Most Helpful Customer Reviews
|
|
176 of 177 people found the following review helpful:
4.0 out of 5 stars
A geologist's study of Peak Oil and likely consequences, March 27, 2005
This succinct book is an engaging view of Peak Oil by a gruff, no-nonsense petroleum geologist. It is not just a concise overview of the origins of oil and the significance of the Peak. Think of the Peak as that era when the price of oil soars because supply can no longer meet demand, no matter how hard the effort to increase production. For the mathematically literate, Deffeyes gives the best popular explanation yet of the Hubbert method of calculating Peak Oil. Deffeyes curve-fit puts the peak at 2006 - hence his sense of urgency.
Yet the major emphasis of the book is on the energy alternatives. Coming from an academic geologist deeply rooted in the culture of the energy industries, the chapters on natural gas, coal, nuclear, tar sands, and oil shale are most welcome. Most of the books on Peak Oil are not by geologists, so their assessments on these subjects are second hand. Deffeyes 2001 book, Hubbert's Peak - The Impending World Oil Shortage, focused mostly on conventional oil.
There are two extremes to the views on Peak Oil. Some people, often termed "cornucopians", say not to worry - technology will come to the rescue, energy alternatives will take over as soon as the price is right. Others, the "prophets of doom", predict the collapse of industrial civilization and human population via environmental degradation, warfare, disease, and famine. Or at best they predict a return to a primitive 19th century style of existence with far fewer people on the planet. Deffeyes predicts tough going, but he also outlines a way for us to scrape through a few more decades until more sustainable technology can be developed and scaled up. The kind of civilization that can be sustained over the long haul is still an open question.
His short term fixes (p. 183) include small diesel cars that get 90 miles per gallon, coal fired electrical power plants, wind turbines, and nuclear power plants. It also looks like the old Fisher-Tropsch process for coal gasification will be revived to produce aviation and diesel fuel. On the one hand environmentalists alarmed by global warming can hardly wait for Peak Oil in order to cut back on green house gases. On the other hand, the use coal, the dirtiest of all fossil fuels, is even more alarming. Deffeyes advocates pumping the carbon dioxide waste underground, but currently it mostly goes up the smokestack. However unpalatable some of these fixes may be to many citizens, I must confess that they seem quite likely, based on current politics and economics.
A few errata and quibbles: On p. 16 the permeability increases 100 times, not 1 million times, when the grain size increase by 10, according to the quadratic law he cites. For the P and 1/P equations in the graph on p. 41, delete the + sign. On the bottom of p. 40 he claims that the actual peak must happen at or before the peak of the model curve (a logistic), which is a very close fit to the historical data from 1958 to the present. However this is just a model - due to economics or politics the actual peak could happen either before or after the model peak.
In fact, since the market for oil is global, prices will be far more important for the world peak oil than for country-level peak oil. Suppose there were an oil shock right now. Then financial hardship would force a sharp drop in oil usage over the next few years while there would be an all-out effort to quickly drill even the most costly and marginal oil fields. This would, of course, cause a peak right now, but it could soon lead to an excess of supply over demand, a drop in oil prices, then a renewal of latent demand that could drive production to a higher peak in the future. That is, the period of peak oil would be stretched out to become more like a jagged plateau. However by extracting more of the remaining oil sooner rather than later, the subsequent drop off would be even more severe.
Even without an oil shock, over a short time frame, current data trumps modeling. It normally takes many years from oil discovery to production, so it is already known what is in the pipeline. One recent UK study identified many major oil fields coming online through 2007 but few thereafter. A study of peak oil for major oil companies predicted 2008 on the average. This may explain why Colin Campbell's peak oil date is 2008. Nevertheless the logistic curve has a logical derivation in this context and it is the solution of a simple and widely applied nonlinear differential equation, so it is quite convincing as a rough model. I expect Hubbert's Peak to become a standard example in future texts on mathematical modeling. The cornucopians faith in technological and free market magic is soon to be sorely tested.
|
|
|
83 of 83 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
Finally Some Decent Info About Oil Shale And Tar Sands, March 16, 2005
In this follow up to his previous book on Hubbert's Peak/Peak Oil, Deffeyes gives us some engrossing info on such subjects as the Alberta tar sands, the Green River oil shale and nuclear power. Out of all the peak oil books I've read so far, this one is the only one that gives a very concise and knowledgable summary on these and other "alternatives" to cheap oil. Most other peak oil writers aren't old school geologists with hydrocarbon strings pumping in their veins instead of blood, so you don't get the feeling they really know what they are talking about. Several books I've read casually dismiss the Alberta tar sands and the Green River oil shale and shouldn't. Deffeyes doesn't. I'm actually a bit more hopeful and optimistic about the world's energy future after reading this book. (Not by much, though.)
