Peak/Plateau Oil is here: IEA Whistleblower

[JB Globe]

A whistleblower at the International Energy Agency has accused the organization of deliberately underplaying the seriousness of a looming oil shortage.

The whistleblower, identified by the Guardian newspaper in the U.K. only as a senior IEA employee, told the paper the world is much closer to running out of oil than official estimates admit but that the agency has toned down its warning to avoid triggering panic buying.

The official claimed the agency is responding to U.S. pressure to downplay how fast existing oilfields are being depleted while overplaying the chances of finding new reserves.

Both the unnamed current employee and a former staff member quoted by the Guardian raise concerns about the ability of the world to increase oil output. The IEA predicted in its latest report that demand will increase to 105 million barrels a day by 2030 and that the world's energy resources are "adequate to meet the projected demand increase through to 2030 and well beyond."

The two dissenters question whether production can be raised from its current level of 83 million barrels a day. Even in the oil industry, there are those who say world production has already reached its peak.

One of them, Matt Simmons of Simmons & Co. International, told CBC News he agrees. Simmons is the author of Twilight in the Desert:The Coming Saudi Oil Shock and the World Economy, in which he argued that Middle East reserves have been overstated.

Simmons said it's impossible for the world to meet expected demand, and once India and China return to normal growth rates they "will drain up every scrap of oil we'll ever be able to produce."

Predicts the end of globalization

He predicted the world will be forced into conservation measures including a reversal of globalization, and changes will include curtailing long-distance commuting, growing food near where it's consumed, and carrying goods by truck only where ship or rail transport cannot reach.

Even that, he said, will reduce consumption by at most 25 per cent over the next 10 years, and this means the world will have to find a substitute for transportation fuel.

Simmons predicts it won't be high prices that kill demand for oil but the industry's heavy use of water, which will become so scarce worldwide that it will be priced like other commodities.

The Guardian report came as the IEA released its annual World Energy Outlook on Tuesday, warning that the worldwide financial crisis has led to a dangerous drop in energy investment, which could stifle any hope of economic recovery.

The agency is a policy adviser to 28 mostly industrialized, oil-consuming nations. It estimates investment in finding oil and gas has dropped by $90 billion US this year, down 19 per cent from 2008. As a result, the IEA said, future supplies of oil and electricity could be constrained and "undermine the sustainability of the economic recovery."

Natural gas glut seen to 2015

The IEA's prediction about natural gas, which represents two-thirds of the activity in Canada's energy industry, also has potentially serious consequences. The agency expects new supplies of natural gas from previously untapped shale formations will create a glut that will extend until 2015.

However, Simmons dismisses the idea that shale gas will create a sustained glut as the "single biggest illusion in the industry in the last 40 years," saying it overestimates by 20 to 25 years how long shale gas wells will be able to keep producing .

The IEA report came a month ahead of the UN Copenhagen conference, where world leaders will discuss measures to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. Among the agenda items is an initiative for developing countries to switch from fossil fuels to renewable energy such as wind and solar.

The IEA report said investment in renewable energy sources has been hard hit, falling by a fifth this year compared with 2008.

From the CBC

This is a problem which simply cannot be ignored any longer.

It's time to stop ignoring simple supply and demand economics for the sake of continuing the illusion of plenty that we've been sold.

If we don't start dealing with this problem immediately, we'll have a lot of explaining to do to our kids and grand kids, who will look at us with shame when we tell them the reason we didn't do anything to get off oil before the crunch happened is because we weren't willing to give up on things like an SUV, a 3000 square foot home, or weekend vacations to the Bahamas.

No one should underestimate the potential damage and social upheaval that is a possibility when oil becomes too expensive for most people to support the energy-wasting lifestyle they have. Canada stands among the most to loose in all of this - how can such a sparsely populated country stay together if we can't fuel our transportation network?

I was just debating someone on here the other week who claimed several times that there was no problem, that we'd be fine, that $200 a barrel or more oil would just mean more carpooling and nothing else. When I pressed them on the data that shows things wouldn't be so peachy, I got a "that's rubbish!" response - I genuinely hope that most people aren't this dismissive, because if they are I fear we won't have the public consensus to deal with this problem until it's too late.

