EU Commission's Energy Strategy for Europe
Posted by Euan Mearns on June 16, 2008 - 8:55am in The Oil Drum: Europe
Topic: Policy/Politics
Tags: andris piebalgs, ethanol, eu energy policy, hydrogen, net energy [list all tags]
The hydrogen and ethanol powered car
[Editor's note, 10:30 UK Tuesday: Andris now has 44 excellent comments to contemplate (up from 10 on Friday). All are well worth reading. If you feel strongly about this then please leave him a message.]
Riots won’t bring oil prices down. Andris Piebalgs blog entry from 6th June. My emphasis added.
Last Tuesday I was a witness of a very sad episode. Belgian riot police employed force against a group of French and Italian fishermen marching to the European quarter to protest violently against high price of fuel. A car crash occurred as a consequence of the riots. The frustration of the demonstration is easy to understand, but certainly demonstrations and street fights are not the answer to this problem. Oil prices are high and will go higher. No demonstration can change that.
In the past, periods of relatively expensive crude, were followed by periods of cheap oil due to temporary factors like the first Gulf war. Currently, as well, there are temporary factors that are influencing oil prices, like the boom in commodities markets, geopolitical situation in several key producing areas, the weakening of the dollar or the turmoil in global financial markets.
However, the real drivers of oil price escalade have a structural nature. You all know the offer and demand law. If offer decreases, price increases. If there is a growth on demand, there is also a growth on price. If, at the same time offer decreases and demand increases then, price skyrockets. This is precisely what is happening in oil markets.
In year 2000 China had 4 million cars. In 2005 - already 19 million cars. It is expected that in 2010 the Chinese car fleet will be 55 million and 130 million in 2020. India is following a similar trend, and the economies of the United States and Europe continue to devour oil in large quantities. More and more people compete for an increasingly scarce commodity. We all know that oil will run out some day. The exact date is certainly under discussion, but there is a fact that nobody can deny, getting oil out of the earth is now much more difficult and expensive that it used to be.
The easy sources of oil are already in use. Oil companies are currently exploring in deep seas or in frozen and inaccessible regions. Geopolitical uncertainties reign in oil producing areas, while there is a growing tendency among producing countries to nationalise their resources, or make foreign investments more difficult. There is a growing shortage of highly skilled working force and exploration and production of oil is becoming a high tech activity, extremely expensive.
We all know the consequences. The barrel is currently around 130$, 300% more expensive than only 3 years ago. Experts are talking about prices of 200$ per barrel for next year only. At this levels, even non-conventional oil sources, such as heavy crude or tar sands become attractive, despite its awful CO2 foot print and high energy consumption.
So what is the solution? Well, we have to move away from oil. This is what the European Energy Policy is all about.We need to reduce demand with more efficient transport, industry and housing. We need to promote alternative fuels, like biofuels, electricity or hydrogen; we need to change to cleaner and more efficient transport modes like rail, short sea shipping, or public transport. And in the meantime, we need to continue our dialog with oil producers to encourage them to produce more and to supply the markets better. On 24th of June, I will meet ministers of the OPEC countries to discuss with them on this issue.
The era of cheap and easily available oil is over. We need to move away from black gold and put our efforts in a low carbon economy. The sooner we do that, the better.
My reply
Dear Andris,
This entry is the most appalling muddled mess - which is a direct reflection of EU energy policy. There are shafts of sunlight mixed in with utter rubbish.
Each time I have left an entry here I have told you that we are in the early stages of a full blown energy crisis. It is a great pity that you have waited until oil hit $130 per barrel and for French fisherman to riot before realising that this is indeed the case. Of course if you and your team were up to the job, you would be able to study the oil supply and demand data published by the IEA, the EIA and BP and conclude that an energy crisis is on the way in advance and put in place effective strategies to mitigate for this. But no, your approach is reactive, well behind the curve, wrongly focussed and without a substantial re-writing of the EU Energy policy, it is destined to fail. The riots in Belgium and Iberia are partly your fault. You are the EU energy commissioner, pipe dreaming whilst EU energy security drains away.
