Oil depletion

[redfern]

There's a theory (The Hubbert Curve) that the world will reach peak oil production within the next few years and it will be all down hill for civilization from there. Can this be correct ?

[kucharek]

There's a theory (The Hubbert Curve) that the world will reach peak oil production within the next few years and it will be all down hill for civilization from there. Can this be correct ?
Why should oil depletion mean downhill with civilization?

[Gullible Jones]

Because cars run on the stuff.

We could make "synthetic" gasoline from coal, but that would probably cause a darned steep rise in gas prices...

[Ut]

If civilization is going downhill due to a lack of cars in the near future, then I wish I was born 200 years ago. If nothing else, I'd be married by now.

[wedgebert]

If civilization is going downhill due to a lack of cars in the near future, then I wish I was born 200 years ago. If nothing else, I'd be married by now.

You would probably be dead too.

[Ut]

If civilization is going downhill due to a lack of cars in the near future, then I wish I was born 200 years ago. If nothing else, I'd be married by now.

You would probably be dead too.

And let me tell ya, junior, you'd never hear me complain.

[AZgazer]

There's a theory (The Hubbert Curve) that the world will reach peak oil production within the next few years and it will be all down hill for civilization from there. Can this be correct ?

Is this the Ex-Princeton Prof who is saying oil production is going to stop in 2006 and he has all the secrets to some alternative fuel source/system and is going to overcome Bill Gates in Wealth in about a week?

I had some Woo^1000 tell me about the "impending civilization collapse" last week. His scientist was even on TV with charts and stuff! Published a book too! #-o

When pressed for details on why this collapse was true, the central theme seemed to be that the Oil reserves of the big producers were not fluxuating. No flux = obvious lie. :o I asked if maybe those countries had set a reserve limit and made enough infrastructure to hold that amount, therefore not having a flux. No way, the chart said it wasn't true! Damn charts. :evil:

The best part was that I had to provide proof proving this to not be true by a source with no government, monetary or political ties as these people are all part of the conspiricy and can not be trusted due to their past.

When I asked about this guy selling books for profit and having already stated he was waiting to unveil his energy system until he could maximize profits kind of puts him into the same boat IMO. He said it just didn't matter because he could believe what he wanted.

Not sure if this is the same guy or not, but I have been dying to share this "conversation" with the BABB.

[ktesibios]

A great deal of utter woowooism has been generated by the concept of "peak oil". After all, it offers a perfect scenario for GLP-style "let's have fun telling each other scary stories" writing, particularly if misunderstood.

However, some quite respectable and knowledgable people, including the International Energy Agency, have been seriously studying not if, but when the global production peak is likely to occur.

Estimates range from the immediate future to sometime in the next century; the variation is due to unavoidable uncertainty about the true extent of recoverable reserves and the projection of demand into the future.

Oil is a finite resource, so one clearly can't expect to draw upon it indefinitely without eventually depleting it; more to the point, as a given reserve is drawn down, the recovery of the remaining oil becomes more expensive.

In addition, oilfields apparently require maintenance. Poorly-planned extraction regimes can actually have the effect of reducing the total amount of oil economically recoverable from a field.

The peak and decline of production phenomenon has actually been observed in the case of individual producers (e.g., U.S. oil production peaked during the 1970s).

All in all, I suspect that it's best to disregard the folks who are shouting "the end is nigh!" and those who want to sing the "happy happy joy joy, the magical marketplace will take care of everything, so keep on burning it like there's no tomorrow" song.

They're both trying to sell a bill of goods that's based on political preconceptions. #-o

[Glom]

Cars will keep going. As fossil fuels run thin, the public will demand that the Greens be banished into the depths of woowoo land and the nuclear renaissance will begin in earnest powering the hydrogen economy.

[Excelsior]

Producing hydrogen from water using electricity generatedf by nuclear power and using that to power cars could solve the oil problem.

[genebujold]

Don't know about your theory, but a year ago I downloaded the data on all current, known but not tapped, and projected to be found but not yet found oil reserves, worldwide. I next downloaded current and projected consumption rates, again, worldwide.

Although certain factors could significantly change the consumption rates, concurrent, offsetting factors would mitigate the change.

Result: Whether you like it or not, the world will be out of oil by the year 2042, give or take a decade.

But that's not the half of it.

Using the same data, I discovered we'll run out of natural gas before 2020, probably around the year 2017.

That's just 13 years from now.

There's a solution: Nuclear energy, and I'm not talking fusion (although that would be nice...).

I'm talking fission, using the newer, dynamically stable reactor designs.

Let's do it - before our indecision does us in.

[genebujold]

Producing hydrogen from water using electricity generatedf by nuclear power and using that to power cars could solve the oil problem.

The main problem with hydrogen is that in gaseous (very large) or liquified (very dangerous) form, it's very problematic with respect to transportation.

I recommend we produce hydrogen using nuclear energy, then continue using the energy to produce easily stored and transported hydrogen-based fuels, like propane, which is easily made from hydrogen and atmospheric CO2. This method uses and releases the same amount of CO2, oxygen, and hydrogen throughout the entire cycle, with the only addition being the entropic heat loss.

Unfortunately, recent articles in both Popular Science and Popular Mechanics failed to get this "deep" into the problem.

Fortunately, the mags are for the scientific idiots, and the solution isn't that deep at all:

A fairly original solution can be found at Item 8: http://www.sepp.org/weekwas/2003/Nov29.htm

It's a solution any greenie who finished high school chemistry should be more than willing to accept.

It's not as efficient up front, but I strongly believe the savings in transportation costs and those associated with storage will more than cover down on the backside.

Besides, using nuclear energy buys us enough time (between 200 and 500 years) to perfect fusion, which will buy us far more than enough time (50,000 years) to tap potentially more exotic sources of energy, such as quantum.

But doing nothing, however, by refusing to invest in building nuclear reactors, or investing heavily in fusion at the expense of proven technology, is ridiculously and needless stupid, myopic, and will condemn future generations to a very long, and perhaps an impossibly long climb from the pit of an energy deficit..

It's high time the leaders of the free world DO SOMETHING to free civilized society from our dependance on oil. If they don't, the inevitable shortages, then outages, will render unto us a very uncivilized society.

THINK, people - we can't even transport food or water without energy.

WAKE UP and DO the RIGHT THING!!!

Furthermore, why does it take an ENTIRE DECADE to get people's attention on this matter?

Now that I've got your attention, ACT!!!

WRITE YOUR CONGRESSMEN!!!

Put this into perspective. If everyone who reads these words copies and pastes them into an e-mail to their Congressmen, something would get done about this. They would verify the data and go "Holy...!"

But if you don't, if you just skip to the next post and twiddle your thumbs, your sons and daughters are going to search these archives, discover you had a chance to DO something (but didn't) and the ones that have survived the looming holocaust (that's what happens when there's no energy-dependant food), will make their way to the barn before coming back armed with a shovel.

So, it's your choice, folks. Whether you condemn yourselves and your progeny to hell on Earth or to a bright future is entirely up to you. You have a say. You have a vote. Please write your Congressman: http://www.house.gov/writerep/

Or if you refuse to wake up our elected officials to the rapidly approaching problem, here's what you will have chosen, instead:

[zebo-the-fat]

is depleted oil like depleted uranium? :o

[Sammy]

Genebujold wrote

Put this into perspective. If everyone who reads these words copies and pastes them into an e-mail to their Congressmen, something would get done about this. They would verify the data and go "Holy...!"

I have no arguement with your basic ideas, but email is NOT the way to influence your Congressman/woman. Emails pretty much go into the round file. It is too easy to generate mass emailings, and the government does not generally trust/take seriously such campaigns.

Take just a little more time and phone, or better, write a coherent, non-ranting letter, to your elected representatives. Enough letters will get his/her attention.

[kylenano]

There were several letters to the Independent newspaper in response to James Lovelock, two of them are here, just over halfway down the page: Abu Hamza, renewable energy and others (http://argument.independent.co.uk/letters/story.jsp?story=526054), 29 May 2004

Professor Chris Rhodes wrote:...there is only sufficient recoverable uranium available to fuel the "current" number of fission reactors for about another 50 years. He goes on to say if new reactors are built the figure goes down to 20 years, but not where the figures came from. It's not something I've come across in the debate about nuclear power.

What bothers me about nuclear power stations - apart from the fact you seem to have to put a lot of energy into building them in the first place - is what do you do with the waste? How can it be stored, or any hazardous waste, come to that, so as not to be a danger in the future? There are stories in the media about contaminated sites being cleaned up, but they never say where the material that is cleaned up is moved to. It can't all be processed to become inert.

And what is to stop a future Tony Robinson and a 'Time Team' of TV archaeologists digging it all up again in the future when records are lost/forgotten? They've come across some digusting material in the remains of mass graves for plague victims etc. One programme at Reading Gaol found all kinds of unexpected burials in the moat.

I'm getting very frustrated too at the short term thinking with regard to energy supplies. Despite posting about vaguely following Formula 1 racing, I don't like cars. Not in the vast quantities around here. I feel the whole area is being paved over and trees cut down to make one huge car park with houses in between. Although I use buses and trains and depend on oil-fuelled transport for food to be taken to shops, I've never learnt to drive or owned a car. The last time I got in a car was over four and a half years ago. Since then I've had a baby and moved house twice. People complain about London Transport, but we're 10 minutes walk from buses 24 hours a day. I know London is more compact than say LA, but the addiction to cars is not sustainable. Sadly I think inertia will win and instead of preparing for change, it will be forced in a state of panic.

[Gullible Jones]

Breeder reactors would address the uranium 235 problem, and to some extent the fission byproduct problem (fast neutrons cause the breakdown of some of the nastier byproducts, IIRC).

Of course, there are probably other ways to deal with the fission waste problem... those radioisotopes must have some use. Perhaps a pebble-bed reactor could be used, and further fission could be induced by running spent "pebbles" through the reactor a second time? I don't know, I'm not a nuclear physicist.


Really, though, fission powr would damage this planet much less than coal-based power...

BTW, I totally agree with you about the cars.

[CL8]

wood Achohol
biodeisel
simple sugur bio mechanical
carbon chain production

these are all could easiley replace current fuels

[ktesibios]

About the uranium supply issue, I would ask a few questions:

1. Is the point at which a reactor fuel element is considered "spent" determined by depletion of the U-235 or by the buildup of fission products and their daughter products to levels which interfere with the desired reaction?

2. If a spent fuel element still contains significant quantities of U-235 is it feasible to recover and repurify the remaining uranium for use in new fuel elements?

3. Can the Pu-239 formed in a fuel element be separated (I already know this works) and used as part of a fuel mixture for a conventional fission plant? Seems to me that I've heard about this being done (MOX, anyone?), but being impeded by fears about producing plutonium.

If reprocessing and "recycling" fuel works, then it seems that the main problems with fission as a large-scale power source are only weakly technical.

Two big ones would be:

1. Preventing the wrong sort of people from getting their hands on potentially nasty stuff derived from spent fuel.

2. Preventing the potentially nasty stuff from escaping into the environment at large.

Given workable solutions to these, you run into the really big problem, which isn't technical at all, but political: implementing a complete fuel reprocessing and waste storage program in a world where so many people throw their reasoning ability into the dustbin at the first mention of anything radioactive.

That's why I think that a "don't worry, be happy" approach to peak oil is as pernicious as a "OMFG, our civilization is irrevocably doomed" scenario.

If we keep in mind that growing demand and finite supply inevitably mean that the cost of oil-based energy will only increase, we have some incentive to come up with solutions to the fuel and waste problems while there's still time enough to work at optimizing the solutions.

Wait until oil prices reach crisis levels to do something and we're likely to stampede into measures that cause much more trouble than we really need to put up with.

Conclude that we're hopelessly @#$%ed, and sit in the bunker admiring our Alcoa haberdashery while waiting for civilization to collapse, and it's guaranteed that no useful problem-solving will take place.

BTW, as far as NIMBY goes- my personal backyard is the 101 freeway, so I might well put up with a waste facility. At the least, it would be a lot quieter, stink less, and throw less black dust through my kitchen window. :wink:

[Glom]

The first letter is completely ignorant.

Experiments with energy efficiency are merely green window dressing. Yes of course we should try to move off incandescent light bulbs etc and be a bit more responsible about turning off the lights and being wasteful. However, as India, China and the developing world develop, the demand for energy will only increase. Energy consumption will go up.

Solar and wind are too diffuse and intermittent to be viable for a significant portion of baseload capacity. And because of their diffuse nature, they require a huge environmental investment to get any significant amount of energy out of them. Even if you had 100% efficient PV that could miraculously work H24, it would take an area of panel ten times that of a nuclear power station to generate the same amount of wattage. And that assumes the PV working at physically impossible levels and nuclear reactors not improving. Consuming vast amounts of land and hence raw materials is not good either. And many of us value a bit of unspoilt countryside. Many also have a serious issue with flooding the countryside with large wind farms that can cause problems of their own. Such as health problems due to a persistent noise and flickering shadows if you're epileptic. Destroying the world to save the planet is no victory. 20% wind in those countries still lacks behind a quarter nuclear for Spain and a third nuclear for Green dominated Germany.

Chernobyl is a good thing to look out for in an anti-nuclear rant. The use of it can usually distinguish the ignoramus. Thousands of people were killed? Try fifty. That's right, FIFTY! That means that America would need more than two hundred Chernobyl type accidents a year to equal the death toll from the use of coal. And anyone who would use Chernobyl as an example of what could happen in the west is painfully ignorant. The RMBK was designed with the dual purpose of producing weapons grade plutonium. It had a positive void coefficient, which is avoided in new Western designs. It also lacked a containment vessel. Any who uses Chernobyl as an example of what could happen in the West is truly ignorant.

As for waste. It amounts to a couple of cubic metres per gigawatt year. That makes it highly manageable. Far more than the waste from coal power, or even the waste in the form of highly toxic chemicals required in the manufacture of PV. Most of the waste are actinides that can be used again. Most of the rest can be incorporated into silicate blocks that are resilient and resistant and can keep the material safely locked up. The statement that waste remains deadly for millennia is a Green frame up. With the actinides removed as reused, the activity of the waste drops below the activity of the original ore within 600 years. But without reprocessing and the actinides left in, it does indeed stay at a higher activity for longer. The Greens stopped reprocessing in America and caused the problem they are now whining about.

Proliferation. Terrorists can do very little with nuclear waste. Uranium used in nuclear power is enriched to about 3-4% while you need about 90+% for a warhead. That would require proper enrichment facilities and any rogue state with such resources would be able to do build a bomb, regardless of whether or not we use nuclear power. They could of course use radioactive material to build a dirty bomb, but a dirty bomb is hardly a weapon of mass destruction, it is a weapon of mass panic. The fallout is unlikely to cause any statistical increase in cancer if it distributed over a wide enough area. The true fuel of a dirty bomb is the Radiation Boogey Man, which the Greens are only too happy to proliferate. The Greens argue that nuclear power could give terrorists a powerful weapon, but it is in fact the Greens that are arming them, by spreading hysteria and fear. The Greens are the weapon of mass destruction.

Currently sitting in the storage areas of American nuclear power stations is spent fuel that deserves to be reprocessed. It could meet demand for another 300 years. Instead, under the insistence of the Greens, they're going to bury it in a mountain.

The Greens have played dirty throughout this entire debate. They didn't like it that nuclear power was clean, cheap and efficient, so the first stage of their attack was to make it difficult for the industry to sustain that. They stopped reprocessing in America, which created the waste problem they now use as a reason to ban nuclear power. They got hugely restrictive and disproportionate regulations imposed on the industry such as keeping the activity inside a nuclear power station below that of the Capitol building, as well as obstructing them at every step of the way to building a power station to drive up the construction costs, and made it expensive.

The problems now faced by nuclear power are not a reason to ban it, they are a reason to ban the Greens.

NO GREENS! NO GREENS! NO GREENS!

[Jpax2003]

I surprised no one has yet mentioned a abiotic theory of petroeum genesis. I'm not sure if it's quite proven yet, but the experiments suggest it is correct. In other words, the lithographic structure of the earth, rocks, water, high heat and pressure work to create petroleum deep underground in the crust near the mantle. This would mean that the earth has a potentially unlimited supply of petroleum at our disposal. Of course, that doesn't mean to say that we can't use it up faster than it is naturally produced or faster than we can extract it. While I say that abiotic genesis is a theory, I do not in any sense suggest that an opposing theory is biotic genesis, which was pretty well debunked in the 1800's.

[TriangleMan]

I surprised no one has yet mentioned a abiotic theory of petroeum genesis. I'm not sure if it's quite proven yet, but the experiments suggest it is correct.
I've heard about that theory but have not heard anything that said it was even remotely proven. I think it is still "ATM Geology" but I don't think it has been 100% ruled out yet.

If it were true then its possible that we would never run out of oil but I think the crux of the OP was based on the conventional origin of oil and thus is a limited resource.

[Kesh]

Wow. I'm surprised to see vitriol against 'greens' here. Yes, some greens get to be off-the-wall, but the concept of reducing emissions and conserving fuel/energy seem like a good practice.

Personally, I'd be pushing money into more fuel-efficient vehicles and research into fusion-power, for the short term.

[Glom]

Wow. I'm surprised to see vitriol against 'greens' here. Yes, some greens get to be off-the-wall, but the concept of reducing emissions and conserving fuel/energy seem like a good practice.

Personally, I'd be pushing money into more fuel-efficient vehicles and research into fusion-power, for the short term.

No-one is arguing against trying to be as environmentally friendly as possible. We all would like to see emission reduced. The interesting thing to consider is that when you consider external costs of different forms of power, the most carbon free form of power is nuclear at only 6g/MWh, while the second best, wind is at 48g/MWh, eight times as much. We all want to see fuel and energy conservation. Despite the way the Greens like to paint it, the ones who like this the most are the EEvil businesses, because it keeps operating costs down.

Greens try to polarise the issue into a two sided debate between environmental angels, the Greens, who care for the environment and espouse all those ignorant pseudo-intellectual policies, or the environmental devils, usually a combination of business and the military, who see it as their devine duty to destroy the environment in whatever way is cheapest or involves the most casualties. In this way, they accuse anyone who does not swallow their policies wholesale of being anti-environment.

In fact, the ones who truly care about the environment and have the expertise to understand the real nature of the problem and the solutions are seriously at odds with the Greens.

[Jpax2003]

I surprised no one has yet mentioned a abiotic theory of petroeum genesis. I'm not sure if it's quite proven yet, but the experiments suggest it is correct.
I've heard about that theory but have not heard anything that said it was even remotely proven. I think it is still "ATM Geology" but I don't think it has been 100% ruled out yet.

If it were true then its possible that we would never run out of oil but I think the crux of the OP was based on the conventional origin of oil and thus is a limited resource.I followed this link (http://www.chemweb.com/alchem/articles/1029339194693.html) from another thread and found it useful, requires registration:However, as long ago as 1956, there were rumblings that the abiogenic theory might be worth a closer look.

"The overwhelming preponderance of geological evidence compels the conclusion that crude oil and natural petroleum gas have no intrinsic connection with biological matter originating near the surface of the Earth. They are primordial materials which have been erupted from great depths."
Academician Professor Vladimir B. Porfir'yev, senior petroleum exploration geologist for the USSR, at the All-Union Conference on Petroleum and Petroleum Geology, Moscow, 1956.

"Physicists, chemists, chemical engineers, and thermodynamicists have known since the last quarter of the 19th century that petroleum does not evolve from biotic matter in the regimes of temperature and pressure characterized by the near-surface crust of the Earth," Kenney adds, "The problem has been that they could not explain how petroleum does evolve. Now they can."

[Kizarvexis]

So does the 'abiotic theory of petroleum genesis' mean that oil is not squished dinosaurs? If so, my kids are going to let me have it. :)

Kizarvexis

[captain swoop]

Bio Diesel and Alchohol as someone else mentioned.

Run your Diesel car off cooking oil, it's cheaper per litre than real fuel in the uk because there's no duty paid on it. Get it in bulk from the local fast food supply warehouse.

older diesel cars run lovely on it. If you are worried about top end lubrication then stick a few litres of 'real' diesel in every week.

Brew your ownalchohol and freeze it out (a still willstink and needs TLC).

[TriangleMan]

Jpax2003, I recalled where I last heard about abiotic petroleum, an obituary of Thomas Gold (http://www.news.cornell.edu/releases/June04/Thomas_Gold_obit.hrs.html) who passed away a few weeks ago:

The debate still is raging on one of Gold's last, and most widely controversial, ideas: that oil and natural gas are formed not from decaying organic matter, as most scientists believe, but from geologic processes and continually well up to the surface from deep underground.

