What do we do when the oil runs out?

[pecksniff]

Petroleum is a finite resource, a deposit laid down in the Cambrian Era or thereabouts. There is only so much of it in the ground. We can devise new extraction methods like fracking, but eventually, the last drop will be brought up, and either burnt to fuel an engine, or made into plastic or fertilizer or medicine.

Is it really possible to develop "alternative energy" sources on a scale that can effectively substitute for petroleum before that happens?

(This is entirely separate from the concern over whether we should pump and burn all that oil because, you know, greenhouse gases.)

It is important to note that severe economic disruption can result from petroleum shortages long before the supply is entirely exhausted. See peak oil.

The phrase "peak oil" refers to the prediction that levels of world oil production (i.e., extraction from the Earth) roughly reflect the shape of a bell curve and will drop off at around the point where 50% of the world oil supply has been used, even as demand for petroleum and its derivatives continues to increase. At the point where production drops while demand continues to increase, then significant economic disruption may occur while the world goes into headless-chicken mode whilst panicking for an alternative energy-source.[2] In the most extreme interpretations, all manner of societal disruptions may occur, including, but not limited to: famine, economic collapse, and ecological collapse. One is advised to hoard canned tuna and ammo just in case.

The idea of peak-oil production is based on the earlier "Hubbert's Peak theory,"Wikipedia developed in 1956 by M. King Hubbert, a Shell Oil geoscientist, who used this same concept in an attempt to predict a point at which United States oil production would drop. Hubbert predicted 1965 as the most likely time and 1970 as an optimistic scenario. In fact, U.S. oil production actually peaked in the early 1970s, either contradicting his prediction in some people's views, or making it just slightly pessimistic.

In most cases, the phrase "peak oil" refers to more than the fact that petroleum is a finite resource; no-one (except a few cranks like those who adhere to the Soviet concept of abiotic oil) disputes this any longer. "Peak oil" has rather become the belief that societal and economic disruptions will begin when depletion of world oil-supplies passes the 50% mark while demand keeps going up. Note that there is no real argument about the fact that oil production must peak at some point in time. However, there is debate about when it will happen, why it will happen, and what consequences may ensue.

 

[WillJ8787]

Petroleum is a finite resource, a deposit laid down in the Cambrian Era or thereabouts. There is only so much of it in the ground. We can devise new extraction methods like fracking, but eventually, the last drop will be brought up, and either burnt to fuel an engine, or made into plastic or fertilizer or medicine.

Is it really possible to develop "alternative energy" sources on a scale that can effectively substitute for petroleum before that happens?

(This is entirely separate from the concern over whether we should pump and burn all that oil because, you know, greenhouse gases.)

It is important to note that severe economic disruption can result from petroleum shortages long before the supply is entirely exhausted. See peak oil.

Put my head between my legs and kiss my ass goodbye.

 

[pecksniff]

This is especially salient in the United States -- imagine trying to run our economy without cars or trucks or tractors. We can use electric ones, but power plants have to charge them, and most of those burn fossil fuels, and coal and natural gas are also finite resources.

 

[WillJ8787]

On a more serious note.... climate change and the fast rising temperatures are one of those factors you mentioned that could help us to change and stop burning fossil fuels.

This is a complicated topic and I will revisit it tomorrow...long day and I'm tired!

 

[pecksniff]

On a more serious note.... climate change and the fast rising temperatures are one of those factors you mentioned that could help us to change and stop burning fossil fuels.

That just gives us an additional reason. It does not offer any solutions.

 

[Philthy_Phil]

This is especially salient in the United States -- imagine trying to run our economy without cars or trucks or tractors. We can use electric ones, but power plants have to charge them, and most of those burn fossil fuels, and coal and natural gas are also finite resources.

Because no other countries rely on cars trucks and tractors..

 

[LupusDei]

I won't go hunting for numbers right now, but there's more than enough sunlight to run current levels of energy many times over with relatively tiny areas of solar arrays, at current (pathetic) efficiencies. Prices of photovoltaics and efficiencies will go down and up respectively, significantly so, and rapidly enough. And if that's not enough, there's orbital sun, slightly more expensive than on surface (whereas it approaches zero eventually (actually, end of life recycling can become significant component of those energy prices)), but almost without practical limitations.

Sure, not everything can run on batteries, even if those get better too (they will), the energy density of hydrocarbons is hard to beat. So we will synthesize those, as best way for long term energy storage and transportation. Current processes aren't exactly very good, but it is already possible to produce kerosene out of thin air, literally. With advances in catalysts those efficiencies will improve dramatically.

It may sound fantastical, but I'm growing in confidence that bar global war or other major mishaps we will see this all unfold very soon, within a couple decades. There almost certainly will be lots of tension, but the last oil will remain in the ground for not being economical to extract anymore. It is completely possible even current investments in oil surveys and new developments will be never recovered, just like no coal plants built now or in few past years should ever pay for themselves in any other way than by explicit government subsidies.

 

[KeithD]

Petroleum is a finite resource, a deposit laid down in the Cambrian Era or thereabouts. There is only so much of it in the ground. We can devise new extraction methods like fracking, but eventually, the last drop will be brought up, and either burnt to fuel an engine, or made into plastic or fertilizer or medicine.

Is it really possible to develop "alternative energy" sources on a scale that can effectively substitute for petroleum before that happens?

If we're Republicans, we just pretend it isn't happening and vote against any legislation attempting to do something about it.

 

[pecksniff]

Because no other countries rely on cars trucks and tractors..

Other industrialized countries have better rail networks. They're more energy-efficient.

 

[Dribble]

Oil will soon only be used for military purposes

 

[rae121452]

we'll all be dead by then, so who gives a shit?