It is encouraging to see that you finally understand that demand for oil, gas and coal are rising whilst supply for oil at least is static. Rising demand against static supply is controlled by escalating price, encouraging conservation and pricing poor Europeans out of the energy market. You should by now understand that when poor people get priced out of the energy market they riot.
The next thing you need to grasp with some urgency is that oil supply will not stay static for long. IT IS GOING TO GO DOWN ONE DAY VERY SOON. (2012±3 years) And then the problems we are experiencing now will get worse by a factor of 100 or more. WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO ABOUT THIS?
The EU and the OECD in general has absolutely no control over raising global oil supplies. You seem to think that OPEC does, BUT YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND THAT OPEC ARE PUMPING FLAT OUT. The IEA data shows that their reserve capacity is near zero. So the only control OPEC has would be to reduce supply in order to conserve their dwindling reserves for future generations.
Thus, the only part of the equation that the EU can control is demand. The EU needs to introduce with some urgency measures to reduce demand for oil and natural gas. And here I believe you make some good points. We need solid, urgent plans to radically transform our transportation systems. To be blunt, cheap air travel for all will not be part of this future. Shipping, canals, and electrified mass transit and electric cars are the future. We need someone with vision to stimulate pilot V2G projects across Europe.
Energy conservation and energy efficiency must be vital cornerstones of the EU energy policy. I believe you understand that but you don't seem to understand what energy efficiency means. (hence you drive one of the least energy efficient cars ever produced). Producing H uses more energy than can be recovered. It is an energy sink, a waste of energy and a waste of time (apart from in some isolated special cases). Ethanol consumes almost as much energy as it produces and falls into the same category - a waste of time and precious energy. You are converting Gold (nat gas) to Lead (ethanol - anecdote borrowed from Matt Simmons). As a guiding beacon if the eroei of an energy producing system is less than 7 then it must be ignored. It does not produce sufficient net energy to run society - and so pursuing the twin follies of H and ethanol will drag Europe off the net energy cliff.
In essence what you have done in this blog entry is to re-package the wholly misguided EU energy policy that is predicated on climate change and trying now to sell this rubbish as a solution to the emerging energy crisis.
From here there are two ways forward. You either have to admit that the current energy policy is a shambolic mess, tear it up and start over - but this needs to be done urgently, within a matter of months. Or you need to resign and let someone else do this vital job.
Euan Mearns BSc PhD
Editor The Oil Drum EuropePS I wholly endorse tonyw's comment up thread - if you want to reduce demand for oil today we need pan-european speed limits and legislation on gas guzzlers. Let these fine German engineers turn their attention to efficiency instead of speed and power.
If you feel strongly about EU energy policy then please leave a comment on Andris Piebalgs blog on the thread - Riots won't bring oil prices down
The EU Commission contemplating driving Europe and all its citizens off the net energy cliff. The Oil Drum's geologists, chemists, physicists, economists, bankers and engineers are in pursuit, trying to stop them. Will they get there in time?
Pictures from Thelma and Louise who were having a great time on a girls night out until they made a mistake. And one thing lead to another....
First Mate: Captain the barometer gauge seems to be broken.
Captain: Does it? Indeed the gauge seems to below the lower mark, but it is probably working fine.
First Mate: How could it? Pressure cannot be that low.
Captain: Yes it can. He have the mother of all Hurricanes approaching.
First Mate: (gulp) Should we set course to the archipelago sir? Twenty miles away, we should get there in a couple of hours.
Captain: No. Just set full sail and keep the course to high sea.
First Mate: (gulp) Aye aye Capt'n.
Captain: No wait a minute, get some tape and tape the arrow to "fine" - that way we avoid the storm.
First Mate: bbbbut Captain!
