Party's Over: Oil, War and the Fate of Industrial Societies [Englisch] [Taschenbuch]

Proponents of the "Peak Oil" theory argue that global oil production will "peak" (meaning that one half of all known reserves will have been recovered) at some point between 2000 and 2010, and afterwards production will irrevocably decline, never to rise again. However, the demand for oil will continue to rise and the spread between falling supply and rising demand will rapidly grow, as no adequate alternative energy source will be available to cover the shortfall. Doomsday will then be at hand. The price of petroleum, and petroleum-related products (i.e., just about everything) will skyrocket; transportation, communications, agriculture, indeed, every major industry in the world, will sputter to a standstill; the world economy will stagger and collapse; civil authority will dissolve; and the noisy, messy experiment that was industrial civilization will expire in a world-wide bloodbath, or "die-off," that will reduce the human population by 90 percent, or more, and will leave the planet devastated, ruined, and, quite possibly, dead.

It would be easy to dismiss this apocalyptic vision as alarmist nonsense if only the "Peak Oil" proponents weren't so bloody convincing. By and large, they are a sensible, reasonable-sounding group of Cassandras, who dispense their grim forecasts as soberly as the subject allows. Virtually all of them rely upon the pioneering work M. King Hubbert, a research geophysicist who, in the mid-1950s, created a model to estimate the productive life of energy reserves. In 1956 Hubbert used his model to predict that oil production in the continental United States would peak sometime between 1966 and 1972. U.S. oil production did , in fact, peak in 1970 (and has declined by 50 percent since), and Hubbert and his forecasting model, dubbed "Hubbert's Peak," passed into the arcane lore of petroleum geologists. Other petroleum scientists have refined Hubbert's model and have applied it to global petroleum reserves. Although results differ depending upon the variables used by different researchers, the consensus is that the "Hubbert Peak" of worldwide oil reserves will occur sometime between 2004 and 2007. In other words, as I sit at my keyboard writing this review the high noon of petroleum-based industrial civilization may have come and gone, and the whole human enterprise may be inexorably descending into twilight and darkness. Sic transit gloria mundi - with a bullet.

If the Cassandras are right, and the end of the world is imminent, it has received remarkably little coverage in the conventional media, although the internet hosts many excellent websites that the curious or concerned citizen may consult to learn as much as he or she would like about the post-petroleum world to come. Recently this state of affairs has started to change, and several good books have been published on "Peak Oil" and its consequences. First among these, is Richard Heinberg's "The Party's Over," a sober, detailed contribution to the literature, which clearly and fluently describes the fossil fuel bender the industrial world has been on for the past 100 years, and what we can expect to follow from it. Although Heinberg does his best not to induce white-knuckled panic in his reader, the picture that emerges from his book is absolutely frightening, particularly the notion that, at this late date, we can do nothing to prevent the catastrophe from occurring. At best - that is, if the entire human race sets aside all its disputes and immediately mobilizes its combined efforts to solve this one problem - the scale of the catastrophe might be reduced. At worst, in 50 to 100 years time, the greatest disaster in human history will have taken place, and the relatively few survivors of this disaster will dwell in a stateless, Hobbesian world that will make present-day Liberia look like Shangri-La.

Or so the argument runs. Perhaps Heinberg and the other "Peak Oil" prophets are wrong. Perhaps Hubbert's model is defective and world oil production will not peak tomorrow, or next week, or next year. Perhaps the USGS's estimate of world oil reserves is correct and the peak of production will not occur until 2020. Perhaps a previously overlooked, gigantic new field, the equivalent of three or four Saudi Arabias, will be discovered and delay the peak until the early years of the 22nd century. Perhaps. But the point is, Heinberg et al. will inevitably be right someday. Someday, worldwide production of cheap, high-grade crude oil will peak, and the longer that peak is delayed, the more horrific the following decline will be, unless the nations of the world take immediate action to prevent the disaster. This preventive action will entail much more than just developing an adequate replacement for cheap petroleum; although, as Heinberg makes clear, no alternative currently on the drawing board appears to be sufficient. Rather, if we are to avoid the catastrophic consequences of "Peak Oil" we will have to drastically rearrange our affairs - politically, economically, socially. Or, to be blunt, capitalism, certainly as it is currently practiced, will simply have to go. Unfortunately, it is difficult to conceive of a socio-economic system less capable of dealing with the coming crisis than neo-liberal capitalism. But there it is.

Of course, if Heinberg and the other proponents of Peak Oil are right, time has already run out for Petroleum Man, and there is little that can be done to avert doomsday. We shall see. This morning (March 5, 2004) the front page of USA Today warns that record gasoline prices will continue to rise, and there is a likelihood of gas shortages this summer. The "Nation's Newspaper" also reports that the loss of 2.1 million jobs in the USA during the last three years appears to be permanent. Both of these developments fit neatly into the predictions of "Peak Oil." One thing is certain: we live in interesting times. Anyone who wants to learn just how interesting these times are is well advised to read and ponder "The Party's Over." We've been warned. Will we act?

This volume begins with a discussion of what energy is and how it has been used to develop our industrial way of life. Brief histories of wood, coal, and oil use are also included. Much of this book centers around the amounts of oil, coal, and natural gas remaining to be harnessed in the future, with several experts giving their predictions for the peak production of the world production of oil, not far away by most accounts. The United States had it's oil production peak in 1970 (predicted in 1956 by M. King Hubbert) and has been in decline since, with a slight temporary increase in the 1980's due to Alaskan oil.