[Zachary]

Even if we do develop alternative energy sources to oil before it runs out (fusion/wind etc), what are we going to to about plastics? I don't know much about the subject, but aren't most plastics are made from oil? (polyethene etc.)

[captain swoop]

Even if we do develop alternative energy sources to oil before it runs out (fusion/wind etc), what are we going to to about plastics? I don't know much about the subject, but aren't most plastics are made from oil? (polyethene etc.)

Well, we got on ok before plastics.

[mike alexander]

But Captain, we get on much better with them.

[captain swoop]

IS that a fact or an opinion?

I rememebr when everything was made of wood and cost tuppence

[JonClarke]

Jpax2003:

The biogenic origin of economic accumulations of liquid hydrocarbons is proved beyond any reasonable doubt. Abiogenic origin of hydrocarbon reserves is strictly for the woo woos - despite Thomas Gold.

Oh, and since we are talking about things nuclear, an excellent source of information is http://www.uic.com.au/index.htm - a friend of mine runs it for a living and so it is constantly updated.

Cheers

Jon

[Jpax2003]

The biogenic origin of economic accumulations of liquid hydrocarbons is proved beyond any reasonable doubt. Abiogenic origin of hydrocarbon reserves is strictly for the woo woos - despite Thomas Gold.I don't claim to know if it's true one way or another. I just know what I read. I thought chemweb might be a mainstream site with good info. If it is incorrect could you direct me to other sites with more information on biotic petroleum genesis.

[JonClarke]

ry any standard book on petroleum geology written in the last 30 years. For example:

Hobson, G. D. and Tiratsoo, E. N. 1975. Introduction to petroleum geology. Beaconsfield, England

Huc, A. Y. 1990 (ed.). Deposition of organic facies. AAPG Studies in Geology No. 30.

Katz, B. J. 1995 (ed.). Petroleum source rocks. Springer-Verlag, Berlin

North, F. K. 1985. Petroleum Geology. Allen & Unwin, Boston

Selley, R. C. 1998. Elements of petroleum geology. Academic Press, San Diego

The web is a poor guide. There are lots of good petroleum geology web sites, especially course notes, However, because of the
attraction of woo-woo ideas, the abiotic theory is grossly over-represented overall.

Cheers

Jon

[Jpax2003]

The web is a poor guide. There are lots of good petroleum geology web sites, especially course notes, However, because of the attraction of woo-woo ideas, the abiotic theory is grossly over-represented overall.Why would abiotic genesis be considered woo-woo. I thought we considered people to be woo-woo when they are crazed lunatics proclaiming the end of the world. Abiotic genesis, if valid, would run against global destruction craziness. Just because some hypothesis is out there does not necessarily make it woo-woo. The Woo-woos seem to twist science and ignore it completely. However, the report I read seemed to be experimentally sound. I don't claim to know which idea is true, or if either one is. But to be fair, I would feel better if abiotic genesis were true. I don't want to run out of oil, even if I buy a hydrogen fueled car, I would like oil for the petrochemical industry.

[JonClarke]

Why? Because the abiotic postulate completely ignores over a century of research into petroleum genesis by thousands of scientists with massive resources at their disposal. Itis not consistent with what is known about organic facies sedimentology and diagenesis, organic geochemistry, biomarkers, isotope geochemistry, stratigraphy, palaeobiology, and fluid flow. It is also not consistent with what is known about the behaviour of mantle, magmatic, and metamorphic volatiles. But don't take my word for it, r ead the relevant literature. The earth is just not constructed for the benefit of the wishes of those who want cheap oil to last forever.


Jon

[Jpax2003]

But don't take my word for it, r ead the relevant literature. The earth is just not constructed for the benefit of the wishes of those who want cheap oil to last forever.I still don't think that is an answer to my question. So forget it, I'm not invested in either answer. But what I don't link is being talked down to as if I am a woo-woo when I am clearly not.

[JonClarke]

Sorry you think I was talking down. It was not my intention. However, the fact remains that the abiotic theory of petroleum genesis has zero credibility for economically interesting accumulations. 99.9999% of the world's liquid hydrocarbons are produced by maturation of organic matter derived from organisms. To deny this means you have to come up with good explanations for the following observations.

1) The almost universal association of petroleum with sedimentary rocks.

2) The close link between petroleum reservoirs and source rocks as shown by biomarkers (the source rocks contain the same organic markers as the petroleum, essentially chemically fingerprinting the two).

3) The consistent variation of biomarkers in petroleum in accordance with the history of life on earth (biomarkers indicative of land plants are found only in Devonian and younger rocks, that formed by marine plankton only in Neoproterozoic and younger rocks, the oldest oils containing only biomarkers of bacteria).

3) The close link between the biomarkers in source rock and depositional environment (source rocks containing biomarkers of land plants are found only in terrestrial and shallow marine sediments, those indicating marine conditions only in marine sediments, those from hypersaline lakes containing only bacterial biomarkers).

4) Progressive destruction of oil when heated to over 100 degrees (precluding formation and/or migration at high temperatures as implied by the abiogenic postulate).

5) The generation of petroleum from kerogen on heating in the laboratory (complete with biomarkers), as suggested by the biogenic theory.

6) The strong enrichment in C12 of petroleum indicative of biological fractionation (no inorganic process can cause anything like the fractionation of light carbon that is seen in petroleum).

7) The location of petroleum reservoirs down the hydraulic gradient from the source rocks in many cases (those which are not are in areas where there is clear evidence of post migration tectonism).

8 ) The almost complete absence of significant petroleum occurrences in igneous and metamorphic rocks (the rare exceptions discussed below).

The evidence usually cited in favour of abiogenic petroleum can all be better explained by the biogenic hypothesis e.g.:

9) Rare traces of cooked pyrobitumens in igneous rocks (better explained by reaction with organic rich country rocks, with which the pyrobitumens can usually be tied).

10) Rare traces of cooked pyrobitumens in metamorphic rocks (better explained by metamorphism of residual hydrocarbons in the protolith).

11) The very rare occurrence of small hydrocarbon accumulations in igneous or metamorphic rocks (in every case these are adjacent to organic rich sedimentary rocks to which the hydrocarbons can be tied via biomarkers).

12) The presence of undoubted mantle derived gases (such as He and some CO2) in some natural gas (there is no reason why gas accumulations must be all from one source, given that some petroleum fields are of mixed provenance it is inevitable that some mantle gas contamination of biogenic hydrocarbons will occur under some circumstances).

13) The presence of traces of hydrocarbons in deep wells in crystalline rock (these can be formed by a range of processes, including metamorphic synthesis by the fischer-tropsch reaction, or from residual organic matter as in 10).

14) Traces of hydrocarbon gases in magma volatiles (in most cases magmas ascend through sedimentary succession, any organic matter present will be thermally cracked and some will be incorporated into the volatile phase, some fischer-tropsch synthesis can also occur).

15) Traces of hydrocarbon gases at mid ocean ridges (such traces are not surprising given that the upper mantle has been contaminated with biogenic organic matter through several billion years of subduction, the answer to 14 may be applicable also).

The geological evidence is utterly against the abiogenic postulate.

Cheers

Jon

[Jpax2003]

Ah, well, that is what I was looking for. Thanks, it does make a lot of sense. So if I understand correctly, the experiments refered to in Chemweb might be correct (I'm not sure if it is the same as fischer-tropsch reactions), but that can not be extrapolated to explain the vast majority of petroleum deposits?

I'm curious, has anyone ever discovered petroluem beneath rocks that are aged to before life was on earth? Would that be precambrian or even earlier? And if so, what is the mechanism for it's placement, subduction? Where does all that biotic matter come from, bacteria and other single celled organisms?

I went to look for more information at Chemweb.com but their server appears to be down.

[JonClarke]

Reacting CO2 and H20 at high temperature and pressure will produce methane (and smaller amounts of other hydroarbons). It is thought to produce the traces of methane etc. in hydrothermal mineral deposits of various types. this is the F-T reaction

Given that there are no unmetamorphosed rocks older than the oldest evidence of life on earth (3.5Ga from the Warrawoona Super Group) then no, there is no evidence for oil older than life. However there are no economic hydrocarbon reserves I can think of older than Neoproterozoic (1.1 Ga) and most are younger that 540 Ma (in other words, hydrocarbons become common as life becomes common). The final increase in abudnance comes after the Devonian (450 Ma) when the advent of land plants means that organic matter could accumulate in all depositional environments. There is however a significant amount of subeconomic oil in the McArthur River Basin in northern Australia that is ~1.8 Ga. These are very heavy bacterial oils in ancient lacustrine and marginal marine sediments. As yet they have never been extracted but if the price continues to rise there may be more interest in them soon.

Hope this helps

Jon

edited for content and clarity

[captain swoop]

Good posts. =D>

[Krevel]

For what it's worth, there was a fellow on NPR a couple of weeks ago (Yes, I listen to NPR a lot) who was the editor of an oil industry trade magazine. He maintains that since the commercial use of oil began in the late 19th century, we've used about one third of the earth's oil reserves. The remaining two-thirds, though, will be much more difficult to get to than the first third was. You have to consider the source of this information, of course.

[JonClarke]

since the commercial use of oil began in the late 19th century, we've used about one third of the earth's oil reserves. The remaining two-thirds, though, will be much more difficult to get to than the first third was. You have to consider the source of this information, of course.

I think that is a reasonable position to take. "Much more difficult" generally translates into higher cost and reduced availability. But there is a very complex feed back relationship that goes on in resource economics. Higher cost and reduced availability means that people find substitutes. This translates into reduced demand, lower consumption, and therefore lower prices that if demand was higher. That is why predicting commodity prices is such a black art - even without policy issues like taxation, wars, cartels, tariffs, etc.

The problem with oil is that there are few equivalent substitutes for fuel, except LPG, which is itself a finite, non-renewing, nonrecyclable resource with a greater greenhouse penalty (because of contained CO2) than first appears. Higher cost fuel will have massive impacts not just on how (and what) people drive, but across the board, including manufacturing, transport, agriculture, fisheries.

Jon

[Jpax2003]

The problem with oil is that there are few equivalent substitutes for fuel, except LPG, which is itself a finite, non-renewing, nonrecyclable resource with a greater greenhouse penalty (because of contained CO2) than first appears. Higher cost fuel will have massive impacts not just on how (and what) people drive, but across the board, including manufacturing, transport, agriculture, fisheries.I was reading the Motor Oil Bible last night and realized that part of the problem might be misinformation from oil companies regarding oil change intervals. I wonder how much of an impact on the petroleum market it would be if everyone switched to synthetics and used better air and oil filtration (including oil bypass filtration) for extended drains of up to 25,000 miles. I think that we might get cars that last longer, run more efficiently, pollute less, and use less gasoline.

Of course the idea is to wean off of petroleum as a fuel. Even if it were abiotic, it's still a good idea to use alternatives. I think the best solution would be nuclear-powered electric mass transit and semi-autonomous hybrid gas/electric or hydrogen-fuelcell/electric vehicles running on powered expressways (they can also run normally on non-powered roadways).

[Tom Mazanec]

Download free until the election:

http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/downloads.html

[Maha Vailo]

As you may already know, I'm trying to write a story set in the 2070's. How would the lack of oil affect society, industry, everyday life? How would we adapt? What about transportation, especially carrying heavy loads or many people long distances? What new technologies might arise to fill in the gap? Might civilization actually become fall for want of oil? If so, how far would we fall? I'm trying to make this story as realistic/plausible as possible, so any input will be greatly appreciated.

- Maha "too many questions?" Vailo

[TriangleMan]

As you may already know, I'm trying to write a story set in the 2070's. How would the lack of oil affect society, industry, everyday life? How would we adapt? What about transportation, especially carrying heavy loads or many people long distances? What new technologies might arise to fill in the gap? Might civilization actually become fall for want of oil? If so, how far would we fall? I'm trying to make this story as realistic/plausible as possible, so any input will be greatly appreciated.
As oil reserves deplete and drive up the price more people will invest in the development of energy alternatives to replace oil. Since you're writing a story your choices are:

1) no alternative is forthcoming that allows us to function as we did with oil.
2) alternatives are created (fusion? solar? geothermal? a mixture of all of them?)

If the answer is 1 then you need to determine just what we can do and then project how society would be affected. If we can develop cars that run on a different fuel but can't carry heavy loads then that means no trucking, which would impact the availability of many goods and so on.

If the answer is 2 then life could be similar to what it is now except instead of conbustion engines people are using cars with different energy sources. Or would we? That is something you have to think about and incorporate it into your story.

[Glom]

If fancy fuels like hydrogen fail and the abiotic theory of oil formation fails, then worst case scenario, we manufacture oil.

[mutineer]

Even if we do develop alternative energy sources to oil before it runs out (fusion/wind etc), what are we going to to about plastics? I don't know much about the subject, but aren't most plastics are made from oil? (polyethene etc.)
And not only plastics, most important of all is the use of hydrocarbon feedstocks for the production of nitrate FERTILIZER - without which crop yields will reduce by up to 41%.

Most of the world's nitrate fertilizer production relies on natural gas sources, which will mostly be exhausted worldwide by 2025.

BTW, all the world's accessible phosphate rocks will have been strip mined long before that time, and I guess most of the potassium deposits will be exhausted by then too.

Oh well, I shall be sixty years old tomorrow! Wot, me worry :D !

[Maha Vailo]

So, what are we going to use for fertilizers when mineral sources of fertilizer run out? How will this change affect society?

Also, what are we going to make plastics out of once oil runs out? I suppose recycling will become paramount in those days, but after that, I don't know.

And we still haven't touched in detail on how a lack of oil might affect society as a whole. Will we go back to using horses and gaslights? Or will we not fall as far?

- Maha "stuck for ideas" Vailo

[Cylinder]

Thankfully, whales have made a bit of a comeback. :lol:

[Glom]

That's why we need GM and need to throw Caroline Lucas off Tower Bridge.

[TriangleMan]

So, what are we going to use for fertilizers when mineral sources of fertilizer run out? How will this change affect society?

Also, what are we going to make plastics out of once oil runs out? I suppose recycling will become paramount in those days, but after that, I don't know.

And we still haven't touched in detail on how a lack of oil might affect society as a whole. Will we go back to using horses and gaslights? Or will we not fall as far?

- Maha "stuck for ideas" Vailo
Storywriters explore the possiblilities and write about them. This is your opportunity to write about scenarios that you think are possible. What would society be like without oil? Maybe we go back to horses so you could write a story on that, maybe we develop new tech so you could write a story about that. Maybe one society goes one way and another country goes another? Exploring the possiblilites could create many stories - look how many stories Asimov wrote exploring the Three Laws of Robotics. :)

[Maha Vailo]

Actually, what I'm trying to ask you folks is what things are most likely to happen to society/technology/transportation/industry when oil runs out, then taking your answers and using those in my story. That's what I meant by "realistic" and "plausible."

- Maha Vailo

[Candy]

As you may already know, I'm trying to write a story set in the 2070's. How would the lack of oil affect society, industry, everyday life? How would we adapt? What about transportation, especially carrying heavy loads or many people long distances? What new technologies might arise to fill in the gap? Might civilization actually become fall for want of oil? If so, how far would we fall? I'm trying to make this story as realistic/plausible as possible, so any input will be greatly appreciated. Can I be one of the lead characters? 8-[

[Morrolan]

looking at oil as a fuel source, there are alternatives apart from fuels cells. for several years already Brasil uses alcohol made from sugar cane in cars (recently a new hybrid engine came on to the market which not only switches without problem between sugar alcohol and gas, but you can also pump them in the same tank in any mix without problems: no more double fuel tanks or elaborate cleaning requirements.

also in a number of countries public transport (buses) have been experimenting with bio-diesel, i.e. a diesel replacing fuel made from oil seeds like for instance canola. when i was in the army my Leopard tank already had a multi-fuel engine which meant you could in a pinch even use salad oil to keep it moving.
you might want to research information on existing alternative fuels and build on that.
being naturally conservative, i think society will try to cling as long as possible to existing forms and methods of transportation, which means they'll try and find alternative fuels for existing methods of transport instead of radically new forms of transport.

[Kaptain K]

Energy companies in the U.S. decided it was cheaper to make alcohol from crude oil than it was to make it from biomass! :o Sorta defeats the purpose, doesn't it? :roll:

[Glom]

These alternative fuels have potential but as their use improves, they will need to be manufactured industrially as the more energy crop farming that goes on the less food farming goes on.

[mutineer]

A few random thoughts . . .

The next sixty or seventy years are going to be much more traumatic than most people imagine. Although oil is in the news at present, very many of the world’s other mineral resources are also facing depletion. And that may be the least of humanity’s problems, because antibiotics are becoming increasingly ineffective against a multiplying range of resistant bacteria. There is a significant prospect that some form of plague will carry off thirty to fifty percent of the human population in the 21st Century as it did in the 6th, 14th and 17th. Thereafter, fear of disease may engender a drive for isolation and self-sufficiency that will reduce at least the transportation demand for oil. I also expect a nanotechnology-based striving for total cleanliness.

However, the issue of energy supplies will always be important. I make this prediction with total confidence: “Things are not going to get gradually worse.” (That has always been the nature of things.) There will be periods of crisis and periods of complacent calm. The US economy will adjust to a higher level of energy prices, and Alberta’s “heavy oil” will provide for US needs for several decades. It will be a case of “whatever were we worrying about” – until the time to worry begins again. And by that time (maybe 2050 or so), the coal and the uranium will all be gone too.

Glom is right when he makes the point that agricultural land can only be given over to the production of biomass for energy at the cost of a reduction in food crops – and yet the biomass route may be the only truly sustainable course. Land will become an ever more valuable resource. There will be greater efforts to reclaim the sub-tropical arid deserts; there will be everywhere the terracing of the hills after the fashion of China; there will be reclamation from the sea on a scale even the Dutch never dreamt of.

And then there is the sea itself, still at present at the hunter-gatherer stage of exploitation. By what date, I wonder, will a majority of the human population live on the floating worlds of the Atlantic, Pacific and Indian Oceans, and farm the waters beneath their feet?

[Glom]

And that may be the least of humanity’s problems, because antibiotics are becoming increasingly ineffective against a multiplying range of resistant bacteria. There is a significant prospect that some form of plague will carry off thirty to fifty percent of the human population in the 21st Century as it did in the 6th, 14th and 17th.

There is a fallacy here. The plagues were being fought with medicine that didn't understand the nature of disease. We know about chemistry and RNA. Medicine will adapt. At those times, it was all leeches.

And by that time (maybe 2050 or so), the coal and the uranium will all be gone too.

Actually, coal is available for a couple of hundred years. Uranium-235 can provide a couple of hundred years worth of energy. Uranium as a whole can meet our energy needs for millenia with breeding. Then there's thorium...

Glom is right when he makes the point that agricultural land can only be given over to the production of biomass for energy at the cost of a reduction in food crops – and yet the biomass route may be the only truly sustainable course.

Nuclear, both fission and fusion, can supply our needs for a few thousands years at least. The need for biomass for energy is a Greeny thing.

[mutineer]

Actually, coal is available for a couple of hundred years. Uranium-235 can provide a couple of hundred years worth of energy.
Don't make the mistake of comparing resources with current levels of demand. Time to depletion will depend heavily on the rate of economic growth (and with it the demand for energy) in China, India and elsewhere. It is difficult to judge how far current growth rates can be projected into the future; on a compond interest basis they produce some rather mind-boggling results.

Do not forget either that the substitution of oil for coal that occurred in the second half of the last century has now gone into reverse. The demand for coal (and hence its rate of depletion) will be very much increased when we get back to the days of National Benzole. (I suspect there are only two or three of us old enough and British enough to remember National Benzole!)

As regards the feasibility of fusion, I remain open-minded.

[Maha Vailo]

OK, so we answered how society might adapt fuel-wise (although I believe nuclear-powered mass transport isn't at all plausible!), but what would we most likely use for plastics and fertilizers once oil/coal runs out? I haven't seen too many thorough, plausible answers yet, and I'm at a loss for ideas. Anyone but mutineer? (Please forgive me for not being very patient.)

As for upcoming plagues, I seriously doubt it. What we may see in the future is less of an emphasis on "magic bullets" (such as antibiotics) and more of an multi-pronged approach to treating disease (maybe something similar to integrated pest management in agriculture).

Anybody else have any ideas about what life in the near-future might be like?