Capatin: Are you doubting my competence?
Captain: Shut up, Get some red tape and Bureaucrazy and there'll be no storm.
Just to show nowt has changed in political life, a couple of verses from WS Gilbert's HMS Pinafore, Sir Joseph Porter KCB describing his ascent to high office.
Perhaps similar words can apply to our energy ministers of today!
IEA Chief Economist Fatih Birol, recently interviewed by International Politik, the Journal of the German Council on foreign Relations:
(Emphasis added). The full interview is published in English at Transition Culture.
Half Empty - thanks for posting this link - I think the whole thing needs to be posted on TOD. So I have Piebalgs 10 to 15 years behind the curve (we're all dead in water) and Birol maybe 3 to 5 years behind and on a steep learning curve:
Like Andris he has a very mixed bag here of positive things mixed with garbage. Basically anyone who doesn't grasp the concept of net energy immediately upon first reading needs to be removed from any position of responsibility.
Funny Euen, In the past I have asked the odd question about net energy but as I never received much of a response so I felt that I must not be asking in an understandable manner. One question in particular was merely a simple one as to how the world total consumption was totalled. For example, using the figure above of 84mb/d, is that net or gross? If net what does the gross total? If gross what was the total less that needed for production. (maybe no quantified answer to that but I think a 'gross' view would still be 'one' into the 'net' of greater general understanding)
Kristil,
Its a good question. I suspect there is no universal answer. The UK and Norwegian governments publish stats that provide some indication of the energy used to produce fuel.
But relating these stats to the ones we normally use from IEA, BP et al is not straight forward. The data exists, but there is a PhD research project in there accessing it, untangling it and interpreting it.
The chart shows UK nat gas used in energy industries - actually declining as our energy industry has declined. Measured by off shore installations being decommissioned.
Not very satisfactory I know.
Euan
Uean, thank you for your response and for considering the question a good one ... so much for me considering it a simple one though.
But on a truly simple item, today my son came up from the basement to tell me that the unused, for two years, dehumidifier was still up and running. I guess it has been dehumidifying like a trooper all that time and then automatically stopping when full and then evaporating till... and etc. for two years! Good thing we haven't invented the energy conservation police yet.
Nice article...which I see has just been published on AP's blog (posts there have to await moderation). ERoEI >7 eliminates many of the 'straws' which many clutch at - oil shale, tar sands etc.
I keep coming back to this same issue but there's a total lack of joined up thinking at UK Gov't level as well at EU level. Look at the contrast between this report today Oil prices force Treasury inflation re-think and House of Lords Transport Debate, Nov 2007. The Treasury is considering the short term implications of oil price exceeding $100/bbl whereas for long term transport infrastructure planning Gov't appears 'locked into' the (absurd) forecasts that oil price which was $65/bbl in 2006 will fall to $53/bbl by 2030.
To many of us on this forum the question we are asking is not 'why is there no joined up thinking?' but rather 'is there any meaningful thinking at all?' The discredited nature of future Gov't oil price forecasts account for a large extent to the continued efforts to make us even more oil dependent by continuing with major highway and aviation expansion, a planning system which approves numerous out of town business parks, and an abject failure to apply road fuel levels (or any level) of taxation to aviation fuel or VAT on airplanes.
It gets worse - in Scotland there's a 'route development fund' to encourage new air routes which the market does not consider 'economic'; as well as international routes such subsidies have also been applied to short internal UK routes which already have rail connections. In other words we are using taxpayers' funds to help make us more dependent on imported oil!
The saying 'whom the Gods want to destroy they first make mad' springs to mind.
Chris - I've posted this many times now - it should be abundantly clear that society as we know it cannot run if 20 to 30% of the workforce and resources are devoted to producing energy.
Chart is not zero scaled running from 50 (left) to 1 (right).
What is happening now is that high eroei fuels (that are fast depleting) are being used to subsidise production of unsustainable fuels - temperate latitude ethanol in particular. The tar sands are marginal.