[Riverwind]

No one should underestimate the potential damage and social upheaval that is a possibility when oil becomes too expensive for most people to support the energy-wasting lifestyle they have. Canada stands among the most to loose in all of this - how can such a sparsely populated country stay together if we can't fuel our transportation network?

Peak oil theory has a number of problems but lets assume it is a problem then the first step in dealing with the problem requires that politicians forget about the alleged CO2 problem because:

1) We need oil sources like the tar sands will help address any drop in in supply - if they are allowed to be developed.

2) We need cheap electricity to encourage a switch to electric cars. We have lots of coal, uranium and thorium which can provide this electricity - if the plants can be built.

Peak oil is a much much greater risk as long as the anti-CO/environmentalist goons are allowed to set our energy policy.

Edited November 11, 2009 by Riverwind

[Argus]

2) We need cheap electricity to encourage a switch to electric cars. We have lots of coal, uranium and thorium which can provide this electricity - if the plants can be built.

Peak oil is a much much greater risk as the anti-CO/environmentalist goons are allowed to set our energy policy.

Maybe instead of a proposal to send $200 billion per year from the west to third world countries (most of which will wind up in some dictator's pocket) we should put that money into developing new sources of energy. I wonder what $200 billion a year in scientific research would result in? A hell of a lot more than giving it to the third world!

[Riverwind]

I wonder what $200 billion a year in scientific research would result in? A hell of a lot more than giving it to the third world!

Especially since a lot of the oil production declines have been caused by incompetent third-world governments who nationalize their oil industry and treat it as a piggy bank to be raided at will instead of a business that needs investment and good management.

[bush_cheney2004]

Hmmmm ...another "Peak Oil" story? Let's see...oh yes....this is recycled (pun intended) from about 1970.

Don't confuse production with reserves, and the many forms they take.

[Smallc]

Oh God. There's always a crisis around the corner.

[JB Globe]

Peak oil theory has a number of problems but lets assume it is a problem then the first step in dealing with the problem requires that politicians forget about the alleged CO2 problem because:

1) We need oil sources like the tar sands will help address any drop in in supply - if they are allowed to be developed.

2) We need cheap electricity to encourage a switch to electric cars. We have lots of coal, uranium and thorium which can provide this electricity - if the plants can be built.

Peak oil is a much much greater risk as long as the anti-CO/environmentalist goons are allowed to set our energy policy.

Of course, the point can be made that the cheapest energy is the stuff we don't use. ie - it's much cheaper to conserve energy than it is to switch over from one source to the other. And as you can see in Europe, you don't need to decrease your quality of life to use less energy - you just have to build your towns, cities and transportation networks with efficiency in mind.

I think there is simply no way that, for example, the classic North American pattern of suburban development can continue in a world of peak oil. Even if we were to make the switch to electric vehicles, we would not be able to ensure cheap electricity because of the amount of energy required to power the tens of millions of electric cars in the country. That would mean many expensive nuclear plants or even more coal plants which need to be put somewhere - and no one wants one in their backyard.

I think that this might force people to realize the totality of the lifestyles they've chosen. It's a lot harder to justify suburbia when you have to drive by the dirty coal or expensive nuclear power plants that produce the energy you need to drive your families' 2-3 cars every day.

But car energy is only part of the problem - after all, we would still need to address the problem of shipping products overseas in a world of peak oil - you can't replace cargo ships with electric ones, of course.

[JB Globe]

Especially since a lot of the oil production declines have been caused by incompetent third-world governments who nationalize their oil industry and treat it as a piggy bank to be raided at will instead of a business that needs investment and good management.

That's not the main cause. The main cause is that easily accessible oil reserves are dried up or dwindling, and the ones which are being found are in remote areas far from market like mountain regions, uninhabited areas, or in the open ocean.

[JB Globe]

Hmmmm ...another "Peak Oil" story? Let's see...oh yes....this is recycled (pun intended) from about 1970.

Don't confuse production with reserves, and the many forms they take.

Well, the production curve was proven true in the US before, and it appears to be on course to be accurate internationally as well.