 

[phrodeau]

This is especially salient in the United States -- imagine trying to run our economy without cars or trucks or tractors. We can use electric ones, but power plants have to charge them, and most of those burn fossil fuels, and coal and natural gas are also finite resources.

Biofuels are a growing industry. Switchgrass looks promising, though scaling up has been problematic. Algae could provide a source, but needs major investment.

 

[pecksniff]

Biofuels are a growing industry. Switchgrass looks promising, though scaling up has been problematic. Algae could provide a source, but needs major investment.

Algae as biofuel? Never heard of that before.

OF course, growing crops is energy-intensive.

 

[Sugar Baby Wanted]

Another con to submit to the giant climate, global, weather change con.

"Leading researchers at Rice University conclude that the U.S. could have 2 trillion barrels of recoverable oil, enough to fully meet our current demand for a ridiculous 285 years!"

source:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/judecl...-and-unlimited-future-supply/?sh=5025e76957e1

 

[Champakian]

Oil is not a finite resource.

It is continually being recreated.

In the 70s, Peak Oil was a staple of our education
and by this date, it was supposed to be as rare as a perfect Jadeite matrix.

As long as plankton continues to die, the heat and pressure
of oceans and earth will continue to process carbon.

Same with CO2, another bugaboo from the 70s.

 

[Champakian]

Biofuels are a growing industry. Switchgrass looks promising, though scaling up has been problematic. Algae could provide a source, but needs major investment.

Energy sources of the Left, the "intellectual" false equivalency
of unicorns, rainbows and fountains of Skittles™...


:shrug:


When someone says requires "major investment,"
what they are saying is that they want to step in,
raise your taxes and do that which the private
sector has deemed unprofitable (i.e., unnecessary)
by employing government to yet one more task
that it completely lacks the ability to do efficiently,
effectively, efficaciously or by elfin magic...

 

[bellisarius]

Energy sources of the Left, the "intellectual" false equivalency
of unicorns, rainbows and fountains of Skittles™...


:shrug:


When someone says requires "major investment,"
what they are saying is that they want to step in,
raise your taxes and do that which the private
sector has deemed unprofitable (i.e., unnecessary)
by employing government to yet one more task
that it completely lacks the ability to do efficiently,
effectively, efficaciously or by elfin magic...

Good run there.

 

[Champakian]

I'm in an awesome alliterative attitude...

 

[JohnnySavage]

We aren't as dependant on oil as we are dependent on cheap, high density energy.

You can make electricity from the sun, or from anything that moves. You can run a car on fumes from burning wood or coal. And coal can replace oil in many applications.

Oil is just cheap and convenient.

 

[WillJ8787]

Oil is not a finite resource.

It is continually being recreated.

In the 70s, Peak Oil was a staple of our education
and by this date, it was supposed to be as rare as a perfect Jadeite matrix.

As long as plankton continues to die, the heat and pressure
of oceans and earth will continue to process carbon.

Same with CO2, another bugaboo from the 70s.

100% incorrect statement....so much so and so off the mark it isn't really worth a response.

 

[WillJ8787]

Petroleum is a finite resource, a deposit laid down in the Cambrian Era or thereabouts. There is only so much of it in the ground. We can devise new extraction methods like fracking, but eventually, the last drop will be brought up, and either burnt to fuel an engine, or made into plastic or fertilizer or medicine.

Is it really possible to develop "alternative energy" sources on a scale that can effectively substitute for petroleum before that happens?

(This is entirely separate from the concern over whether we should pump and burn all that oil because, you know, greenhouse gases.)

It is important to note that severe economic disruption can result from petroleum shortages long before the supply is entirely exhausted. See peak oil.

I'm fairly certain the reason folks have not really addressed the transition off of crude oil is that it is a cash cow marketplace for the oil industry and they have an army of lobbyist who put millions of dollars into the political system to keep us dependent on it.

For instance, in Pa one is on their own when it comes to solar power. The buy back for solar producers with the electric providers is a small fraction of what is produce so one has to either store it or use it at the site of capture. This isn't how one gets solar off the ground in any area or any state.

 

[oggbashan]

In the UK, we have untapped North Sea oil deposits. Extraction from them would be expensive. It might be justified by the current oil price but could easily become unprofitable if the world prices drop.

Also, we could produce a lot from fracking which is not politically acceptable now. We know where some deposits are but local opposition to fracking is fierce.

Until electricity generation from 'green' (= not fossil fuel) supplies, is vastly increased we are going to have to rely on oil and gas for a decade at least.

Our nuclear programme is well behind target dates and the costs are increasing. The new stations won't be ready before many of our older ones have to be decommissioned.

 

[jaF0]

DinoSqueezin's ain't a'gonna run out before every human and their grandkids' great, great grandkids have been decommissioned and turned into people squeezin's.

Algae squeezin's are about as useful as corn squeezin's and'll muck an engine just as quick.

 

[Chernosoth]

We will use less energy. Commutes by foot, bike, horse, and streetcar will be shorter and slower. The internet, TV, cellphones, etc. will disappear. The 20 year process of building new infrastructure with renewable energy could have started at any time since the late 70s, but it didn't, and now we're using all our energy to keep what we have. Fantasies of new technology that matches oil's energy abundance are vaporware and subsidy dumpsters. We can't keep our current population on a renewable energy budget, and now there is a "pandemic" with most of the population getting shots. I don't quite buy the theory that government and corporations planned a population reduction, since that requires competence they haven't shown for a long while. And most of the vaxed dying would be only one step down the long decline over centuries.

 

[zipman]

Republicans will campaign on building coal fueled cars.

Anything to avoid progress.