US had not been able to import oil. Companies would have scoured the US for more oil, and found some. At the same time, with prices rising rapidly, there would have been huge incentives for conservation. All of these factors would have acted to moderate the supply of oil.

Oil will eventually run out, I completely agree with you. I just think that the sharp soaring price that peak oil proponents predict (along with global chaos) seems unlikely. I would trust the market to address these issues. All this said, I still think that our govt should be doing all that it can to promote energy efficiency. I think that a casuality of our oil dependence will be more conflict and definitely more environmental degradation. But I don't predict the 'end of civilization as we know it'. sorry I forgot to sign in. 68.50.226.226 04:14, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

But what of the potentially dramatic effects of having increasingly less oil to use? Oil/energy is the ability to do work, so I guess we will just have to make do with less work at some point when we start running out of oil. More fuel-efficient vehicles may not be beneficial if we are steadily going to have less and less oil after the peak is reached, though, don't get me wrong, fuel efficient cars will save some oil and spread out oil reserves over a longer time period, but are you claiming increasing fuel efficiency can keep pace with the rate of oil depletion year after year? The problem is not that oil will become a seller's market, the problem is that increasingly it will become an inefficient market. How much more fuel efficient can all vehicles (especially trucks used in food transportation) be 5 years from now? How about 10 years from now? Also, modern global economics may rely on steady expansion, the mere notion of an economic retreat and the house of cards collapses perhaps. Renewable sources of energy will become more attractive yes, but they do not currently have the potential to return us to the days of super high ratios of extracted energy over energy consumed in the extraction and refining processes. What energy we get from renewable sources will require a much larger investement (energy investment, not just price) than conventional oil, so there will be less work/energy available to do the other things that society needs. Also, the increasing price of oil will have a feedback loop for even those very alternative sources of energy that will become more attractive. So when you say these alternative sources will become more "attractive" at exactly the same time they also become more "expensive" (from both a price and energy efficiency perspective), because now the ability to do work (oil) at say the wind generator factory costs more. At least one peak oil proponent propsed that "prices" should really be set in terms of energy, not money, basically because oil does all the work, not money. We should save all remaining oil reserves like Alaska and the artic for when we are much more efficient and can use the spare energy more wisely in my opinion, at best it delays the peak a few more years I believe. I disagree with your US-48 analysis, it could be argued that the dominance of the USA the last 50 years or so is only because we figured out how to use our spare or free energy (oil) and then conspired to keep global prices low when we ran out, but now the world is starting to run out. It's starting to dawn on us that we should have used the spare energy more wisely. There may be little or no cheap oil (cheap from an energy perspective) left. Because of oil's cheap abundance for so long economists were tricked into thinking the First law of thermodynamics didn't apply, but it does, we can't cheat the laws of nature. The "energy" contained in oil was not "created" by the extraction or refining process, it was there builing up underground for millions of years. There is also the issue of world population increase during a time of steadily decreasing energy supplies, more and more people will have to make do with less and less work? Saudi Arabia, maybe Iran, and a small handful of others are the only countries left that export significantly more oil than they consume (and have the reserves to continue to do so for a while). zen master 05:55, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hubbert developed his curve based on evidence during a time when the price of oil was fairly stable, but it isn't a law. Given that the price of oil doesn't change much, then the production of oil will look like the curve Hubbert described. If the price of oil is infinitely flexible, in other words we're willing to do whatever it takes to extract it, then it would still peak but the curve would be exponential right up until the very last drop at which point it would go to zero. If the price of oil started rising as consumption rose, then the exponential portion would cease and we'd get into more of a plateau. The point of the Hubbert peak is that it predicts the end of cheap oil. Most people shrug this off as no big deal, but it's a huge deal, especially to the US which has effectively tied its currency to oil. I believe that the oil peak will see industrialized nations switch to coal at ludicrous speed to prevent an Olduvai Theory scenario. You'll see all sorts of community, health and environmental standards cast aside in the race to make up the difference. This will naturally pull transportation towards electricity. But we're already past the peak energy use per capita and with population peaking somewhere between 8 and 12 billion, all but the most wealthy will become very uncomfortable this century. Anyway, I digress. My point is that a long term oil price trend should be available as it plays an integral part in shaping the Hubbert curve. I would be in favor of substituting this for the current short term graph. Amadeust 17:35, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I agree a predicted oil price trend chart is potentially very informative, though I suspect people would claim it violates neutral point of view, and there are too many variables like oil market manipulation, government price controls, demand shrinkage directly because of price, demand shrinkage because of global economic recession etc. I think putting the following oil production image from this URL on the page could be useful, but i don't think this content is licensed under the GFDL: http://www.peakoil.net/uhdsg/Default.htm

Also, it may not be possible to continously increase oil production as much as you describe, it certainly would be a waste of energy to use it to extract our remaining oil reserves faster. Oil companies have already figured out they are better off letting oil deplete at the rate it does, rather than expend energy to extract a higher rate of oil, since that is a waste. zen master 18:10, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Oil prices from 1860-1999 in dollars of 1999, source: DOE

Actually, i was thinking of something along the lines of what is already available at the petroleum article. Also, i only described the exponential peak with a hard drop to zero as an extreme possibility and did not mean to imply that this is where we are headed. It was just an example of how the peak can differ from the one proposed by Hubbert. I've put together a basics presentation on this if you're interested just to demonstrate the ideas behind price/shape relationships. I disagree that a price trend adds POV. It does nothing to support or undermine Hubbert but simply shows the conditions under which the theory was developed. Whether you agree or disagree with Hubbert's conclusions, the fact that Hubbert's data was influenced by those prices still remains. Please keep in mind that many regional and national Hubbert peaks have already been established. They're the basis of this theory. Only the global Hubbert peak is disputed. Amadeust 18:29, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I've put my references

ZenMaster. I've changed the first paragraphs with my references to cite that there is a controversy (including mentioning Colin Campbell who is one of the more forceful proponents of the Hubbert peak). Can you go through and reference the claims in the rest of the article? I've changed the first section to put the USGS World Petroleum Assessment as the "middle ground" with Campbell at one end and Lynch at the other, which I think is a fair description of the consensus among people in the field. Roadrunner 02:54, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I cited a recent article by Lynch which he argues that the Hubbert model is just plain wrong. If you still don't think that he argues this, we can e-mail him and ask him what he believes. Roadrunner 03:45, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yes, please email him, I believe the recent 2004 fact that the Saudi Arabian oil fields have not be able to increase production has changed everything. The URL you cite is pure criticism of Campbell, please cite a counter prediction of Lynch's. In fact, the article you cite only talks about Campbells use of data, nowhere does he dispute the Hubbert model except to say the model doesn't have to be a curve, note: this article is titled "peak". Also, "worthless" is rather POV don't you think? Zen Master 04:02, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

rm "Other"

Pardon the ip 66.248.120.156, but i lost my dialup as i was saving the change. None of the energy "sources" mentioned in this section are currently available or net energy positive. The problem with having them is that it opens up the possibility to listing a whole host of Sci-Fi energy sources.

They should be listed in NPOV since many people are thinking about them. Objections should be stated in the article dealing

with the actual power source. They could quickly become feasible with new techonology, for example a space elevator which

some think could be constructed this decade.

The problem is that these are being singled out. If you expand the sphere to highly speculative sources then there are huge gaps in the list like thermal depolymerization of garbage waste or human remains which exists and is known to be net energy positive. Even with a space elevator, it is still not known whether methane from Titan is net energy positive (how do you get it off that moon?) and why is that listed when say farm animal methane is not. I have particular issue with a Dyson sphere because while it seemingly makes sense it is not known if such a structure could recover more energy than it takes to put up and now you're talking about energy scales on the order of solar systems when the Hubbert peak is talking about fossil fuel depletion on earth. Finally, the time scale to implement these projects is so long that it wouldn't fit into the most optimistic projections for an energy dearth on earth. I don't see how these support the Hubbert article at all with or without qualifying statements like "these are very speculative". Amadeust 15:08, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with a list of speculative energy sources. Is already mentioned that they are "very speculative". That the oil peak will take this place this decade is speculative. Importantly, these energy sources are often mentioned in connection with the oil peak. So they should certainly be mentioned here also if the article is supposed to present all points of view. A Dyson sphere is actually not a sphere bur rather a collection of satellites around the sun that can be built one at a time. So they are not that far away. But it is also important to broaden the view, some people think that we are for all time doomed to be dependent on the energy available on Earth and that society must be built assuming a long-term energy consumption at most equal to that from sunlight on Earth. Thanks for pointint out thermal depolymerization, I had forgotten that. It doesn't fit in the "very speculative" category. There is an existing plant with plans for many more worldwide.

These energy sources are extra-terrestrial. Hydrocarbons on earth are not being extracted because they are not feasible (remote natural gas fields for example). Meanwhile several layers of technology would have to be developed first before any of these would be even on par with where fusion is today. Fusion itself is not going to appear before the peak let alone make up the difference. ITER projects first demo reactors providing energy in TWO decades and ramp up of energy production in the following THREE decades. This is well beyond the most optimistic projections for peak oil. Again, what is the value of these other energy sources to the article and why have these been selected over an innumerable list which anyone with a dime's worth of imagination can come up? You haven't even attempted to answer the most basic question of why this is good for the article.