[JB Globe]

Oh God. There's always a crisis around the corner.

Most of us don't bother posting if we're not interested in a topic.

Try it sometime.

[Smallc]

I'm more interested in the fact that we always seem to need to have the end of the world in sight than the actual topic itself. The problem with such disaster scenarios is that they always look at today's problems in terms of today's (or often yesterdays) technology. Humans have an uncanny ability to adapt, and there's no reason to believe we won't adapt to having less oil.

[bush_cheney2004]

Well, the production curve was proven true in the US before, and it appears to be on course to be accurate internationally as well.

The world's hydrocarbon economy has scaled up nicely since the first Peak Oil panic.....the Americans promptly built an Alaskan oil pipeline IIRC. Doomsayers don't understand just how marvelous one barrel of oil is, what it becomes, and the steps that will be taken to get even more.

[Riverwind]

Of course, the point can be made that the cheapest energy is the stuff we don't use. ie - it's much cheaper to conserve energy than it is to switch over from one source to the other.

If increasing efficiency saves money then it will lead to more energy consumption. It is called the Jevon's paradox.

You also need to remember that energy is not free today so there are already incentives to improve energy efficiency. This means the potential savings through efficiency are marginal at best. More importantly, a growing population requires more energy no matter how many efficieny gains can be found.

What we need are alternate sources of energy and the biggest threat to our society are environmentalists that seek to prevent us from using the alternate sources that are available.

And as you can see in Europe, you don't need to decrease your quality of life to use less energy - you just have to build your towns, cities and transportation networks with efficiency in mind.

European cities have road networks which are a mess because they had to deal with street layouts that are leftover from the days of horse and wagons. The Europeans have never changed this because it is simply too expensive to change. Low density suburban spraw in North America is a similar kind of problem - the infrastructure exists, it cannot be change easily and any government policy needs to deal with reality. This means we will need to have some sort of electric personal vehicle and cheap power required to make it economic. We cannot have that cheap power without fossil or nuclear fuels.

But car energy is only part of the problem - after all, we would still need to address the problem of shipping products overseas in a world of peak oil - you can't replace cargo ships with electric ones, of course.

But you can replace them with nuclear powered ones but enviromentalists would throw a fit. Also our lifestyle depends on the economies of scale created by overseas shipping and rebuilding the network of local suppliers is not going to happen without large drops in standard of living. Edited November 15, 2009 by Riverwind

[Jerry J. Fortin]

If increasing efficiency saves money then it will lead to more energy consumption. It is called the Jevon's paradox.

If increases in efficiency are imposed through regulation and cost a lot more than the energy saved then you will reduce economic activity. This will lead to lowing standards of living - a dry term that means that a small number of rich people will not be affected but a much larger number of middle class people will be forced into poverty as they lose their jobs and face cuts in government services that become unaffordable due to a shrinking tax base.

What we need are alternate sources of energy and the biggest threat to our society are environmentalists that seek to prevent us from using the alternate sources that are available.

European cities have road networks which are a mess because they had to deal with street layouts that are leftover from the days of horse and wagons. The Europeans have never changed this because it is simply too expensive to change. Low density suburban spraw in North America is a similar kind of problem - the infrastructure exists, it cannot be change easily and any government policy needs to deal with reality. This means we will need to have some sort of electric personal vehicle and cheap power required to make it economic. We cannot have that cheap power without fossil or nuclear fuels.

But you can replace them with nuclear powered ones but enviromentalists would throw a fit. Also our lifestyle depends on the economies of scale created by overseas shipping and rebuilding the network of local suppliers is not going to happen without large drops in standard of living.

It would seem to me that whether or not "Peak Oil" is here, that no matter who is counting what; be it coal, oil or any other source of energy production, population and consumption projections leave no doubt the all forms of energy will become more expensive very soon.

[Riverwind]

It would seem to me that whether or not "Peak Oil" is here, that no matter who is counting what; be it coal, oil or any other source of energy production, population and consumption projections leave no doubt the all forms of energy will become more expensive very soon.

