Overally, i feel these concerns of 'peakers' are nonsense, the free market will help switching for other sources of energy, and science and technology already brought us to the point where it is possible, it's all about scaling now.
Overally, i feel these concerns of 'peakers' are nonsense, the free market will help switching for other sources of energy, and science and technology already brought us to the point where it is possible, it's all about scaling now.
What this means to me is that energy prices, which have been supply constrained since the mid-1970's are going to continue to go up by fits and starts, and occasionally go down but it's a ratchet overall. This does have huge ramifications all across the economy. It won't be a drastic end like many of the peakers predict but a very slow crunch.
In other words, the current economic troubles will continue by fits and starts more or less since they have since oil stopped being a demand-constrained commodity. I think you can trace most of the economic problems in recent decades to instability and supply constraints regarding energy. This has also helped fraud along, as in the case of Enron.
The more we can do without oil, the more we can do. But energy return on investment is an important problem to solve and it isn't clear we have sufficient solutions available.
I think you have to look at this relative to demand because the end of cheap oil requires demand exceed supply which it appears to have done since the oil crisis of 1973 (the oil crisis itself may have been political) but it only could have happened because there was a growing understanding that oil was a limited and finite resource (discovery had already peaked and reserves were about to). This has lead to a post-1973 world where oil producers do not increase production to meet demand, leading to price instability and little changes resulting in occasional price spikes, something we never saw before '73.
"World proved natural gas reserves at end-2011 were sufficient to meet 63.6 years of production"
That's at current rates. If we were to switch to an exclusively natural gas infrastructure, this number would of course drop sharply. Natural gas is an appealing alternative, but there just isn't enough of it. And before anyone whips out the old "they'll just find more" canard - not really. The primary reserves of natural gas we're tapping now have been known about for a long, long time, and there are few new discoveries in the pipeline. A similar situation exists with Petroleum.
Who's estimates? I notice the article doesn't mention. Personally, I tend to stick to estimates from the likes of BP and Exxon, since I figure they know what they're talking about.
I don't know yet for sure if it's possible to maintain our current quality of life given the resources we have at our earthly disposal.
Yes, but how can we collect that 1%? Even considering 100% efficiency for solar panels, we'd need to cover 1% of the global Earth surface (land and oceans). Even more, we'd need at least to double it in order to have a 1% covered 24h/24. I'm afraid we don't have all the required material.
PS: There are also plenty of raw materials to cover the earth in solar panels but that's hardly unnecessary. But as far as the raw numbers go, covering 10% of the worlds oceans with floating solar collectors is vary doable and has a lower impact. (At the cost of significant climate change.)
PS: Or ~1.5% with 33% efficient solar panels. Which might seem like a lot, but we already use a lot of land to generate energy.
The question is: which ones?