I can't count the number of times that pessimists have told me: 'It's too late to address peak oil. If we wanted to mitigate peak oil, we needed to start 20 years ago.' That's the classic peak oil sound bite. You're left with the impression that 'mitigating' peak oil is a horrendously complex process which will take decades upon decades and trillions of dollars. And granted, that is an accurate depiction of Hirsch's view, and explains why he thinks the problem is so ugly, and we are in such deep trouble. Robert Hirsch: Taking himself way too seriouslyOn the other hand, it's always good to question authority, and we can learn an important lesson by examining exactly what Hirsch means by 'mitigation'.Here's the fine print, from the Hirsch Report:Nevertheless, this analysis clearly demonstrates that the key to mitigation of world oil production peaking will be the construction a large number of substitute fuel production facilities, coupled to significant increases in transportation fuel efficiency. The time required to mitigate world oil production peaking is measured on a decade time-scale.

Jun 09, 2016  Doomsday Clicker. What is Doomsday Clicker? Welcome to the end of the world! You have destroyed civilization but for the most noble of reasons! Jun 09, 2016 02:39PM NZST How do I play Doomsday Clicker? With Doomsday Clicker profit comes from improving your facilities and destroying the world. Spend your profits. Doomsday Clicker is filled with crazy characters who warm your heart, right before you destroy them all. It’s the ultimate game of construction and destruction! View the Doomsday Clicker press release here.

Related production facility size is large and capital intensive. 6)Let's break that down. Note that conservation plays no role whatsoever in Hirsch's 'mitigation'.

His idea of 'solving' the peak oil problem is to build horrendously expensive, highly polluting facilities for producing substitute liquid fuel (CTL, GTL, heavy oil) so that everyone can continue driving their current vehicles in a completely business-as-usual fashion.(Incidentally, as I've, 30% of Dr. Robert Hirsch Ph.D's 'mitigation' plan depends on Venezuela (of all places) ramping up heavy oil production from 0.6mbd to 6.0mbd in 10 years.

Which is probably the most butt-stupid peak oil plan ever put to paper. The US is not going to maintain business-as-usual by ramping up heavy oil production in Venezuela, for a whole host of reasons Hirsch is apparently too senile and poorly informed to notice.)Hirsch frankly concedes that his plan only addresses the supply-side, and intentionally ignores all demand-side conservation measures:Our focus is on large-scale, physical mitigation, as opposed to policy actions, e.g. Tax credits, rationing, automobile speed restrictions etc. 25)This oversight seriously calls into question his claim that it will take 20 years to 'mitigate' peak oil.

It's as though we were considering solutions for an obese person, and Hirsch is telling us it's going to take forever because we won't be considering options like dieting and exercise.The IEA takes a more reasonable approach. It sees conservation as the backbone of any rapid response to oil shortages.) Postscript: On 10/6/08 at The Oil Drum, Alan Drake wrote:At ASPO-Sacramento, I approached Robert Hirsch about possibly writing an 'Alternative Hirsch Report' and he basically called be an idiot (in more polite words), appealed to authority (his) and said it could not be done in less than 50 years. It is a daunting challenge, but I may go ahead, with my own resources, and write the 'Alternative (Green) Hirsch Report'.For obvious reasons, I posted a link to this article. The link, and Alan's original comment, were deleted by the TOD staff.

123 Comments:At,said.As always, please use the Name/URL option (you don't have to register, just enter a screen-name) or sign your anonymous post at the bottom. The conversation is better without multiple anons. JDAt,said.Excellent post jd, though probably unwelcome to the ears of the majority of Americans.

I never thought of house pooling and I don't like the idea but I agree that it will work. Here's another idea to save on heating in the winter: Turn the heating down as low as it can go without freezing the pipes and invest in a high tech piece of equipment called a low temperature sleeping bag. It's as though we were considering solutions for an obese person, and Hirsch is telling us it's going to take forever because we won't be considering options like dieting and exercise.'