Most likely true but the damage done by higher energy prices will be much worse if we give in to enviromentalist demands and deny ourselves access to important sources of energy like coal and nuclear. Edited November 15, 2009 by Riverwind

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Most likely true but the damage done by higher energy prices will be much worse if we give in to enviromentalist demands and deny ourselves access to important sources of energy like coal and nuclear.

The tree huggers can do as they please, but they will be paying more either way. This could very well force an entire economic paradigm shift. I will venture to say that a resource based economy is just around the corner.

[JB Globe]

I'm more interested in the fact that we always seem to need to have the end of the world in sight than the actual topic itself. The problem with such disaster scenarios is that they always look at today's problems in terms of today's (or often yesterdays) technology. Humans have an uncanny ability to adapt, and there's no reason to believe we won't adapt to having less oil.

Of course we'll adapt, the question is how painful will the adaptation period be and how long?

[JB Globe]

The world's hydrocarbon economy has scaled up nicely since the first Peak Oil panic.....the Americans promptly built an Alaskan oil pipeline IIRC. Doomsayers don't understand just how marvelous one barrel of oil is, what it becomes, and the steps that will be taken to get even more.

I'm not quite clear on your position, but it appears you're saying that everything will be fine, and that we'll just find ways of getting more and more oil . . .

If that's the case, than why has oil production slowed down and even plateaued in recent years?

[JB Globe]

If increasing efficiency saves money then it will lead to more energy consumption. It is called the Jevon's paradox.

Unless of course, you tax energy and use the revenue to continually fund efficiency programs of all kinds: home renos, transit initiatives, etc.

You also need to remember that energy is not free today so there are already incentives to improve energy efficiency. This means the potential savings through efficiency are marginal at best. More importantly, a growing population requires more energy no matter how many efficieny gains can be found.

Let me clarify, I was speaking of efficiency in the broadest sense - meaning I see replacing cars with transit as a means of energy efficiency.

What we need are alternate sources of energy and the biggest threat to our society are environmentalists that seek to prevent us from using the alternate sources that are available.

I'm not scared of nuclear, I just know how expensive it is to build, and believe there are better options for our energy dollar out there.

As for coal - I think it's reckless to build considering we don't have a single commerical carbon-capture facility operating yet - at this rate it would take decades to outfit all the world's plants with this technology, and would drive up the cost to a degree whereby other means of saving/generating energy would be more attractive.

European cities have road networks which are a mess because they had to deal with street layouts that are leftover from the days of horse and wagons. The Europeans have never changed this because it is simply too expensive to change. Low density suburban spraw in North America is a similar kind of problem - the infrastructure exists, it cannot be change easily and any government policy needs to deal with reality. This means we will need to have some sort of electric personal vehicle and cheap power required to make it economic. We cannot have that cheap power without fossil or nuclear fuels.

The thing is there is plenty of room to redevelop suburbia. If you're not aware of it, you should check out what Mississauga is doing with their city centre/square one area - basically it involves developing on the massive amounts of surface parking at malls and power centres, many of which are large enough to support condo developments and/or entire planned communities. In fact, all of the major Toronto suburbs are creating downtown pedestrian districts.

Also we can increase density in the actual sub-divisions by simple means: many sub-divisions make buyers sign agreements that adhrere them to neighbourhood codes of conduct, some of which include provisions against things like hanging laundry and renting out part of the home (you have to rent the ENTIRE home). A few years ago the province actually overruled the provision against laundry hanging, we could do the same with the anti-rent provision and increase the density.

In a world of $200 a barrel of oil (or more) people will need to come up with extra money, and might want to move whatever items in their basement in to one of the many rooms which are never used in suburban homes and rent the lower part of the home out.

You could also create easier access to transit by creating a series of pedestrian laneways in straight lines through the sub-divisions that end on a major street by a transit stop. You pay people for their property, and more people end up taking transit because they no longer have to make a huge U-shaped-walk to get to the bus stop.

But you can replace them with nuclear powered ones but enviromentalists would throw a fit. Also our lifestyle depends on the economies of scale created by overseas shipping and rebuilding the network of local suppliers is not going to happen without large drops in standard of living.

