Rating: 
Summary: Apocalypse Now?
Review: 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?
Rating:
Summary: Apocalypse Now?
Review: 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?
Rating:
Summary: Finally -- the Truth!
Review: Researching environmental threats, staying current on the environment and politics, trying to make a difference for the better -- all such persuits leave an individual feeling both alone and depressed. Friends don't want to KNOW, much less talk about it. The media are obligatorily silent. Meanwhile, local powers-that-be want to build a Wal-Mart. This book brings The Situation out into the open where we can not only discuss, but DO SOMETHING about it. It's high time a writer had the courage to stop mincing words and tell it like it is. I have faith that we can both clean up from this party and find a new way to have fun -- one that won't kill us and everything around us. But we can't do either until we start talking about it. Openly. Thank you, Mr. Heinberg! Now we need Joan Baez to write a song and maybe we can get some of my complacent fellow flower children out of their corner offices and into the streets where we belong. Again.
Rating:
Summary: A Reality Check for the Industrial World
Review: Richard Heinberg has done a tremendous service for all of us in America and the industrial world. Most Americans have known for years of risks associated with dependence on "foreign oil", but few Americans know that the critical point in human use of oil as an energy source is upon us. Few Americans ever heard of Hubbert's Peak in terms of American oil production, much less world oil production. Thus, industry and government have been able to use aspects of the truth (there is still one trillion barrels of recoverable oil underground) to obfuscate a critical fact -- the end of the entire age of oil as a primary fuel for human industry is within sight. This fact has enormous (world altering) ramifications, as Heinberg demonstrates in his well-researched book. Foreign policy, domestic policy, ecology, wildlife conservation, and the entire American "way of life" are at issue. The information offered in this book is certainly known by government officials and undoubtedly has a direct influence, a primary influence, on the War on Terrorism, the War on Iraq, the U.S. Stock Market, and, increasingly on public debate in the U.S. The fact that the U.S. Government, under administrations of either party, have not provided knowledge of the issues discussed in this book speaks poorly of the future of American democracy, and the absolute, dire need for American to educate themselves by reading this book and others like it. To his credit, Heinberg explores opposing and alternate views of the data that support his conclusions. Rather than deny or ignore the alternate views, Heinberg explains them and persuades the reader by virtue of superior argumentation. This adds to his credibility, while diminishing the credibility of the doubters of his arguments. In the current War on Iraq and War on Terrorism, many Americans and other citizens of the world found governmental explanations for precipitate U.S. military actions to be of doubtful authenticity and perhaps indicative of some hidden agenda. Heinberg's book helps understand what the basis of this hidden agenda is, and his book underscores the fact that this is not a temporary situation, but tied to the ultimate depletion of oil as a usable resource for the "energizing" of human industry and societies. This book will be a bellweather book for the understanding of America's place in the world, and humanity's prospects for continued prosperity on a rapidly changing planet. It would be impossible to overemphasize the importance of this book.
Rating: 
Summary: Outlasting Global Peak in Energy Usage
Review: Temporary energy sources have shaped the industrial revolution for hundreds of years. Dwindling energy supplies along with depleted resources are the consequences of the industrial market. Richard Heinberg explores the consequences and implication that result from oil extraction. The Party's Over introduces the reader to the history of the industrial era. Heinberg then gives estimates on oil reserves and extraction rates. He also examines alternatives to oil and discusses the future implications resulting from the peak in fossil-fuel production.
Industrial societies started forming in America by modeling European styles beginning in the early 1900's. Oil was often found in the eastern United States mountain regions. This allowed for cheap prices and easy accessibility options. Global discovery of oil peaked in the 60's. By 1970, America was consuming more oil than it could produce. It solely relied on other countries resource supplies to fill the overwhelming demand made by the consumers.
This led to intensified efforts towards energy conservation. Suddenly, people started to seek out alternative energy sources. It was a beginning of a new era that focused on the environment. People spoke openly about both social and environmental problems that related to resource consumption. However, these attitudes would dissipate with the arrival of the Reagan-Bush administration in 1980. The new administration stressed that citizens should forget their worries about energy-resource limits and consume as they please. Once again, environmental issues were dismissed and corporate America was enthroned.
Heinberg bases most of his opinions around the fact that the world economy is dependent on petroleum, and that the United States has become dependent on imported oil from the Middle East. The message delivered by Heinberg is that industrial civilization is based on consumption of energy resources that are nonreplicable and will soon become scarce. He states that less energy will be available to humankind; therefore, a transition must be made to alternative sources of energy.
After tracing the history of the industrial era, Heinberg touches on some specific examples of how oil consumption has peaked and why it should be of concern. From there, he goes on to say that certain alternatives will allow the industrial civilization to survive the end of oil. Examples of non-petroleum energy sources include natural gas, coal, nuclear power, wind, solar, hydrogen, and hydroelectricity. Furthermore, he stresses the ideal of conservation. By doing so, energy conflicts would be avoided and the economy would remain stable.