This is, hands down, the best summary of the Hirsch Report I've ever heard. I award you one virtual golf clap, sir.At,Anonymous said.Good one JD.maybe the best yet. Almost too much to digest without some recursive reading. You've been busy. StuckAt,Anonymous said.As you mention, the Hirsch report doesn't consider broad conservation measures, so it's not really fair to fault it for something it specifically doesn't set out to do anyway. When the report concludes that we need 20 years of preparation to completely escape the negative effects of peak oil, that shows us just how deep oil permeates our lives and infrastructure - the scale of the problem. That said, you're right that the report is often used to defend a defeatist attitude and it's quite likely we'll simply adapt ad hoc conservation/Third World lifestyle when forced to by circumstances.

The report merely shows us, that BAU is not possible and that getting even basic infrastructure to work will be quite a challenge.At,Anonymous said.I believe PO is going to be a huge problem because of a few very important factors. The economy needs energy to grow.

Without growth in the energy supply, the economy cannot grow. Also, lower consumption can potentially start a vicious circle of lay-offs and increased government spending (read: borrowing). For the U.S which is already in history's biggest hole, this would be tantamount to lying down in it and shoveling the dirt in. Without growth in the economy, our fiat money system (which is basically a ponzi pyramid scheme) cannot continue. High prices will send conservation signals which is an effective way of cutting consumption. But, exactly because it is effective, it will lead to bigger problems down the line.

This is because we implement cuts where they are either easiest or cheapest, leaving the hard, expensive and often crucial for last(just like we have taken all the easy oil first). In a word, we're taking the 'slack' out of the system, and leaving the stuff which we 'can't live without' for a later time. Good luck implementing big, expensive projects then.

We need to do them now while they are still relatively cheap. This is not possible when people still think it's not going to be a problem. The potential is almost never the result due to differing interests.

The US has been spending money like a drunken sailor and using force like the schoolyard bully. Why don't you stop that first, that would save huge amounts of energy.

I also like to think of the risk of doing nothing. It is huge compared to the risk of doing what we can. For a measly 1-2% of world GDP we could do a lot right now. I would rather take that risk and be wrong, than be the one to say 'i told you so'.

The added bonus is a cleaner environment for our children and keeping our bio-diversity.At,Anonymous said.A couple of points to add to this. The other day, while back home in BC, I came across a guy towing two NEV in his pick-up. He was just getting into the business and wasn't quite making a decent profit yet. According to him, the only thing that was holding his business back was government stalling on licensing and zoning (speed limits etc). There was no problem with interest from the public as, apparantly, people are either starting to grasp the problems we're facing with transportation OR-according to him-are just tired of buying gasoline. He was receiving calls every day from potential customers who wanted cheap, electric transportation for their discretionary, local driving.

So, he claimed, it was the government that needed to open the doors to new industry and allow NEV and BEV startups to flourish by changing the archaic laws/zoning regulations. I think this point underscores a greater need-and one that will speed up and spread the kind of 'natural' mitigation that JD (and the IEA) speaks of.

Namely, the need for a groundswell in public and private knowledge and initiative. Just as there was an energy education program embraced by all government levels in the 70's (thanks to Jimmy Carter actually admitting there was a problem-later buried by yet another greed mongering Republican, Ronald Reagan), education to the public about oil depletion, with concomittant and widesweeping changes to regulations would allow mitigation to happen almost on its own. Now, another point I'd like to add is one that is very hard to quantify and is without empirical evidence: a change in perspective among younger people. From what I see, both in the media and in person, and both here in Japan and in North America, there is a widening gap between the outlook on energy/oil useage held by the baby boomers (the largest group of people in both societies) and those younger.

Specifically, I think that North American baby boomers in general have a perspective of endless 'progress' and prosperity and often have a difficult time even imagining a world with less personal mobility. I think Robert Hirsch represents that generation. However, the people in their 50's and younger are the ones who are able to move beyond what they may have seen as a normal growth paradigm and are now striving to make changes-both in their own perspective and in their lifestyle. They are increasingly conscious of how their actions effect the planet and its resources. These people need to be reached and in a big way. The sooner it sinks in that it won't be BAU but that there are concrete steps that can be taken NOW and largely without too much pain or sacrifice, the sooner these natural steps at mitigation of the effects of PO will take place.