Which is why I'd rather people get from A to B without using a car - we already know how to do that, but we don't know how to ship something from China to market here quickly without using a diesel-powered cargo ship. I'd rather us use what affordable oil we have for things we can't do without, until we can retool our economy to be more efficient.

[Riverwind]

Unless of course, you tax energy and use the revenue to continually fund efficiency programs of all kinds: home renos, transit initiatives, etc.

Which is why I stipulated that efficiency gains that save money don't reduce energy consumption. However, increasing the cost of energy will reduce economic activity. Increase it too much and the economy will sink into a long recession which will reduce energy demand but it would also significantly increase human suffering due to poverty. Bottom line is efficiency improvements and taxes on energy will not have a significant effect on consumption.

Let me clarify, I was speaking of efficiency in the broadest sense - meaning I see replacing cars with transit as a means of energy efficiency.

It is not going to happen. Transit cannot meet the transportation needs of people outside of the major corridors in major cities. In some cases, the transit initiatives actually make things worse. For example, the recent train line put in between Richmond and downtown Vancouver has forced many bus commuters back into their cars because the express buses that took them directly downtown have been cancelled.

I'm not scared of nuclear, I just know how expensive it is to build, and believe there are better options for our energy dollar out there.

Actually, there are not. Renewables are useless without a reliable backup from gas, coal or nuclear. Hydro is good if you are willing to flood a lot of land but many places don't have suitable rivers.

As for coal - I think it's reckless to build considering we don't have a single commerical carbon-capture facility operating yet

Carbon capture is really dumb idea because you have to burn 20-30% more coal to produce the energy to sequester the carbon. We would be much better off simply emitting the CO2 and dealing with any problems later. In any case, this thread is about peak oil and you are more or less confirming that peak oil is not the problem. The problem is people like you who know nothing about how the energy system works yet think we can afford to be picky about what energy sources we use. You really need to decide what problem you want to solve and become willing to accept things that are not ideal. Insisting that all possible problems must be solved at the same time will simply ensure that nothing happens.

A few years ago the province actually overruled the provision against laundry hanging, we could do the same with the anti-rent provision and increase the density.

They could if they did not want to be re-elected. Zoning debates are they most contentious aspect of municipal politics. A provincial government that tried to over rule this would face the wrath of people who are likely to vote.

In a world of $200 a barrel of oil (or more) people will need to come up with extra money, and might want to move whatever items in their basement in to one of the many rooms which are never used in suburban homes and rent the lower part of the home out.

People will need to adapt but what the governments should be doing is ensuring a low cost supply of electricity from other sources including coal and nuclear. Refusing to include those sources in any energy plan is irresponsible.

You could also create easier access to transit by creating a series of pedestrian laneways in straight lines through the sub-divisions that end on a major street by a transit stop.

I personally have nothing against buses and have used them for daily commutes when I worked downtown. But the fact is most of the places I need to go are not on bus direct bus routes and would take one or two transfers. These transfer times can add 15-30 minutes to a one way trip which makes them impractical no matter how much money is thrown at the system.

I'd rather us use what affordable oil we have for things we can't do without, until we can retool our economy to be more efficient.

I agree. Which I why I say we need CHEAP electricity to facilitate this switch. And that means we need to forget about the hypothetical global warming problem and use coal. Edited November 16, 2009 by Riverwind

[ToadBrother]

I agree. Which I why I say we need CHEAP electricity to facilitate this switch. And that means we need to forget about the hypothetical global warming problem and use coal.

Whether you accept global warming or not, coal is bad. It is a very bad pollutant and the cost of scrubbing adequately to prevent emissions basically poisoning the environment are quite high.

Nuclear power, now that's a solution (although some folks are beginning to predict uranium shortages). Ultimately, the real solution to energy problems is not in trying to yank it out of the ground, but harnessing the rather substantial amount of energy being provided by that great big fusion furnace lying about 93 million miles away. We're finding some pretty cool new materials which will make solar cells much more affordable in the future.

[Riverwind]

Whether you accept global warming or not, coal is bad. It is a very bad pollutant and the cost of scrubbing adequately to prevent emissions basically poisoning the environment are quite high.

The cost is still cheaper than any other type of power except hydro.

Nuclear power, now that's a solution (although some folks are beginning to predict uranium shortages).