- Maha Vailo

[Manchurian Taikonaut]

There was a recent story on this one, said something like world's thirst for MiddleEast Oil will get even worse, like some crazie junkie and this thirst will make the volatile and unstable region an even more dangerous magnet for conflicting great power rivalries, not to mention some of those Arab nations are very corrupt and shake the US with one friendly hand and stab them in the back with the other, spacedaily had an energy comment ( watch out for Jeff Bell )
http://www.spacedaily.com/news/energy-tech-05m.html
Also our Sao Paulo posters, Mopc posted info on using a percentage of % ethanol or Alcohol or how some corn growers are trying to make a kind of diesel, plus there are now plans for hybrid battery-electric or solar cars

[Yorkshireman]

The End of Oil is Closer Than you Think (http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/feature/story/0,13026,1464050,00.html)- article in the Guardian newspaper on April 21st.
Currently I'm reading Power to the People (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0374236755/002-5960165-1684023?v=glance)by Vijay V. Vaitheeswaran of the Economist. I haven't finished it yet, so it's not fair to give my opinion just yet, but his argument so far is a good one (he is pushing a market-led microgeneration future for energy). He also happily punctures both the cliche environmentalist arguments, and the 'there is no energy problem' head-in-the-sand oilmen.

[Crazieman]

Another decade, another end of the world/oil prediction.

Wait, isn't it still 1970?

[Fram]

Another decade, another end of the world/oil prediction.

Wait, isn't it still 1970?

End of the world is still far off, but end of oil is not, even if a correct prediction is hard to make. A mistake from the past doesn't mean that the whole idea is wrong.

[farmerjumperdon]

Slow, incremental change will occur, with the precise speed dictated by the economic pain of not changing. Research is expensive. Nobody is going to put more money into it than they can get out, and again, we are not feeling much economic pain yet. Yes we rant and rave about $2.50 per gallon in the US, but we ain't seen nothing yet. The kind of pain I'm talking about would be when even the average person in the US could no longer afford to operate a gas-burning automobile. Science is expensive. I agree with Glom that we are headed for a nuclear future. Thank god that corporate entities do exist that have incentives to make money that extend beyond an individuals lifetime. When the money to be made pursuing further use of nuclear (I think we are there) meets up with the economic pain of continuing to use oil (I agree with the 2050 to 2100 estimates), we'll go nuclear. And the Greens will be dismissed by the overwhelming majority of civilized society that wants to continue to live in a modern and civilized manner.

Change would be so much easier if it weren't for all the darn humans.

[collegeguy]

here is an article that seems to describe some of the things that could happen as oil runs out:

http://www.countercurrents.org/po-kunster280305.htm

It really is worrying. 8-[

[farmerjumperdon]

Interesting article, but my suspicion is that there may be a lot of bias in it. I don't know the subject thoroughly; but when the author states our possibility of going to nuclear as having to "resort" to nuclear power, you get a glimpse of their agenda.

[Yorkshireman]

Far too doom and gloom I think. I agree with farmerjumperdon that when the writer talks of 'resorting' to nuclear power, he really doesn't want it at any price. I get the impression he'd rather the world revert to an agrarian economy than build nuclear power stations. Well, speaking as a still-member of Friends of the Earth - but one who is pro-nuclear power, I think the world will have a different opinion to the author.

[Glom]

Interesting article, but my suspicion is that there may be a lot of bias in it. I don't know the subject thoroughly; but when the author states our possibility of going to nuclear as having to "resort" to nuclear power, you get a glimpse of their agenda.

Do tell.

[farmerjumperdon]

No more to tell. I was just observing that the language used by the author (having to "resort" to nuclear power) identified their position pretty well. If they have already taken a stand against nuclear power, they are probably not open to objective evidence that might be pro-nuclear.

[mutineer]

Surely the author is using the words "we may have to resort . . . " because he has earlier stated that the US opted for natural gas in the wake of "the nuclear-plant disasters at Three Mile Island and Chernobyl".

He is indicating the need for a rehabilitation of the acceptability of nuclear power rather than indicating any prejudice of his own. That, at any rate, seems to obvious way to read his words in the context of the rest of the article.

[publiusr]

I seem to remember some talk about a slow down at some Saudi wells that was not intentional.

One more reason why the $300 billion spent on this war should have gone into both HLLV development and another project--a Bering Strait Bridge. Just have a spur off the future ANWR site to link to the former-Soviets and have our oil/natural gas money go to them--instead of re-building the Caliphate. A Russian/North American Alliance would then control vast resources form Siberia, and reliance of foreign shipyards would be reduced.

We are losing one containership a year to freak waves and groundings--and a rail link from the New World to the Old would be awesome.

We have more in common with the Russians--and frankly--it makes more sense to help them than turning Iraq into another Iran--which is probably what will happen.

[collegeguy]

Far too doom and gloom I think. I agree with farmerjumperdon that when the writer talks of 'resorting' to nuclear power, he really doesn't want it at any price. I get the impression he'd rather the world revert to an agrarian economy than build nuclear power stations. Well, speaking as a still-member of Friends of the Earth - but one who is pro-nuclear power, I think the world will have a different opinion to the author.

Far too doom and gloom? I have seen other sources that suggest an emergency of this kind may cause great conflicts or even nuclear war. It is scary, but I think it is possible 8-[ .

[Jpax2003]

Don't forget that as technology advances, devices tend to use electricity more efficiently. This is often driven by the demand for mobility. So a lot of items will operate more efficiently off batteries that last longer thus using less powerline electricity, thus reducing the need for peak power generators that burn gas or oil and this allows for a more stable power model where a nuclear baseline can provide the majority. As solar cells become more efficient they will be placed on homes to provide peak power generation and to recharge batteries of the mobile devices.

The killer right now is transportation. Nuclear Fission and Fusion may eventually power all mass transit via baseline electricity. Mass Transit lines will need to be extended dramatically to bring many locales into usable service. Off-grid transportation may be fuelcell-electric with some petroleum fuels on certain equipment. Airplanes may always burn petroleum and I don't know if they can burn anything synthetic we have at our disposal currently. Perhaps this will necessitate a return to propeller-driven craft if an airplane internal combustion engine can use biofuels. This may require a move from immediate commerce to a more leisurly commercial model. Some aircraft may use rocket fuel for superfast transport. We may see commercial success for lighter-than-air transportation that uses fuel only for locomotion, not lift.

I think we need a world government to assist in this change. We need a government that can invest in research and development of new technologies and we need a government that can engage in megastructures like: a Bearing Strait Bridge; a Gibralter Bridge, Tunnel, or Dam; Sunda Strait & Malacca Strait Bridges; Sunda Shelf sea floor dyke & Canal arable land reclamation effort; Sahara Revitalization; Low Earth Orbit transportation stations; Lunar Colonies for Mining, Manufacturing, and Science; and others things. By bringing back under control the profit motive of mass commerce through universal employment and banking laws, a world government could establish an economic model that removes the concept of hyper-competition while maintaining efficiency in operations with more personal time for employees thus generating a better quality of life for all.

[Candy]

Airplanes may always burn petroleum and I don't know if they can burn anything synthetic we have at our disposal currently. Perhaps this will necessitate a return to propeller-driven craft if an airplane internal combustion engine can use biofuels. This may require a move from immediate commerce to a more leisurly commercial model. Some aircraft may use rocket fuel for superfast transport. We may see commercial success for lighter-than-air transportation that uses fuel only for locomotion, not lift.
I'm no expert, but this makes sense. I wonder what my WONDER BOYS think, Glom and/or Nicolas. Their young minds are just priceless when it comes to aircraft(s). :D

[tmosher]

Airplanes may always burn petroleum and I don't know if they can burn anything synthetic we have at our disposal currently. Perhaps this will necessitate a return to propeller-driven craft if an airplane internal combustion engine can use biofuels. This may require a move from immediate commerce to a more leisurly commercial model. Some aircraft may use rocket fuel for superfast transport. We may see commercial success for lighter-than-air transportation that uses fuel only for locomotion, not lift.
I'm no expert, but this makes sense. I wonder what my WONDER BOYS think, Glom and/or Nicolas. Their young minds are just priceless when it comes to aircraft(s). :D

Theoretically, a turbine can burn almost any kind of liquid or gaseous fuel. Experimentation with hydrogen fueled aircraft has been on-going since 1956.

Also, biofuels could be used.

They include methanol, ethanol, di-methyl esters, pyrolytic oil, Fischer-Tropsch gasoline and distillate, and biodiesel from vegetable oil crops

Climate Change 2001 (http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg3/102.htm)

[Van Rijn]

Far too doom and gloom I think. I agree with farmerjumperdon that when the writer talks of 'resorting' to nuclear power, he really doesn't want it at any price. I get the impression he'd rather the world revert to an agrarian economy than build nuclear power stations. Well, speaking as a still-member of Friends of the Earth - but one who is pro-nuclear power, I think the world will have a different opinion to the author.

Far too doom and gloom? I have seen other sources that suggest an emergency of this kind may cause great conflicts or even nuclear war. It is scary, but I think it is possible 8-[ .

No, it isn't. The only way that could occur is if we were going to run out of fossil fuels in a few decades and there were no reasonable alternatives. This fellow, like his counterparts in the '70s, doesn't understand basic economics. The response in the '70s was exactly what you would expect with an attempted cartel: Sources that hadn't been previously economic were developed, more sources were discovered and efficiency was improved. That process will continue. At some point we will fully move away from fossil fuels, but I expect that will happen more because of environmental concerns than ultimate depletion.

Actually, to me, this is pretty funny: Up until around the mid '80s, I constantly read stories about advanced reactor research, fusion research, solar research, synfuel development (usually plants that would start with coal to produce liquid fuels), oil shale, tar sands, space solar options, etc., etc. ... and then it just sort of faded. As one example, "Popular Science" would always have articles like this, but these went away and were replaced with environmentally related articles. In the general market, efficiency wasn't as big a deal as it had been before - because the market had changed.

It had finally become clear that the '70s "ultimate energy crisis" was just hype. And there is no energy crisis now. There are plenty of alternatives if the economics dictate it. There will be occasional shocks and upsets. But that is nothing new.

[Fram]

Far too doom and gloom I think. I agree with farmerjumperdon that when the writer talks of 'resorting' to nuclear power, he really doesn't want it at any price. I get the impression he'd rather the world revert to an agrarian economy than build nuclear power stations. Well, speaking as a still-member of Friends of the Earth - but one who is pro-nuclear power, I think the world will have a different opinion to the author.

Far too doom and gloom? I have seen other sources that suggest an emergency of this kind may cause great conflicts or even nuclear war. It is scary, but I think it is possible 8-[ .

No, it isn't. The only way that could occur is if we were going to run out of fossil fuels in a few decades and there were no reasonable alternatives. This fellow, like his counterparts in the '70s, doesn't understand basic economics. The response in the '70s was exactly what you would expect with an attempted cartel: Sources that hadn't been previously economic were developed, more sources were discovered and efficiency was improved. That process will continue. At some point we will fully move away from fossil fuels, but I expect that will happen more because of environmental concerns than ultimate depletion.

Actually, to me, this is pretty funny: Up until around the mid '80s, I constantly read stories about advanced reactor research, fusion research, solar research, synfuel development (usually plants that would start with coal to produce liquid fuels), oil shale, tar sands, space solar options, etc., etc. ... and then it just sort of faded. As one example, "Popular Science" would always have articles like this, but these went away and were replaced with environmentally related articles. In the general market, efficiency wasn't as big a deal as it had been before - because the market had changed.

It had finally become clear that the '70s "ultimate energy crisis" was just hype. And there is no energy crisis now. There are plenty of alternatives if the economics dictate it. There will be occasional shocks and upsets. But that is nothing new.

If we run out of petroleum one day, what do have for alternatives for the petrochemical industry? Are there plastics or other products currently made out of petroleum that we don't have an alternative for yet, or is all of that reasonably easy replaceable by other products from other resources?

[Van Rijn]

Hydrocarbon compounds can always be made. There are pure chemical processes and ones that start with biological sources. Note that it may still be economical to extract fossil resources to use for producing plastics even when it isn't possible to use them to produce energy.

Nuclear and solar sources can provide vast amounts of energy for billions of years. Historically speaking, the fossil fuel era will be a small blip, but that doesn't mean they will run out TOMORROW.

[Jpax2003]

Theoretically, a turbine can burn almost any kind of liquid or gaseous fuel. Experimentation with hydrogen fueled aircraft has been on-going since 1956.

Also, biofuels could be used.Sweet!

[Maksutov]

Theoretically, a turbine can burn almost any kind of liquid or gaseous fuel. Experimentation with hydrogen fueled aircraft has been on-going since 1956.

Also, biofuels could be used.Sweet!
True, but not only light, sweet crude (http://www.nymex.com/jsp/markets/lsco_pre_agree.jsp), but so much other organic stuff, a turbine is like a chemical Mr. Fusion!

[farmerjumperdon]

I remember reading a while back about experiments with wierd combinations of materials for fuel; something like rubber and liquid oxygen (just throwing something out there, can't remember what it was). So the lines were flying around all the office gatherings. Someone would just walk up and say something like "How about cat liter and crayola shavings?" The reply might be "Dust bunnies and honey." Guess you had to be there.

[Stregone]

I remember reading a while back about experiments with wierd combinations of materials for fuel; something like rubber and liquid oxygen (just throwing something out there, can't remember what it was). So the lines were flying around all the office gatherings. Someone would just walk up and say something like "How about cat liter and crayola shavings?" The reply might be "Dust bunnies and honey." Guess you had to be there.

SpaceShipOne's rocket used rubber and nitrous oxide (laughing gas).

[Jpax2003]

I still think Zeppelins should make a comeback. I wonder if they could make a stiff airship move at 100mph, 200mph, or even faster that can carry 200 passengers. Maybe we would need a design that is an airfoil as well as lighter than air. I'd like the idea of having more room to walk around, but perhaps the passenger to weight ratio would be too small to make it competitive. How about Air Cruises where people go on safari from the air in a leisurely manner. The idea of lighter than air Dark Sky Stations may use airships as transit to high atmosphere suspended telescopes.

[sarongsong]

Don't forget that as technology advances, devices tend to use electricity more efficiently...Airplanes may always burn petroleum and I don't know if they can burn anything synthetic we have at our disposal currently. Perhaps this will necessitate a return to propeller-driven craft if an airplane internal combustion engine can use biofuels...
Both stories (http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/394-full.html#189677):
"... AC Propulsion's SoLong unmanned aerial vehicle (it looks like a big model glider) landed at 12:45 a.m. on April 22, having spent a little longer than 24 hours aloft flying on battery and solar power alone, the longest such flight of its type to date..."
"...There are about 400 aircraft adapted to run on ethanol but the EMB 202 Ipanema is the first certified production aircraft. It's powered by a Lycoming IO-540. While Brazil lacks oil resources, it does have the ability to grow huge amounts of sugar cane, from which the ethanol is produced at about a quarter the cost of gasoline, which now runs at about $7 a gallon in Brazil..."

[Argos]

When It Comes to Replacing Oil Imports, Nuclear Is No Easy Option, Experts Say (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/09/politics/09energy.html)

Requires registration.

[crosscountry]

ethanol seems to be a good way. it's cheap and burns well. there is also less pollution.



I look forward to the cars that burn 50/50 ethanol to gasoline.

[mopc]

If we run out of petroleum one day, what do have for alternatives for the petrochemical industry? Are there plastics or other products currently made out of petroleum that we don't have an alternative for yet, or is all of that reasonably easy replaceable by other products from other resources?

We may never run out of petroleum. As soon as we get signs the end is near at least for economical extraction, industry will shift and oil will continue to be used for certain chemicals for centuries to come, when oil will be far from central in the economy.

[Jpax2003]

hypergolic rocket cars?

[Van Rijn]

When It Comes to Replacing Oil Imports, Nuclear Is No Easy Option, Experts Say (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/09/politics/09energy.html)

Requires registration.

Essentially, it says that since much of the U.S.'s electricity is produced using coal, and nuclear reactors are best at producing electricity, it won't directly reduce oil imports. It does mention research on reactors that use heat or other techniques to efficiently produce hydrogen, which can be used with coal or heavy oil to produce light oils and gasoline, but says it will be a couple of decades for these to become a mature technology. Of course, that's true, but a good part of the reason we are still at this stage is because nuclear reactor research had been scaled back so much. A strong push to develop nuclear power would reduce coal polution and would give the industry the incentive to develop new, more advanced designs.

[Jpax2003]

When It Comes to Replacing Oil Imports, Nuclear Is No Easy Option, Experts Say (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/09/politics/09energy.html)

Requires registration.

Essentially, it says that since much of the U.S.'s electricity is produced using coal, and nuclear reactors are best at producing electricity, it won't directly reduce oil imports. It does mention research on reactors that use heat or other techniques to efficiently produce hydrogen, which can be used with coal or heavy oil to produce light oils and gasoline, but says it will be a couple of decades for these to become a mature technology. Of course, that's true, but a good part of the reason we are still at this stage is because nuclear reactor research had been scaled back so much. A strong push to develop nuclear power would reduce coal polution and would give the industry the incentive to develop new, more advanced designs.

That's why I think we should have electric road/car hybrids powered by nuclear energy: to reduce dependence on petroleum. I saw a report on the news recently about how much gasoline is wasted by cars sitting in traffic not moving. An electric road for electric compatible cars (All electric, cumbustion-electric, or hydrogen-electric) would reduce this idle combustion (and associated exhaust pollution) to essentially nil. The method of energy transfer would need to be designed for safety, but it should be possible. An Electric Road may also carry data streams for entertainment as well as traffic control. You may not need to even drive the car when it is on the system as it may drive itself.

A lot of power goes into air conditioning cars in the summer, especially when no movement means rolling down windows has little or no effect. The Electric Road would need to be able to supply enough energy to power those air conditioners at high densities. Another Road mdification could alleviate even that energy expenditure. A covered roadway could keep temperatures cool reducing electrical overhead, but may still allow passive lighting. An added benefit of covered roadways is precipitation alleviation. No snow on the road means no snow removal and faster speeds with fewer accidents. Sure it would cost a bit to make and mantain but the savings from snow removal, pothole repair, accident investigation and cleanup would be big. Add to that the reduced reliance on gasoline and it sounds like a winner.

This system might be limited to only interstates and congested urban areas, so a car would need to carry a portable energy source (batteries, hydrocarbon fuels, or hydrogen) when travelling off the electric road. Parking meters could also be recharging stations for all, or partially, electric vehicles. I could see a chain of convenience stores/gas stations that also have battery quick-swap programs (like they do for propane tanks) for long distance driving off the grid as opposed to metered-plug-in recharging for several hours.

[collegeguy]

FX is gonna be showing a movie or something like it called "Oil Storm". Have you guys seen the ad?. It certainly looks like it is going to take things seriously and make oil depletion mainstream news. :o

[Van Rijn]

Sounds like a good movie to stay away from. I doubt many people who lived through the '70s can take this stuff seriously.

[collegeguy]

Sounds like a good movie to stay away from. I doubt many people who lived through the '70s can take this stuff seriously.

Well, I have read info of oil peaking around this year an 2010. This is supposed to have been accelerated by the increasing demand of countries like China. Don't you think people should be preparing for the troubles that will cause?

[PatKelley]

Sounds like a good movie to stay away from. I doubt many people who lived through the '70s can take this stuff seriously.

No, "The Core" was a movie to flee. Any dramatization of events always does involve drama, and I'd probably watch just to catch what snippets of truth and fib sneak in.

I've got a friend who's dad was an oil geologist for Shell, and, well, unless abiotic oil is a reality, and also is discovered soon, we will have problems on our hands in short order.

Go Nuclear! I want my tritium battery (http://msnbc.msn.com/id/7843868/)powered car!

[mopc]

This tritium battery thing looks promissing, what are the odds it might be used for transport???

[collegeguy]

Here is a site completely dedicated to the Oil depletion problem. What do you think of it? It has lots of links:

http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/Introduction.html

[Stregone]

Here is a site completely dedicated to the Oil depletion problem. What do you think of it? It has lots of links:

http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/Introduction.html
Look at what the site is selling. :roll:

[collegeguy]

Here is a site completely dedicated to the Oil depletion problem. What do you think of it? It has lots of links:

http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/Introduction.html
Look at what the site is selling. :roll:

I know, it is trying to make profits out of this situation. But the oil situation is pretty bad. I hope we don't get into great wars as a cause. The site pretty much offers no solution. It says "IT is the end of civilization as we know it."

[Van Rijn]

Here is a site completely dedicated to the Oil depletion problem. What do you think of it? It has lots of links:

http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/Introduction.html

Well, I had a bit of a problem with the title "Life after the Oil crash." Then there was the first sentence: "Civilization as we know it is coming to an end soon." It got worse from there. He started with his conclusion and worked his way through to justify it. Books sold from this site are "The End of Suburbia," "The Long Emergency," When Technology Fails" and "The Oil Age is Over." It sounds JUST like some of the ... stuff ... I read in the '70s.