I think criticisms of the other section are valid, however, perhaps it's ok if we make it clear this info is a far in the future possibility and including the point most are not yet net energy positive is a good thing to do. We could have a "Future energy sources" section for 2020 and beyond? Zen Master 20:59, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Unless sources of energy could contribute to a transition from oil, then i don't see how they belong in this article. I'm not arguing against these ideas. In fact, i think they're creative ideas worth reading about. I simply think they belong in articles like Energy development instead. Amadeust 22:40, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

1. All of these enery sources are not extra-terrestrial, like methrane clathrate. 2. That peak oil will happen before fusion is very POV, see for example http://www.gasresources.net/Lynch(Hubbert-Deffeyes).htm or United States Geological Survey. 3. And there is no requirements that all solution must applied before the exact peak. 4. Theories like abiogenic oil certainly belong in an article about peak oil since it directly contradict the theory. 5. Solar power satellites could be made with existing technologies provided a space elevator and they are seen as a solution to peak oil by space elevator advocates. Who claim it could be built this decade. 6. These theories are are often advocated as solutions to peak oil. Thus they should be mentioned here and evidence could be provided that they do not work. But they should not be censored. Even the peak-oil websites often mention abiogenic oil and methane clathrates, even if only to dismiss them. So why not Wikipedia? 7. If there are more potential technologies that you can think of, why not list them also? This is supposed to present all points of view. Not just that of those advocating peak-oil-this-decade-and-there-is-no-solution. In light of these points, I will restore the category with some modifictions.

After reading more about methane clathrate, i will concede that it is a possible substitute but still highly speculative. I still hold that the others are not viable as replacements for oil and therefore irrelevant with respect to the subject of the Hubbert peak. It is not that this energy needs to come online before the peak but rather it needs to come online before the serious downslope. At best that means the energy needs to be net energy positive and commercially viable within this century (even given the most optimistic POV). Any source acquired extraterrestrially (earth based solar excluded of course) will have an enormous up front energy cost which is unlikely to make the source viable until huge leaps in technology are able to mitigate this. Amadeust 01:49, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Many others have different views than you. For example some geologists regarding abiogenic oil or space engineers regarding solar power satellites. As I said, make the arguments in this article or in those linked. But do not censor without argument.

The famous "some people say" argument. Who are these people? Please provide references. Amadeust 22:48, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Rename vs Split vs Status Quo

Any objections to renaming the article "peak oil" rather than "Hubbert peak". The problem with the name Hubbert peak is that it refers to a particular model of peak oil which is not the only one out there. One can reject the Hubbert model without rejecting the concept of peak oil, and one can also accept the Hubbert model as a model for a given oil field (as most geologists do in fact), without accepting peak oil. Roadrunner 19:51, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Another option is to split the article into "Peak oil" and "Hubbert theory". Stuff having to do with the implications of running out of oil and alternatives etc can go into peak oil, hubbert's theory would just be specific and criticisms. But for now I think one article is ok, what do others think? Zen Master 20:24, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

To anon IP that posted huge criticisms content

I removed most of what you added because it was way too verbose, redundant to what was in the article below and was written in essay form (you said "generally agreed" like 5 times in the section supposed to be listing criticisms). I believe I have very concisely captured some good points you made, if I missed anything, or for any other reason, feel free to create a new "Criticisms of Hubbert peak" article or you could perhaps create an article detailing Lynch's arguments against hubbert peak theory. But generally, such verbosity severely detracts from overall article quality. zen master 05:13, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Corrected some things. 1. Nuclear power is not due to the sun. 2. Those criticzing the oil peak theory is not comparing oil to stone. 3. Limited oil refinement capacity is only applicable to the US, not the rest of the world. 4. The UN population model think world populatio will stabilize around 2075. http://www.un.org/esa/population/unpop.htm /Xip

Alternatives to oil migration?

The section Alternatives to oil overlaps with Current State and Goals under Energy development. It has been proposed there that Alternatives to oil be moved there as it is the more general discussion. I would be in favor of that since it would tidy this article up a lot as well as removing reduncancy and possible contradiction on the same topic by having a single place for this info. Amadeust 21:26, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I don't think the sections should entirely move, but the current entries can be substantially edited down for size. zen master 21:38, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Are you proposing something similar to what's been done with the Non-conventional oil section? Will that paragraph be peared down to only include Hubbert Peak to Non-conventional oil info? If that's the case, then i'm all for it. As it stands, i don't think there's enough relevant information to keep the paragraph around in light of the other article. So, unless significant non-Hubbert related chunks could be migrated, then Energy development might as well reference this section instead even though that's backwards. Thanks for breaking this out by the way. Amadeust 22:10, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Here's my take. Controversial topics tend to generate the energy upon which Wikipedia is built. Therefore this article gets a lot of good development and effort. From that perspective, it is great that all this content has been developed here. Unfortunately, this is a rather out-of-the-way place for all that good information. Energy development, on the other extreme, is a boring article that gets very little effort and attention. But it is exactly the kind article to be someday a Featured Article. I think it would be an ingenious exploitation of the Wikipedia's model to let developement occur at these controversial places, and then cheerfully move it occasionally to less controversial and more visible places. Who knows, maybe the boring articles will become interesting enough to get some attention. Of course discussions of energy alternatives are marginally ancillary to Hubbart's Peak. Any of them that are highly advanced and commendable, I say let's move! Tom - Talk 22:23, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)

I would be in favor of everything from 'alternatives to conventional oil' down being moved somewhere else. It really would help clean up the article and keep it more tightly focused on Hubbart's Peak. You could definitely put in a link to the new article so that people can still find it. Matthias5 23:33, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Alternatives to oil moved.

I have moved everything except lifestyle changes to a new article, Future energy development. I decided for a new article since it is already quite lengthy and energy development is much more, for example historic energy development. If this edit finds acceptance I will also edit the appopriate parts of energy development and instead put in the new article as a link. /Aquamarine

Well, I am not completely opposed to the new article, but in some ways I consider "Future energy development" a daughter article of Hubbert peak. If a theory indicates oil will start to run out and there may be huge consequences it's ok to concisely mention future alternatives here, in my opinion. There is still a short synopsis of non-conventional oil, we can do the same with everything moved to your new article? Also, I am not so keen on the title; will try to think of something better. Perhaps you should have kept the section header on the Hubbert peak article and put a better link like "Main article: Future energy development" so it's clear that subject is directly related to this article (as opposed to just another random wikilink, even though you do refer to the new article specifically inside a paragraph). Also, the Hubbert peak article kind of needed the contrast of including info on renewable sources of energy information to balance POV in my opinion (since Hubbert peak, and society generally, are all about oil). Lifestyle change can/should include switching to alternative sources of energy, it's all related. I reserve the option of reverting your change after thinking about it some more, as always. zen master 21:26, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I think that the two articles are better clearly separated, as many others have suggested. This an article about the peak in oil and possible in other fossil fuels, discussing evidence for and against, timing and so on. The new article ia about the technological aspects of alternative energy sources in the future. Regarding relations between articles, to me future energy developmentis not a daughter of this one, but instead is daughter of energy development. Possibly, one can see this article as a daughter of future energy development, specifically a daughter article dealing with the role of oil and possible other fossil fuels in the future. The social consequences if all energy alternatives should fail (not just oil) is a separate subject from the technological ones and should maybe have a separate article from the technical aspects and evidence for a Hubert's peak for fossil fuels. Regarding synopsis of other articles, I am doubtful, those are easily subject to POV and are not common practice in wikipedia. Why not just link to the other aricle? /Aquamarine

I mean have a synopsis just like the current non-conventional oil synopsis, POV should be disallowed no matter where it's located. Creating a new article just seems like a way to relegate pertinent information to obscurity. My other points and suggestions from above apply even if the new article remains. zen master 01:25, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Good move. I created the Energy development article and have watched its development. I think this is a great step as described by Aquamarine. Good work! Tom - Talk 05:10, Dec 12, 2004 (UTC)

I reverted the link to alternative energy. It is POV. The name is a misnomer, it links to renewable energy and there are many other alternative energies like nuclear.

Yeah, I am going to fix your errant deletion. If there is a problem with another article's name fix that, rather than deleting links, ok?? Also, hubbert peak can certainly have links to both Renewable energy and Future energy development (which is still a bad title), that is the wikiway.

Zen master, why are you reverting? Everyone but you think that the article was bloated before and a new article was needed. The long list of future energy sources do not belong in an article about Peak oil. See what everyone else has written above.

alternatives to oil are very different than generic future energy technologies

There may be some overlap but the alternatives to oil section is very relevant here because it deals with the potentially pressing need of replacing oil with an alternative transportation fuel, and the challenges that will face trying to do that during oil depletion. Energy development and future energy development deal with generic overall future energy technologies. Any technology that is more than 10-20 years away like Fusion should be moved to Future energy development, I agree with that. So, this hubbert peak alternatives to oil section will have specific details concerning current potential alternatives to oil, more generic future energy technologies can go elsewhere. zen master 18:56, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

This is not supposed to present your personal view of the future. Many do not agree that the peak will take place in 20 years, like you do. Thus technologies like fusion should not be excluded. And again, the article was bloated and needed to be divided. Look at what everyone has written above./Aquamarine

Regarding the 3-revert rule, you broke it first/Aquamarine

I did not, your IP edit counts as a revert. People on IRC have made some good suggestions, like new article Alternatives to oil or if that is too POV then Transportation fuels or Non-oil based transportation fuels etc etc. Future energy development movement was a mistake. zen master 19:36, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

If you look at actual reverts since the breakout, you started the process. /Aquamarine

Alternatives to oil is too narrow and issue-oriented and is encompassed in Future energy development, a child of Energy development. At least that's a civil engineer's view. Tom - Talk 19:40, Dec 13, 2004 (UTC)

Come on, guys. Stop fighting; it's pointless. Just be nice. Anyway, I think that alternatives are best placed in future energy development. Everything is an alternative, I guess you could say. That is the natural place to carry out complete development of the topic. Anything that develops here should be ported over there anyway. Let's minimize redundancy. Tom - Talk 19:38, Dec 13, 2004 (UTC)

There is consensus on #wikipedia IRC at least that Future energy development is a poor title, though there is much disagreement on a better title. If hubbert peak is true, then we better be thinking of oil replacement technologies soon, the "alternatives to oil" section header should be renamed to "Replacement technologies for oil as a transportation fuel". Generic future energy development article does not have the context of potentially running out of oil, when you have less "spare energy" that oil provides it's harder to invest in oil replacement technologies. zen master 19:45, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

There is certainly not a consensus that Hubbert's peak is true in 20 years, that is very controversial And even if so, there are already technologies for giving transportation fuel during an interim period, like conversion from coal. And the technology for biodiesel and TDP is available today. It is in no way certain that there will be an oil crises and the articles should reflect that. /Aquamarine.