After reading this book, one may feel alarmed. The most concerning thing mentioned in the book deals with corrupt international relations that focus on oil. It seems as though the current administration is centrally focused on oil imports. Many wars in recent years have been fought simply to gain oil. United States oil interests have destroyed landscapes and communities. Now, a new problem has arrived, the increasing level of terrorism sparked by disrupted international relations.
The war on terrorism used in recent administrations allows for the takeover of certain resource-rich areas. Sometimes, America gains full control over a certain region and its oil resources. It is also concerning that our President, Vice President, and National Security Advisor are all former oil industry executives. If not for oil resources, the United States would not engage in activities in the Middle East.
In the book, Heinberg clearly expresses his concern over the current administrations policy making. He realizes that the population will soon be at risk from the energy crisis. Transition should take place that shifts focus off of military spending and places it on energy research. The severity of the risks associated with the energy crisis must be looked upon. Global agreements should be signed into law such as the Kyoto Protocol. By doing so, all nations would be assured access to energy resources as well as equal opportunity towards the profits from resource exploitation.
Heinberg points out that several hopeful signs towards sustainability have been seen at local levels. These issues cannot wait much longer to be dealt with. By increasing the public's knowledge on alternatives, proposals can be made that changes destructive consumption.
Over the last 150 years, industrialization has allowed population to grow at the expense of the environment. It is predicted that oil will soon be scarce. Alternative energy resources must be studied which would emphasize sustainability. America must be aware of the problems associated with dependence on non-renewable resources. Soon enough, energy resource circumstances will change the way we live everyday life.
Rating: 
Summary: I'm sooo scared. Protect meeeee!
Review: Thanks to excellent writer David McGowan now I wonder who exactly are these Richard Heinberg, Michael Ruppert et al and what their agenda is. Just how many "educated" Americans assume oil is a "fossil fuel"? Mind control in America seems to be working very well. By the way I live in
Japan and I don't own a car because I hate those noisy, dirty,dangerous,big brother, "high-tech" machines. I prefer ride a quiet and clean bicycle. I am very healthy and sleep very well every night.
Rating: 
Summary: mixed
Review: The book evaluates alternative energy sources with a metric called "energy returned on energy invested" (EROEI). This makes it appear scientific, but there are problems with the analysis. The author clearly prefers cleaner energy sources, and so does his science. Most discussions of this topic fail to consider the total available energy if we used multiple alternatives (e.g., shale and coal and nuclear and wind) at once, something which could happen in a true supply crisis. This book is no exception: it gives thumbs up or down on each alternative as though we can only choose one at a time. The author irrationally rules out the possibility that new technologies in recovering oil/shale/coal etc. could appear in time to help us, or that efficiencies in solar panel technology are possible. His bias prevents him from even realizing that, if only to better our odds of survival, a chunk of cash should be invested in this kind of R&D, as part of a comprehensive solution. The EROEI figures are misleading when he considers solutions which arise from waste products, such as biodiesel. Biodiesel is often made from waste oil used in french fry production. Fair measurements shouldn't include the cost of growing the vegetables that were used to make the oil, as this was going to be done anyway. It's true that, in energy shortage, we might produce fewer vegetables (and one can't produce all of our energy needs from waste products), but doing so would boost the efficiency of the other primary energy sources. He should include a set of EROEI figures for biodiesel, with and without the energy cost of growing waste product. This applies to ethanol (which I believe can be made from discarded corn husks) as well. He doesn't even mention thermal depolymerization, which generates new petroleum by pressurizing and heating biomass or plastics (and thus extends the "party" and throws off the thesis of the book). As to nuclear power, the author calculates its EROEI based on today's plants, which he notes are rarely operational. But they are rarely operational because of public opposition and protests, not because of possible energy return. France gets 76% of its power from nuclear fission today, because the French public are less agitated about the topic than Americans are. Again, the EROEI figure he uses should be accompanied by another figure which shows what is ideally possible from that technology. Having these upper and lower limits-- a range of EROEI-- would give us a more scientific presentation on what's possible, alongside what's currently considered practical. Public attitudes can and do change. I think the polemic is entertaining and probably largely accurate, but turns off the half of the audience which vote Republican, and, as such, was unconstructive. I do appreciate his not adding to the misleading "hydrogen economy" hype, which glibly spins hydrogen as though it is itself a source of energy, when, in reality, an undiscussed energy source would have to be available in order to even produce hydrogen. Claiming hydrogen is a source of energy is like claiming "batteries" are the solution to energy production. Kudos for not getting sidetracked into that sad ploy.