Lastly, the baby boomers are retiring en masse now. This is a very good thing-they will step down from their jobs and their lifestyles and the younger generation that replaces them will, HOPEFULLY, be far more open to bringing about change.At,Anonymous said.a couple of questions; The Hirsch Report was written in 2004? If so, he probably couldn't have taken the following fairly recent developments into consideration 1) the huge and sudden advances in battery technology 2) the growth of shale and coal bed methane gas fields/drilling technology Would these developements not factored largely into his assessment. Given that a) we are entering into a world wide recession with lower crude oil usage and b) we could be on a continuing bumpy plateau given a) and growth in GTL and biofuel tech.

Wondering what readers' takes on these would be.note: battery technology includes bicycles (see the new Schwinn.wow), scooters (Honda and Yamaha full electric in mass production in 2009) and compact cars, etc Stuck in ShizuokaAt,said.Not only I do agree with all this rant by JD, I also think he's playing mr nice guy towards Hirch. Seriously, I believe that a much harsh position could be drawn against the report. The 'Decades-mitigation' issue: Apparently, mr Hirsch believes it takes 20 decades to mitigate. But that assumes that we've been doing nothing to counter the price signal we've been getting the last five years, which is ludicrous at best. Therefore, we should already count 5 years. If peak oil only comes about some five years ahead, and there is a plateau that extends for more 5-10 years, then there's the two necessary decades mr Hirsch assumes doesn't exist.

Just in this small point, he's completely debunked; 2. As JD points out, conservation; 3.

As JD usually points out, but didn't this time, substitution. Just like in the 80s did the US change its electric infrastructure away from oil, similar market forces are converging to make possible the substitution of many other oil-based utilities, like transport and heat.

Renewables will play a final blow in a decade or so against Hirsch's report on this theme. A one-two year recession in the world will a)waste less oil; b)give time to people adjust their lifestyles.

It will extend peak oil, it will expand mitigation. I'll address rune's points right now. The economy needs energy to grow. Without growth in the energy supply, the economy cannot grow. A) Assertion is unfounded.

By a long shot. B) Peak Oil does not mean Peak Energy. C) Peak Energy (in production) does not equal to Peak 'Work', and by work I mean the work taken out by a certain amount of energy (which is what really matters for the economy). So your point 1 is blown. Without growth in the economy, our fiat money system (which is basically a ponzi pyramid scheme) cannot continue. If the Ponzi schemes collapse, that will only contribute to the health of the economy in the long run. I sincerely doubt your grasp of the situation.

This is because we implement cuts where they are either easiest or cheapest, leaving the hard, expensive and often crucial for last This has been claimed by the pseudo-scientists of TOD. It's an absurd theory.

For one, you take for granted that the last cuts are more expensive ones. That's completely unfounded. These cuts may imply expensive insolation upgrades, but they also imply inexpensive job-changes / house changes. There are many more reasons than money for people to postpone their energy saving decisions. The potential is almost never the result due to differing interests. I'd argue that the potential for the world to use much, much less than what it is right now is so large that even if not matched by reality, it won't matter a bit.

Nevertheless, price signals abound and people are changing lifestyles now.At,Anonymous said.There is a very real threat that the credit crunch will result in less available capital for alt-energy startups and infrastructure revamping. That's where any bailout or rebate money should really be spent. What we need is a new Work Projects Administration and put as many of these newly laid off people to work as we can on repairing roads, upgrading the electricity grid, etc.

Wouldn't that be something.At,Anonymous said.Since when does an increase in fuel efficiency not equate to conservation? That was the point where one needs to conserve their time and read no further.At,Anonymous said. His idea of 'solving' the peak oil problem is to build horrendously expensive, highly polluting facilities for producing substitute liquid fuel (CTL, GTL, heavy oil) so that everyone can continue driving their current vehicles in a completely business-as-usual fashion.