I agree there should be a strong "criticisms" of Hubbert peak section here, and I agree it's a very controversial topic, but moving info to the wrong place is not the way to go about things. Name the replacement technologies that have a chance of scaling up to the amount of energy that oil currently provides as a transportation fuel? There is currently nothing as versatile, contains as much spare energy, and is as easy to extract and transport as oil is. zen master 20:13, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

That is something that should be discussed in the article, not censored by someone before. As I said, it is not certain that there will be a peak in twenty years. And who knows what will be availbe then? Hydrogen? Large scale biodiesel or TDP? You asked for a technique available today, IF the peak is happening soon. Conversion from coal, like in Germany during WWII or South Africa today. The technology, engines and distribution network is already in place. So, there should not be a censorship and assumptions that there must be a peak, that the peak must lead to enormous hardship and that there will not be techonological solutions. /Aquamarine

The peak could be happening now, see www.peakoil.net which predicts 2008 as the year of the peak, if not now (their analysis includes Natural Gas Liquids too). All resonable viewpoints should be included in the article, though massive criticisms can be put in a new Criticisms of Hubbert peak theory article or something. Though, there is actually little disagreement about Hubbert peak theory itself, just some are more optimistic more oil can be extracted through more efficient technology including increased Non-conventional oil production. So please don't confuse disagreements over oil production data to confuse the issue of hubbert peak theory, a peak delayed still means hubbert peak theory is real and valid. zen master 20:36, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yes, the peak "could" be happning soon. But that is POV. The United States Geological Survey estimates that, based on current recovery rates, that there are enough petroleum reseves to continue current production rates for at least 50 to 100 years. I am not arguing that peak will take place someday, but that it is a fact that it will happen soon and that there must be enormous hardship when it happens. It is quite possible that the transition to other fuels will be smooth. The articles should reflect that. Hubberts peak for oil and natural gas is an important part of future energy, but it is not certain that it will decide everything. It is just one part of the puzzle. /Aquamarine

The way to fix POV is to clarify or add criticism, not to censor. Many peak oil proponents believe they have disproved the USGS future production data. Read peakoil.net, a lot has changed recently I believe because of the fact that Saudi Arabia can no longer be counted on to increase production (their largest oil field may be near peak, which may mean global peak since that is large portion of world production). zen master 20:53, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

And there are many others disputing that. It is not the role of Wikipedia to do original research. This is a very controversial area and the article should reflect that there are many views and not just present one. And to exclude mentioning for example the possiblity of Fusion, as you want to do, is censorship. /Aquamarine

There are some who actually seem to want an energy catastrophe. They see this as a way to their utopia. When the world settles down, there will be less work, small communities, no greedy corporations, locally grown foods, renewable energies, no competition and general bliss. There is very little to suggest that there will not instead be starvation, more work and general misery. But this dreams seems to be an important idea among those advocating a-peak-this-decade-and-there-is-no-solution. This can be seen in their websites and in this article. This dream should not be allowed to affect the facts available. /Aquamarine

I am not one of the people that wants to see a catastrophe happen, and I think those others are proposing small communities and locally grown food etc as the solution to the problem (not much need for oil/transportation fuel if all food is grown locally, organically). Some may need to wake up to the fact that oil is not like any other resource on the planet, oil is the ability to do work, the First law of thermodynamics applies to it. Markets or supply and demand does not create energy. Increasingly more and more of the world's energy may have to be diverted to finding new energy sources (since oil replacement technologies do not have as high a ratio of extracted energy over energy used in the extraction/refining processes), so there may be increasingly less and less energy to do everything else that society needs doing. Oil is best thought of as "spare energy" that built up over millions of years, when it runs out and absent adequate replacement technologies we may simply have to make do without. zen master 21:16, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The laws of thermodynamics applies to all kinds of energy, not just oil. The thing special about oil is that it is storable and transportable, making it especially good as a tranportation fuel. But the same can be said for diesel from coal, biodiesel and oil from thermal depolymerization. All of these can be used for transportation and provide net positive energy for humans, like oil. Regarding energy in general, for example for heating and electricity and not as transportation fuel, nuclear power can easily provide cheap energy for billions of years into the future. That without fusion but only using available fission. /Aquamarine

Yes, but the point is those alternative transportation fuels currently provide just a tiny fraction of the energy that oil provides overall. Making fuel from coal can only delay the peak, that isn't really a "replacement" option. Coal (and natural gas) are also fossil fuels, which are subject to depletion like oil, and are best considered "spare energy" too, though less desirable because of transport difficulty and in the case of coal much higher pollution, not to mention less energy extracted, The key question is can these alternatives keep up with the rate of depletion? And I believe most have a much smaller net energy gain compared with conventional oil. The holy grail of future energy technology may simply be technology that allows current alternative fuel options to increase production a few orders of magnitude to match the energy that oil currently provides, I hope you will agree this certainly may not be feasable to do? These alternative energy sources are not "spare energy", more work has to be put into them than what is currently required for conventional oil production, and less energy is available. It's exactly the same reason why non-conventional oil production is less desireable to an energy company over conventional oil, non-conventional oil offers much smaller returns (we may be stuck with just these small returns someday). Wind generator factories currently rely on oil for production, not to mention getting employees to the factory. As the cost of oil increases so too does the cost of alternative energy options like wind energy. Though, investing in renewable energy infrastructure is definitely a wise thing to do with the spare energy that oil provides. zen master 22:04, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

No, these technologies can keep up with oil depletion. As I said, diesel from coal, biodiesel and thermal depolymerization are net energy positive for humans. They do not require more energy to produce than what can be gained from them. And their cost is not much higher than that for extracting oil from the ground. Oil from TDP is economical already at the fuel prices of today. Coal is finite but there are large reserves. The important thing is that diesel from coal will delay the peak, IF there is one very soon, for at least decades, allowing much time to find alternatives. Biodiesel can already provide all the transportation fuel need of the US using only a very small area, see the article in Wikipedia. And it is a renewable energy like TDP. Regarding hydrogen more far off, nuclear fission is a very good way to produce much hydrogen. So there are many altenatives both now and in the future for replacing oil as transportation fuel. /Aquamarine

Please provide citations for your claim that non fossil fuel based alternatives can keep up with the rate of depletion? If you mean coal can make up the difference what about increased pollution? How fast can TDP increase production? The bio-diesel article indicates just a small fraction of it is produce relative to oil production. What of the effects of the absence or of higher prices for oil based fertilizer on bio-diesel production, is that farming all organic? Delaying the peak is not what should be worried about, preventing or mitigating consequences of the peak is what the focus should be, energy policy wise. Delaying the problem potentially makes it worse. And I think you may be missing the scale of the issue, were oil to deplete just 1% alternative options seemingly would have to increase production 100 fold or more just to make up the difference (I don't know the exact figures, but suffice it to say alternatives currently account for just a tiny fraction of the energy that oil provides). zen master 22:56, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Potential of biodiesel to replace all transportation fuel needs of the US using a very small land area. [2] TDP is already producing oil in one plant and there are advanced plans for new plants both in the US and foreign countries. [3] [4] Biodiesel from algae do no require oil based fertilizer, they are using sewage. Pollution from coal is problem so other energy sources are better if found. But people will take goal if the alternative is severe hardship or even starvation. Delaying the peak allows new technologies to be researched and built out like, like fusion, biodiesel, TPD, fission and other renewable energies. Allowing society to continue to increase living standars and reduce poverty worldwide, as today. Oil produce 40% of the energy of the world [5]. Much, but not in any way impossible to replace primarily with nuclear and renewable energy. Oil will not suddenly completely disappear but gradually decline.

One pro bio-diesel article that theorizes it is feasible doesn't mean it is feasible (though we should add that citation). My first hubbert peak talk page discussion many months ago was with someone that believed Athabasca Tar Sands and other sites would solve all of our oil problems, don't hear anyone saying that now. And any solution is great news if true but we should remain skeptical (and perform a true cost benefit energy analysis with pollution, sustainablity/renwablity/feasability all as metrics). I am definitely in favor of less dependence on (foreign) oil but note the "NPOV" text from the pro bio-diesel article "...if the remaining challenges are solved", there is no gurantee they will be solved, what is plan B should it fail and depletion to start (everyone agrees it will start, someday)? How much energy and other resources are required to build 300-600 million new cars that run on (bio) diesel? If bio-diesel production from algea makes so much sense then why isn't it being started on a massive scale now? One of the points I've gathered from reading peak oil.net articles is that alternatives to oil need to be ready the momment depletion starts, because after the peak research and development costs will be increasingly higher if there is steadily decreasing energy availability (though there is perhaps significant possibilities for increased fuel efficiency etc perhaps). It may make much more sense to build an efficient (alternatively fueled) rail network in the US rather than trying to make bio-diesel work for automobiles. Maintaining the "status quo" may not be possible if the ratio of extracted energy over energy used in the extraction processes is less. If using something other than oil made more sense we'd already be using it, to me the fact that alternative fuels currently account for just a tiny fraction of the energy oil provides speaks volumes to the issue of whether these alternatives are at all considered "feasible". zen master 23:59, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Look at the references in the article. It is based on several US Government projects and research, some of which went on for decades. They have done the calculations you asked for. Biodiesel is not more widspread now because it is somewhat more expensive than fossil oil. This will change if oil prices increase. Oil prices will be limited by the production costs of biodiesel. This means that people will have to give up some of their comforts due to somewhat higher fuel prices, but not a catastrophe. It can be mixed with ordinary gasoline in ordinary cars. If the algae process for some reason will fail after all this research, there is still diesel from coal and TDP. Oil will not suddenly disappear after the peak, but will very gradually decline with gradually rising prices. Research and development will certainly not suddenly disappear after the peak. I agree with you that mass transport will become more common.