Just to take one issue, nuclear energy, he says:

Nuclear energy requires uranium - of which the US has enough to power existing reactors for 25-40 years. As with oil, the extraction of uranium follows a bell-curve. If a large scale nuclear program was undertaken the supply of US domestically derived uranium would likely peak in under 15 years.

But from here: (http://www.world-nuclear.org/factsheets/uranium.htm)

According to the summary of uranium resources published jointly by the Nuclear Energy Agency of the OECD and the UN's International Atomic Energy Agency, known reserves of uranium from conventional sources are slightly more than 3 million tonnes. Reactor requirements are fairly steady at about 60,000 tonnes per year. Thus there is about 50 years supply of uranium known at this stage to be available.

This is, however, an oversimplification of the situation. It is now clear that uranium is not scarce and it is known that it averages almost two parts per million of the Earth's crust. There are substantial resources that are not yet fully proven. These so-called speculative resources are likely to be of the order of 10 million tonnes, about three times the known reserves. While prices remain low, there is no incentive for exploration activities to identify new deposits. Experience with other commodities has shown that increased demand has led to increased prices, and a subsequent increase in exploration and discovery.

This doesn't include fuel from decommisioned weapons, it assumes conventional mining only, and it doesn't include U-238 and Thorium breeding which radically extend available resources (in the range of thousands to millions of years). In short, he's wrong: He was talking about KNOWN RESERVES only and underestimating even them!

He also says:

Speaking of nuclear waste, it is a question nobody has quite answered yet.

This is nonsense. Technically, nuclear waste can be dealt with more safely than waste from coal or most any other forms of energy production.

Anyway, I didn't study the rest of the article in any detail, but given his errors here, I have a very low opinion about its accuracy.

[Yorkshireman]

Well, I had a read through the article, and followed down many of the links. The generall impression I have is low-level conspiracy theorism - some of it comes over more or less like one of Hoagland's diatribes. I don't think the author of the article expected many people to read those links critically.

Peak Oil is a real phenomenon, and I believe it will be soon. But I emphatically do not intend to buy a gun and take to the hills like the author wants us to do in his summing up at the end (after buying his book, of course).

Just to pick on a couple of links I folowed at random:


A report commissioned by Cheney and released in April 2001 was no less disturbing:

The most significant difference between now and a decade ago is the
extraordinarily rapid erosion of spare capacities at critical segments of
energy chains. Today, shortfalls appear to be endemic. Among the
most extraordinary of these losses of spare capacity is in the oil arena.

Not surprisingly, George W. Bush has echoed Dick Cheney’s sentiments. In May 2001, Bush stated, “What people need to hear loud and clear is that we’re running out of energy in America.”

Well, I followed that link, and the article it links to quite clearly places Bush's quote in the context of US energy Indepencence, which is a political driver - Bush wants to reduce the US's dependence on foreign energy. The 'Peak Oil' article wants us to take this quote as signifying a global energy crisis, when it does not signify this at all.

Second, this quote appears more than once in the article:


Consequently, a declining supply of oil must be accompanied by either a declining supply of money or by hyperinflation. In either case, the result for the global banking system is the same: total collapse. This may be what led Stephen Roach, the chief economist for investment bank Morgan Stanley, to recently state, "I fear modern day central banking is on the brink of systemic failure."

Italics mine. Because when I follow the link to the article in which Stephen Roach says this, he is talking about the Central Banking model's failure to develop monatery policies that take account of low-inflation and deflationary economies, particularly in the Far East. Energy, or Oil isn't even mentioned in the article. Matt Savinar is spouting pure conjecture here, like he is in his Hoagland-esqe theorising about why Oil companies have been going through merger activity in recent years.

Now a bit about the 1970s.

Van Rijn is right when he says the US has been here before in the 1970's. But he doesn't explain why he is understandably cynical at talk of a crisis now, so I'll have a go. As a Brit, I wasn't so worried in the 1970s. Petrol prices did not soar, pumps did not run dry, cars did not get direction to fill up on odd-numbered days, there was no 55-mph blanket speed limit enforced.

Why was this?

Because there was no world Oil resource shortage. The OPEC cartel hiked the price of oil, and restricted distribution to countries (like the US) that had supported Israel in the Yom Kippur war. The British were not subject to the OPEC embargo as they had remained neutral, refusing to allow the use of UK-based US air bases to launch attacks.

But OPEC is not always a strong cartel (not like de Beers, which IS a strong cartel!) - it's influence rises and falls. OPEC made a major strategic mistake in the early 1980s, when it opened the taps, and flooded with oil a world that was already falling into deep economic recession. The lack of demand and over-supply made the cartel fall apart as individual members stuggled to sell their oil quotas. When OPEC has a low influence, like in the 1980s, Oil finds it's market price. In the 1980s, it fell to $10/barrel. You simply can't judge the resource position on Oil by it's barrel price, you could only do that if there was a genuinely open market for Oil. There isn't.

It's actually damn hard to get the real picture on petrochemical resource availability. The estimates for global Peak Oil vary from 2003 up to 2040.

The energy debate deserves rational, clear-headed science. It is not served by the distorted garbage peddled by Matt Savinar.

[publiusr]

I just want the money spent on this war to go instead to a Bering Strait Bridge so's we can have the Russians hooked on our oil money and let those who wish to rebuild the caliphate starve in the desert.

[Maha Vailo]

Found this Wikipedia article that might be of interest: Future energy development (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Future_energy_development). Seems like there's quite a few potential solutions to the impending oil depletion crisis - certainly enough to keep the world going smoothly.

Let a thousand flowers bloom - let a thousand schools of thought contend.

- Maha Vailo

[Manchurian Taikonaut]

So, what are we going to use for fertilizers when mineral sources of fertilizer run out? How will this change affect society?

Also, what are we going to make plastics out of once oil runs out? I suppose recycling will become paramount in those days, but after that, I don't know.

And we still haven't touched in detail on how a lack of oil might affect society as a whole. Will we go back to using horses and gaslights? Or will we not fall as far?

- Maha "stuck for ideas" Vailo
Storywriters explore the possiblilities and write about them. This is your opportunity to write about scenarios that you think are possible. What would society be like without oil? Maybe we go back to horses so you could write a story on that, maybe we develop new tech so you could write a story about that. Maybe one society goes one way and another country goes another? Exploring the possiblilites could create many stories - look how many stories Asimov wrote exploring the Three Laws of Robotics. :)As you may already know, I'm trying to write a story set in the 2070's. How would the lack of oil affect society, industry, everyday life? How would we adapt? What about transportation, especially carrying heavy loads or many people long distances? What new technologies might arise to fill in the gap? Might civilization actually become fall for want of oil? If so, how far would we fall? I'm trying to make this story as realistic/plausible as possible, so any input will be greatly appreciated. Can I be one of the lead characters? 8-[

read about cars running on alcohol since 1978 -
United States looked at it during the 1970's, but found that growing the corn, turning it into alcohol, and mixing the alcohol with petroleum distillates so it can be burned in an unmodified car was costly
http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=16253&highlight=
Oil prices hit a record $62.10 a barrel on Thursday and are now about three times as high as their 2001 low point, raising fears of inflation and reduced economic growth in both the rich G8 countries and in many other largely oil-importing regions.
Surging demand from booming China is a major factor in fueling demand.
"We encourage oil-producing countries to take all the necessary steps to foster a favorable investment climate sufficient to support strong global economic growth," the G8 statement said.

[Ilya]

Producing hydrogen from water using electricity generatedf by nuclear power and using that to power cars could solve the oil problem.

If you take into account the cost of storage, and of converting all the IC engines into hydrogen-burning ones, it is much better to use electricity generated by nuclear power to produce alcohol or liquid hydrocarbons (out of water and carbon dioxide), then burn them in existing engines.

[gopher65]

I didn't bother to read all of this thread, so I don't know if this has been brought up or not yet. But here it goes.

Oil production will indeed peek very soon. HOWEVER. This refers only to light crude oil (ie what is know as 'cheap oil'). Light crude is easy to extract, cheap, easy to transport, and easy to refine. Therefore it is the most desirable.

But there is also something called Heavy Crude Oil. These reserves are largely untapped because they are very expensive to extract and refine in comparison to light crude. By themselves Canada and Venezuela contain more Heavy Crude Oil than the entire rest of the world contains Light Crude Oil. These reserves by themselves are sufficient to power the world (assuming demand rises as anticipated) for about 150 years.

However, there is also another kind of petroleum that is even more expensive to extract called... I don't remember what it is called. But the Alberta Tar Sands are an example of this type of reserve. By themselves, the Alberta Tar Sands contain more oil (when properly refined) than the entire rest of the world’s total reserves of Light Crude Oil and Heavy Crude Oil.

I have two things to say in conclusion:

1) We will indeed run out of Light Crude Oil fairly soon, probably within 50 years. After that, poor us, we only have about 500 years of Heavy oil and Tar Sands left :(.

2) If you want to complain about an oil based economy, then complain about the pollution generated by oil and fossil fuels. That is the real concern.


EDIT: My dad is a R&D engineer who works for a company that creates submersible pumps for oil companies (and water companies, and natural gas companies). The oil companies are indeed aware that they will hit peak oil soon, and are throwning huge amounts of money into researching alternative energy (BP is doing this; my dad use to work for them), and reducing the costs to extract and refine heavy crude so it can be more economical. I wouldn't worry about the collapse of civilization being caused by a shortage of oil:P.

[sarongsong]

...If you want to complain about an oil based economy, then complain about the pollution generated by oil and fossil fuels. That is the real concern...Amen!
"... California state and local authorities would have required the company to comply with stringent air quality regulations...The [natural gas-fired power] plant, currently under construction in Mexicali, Mexico, will serve consumers in San Diego and Los Angeles..."
http://www.corpwatch.org/print_article.php?&id=2588

[mopc]

read about cars running on alcohol since 1978


In Brazil commercial production of alcohol cars began in 1978, this successful technology continues until today, with little or no subsidy, especially since the invention of bi-fuel cars, that run on both gasoline and alcohol, about four years ago.

[farmerjumperdon]

The world (as we know it - our solar system) is always coming to an end; in a way. But in a way that is pretty much irrelevant to us, it will be here for much longer than us (as the Sun goes thru its life stages and what not).

But really, what these people who foretell the end of civilization because of things like the end of oil or other such events really mean is that the world is changing and it scares them. By their lexicon, civilization really is coming to an end, and will always be coming to an end. It's called change; and although change makes all animals uncomfortable to one degree or another (including humans - though many will not admit that change is threatening because they perceive it is not cool to do so).

Change means a loss in predictability, which threatens everyone in a very fundamental/instinctual/survival sort of way. It's OK, the threat of change stimulates our adaptive processes and ensures survival.

Doomsayers are just humans that have an over-the-top reaction to change and the unpredictability (?) of the world - usually due to a nudge from some form or another of various neurosis or psychosis.

[collegeguy]

The world (as we know it - our solar system) is always coming to an end; in a way. But in a way that is pretty much irrelevant to us, it will be here for much longer than us (as the Sun goes thru its life stages and what not).

But really, what these people who foretell the end of civilization because of things like the end of oil or other such events really mean is that the world is changing and it scares them. By their lexicon, civilization really is coming to an end, and will always be coming to an end. It's called change; and although change makes all animals uncomfortable to one degree or another (including humans - though many will not admit that change is threatening because they perceive it is not cool to do so).

Change means a loss in predictability, which threatens everyone in a very fundamental/instinctual/survival sort of way. It's OK, the threat of change stimulates our adaptive processes and ensures survival.


Doomsayers are just humans that have an over-the-top reaction to change and the unpredictability (?) of the world - usually due to a nudge from some form or another of various neurosis or psychosis.

Thread bump

The crisis of oil prices now is increasing the discussions of peak oil. Although the problem of the moment seems to be refineries, the concern is widespread.
On a side note, tinfoil hat wearers are arguing the government had already planned this. Their proof? a movie showed some months ago: oil storm.

Thread bump

The crisis of oil prices now is increasing the discussions of peak oil. Although the problem of the moment seems to be refineries, the concern is widespread.
On a side note, tinfoil hat wearers are arguing the government had already planned this. Their proof? a movie showed some months ago: oil storm.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0461695/

The plot shows a major hurricane that destroys refineries in the Gulf coast. Prices of oil reach to 7 dollars a gallon. There is chaos nationwide, martial law is declared on several cities and America alost stops being a superpower. Problems are solved by buying oil from the russians.

[Glom]

It may be a problem for the next few months. When new refining capability appears, then the price will drop. At the moment, that is the real choke point.

[TriangleMan]

Isn't the price of gas in Europe already around $5-6 per US Gallon? I guess I missed the part where Europe descended into chaos and martial law had to be declared. :-?

[Heid the Ba']

We're at about 90p a litre, which I make more like US8 a gallon. Still less expensive than milk.

[Yorkshireman]

Currently diesel price is £0.94 a litre (equivalent to $6.50 per US gallon) at my local petrol station.

Anarchy! Chaos! Panic!

Answering this post has made me late to the pub for a lunchtime pint! :D

[SeanF]

We're at about 90p a litre, which I make more like US8 a gallon. Still less expensive than milk.
You pay more than $8 a gallon for milk? Really? :o

Here milk's about $2.50 a gallon.

[farmerjumperdon]

This is a perfect example of my earlier post that we will survive by adapting, but civilization will not come to an end.

Our comfort level (and for a relative few, outright survival) will be threatened. Some will predict the end of the world, most will adapt and move on; including those that predicted the end of the world.

It's Nature's way.

[collegeguy]

MSNBC has an interesting article on the effects of katrina in the oil prices:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9190518/

Check out this part:

One way or another, the effects will ripple around the world. High prices and tight supplies are already expected to attract fuel to the United States from the rest of the world. If oil prices reach $100 a barrel, the United States would come close to a recession, according to a projection by Global Insight. The same depressing influences would also be felt in Europe, Japan and China, which are all major oil importers. Katrina might then perversely become the instrument by which oil prices collapse, because—being too high—they overwhelmed the world economy

Do you think Katrina might cause oil prices to collapse?

[antoniseb]

Do you think Katrina might cause oil prices to collapse?
No, I think that they will get down under $50/barrel again in six to eight months. I am hopeful that this new plateau for oil prices will be enough to get things moving in a more active direction for alternative energy sources.

It's been a while since I've seen estimates as to the oil price point for that to happen, but it must be in the $60-70 range.

[montebianco]

Do you think Katrina might cause oil prices to collapse?

I don't.

An economic collapse could occur if politicians decide to allocate resources based on woo-woo theories rather than allowing market forces to do the job. The calls in this thread for governments to do something about a perceived oil problem scare me a lot more than anything anyone has said about the amount of oil in the world...

[montebianco]

No, I think that they will get down under $50/barrel again in six to eight months. I am hopeful that this new plateau for oil prices will be enough to get things moving in a more active direction for alternative energy sources.

It's been a while since I've seen estimates as to the oil price point for that to happen, but it must be in the $60-70 range.

I don't think the search for alternative energy sources is a discrete event that happens above a particular price but not below. Such a search has been going on for years. It will go on more vigorously if the price is higher.

[sakuraba]

What could be some of the consequences of the collapse of oil prices? How bad could it affect the world's economy?

According to some writers, one of the effects could be a Malthusian catastrophe:

Application to Energy Consumption
Another way of applying the Malthusian theory is to substitute sources of energy for food and energy consumption for population. (Since modern food production is energy intensive, this is not a big jump. Most of the criteria for applying the theory are still satisfied.) Since energy consumption is increasing much faster than population and most of our energy comes from polluting and non-renewable sources, the catastrophe appears more imminent, though perhaps not as certain, than when considering food and population.

See two articles on energy and population in Physics Today, November 2004, and following letters to the editor.

The most alarming aspect of this is pollution, as it appears possible that during the period when world population is declining due to shortages and crowding, pollution may be ignored by desperate, starving people to the point where the Earth becomes uninhabitable.

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

They mention that oil is irreplaceable since we don't have any other cheap fuel for transportation of goods and it would take decades to make new vehicles and base an economy on other kind of energy. Oil is used in agriculture too for some chemicals and plastic production uses oil. the economy will collapse. Most of our products need oil and without oil the crisis of enrgy will bring around and economi collapse that will unleash a malthusian catastrophe.

[montebianco]

the economy will collapse.

I keep hearing this. I don't see any evidence that it is true.

As others in this thread have pointed out, there are centuries worth of fossil fuels out there at current rates of consumption. The shortage is not of oil; it is of cheap oil.

As others in this thread have pointed out, market forces will cause the world to adapt. If oil becomes scarce, its price rises, providing a strong incentive for conservation (already happening - in the US, for example, energy consumption per unit of real GDP is half what it was 30 years ago, although we must take into account the relative decline in manufacturing in the US when interpreting this statistic) and for development of alternative sources (also already happening). Increases in the price of energy will also put severe pressure on governments which subsidize fuel, perhaps forcing them to end this practice. In that case, people in those countries will have a greater incentive to conserve than they do now. If the price of energy goes up more, all of these things will take place faster.

Most of our products need oil and without oil the crisis of enrgy will bring around and economi collapse that will unleash a malthusian catastrophe.

Let's get specific here. How much do you think the price of energy will increase in the coming decades? Why do you think an increase of that magnitude will lead to economic collapse and malthusian catastrophe?

The most likely road to catastrophe I can see is if people pressure governments into adopting policies based on hysteria. If, instead, they simply allow market forces to work, then as a resource becomes scarce, price pressure will provide a powerful incentive for individuals and corporations to reduce consumption and develop alternative supplies.

[sakuraba]

I keep hearing this. I don't see any evidence that it is true.

As others in this thread have pointed out, there are centuries worth of fossil fuels out there at current rates of consumption. The shortage is not of oil; it is of cheap oil.

As others in this thread have pointed out, market forces will cause the world to adapt. If oil becomes scarce, its price rises, providing a strong incentive for conservation (already happening - in the US, for example, energy consumption per unit of real GDP is half what it was 30 years ago, although we must take into account the relative decline in manufacturing in the US when interpreting this statistic) and for development of alternative sources (also already happening). Increases in the price of energy will also put severe pressure on governments which subsidize fuel, perhaps forcing them to end this practice. In that case, people in those countries will have a greater incentive to conserve than they do now. If the price of energy goes up more, all of these things will take place faster.



Let's get specific here. How much do you think the price of energy will increase in the coming decades? Why do you think an increase of that magnitude will lead to economic collapse and malthusian catastrophe?

The most likely road to catastrophe I can see is if people pressure governments into adopting policies based on hysteria. If, instead, they simply allow market forces to work, then as a resource becomes scarce, price pressure will provide a powerful incentive for individuals and corporations to reduce consumption and develop alternative supplies.


We can't conserve much oil. We need oil for things such as food production and essential materials such as plastic. We don't have any toher kind of fuel for transportation. And even if we had it, it would take us many years to develop enough vehicles based on it to adapt the conomy to it.

According to some writers, it will soon be 100 dollars a barrel and it should get more expensive in the coming years.

You mention that we still have centuries of fossil fuel although no cheap oil. can you post the source of that info? I want it for discussion in other forums.

[montebianco]

We can't conserve much oil.

As the price goes up, people can and will.

We need oil for things such as food production and essential materials such as plastic.

There are substitute sources of energy, and substitute materials. They might be more expensive, and the substitute materials may be less suitable for some purposes, but they exist.

We don't have any toher kind of fuel for transportation.

I don't know where you live, but I live in the US. Over the weekend (it's a holiday here) I went to an event where my wife and I were the only people with a passenger car, everyone else had vehicles at least twice the size of ours. And many Europeans or Asians would consider what we're driving to be quite large. Oil use for transportation could be cut dramatically if people were simply to drive smaller vehicles. They could also drive less. They could take public transportation instead of personal autos. They could take local trips for holiday inside of flying between continents. How high would the price of oil have to rise to get them to do this? Well, some are doing these things already. If the price goes up more, more will do so...

And even if we had it, it would take us many years to develop enough vehicles based on it to adapt the conomy to it.

Why would it take many years? If the price of oil keeps going up, that provides a pretty strong incentive to develop alternative technologies. Look, for example, at how quickly the US and the European countries geared up production of tanks, airplanes, ships, etc. during the second world war. If the incentive is strong enough, things can happen pretty quickly...

According to some writers, it will soon be 100 dollars a barrel

It might be. There is also a "cheap oil" school of thought. We'll find out who is right.

and it should get more expensive in the coming years.

How high does it have to be to result in the predicted economic collapse?

You mention that we still have centuries of fossil fuel although no cheap oil. can you post the source of that info? I want it for discussion in other forums.