You missed completely his comment.this analysis clearly demonstrates that the key to mitigation of world oil production peaking will be the construction a large number of substitute fuel production facilities, coupled to significant increases in transportation fuel efficiency. 'Improving fuel efficiency will take 10 years.'

Which is a load of ridiculous horseshit. Here you are confusing conservation with efficiency. Carpooling and bike riding, for example, are an example of conservation (unless the bike rider sells their car, never to get another).

Call it 'housepooling'. You are completely ignoring cultural inertia and the time it takes to change one's thinking, especially with older people who feel they've earned their retirement lifestyle.

Saving oil in a hurry I'm already employing (or have employed) 6 items on this list. More people will, though a large percentage of Americans will resist this, as 'the American Way of Life is Non-Negotiable'. Sad but true, and many pundits will emerge that will point fingers at other countries, blaming them, redirecting the initiatives that should be focused on conservation towards invading other countries.At,said.but JD: Jevons Paradox!!!;) rune: where did you cut & paste your response from? I seem to remember reading the exact same thing on this blog in 2005.

Really, the biggest hurdle for peak oil mitigation is making the consumers (especially americans) comfortable with conservation. And it's starting to happen. In the san francisco bay area we're gonna need more public transport in a few years.At,Anonymous said.Excellent, one of your best ones. You're not even sounding arrogant!:) I had to check the Hirsch report - and it really doesn't mention any of the keep-it-simple -solutions that you talk so much about.

However, I would like to point out (i think someone vaguely already referred to it) that these solutions undoubtably would also have a great impact on consumer spending. Definately doesn't mean the solution is a bad one but I think it means we can't change just one part of the equation.At,said.ibut JD: Jevons Paradox!!!;)/i I'm sure you probably know/believe this, but two studies I've seen demonstrate that Jevons' Paradox leads to a rebound effect, but not nearly as bad as the doomdooms would have us believe: Yes, there is a rebound, but it's not absolutely devastating.At,Anonymous said.The comment about the economy requiring a constrantly increasing supply of energy to grow is dead-on, and key in understanding the magnitude of the problem. Yes, we can certainly conserve fuel and try all manner of fuel-reducing strategies. Hirch's implicit assumption is that consumers used to a cheap, unlimited supply of fuel will never voluntarily agree to policies that seriously disrupt freedoms they have been accustomed to for decades. In other words, he is assuming a complete lack of political leadership until the crisis is full-blown and such policies MUST be implemented, after which it will be too late to do anything structurally meaningful to change consumption patterns without very painful economic and societal consequences.

Remember, all energy that we use is derived from oil.petroleum is used to fuel the vehicles used to harvest other energy sources(eg. Coal, wood, biofuels) and fabricate the infrastructure needed to convert the energy into usable work (power plants, wind turbines, solar panels, etc). Without cheap oil, everything else breaks down. Hirch's assessment is that we cannot come out of peak oil without significant economic damage and societal upheaval unless we ramp up liquid fuel production and improve the efficiency of what we are already doing. The word 'conserve' basically means 'don't do'. When you have a lot of people and businesses 'not doing' things like generating economic activity, we will have a massive economic depression on our hands.At,Anonymous said.The comment about the economy requiring a constrantly increasing supply of energy to grow is dead-on, and key in understanding the magnitude of the problem. There's no logic in that.

For the first part, we can be more efficient by getting more work out of the same amount of energy. And second - even with the same energy efficiency not all energy consumption creates economic growth alike. I'd argue a lot of energy consumption is of very small economic significance. Also, I don't believe it's the end of the world if the economy shrinks. Yes, we can certainly conserve fuel and try all manner of fuel-reducing strategies.

Hirch's implicit assumption is that consumers used to a cheap, unlimited supply of fuel will never voluntarily agree to policies that seriously disrupt freedoms they have been accustomed to for decades. Well that's a bad assumption. I think the public will understand through the economy & prices what's best for them (some will understand before too). The problem right now is we're nowhere near the pain limits. I'd claim the seriousness of the debate would be quite different if petroleum prices were doubled or tripled.At,Anonymous said.'