Again, the metric should absolutely not be the price of fuel, it should be net energy/efficiency, looking at the ability to do work in terms of price is violating the first law of thermodynamics (a point I am repeatedly trying to make), I should find the peak oil or other article on that point. The statement "the end of cheap oil" is not just refering to price. If alternative fuels cost more then we may have less money and less energy to spend on everything else we need, increasingly so perhaps. US government resarch is great when it starts paying off in the real world. Also, the article does not discuss what I specifically asked you to cite about your claim that alternative energy production could keep pace with oil depletion (time wise, assuming oil depletion is relatively soon)? The statement that bio-diesel is "feasible" could mean it won't be ready until after depletion has destroyed the global economy or until fusion/hydrogen is itself feasbile and has successfully replaced fossil fuels (wouldn't matter either way as far as the "feasability" of bio-diesel is concerned). zen master 00:40, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Regarding energy efficiency, "Based on a report by the US DOE and USDA entitled "Life Cycle Inventory of Biodiesel and Petroleum Diesel for Use in an Urban Bus"5, biodiesel produced from soy has an energy balance of 3.2:1." Other feedstocks such as algaes can yield substantially higher energy balances, as can using thermochemical processes for processing wastes into biofuels (such as the thermal depolymerization process pioneered by Changing World Technologies). Such approaches can yield EROI values ranging from 5-10, potentially even higher." So this alternative fuels do no cost more energy than it produce for humans. Regarding if biodiesel can keep up with oil depletion, there is no evidence that it could not keep with the relatively slow peak of Hubbert. But my goal with this discussion was to show that it is not certain that peak oil will happen in the near future or that if it happen soon there must be misery. I have shown that. Thus the article should reflect those view and not categorically claim that peak oil soon is inevitable and ghastly.

From the articles I've read I don't believe the soy based energy balance figure takes into consideration the amount of energy soy bean farming currently requires in the from of oil based fertilizers (not to mention transportation it to your dinner plate). Plus pesticide and other pollutants would also be an enormous concern if production is increased 2-5 orders of magnitude to make up for oil depletion. The "feasilibility" is not a question of "can we make fuel out of soybeans/alge that we grew in our backyard", we definitely can do that, the problem is the "feasiliby" of increasing production 2-5 orders of magnitude. If the downsides to using alternative energy, including ease of production, were less than conventional oil, we'd already be using it as an energy source. Where are they going to get the water to grow 500,000 acres worth of alge in the desert? Will food production be lessened because of the increasing need for bio-fuel, some people may have to go hungry? I am afraid evidence of alternative energy sources means the peak is real and is happening, we will have less energy and less ease of transporting it from then on. Even if alge bio-diesel farming works what of the economic impact of replacing tens of millions of automobiles? zen master 01:47, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

What articles? Those questions have been considered, please see the references in the article. The algae do not require oil based feritlizers. We are not talking about transporting it to the dinner plate, but to a car. Yhe farms are suggested to be placed all over the country, near seawage streams. Read the article again, algae will only occupy a very small land area. The US farmer are paid not to use all of their land today. And biodiesel can be mixed with ordinary fuel in ordinary cars, allowing a gradual replacement of oil and gradual replacement with new cars.

There are dozens or pro hubbert peak articles and organizations, compare the See also + Hubbert peak advocacy and research sections with the one link in the Criticisms of Hubbert peak section (more links can and should be added). However, there may be some misunderstanding, bio-diesel is a solution to the hubbert peak problem, not a criticism or refutation of it. Bio-diesel will only start, at the earliest, when oil depletion starts (since it won't be as "good" as oil). Hubbert peak is about the peak in oil production, not overall energy production (though absent adequate replacement technologies the peak in oil energy is effectively a peak in overall world energy, as far as ability to get the work humans need done is concerned, especially for transportation).

So, because of that bio-diesel alge article you consider all energy problems solved and we will definitely be using alge based bio-fuels for everything within a few years? That article is your energy bible? Isn't such a belief itself (also perhaps) POV? Food transportation requires fuel too, one article I read stated that the average american dinner travels 1350 miles to the dinner plate. 500,000 acres is not small (I believe, that article was just trying to refute earlier claims by environmentalists/hubber peak proponents against the idea of growing corn to provide bio-fule, which seemingly does require more farmland than is available). If the article included blueprints, financing information and independent feasability assessments I'd perhaps give it the same level of credibility that you seem to. Though, we definitely should include that link inside this article and/or over on the bio-diesel article, do you agree? Thoug bio-diesel really is just one possible solution against a mountain of other equal possibilities, right? I believe the bio-desiel article states that the majority of bio-desiel currently comes from bio-degration, something that definitely can not increase an orders of magnitude in production I reckon. I hope we are not putting all of our eggs in the bio-diesel basket, extracting oil even faster in the perhaps mistaken belief technology will solve the problem (this only makes the depletion curve more steep/more drastic, when it begins).

You mentioned nuclear was an option above, now you are back to alge bio-fuel, why? zen master 02:33, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The oil peak, if very soon, will have gradual decline of oil production. Contrary, there will then be gradal increasr of alternative like nuclear, TDP, biodiesel, other renewable and so on, all probably at the same time. Bioddiesel will just be one alternative among many. Regarding when production will start, biodiesel production is already happening and is increasing every year. The area required for biodiesel is quite small. "That 15,000 square miles works out to roughly 9.5 million acres - far less than the 450 million acres currently used for crop farming in the US, and the over 500 million acres used as grazing land for farm animals." The critical pro-peak articles ignore algae and look only on producing biodiesel as it is done today from soy, which would be difficult to do on a large scale. Regarding the credibility of the article, is much better than the typical pro-peak article which often have no references. Look in the references, there is the data you request.

You may be missing an important point, switching to alternative fuels means the peak is happening now, or will be soon. The fact alternative fuels incresingly exist is evidence of oil peak, not the opposite. There is no question that the peak in oil production will happen someday, if sufficient alternative energy sources can be produced then society will be able to maintain the status quo, but what happens if alternatives can't? Are you willing to bet your life on it? I am not. There really needs to be one clear alternative energy to oil created and ramped up to massive production, we can't rely on a bastardized combination of multiple alternative energy options for transportation, can we? If oil depletion happens slowly and alternatives can increasingly make up the difference, then great, I will be happy -- but what if depletion is much steeper than expected? The largest oil field(s) in saudi arabia may be at or near peak, if that is true we could already be in serious trouble. Are you certain 10-15 years from now we can maintain today's economic prosperity levels with 1/3rd less oil? How much is demand expected to increase in 15 years? zen master 04:51, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Again, I am not disputing a peak, just one soon or that it will lead to hardship. Increasing alternative fuels is evidence that they are cost competitve today, sometimes with the help of subsidaries. There is no evidence that oil will disappear overnight, even the peakers-this-decade admits it will be a gradual process. There is no need in due to some physical law for "one clear alternative energy to oil", it can consist of many different alternatives. No, I have no certain proof for a smooth transition but neither do you have any certain for the opposite. The article should reflect that there is not a consensus among scientists. And not advocate just one POV. /Aqumarine

Regarding this discussion in general, as have been shown repeatedly, it is not an absolute scientific fact that the peak will happen soon or that it must lead to misery even if it will happen soon. There is not a consensus among scientists. If you agree that the article should be NPOV and discuss both views and the evidence against and for, then let us finish this discussion. Okay? /Aguamarine

No actually, depending on how fast oil production for a field or area ramped upwards initially, the rate of depletion can be dramatic. If Saudi Arabia's fields deplete faster than expected, and Iraq continues to be unavailable what other areas of the world have significant oil not already near peak? Coincidentally Iran perhaps? The date of the peak is certainly disputed yes, but as far as sections that describe what happens should we run out of oil sooner or faster than expected the word "if" is more appropriate than including redundant sentences in there that repeatedly states there is a dispute, in my opinion. It's fair game for the article to describe at length the many possible scenarios that could happen should we run out of oil sooner or faster than expected. I believe colin campbell's oilpeak.net predicted peak in 2008 is a consensus among oil industry folks [6] The risk of extreme catastrophe is low, I agree, but lack of "hardship" as you put it I'd hardly call a smooth transition. Even slow, gradual depletion could have serious economic consequences, markets crashed, jobs lost etc. Alternatives show promise but just rebuilding new infrastructure and diesel engines will add a cost (in both money and energy terms) over and above what we spend on oil today. The days of increased economic growth may be over, at least until the economy "stabalizes" with the alternative energy source(s) that are able to scale production upwards dramatically. I've read a few other articles about the "myth" of the "service economy" in the US too, the house of cards just might come crashing down. As it stands now the economy may be poised on the brink of a housing market collapse, interest rate increase, and potentially massive devaluation of the dollar, all before peak oil sets in, would you consider any of those a "hardship"? A fragile economy certainly doesn't help one get through the (perhaps lengthy) transition period between increasingly less conventional oil supplies and alternatives. zen master 17:38, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The US is not the world. Even if there would be a debt collapse in the US, that do not necessarily mean that the rest of the world must suffer. Anyhow, this article is not about the US economy and debt. Collin's estimate is not the consensus, see the US Geological Survey, for example. I also think that there is no need to mention the dispute about the year in every sentence. Just state that there is a dispute and have a title something like "Replacement alternatives for oil today". But there can certainly be opposite views in the text, like whether nuclear fission is an alternative, assuming a quick peak.