What must happen is that we invest the high eroei fuels in a sustainable energy infrastructure, that includes wind, solar, hydro and most likely unavoidably nuclear.
What needs to happen with some urgency is that all major infrastructure projects built around burning liquid FF are abandoned - or at least no new ones are begun - and all these resources need to be poured into power generation and electric transportation projects. The shear stupidity of what is going on right now in the UK with road building and expanding airports is difficult to comprehend. And painting a line down the side of a road and calling it a cycle lane, is mind numbingly pathetic - especially since the paint wares off after a couple of years.
The government must legislate on energy efficiency at energy production and consumption stages so that all inefficient practices are discontinued with some urgency - this will mean closing or upgrading all our coal fired power stations so that all the 65% + waste heat is recovered and used.
I don't know who it is that posts the sayings in top right corner - either Kyle or SuperG - but I was looking for the one that said we cannot expect to solve problems with the thinking that created them - couldn't find it but came across all these wonderfully perceptive quotes whilst I was looking.
Today's new road building and airport expansion would be comical if it wasn't so deadly serious.
Temperate latitude ethanol is not only stupid, it's contributing to the energy pain being experienced by Europe's poorer citizens by being partly responsible for big rises in food prices. Higher food costs effectively lower the threshold when one enters the 'fuel poverty zone'. We might say that the 'dash for ethanol' has contributed to Europe's fuel riots.
I can partly understand the dilema that politicians face - we only have to look in today's P&J letters column to see demands for a 'modern transport system' which, unsurprisingly the correspondent defines by yet 3 more major road schemes! Any sympathy I had for politicians however is fast evaporating due to their abject failure to communicate the seriousness of the EU energy situation. A large majority on this forum clearly see the need for urgent and dramatic policy changes and I suspect many others would to....if only the politicians and MSM would start to do their job and properly inform people that we cannot possibly continue on the present course.
I personally find it appalling that various (completely unpaid) individuals on this forum can come up with such comprehensive analysis and action plans and yet EU and Gov't officials with multi-billion dollar budgets (paid for by us!) either come up with nothing at all or what amounts to dangerous complacency and nonsense. It's also not hard to imagine that when things go badly wrong (which they will, and soon) most of these key officials will simply leave and take gold-plated pensions (again which we've paid for) and leave others to sort out the mess.
On a more positive note I'm seeing that 'energy depletion' and 'peak oil' are showing up more and more in the online comments sections of press articles including the Daily Mail and Daily Express - it thus appears some are getting the message despite lack of political leadership. We write to our MP's and councillors but, so far, it's not achieved much. The oil price, however, is doing more than anything to spread the word. When shortages start to appear the whole subject of energy will ramp up yet further and just maybe will force politicians to take action but by then, of course, it will be very late in the day.
Anon.
I wonder how much of Prof Odell's '30 Gbbls yet to be extracted from UK N Sea' has ERoEI >7? I'd hazard a guess that it's less than 5%.
Nice comment but I'm not sure about the EROEI needing to be greater than 7. For example, if your chart stuck at EROEI 6, or possibly even 5, it wouldn't look so bad. And I don't get that 20% of the workforce would be devoted to energy production at EROEI less than 7. I've a feeling that there was a post on this, some time back. Do you have a link?
Euan,
Excellent post and excellent retort to the blog.
One minor quibble: I think you blunted your message significantly by effectively calling the guy an incompetent idiot. (Though he is indeed)
It's my experience that when dealing with decision makers/policy makers, their ears slam shut to your arguments (even if they are unassailably logical) when this happens.
My 2c: take it how you will.
Point taken Dan, I concede I was a bit harsh. However, the context is that we've run about 6 of these articles covering Andris' policies and its not at all clear he or his cabinet has read, understood or considered a word that has been written.