|
|
|
55 of 57 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
Deffeyes's Reprise, July 9, 2005
I have just finished reading Kenneth Deffeyes's new book "Beyond oil: The view from Hubbert's Peak" (2005) .I almost didn't buy this book. I assumed it would not add much to what I had learned from Deffeyes's earlier book on the same subject, "Hubbert's Peak: The impending world oil shortage". What a mistake that would have been! "Hubbert's Peak" remains an extremely valuable book for those who want to understand *why* Hubbert's hypothesis may be correct, but "Beyond Oil" is much better at explaining the hypothesis and showing us that the data supports it overwhelmingly. The great new value in "Beyond Oil" is to be found in Chapter 3, The Hubbert Method. In "Hubbert's Peak", Deffeyes presented only qualitative and graphical descriptions of Hubbert's theory in the main text. He describes what the theory means and why it was important. Reader's may believe him because the rest of the book makes his credentials unmistakable: Professor Emeritus of Geology at Princeton, obvious encyclopedic knowledge of petroleum geology, 50 years in the oil business or consulting to it, friendship and collegial association with Hubbert himself. But his editor did not let him put any equations in the main text. When he does get to the equations in the notes at the back, their presentation is too concise, they require too much math knowledge for most readers, and lack the associated explanation that would make their relationship to the theory easy to understand, even for many readers who have the necessary math knowledge. It's all there, but you have to be committed and sophisticated to dig it out. In this new presentation, Deffeyes has performed a brilliant act of creation in constructing a quantitative explanation of Hubbert's theory that can be completely understood by anyone who can read graphs and do elementary high school algebra. (The success of Hubbert's Peak must have persuaded his editors to let him put a few equations in the text of this book.) Instead of understanding merely the results of Hubbert's theory, and accepting them on Deffeyes's authority, you can understand, completely, the sequence of thought that leads from data to theory and back to data to check the support for the theory. The effect is compelling. Hubbert did not seem to understand his own theory this clearly until a decade of so after his early publications in the 1950s, and he never explained it simply. His early arguments depended on educated guesses about the total volume of oil that could eventually be recovered from the oil provinces in question. To this day, his detractors criticize the theory incorrectly on the assumption that it depends on a separate and independent estimate of the size of the ultimately recoverable resource in order to predict the date of the peak of production. Hubbert removed this dependence, but his papers are apparently so hard to read that those who are looking for a way to refute the theory miss the improvement. The revised theory *generates* a robust estimate of the ultimately recoverable resource from historical production data. As history approaches the predicted peak, as now, the prediction of the peak becomes utterly compelling. Deffeyes's renders Hubbert's theory transparently clear. It's essence is a guess, verified by appropriate analysis of historical production data, that the rate of oil production has depended and will depend mainly and linearly on the fraction of the ultimately recoverable resource that remains to be produced. The maximum possible production rate at any level of cumulative production is proportional to the product of the remaining fraction and the cumulative production. This dependence on the fraction of oil remaining is manifested by an ingeniously selected plot of the historical production rate data and the historical cumulative production data. The theory's disregard of other factors on which production must depend, such as the price of oil, technological improvements in extraction, accidents of history, and geopolitical incentives and constraints, infuriates the detractors of the theory. The answer is that the production rate does indeed depend on these other factors, but the data demonstrates compellingly that it depends on them much less than it depends on the fraction of the ultimate total that remains to be extracted. The reasons for this dominance of the single factor is well understood by geologists. "Hubbert's Peak" explains this dominance much better than "Beyond Oil", so you'll need both books to argue against committed detractors. But anyone who takes the trouble to first understand Hubbert's hypothesis and what the data says about it will be looking to these explanations mainly to find reasons for the obvious empirical truth of the hypothesis. Economists (and those who have been stupefied by economists' assertions) do not accept the hypothesis that the maximum production rate depends mainly on the remaining fraction, even though historical data provides overwhelmingly powerful support for the hypothesis and geological reasoning explains this support. I am convinced that the economists have the mistaken impression that Hubbert's theory is merely qualitative and descriptive and as such cannot defeat their own simplistic qualitative ideas about resource quality pyramids and supply and demand. Everyone who gives evidence of actually understanding Hubbert's theory seems to accept it. Those who repudiate it seem always to give evidence of not understanding it, or even of not caring to understand it. Much loud opinion misrepresents Hubbert's theory, or gives it a status roughly equivalent to that of, say, the opinions of Wall Street analysts. It seems likely that Deffeyes's saw that his "Hubbert's Peak" had not produced the popular understanding he had hoped for, that Hubbert is sound science. Thank goodness he has taken this second shot in "Beyond Oil". David Delaney, Ottawa
|
|
|
Most Recent Customer Reviews
|
by Paul Roberts
by Daniel Yergin
See all Editorial Reviews