As Richard Heinberg emphasizes continually in this book, the decline in world oil production seems imminent, along with the ensuing decline in national industrial economies which rely on oil, the United States being by far the biggest example. Per capita energy use by Americans is five times the world average, Heinberg writes, and he makes it abundantly clear that this waste and extravagance cannot continue much longer, and no number of Iraqi type excursions will make a difference. Heinberg writes that this decline of energy availability and use can be achieved peacefully with individual countries cooperating with each other, or violently with nations squabbling over the remaining oil. However, one thing stands out very clearly now, back in the 1970's during the initial problems with energy shortages due to the Arab oil embargo, it should have been a wake-up call to our leaders to develop sustainable energy sources then, it was not done, our short-sighted leaders failed us. But as Heinberg says, corporate leaders are also at fault, with their massive self-interest at risk, they could make less money if the country shifted more to alternate energy sources, and their lobby is very strong on Capital Hill in Washinton, D.C.. If that alternate energy program was began on a massive scale in the 1970's we would probably be in much better shape now, in terms of our energy future, but as Heinberg states in this book, at this late stage our options are limited. The massive industrial military machine the United States has is given attention here also, as Heinberg writes, this massive allocation of resources can and should be directed to more pressing concerns, the citizens of the United States do not need a military budget that equals the rest of the world combined (we are'nt going to fight the Soviets, that is now clear).

This volume also covers alternate energy sources today, and what they can do to help us in the future, again, as Heinberg says, we have began with too little and too late to prevent a collapse of our industrial way of life. How large of a collapse will it be? No one is certain. Heinberg also touches on the subject of overpopulation and immigration. Did you know that approximately 90% of the population growth in the United States over the next 50 years will be due to immigration? This is an area that has been neglected, and as Heinberg says, it is politically sensitive and politicians rarely stick their necks out in areas such as this. Also, in terms of overpopulation, have we, due to the use of oil in creating a large world food supply, exceeded the carrying capacity of the planet? This is another area Heinberg writes much about.

Heinberg envisions, after the world oil supply peaks and begins it's inevitable decline, a slower paced, more idyllic lifestyle, and as he says, probably a more agreeable one, at that, to most people.

...to get a little tilling done before someone steals and eats her.

I chose this book for my second read on this subject because it has the highest ratings (on subject) on Amazon. Heinberg has done a thorough job of discussing every aspect of the coming problems to society due to a lack of petroleum - most of which I had never considered. Literature about this are from the point of view of either the politician, the economist, or the geologist. He takes the view of the geologist and the future does not look good.

I hold a more positive view: that human ingenuity will prevail - but I could easily be wrong. In any case, this is a worthwhile read for anyone. Of particular interest is the chapter that deals with alternate energy sources. The next time you read about an alternate energy source in the news, you'll remember the real pro's and con's from an expert.

Quick synopsis of 41 page alternative fuel chapter from "Party's Over:"

Natural Gas: Cannot be shipped from overseas easily like oil - is more difficult to extract economically every year - is being depleted like oil. In view of the precarious status of North American gas supplies, any attempt to shift to NG as an intermediate fuel would waste time and capital in the enlargement of an infrastructure that will soon be obsolete.

Coal: Shortage not so much a problem, however, its EROEI (Energy Return On Energy Invested) and pollution are a problem. As the richer seams are exhausted, it may cease to be a useful energy source within only 2-3 decades.

Nuclear: Electricity from existing nuclear plants is inexpensive, but only if direct costs are considered. When adding in plant construction, safety, reactor decommissioning, and waste storage - nuclear power is very expensive indeed. There are currently 442 reactors operating worldwide. France in the only country in Europe still building them. Only Asia expects to expand significantly. Only a few of the highly touted fast breeder reactors have been built, and they have proven to be prohibitively expensive. The US currently processes enough uranium to fuel existing US reactors for the next 40 years. The mining process is wasteful, polluting, and dangerous. When all things are considered, the EROEI on nuclear energy is fairly low and there is significant intangible downside.

Wind: Of all renewables (not depletable), wind power usage on a global scale is being developed the fastest. Technology has advanced - it no longer kills birds because it uses slower fan speeds and the fans are mounted on a vertical axis. It can operate in more variable wind speeds and the cost is declining rapidly. Soon your own equipment could be bought and used on your own property. Wind has the best EROEI and Germany leads the world in its usage. On a large scale, wind power would require vastly new infrastructure, but it is the most practical alternative so far.
Problem: cannot easily be converted to fuel transportation and agricultural needs.

Solar: Technology advancing rapidly, photovoltaic the best so far. Research is advancing into diverse methods of collection, including such easy methods of application as solar buckyball collectors incorporated into house paint. Tremendous potential, would need new infrastructure.
Problem: cannot easily be converted to fuel transportation and agricultural needs.

Hydrogen: For now, the process of hydrogen production always uses more energy than the resulting hydrogen will yield. For one thing, hydrogen is not an energy source, but an energy carrier. It's production depends on continued usage of the dwindling supply of natural gas. There is new technology, however, and reason to be optimistic. As with wind and solar, a whole new infrastructure, requiring time and investments of huge amounts of money and energy technology are necessary. Like wind and solar, hydrogen fuel cells should be central features of our plans to phase out petroleum. We should be dramatically increasing these investments.

Hydroelectric: In many regions of the world - and especially in the US - it is already thoroughly exploited.

Geothermal power, tides, and waves: limited application in limited regions of the world.

Biomass: wood burning - pollution and limited resources in a world with 6 billion people - imagine the world being one big Easter Island.

Ethanol: costs more energy to produce than it eventually delivers to society. Brazil is the poster child, but is burning down rain forests to grow sugar cane.

Cold-Fusion: pseudoscience

Conservation - Efficiency and Curtailment: Will be crucial in cushioning impacts from the depletion of oil. But it is not a panacea - even when you ignore cheaters (individuals and countries).

Saudi saying: My grandfather rode a camel. My father rode in a car. I fly a jet airplane. My grandson will ride a camel.