Thorium is much more abundant and can be used instead of uranium. Nuclear waste can also be recycled over and over.

the rather substantial amount of energy being provided by that great big fusion furnace lying about 93 million miles away

The trouble is that fusion furance is 93 million miles away and by the time the energy gets here is is extremely diffuse. Collecting that energy will always require a large and expensive infrastructure even if the solar cells themselves become free. The lack of large scale batteries means solar power will often require a fossil fuel backup which adds to its cost and emissions.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

The real point here is that of the cost of energy isn't it? I mean really expensive stuff like nuke power or alternative energies are way outside of the loop for big oil. Darn!

Its time to start thinking about the problem seriously.

[JB Globe]

Which is why I stipulated that efficiency gains that save money don't reduce energy consumption.

Well, they do, when you apply more modern methods of analysis vs. 19th century ones. And frankly, even though it stands at 70% reduction and not 100%, I find the "Rebound Method" illustrates that yes, energy conservation can work.

I also fail to see how, when you add up all the INDIRECT uses of energy a household uses, for example, and look at conservation efforts there, how you can say it doesn't work? - ie: buying local food vs. food trucked in from California and/or shipped from other continents.

I mean, there's enough unused greenspace in most cities to produce a good chunk of our total food consumption. How much total arable land in Toronto currently sits unused under hydro towers, for example? Combine that with increased investment in Canadian farms, and you save a ton of energy right there.

However, increasing the cost of energy will reduce economic activity.

Unless that cost of energy is flexible - governments increase the tax rate if it becomes too low and decrease it if it becomes too high. I mean, it's possible to do this with interest rats, and the financial system is more complex than the energy system (and as we've seen in the past year or so - not completely rational either). I don't see why we can't figure this one out.

It is not going to happen. Transit cannot meet the transportation needs of people outside of the major corridors in major cities.

Sure it can, you just base the transit infrastructure on density. Highly built-up areas require subways, others like Toronto's "old/inner suburbs" (Etobicoke, Scarborough) can sustain LRT, and others can use Bus RT (which of course, can be electric if needed).

Efficient Transit is a great way to intensify development. You get an efficient BRT system, which increases the desirability of a region, which increases density, which means eventually you will be able to justify putting in LRT systems, which will spur more development, etc. - This is essentially what York Region (north of Toronto) is doing with their popular VIVA bus system - which is tied to their master plan of creating thoroughly urban downtowns in cities like Richmond Hill & Markham.

Remember, transit doesn't always mean subways.

In some cases, the transit initiatives actually make things worse. For example, the recent train line put in between Richmond and downtown Vancouver has forced many bus commuters back into their cars because the express buses that took them directly downtown have been cancelled.

That's more an example of bad planning than transit being bad. We can at least agree that bad planning can mess up any kind of system - no matter how inherently positive that system may be.

Actually, there are not. Renewables are useless without a reliable backup from gas, coal or nuclear. Hydro is good if you are willing to flood a lot of land but many places don't have suitable rivers.

Let me clarify, I know we will have to build nuclear plants to be part of an energy mix that includes renewable, I would just rather avoid building as many as possible, if for no other reason than their capital costs. I think it would be cheaper to focus on conservation and renewables and fill in the holes with nuclear, rather than the other way around.

The problem is people like you who know nothing about how the energy system works yet think we can afford to be picky about what energy sources we use.

Thanks for that, there's nothing that makes one's own case stronger than having the other guy cop out and call you stupid.

You really need to decide what problem you want to solve and become willing to accept things that are not ideal. Insisting that all possible problems must be solved at the same time will simply ensure that nothing happens.

Where did I indicate otherwise? I think you're making gross assumptions.

To clarify: yes, I know things aren't ideal and we'll have to use fossil fuels until we reduce and/or hold consumption rates and alternatives are up and running.

They could if they did not want to be re-elected. Zoning debates are they most contentious aspect of municipal politics. A provincial government that tried to over rule this would face the wrath of people who are likely to vote.

Unless of course, the province was responding to a popular grassroots campaign, that included support from the mayor, and then proceeded to handily sweep said city in re-election.

