Not just oil: US hit peak water in 1970 and nobody noticed
arstechnica.com
arstechnica.com
Indeed, but since (as mentioned) water is nothing like oil, the concept of Peak Water hardly matters. I hear the US also passed Peak Rubik's Cube in about 1983 and nobody noticed that either.
For a great book on the subject, check out http://www.amazon.com/Cadillac-Desert-American-Disappearing-...
Central Valley farms and the coastal cities are mostly fed by water from the Sierra's, via either rivers or one of California's many aquifers (e.g. Hetch Hetchy, Los Angeles, Colorado, California).
[1]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Valley_(California)#Cli...
It matters if we're using water faster than the hydrologic cycle can process it.
A few years ago it was fashionable to predict water wars. And then they didn't happen and people realised that when you buy any food from any other country, you import water. D'oh.
Given that the US is apparently a net exporter of food, seems to me they have plenty of water. All it might mean is that if water becomes scarcer in America, water intensive crops will become more expensive, thus their exports will drop.
On a side note, there are already many countries that are way past their own sustainable water use, but they buy food from countries which have excess water, so no ill ever comes of it.
Considering Israel and Singapore have already deployed desalinated water at lower costs than regular water in many parts of western countries, it really is a moot point.
Again, considering technological advances the prices will drop and once it hits a tipping point, every coastal city in the world will be able to switch as increased usage of the technology will not only mean lower construction costs of existing designs, but also lead to huge increases in research budgets. Since countries are already deploying it, it's really just a matter of time.
As mattmanser is pointing out, a lot of our water is exported through food. With desalination saving river water, there's a potential to greatly increase our exportation of water-intensive crops without damaging our waterways.
> With desalination saving river water, there's a potential to greatly increase our exportation of water-intensive crops without damaging our waterways.
Well, we still need waste treatment to keep those waterways clean. Let's just hope that someone doesn't come with the 'bright' idea that since we no longer rely on the waterways for drinking water, that we don't need to care about waste treatment.
The tech required to recycle the water is already available (and is commonplace), however, costs associated with this practice lead to government subsidies.
That's why nobody noticed. Oil runs out. Water sticks around (though it may need some cleaning).
Except it doesn't run out. Sure at some point you can't pump it out of wells any more (just like with water) and the tar sands will run out, but there's a zillion other options that are just not-quite-profitable right now. Water has sewage treatment plants and desalination, oil has various forms of biological-based sources and I'm pretty sure some straight chemical options.
When oil does start running short, there will be huge price shocks. Either market driven, or war-style command economies will curtail most shipping; while manufacturers pump out electrical vehicles and wind generators as fast as they can (wind generators can be built in factories and set up fairly quickly; nuclear plants require a long lead time due to site construction, planning, etc). Energy production is a relatively small part of the economy, so cutting back on the rest of the economy can pay for alternative energy supplies.
Planes can run on bio-fuel (which costs a fortune, but nobody needs to fly), cars can run on stationary energy (if you convert them to use electric motors). I don't know what container ships can use, perhaps rail will replace them in many cases (though this will be a big disruption).
It won't be pretty. There may be severe shortages. But at least the technology is being developed now.
Desalination can solve the water problem, if power is cheap enough, right now it's $2-3 per 1000 gallons.
Hurry up and invent a portable fusion generator!
Peak cheap $resource is.
Unfortunately, peak $resource has been used, reused, and abused in so many different ways that stating one way is the definitive is bound to be incorrect.
We're talking about production levels. Let's talk oil for example. Look at this graph:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Alaska_Crude_Oil_Productio...
This graph tells us that peak oil production in Alaska was in 1987. The annual production in Alaska will never again reach 1987 levels. That's the production peak.
In the exact same way, 10 or 20 or 30 years from now we'll be able to look back on the world oil production graph and point to the peak - the year in which we've produced the most oil ever. And we'll be able to say with high degree of confidence that we'll never reach those levels again. That's peak oil
After the peak occurs the prices will go up never to return to pre-peak prices. The quote you mangled is in fact this:
'End of $resource' is not the right phrasing. 'End of CHEAP $resource' is.
The peak itself was never billed as a dramatic moment of change. It's simply a leading indicator of an impending, rapid, potentially disastrous, reconciliation of past and future standards of living.
In the case of oil, if you don't pay attention to it, you'll never be able to bring up alternatives or nuclear nearly fast enough to avoid serious economic shocks.
Water's easier, at least in America, because so much of it is literally wasted on American lawns. You can avoid quite a bit of economic shock with an order to shut off sprinklers.
But that's what the peak is all about: the canary in the coal mine. You're still alive and well when the bird pitches over. But you should probably take the hint, because you might not have enough time if you wait until it starts to notably impact you.
I'm not suggesting the oil will all one day run out. But the sum production will drop. And the world's appetite will no longer be met and the bidding on the remaining oil production will skyrocket.
We saw this when the price of oil shot from 30/barrel to 100 over 3 years. Life changed and alternatives, though now-viable are still a decade away. And that was due a fairly small increase in total demand, due growth in Asia.
If you ignore the peak and wait until that first press conference from OPEC, when the world economy starts to regain its footing but they're still cutting production; your electric cars are a decade away from mass production. your solar panels are a decade away from mass production. your nuclear plants are a generation away from being built.
Many made no economic sense at all, even after the ridiculous stretching of the facts used to justify them. There's even a river in OK or TX whose course has been continually changed, with all the work being done by a company in which the local Congressman had a financial interest.
Yep, a lot of that $13 trillion has simply been flushed down the river with no real benefit.
The book also talks about how Jimmy Carter tried get the states to pick up a tiny percentage of the cost. Suddenly, interest in water projects plummeted, at least until that silly idea was repealed.
There’s several things that needs to be worked out very soon:
- Sustainable water desalination in arid countries that doesn’t consume hydrocarbons (Solar-Thermal desalination? Nuclear desalination?).
- Better reuse of human waste for the growing of food. Currently most food is grown with artificial fertilisers, which aren’t sustainable in the long run. We need to make better reuse of our waste so that the amount of phosphorus (Another resource soon to peak), potassium, and nitrogen from artificial or mined sources can be reduced.
- Better waste water and grey water management systems to recover domestic waste water for use in industries and farming.
Empires ftw!