Without cheap oil, everything else breaks down.' Oil isn't cheap now, so what's your point? 'The word 'conserve' basically means 'don't do'.' No, it means do the same just more wisely. Like having your business switch from the big fleet of SUVs to the Prius. It means heating your home with a more efficient heating system and insulating your house. 'we will have a massive economic depression on our hands.'

How much oil will a depression need? Problem solved.At,said.iRemember, all energy that we use is derived from oil.petroleum is used to fuel the vehicles used to harvest other energy sources(eg. Coal, wood, biofuels) and fabricate the infrastructure needed to convert the energy into usable work (power plants, wind turbines, solar panels, etc). Without cheap oil, everything else breaks down./i Do you have proof of this? I see this bandied about a lot, but I've yet to see any empirical evidence of this being true.

Oil is largely used in transportation, but most fabrication is done with electricity, which does not require oil at all. Y'know, like the whole 'electric cars need oil to be made' lie.At,said.Also, I would like to note that the% of oil use by the practices mentioned by you, doomanon, are such a small portion of the mix that it's hardly cause for thinking that we'll run out of fuel to run them. Simply moving to PHEVs and BEVs would free up a significant portion of current American oil use.At,said.Excellent post by jd. Similar to 'housepooling', many people in the northern part of south that have large homes will seal off entire sections during the winter months to save on energy. They've done this for years. This works well in places like Tennessee where the winters are occasionally really cold, but 9 months out of the year are really nice or hot. I'm sure it's done in many other places as well.

Godus wars wiki. Godus Wars mixes tactical Real Time Strategy gameplay with the mechanics of the God-Game genre.It’s fun, it’s simple and it’s brutal. Get instant access and start playing; get involved with this game as it develops. Most popular community and official content for the past week. Game status Radio silence. Godus Wars mixes tactical Real Time Strategy gameplay with the mechanics of the God game genre. It’s fun, it’s simple and it’s brutal. Take control of one of four Deities, each with different play styles, abilities and powers.

SkyemoorMore people will, though a large percentage of Americans will resist this, as 'the American Way of Life is Non-Negotiable'. This can change quite quickly in response to price signals. I have a friend who is an Los Angeles native, very narcissitic, thinks he deserves all sorts of things.

He'd been looking into buying a BMW or some other pricey car (which, imo, is absurd based on what he makes) but he could afford it on loan. But when gas shot up, within a couple of months he was very seriously thinking of selling his car and taking the bus around.

That would seem really weird to other people, if you are the first person doing it. But when everybody you know starts doing it, suddenly it's normal. I've gotten weird looks when I tell people I sometimes take the bus at night (I make six figures), but it's because if I'm going to a club, I don't want to have to deal with parking and dui concerns. You're right that some will resist, but prices will keep that in check. In fact, I would guess that those most resistant to change are heavily financing their lifestyle and will be forced to change whether they like it or not.

Certainly no shortage of people like that in Los Angeles.At,said.You're right that some will resist, but prices will keep that in check. In fact, I would guess that those most resistant to change are heavily financing their lifestyle and will be forced to change whether they like it or not. Certainly no shortage of people like that in Los Angeles. Being an LA native I considered saying something in response to this, but. You're pretty much right.

I rode the bus a lot in LA, and ridership was up a lot when I left earlier this year. Even LA can change, and I see a lot more people talking about transit options in the land of two subway lines.At,Anonymous said.I sometimes post this trite observation, but it will get you kicked off TOD: If U.S. Consumers gravitate to cars getting a fleet-average 10 percent improved mpg, and drive 10 percent fewer miles, you get nearly a one-fifth drop in gasoline consumption - enough to glut every refinery in the country. Such a change could put another 2-3mbd on world oil markets. Really, would anyone consider this much of a change in their lives - getting a car with mildly improved mpg, or mildly reducing driving?At,Anonymous said.'