Most folks who live in suburbs want their communities to be redeveloped, because they see the consequences of sprawl every day when they spend hours in gridlock, and when they hear about dwindling city finances because there's not enough taxes to pay for the infrastructure needed for a sprawl suburb - that's why all of the Toronto 905 downtown developments are very popular among residents.

People will need to adapt but what the governments should be doing is ensuring a low cost supply of electricity from other sources including coal and nuclear. Refusing to include those sources in any energy plan is irresponsible.

That's not what I'm saying though, I'm saying we use those energy sources as little as possible, and in the case of coal, phase it out as aggressively as possible.

I personally have nothing against buses and have used them for daily commutes when I worked downtown. But the fact is most of the places I need to go are not on bus direct bus routes and would take one or two transfers. These transfer times can add 15-30 minutes to a one way trip which makes them impractical no matter how much money is thrown at the system.

I hear you, but transfer times are almost non-existent when you're dealing with BRT routes with their own dedicated lanes, which really should be the standard and not the exception.

And that means we need to forget about the hypothetical global warming problem and use coal.

Hypothetical as in, the world is hypothetically round?

[Riverwind]

I find the "Rebound Method" illustrates that yes, energy conservation can work.

Only if the cost of the conservation measures is low enough. For example, one could conserve a lot of electricity with rolling blackouts but the indirect social/economic costs of such a measure far exceed the benefits. That is why conservation measures will never make a significant dent in total energy consumption. The best you can hope for is a slow down in the rise of consumption.

I also fail to see how, when you add up all the INDIRECT uses of energy a household uses, for example, and look at conservation efforts there, how you can say it doesn't work?

California is an economic basket case now which has been chasing businesses away for years because of its obsession with regulating everything. Its unemployment rate is 12% and will likely stay high until the legislators put the economy and jobs ahead of the trendy 'cause du jour'.

buying local food vs. food trucked in from California and/or shipped from other continents.

Local farms are great for keeping fresh vegetables at farmer's markets but most major centers cannot possibly grow the food that their population needs locally. More importantly, we need food to be grown where it is most efficent to grow more than we need to minimize energy consumption. It is also not clear that growing food locally is actually less energy intensive. It would really depend on the crop and the location (i.e. it would require less energy to ship tomatos from mexico than to keep a greenhouse warm in winter in Manitoba).

How much total arable land in Toronto currently sits unused under hydro towers

It is unlikely that such plots could be farmed economically. Also farms in urban areas have to deal with theft which makes the economics even less attractive.

I mean, it's possible to do this with interest rats, and the financial system is more complex than the energy system.

There is a huge difference between managing a fiat currency system and managing energy because a fiat currency is an imaginary commodity that can be created/destroy at will. Changing energy consumption patterns takes decades and a lot of capital.

Let me clarify, I know we will have to build nuclear plants to be part of an energy mix that includes renewable.

Saying we should 'avoid' nuclear is the same as saying we should have no nuclear given the current political environment. Nuclear needs to be promoted actively to break down the resistance created by the enviromentalists. Also, renewables are a dead end until the battery problem is solved so strategies that depend on renewables providing more than 10% of our needs are guaranteed to fail.

To clarify: yes, I know things aren't ideal and we'll have to use fossil fuels until we reduce and/or hold consumption rates and alternatives are up and running.

Great. Sorry for sterotyping you. I am all for a rational discussion on changing our energy system for the better but that discussion needs to start from would be live in - not from some utopian fantasy.

I hear you, but transfer times are almost non-existent when you're dealing with BRT routes with their own dedicated lanes, which really should be the standard and not the exception.

I don't see how that deals with the transfer time problem. We do not have infinite resources that would allow 5 minute frequency 24/7 on every possible bus route. The most we can hope for is 10 min frequency on major routes and 15-30 frequency on minor routes. This means tranfer time will add up.

Hypothetical as in, the world is hypothetically round?

Hypothetical as in, hypothetically a massive asteriod could hit the earth in 50 years or it might not. We can't know the future climate and that means we need to focus on the problems that we know really exist and like the dissapperance of cheap oil. Edited November 19, 2009 by Riverwind