Let me do some digging. There are huge tar fields in Canada and in the US, I believe they have several times the oil reserves of Saudi Arabia. Even when current light crude oil fields are said to be "depleted," it means they are economically depleted, that is, there is still a lot of oil in the field, but it is not economically viable to extract it. If the price goes up, it may become economically viable to increase the proportion of oil taken from an oil field. There are huge coal reserves. I'll see if I can find some statistics on this. Although there might be people here who have them at their fingertips. I personally suspect environmental considerations will limit our use of fossil fuels more than lack of supply.

If some of the things I'm saying sound familiar, we have discussed this at http://illuminati-r-us.cylan.net/Forums, where I am Khrushchev's Other Shoe.

[Van Rijn]

You mention that we still have centuries of fossil fuel although no cheap oil. can you post the source of that info? I want it for discussion in other forums.

Along with the coal and tar sands mentioned above, google on "oil shale" and "methane hydrates." Also google on "synfuel" - in the '70s, there was serious talk about building synfuel plants for liquid fuel production from coal, but economics killed them. The key issues for fossil fuel production will be environmental concerns and relative economics. But there are plenty of fossil fuels and there is plenty of energy in other forms that are cleaner (nuclear, for example) so there is no reason to expect a collapse.

[tylerjord]

I've been studying this problem for years now, if you want to hear the best arguements for peak oil and our energy problems in general, you don't have to pay a cent. The retired Professor of Physics from the University of Colorado in Boulder examines the arithmetic of steady growth, continued over modest periods of time, in a finite environment. These concepts are applied to populations and to fossil fuels such as petroleum and coal. -but are equally applicable to fission. -here are the links:

streaming vid:
http://media.globalpublicmedia.com/RAM/2005/08/AlbertBartlett.ram

streaming audio:
http://media.globalpublicmedia.com/RAM/2005/08/Bartlett.ram

download the mp3:
http://media.globalpublicmedia.com/RM/2005/08/Bartlett.mp3

And for those who know how to use ed2k:
ed2k://|file|Arithmetic,.Population.&.Energy.(Environmental.Damage,.Energy.Crisis).(Dr. .Albert.A..Bartlett.lecture).(1994).avi|420093952| 58ED11A1CD4D19CD4628331AFBBDC09A|/


Nuclear fission power isn't a good idea for more than reasons given by Dr. Bartlett in the above links. The simple theory of 'Murphy' that "within complex systems the possibility of something going wrong increases, perhaps not merely linearly, with the complexity" is something that must be taken very seriously given the consequences of nuclear failure.

Further, sometimes what goes wrong is completely outside what can be predicted and the consequences for such things are a nightmare -for example, in India researchers have been developing breeder reactor technology -very important if we want to get every last drop of power out of our precious nuclear fuel. However during the course of their rigorous and intensive engineering they failed to understand the threat of the possibility of a tsunami. . .what does a tsunami have to do with breeder reactors you ask? Simple, they were in the process of building their facility on the coast when the December 2004 tsunami hit Indonesia. While the facility was not badly damaged, if it had been operational and the wave had come from a different angle, the tsunami would have sparked a global catastrophe.

The problem with fission power is that it is simply too complex and the materials too hazardous. The cost involved in maintaining the bureaucracy to contain the hazard has to be factored in as well. . .and if that beuracracy crumbles what happens then. . .anyone remember chernobyl? Guess what?, Chernobyl is a real threat to many people even today. The core is still red-hot and it is thought by some researchers that it may be consolidating underneath all that concrete. Any physicists here want to explain what happens when you bring too much high grade ore together in one mass lump? BOOOOOOOOM Chernobyl II

Let's get real about nuclear power, it's history speaks for itself -and it isn't merely a failure of humanity or science to deal with it -it is a problem of bureaucratic complexity and and the underlying toxicity of what lies inside. If the USA can't protect the Pentagon from a jetliner being flown into it, how can any country protect a nuclear facility from a handful of fanatics doing the same?

And please let's not go the route of Stalin, Hitler, and Mao. . .to protect a temporary solution to our energy problems.

"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." -Benjamin Franklin

To sum up: Nuclear Fission Power -Let's not go there.

What are the solutions?

Well, vastly decreasing one's energy footprint is the biggest thing any of us can do -the USA contains around 6% of the global population yet uses 25% of the energy -and this isn't a criticism of Americans - I'm only stating the enourmous opportunity every American has to actually do something positive to give all of us more time to work out reasonable solutions.

Wind power will not power bulldozers, but it can power many small appliances and they are sustainable.

Growing at least some of your own food is a practical and useful way of reducing one's energy needs -and this doesn't have to be a single person endeavor, community gardens are springing up everywhere in the world now.

Decentralization can help dramatically in reducing costs by bringing people to live closer to the resources that sustain them, thus using less energy to transport those resources.

Large cities will become things of the past. As energy prices increase the taxes needed to pay for the energy needed to sustain large centralised infrastructure will become intolerable to those that have to pay them.

Smaller local communities will return as the normal way of living and, fortunately, the internet will allow those of us with common interests, e.g. 'astronomy', to maintain connections in such a decentralised economy.

Certainly, local human labor will become more important as mass produced, packaged, & shipped machine labor becomes more costly with rising energy prices.

But all this doesn't have to be a bad. We're getting too fat eating at Mickey Dee's anyway! Our great grandparents lived more or less healthy lives as farmers, and, using contemporary ideas in farming (permaculture technologies) we can too.

Tyler

There's a theory (The Hubbert Curve) that the world will reach peak oil production within the next few years and it will be all down hill for civilization from there. Can this be correct ?

[tylerjord]

I don't.

An economic collapse could occur if politicians decide to allocate resources based on woo-woo theories rather than allowing market forces to do the job. The calls in this thread for governments to do something about a perceived oil problem scare me a lot more than anything anyone has said about the amount of oil in the world...


Michael Ruppert a Peak Oil writer states in a recent article on his website:

"What is not being discussed rationally by the mainstream media is Katrina’s impact on energy production. They don’t dare. By my calculations and those of oil energy expert Jan Lundberg, the United States has just lost between 20% and 25% of its energy supply. My projection is that it’s not coming back — at least not most of it. As a result of Katrina, Saudi Arabia has finally admitted that it cannot increase production. Many of us knew they’ve been lying for at least two years. The Energy Information Administration has just admitted that global demand has been outstripping supply for several months before Katrina. Nice time to start telling the truth. Nature is finally calling everybody’s bluff. The liars, deniers and mentally ill will be exposed soon enough and they will pay their own price."

Further in the article he writes:

"The Louisiana Offshore Oil Port (LOOP) is also much more seriously damaged than press accounts disclose. It’s here that supertankers from overseas (used to) offload. They have no place else to do it. They’re too big. I have seen video of LOOP damage which doesn’t look anything like the minimal damage that’s been reported. OK, so when the port is fixed what about the damaged pipelines running to shore? How many boat anchors have been dragged over them? In how many places are they ruptured, crushed or broken? As many as twenty offshore rigs have now been confirmed as adrift, capsized, listing or sunk. Each rig may have as many as eight wells. Where’s the money coming from to replace them? How long will that take? Bottom line: my assessment is that New Orleans is never going to be rebuilt and that US domestic oil production will never again reach pre-Katrina levels. The infrastructure is gone, the people are gone, and the US economy will be on life support very, very quickly. If people are griping at $5.00 gasoline what will they do when it’s $8.00? $10.00? Start shooting (the wrong people)? How difficult is it to rebuild in that kind of social climate? And if US oil production does not soon exceed pre-Katrina levels then the US economy is doomed anyway. It’s a catch-up game now. I think it’s quite likely that the Bush administration is responding so ineptly in part because it is in a complete crisis mode realizing that the entire United States is on the brink of collapse and there’s very little they can do about it."

The original article can be found here:
http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/090205_bet_life.shtml

Frankly, I think we have little time to dally about wondering if things are going to come down. We should begin taking practical steps to help ourselves whether it does or doesn't collapse the economy. Those that wish to remain pragmatic will, I'm sure, take their cars out for a drive and continue living in their dreamworld. . .it won't be until they are face to face with the stark reality of starvation that they will scream for change.

Does anyone here remember the parable of the grasshopper and the ants? The grasshopper was a pragmatist.

The grasshoppers will get what they deserve.

[Maha Vailo]

Interesting stuff, tylerjord (welcome to the board!), but will decentralized living, permaculture, and reliance on wind power really feed and power the world? I seriously doubt it. I feel that a more integrated approach to things, including nuclear power (fission and fusion) is probably the way to go. Different approaches will be taken in different places. What may work in the state of Georgia may not work for the country of Georgia, for instance. Like I've said before, just as it takes all kinds of people to make society function, it will take all kinds of energy to make the future world function.

And I seriously doubt people will abandon large cities to become farmers in the future. There's simply too many people for that to happen. Community gardens and inner-city plots, yes; large fields, no. Besides, a mass exodus to the countryside would hurt the environment more than just staying in the city. Besides, wouldn't we just burn more energy as a rural nation than as an urban? We'd still need to go to the city every so often to restock what we couldn't grow.

Nuclear powerplants (Western ones in particular) are more resilient than you think. I remeber an earthquake in California a few years back; there was a nuclear plant not far from the epicenter, and it didn't recieve a scratch. The Chernobyl accident was caused by a variety of factors, one of which was faulty and antiquated design. Such a power plant design would never be approved in the West. (Glom, I need you!)

And Katrina? Sure, it might take several months before the refineries are rebuilt/repaired, but when they are, the price of oil will go down again. And people will adapt to this temporary setback, just as they did to the "oil crisis" of the 1970's.

Energy is a very important issue, both now and in the future. However, our energy policies should (and probably will) be based on market forces rather than Chicken Little hysteria.

- Maha Vailo

[montebianco]

We should begin taking practical steps to help ourselves whether it does or doesn't collapse the economy.

People are taking those steps, because there is a price incentive to do so. Individuals are taking steps to conserve energy, and businesses are developing alternative sources. They're not doing these things because they're wise, because they're farsighted, because it is the right thing to do, because of any such reason. They're doing it because oil has become expensive. If it becomes much more expensive, then they'll do these things much more quickly.

You don't specify what the practical steps to which you refer are. The single biggest step that can be taken to create problems rather than solving them is to destroy the price incentive provided by a market mechanism. Take a look at Iran for an example w.r.t. oil. The country with the world's third largest reserves of oil is expected to become a net importer of energy, because the government decided to, um, "solve" their energy problem.

Those that wish to remain pragmatic will, I'm sure, take their cars out for a drive and continue living in their dreamworld. . .it won't be until they are face to face with the stark reality of starvation that they will scream for change.

They will, if you manage to destroy the price incentive, which seems to be the goal of many "solutions" to this problem. Is that part of your plan?

Does anyone here remember the parable of the grasshopper and the ants? The grasshopper was a pragmatist.

The grasshoppers will get what they deserve.

The world will run out of oil for the grasshoppers, but not for the ants? Interesting.

A market mechanism provides strong incentives to conserve a scarce resource and develop alternatives. Do you know a better way to get people to do these things? If so, please share them with us. If you don't, well, then I might have a few things to say about who is living in a dream world.

[montebianco]

Energy is a very important issue, both now and in the future. However, our energy policies should (and probably will) be based on market forces rather than Chicken Little hysteria.

MV, excellent point, I did not read your post before I wrote my last post above. I agree completely about the "should" part. I'm not so sure about the "probably will" part, especially when I read threads like this one...

Another point I have raised with sakuraba in another forum is, that the world is neither a net importer nor a net exporter of energy (apart from energy from the sun, which is free). So why should a high price of oil be bad for the global economy? Sure, it should be bad for the economy of energy importers, but it is good for the economy of energy exporters.

My biggest fear is that, in their zeal to "solve" a perceived problem, governments, egged on by their respective publics, will abandon the market mechanism, destroying any incentive to conserve a scarce resource or develop alternatives.

[Yorkshireman]

I think I'm going to bookmark post #129 and return to it in a year's time to see how the predictions in it have been borne out. :)

[Van Rijn]

I've been studying this problem for years now, if you want to hear the best arguements for peak oil and our energy problems in general, you don't have to pay a cent.


Me too. Back in the '70s, we were told that we were running out of oil soon and we would have to get used to a much poorer lifestyle by the mid to late '80s. I read many stories about the horrible dystopian future facing us. There were quite a few groups pushing this idea, but a few argued that it was an economic issue, that economic and technological forces would correct the short term economic dislocations. Of course, I didn't believe that. After all, the president, the newspapers - practically everyone - said the same thing.

After it turned out the doomsayers were wrong I studied the subject in some detail. I see no reason to think the situation is fundamentally different today - there will be temporary economic dislocations now and then, there will be a slow shift in energy production and use, but no collapse.



The problem with fission power is that it is simply too complex and the materials too hazardous. The cost involved in maintaining the bureaucracy to contain the hazard has to be factored in as well. . .and if that beuracracy crumbles what happens then. . .anyone remember chernobyl? Guess what?, Chernobyl is a real threat to many people even today. The core is still red-hot and it is thought by some researchers that it may be consolidating underneath all that concrete. Any physicists here want to explain what happens when you bring too much high grade ore together in one mass lump? BOOOOOOOOM Chernobyl II


A little hint: If any "expert" dismisses nuclear power by saying "remember Chernobyl!" it is a very strong indication they don't understand the subject. Chernobyl was a mixed use reactor designed to produce fuel for nuclear bombs as well as be used to produce power. The core was literally made of charcoal (carbon). Unlike conventional power reactors, the reaction rate went up as it lost water. There was, however, no nuclear explosion. Rather, pressure cracked the reactor shell and the carbon caught on fire. Since there was no containment shell (unlike Western power reactors) the material spread.

Despite that, in the worst nuclear accident in the world, in a reactor utterly different from commercial power reactors, the casualty count was small compared to the ongoing losses due to fossil fuel power.

If you are going to argue against nuclear power, at least remember to compare apples to apples. Chernobyl is an orange.

[sakuraba]

Okay, I have done some research into the tar sands and non-conventional oil
There are no big tar sands reserves in the US. While not a proven reserve of oil, tar sands represent as much as 66% of the world's deposits of oil, with 34% (286 km³ or 1.8 trillion barrels) in the Venezuelan Orinoco tar sands deposit, 32% (270 km³ or 1.7 trillion barrels) in Canada's Athabasca Tar Sands deposit and the remaining 33% (278 km³ or 1.75 trillion barrels) in conventional oil, much of it in Saudi Arabia and other Middle-Eastern countries.Critics argue that heavy water use makes scaled up production infeasible.

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

Oil shale seems to look good:

Oil shale is a general term applied to a group of fine black to dark brown shales rich enough in bituminous material (called kerogen) to yield petroleum upon distillation. The kerogen in oil shale can be converted to oil through the chemical process of pyrolysis. During pyrolysis the oil shale is heated to 450-500° C in the absence of air and the kerogen is converted to oil and separated out, a process called "retorting". Oil shale has also been burnt directly as a low-grade fuel. The United States Office of Naval Petroleum and Oil Shale Reserves estimates the world supply of oil shale at 1662 billion barrels of which 1200 billion barrels is in the United States [1]. This is comparable to the amount of reserves of conventional oil.

But:

Surface-mining of oil shale deposits (as would be done if the US reserves were to be exploited) has all the normal environmental effects from open-pit mining, the pre-refining stage to get crude oil generates ash, pipelines must be built to an oil refinery, and the waste rock must be disposed of, rock which is a known carcinogen. Oil shale rock expands by around 30% after processing due to a popcorn effect from the heating; this waste then needs disposal. Oil shale also needs water, which may be in short supply.

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

All forms of oil shale exploitation are very inefficient as the energy demands of blasting, transporting, crushing, heating the material, and then adding hydrogen, together with the safe disposal of huge quantities of waste material, are large.

Current extraction methods produce four times as much greenhouse gas as does conventional oil production.

Both tar sands and oil shale look as a possible option, but they would require a lot of energy and investment to be used. To exploit oil shale, the energy demands are large. tar sand would also require a great deal of expense. These options don't seem likely to help with the oil problemm int he long run. We would need time to solve the problems involved in using them.

[Van Rijn]

Both tar sands and oil shale look as a possible option, but they would require a lot of energy and investment to be used. To exploit oil shale, the energy demands are large. tar sand would also require a great deal of expense. These options don't seem likely to help with the oil problemm int he long run. We would need time to solve the problems involved in using them.

And, of course, we have time. There isn't an tank of oil in the ground that goes empty on a certain day, rather over time the cost of conventional light crude goes up. Canada is already producing oil from tar sands. The issue is cost, same with oil shale - though oil shale seems harder than tar sands. And then there is coal and synfuels, not to mention methane hydrates. Over time, I expect the use of oil to be phased out of one use after another - for example, there is little reason to use it to heat homes or run power plants when there are obvious alternatives.

[the_shaggy_one]

Hey! Look everyone! Thermal Depolymerization! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_depolymerization)

I know they're still testing it for commercial viability, but they're making light crude that can be turned into gasoline for about 80$ a barrel. As oil prices have been flirting with 70$ a barrel, I would think that in a few years, this process will be very, very viable. It still won't produce all the oil the US (or the world) needs, but it's a start...

[Grogs1]

Me too. Back in the '70s, we were told that we were running out of oil soon and we would have to get used to a much poorer lifestyle by the mid to late '80s. I read many stories about the horrible dystopian future facing us. There were quite a few groups pushing this idea, but a few argued that it was an economic issue, that economic and technological forces would correct the short term economic dislocations. Of course, I didn't believe that. After all, the president, the newspapers - practically everyone - said the same thing.

After it turned out the doomsayers were wrong I studied the subject in some detail. I see no reason to think the situation is fundamentally different today - there will be temporary economic dislocations now and then, there will be a slow shift in energy production and use, but no collapse.

I agree, I think 'the world is going to end/government is going to collapse' scenario is highly unlikely. A large spike, perhaps larger than what we're seeing now, is not too unlikely though. In a way, these spikes are good for us. At $1.00/gallon, our human nature causes us to become complacent. The price spikes are what motivate us to look for alternative energy sources and more efficient vehicles.


A little hint: If any "expert" dismisses nuclear power by saying "remember Chernobyl!" it is a very strong indication they don't understand the subject. Chernobyl was a mixed use reactor designed to produce fuel for nuclear bombs as well as be used to produce power. The core was literally made of charcoal (carbon). Unlike conventional power reactors, the reaction rate went up as it lost water. There was, however, no nuclear explosion. Rather, pressure cracked the reactor shell and the carbon caught on fire. Since there was no containment shell (unlike Western power reactors) the material spread.

Despite that, in the worst nuclear accident in the world, in a reactor utterly different from commercial power reactors, the casualty count was small compared to the ongoing losses due to fossil fuel power.

If you are going to argue against nuclear power, at least remember to compare apples to apples. Chernobyl is an orange.

As if the BOOOOOM! didn't give it away. Nuclear bombs exist because thousands of smart people spent billions of dollars figuring out how to build them. You don't just throw a bunch of Uranium or Plutonium together and get a bomb.

Chernobyl was a graphite moderated, light water (i.e. regular H2O) cooled reactor. It was a scaled up version of a smaller reactor, but the designers didn't change the geometry of the core. As a result, the reactor was overmoderated, which is a dangerous condition (all western reactor designs are undermoderated.) The operators were also conducting a test that involved running the reactor in a low power mode and shutting off the generators. They messed up and let the reactor power get too low, which allowed Xenon (a powerful neutron absorber) to build up in the reactor. To compensate for the Xenon poisoning, they had to pull the control rods completely out of the reactor and disable several automated safety systems, i.e., they were stupid.

Despite all of these problems, if Chernobyl had had a containment building like Western reactors, we may have never heard of it. Containment buildings typically have walls built of 3-4 feet of steel-reinforced concrete. Inside, a second wall of 6-12 inches of stainless steel provides additional protection. These buildings are designed to contain a steam explosion without releasing any radioactivity into the environment. At Three Mile Island, the containment held (and there was no steam explosion) so almost no radioactivity was released.

Another nice (though unintended) benefit of the containment buildings is that they're tough enough to withstand a hit from a modern jet airliner. This assumes that a terrorist can hit it in the first place. Reactor containment buildings are downright tiny and nondescript compared to the pentagon or the WTC. It would take an expert pilot who knew exactly what he was looking for to actually hit it.

[sakuraba]

How did Canada overcome these problems? Did they overcome the heavy water problem?

Major disadvantages of this process include the need for a huge local water source, the energy required to boil the water, a large waste water disposal problem, as well as potential environmental damage below the surface. Critics argue that heavy water use makes scaled up production infeasible.

