Peak Oil: the role of kitchen gardeners

We've posted some new information to the website on "peak oil", a term we're all going to be hearing a lot more in the years to come.

http://www.kitchengardeners.org/2008/03/peak_oil_peak_soil.html
http://www.kitchengardeners.org/2008/03/richard_heinberg_peak_oil.html

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Kitchen Gardeners International on April 24, 2008 at 9:58am: You're right that some people leave tar sands out of the calculation, but others recognize them to be a solution that only leads to other bigger problems. Salon.com has an article on this you and others might find of interest: http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/03/28/peak_oil_solutions/

I'm including an excerpt below.

No matter where you come down on Peak Oil, it makes sense to start digging and relearning some things that we used to do ourselves and lost.

The world has a number of viscous oils called bitumen, heavy oil and tar sands (or oil sands). There is more recoverable oil in Canada's tar sands than there is conventional oil in Saudi Arabia. Tar sands are pretty much the heavy gunk they sound like, and making liquid fuels from them requires huge amounts of energy for steam injection and refining. Canada is currently producing about 1 million barrels of oil a day from the tar sands, and that is projected to triple over the next two decades.

Tar sands are doubly dirty. On the one hand, the energy-intensive conversion of tar sands generates two to four times the amount of greenhouse gases per barrel of final product as the production of conventional oil. On the other hand, Canada's increasing use of natural gas to exploit the tar sands is one reason that its exports of natural gas to the U.S. are projected to shrink in the coming years. So instead of selling clean-burning natural gas to the U.S., which we could use to stop the growth of carbon-intensive coal generation, Canada will provide us with a more carbon-intensive oil to burn in our cars. That's lose-lose.

Even more oil can probably be recovered from shale, a claylike rock, than from the tar sands. Most of the world's shale is found in the U.S., notably in Colorado and Utah. After the oil shocks of the 1970s, billions were spent exploring the possibility of shale oil, but those efforts were abandoned in the 1980s when oil prices collapsed. Shale does not contain much energy per pound: It has one-tenth the energy of crude oil and one-fourth that of recycled phone books. Converting shale to oil requires a huge amount of energy -- possibly as much as 1,200 megawatts of generating capacity to produce 100,000 barrels per day. What a waste of energy just to create a fuel that would spew more greenhouse gases into the air when burned in a car. We must leave the shale in the ground.; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Penelope on April 24, 2008 at 10:20am: I fail to understand how "terror" has give Nader and Gore power, or what kind of power are you talking about? They've been very unpopular for pointing out our human failings, as is Michael Moore, whom I admire greatly.; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Colin on April 24, 2008 at 11:42am: Of course oil companies, and others with huge vested interests, do not use such tactics and always tell the truth. That's why climate change is a myth and peak oil a lie. Right.....; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Penelope on April 24, 2008 at 12:08pm: People who brush on the truth that those in power would like swept under the rug, or keep blurry, are always vilified and endure character assassination. What I admire about Michael Moore is that he is brave enough to speak out and point out what other media gloss over and is willing to take the heat. We need more like him to speak up.; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Penelope on April 24, 2008 at 12:10pm: There's something inherent in your angry rhetoric that leads me to believe you are frightened. If global warming is a farce, we will find out in time. Meanwhile, let's plant our gardens and love our families.; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Colin on April 24, 2008 at 4:13pm: Yes, I am angry. I am angry with the denial, the excuses and the inaction about both of these issues that eminates from the US government and a some of its people. I have said this before, there are people dieing now due to the effects of climate change. People have also died in the last few days in riots caused by food shortages made worse by the switch to growing biofuels.

It seems that all the scientific proof of climate change is wrong, all the people who predict the end of oil are wrong and it's all just a political conspiracy, i.e. the whole world is wrong except those few clever people who know the 'truth'. Well I just can't sit by and watch people suffer and die in the world and do nothing. So, its that's angry and unfair then so be it. I would say we need people to be both like we have never needed them before.; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Penelope on April 24, 2008 at 5:14pm: Colin, I'm on your side. I guess I didn't reply to the correct comment thread.

Permalink Reply by Penelope on April 24, 2008 at 5:19pm: and why should i trust junkscience.com any more than any other internet source?; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by ilex on April 24, 2008 at 12:44pm: Storm, you are right- we will never actually "run out" of oil. But there's no dispute among geologists (sober fellows to a man) that the oil in the ground is like a tube of toothpaste- for the first half of the tube, it's easy to get the toothpaste out. After that, it gets harder and harder to get it out, to the point of diminishing returns. We're now at the point, or past the point, of diminishing returns- even the Saudi family agrees, and they've been pumping water into their wells for years to make the oil easier to get. The only disputable point is the date of the peak- 2005, 2008, 2020. Yes, the stone age didn't end because we ran out of stones, but oil is a horse of a different color.; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Penelope on April 24, 2008 at 1:48pm: they pump the water in to displace the oil otherwise there would be big possibly collapsible caverns underground. but since water is of a different consistency, i still wonder about the long term effects.; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Penelope on April 24, 2008 at 2:39pm: well, even with all your ranting (and I'm not innocent of the medium either), you still haven't come up with anything concrete that convinces me you know what you're talking about.; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by John Walker on April 24, 2008 at 4:06pm: There is a film which I believe is called "Beyond suburbia" about peak oil and 3 people approaching this issue in different ways. One of the most intriguing aspects is not the debate about oil but what people are doing...growing their own food.

We could argue all day about peak oil, climate change, globalisation etc and not change a whit of how we think because we can rarely recognise the absolute truth of a fact. We usually only know our perception of it.

One of the reasons I like KGI is because of a/ what Roger is trying to do and b/ what ALL of us are trying to do.

let's not spoil it by entering in debates we can't win using the medium of impersonal electronic postings.

No one has said anything that, in a physical meeting of friends over a pint of beer in a pub, would be an unacceptable comment. Its just that this medium doesn't work well for some communications (This post included maybe)

Please accept these comments with the peace and kindness with which they are sent.
pax
John; ▶ Reply to This