I agree with your assessment about the US, however that certainly would constitute a "hardship", wouldn't it? Much of the US's debt is in foreign hands, were that to become near worthless I can't see how that wouldn't impact their economies as well. Opposite views are fine and should even be increased in the text, but not in the "here is what might happen if we start running of oil soon, or quickly" sections. zen master 20:03, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yes, a large debt crises in the US would affect much of the world. But that may actuall be good for parts of the world, like that the Chinese would start producing goods for themselves and not for the US in exchange for paper. But this do not affect this debate, I thought it was about the world as a whole and not the US. Why should not the view of many that nuclear fission is a viable alternative be represented? Both sides can present their arguments, for and against.

movement/clean up discussion

First, i support the move for the following reasons:

information on alternative energy was getting way off-topic to hubbert peak
it was getting pretty detailed
it was needed under energy development
the move reduced redundancy and possible contradiction with a parallel effort at energy development
crazy "alternatives" to oil started to populate the roster like fuels on other planets. this kind of POV is a backdoor denial of the Hubbert peak.

I would be in favor of re-developing alternatives to oil under Hubbert with the specific intent of showing how they apply to this topic. Why they might or might not be feasible with respect to Hubbert Peak timing (pretty much Heinberg's approach in "The Party's Over"). Having already worked out the details of alternative energy development in another topic helps this process a lot. So in summary: i'm all for the move, but agree with zenmaster that some information regarding alternatives needs to be presented with respect to Hubbert Peak; this information should be re-developed here after the move. Amadeust 22:18, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Response:

info is not "needed" anywhere except where it most appropriately belongs
"pretty detailed" by itself is not a reason to move info. Are you are saying the overall hubbert peak article is too big? (i disagree)
The info started here with the issue of oil depletion in mind, it is energy development that needs to create info that is more generic to its topic
redundancy is better than censorship, I knew people would not like it if i just deleted Future energy development. And anyway, I think both articles can start with the same redundant content but then future energy development will move towards generic technologies and hubbert peak will move more towards replacement transportation fuel options with oil depletion in mind
I agree with you about the "Speculative" section, that really does not belong on hubbert peak at all. When the protection flag comes off the article let's remove/sort out/find proper place for the Speculative section and delete it. We could create a criteria that alternative technologies are only listed on Hubbert peak if they are currently considered feasible within 10 years from now or so (fusion and/or hydrogen perhaps have to be moved too?). We may also want to focus on only listing technologies that have the best chance at being able to replace oil (technologies able to sustain a many orders of magnitude increase in production).

zen master 22:49, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Again, why do you assume that 10 years? There is not a consensus about that the peak will take place now. I can agree that Dyson sphere or fuel on other planets do not belong at all in this article. But fusion should be in somehow since the year of the peak is in dispute. It could be dismissed but not censored, like "assuming that the peak is already taking place, then fusion is not a solution since it is at least 20 years in the future". Actually, this could maybe be a good solution. Let all the discussion in this article about alternative energy sources assume that the peak is soon, but make it clear that this date is disputed.

Your proposal is how I thought of the article to begin with. If there is a reasonable theory that claims one of the earth's most important resources may start running out soon then shouldn't we assume the possibility of it happening? The article is not saying "this will happen, we will have to use these alternatives", rather, in my opinion it is saying, "if we start to run out of oil, these alternatives technologies or new ones may be increasingly relied upon to provide the world's energy" (we can use that sentence in the article at the top of alternatives to oil section perhaps?). I think the article clarifies POV many times stating the dates are all disputed I believe (disputes may be merely conflicting oil production data input into different hubbert peak models). Hydrogen/fusion are kind of included with the caveat of "if peak is delayed hydrogen/fusion may be ready by then". We could list alternatives in order of feasability time wise? Perhaps we should include coal and other fossil fuel based options more too then (noting increased pollution etc too of course). Anywhere there are unclear POV issues we should fix, but moving info is never the answer, and I feel obliged to note that no one "fixed POV" issues in the life of the Future energy development article. zen master 23:20, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The title of the article is "Hubbert peak" not "Peak oil production" therefore, we're specifically talking about the timeframe according to Hubbert. This means that only currently viable technologies are relevant. WRT Fusion, according to ITER's own admission, the first demo reactor will be ready within 20 years. Therefore this is not a viable source of energy to replace oil as infrastructure would reqire another 20-40 years to build out. There are various energy sources that can be discussed and we should focus on those as they have the potential to be built-out in the immediate post Hubbert peak period. Amadeust 23:44, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I agree with most of what you are saying and are glad that we have found a common ground. But I think as Amadeust that it is better to start a new "alternative to oil" section here fresh. Much of the current content are looking at very long ahead, like billions of year for nuclear. Alternatively, the current material should be severely edited since it is supposed to deal primarily with a short period of time into the future. I do not think it is a good idea to have two articles with the same content if their ideas are different, this will lead to unfocused development of the content. Regarding the Future energy development article, there have already been edits of POV, like the speculative section. But I think at moment everybody is looking at this discussion before doing anything else. /Aquamarine

Information starts to become off-topic when it deals with itself more than it explains or relates to the topic at hand. This is the case with the information we're talking about. I'm not arguing that all of it should be excluded but just that the majority should be excluded. That this information happens to be useful elsewhere is the driving decision behind a move. I further argue that information relevant to Hubbert is easier to reproduce post move than it is possible to distill from existing information via the wiki process. Amadeust 23:27, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hubbert peak is just one theory about a possible peak in oil production, anyone is able to create an article about alternative peak oil theories (put please don't censor this article to achieve what you consider NPOV). The majority of "alternatives to oil" information is more appropriate inside the Hubbert peak article I believe, I will monitor but currently have no preference as far as what happens to the Future energy development article goes. Why "move" content when it can be used to seed further development of two ultimately distinct articles? But my main point is: Absent the potential for a peak in oil production would there be nearly as much interest in alternative fuel technologies? Are companies researching oil replacement technologies out of the kindness of their heart to save the "environment" or do they (perhaps mistakingly) believe alternative fuels will make financial and energy sence and there will be an increasing "market" for alternative fuels? Since the impetus for "alternatives to oil" is because of (the possibility of) peak oil the content should remain in this article, logically I believe. The Speculative section is small (and I agree should be removed/significantly reduced), so I see no basis for the claim that the "majority" of the entire alternatives to oil section should be moved/reduced -- what are your other issues with the alternatives to oil section (renewable, non-conventional oil, what?)? zen master 00:17, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Are you saying that only you know what is NPOV for this article? Regarding investments, those investing in alternative fuels usually hope to be profitable today, not maybe tomorrow. Various kinds of renewable energy are profitable today, sometimes with help of subsidaries or in special places. Regarding the central issue, okay, let us keep most of the content here. Have an title that clearly shows the subject, like "Replacement alternatives to oil today". Edit out content that are far away like space. Have a link to future energy development (or whatever the name), explaining that this is a more general page about future energy.

My point about NPOV was that redundancy is preferred over deletion or errant movement to me, don't encumber an article with verbose clarifications about every aspect of the theory when creating a criticisms article or alternative theory article is an available option. Many current renewable energy options are profitable today yes, but the point is it took more time, money, and energy for them to become profitable, compared with conventional oil production (especially after you factor in the respective scales of energy). Is it feasible to increase renewable energy production to the same or near the level of current oil productions? Even assuming it is feasible, how much more time, money, and energy will be required to build a many orders of magnitude increase of renewable energy infrastrucutre? As I understand it the problem after the peak will be that we will have increasingly less energy combined with the fact that alternative sources will require more energy investment, having less and less but needing more and more to maintain status quo (double whammy perhaps). We don't just need energy in the form of alternative fuels, we also need energy to build and sustain the very infrastrucutre etc of those alternative fuels. zen master 01:21, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Are you saying that you want an article that should only be edited by you and only reflect you POV? We will not have less energy if we build out nuclear power. Which is not that hard. Contruction time have been 3 years in recent units. The main problem may be in transportation fuel, but as I have shown above, there is good reason to hope that that can be solved.

I am absolutely not saying that, and there is no way you can logically claim my posts here are saying that. I am basically saying content should be placed logically, when two article's subjects are shown to be logically distinct there is no reason to merge content between the two. Is it feasible for nuclear power to increase production 100 fold? How about 1000 or more? Nuclear power as the oil replacement technology would still need hydrogen to work or if 100% electric millions of new vehicles would have to be produced, either way (unless you are suggesting we create nuclear powered cars?). From what I have read, nuclear power is one of the least feasible oil replacement options (because of the scale involved). Nuclear power plants could be built on oil and gas deposits to aid energy efficient of their extraction, but at some point we are better off just using the energy nuclear power provided directly. The impetus for even having an "alternatives to oil" section/article anywhere is because of the (potential) for an oil peak, so for that reason alone the alternatives to oil section should remain here, in my opinion. If there were 10 times as much confirmed oil reserves on the planet do you think there would be nearly as much interest or investment in alternative energy technologies? I don't think so. Note the image from US government data on the hubbert peak article that indicates oil production outside of OPEC and FSU has already hit depletion.... zen master 02:00, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

There is no reason that one cannot build many nuclear plant. References to contrary would be apprecitated. And it is much less than 100 fold, say 6 times to replace the energy from oil completely, less if oil for transportation is excluded. Nuclear can be combined with biodiesel, dissel from coal or TDP for transportation fuel. The "image" has a projected peak, nothing from real data. If there were 10 times as much oil in the world, other energy source would still be interesting if they were cheaper.