Oil shale may not be useful with these problems:

Surface-mining of oil shale deposits (as would be done if the US reserves were to be exploited) has all the normal environmental effects from open-pit mining, the pre-refining stage to get crude oil generates ash, pipelines must be built to an oil refinery, and the waste rock must be disposed of, rock which is a known carcinogen. Oil shale rock expands by around 30% after processing due to a popcorn effect from the heating; this waste then needs disposal. Oil shale also needs water, which may be in short supply.

All forms of oil shale exploitation are very inefficient as the energy demands of blasting, transporting, crushing, heating the material, and then adding hydrogen, together with the safe disposal of huge quantities of waste material, are large.

Current extraction methods produce four times as much greenhouse gas as does conventional oil production.

During and following the oil crisis of the 1970’s, major oil companies, working on some of the richest oil shale deposits in the world in western United States, spent several billion dollars in various unsuccessful attempts to commercially extract shale oil.


It doesn't seem like tar sands or oil shale could produce emough for the global demand considering all their difficulties and that the end of cheap oil would require them to meet the demands of the whole world.

[blueshift]

As we speak there are labor riots in China and have been for years. America's labor movement is slowly coming to the grips of the need for globalizing in order to survive. This raises a question.

What would happen if the buying power of every worker on the planet matched that of the Teamsters? How much would gas be then? It would clearly go through the roof...Yet, the demand on particle physics and chemistry to come up with alternatives to this present stone age energy sytem would be greater than ever.

The amount of fossil fuels available to provide that many cars and highways might not match demand at all..Bullet trains and mass transport systems' advancements might help a touch..for now..

For the very distant future I can only sense that the manipulation of neutrinos, it that is possible at all, would supply us with the futuristic needs that a rising standard of living would be demanding...

[Halcyon Dayz]

I'm pretty sure energy consumption can be decreased without hurting
the standard of living, just by being more efficient and less wasteful.

[sakuraba]

CNN current reports mention analysts expect oil to be 100 dollars a barrel soon, with situations similar to the 1970's likely. Other reports mention that this time oil might be peaking since there doesn't seem to be more projects to look for more oil.

[Yorkshireman]

Maybe it will make people look again at whether they really need that SUV that does 15 miles per gallon, or the 5-tonne Hummer they use to pick the kids up from school.

[montebianco]

Maybe it will make people look again at whether they really need that SUV that does 15 miles per gallon, or the 5-tonne Hummer they use to pick the kids up from school.

Quite possibly! And maybe they will consider how much insulation they need in their homes, how low they set the air conditioner in summer and how high they set the heat in winter. And maybe businesses will invest in energy-saving processes that are uneconomical at a lower price of oil.

That's the point that often seems to get missed here. There's enormous scope for conservation, provided there is a price incentive to do so...

[Van Rijn]

That's the point that often seems to get missed here. There's enormous scope for conservation, provided there is a price incentive to do so...

Funny how that works, isn't it? On one side, previously uneconomic sources become available. Interest in finding other sources or substitution increases and new technology to access previously impractical sources are developed. On the other side, previously economic uses become uneconomc and use and habits change.

[Chuck]

We could switch back to external combustion engines and burn woo-woo books to power steam engines. There would be no shortage of fuel.

[genebujold]

There's a theory (The Hubbert Curve) that the world will reach peak oil production within the next few years and it will be all down hill for civilization from there. Can this be correct ?


Actually, around 2017, then all downhill from there until around 2045, when all known, forecast, and predicted (unknown, unforcast) oil supplies run dry.

Please pray for nuclear, buddy, because OIL aint.

[Van Rijn]

If somebody predicts a sharp cutoff, when it should be obvious there isn't a tank in the ground, predicts the amount of unknown oil, and clearly isn't taking alternate sources into account, I wouldn't take their predictions terribly seriously.

[sakuraba]

Oil prices have been mentioned in CNN as more likely to collapse once they reach 100 dollars a barrel. Would this cause the economy to go to a recesson? What could the collapse of oil prices cause?

[genebujold]

There's a theory (The Hubbert Curve) that the world will reach peak oil production within the next few years and it will be all down hill for civilization from there. Can this be correct ?

Don't know about the Hubbert Curve, but in 1999, I researched the known data with respect to current and projected usage rates for oil and natural gas, as well as current, suspected, and projected future tappable reserves.

The source: The U.S. Department of Energy.

The results:

1. We run out of natural gas, world-wide, around 2017.

2. We run out of oil, world-wide, around 2045.

Now, folks!

1. First, you geologists take the time to confirm my preliminary information.

2. Second, you nuclear (fusion) scientists please figure out how we're going to weather the next 70-year bi-fold hump, keeping in mind we're already feeling the beginning of the first bump!

[montebianco]

Oil prices have been mentioned in CNN as more likely to collapse once they reach 100 dollars a barrel. Would this cause the economy to go to a recesson? What could the collapse of oil prices cause?

I think the way you have to think about this is, what causes the change in oil prices? A change in oil prices is a response to changes in supply or demand, and it is those things which cause other changes in the economy, not the oil price per se.

I didn't see the CNN report, so I'm not sure what their argument was. But oil prices could fall either because, at the current price, consumers of oil will demand less in the future than they do now, or because suppliers of oil will supply more in the future than they do now.

An increase in the supply could come about through restoration of supplies disrupted because of the recent hurricane, increases in other production (e.g., suppose that suppliers would like to increase their production in response to recent price increases, but it takes some time to do so), or maybe things like, in the longer term, discovery of new oil deposits, or improvements in technology which makes extraction of oil from current deposits more efficient.

A decrease in the demand could come about for several reasons also. The recent increase in prices might drive people to conservation measures which take some time to take effect. Or there could be an economic slowdown or recession (caused by any one of a number of factors) which reduces demand for oil.

It's not clear why an increase in the supply would cause a recession; the types of things listed above fall into the category of good economic news, not bad economic news. A decrease in demand could indeed be associated with recession, but the decline in price is a consequence of the recession, not a cause.

[Melusine]

Here is a site completely dedicated to the Oil depletion problem. What do you think of it? It has lots of links:

http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/Introduction.html
At that link they advertise the documentary The End of Suburbia: Oil Depletion and the Collapse of the American Dream (http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/EndofSuburbia.html)(synopsis and reviews at link). The Museum of Fine Arts in Houston is showing it this Wednesday at 7:00 pm and having Matthew Simmons as guest speaker. It will be interesting if there is some Q&A time and to see what kind of crowd it draws. If you live in the Houston area, it may be interesting to check out--it's only $6.00.


Guest speaker: MFAH Trustee Matthew R. Simmons, president of Simmons & Company International

Is the "American Dream" no longer sustainable? The idyllic suburban lifestyle that emerged after WWII faces serious challenges in the 21st century, as global demand for fossil fuels begins to outstrip supply. With brutal honesty and a touch of irony, this rousing documentary dares to speculate about how suburbanites will react to skyrocketing energy prices forecasted by some scientists and policy makers.

"Perhaps the most compelling expert on hand, Matthew Simmons, chair of the largest energy investment bank in the world, puts the case against suburbia very eloquently: ´Everything in society we cherish ended when the [August 2003] blackout came. [That was] a fire drill for how important energy actually is, but people didn´t get it." —Toronto Star

Matthew R. Simmons is the author of Twilight in the Desert: The Coming Saudi Oil Shock and the World Economy.
http://www.mfah.org/main.asp?target=films&par1=1&par2=1&par3=514

edit/fix link

[dougreed]

hi, I saw an ad on TV from BP, it asked the question 'whats going to happen when we run out of oil, what is being done..' - well it seems the good folks at BP said their answer is to "increase the natural gas production" - see it's all taken care of! we can all rest peacefully now! thanks BP!

[Maha Vailo]

Technically "natural gas" can never run out. If economically viable underground sources run dry, there's always methane from decaying organic matter.

Hmmmm...would this mean that in the future, people would have biodigesters in their backyards instead of septic tanks? It sounds like a far more sanitary and appealing means of sewage disposal than a septic tank.

- Maha "methane happens" Vailo

[Van Rijn]

Technically "natural gas" can never run out. If economically viable underground sources run dry, there's always methane from decaying organic matter.


And there is the possibility of methane hydrates. (http://www.ornl.gov/info/reporter/no16/methane.htm)

Methane hydrate isn't a familiar term to most, but it is gaining popularity in the energy sector. In the realm of energy R&D, methane hydrates are being evaluated as a potential fuel for the future. Some believe there is enough methane in the form of hydrates (methane locked in ice) to supply energy for hundreds, maybe thousands, of years.

I'm quite convinced we will move away from fossil fuels for environmental reasons long before they cease to be a viable energy source. Still, I hope we get over the anti-nuclear hysteria sooner rather than later.

[genebujold]

wood Achohol
biodeisel
simple sugur bio mechanical
carbon chain production

these are all could easiley replace current fuels

Except for the SLIGHT problem that it took mother earth millions of years to convert solar energy into the oil, biomass, carbon chain production to provide the fuel which our civilization will have exhausted in 100 years.

That's throughout the planet. Energy is simply not sustainable on a solar-based economy (oil, sugar, alcohol, carbon, etc.).

WE USE WAY TOO MUCH.

[genebujold]

wood Achohol
biodeisel
simple sugur bio mechanical
carbon chain production

these are all could easiley replace current fuels

Except for the SLIGHT problem that it took mother earth millions of years to convert solar energy into the oil, biomass, carbon chain production to provide the fuel which our civilization will have exhausted in 100 years.

That's throughout the planet. Energy is simply not sustainable on a solar-based economy (oil, sugar, alcohol, carbon, etc.).

WE USE WAY TOO MUCH.

There's nothing wrong with that - it's just that we've GOT to stop wasting our time thinking about "solar, corn, alcohol, wind, geothermal, hydroelectric, tidal" etc all of which will NEVER come close to supplying our energy requirements!

Folks - pull your heads out. Add 'em all up and we're still way short. We need NUCLEAR, people, or we're back in the stone age some where between 2017 and 2045.

Your choice. Make it a good one.

[The Supreme Canuck]

I'd say that there are three sustainable, environmentally friendly, useful means to generate power. Hydro (including tidal), geothermal, and nuclear (fission and fusion). The problem is that we're running out of places for hydro plants, and places for geothermal plants are scarce.

So. Nuclear is the way to go.

[tylerjord]

Interesting stuff, tylerjord (welcome to the board!), but will decentralized living, permaculture, and reliance on wind power really feed and power the world? I seriously doubt it.


No, I don't think it will feed and power the world. I don't think the world will remain in it's current high energy 'mode'. Further, I don't think that anyone's opinion on the matter will make any difference. Physics is physics. The sky isn't falling. . .the EASY energy IS being depleted. There will be a COST to pay. As the old saying goes. . . 'take what you want, and then pay for it'. Well we've been taking for a long time. Our global population has grown vast because of we've been able to 'fix' nitrogen cheaply. The bill collector will soon call.


I feel that a more integrated approach to things, including nuclear power (fission and fusion) is probably the way to go.


As I've already stated, fission is far too dangerous a technology for a people who have not mastered themselves. I'm not really that worried about the fact that many people will think it's a good idea, as it will take too long to plan and build them -the economic tsunami is already approaching.

Most people who do not understand that an economy is built on energy, not paper dollars, will advocate a new 'New Deal' to re-build the economy, but the physics of the world is far different from that era -there simply isn't enough energy available to maintain the current scale of waste that occurs day in and day out. Yet Americans have been convinced for so long that they deserve such energy largess. . .well, I think we are in for interesting times.


Different approaches will be taken in different places. What may work in the state of Georgia may not work for the country of Georgia, for instance. Like I've said before, just as it takes all kinds of people to make society function, it will take all kinds of energy to make the future world function.

And I seriously doubt people will abandon large cities to become farmers in the future. There's simply too many people for that to happen.



I agree. I didn't post my suggestion of a decentralized lifestyle thinking that everyone would do it. . .only in the hope that a few more reasoned people might consider the possibility and act. Most of those that live in cities, I think, are doomed.


Community gardens and inner-city plots, yes; large fields, no. Besides, a mass exodus to the countryside would hurt the environment more than just staying in the city. Besides, wouldn't we just burn more energy as a rural nation than as an urban? We'd still need to go to the city every so often to restock what we couldn't grow.


At current population levels, I agree, the rural environment would be endangered with a mass exodus. . .but that isn't what will happen. As for food, smaller towns will become trading zones for farmers, as they were in the past when we were not using energy unsustainably.



Nuclear powerplants (Western ones in particular) are more resilient than you think. I remeber an earthquake in California a few years back; there was a nuclear plant not far from the epicenter, and it didn't recieve a scratch. The Chernobyl accident was caused by a variety of factors, one of which was faulty and antiquated design. Such a power plant design would never be approved in the West. (Glom, I need you!)


So, in your opinion, fission plants can be made that will never-ever catastrophically collapse? Further, can you promise that politicians will always vote to do the right thing with the waste? Do you know what the current government is doing with depleted uranium? (a by-product of enrichment) Do you know the half-life of that stuff? And don't list the hand-ful of studies saying that it's safe -who did those studies!! (the fox is guarding the hen house).

Look, if the effects of fission reactors didn't find it's way all over the globe (as it does), I wouldn't mind if people on the other side of the globe put up fission plants, but you and nobody else can guarantee what someone else (some technician, future politician, terrorist etc.) might do.

It's one thing to have trust in science, it's a completely different thing to have faith in people.


And Katrina? Sure, it might take several months before the refineries are rebuilt/repaired, but when they are, the price of oil will go down again. And people will adapt to this temporary setback, just as they did to the "oil crisis" of the 1970's.

Energy is a very important issue, both now and in the future. However, our energy policies should (and probably will) be based on market forces rather than Chicken Little hysteria.

- Maha Vailo

Your failing is that you refuse to understand that as the resources are depleted the cost will go up, and this doesn't refer merely to the amount of dollars that you will pay, this means that those at the bottom and the middle of the economy will suffer greatly (many to the point of expiration) as they will not be able to afford to live in the energy depleted economy. Read or listen to Dr. Bartlett! Professor of Physics at Boulder Colorado. Get a grasp on what exponential growth means.

streaming vid:
http://media.globalpublicmedia.com/RAM/2005/08/AlbertBartlett.ram

streaming audio:
http://media.globalpublicmedia.com/RAM/2005/08/Bartlett.ram

download the mp3:
http://media.globalpublicmedia.com/RM/2005/08/Bartlett.mp3

And for those who know how to use ed2k:
ed2k://|file|Arithmetic,.Population.&.Energy.(Environmental.Damage,.Energy.Crisis).(Dr. .Albert.A..Bartlett.lecture).(1994).avi|420093952| 58ED11A1CD4D19CD4628331AFBBDC09A|/


Tyler

[tylerjord]

MV, excellent point, I did not read your post before I wrote my last post above. I agree completely about the "should" part. I'm not so sure about the "probably will" part, especially when I read threads like this one...

Another point I have raised with sakuraba in another forum is, that the world is neither a net importer nor a net exporter of energy (apart from energy from the sun, which is free). So why should a high price of oil be bad for the global economy? Sure, it should be bad for the economy of energy importers, but it is good for the economy of energy exporters.

My biggest fear is that, in their zeal to "solve" a perceived problem, governments, egged on by their respective publics, will abandon the market mechanism, destroying any incentive to conserve a scarce resource or develop alternatives.

The economy runs on energy not dollars. The important thing to understand about the price of oil is that it reflects the supply.

Peak oil doesn't merely mean that oil is more expensive, it means that there is a smaller and smaller supply of energy. Thus fewer and fewer people can have the same share. So who will take a smaller share? A show of hands for those willing to have less?. . .

In the end, a finite supply dictates to demand. The 'price' will keep going up until supply and demand can meet -Those at the bottom and middle will pay the cost - and I'm not talking dollars.

[tylerjord]

Okay, I have done some research into the tar sands and non-conventional oil
There are no big tar sands reserves in the US. While not a proven reserve of oil, tar sands represent as much as 66% of the world's deposits of oil, with 34% (286 km³ or 1.8 trillion barrels) in the Venezuelan Orinoco tar sands deposit, 32% (270 km³ or 1.7 trillion barrels) in Canada's Athabasca Tar Sands deposit and the remaining 33% (278 km³ or 1.75 trillion barrels) in conventional oil, much of it in Saudi Arabia and other Middle-Eastern countries.Critics argue that heavy water use makes scaled up production infeasible.

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

Oil shale seems to look good:

Oil shale is a general term applied to a group of fine black to dark brown shales rich enough in bituminous material (called kerogen) to yield petroleum upon distillation. The kerogen in oil shale can be converted to oil through the chemical process of pyrolysis. During pyrolysis the oil shale is heated to 450-500° C in the absence of air and the kerogen is converted to oil and separated out, a process called "retorting". Oil shale has also been burnt directly as a low-grade fuel. The United States Office of Naval Petroleum and Oil Shale Reserves estimates the world supply of oil shale at 1662 billion barrels of which 1200 billion barrels is in the United States [1]. This is comparable to the amount of reserves of conventional oil.

But:

Surface-mining of oil shale deposits (as would be done if the US reserves were to be exploited) has all the normal environmental effects from open-pit mining, the pre-refining stage to get crude oil generates ash, pipelines must be built to an oil refinery, and the waste rock must be disposed of, rock which is a known carcinogen. Oil shale rock expands by around 30% after processing due to a popcorn effect from the heating; this waste then needs disposal. Oil shale also needs water, which may be in short supply.

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

All forms of oil shale exploitation are very inefficient as the energy demands of blasting, transporting, crushing, heating the material, and then adding hydrogen, together with the safe disposal of huge quantities of waste material, are large.

Current extraction methods produce four times as much greenhouse gas as does conventional oil production.

Both tar sands and oil shale look as a possible option, but they would require a lot of energy and investment to be used. To exploit oil shale, the energy demands are large. tar sand would also require a great deal of expense. These options don't seem likely to help with the oil problemm int he long run. We would need time to solve the problems involved in using them.


Shale, Sands, Nuclear, Etc. . .even if you could get a decent amount of energy out, which you can't, you're still going to run out of 'cheap' energy within your lifetime. . .understand the exponential growth function! Again, Dr. Bartlett's links:

streaming vid:
http://media.globalpublicmedia.com/RAM/2005/08/AlbertBartlett.ram

streaming audio:
http://media.globalpublicmedia.com/RAM/2005/08/Bartlett.ram

download the mp3:
http://media.globalpublicmedia.com/RM/2005/08/Bartlett.mp3

And for those who know how to use ed2k:
ed2k://|file|Arithmetic,.Population.&.Energy.(Environmental.Damage,.Energy.Crisis).(Dr. .Albert.A..Bartlett.lecture).(1994).avi|420093952| 58ED11A1CD4D19CD4628331AFBBDC09A|/

[tylerjord]

Me too. Back in the '70s, we were told that we were running out of oil soon and we would have to get used to a much poorer lifestyle by the mid to late '80s. I read many stories about the horrible dystopian future facing us. There were quite a few groups pushing this idea, but a few argued that it was an economic issue, that economic and technological forces would correct the short term economic dislocations. Of course, I didn't believe that. After all, the president, the newspapers - practically everyone - said the same thing.

After it turned out the doomsayers were wrong I studied the subject in some detail. I see no reason to think the situation is fundamentally different today - there will be temporary economic dislocations now and then, there will be a slow shift in energy production and use, but no collapse.



Uh-huh, the truck missed you once, you're still alive -no point looking before you cross this time eh! You must have Aced statistics.


A little hint: If any "expert" dismisses nuclear power by saying "remember Chernobyl!" it is a very strong indication they don't understand the subject. Chernobyl was a mixed use reactor designed to produce fuel for nuclear bombs as well as be used to produce power. The core was literally made of charcoal (carbon). Unlike conventional power reactors, the reaction rate went up as it lost water. There was, however, no nuclear explosion. Rather, pressure cracked the reactor shell and the carbon caught on fire. Since there was no containment shell (unlike Western power reactors) the material spread.

Despite that, in the worst nuclear accident in the world, in a reactor utterly different from commercial power reactors, the casualty count was small compared to the ongoing losses due to fossil fuel power.

If you are going to argue against nuclear power, at least remember to compare apples to apples. Chernobyl is an orange.

Look, there were more reasons for Chernobyl failing than bad design -Russia has several reactors of that same design -and they are still operating! If it was only a design issue it wouldn't be a problem.

But it's not, it's a people issue. And you, nor no-one else can guarantee what other people will do -or fail to do. The problem isn't merely mastery over the technology it is master over ourselves. If everyone on this planet was a nuclear engineer and a concerned life-oriented person, then I'd say we only have to be worried about the technology -but that isn't the case.