OK - so we can't expect the EU to U turn on policy overnight. But I think "they" do desperately need to start dialoguing in some way - if they want to run a blog.
"Sticks and stanes can brak yer banes but names can never harm you"
I fear Andris and colleagues will be confronted with rather more of the former if they don't take some urgent action.
Its Mervyn King and Alasdair Darling to get the TOD treatment tomorrow.
is there any meaningful thinking at all?
I sent a semi-rant to Pielbags.
These ppl - energy ministers, gvmt types, fawning advisors - are stupid because they think that decrees, administration, slight adjustments to the present state of affairs, seen as somewhat abstract, working thru representation, symbols, or paper fiddles (e.g. tax, by-rules, tariffs, technology, research funding, etc.) will suffice. Jackboots for the rowdy and too-demanding are part of the conventional picture as well. That is the charitable view - the confident role of the administrative class, from Sumer to the US today.
It is possible that their belonging to the 'ruling' class inures them to any real life problems - me no worry, big desk, big salary, best contacts, lovely second wife, big car, etc. Being amongst the ‘top’, (high paid flunkeys, like the medieval steward) in a cosy circuit of contacts and discussions of like minded people, all reassuring and stroking each other, blinds them absolutely.
Lastly, perhaps the ‘chosen’ and the ‘elected’ in democracies are so precisely because they aren’t too bright, caring, educated, ambitious or perspicacious.
Perhaps EU bureaucracy is in a state of collapse and chaos because they had no 'plan B' for use in case the Irish rejected the referendum ;-)
Is there anyone there? Any replys to emails? Are the telephones answered?
Why have a real energy policy when you can blame it all on "resource nationalism"? Warmongering is so much more gratifying than changing one's habits.
Harsh, but needs to be said.
The only consolation Europeans should have is that the USA's non-policy is even worse.
Its not much consolation.
In Europe we are doomed, but in USA they are more doomed ?
Yes, we are. Thanks to low fuel taxes (among other things) the US has double the per capita fuel consumption of Europe.
I don't see why this should be a consolation. In fact, the US has a policy, securing foreign supplies of oil, in which Europe also participates, and pushing to boost biofuels, which Europe also does. Neither policy is helpful and in fact both are harmful, but that is not the same as having no policy at all. It is worse.
The US may have an advantage in policy in that it has an oil rationing plan available through the DOE, something that the EU, as a whole, likely had not developed. The US could force a large drop in the price of oil within a few months while the EU would likely take years to pull such an action off and by then it would be too late. http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2008/06/oil-is-too-expensive.html
Chris
Dear Todsters,
I came to the conclusion over the weekend, almost a year after first “stumbling” across the doco A Crude Awakening, that the peak in Hubbert’s Curve (as far as world supply goes), may not eventuate. Rather that the current plateau of around 80mbpd will continue for perhaps another thirty or forty years, before reaching the so-called “cliff”. Just a feeling, I guess; but three stories in the past 24 hours have convinced me…
1. The open-day yesterday of Australia’s most expensive new section of road (toll-way) was attended on a fine but cool winter’s day by over 100,000 people (myself and the family included). Bike rides, fun runs, a longish walk through its twin tunnels. It seemed (to me) acceptance for the “new corridor for Melbourne’s eastern suburbs” was overwhelming. A 47km time-saving option for motorists; how wonderful!
2. A Sixty-Minutes report last night on Canada’s tar sands (and Australia’s “yet to be tapped” oil shales) suggested to me the current mining operation was not only now worthwhile to its investors, but was going great guns. And while the tip-truck drivers alone earned six-figure salaries – and the environment came a distant second (and folk “down-under” and elsewhere don’t give a toss where the oil comes from, so long as it comes) – supply from Canada would continue to ramp up as long as the price per barrel doesn’t drop. Little I’ve read lately suggests it will.