"Nuclear energy requires uranium, which is also discovered, extracted, and transported using oil-powered machinery. Nuclear power plants also consume a tremendous amount of oil during their initial construction and continued maintainence." [7] or "It is difficult to know whether coal or nuclear power will be the least costly during the next few decades." [8]

How much oil/transportation energy is needed just to transport 6-10 times as much nuclear waste to yucca mountain, NV? (Note they haven't even begun to transport the waste they already have to Yucca Mountain) One article I read stated there is only enough uranium to fuel the nuclear power plants for only thee next 50 years. Though new plants would likely use a new technology, but that is unproven, another question mark, and we will have to replace old nuclear power plants with new ones when uranium runs out. I will continue to look for articles that dispute your assertion nuclear only needs to increase 6-10 fold to equal oil's energy output, does that take into consideration the recent fact that world oil usage is over 82,000,000 barrels a day, largely due to increase demand from China? Will nuclear power plants be built next to new hydrogen or 100% electric automobile factories, too? zen master 03:06, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

That was bad articles you quoted, zen master. Very biased. Using statements without support. Or simply meaningless without comparison or calculations, like saying that 3-5 billions for building a nuclear plant make them impossible, when the US spends about 400 billions each year on defence. I hope you can produce something better. Contrary to what is implied without support, nuclear power and coal are cheap power sources [9]. It takes energy to build a nuclear plant, but you show no calculation that that makes it impossible. Again, oil will not disappear overnight. Using life cycle analysis, it takes 4-5 months of energy production from the nuclear plant to fully pay back the initial energy investment. Nuclear energy give more energy per input energy than most other energy sources, including many renewables. So if energy would be scarce, nuclear is the best investment. [10] Those opposed against nuclear quote 50 years of today known uranium reserves but ignore that it is common in nature. For example, using seawater it would last billions of years. [11] Not to mention thorium as a fuel. [12] And breeder technology have been in use in dozen reactors already. [13] Nuclear waste take up very litte space, compared to say wastes from coal or other industry wastes toxical indefinitely. And it would be much less with reprocessing. [14] More far off, fusion or ADS system could eliminate waste. [15] Anyhow, people will prefer building out coal or nuclear, even with pollution or waste, if the alternative is great hardship or starvation. Again regarding transportation fuel, diesel from coal, biodesel and TDP can proved transportation fuel in addition to that from the still large oil production after the peak. Regarding China, it is rapidly building out its nuclear energy and will have a great advantage to the US in the future if the US delay. [16][17] /Aquamarine

I never claimed they were unbiased, though certainly less biased than US government or oil company information. These "biased" articles are merely pointing out just switching to a new alternative energy source will have a (potentially large) cost in both money and energy terms building infrastructure and new engines, let alone actually switching. They also objectively point out problems with a significant nuclear power increase. Nuclear waste takes up little space because you have to keep it all together or it's game over! I think wind power and bio-diesel from alge are much more likely to be significantly increased in production than coal and nuclear 10 years from now. zen master 18:18, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Just opinions without any support. Unlike those in my previous paragraph above. The arguments in your links are shown to be misleading or false. It seems that there is no arguments based on facts against nuclear.

As are your opinions. Please try to show my arguments are misleading or false. The biggest argument against nuclear is the risk of accidents and waste long term waste storage, there is no one claiming those problems have been solved, is there? zen master 19:56, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The waste debatte is not relevant when looking at the timeframe of Hubbert peak right now. People will choose nuclear waste if the alternative is starvation. The same thing with accidents, if the choice is many more dead in starvation or due to decreased health and living standards, people will choose nuclear. And more long-term, there is good hope that the waste problem will be solved as discussed above. And the same also for accidents with new reactor technologies. Also regarding accidents, thousands die from cancer due to pollution from coal including radioactivity each year, compare that to no death from nuclear energy in the US. But again, that is not relevant when looking at the peak-right-now-theory. The waste is a very long term problem and the peak is a problem now, according to you. Those arguing for an energy peak must show that nuclear power is not possible to build out, not point to the waste or accident problem that people will ignore if faced with the choice of starvation.

This discussion has turned to technical merits of alternatives which is putting the cart before the horse. Zenmaster, your question, "Absent the potential for a peak in oil production would there be nearly as much interest in alternative fuel technologies?" means that i have not been clear in my position. I do not want a Hubbert peak article without an alternative energy section. However, i do want information regarding each alternative source to pertain to the topic at hand and the best way i feel this can be accomplished is by moving the existing alternatives information to future energy development and then re-developing only that information which pertains to Hubbert peak. Readers eager for more information about alternatives or a particular alternative should be pointed to future energy development but we should not encumber readers only interested in Hubbert peak with extraneous details in this section. By doing so you presume that a reader's interest in Hubbert peak mirrors your own interest. Incidentally, i think we agree on the necessity and urgency of alternatives. Amadeust 17:23, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The content was developed here with the issue of oil peak in mind, so it makes logical sense for it to stay. I disagree with your assessment that we are "encumbering" readers. "Future energy development" is way way too generic. There should be a seperation between what is currently thought of as "feasible" and "speculative" technologies that are at best decades away. Hubbert peak can focus on the feasible because of the possibility of oil peak, future energy development can focus on speculative options. Also, as I mentioned on this talk page previously, it can be argued the fact that alternatives are gaining prominance proves peak oil is upon us, oil is still better energy wise than all other options so there would be no need to switch if we had plenty of it left. I would accept "Alternatives to oil" as a title but perhaps the word "alternative" is too POV (we can change the section title if need be).

The title should include something like "Alternatives to oil today", making it clear that the issue if fast replacement for oil and not long-term problems. There is much disagreement of what is feasible today and those options should be discussed. But options far of in future like Dyson sphere, even if very feasible in the future, should be discussed elsewhere. Regarding alternative energies, they are mainly developed for making money today with the prices of today, not for waiting x years to make money with higher prices. /Aquamarine

Another option is for each sub section to get (or link to if it already exists) their own article and we have a short 2-4 sentence synopsis of the technology, so bio-diesel would directly link to the bio-diesel article, rather than future energy development, wind power would link with a short synopsis to the wind power article etc etc, I'd much prefer doing it that way. What do you think? zen master 18:04, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The content on alternatives was developed with respect to alternatives because this information was not available elsewhere. While this was appropriate initially, it does not mean that all of the information belongs in Hubbert peak. Once discussion on each alternative energy source becomes detailed and self contained in its own right, then it should also break off from energy development into a new article. The kind of reasons you site for including this information is exactly what the Hubbert peak article should contain, but it should not contain information pertaining to each energy source that does not further the topic of Hubbert peak. An example of appropriate information: "The U.S. would require at least an elevenfold increase in nuclear power production to replace both the current amount of electricity generated from fossil fuels and gasoline usage. This likely would involve using hydrogen as an energy carrier (see below), which adds inefficiency (perhaps increasing this ratio). There may be a limited supply of uranium and other minerals, such as thorium, for use as fuel for nuclear power." and an example of inappropriate information: "Fast breeder reactors are another possibility. As opposed to current LWR (light water reactors) which burn the rare isotope of uranium U-235, fast breeder reactors produce plutonium from U-238, and then fission that to produce electricity and thermal heat. It has been estimated that there is anywhere from 10,000 to five billion years' worth of U-238 for use in these power plants, and that they can return a high ratio of energy returned on energy invested (EROEI), and avoid some of the problems of current reactors by being automated, passively safe, and reaching economies of scale via mass production. There are a few such research projects working on fast breeders - Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory being one, currently working on the small, sealed, transportable, autonomous reactor (SSTAR)." One pertains to the Hubbert peak, while the other one expands on nuclear power without any additional information on how this impacts a post peak transition. If i read this in a textbook, i'd be getting frustrated with the author for taking me on tangents. Am i being too sensitive here? Amadeust 18:56, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It is difficult to draw a clear line. Those arguing againt fission as a solution to the peak like to point out that there are only 50 years of found and profitable uranium reserves. To counter that when arguing for fission, one must make a reference to breeeders./Aquamarine

Forgot to mention that extraneous detail like that also has potential to crowd out relevant discussion (as it has with respect to the nuclear example sited above since it's missing any mention of the decline of nuclear power in many countries (France excepted) as well as discussion of overt and hidden costs compared to other alternatives). Hence it detracts from the article and shapes discussion away from the topic at hand. It therefore belongs in another article. Amadeust 19:02, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Nuclear power is being built out in many developing countries like India and China. Nuclear fission should certainly be allowed to state its advantages. And those opposing state their objections. /Aquamarine

There will probably be links to the main articles and some kind of synopsis but with comments, like in the text today for renewable energy. But links to the opposite energy articles should be prominent somewhere in both articles. /Aquamarine

However we clean up verbose text within hubbert peak sub sections shouldn't have much if any bearing on whether the content is moved or not. I don't see much need for a future energy development or even energy development articles at all, as each is going to have to refer to the main articles for each option, like Hydrogen economy, Nuclear, Fusion, etc, so why not just link to each article directly, rather than create an article like future energy development that can't help but be redundant for many reasons? As far as the need POV wise to counter the point that there may only be 50 years worth of uranium left, we should just simply said that point is disputed and breeder reactors may solve the challenge (no need to add more detail than that). So I guess my point is: you don't have to be verbose (or make drastic movements) to balance POV... zen master 19:32, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

In reading the above, I find I have trouble with these statements: Tom - Talk 19:35, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)