To paraphrase Asimov - As our population continues to grow, the value of a human life continues to decrease.

Why all the suicide attacks in todays world? I think Asimov answered that question. If you want to live in a free society and have enough energy to live like there is a future, then two things must happen. First the population will undergo a big dieoff. Second we must look to space for our future. If you don't want to live in a free society or have enough energy to live life like there is a future, then we are still required to have a major population dieoff.

"It is not prudent to rely on science and technology alone to solve problems created by rapid population growth, wasteful resource consumption and harmful human practices."
--U.S. National Academy of Sciences and Royal Society of London, joint statement

So don't give me more 'information' about how nooklar energy is 'safe', it matters not one wit as a solution to our growth problem -which is the real problem. Energy depletion is a symptom, not a cause.

"The greatest shortcoming of the human race is our inability to understand the exponential function."
--Dr. Albert A. Bartlett, Emeritus Professor of Physics, University of Colorado; World Population Balance Board of Advisors

[tylerjord]

Don't know about the Hubbert Curve, but in 1999, I researched the known data with respect to current and projected usage rates for oil and natural gas, as well as current, suspected, and projected future tappable reserves.

The source: The U.S. Department of Energy.

The results:

1. We run out of natural gas, world-wide, around 2017.

2. We run out of oil, world-wide, around 2045.

Now, folks!

1. First, you geologists take the time to confirm my preliminary information.

2. Second, you nuclear (fusion) scientists please figure out how we're going to weather the next 70-year bi-fold hump, keeping in mind we're already feeling the beginning of the first bump!


Look, this is all 'curve fitting based on what we are told the reserves are. Yet most people that have been studying these figures for decades -like Hubbert himself did, like Dr. Bartlett has been - and the many others who have been studying it for the last decade -Jay Hanson, Colin Campbell, etc. They've pointed out that the estimates of reserves are always being changed -up or down, and so, to play it safe, they erred on the side of caution. Well the side of caution gives us a date around mid-2000 - I.e. NOW, not the next decade.

The short answer is yeah, fusion would be great, but if you want to survive, decrease your energy footprint now. Move as quickly as you can toward personal energy independence. Work to produce a tradable crop. Get out of the cities. Just in doing such you will be reducing your share of the energy drain and thus you'll be giving more time for the long term solutions -whatever you think they may be.

[tylerjord]

I'd say that there are three sustainable, environmentally friendly, useful means to generate power. Hydro (including tidal), geothermal, and nuclear (fission and fusion). The problem is that we're running out of places for hydro plants, and places for geothermal plants are scarce.

So. Nuclear is the way to go.

Not to be too contrary here, but first off, Hydro isn't environmentally friendly. The output of a dam releases a large amount of methane from decomposing materials at the bottom of the reservoir -and as you may be aware, methane is a much more powerful greenhouse gas than CO2.

Secondly, and I've made this point a few times now. . .how much energy will we have to produce for how many people? Until you settle the population issue, you've changed nothing. We are doubling about once every forty years! You think 6 billion people is a problem, just wait until 2040 when we have 12 billion! How many people can we continue to feed and cloth without destroying the foundations of our existence? You may want to argue that we just need to grow more slowly, but again, if you think that, then you miss the point that our growth is exponential, only ZERO growth will assure we remain with the CURRENT burden of people, which is STILL too many people.

"'Smart growth' destroys the environment. 'Dumb growth' destroys the environment. The only difference is that 'smart growth' does it with good taste. It's like booking passage on the Titanic. Whether you go first-class or steerage, the result is the same." -Dr. Albert A. Bartlett, Emeritus Professor of Physics, University of Colorado; World Population Balance Board of Advisors

Our population will stabilize, but I don't think it will be by choice.

[tylerjord]

Hey, I've a new link to Bartlett's video-talk, it's a quicktime movie file:

http://www.earthsociety.org/public_ftp/dr_albert_bartlett.mov

It is rather long at 150Mb, so a fast connection is critical to download.

[montebianco]

The important thing to understand about the price of oil is that it reflects the supply.

It reflects supply and demand, like anything else.

[montebianco]

Secondly, and I've made this point a few times now. . .how much energy will we have to produce for how many people? Until you settle the population issue, you've changed nothing. We are doubling about once every forty years! You think 6 billion people is a problem, just wait until 2040 when we have 12 billion! How many people can we continue to feed and cloth without destroying the foundations of our existence? You may want to argue that we just need to grow more slowly, but again, if you think that, then you miss the point that our growth is exponential, only ZERO growth will assure we remain with the CURRENT burden of people, which is STILL too many people.

Some of the population projection models in the last few years have shown world population peaking in the coming decades, and then declining thereafter. Which would also be exponential growth, but with a negative exponent.

Or maybe you prefer it like this:

Some of the population projection models in the last few years have shown world population PEAKING in the coming decades, and then DECLINING thereafter. Which would also be EXPONENTIAL growth, but with a NEGATIVE exponent.

[Van Rijn]

After it turned out the doomsayers were wrong I studied the subject in some detail. I see no reason to think the situation is fundamentally different today - there will be temporary economic dislocations now and then, there will be a slow shift in energy production and use, but no collapse.
Uh-huh, the truck missed you once, you're still alive -no point looking before you cross this time eh! You must have Aced statistics.

And, of course, you miss the point. There was no truck. The arguments in the '70s (and today) were based on a misunderstanding of economics, available resources, and technology.


Look, there were more reasons for Chernobyl failing than bad design -Russia has several reactors of that same design -and they are still operating! If it was only a design issue it wouldn't be a problem.

But it's not, it's a people issue. And you, nor no-one else can guarantee what other people will do -or fail to do. The problem isn't merely mastery over the technology it is master over ourselves.


So? Everything is a people issue. All technology, all portions of modern life. If that is your criteria, I suggest you go live in a cave. In this case, you were arguing against nuclear power based on Chernobyl, and as pointed out to you, this is not a conventional power reactor design, it is not used in other countries, and if it had a containment shell (as is standard in Western designs) we probably wouldn't have heard about it for years.

Even given that, the loss of life was minimal compared to what we live with using fossil fuels.


"The greatest shortcoming of the human race is our inability to understand the exponential function."
--Dr. Albert A. Bartlett, Emeritus Professor of Physics, University of Colorado; World Population Balance Board of Advisors

And I would add to that: "and all the applications thereof."

While population is still growing, the growth rate isn't as fast as it was predicted in decades past. It can even be a problem if the growth rate slows down too quickly. Interestingly, the growth rate seems to be closely tied to wealth. Wealthier societies have slower population growth rates. Wealthier societies can afford to clean up the environment. While population growth is a potential problem, there are also opportunities especially as more societies develop their infrastructures. With more educated people and more economic resources, there are more to look for solutions to problems and develop new concepts.

So, if you are going to consider population exponentials, you need to consider the factors that make them go in either direction. You also need to consider economic and technological exponentials.

[Van Rijn]

A few points from an earlier post:

So, in your opinion, fission plants can be made that will never-ever catastrophically collapse?

If you mean "not have a catastrophic accident." Yes. There are a number of approaches.


Further, can you promise that politicians will always vote to do the right thing with the waste?


No. Unfortunately, high level waste is still sitting around at nuclear power plants when there is a perfectly good high level waste depository in Nevada - but politics won't let anybody use it. Bush pushed it forward a bit, but we're still waiting for sane waste storage in the U.S. The good news is that the volume is so small that we can afford to get away with this for decades, unlike the wastes from fossil fuel plants.


Do you know what the current government is doing with depleted uranium? (a by-product of enrichment) Do you know the half-life of that stuff?


The half-life of U-238 is about four and a half billion years. You realize that a long half life is a good thing? Longer half life = lower activity. And that depleted uranium is less radioactive than natural uranium, because most of the U-235 has been removed?

Incidentally, do you know what the half life of Potassium 40 is? Which happens to be biologically active and is also a natural radioactive isotope?


Look, if the effects of fission reactors didn't find it's way all over the globe (as it does), I wouldn't mind if people on the other side of the globe put up fission plants,


Coal power plants put far more radioactive material into the air than nuclear plants - and a lot more nasty stuff too. Chernobyl was the only significant reactor release, and it wasn't a conventional power reactor.


but you and nobody else can guarantee what someone else (some technician, future politician, terrorist etc.) might do.


This is the "can you prove they are absolutely safe" argument. Of course, there are no absolutes, but there are far easier ways to hurt a lot of people than a nuclear power plant. They are extremely hard targets.

[sarongsong]

It [the price of oil] reflects supply and demand, like anything else.Enter Richard Branson:
Virgin plans oil refinery (http://finance.news.com.au/story/0,10166,16600216-31037,00.html)

[tylerjord]

And, of course, you miss the point. There was no truck. The arguments in the '70s (and today) were based on a misunderstanding of economics, available resources, and technology.


No you miss the point, you can never know beforehand if there is a truck or not - only hindsight can tell you such things for sure. So all one has to go on is the evidence presented and thus a computed 'probability', if you choose to ignore evidence, then you choose to ignore reality


So? Everything is a people issue. All technology, all portions of modern life. If that is your criteria, I suggest you go live in a cave. In this case, you were arguing against nuclear power based on Chernobyl, and as pointed out to you, this is not a conventional power reactor design, it is not used in other countries, and if it had a containment shell (as is standard in Western designs) we probably wouldn't have heard about it for years.


The cave isn't such a bad idea. I've a lot of sandstone cliff-face on my property and I've been using a pick to tunnel in -it's a lot of fun actually! Still, I don't have to abandon technology, merely the throw-away kind that is promoted in the cheap energy society of today.

Nuclear is the wrong way to go because the effects of a disaster are global. Not all technologies affect everyone on the globe (at least at this order of magnitude), so the risk of say 'building a trainline in kansas' isn't my concern. But nuclear plants are everyone's concern, no matter where you build them, we all must take responsibility for catastrophic consequences


Even given that, the loss of life was minimal compared to what we live with using fossil fuels.


You said before not to compare apples to oranges, maybe you are doing this? Maybe not. . .I'm unclear about what you mean -Perhaps some data would help.


And I would add to that: "and all the applications thereof."

While population is still growing, the growth rate isn't as fast as it was predicted in decades past. It can even be a problem if the growth rate slows down too quickly. Interestingly, the growth rate seems to be closely tied to wealth. Wealthier societies have slower population growth rates. Wealthier societies can afford to clean up the environment. While population growth is a potential problem, there are also opportunities especially as more societies develop their infrastructures. With more educated people and more economic resources, there are more to look for solutions to problems and develop new concepts.

So, if you are going to consider population exponentials, you need to consider the factors that make them go in either direction. You also need to consider economic and technological exponentials.


You need to go back to maths. I'm not going to argue exponential functions with someone wh clearly doesn't understand them. This is why I posted the links. Dr. Bartlett specifically addresses the points you bring up and shows why that kind of thinking is wrong. Again, here are the links:

"Arithmetic, population, & energy" a presentation by Dr. Albert Bartlett

Dr. Albert Bartlett, retired Professor of Physics from the University of Colorado in Boulder examines the arithmetic of steady growth, continued over modest periods of time, in a finite environment. These concepts are applied to populations and to fossil fuels such as petroleum and coal. -but are equally applicable to fissionable materials and any other finite energy source. -here are the links -I've added a new quicktime format link:

streaming realplayer vid:
<a href=http://media.globalpublicmedia.com/RAM/2005/08/AlbertBartlett.ram>http://media.globalpublicmedia.com/RAM/2005/08/AlbertBartlett.ram</a>

alternate - higher quality - quicktime video (streaming or downloadable):
<a href=http://www.earthsociety.org/public_ftp/dr_albert_bartlett.mov>http://www.earthsociety.org/public_ftp/dr_albert_bartlett.mov</a>

streaming realplayer audio:
<a href=http://media.globalpublicmedia.com/RAM/2005/08/Bartlett.ram>http://media.globalpublicmedia.com/RAM/2005/08/Bartlett.ram</a>

download the mp3:
<a href=http://media.globalpublicmedia.com/RM/2005/08/Bartlett.mp3>http://media.globalpublicmedia.com/RM/2005/08/Bartlett.mp3</a>

And for those who know how to use ed2k links:
ed2k://|file|Arithmetic,.Population.&.Energy.(Environmental.Damage,.Energy.Crisis).(Dr. .Albert.A..Bartlett.lecture).(1994).avi|420093952| 58ED11A1CD4D19CD4628331AFBBDC09A|/

[tylerjord]

Some of the population projection models in the last few years have shown world population peaking in the coming decades, and then declining thereafter. Which would also be exponential growth, but with a negative exponent.

Or maybe you prefer it like this:

Some of the population projection models in the last few years have shown world population PEAKING in the coming decades, and then DECLINING thereafter. Which would also be EXPONENTIAL growth, but with a NEGATIVE exponent.

Well from what I'm hearing about how quickly some of these wells are failing (due to the use of salt-water to induce higher rates of flow), peak oil may not be the smooth curve predicted by hubbert, it may be a rough and tumble cliff face. If so, and the evidence of such is mounting, that negative exponent will certainly be quite large. Which, of course is the point of my posts. I hope that science oriented people will take this threat seriously and do everything in their power to preserve themselves into the future! Scientists (true empiricists) will certainly be needed as we seek a new way forward.

[tylerjord]

A few points from an earlier post:


If you mean "not have a catastrophic accident." Yes. There are a number of approaches.


No. Unfortunately, high level waste is still sitting around at nuclear power plants when there is a perfectly good high level waste depository in Nevada - but politics won't let anybody use it. Bush pushed it forward a bit, but we're still waiting for sane waste storage in the U.S. The good news is that the volume is so small that we can afford to get away with this for decades, unlike the wastes from fossil fuel plants.


The half-life of U-238 is about four and a half billion years. You realize that a long half life is a good thing? Longer half life = lower activity. And that depleted uranium is less radioactive than natural uranium, because most of the U-235 has been removed?

Incidentally, do you know what the half life of Potassium 40 is? Which happens to be biologically active and is also a natural radioactive isotope?


Okay, now, I'm a degreed molecular biologist, and I've got to tell you that you are absolutely comparing apples to oranges here. the way the body deals with (and also utilizes) Potassium, and the way it deals with (and dosen't utilize) Uranium are Very Very different processes. And, as for a lower half life being a good thing, -ask a war vet whose body has been contaminated with this stuff - http://www.gulfwarvets.com/du7.htm

Try to tell him or her that it's the same as eating a few bananas and raisins (which are high in potassium).

The risks associated with DU are both chemical and radiological. A 1990 study prepared for the army by Science Applications International Corp said DU was "linked to cancer when exposures are internal, [and] chemical toxicity causing kidney damage". The US army's Environmental Policy Institute reported in 1995: "If DU enters the body, it has the potential to generate significant medical consequences". There are extensive reports from southern Iraq of stillbirths, birth defects, leukaemia and other cancers in children born since 1991.

The pentagon didn't like that study though, so they did a few more. . .finally they found some 'scientists' who would agree to their viewpoint, and that data is what they trumpet around.

As the half-life is so long (half a billion years, how many people are eventually going to be exposed to DU? The answer is all of us and all of our children and their children and their children. . .

These kinds of weapons are beyond the pale. Stop coming in here with half-baked research -you're not paying me to be your professor - do the research before you open your mouth.



Coal power plants put far more radioactive material into the air than nuclear plants - and a lot more nasty stuff too. Chernobyl was the only significant reactor release, and it wasn't a conventional power reactor.


Firstly, It's true that coal burning releases large amounts of Uranium and Thorium, but I'm not arguing in favor of coal, it is a bad thing and I don't want it. There are people advocating the burning of coal just to get the Uranium to put into nuclear reactors! This is a very dangerous path. http://www.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/rev26-34/text/colmain.html

Secondly, Chernobyl isn't done with yet. . .it's core is still hot and some think it may be consolidating. When can such a place be declared safe?

If I have a biomass reactor at my house and decide to decommision it, when might it be declared safe? Is a compost heap a global pollution problem into the future? Will my children have to be concerned with it? What about their children and their children?

When considering the probability of disaster, you have to consider for all times, to ignore what might happen in a year, a hundred years, a thousand years, is not only bad science, it's very dishonest.


This is the "can you prove they are absolutely safe" argument. Of course, there are no absolutes, but there are far easier ways to hurt a lot of people than a nuclear power plant. They are extremely hard targets.

Yeah, and so was the pentagon -it even had missle defense, which failed to work at the appropriate time to protect the building (and if you do your homework, you'll discover that the side the plane impacted was extremely hardened) - yet the plane still penetrated.

The real difference is that a reactor may go critical if it were by chance impacted at the right moment.

I'm not trying to 'prove' the absolutely safe argument - you make my point for me. I'm not against means that don't have vast long term global consequences.

Even that wonderful facility the US built to store all it's waste will not last as long as the waste -are you going to be around to MOVE it if ground water rises significantly?

How can I trust you, or anyone, who says they can do so. Could I trust you to drive a car to the airport? Sure, I could because, if you don't make it I can take a cab -no long term catastrophic consequences result from my trust in the latter. . . Understand the difference.

[kashi]

We may never run out of petroleum. As soon as we get signs the end is near at least for economical extraction, industry will shift and oil will continue to be used for certain chemicals for centuries to come, when oil will be far from central in the economy.

The issue is not whether or not we will run out. As soon as global production peaks, prices will rise exponentially assuming demand keeps rising. Production peaked in the US 10 years ago or thereabouts. Although global production may not have peaked yet, 2004 was the first year in which more oil was consumed than was discovered. If the trend of discovering less oil than we consume continues, we will peak as soon as current reserves are depleted. I don't think the economic implications of this are quite as dramatic as the woo woo doomsday theorists would have you believe, but it will certainly slow western economies such as the US and Australia which depend heavily on the cheap, abundant energy that oil provides.

To insulate our economies against rising oil prices, we need to not only find alternative energy sources, but also change the way we use energy. The dense cities of Europe and Japan are becoming far more appealing than the sprawling subrubs of America and Australia in this regard. The rate of adoption of hybrid technology in automobiles also needs to be sped up, and public transport spending quadrupled...

I have a website on this sort of stuff if you're interested (with more of an environmental flavour). Visit http://www.climatechange.com.au/

Cheers!

Kashi

[wylde99]

http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/

http://www.totse.com/en/politics/economic_documents/lifeaftertheoi172879.html

what do you guys think of this, do you think its all bull, if it is true, what do you think the worst will happen?

your thoughts

[Kristophe]

Civilization as we know it is coming to an end soon.


Concerned about how your location will fare the coming challenges? Should you stay where you are or move somewhere safer? Joel Skousen's book, Strategic Relocation will help make sure your decisions are informed with facts


They're selling something. Shouldn't that make you immediately skeptical?

[The Supreme Canuck]

And, as for a lower half life being a good thing, -ask a war vet whose body has been contaminated with this stuff - http://www.gulfwarvets.com/du7.htm

Well, the thing is, a lower half life is better. Say, for instance, that an area is contaminated with a substance with a half life of 15 minutes. The area will be highly radioactive for a short time (it depends on the amount of substance present), but then will quickly cease to be radioactive as the substance has broken down into stable, non-radioactive isotopes. Certainly it isn't good to be in the area before the substance has broken down, but with such a substance there is little chance of long-term contamination (this again depends on the amount of the substance in the area).

Yeah, and so was the pentagon -it even had missle defense, which failed to work at the appropriate time to protect the building (and if you do your homework, you'll discover that the side the plane impacted was extremely hardened) - yet the plane still penetrated.

But the Pentagon is an office building. Nuclear containment vessels are solid concrete. They are designed to not be ruptured. I have seen video of an F-4 crashing into a containment vessel with no damage being done to the structure. I'll find a link to it later if you'd like (I have class in 30 minutes, sorry).

The real difference is that a reactor may go critical if it were by chance impacted at the right moment.

Actually, no. This is taken into consideration during the design process. For instance, CANDU reactors all have core geometries that do not allow for any reaction if they are in any way distorted from the correct shape. Also, as they use heavy water as both a moderator and coolant, any loss of coolant accident will result in the reaction immediately stopping rather than the reactor overheating. Designers are aware of the risks involved. They design reactors with these risks in mind.

[Monique]

Too Late!! "Civilization as we know it" already come to end midnight 31/12/1999 ;)

[MrClean]

You mean 21/12/2000 don't you? Please tell me that on a scientific board we have folks that have mistake 1999 for the end of the century/millennium?

15 years from now there will be more known oil deposits than there are now. Hopefully that will be little factor and we'll be fusin something else.

[Matherly]

Actually, I think Monique was refering to the Millenium bug / Y2K programming flaw

But I could be wrong

[Peptron]

That site is odd in that it seems to equate oil with "ability to survive as a civilisation" or "ability to keep technology as advanced as it is".