3. The lead news story this morning (papers, radio, TV) revolves around a poll proclaiming 80% of the public believe our Prime Minister should make petrol cheaper; and doing so should be a top priority. People want oil (and need it – well, at least think they do!), but will only pay so much for so long and no doubt the oil guys still want (and need?) us to buy.
It feels as though (to me at least) that we’re near the bowser-limit that is manageable for most – perhaps $180 a barrel may be the final straw – and it will stay there (in relative terms) for some time yet. That the extra 200,000 humans born daily into the system will only help stabilize demand, as more and more people start using less and less… That is, a flat-line consumption rate until recoverable supplies disappear altogether. The question is, by 2050 (I’ll be in my eighties – strewth!), with a population of around 9 billion – and when the recoverable crude does indeed “run out” – will there be a scalable alternative? This final crunch, I’ve reasoned to myself, is the real worry.
Regards, Matt B – Melbourne, Australia
At the moment, I just don’t see man’s ingenuity coming to the rescue on the scale that is needed for the coming decades; as long as the oil guys continue to make a profit. And being an Average Joe unable to do squat about anything (apart from try and look after my immediate family), I guess all I can do is keep enjoying Tiger Woods-type moments while the history lasts. Go Tiger!
1. Why does that convince you the world is going to have 85 million barrels per day for 40 years?
2. Oil sands and oil shale production may be ramped up significantly but there are huge limiting factors that get in the way of their production exceeding certain figures. For instance Canada cannot destroy the entire Athabasca river just to mine the tar sands. Also think of it this way, How in the hell do you expect to get the same production levels from solid rocks of oil shale/sands from something that can be gotten from the ground in liquid form. There is a huge difference between drilling for liquids and turning rocks into liquids. Also remember the term Energy returned on energy invested. Lets say you need 10 units of energy to power your car. Conventional Oil and Gas will give you an EROI ratio of 20 to 1 or more, which means for every 1 barrel of energy they put in, they get 20 or more barrels out. Now, For Oil Shale/Sands this ratio is much smaller perhaps 2 to 1 or so. Now Lets say you have Oil and Gas and you want your 10 units of energy for your car, you put in ~.5 units of energy and boom you have 10.5 or so units minus the initial .5 to give you 10 units for your car. Now to do the same thing with Oil Shale you need 10 units of energy to get 20 units of energy to have the 10 left over to power your car. That means that oil shale/sands require an Initial Investment of over 20 times more than conventional oil, that means if it takes one unit of infrastructure in place to get oil and gas, it takes 20 times the infrastructure to get it at the same rate. Thats fancy talk for rocks ain't the same shit as oil...
3. Oil is too inelastic of a good for 180$ oil to stop demand, their is a point when after people cut their frivolous driving ect where they have to pay for oil for agriculture and transportation.
I'm going to bed, but matt keep up the research and try to get rid of your unquestioning trust in the status quo. Look at history is a guide, we as people are no different from the people of 900 years ago, empires collapse, people struggle, life goes on, this is nothing new. It's to late I'm going to bed.
Good luck,
Crews
"1" was part of 2 & 3; "2", because the fellow being interviewed seemed pretty confident and I haven't heard any reports about massive Canadian environmental disasters here in Australian MS media. And "3" (180 is a guess) because at some point people won't be able to afford to buy "as much" fuel, but they'll still have babies.
So I'm more confident of a plateau/plunge (BAU for a few more decades, 'cause that's where the boys with the big toys seem to be headed) rather than a peak/decline. But, that's just me!
Sleep well and regards, Matt B
Does it really matter which way we get to zero?
It isn't going to zero that is the problem but the rate of decceleration to zero - the sudden stop is what kills you in a car crash.
Just beacuse a world production plateau sounds easier to cope with than an actual decline doesn't mean it will be.
A plateau is almost as bad as a peak since the world needs 2% more each year for BAU - a plateau for the world means less 'net exports' and if the likes of ChIndia actually grow their share of the 'net exports' your economy will probably have to try and achieve BAU with much less oil - so a plateau for the world is most definitely NOT a plateau for you!