"both articles can start with the same redundant content but then future energy development will move towards generic technologies and hubbert peak will move more towards replacement transportation fuel options with oil depletion in mind." I don't follow whte distinction that is being made here. It is apparently clear to the author, but not to me. What is the difference between "generic technologies" and "replacement transportation fuel options." Are not "replacement transportation fuel options" simply a subset of ""generic technologies"? Tom - Talk
"The impetus for even having an "alternatives to oil" section/article anywhere is because of the (potential) for an oil peak" I simply do not follow this at all. Disregarding the idea of Hubbert's Peak completely, I, the civil engineer, am as interested as ever in energy development for humanity, and that includes a diversified portfolio of production alternatives. Whether nuclear, oil, coal, geothermal, hydroelectric, or any other technology is going out of style for any reason or not, I am interested in future posibilities and developments. I think it is natural myopia produced by excessive time with this article that would lead us to think the whole of the energy development field hangs on the implications of Hubbert's Peak. Tom - Talk

As proposed above, the Energy Development project hierarchy should be a part of hierarchy of which I show a fragment below:

-Sustainability
 |
 |-Water development
 |
 \-Energy development
   |
   |-Oil energy development
   |  |
   |  |-Hubbert's Peak Theory
   |  |
   |  \-Alternatives to oil (see Future energy development)
   |
   \-Future energy development

-Tom - Talk 19:35, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)

You should follow the discussion through, that is way old proposal. Hubbert peak is absolutely not in an related or a daughter article of energy development or sustainability. In my opinion, the best way of organizing things is for Hubbert peak to link to the main articles for each alternative/future energy option, like hydrogen, nuclear, fusion, renewable etc. Please read the bottom part of the discussion above and catch up. zen master 19:40, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I think Tom's suggestion is good. The move was motivated by the fact that many in this discussion wanted such a move to new article. The article was bloated and much discussion was not related to the peak. There is need for comments and an overview of future energy sources somewhere. And the discussion here is supposed to be limited to a what-if scenare assuming a peak today, excluding more long-term problems and solutions. /Aquamarine

Tom's organizational map makes 0 sense and it will not happen as long as I have a voice (unless someone makes a logical case and convinces me). There are NO even tangentially related groups of articles on wikipedia organized like that (with that much verbose hierarchy). If anything, sustainability and definitely alternatives to oil/future energy development should be under Hubbert Peak because without that theory there would be little need or interest in it. Can someone please provide a logical reason for organizing things that way other that "the map looks pretty"? What another article does I don't care as much about, but information that should be in Hubbert peak logically should stay here, the content originated here so that should tell you something. There is no need to link to a redundant future energy development article when the meat and potatoes of the issues will be in the individual future energy articles themselves anyway, articles like hydrogen, renewable, bio-diesel, etc. If you have POV issues with the content/title/whatever then let's fit it, adding hierarchy, verbosity, or needlessly moving content is never the proper solution to POV issues, in my opinion. I think we are all agreed parts of alterantives to oil are too verbose, and speculative should be removed completely perhaps, but moving that entire section to future energy development makes 0 sense. Can someone please attempt to make a rational/logical case for it (i.e. please defend your belief that Hubbert peak should be underneath sustainbility, energy development, and oil energy development)? zen master 20:11, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Can you explain this statement: "Hubbert peak is absolutely not in an related or a daughter article of energy development or sustainability"? 216.160.223.49 20:12, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)==

I can if need be, but you are the one proposing/making changes so I dare say the burden of proof is on you. Hubbert peak is a mathematical theory that predicts an energy peak at some point in the future, it has nothing directly to do with development or sustainability but merely demand and the max production ability point. Alternatives to oil are related because someday we will have to make so without the "spare energy" that oil provides, that is what is driving that industry today. Sustainability and energy development are related yes, but the alternatives to oil section doesn't discuss that subjct broadly, it discusses specific technologies like wind, solar, hydrogen, bio-diesel, etc etc. So I believe you are needlessly, redundantly, and verbosely forcing very specific information into an over broad subject hierarchy. zen master 20:34, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[Comment I made on Tom's user talk page:] If you want me to elaborate more concisesly on why I don't believe Hubbert peak should be underneath sustainability or energy development I can. Hubbert theory is a standalone theory that predicts, perhaps soon, energy shortages. If anything, energy development and sustainability are underneath it because without hubbert peak there would be little interest in sustainability or alternatives to oil. Also, Future energy development is just a redundant overview of each individual future possible energy technology, like fusion, hydrogen, bio-diesel, renewable energy etc, so why not just link to each directly, and keep a short 2-4 sentence overview synopsis in Hubbert peak? It's easy to fix POV problems without adding verbosity or making drastic changes, if that is your concern? zen master 19:55, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thanks, Zen master. I think I have an idea. Please hold on. I will explain later. Tom - Talk 20:16, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)

Since I'm new to this discussion (yes, I am working on reading all the above), I need to explain my POV a bit as well as try to understand others. There is no hurry, I think. So in the next few weeks we can work on this more. Merry Christmas to all and to all a happy afternoon. Tom - Talk 20:32, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)

But it is not certain that the peak must happen soon or that it must lead to great difficulty. If so, then if only a minor part of the future energy solutions. And there is a need for discussion of which future energy sources are the best, both short-term and long-term. To compare and argue for and against. And there is no such discussion in the individual articles like coal. /Aquamarine

How about a vote? This discussion is endless. /Aquamarine

Remember votes are non-binding. It is consensus that rules. Tom - Talk 20:32, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)

Is the main issue whether this article should have with the current alternative energy content or not? Or is it also if future energy development should exist at all? Ultramarine 21:14, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Things to do when protection comes off (hopefully consensus)

Clean up/remove/move the "Speculative" sub section
Clean up POV regarding peak date prediction disputes

Anything else? (remember, consensus) zen master 03:39, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

If there is consensus, I'll remove protection. David.Monniaux 08:24, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Can Amadeus and anon please comment on whether there is consensus for the above 2 items? There are other things still under discussion but I believe we are working towards consensus on those, so the protection can be removed. zen master 19:37, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Ok. David.Monniaux 20:20, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I am not sure what you mean with the second point? /Aquamarine

I believe in the discussion above an anon or someone pointed out problems with alternatives to oil POV wise in that it assumes the peak date is/could be soon, we should fix such problems if/where they exist. I think the article overall indicates the peak prediction date is disputed, and alternatives to oil sub section is really an "if" type scenario, but perhaps it isn't clarified everywhere. zen master 20:45, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Ok. (Note, I have problmes getting into my Aquamarine account and will use Ultramarine instead). Ultramarine 21:07, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

bio-diesel should be more prominent in the article?

I think we should have more prominent info, and a top level category under alternatives to oil for bio-diesel, just because it seemingly has good potential to replace/fill in for oil depletion. Perhaps we should consolidate info on transportation relying on oil around that. What do people think? zen master 20:43, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Biodiesel is a very interesting alternative for many reasons and should be prominent. But I think the TDP is also interesting, but probably not as much (no new energy from the sun). How about a category like "Potential replacements for oil as transportation fuel today"?

Perhaps we should have a top level section higher up in the article that details oil's ubiquitous role as a transportation fuel? There we can include more/new info on increasingly feasible proposals for bio-disel from alge etc? Are people that have been adding info to the alternatives to oil sub section also adding the same info to those article directly (like biodiesel, hopefully with more info there)? :-) Perhaps some of those sections can be reduced in size, but I just checked "Speculative" and it's written in POV neutral fashion I believe, the only option really is to move it completely (to future energy development perhaps, where it already is). But the focus really should be on filling out the contents of each specific "Speculative" or alternative energy source article, not worrying about organization, in my opinion. zen master 20:59, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

If you look at the biodiesel page, it is very well developed. I think they have much of what we have discussed here regarding biodesel. Ultramarine 21:11, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yes, it is. But what about a slightly more prominent role inside alternatives to oil (2-4 sentences) for bio diesel, with a prominent link to that main article? We should probably tackle oil as a transportion fuel slightly more heavily inside hubbert peak regardless of bio diesel too. zen master 21:22, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yes, transportation fuel is a major problem. There are many alternative energies but few that can replace oil as transportation fuel. I can think of biodiesel, TDP, diesel from coal and, almost speculative, hydrogen. I see nothing wrong with discussing this in length and also discuss the varous alternatives extensively. This a major part of the problem. Ultramarine 21:29, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Ok, we need to sort this out

I was called in, I do not know why, but here is my suggestion. We need to make an energy development wikipedia project Why do you ask? 1. Because I saw Energy development get raided to create Future energy development. 2. Because articles like Kardashev scale are just as relevant as Hubbert Peak, but are much more applicable to certain information that has been discussed here. Hubbert Peak may be hot but we need to make a project because this is a larger issue, one which will grow, and is relevant. I am not taking sides here, but what I am saying is that this area of wikipedia is seriously lax in one item. Prepardness Other areas of wikipedia develop as it occur, but here, we are getting very murky, and we are loosing the quality that wikipedia works so well for, timeliness, currency, and the ability to adapt. The need to lock an article points to a failure of that set up.

This is only my proposal, feel free to comment. If you want to know my own opinon, I think the predictions of Hubbert Peak will occur, because like anything, there is a finite about of it, and they all seem to follow similar distribution functions. When is a good question, and I will not posit when, I am not an expert. All I can say is because the Earth's core is not filled with oil, we will eventually run out, and with increasing energy usage, we will run out at a faster and faster pace.