I strongly doubt that the oil will suddently run out, and when it will do I also doubt that it will not be previsible. There are already quite a lot of alternatives to oil (or alternatives that are in the making), so that even when the world will be out of oil, nothing really bad will happen.

I think that running out of oil will be a better thing actually. Relying on non-renewable (in the short to long term) ressources as a form of energy for a long period of time is not the way to go. The site seems to see oil as "the thing to have" without putting much importance into the alternatives.

[Monique]

Actually, I think Monique was refering to the Millenium bug / Y2K programming flaw

But I could be wrong
Yes, you could be!!

But you are not ;)

[Van Rijn]

In answer to the OP: This is another Chicken Little story. It doesn't make a lot of sense.

[montebianco]

The issue is not whether or not we will run out. As soon as global production peaks, prices will rise exponentially assuming demand keeps rising.

I'm not real sure what you mean by demand continuing to rise. If you mean the demand curve rises, then I agree with that (if exponentially here just means a lot). If you assume the level of demand at the market price keeps rising, that can't happen if supply is declining (assuming, that is, that the market mechanism is allowed to operate).

To insulate our economies against rising oil prices, we need to not only find alternative energy sources, but also change the way we use energy. The dense cities of Europe and Japan are becoming far more appealing than the sprawling subrubs of America and Australia in this regard.

Agreed, and all of these things will happen as the price of oil rises. But I've got to take issue with this:

The rate of adoption of hybrid technology in automobiles also needs to be sped up, and public transport spending quadrupled...

Won't say much about public transport, but the reason hybrid technology has not been adopted faster is because it's not economically viable. Doing something (what do you have in mind - subsidy? regulation? something else?) to accelerate its adoption now therefore does not insulate the economy against the effect of rising energy costs, but exposes it to those effects.

I have a website on this sort of stuff if you're interested (with more of an environmental flavour). Visit http://www.climatechange.com.au/

I can get behind the environmental argument for doing something about oil a lot more easily than the diminishing supply argument.

[montebianco]

Well, I said this in another thread, and I'll say it here. I think bad policy (including bad policy which is alleged to "solve" the problem of oil depletion) has the potential to do far more damage than the depletion of oil...

[genebujold]

No chicken little story, folks. Given all known and potentially future, as yet undiscovered reserves, even those requiring new extraction techniques, we will run out of oil somewhere around the middle of this century.

I first heard about this around 1998, and didn't believe it either. A year or so later, however, I downloaded the information on oil reserves from various U.S. Government websites, ran the figures (current/project reserves, oil use curves vs increasing use of technology, etc.), and came up with pretty much the same numbers.

It's not just the fuel industry that will crash - it's the petrochemical industry as well. A great many things are made from oil!

[Kemal]

I don't think this particular situation is as dire as all that.

But I will say this: those survivalists in the hills stockpiling food waiting for the end of civilization don't seem quite as crazy after Katrina hit...

[genebujold]

I'd say that there are three sustainable, environmentally friendly, useful means to generate power. Hydro (including tidal), geothermal, and nuclear (fission and fusion). The problem is that we're running out of places for hydro plants, and places for geothermal plants are scarce.

So. Nuclear is the way to go.

Hydro - not NEARLY enough head of water in all the rivers in the world!

Geothermal - not NEARLY enough geothermal activity (tappable or predictable) in all the world!

Nuclear - definately the way to go, fission now, and fusion when perfected.

Which is why, despite the potential for abuse, I'm more than a bit perplexed at the administration's leveling charges against Iran. They've been cooperating with the international agencies' rules quite well on this.

I suspect it's because of the administration's hard position against N. Korea.

I also suspect the administration's push for the Moon (HE3) has something to do with it, too. Now the BIG question: Just where, exactly, are we on nuclear fusion capability?

[montebianco]

I don't think this particular situation is as dire as all that.

But I will say this: those survivalists in the hills stockpiling food waiting for the end of civilization don't seem quite as crazy after Katrina hit...

Those who think a crisis is coming have a very easy way to enrich themselves and provide incentives for others to defuse the crisis (assuming, of course, that they are correct). They can buy oil. They don't even have to buy physical oil, they can buy it in the futures market, that way it doesn't have to be stored. If done in sufficient quantities, drives up the price, provides incentives for conservation and development of new sources, and enriches the purchaser, provided the price continues to go up. If they're wrong, oh well...

[genebujold]

I don't think this particular situation is as dire as all that.

But I will say this: those survivalists in the hills stockpiling food waiting for the end of civilization don't seem quite as crazy after Katrina hit...

Ok, don't think that. However, I'm no survivalist.

I would recommend, however, you seek the information yourself and perform your own calculations before passing judgement. Took me about 2 hours.

Here's one lead, which contain a wealth of facts:

http://www.argent.fr/Microsoft_Word_-_TheOilAgeIsOverPressReadyInteriorPages_1_.pdf

Same thing, in HTML format:

http://64.233.183.104/search?q=cache:udrGW-C-1JYJ:www.argent.fr/Microsoft_Word_-_TheOilAgeIsOverPressReadyInteriorPages_1_.pdf+%22 Worldwide+oil+reserves%22+and+%22bbl%22+and+%22run +out+of+oil%22&hl=en

[Ilya]

But I will say this: those survivalists in the hills stockpiling food waiting for the end of civilization don't seem quite as crazy after Katrina hit...

You don't have to be a survivalist to live some place other than surrounded by water below sea level in a hurricane zone.

I would never have moved to New Orleans for that very reason.

I would never move to California either.

And for years before Sep. 2001 I expected a major terrorist attack in a major US city -- to the point that I would not work in downtown Boston. I do not claim to be a genius -- it was enough to look at what was going on in Middle East, listen to the railings against "Great Satan", and put two and two together.

[The Supreme Canuck]

Well, the ITER site has been chosen, so I'd say 40 years.

[GOURDHEAD]

That site is odd in that it seems to equate oil with "ability to survive as a civilisation" or "ability to keep technology as advanced as it is".

I strongly doubt that the oil will suddently run out, and when it will do I also doubt that it will not be previsible. There are already quite a lot of alternatives to oil (or alternatives that are in the making), so that even when the world will be out of oil, nothing really bad will happen.

I think that running out of oil will be a better thing actually. Relying on non-renewable (in the short to long term) ressources as a form of energy for a long period of time is not the way to go. The site seems to see oil as "the thing to have" without putting much importance into the alternatives.Do not discount that assertion lightly. Data from the US Department of Energy states that about 85% of energy usage is from fossil fuels which includes natural gas and coal as well as petroleum. Much of our transportation equipment is petroleum energy based. There is cost and time required to convert to other energy sources and the conversion itself costs energy. The world economy is energy based. There are few, if any, sources as efficient as natural gas and petroleum. Impacts on the production and distribution of fresh water and food can quickly lead to a level of strife and chaos unlike the world has ever seen.

Our current technology is not structured to provide renewable energy at the rate required. If we wait until the scarcity of petroleum is squeezing our economy to develop renewables, our task is more difficult and increases in that direction in a nonlinear fashion.

Isaiah was wise to chide us with: Why do the people imagine a vain thing; why do the nations rage furiously together?

[kashi]

I've just merged this thread ("oil depletion") with one called "the oil crash" since they were basically about the same thing. For the record, I think that www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net is doomsday crap of the y2k bug variety.

[montebianco]

Our current technology is not structured to provide renewable energy at the rate required. If we wait until the scarcity of petroleum is squeezing our economy to develop renewables, our task is more difficult and increases in that direction in a nonlinear fashion.

Very true, which is why it is good that oil costs money.

See my post above for how to save the world and become rich at the same time, provided the doomsday predictions are correct.

[Van Rijn]

Okay, now, I'm a degreed molecular biologist, and I've got to tell you that you are absolutely comparing apples to oranges here. the way the body deals with (and also utilizes) Potassium, and the way it deals with (and dosen't utilize) Uranium are Very Very different processes. And, as for a lower half life being a good thing, -ask a war vet whose body has been contaminated with this stuff - http://www.gulfwarvets.com/du7.htm

Try to tell him or her that it's the same as eating a few bananas and raisins (which are high in potassium).


I didn't say the physical process was identical. Radiological danger depends on type of radiation produced (primarily alpha, beta or gamma which affects tissue penetration), biological activity and half-life. Biologically active isotopes tend to be concentrated in tissue and therefore tend to pose more danger due to radiation at lower doses versus non-biologically active isotopes.

So: A shorter half-life means higher activity/more radiation, therefore as a general rule, more danger for the same amount of material (until it decays out, obviously), though affected by the type of radiation and biological activity (or lack of same).

Having said that, the end result is the same - causing damage that can lead to cancer. And potassium-40, though normally ingested in small amounts still accounts for a significant portion of our radiation dose.

My comment was in response to your question about the half-life of uranium. Many people seem to assume that a long half-life is significant. The point was that potassium-40, required for life, also has a long half-life. I'm not arguing that people should eat depleted uranium. However, the radioactivity of isotopes with half-lives in the billions of years is very low and depleted uranium is less radioactive than natural uranium.


The risks associated with DU are both chemical and radiological. A 1990 study prepared for the army by Science Applications International Corp said DU was "linked to cancer when exposures are internal, [and] chemical toxicity causing kidney damage".


Yes, it is somewhat radioactive. I don't recall arguing this. And it can cause heavy metal poisoning. Kidney damage is one common result. It is not unique in this respect.


As the half-life is so long (half a billion years, how many people are eventually going to be exposed to DU? The answer is all of us and all of our children and their children and their children. . .


More like four and half billion years. Low activity, remember? Of course, lead also causes heavy metal poisoning, is often used in battles and never decays (or at least, not until far, far after the sun goes red giant). Having said that ...


These kinds of weapons are beyond the pale. Stop coming in here with half-baked research -you're not paying me to be your professor - do the research before you open your mouth.


I don't recall talking about weapons. I was advocating nuclear power plants, and frankly, I'd like to keep that U-238 for fuel.


Firstly, It's true that coal burning releases large amounts of Uranium and Thorium, but I'm not arguing in favor of coal, it is a bad thing and I don't want it. There are people advocating the burning of coal just to get the Uranium to put into nuclear reactors! This is a very dangerous path. http://www.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/rev26-34/text/colmain.html


But that is where we get most of our electricity. Our practical electricity choices come down to, primarily, nuclear and coal. And nuclear is much safer than coal both in terms of radioactivity and other toxins.


Secondly, Chernobyl isn't done with yet. . .it's core is still hot and some think it may be consolidating. When can such a place be declared safe?


Yes, we already discussed Chernobyl, and noted that it still doesn't compare to the deaths due to conventional fossil fuel and it can't be compared to conventional nuclear power plants. So why do you keep bringing it up?


When considering the probability of disaster, you have to consider for all times, to ignore what might happen in a year, a hundred years, a thousand years, is not only bad science, it's very dishonest.


Yes, of course. We have to do that all the time. The issue is that you are treating nuclear power as a special case, but it isn't.


Yeah, and so was the pentagon -it even had missle defense, which failed to work at the appropriate time to protect the building (and if you do your homework, you'll discover that the side the plane impacted was extremely hardened) - yet the plane still penetrated.


It didn't have a reinforced concrete shell surrounding a thick high-strength steel shell. It was also a much larger target. Meanwhile outside of my city, we have large fuel tanks that could kill thousands, and have relatively minimal protection.


The real difference is that a reactor may go critical if it were by chance impacted at the right moment.


I hope a reactor would go critical when I want to start it! Reaching criticality just means there is a sustained nuclear chain reaction. If you're suggesting there could be a nuclear explosion, you're incorrect.


Even that wonderful facility the US built to store all it's waste will not last as long as the waste -are you going to be around to MOVE it if ground water rises significantly?


Most of the radioactivity will decay in 600 years. It will be placed half a mile underground in the middle of the desert, in bunkers. This is for such a small quantity of material that it can be kept at power plants for years. Meanwhile vast quantities of pollution from fossil plants go into the air, water, and ground daily.


How can I trust you, or anyone, who says they can do so. Could I trust you to drive a car to the airport? Sure, I could because, if you don't make it I can take a cab -no long term catastrophic consequences result from my trust in the latter. . . Understand the difference.

No. I see nuclear as the safest and most practical energy source we have available today.

[genebujold]

"No. I see nuclear as the safest and most practical energy source we have available today."

Bingo!

By all rights, comparison, and by far and large.

The only reason others fail to grasp this concept is because they're motivated by fear, rather than science, statistics, and a healthy dose of reality.

[GOURDHEAD]

Most of the radioactivity will decay in 600 years. It will be placed half a mile underground in the middle of the desert, in bunkers. This is for such a small quantity of material that it can be kept at power plants for years. Meanwhile vast quantities of pollution from fossil plants go into the air, water, and ground daily. No. I see nuclear as the safest and most practical energy source we have available today.Has anyone considered the deepest ocean trenches as repositories for nuclear waste? Will the stuff stay there or will it diffuse or be transported by currents, convection or otherwise, throughout the ocean?

[montebianco]

Has anyone considered the deepest ocean trenches as repositories for nuclear waste? Will the stuff stay there or will it diffuse or be transported by currents, convection or otherwise, throughout the ocean?

In the US Senate elections a while back, there was a 50/50 Republican/Democratic split, and a senator from Vermont then quit the Republican party, throwing effective control of the senate to the Democrats. When the Republicans regained control of the senate two years later, there were a lot of jokes about storing radioactive waste in Vermont. Or at least I think they were jokes...

[Grogs1]

Has anyone considered the deepest ocean trenches as repositories for nuclear waste? Will the stuff stay there or will it diffuse or be transported by currents, convection or otherwise, throughout the ocean?

The idea has been studied. What you want is a deep (1000m+) trench with a thick layer of silt that's been building up for millions of years at the bottom. You would then bury the radioactive waste maybe 25-50m deep into the layer of sediment at the bottom of the trench and it would form a protective shell around the nuclear waste. When the cask the material is stored in decays, be it in 100 or 10,000 years, the radioactive material would stay buried in the sediment, hopefully for millions of years.

Even if there were no technological hurdles to overcome to use this method (and there are!) I doubt anyone would seriously consider it. Most of the deep ocean trenches in the world are in international waters, so if one nation wanted to use it, they would have to convince the other nations of the world it was a good idea. That's unlikely to ever happen.

[The Supreme Canuck]

What you want to find is a subduction fault. Drop the casks near it, and wait a few hundred years for them to be pulled under.

[Van Rijn]

Has anyone considered the deepest ocean trenches as repositories for nuclear waste? Will the stuff stay there or will it diffuse or be transported by currents, convection or otherwise, throughout the ocean?

I know it has been looked at. I don't really see the point, though.

Currently in the U.S. we aren't reprocessing waste. The isotopes with the highest radioactivity are also the ones with the shortest half-life. If the waste were reprocessed to recover fuel, the reprocessed waste would be no more radioactive than natural uranium in 600 years. Without reprocessing, it is somewhat higher, it drops a bit slower, but still most of the radioactivity is gone in this time period.

The question is: What level of safety do you want? With fossil power, we can't afford to be this careful because there is too much waste. Even with Solar PV panels there is substantial chemical waste in the manufacturing process. There is no zero-risk option. But putting this stuff half a mile down in caskets under rock in a desert drops the risk far below the risk caused by other fuel related wastes.

[Ilya]

Currently in the U.S. we aren't reprocessing waste.
Which is moronic -- for reasons you just explained.

The question is: What level of safety do you want?
Unfortunately, the question that counts is: What level of safety does the largely uninformed, and easily scared American public wants? I would be happy with level of safety far less than EPA standards. By those standards, the entire city of St. Petersburg is a radioactive hazard. If the hospital I was born in, or the house where I spent my first 14 years were plopped anywhere in the United States, then in accordance with EPA regulations the area would have to be evacuated and men in Moon suits would foam the building, raze it, and cart the pieces to a radioactive waste storage facility. Yet I turned out perfectly healthy, as are my children.

Most people (everywhere) are woefully uninformed about radioactivity, and are terrible at risk-benefit analysis.

[montebianco]

Unfortunately, the question that counts is: What level of safety does the largely uninformed, and easily scared American public wants? I would be happy with level of safety far less than EPA standards. By those standards, the entire city of St. Petersburg is a radioactive hazard. If the hospital I was born in, or the house where I spent my first 14 years were plopped anywhere in the United States, then in accordance with EPA regulations the area would have to be evacuated and men in Moon suits would foam the building, raze it, and cart the pieces to a radioactive waste storage facility. Yet I turned out perfectly healthy, as are my children.

Most people (everywhere) are woefully uninformed about radioactivity, and are terrible at risk-benefit analysis.

I don't disagree with much of what you have posted (I don't know what the level of radioactivity is in St. Petersburg, I suffered no ill effects, but spent only a fraction of the time there that you did). But I would also propose another effect, which is that a wealthier society may care about these things more than a less wealthy society. If Russia becomes a much wealthier society, let's say, 20 years from now, it may well be the case that people in St. Petersburg would be unwilling to live with the level of radiation exposure which they were quite happy to live with before, and may be willing to spend money to reduce it, which they were not willing to spend before. Whether they would go to the same level as the US, I don't know, but I wouldn't discount the possibility that at least some of the effect is a wealth effect rather than intrinsic differences in attitude...

[Dave Mitsky]

I've just merged this thread ("oil depletion") with one called "the oil crash" since they were basically about the same thing. For the record, I think that www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net is doomsday crap of the y2k bug variety.

http://www.thebulletin.org/article.php?art_ofn=mj05cavallo

Dave Mitsky

[Maha Vailo]

So, according to the article Dave Mitsky posted, Americans should make their oil-consuming habits more like Western Europeans in order to satisfy everyone's demands for energy. Just out of curisity, what all do Western Europeans do to cut back on oil consumption that makes them so special? In other words, how have they adapted? What steps can I take to make my oil-consuming habits more like theirs?

- Maha Vailo

[genebujold]

Simple!

Don't drive everywhere. Use mass transit. Plan to do once per week shopping, instead of every other day shopping. Walk!

That's what Western Europeans do.

I've a friend of mine who's a Brit but he works in Germany. He walks 14 minutes (about a mile) to the train station every morning, takes the train to the next location, then walks another 6 minutes to get to work. He repeats it in the evening.

That's 40 minutes of walking, and since the trains are electric (much of which is supplied by nuclear power), the impact on the environment is minimal, and the impact on his health is immense.

He doesn't even have a car. "Why the h*** would I get a car? What do I need a car for? Everything I need to do is within walking distance, for crying out loud, and cars and their insurance are way to expensive anyway. I pay less than half of what you do for transit, and look at me and look at you! Who's the better for it?"

Thank God he's my friend!

[taurus26]

Lots of Mum's need a car to drive their children to and from school each day. They also need it for shopping trips and there is certainly nothing wrong with going to a picnic in the countryside at weekends.

Besides oil is not going to run out anyway. Russia abandoned a string of wells that had apparently run dry. Britain came along several years later and is still pumping oil from those same wells!

[genebujold]

Besides oil is not going to run out anyway. Russia abandoned a string of wells that had apparently run dry. Britain came along several years later and is still pumping oil from those same wells!

Please wake up!

There are x amount of known reserves in the ground today. There are y amount of suspect/project but not yet discovered reserves. There are z amount of both reserves which might be available through technoligies other than drilling, other than the technologies we currently have on hand.

All those technologies for both known and unknown reserves will extend our oil supply to about 2045.

After that, it's GONE.

It took BILLIONS of years to create those oil fields. We've managed to exhaust them in just 100 years. That's a factor of 10,000,000 to one. In other words, we've been using oil at a rate 10 Million times faster than mother nature produced it.

There is NO WAY mother nature will somehow wake up and begin producing more!!!

Furthermore, when it runs out, it's OUT. Gone, folks. Get it? Stop hiding behind your pillow!

Now's the time to write your congressman and tell him just one thing, the ONLY thing that'll get us through the next 40 years of nights: NUCLEAR!!!

Even if you add all the tidal, wind, geothermal, biomass, and other alternative sources of energy, it doesn't begin to make a DENT (less than 10%) in our total energy needs.

PLEASE stop kidding yourselves that it will.

Do the math.

Get over it.

Don't convert from oil to gas heating anytime soon!

Just push your/our government to GO NUCLEAR!!!

It's really the only chance we have of maintaining any semblance of a balanced economy for our children.

With it, we'll be fine.

Without it, we'll be back in the stone age, with far less resources that is capable of supporting a stone age - population as large as we are.

[genebujold]

The "total known and projected reserves" aren't just our own - they're all reserves, worldwide, regardless of to whom they belong.