If you live in an oil exporting country neither peak nor plateau will be a problem!
I thought the running into something solid is what kills you! The question is, whether Big Business in the future will have the right kind of air-bags; out of the fog, can we survive a sudden impact?
Regards, Matt B
The running into something solid IS the sudden stop - and airbags won't always save you, check the road death statistics if you don't beieve me.
Bear in mind that NOBODY knows what the future will be - the people in charge of big business are paid take the risk that the future will be better than today, in reality, bankruptcy figures show that they are frequently very wrong.
If your guess that we have a plateau is wrong (and I don't know whether your guess is correct or not) and peak oil is now what 'airbags' are there that will keep BAU? What airbags do you have to save you personally? Or is your guess about the future what 'has to be' for you to survive intact? ... eg: a faith in others and hope that they are correct? If so I suggest you lurk and read a lot more TOD, you might change your mind.
Matt/Joe Average,
"...I haven't heard any reports about massive Canadian environmental disasters here in Australian MS media...
You may not have heard much in the Australian MS and I bet the Canadians have not heard much about any Australian problems in their MS media either... The issue is that environmental problems are not "immediate" enough for the MS media which are good at reporting up to the minute news such as plane crashes, shark bites man...
Take a look at
www.environmentaldefence.ca
and download the report "Canada's Toxic Sands: The Most Destructive Project on Earth", it's currently at the bottom right of the page.
"...I'm more confident of a plateau/plunge (BAU for a few more decades..."
Fatih Birol recently said "...we see a sharp decline in production from the existing oil fields.....Even if all those projects which are already funded will be implemented, the overall capacity they can bring for new oil production is too little...Many people will come to new conclusions about this...All these are examples on how we are ringing the alarm bells, and we are ringing them loudly.
Tony, I agree completely that it's dispicable what Man is doing to Planet Earth. And yes, the alarm bells are surely sounding.
But the guys with the money selling the oil don't care.
And most of us Joes and Janes don't care either... Or rather, don't care enough.
I just believe, from the relatively little I've seen and read these past few months, that we'll keep on going until the crude runs out. I'll concede that perhaps the 40 year plateau I mentioned may tilt down a bit, but not much.
Regards, Matt
I've been a lay student of this for ten years ever since I read the first article "an end to cheap oil" in Scientific American in 1997.
I almost had a heart attack a couple years later when I came across Jay Hansen's site www.dieoff.com.
The reason was that at the time, he was right: there was no alternative to oil and almost everything had an EROEI that wasn't worth it.
That has changed gradually and started to accelerate around 2003. Most all the renewable sources of electricity have EROEIs in a decent range.
We also, since around two years ago have the technology to build practical electric cars and trucks.
The problem we face, in my opinion is that though you are correct about the plateau, you are wrong about when the plateau will end.
Due to the massive decline rates of fields using up to date extraction rates we could possibly be seeing a loss of 5 million barrels per day within five years.
Unfortunately tar sands will reach (at BEST) 10 million barrels per day sometime late next decade. This is also assuming that both Venezuela and Canada can find some high EROEI inputs to provide the energy subsidy to refine the bitumen or heavy oil to syncrude.
As for oil shale: only shell has a process that (may) be capable of producing oil in any quantity but to be honest it doesn't look hopeful: they have to construct a massive wall of ice around the oil shale and heat up the ground inside it to get liquid, hoping that the ice wall will not melt and allow the liquid to escape.
I can't help but think that this has to be even worse for energy return than the oil sands and would have to be heavily energy subsidized by higher EROEI sources.
The stark truth unfortunately is that there is no easy way to avoid a liquid fuels crunch.
It's coming whether we want it or not and likely by early next decade.
The only possible mitigation strategy we have is electrification and efficiency.
That means electric cars, trucks and rail.
We have no other realistic choice.