Anyway, taking a derivative of Tom's idea, I will posit my own energy development project diagram:

Type	Level 1	Level 2	Level 3	Level 4	Level 5
Measurement	Kardashev scale	Current state of humanity	empty	empty	empty
Predictions	Hubbert peak	Future energy development	empty	empty	empty
Technologies	Wind	Water	Sun	Fusion	Etc-- in no particular order
Definition Articles	Energy Development	Energy production	Energy consumption	Energy conservation	Energy's place in society
Special series--	Humanities place in energy usage	Energy scenarious and end games	energy sustanability and technological production	energy? who needs it	This is what seperates this from the rest and will make the project shine

--Ctrl_build^talk 04:10, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

There is no need to go to that level of organizational detail is my opinion, most of the articles in question are simply not that related. If some parts of energy development were "raided" by moving it to "future energy development" then that is a separate problem that we should rectify. zen master 04:47, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

If I understand correctly, you, zen master, are approaching this from the point of view of a lay man who key in on this subject because of the idea of Hubbert's Peak Theory. The value of your approach includes the following truths: Tom - Talk

Hubbert Peak is a hot subject that will draw many more readers than drier subjects like Energy development Tom - Talk
Readers/visitors will often start at Hubbert's Peak and sometimes fan out to more general background subjects like the ones Ctrl build mentions. Tom - Talk
Hubbert Peak will get more editing attention and thus naturally more development attention than the more boring articles. Tom - Talk

Please keep in mind, zen master, that the suggestions of somebody like Ctrl build (whom I don't know from Adam, but whom I invited here as an editor of Energy development) are a valuable insight, probably from the point of view of a career professional in a related field. Tom - Talk 16:11, Dec 16, 2004 (UTC)

The Kardashev scale is an interesting theory. But it think it can fit into future energy development, it is one theory of (very far) future energy development. I agree that some information got lost from energy development, but just add that back to future energy development. I will do that with the Kardashev scale. Ultramarine 15:36, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Of course I agree with Ctrl build that we need to make a wikipedia energy development project or possibly a sustainability project (if such a scope would be sustainable). This is a hot area that needs vision and structure to discipline the energetic contributions of the many editors who are going to happen by.

As for my own opinion, I think oil is obviously finite and follows Hubbert's Peak Theory. I personally posit that the whole world has passed its peak except for OPEC, and that OPEC is closer than many want to believe. At the same time, I take the optimistic economists view that the end of cheap oil will not be a disaster. In fact, I believe it will put an end to global warming concerns, hasten alternative energy regime development, and move us another step closer to utopian society. Long live expensive oil! But as an engineer I see this Hubbert thingie, with all its popular appeal, as a small (albeit timely) piece of the sustainability question. Tom - Talk 16:11, Dec 16, 2004 (UTC)

For some reason my watchlist is being wonky and did not tell my this change. So anyway, my goal was level one articles to be high visibility. I was careful with the Kardashev article, because I did not want the source material to be the primary group who talked about it, sci-fi doomsayers who point to it as a trend towards the collapse of the civilization. I worked on it as carefully as possible. It has a few rought edges, but that can be hammered out, but I was dismayed that it did not receive a single response in peer review, and when I fixed it in featured article candidates it was ignored. Basically, it is an example of the fact that given that we have a highly argumentitive page like this we havea group that is highly motivated and interested, and it is one of the largest groups I have ever seen, but we have disparate directions. My thinking is even though this diagram is based on page popularity, it is a start, and the idea that they fan out from hubbert is important. Maybe a first step is to create a navigation infobox like other projects. Maybe I will do that. --Ctrl_build^talk 17:02, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

{{Energy related development}} A start, but doing this, I realized how big this topic is, this is about half of the articles. --Ctrl_build^talk 17:29, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Project Name

Round One of Voting and Nominations Which name do you prefer? Vote for the one you like, or suggest another. New suggestions should be added below number six in order. Individuals can change their preference or vote until one week from December 18, 17:10 UTC. In this way, new suggestions can be voted for. If no clear winner emerges, a second round of voting will be held. Please add a name and time stamp (using --~~~~) to your vote. Vote using either a number or name, whatever way you prefer.

X. None of the Above/More information on why this new project is needed

1 --Ctrl_build^talk 17:11, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
X How do any of those options relate to Hubbert peak? Perhaps you should move this vote/discussion to the Energy development talk page? Please explain, in detail, the reasons for creating this new wikiproject? What is your thinking/rationale? Coming up with a title is rather secondary to the need to justify the project's creation, agree on scope, and justify the organization of article relationships. zen master 17:53, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, there is much more traffic in this page than the energy dicussion page, and the discussion on this page has been leading to this point, to make this umbrella project for energy development. I just think before I go making Wikiproject Umbrella Project for Energy Development, someone should suggest a better name. --Ctrl_build^talk 20:40, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- My response for why is Rot13 coded, in order to not relase my response into public domain. I do not want to comment more in this dirrection because I am working on a paper on this, and I do not wish to release my results into the public domain. please do not rewrite this as decoded. Respect my wishes upon not releasing it into the public domain. Though this, I do want to convince you as to the importance of making this a project. crossedout --Ctrl_build^talk 21:14, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  - If this is such a high traffic article why are there only 2 votes, with 1 vote being "there is no reason to vote". Be bold in creating a new project is my advice, but please do not "move" content from the Hubbert peak article without lengthy discussion/consensus please. I am currently uninterested in decoding your Rot13, sorry. zen master 02:01, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    - No problem, it was a silly idea anyway. -Ctrl_build^talk 20:28, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
3 A wikiproject for Energy Development is a good idea. It will a good place for organizing and discussing. Many of the current projects do not have that many active users but seems succesful anyhow in organizing the structure. I agree with zen master that that the scope and relationship between articles may need discussing. Regarding the title, including "sustainable" seems to exclude discussing fossil fuels in more detail. "Kardashevian" refer to a specific theory, which also seems to narrow the scope unnecessarily. "Civilization" seems redundant, almost all energy development assumes a civilzation. Alternatively, is excludes interesting historical discussion on energy development in primitive societies. On the other hand, "energy related development" seems to include everything humans do. I think the shortest one is the best and has an appropriate scope. Thus, "Energy Development". And it is easily understood by outsiders. Ultramarine 02:17, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
3 or 4 Either of those seems harmonious with current thought on the greater subject. p.s. Take it easy, all, and keep smiling! Tom - Talk 21:29, Dec 20, 2004 (UTC)
3 or 7. The shorter the better. GuloGuloGulo 20:37, Dec 24, 2004 (UTC)
5 My new vote. If this new wiki project is even slightly related to Hubbert peak and/or alternatives to oil then "Sustainable Energy Development" as a title makes the most sense by a mile. zen master 20:01, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps a better way to run this poll (and it should last a bit longer than a week since the page gets little traffic) is to let each user put his approval below each option rather than voting for a single one. See example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Human/Archive3#Vote_on_the_placement_of_the_Taxobox . If you all are okay with that idea, I will reorganize the poll. Tom - Talk 21:35, Dec 20, 2004 (UTC)

Ok, I got all pissed off an made the project. But--I will be finished editing it until the 24th, I am way to busy, but I have a concerted and structured plan. The page will be about 32 kbs, thats why it will take so long. Please do not touch until then! If the inuse box is funny, that is because finals are insane. --Ctrl_build^talk 03:05, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I would be happy to contribute to the project (I think it's needed), whatever the name and the voting process. However, personally, I don't like the "development" bit in the names and apparently, all the proposals have it. Personally I like "Sustainablity" as a title though as said previously, maybe it's not "sustainable" if you know what I mean. Maybe for that reason, I didn't dare to put it in the list of titles. Alexblainelayder 23:28, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC) (Thanks Tom for the message in my talk page)

You can see the name is still in flux, but the project now exists.

--Ctrl build^talk 19:47, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Peak Oil and agriculture

Having read a bit about peak oil lately, one of the most potentially frightening implications would be its effect on agriculture. Namely the world's population has grown so large over the past 50 years because of the "green revolution" brought on by industrial agriculture has dramatically increased crop yields and productivity. Unfortunately industrial agriculture is heavilly reliant upon oil for making pesticides, fertilisers etc and for machinery and transport.

Thus some people are predicting that industrial agriculture could collapse when oil shortages begin to bite, and this could lead to mass food shortages and starvation, if ways are not found to maintain high levels of food production.

Currently the article barely touches upon this subject, which IMO is one of the most important implications. G-Man 20:47, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Peak Oil and Hubbert Peak

I'm eager to help contribute to this article, but with the amount of discussion going on here and talk of creating a comprehensive new project on the subject, haven't wanted to do anything that might not actually be helpful. What I think should happen is that most of the stuff currently under Hubbert Peak should be rewritten and moved to [[Peak Oil], and replaced with a much shorter article explaining Hubbert Peak's in general (that is, a model for production and depletion of any resource). Once that's complete, both pages could easily be incorporated into a larger Engergy and Sustainability project. -Jwanders 08:59, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I proposed something very similiar to that previously but ended up deferring to the will of the group (or I decided status quo isn't so bad since peak oil and hubbert peak are extremely related to one another). We can redebate about making that change completely separate from what the [sustainable] energy development project is doing. zen master 09:13, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Let us not proliferate articles with no good reason. Is Hubbert Peak different from Peak Oil? I mean, are there any other theories besides Hubbert's that describe the peaking phenomeon of oil production? I won't argue over a name change, but if you are going to move this article to Peak Oil, you should probably just leave a redirect. But in my opinion, Peak Oil is a poor title for an article, being mainly a recent colloquial term; I suggest a Peak Oil redirect to Hubbert Peak, and I will start by making sure that is where we are starting. For good measure, there is nothing wrong with having many redirects to Hubbert Peak for all the terms that people search for when they are thinking of this issue. Tom H. 19:18, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Columbia SEAS.GIF

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Image:Columbia SEAS.GIF is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 02:28, 6 September 2007 (UTC)