Rating:
Summary: mixed
Review: The book evaluates alternative energy sources with a metric called "energy returned on energy invested" (EROEI). This makes it appear scientific, but there are problems with the analysis. The author clearly prefers cleaner energy sources, and so does his science. Most discussions of this topic fail to consider the total available energy if we used multiple alternatives (e.g., shale and coal and nuclear and wind) at once, something which could happen in a true supply crisis. This book is no exception: it gives thumbs up or down on each alternative as though we can only choose one at a time. The author irrationally rules out the possibility that new technologies in recovering oil/shale/coal etc. could appear in time to help us, or that efficiencies in solar panel technology are possible. His bias prevents him from even realizing that, if only to better our odds of survival, a chunk of cash should be invested in this kind of R&D, as part of a comprehensive solution. The EROEI figures are misleading when he considers solutions which arise from waste products, such as biodiesel. Biodiesel is often made from waste oil used in french fry production. Fair measurements shouldn't include the cost of growing the vegetables that were used to make the oil, as this was going to be done anyway. It's true that, in energy shortage, we might produce fewer vegetables (and one can't produce all of our energy needs from waste products), but doing so would boost the efficiency of the other primary energy sources. He should include a set of EROEI figures for biodiesel, with and without the energy cost of growing waste product. This applies to ethanol (which I believe can be made from discarded corn husks) as well. He doesn't even mention thermal depolymerization, which generates new petroleum by pressurizing and heating biomass or plastics (and thus extends the "party" and throws off the thesis of the book). As to nuclear power, the author calculates its EROEI based on today's plants, which he notes are rarely operational. But they are rarely operational because of public opposition and protests, not because of possible energy return. France gets 76% of its power from nuclear fission today, because the French public are less agitated about the topic than Americans are. Again, the EROEI figure he uses should be accompanied by another figure which shows what is ideally possible from that technology. Having these upper and lower limits-- a range of EROEI-- would give us a more scientific presentation on what's possible, alongside what's currently considered practical. Public attitudes can and do change. I think the polemic is entertaining and probably largely accurate, but turns off the half of the audience which vote Republican, and, as such, was unconstructive. I do appreciate his not adding to the misleading "hydrogen economy" hype, which glibly spins hydrogen as though it is itself a source of energy, when, in reality, an undiscussed energy source would have to be available in order to even produce hydrogen. Claiming hydrogen is a source of energy is like claiming "batteries" are the solution to energy production. Kudos for not getting sidetracked into that sad ploy.
Rating: 
Summary: Needs more research
Review: The book is well-written and easy to understand. Basically, the world oil production is set to reach an all-time high around the year 2008. But this is a bad thing, since oil production is going down forever after the peak. There is going to be a worldwide scramble for the remaining half of the world's oil resources, resulting in an "Oil Crash". This phenomenon known as "peak oil" has a growing number of proponents among prestigious geologists. But not all is bad news. There are several alternate sources of energy, such as Solar, Wind and Nuclear. Moreover, there is a new technology called "Thermal Depolymerization" or TDP which can convert any organic material into oil with an output-to-input oil ratio of 5.7 (One gallon of oil plus organic waste can make 5.7 gallons of oil). There was an article in May 2003 in the DISCOVER magazine about TDP titled "Anything into oil". TDP is slowly coming into mainstream commercial production with the help of billionaire investors such as Howard Buffett (Warren's son), so there is hope after all. Unfortunately, the author wants everyone to "BELIEVE that all hell is going to break loose after oil production peaks" -- and panic, rather than give several scenarios (such as implementation of Solar, wind, TDP) that can pan out in the future. I can believe in the author being an expert on oil production, but his claim to understand the details of the alternate sources of energy without answering the proponents of those fields -- such as the economic viability of TDP, which is making waves -- is not believable.
Rating:
Summary: Author¿s biases do not help this book¿s credibility
Review: The occurrence of Hubbert's Peak - the point, where an ever increasing consumption of petroleum products overtakes production from obviously limited reserves - is a no-brainer. When is it going to happen? The researchers at Uppsala University give 2008 as their latest estimate. But what happens afterwards - can our civilization survive? I am certain that there exists a clear answer to this important question, but I don't think I have found it in Richard Heinberg's book. While »The Party's Over« in well argued and seems to be replete with scientific data, the author clearly exhibits his extreme bias in at least one area: nuclear power. For Heinberg nuclear technology is anathema, and »it would be a disastrous error to turn to nuclear power when energy shortages arise due to the depletion of fossil fuel« (p.139) - yet Heinberg has not answered the essential question: could nuclear power - in terms of energy that can be produced - provide a substitute for fossil fuels? Or is nuclear power just something to be avoided at all cost, because it is inherently »evil« and anybody who even thinks of increased use of nuclear power must be an »evil-doer« in league with the nuclear lobby? I do not believe that nuclear power alone can support our civilization of waste after the Hubbert's Peak. But Heinberg's biased treatment of nuclear power (an area of technology which I happen to know something about) makes me wonder: has Professor Heinberg been short-changing us on other issues too? We need an objective, well researched book on our energy alternatives after the inevitable Hubbert's Peak. Unfortunately, »The Party's Over« does not seem to be it.
|
