Wood is replaceable in a limited way.

The point is that they didn't. In Roman times, and again after the dark ages, they used more wood than they could replace and clear cut most of the trees.

The real lesson to see here, is that they seemed to react in a similar way to how we are now. They used it up and looked for lower quality alternative fuels rather than conserving and looking for ecological methods.

Well, it doesn't really work that well in practice. It takes a long time to grow a tree, so you're not going to sustain much industry by burning wood. Maybe a couple sawmills in an entire county? But what about the GM plant down the street from me? It wouldn't run long on wood, even in a heavily forested state like Michigan.

No, it wouldn't last long as GM is an international power house. Which brings things right back to what I've been saying all along---we are going to have to return to a much smaller world, centered around small local areas and industries that serve those areas. The huge corporations all are built on the basis of cheap oil and when that cheap oil becomes expensive, or hard to get, they are going to either have to find a new cheap source of fuel (doesn't seem likely) or go extinct.

From what I gather, the way to go if you want to grow fuel wood sustainably is to obtain very fast genetics suitable for coppicing (i.e they will grow back rapidly from the stumps.) There are some hybrid willows and poplars that are very fast growing and resilient. They also grow readily from cuttings, much simpler and faster than growing tree seedlings to a size where survival rates will be reasonable.

One of the big reasons we evolved to burning coal, then oil, is that local wood supplies were eventually decimated in Europe and new sources has to be found, even for the moderate energy requirements of those days. Don't know if "coppicing" would resolve those issues. I suspect it would be like any other resource. You over use it, destroy the soil so it stops returning quickly, then move on to something else.

Coppicing would have been practiced in England over the time period you described and evidently it wasn't enough to prevent the switch to coal. The recent development seems to be superior genetics. I really have no idea whether coppicing with today's genetics would have been able to supply Europe's energy needs through the industrial revolution but I suspect not. I was mostly responding to the person who said that it takes a long time to grow a tree. Apparently the rotation between harvests with this stuff can be as short as 2-5 years.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Short_rotation_coppice

On the other hand, due to economies of scale, maybe large international corporations are more efficient at producing needed goods, and therefore better for the environment than millions of mom & pop factories would be.

Adjusted for inflation, gas prices right now are high, but not as high as most people think. I agree with your reasons for being carfree. Fuel expenses are variable--when prices are high you can drive less or get a more efficient car. The other prices you mentioned are more or less fixed, and you can't do much to change them. this is what roody said i say if you buy another car more efficeant you are creating another bill and if you only drive to and from work than you cant drive less so there you have a no win scenario

Yeah, that's why 3 years later oil prices are at historic lows on an inflation adjusted basics.

Much like chicken little we discovered the sky was't falling just yet.

As Fracking Rises, Peak Oil Theory Slowly Dies

We have reached peak oil, there is no doubt. Read the articles. As part of the peak oil phenomenon prices will spike and fall, then they will spike again, each time a bit higher.

Aaron :)

Fracking is unsustainable, they have to have high per barrel prices to justify the cost of drilling the wells, once the price drops they lose money on the wells and the financing dries up.

Aaron :)

Nice try Aaron but oil prices don't drop when oil becomes scarce. What is a barrel of crude today? 38 bucks. Jimmy Carter was wrong on peak oil in 76 and if the very idea of shale oil drives the prices down to 38 bucks seems like peak oil has lost its punch. Maybe some day but not today because the obverse of what you suggest would be true as well. If the price ever goes back up they would have the funding to frack again. At least Forbes points out the idea is in the critical care unit.

Yeah, that's kinda the whole point. As demand goes up, prices go up. Then more people produce more because they can make more money.

We've just seen that at $100 a barrel, more oil can be produced than there's demand for.

This whole peak oil theory was postulated in 1956, and predicted we'd be out of oil by 1970. It was wrong then, and it has been wrong every time its been raised since.

Eventually, the oil that can be economically produced will run out. But that's at least 53 years way on proven reserves. As history shows, unproven reserves will become proven, and better technology will make oil that wasn't economically feasible to recover, recoverable. So that 53 years in all probability will extend out more than a century.

And when oil prices do eventually rise, it makes other alternatives more cost effective, and the market facilitates a transition to those alternatives.

The problem with all these end of days theories is that are based upon linear extrapolation from the past.

In 1898, urban planners thought cities were going to collapse because at their then rate of growth they'd be covered in horse manure. By 1930, New York was supposed to be covered by manure up to the 3rd floor of buildings. Linearly extrapolating the past into the future doesn't work very well.

Some other notable failed predictions:

Great moments in failed predictions | Watts Up With That?

"it's tough to make predictions, particularly about the future."

However much oil is left, it's too much. And that goes for coal also. We need to leave all that **** in the ground.

You seem to forget that what you say is also a prediction. Also, it's a fallacy to point to failed Prediction B to demonstrate that Prediction C is wrong.

The 53 years of proven reserves is only a prediction, to the extent that's its based upon on an assumption of the rate of utilization. The amount of proven oil reserves, is by definition "proven".

And the thought that human kind is going to be able to move away from oil, without catastrophe is more a belief in humanity based upon on a long track record of success than a prediction of a particular outcome.

I obviously don't know what the predominant source of energy will be 100 years from now, but then again I'm not postulating that I do.

The oil age will eventually end, and something will replace oil. I'm simply suggesting its going to happen from market, and technological forces, not some dire shortage.

After all the Stone Age didn't end from a lack of stones.

Completely different argument from "we're running out of oil."

If we were at peak oil, carbon emissions would be a self limiting problem.

Duh

Just pointing out you can't have it both ways.

Oh no, we're running out of oil;

Oh no, we're not going to run out of oil.

I wasn't having it both ways. I wasn't having it either way. I'm an agnostic when it comes to peak oil, and totally apathetic. I think it's a distraction and a waste of time, and it makes smart people look stupid. So I'm going to bow out of this zombie thread now.

Has Peak Oil peaked?
 

No. Google " Methane Clathrate".

Not too long ago, in the midst of a purge, I found a Mondo 2000 magazine from 1995, with tech predictions for the 00's. Smaller, faster computers and cheaper, bigger memory were the extent of the predictions. Not a single prediction about the rise of phones and tablets.

The whole premise of Peak Oil is that it would get people out of cars and onto bikes, into mass transportation. Even if Peak Oil were occurring, or when it does, we've already seen the future: hybrid and full-electric cars. Peak Oil =/= the end of car culture.

Hubbard's peak https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubbert_peak_theory was about US domestic sources

the easy Liquid stuff to drill not too far down and so made the extraction costs Low.

Hitting $100+ a Barrel made expensive to extract oil profitable, Now the Per Barrel Price has quashed that ,
& places Like Williston ND less of a Boom town.

Now seeking to discover more is about Elevating the Share price of Your Stock ,by having more 'Reserves' on the books.