Peak oil, debunked

For years, I've been trying to find a sensible debunking of peak oil. Clearly, the reality that oil production will, at some stage, peak is incontrovertible. The debunking I was seeking concerned the nature of EROEI and renewables, and whether it would be possible to successfully transition from a fossil-fuel society to a renewable society in the sort of time frames that remain to us.

There are many peak-oil writers who contend that this is not possible and that because of this, industrial society will disappear over the next few centuries. I wanted to find an opinion that countered this (I like to read all sides of a debate).

Finally, I've found one: Bountiful Energy

This is a sensible, well-written blog that attempts to systematically dismantle the idea that industrial civilisation is failing because of peak oil. But, is it right?
(I encourage you to read it yourself, but here are some of my thoughts)

The good

The blog makes some new observations that I'd not previously seen in the peak oil debate:

1. EROEI for oil in transport is a lot lower than reported because of the poor efficiency of the internal combustion engine. The author estimates EROEI of about 4 for fossil-fueled transport. This is a pretty low bar for renewables to clear!
2. The author also develops the idea of cost of net energy, which is the cost of the energy gain from a process. He contends this to be more useful a metric than EROEI. I'm inclined to agree.
3. The author observes that a lot of the embodied energy we see can be recycled. For example, a lot of the embodied energy in solar PV installations is used to manufacture the aluminium racking. This is almost completely recoverable at the end of life, and so that should be considered when assessing the EROEI for solar PV. This will make the EROEI of PV better.

The bad

The biggest problem I have with the blog, is that he appears to believe (I am discussing this with him) that pollution and environmental catastrophes will not affect industrial civilisation. My feeling is that it is impossible to separate peak oil from the effects of pollution since the extraction of more marginal fossil fuels (one can't call tar sands "oil" in any meaningful sense) is inherently more polluting (per unit of net energy) than conventional oil plays. In other words, the negative effects of peak oil could manifest as environmental degradation rather than high/low prices, etc. (quoted from a comment I left on his blog, to which he has not yet responded).

Conclusion

I will keep reading and thinking about his blog. My feeling for now is that it helps clarify for me the way industrial society is likely to follow the trajectory of limits to growth. For example, taking his blog at face-value, I could see industrial civilisation making a significant transition to renewables this century, but still failing to contain pollution which will drive down quality of life. This could also be seen to tie in with David Holmgren's brown tech scenario.

In a nutshell, the author of Bountiful Energy is bringing interesting new arguments and insights, but I am not yet convinced that the future will be business-as-usual.