The Future Ain't Too Bright

[legion]

I'm of the opinion that there is no real replacement for petroleum. I think that after we run out of oil, we will encounter another dark age.

I foresee the population of the planet dropping dramatically, perhaps to 1/100th or 1/1000th of what it is today. Society as we know it will collapse. For a time, communities and countries will be isolated.

There are several reasons for this.

First of all, crop yields right now are at all-time highs because of mechanized harvests and crude-based fertilizers. Take those away, and we will see yields closer to what we saw at the end of the 19th century.

Second, many people in the "first world" have no idea how to survive if their food doesn't come from the grocery store. Our lives of convenience have made us ignorant of the most basic survival skills. I cite as an example the number of people who are grossed out by watching an animal be slaughtered. Three or four generations ago, it was probably a skill everyone had to learn.

I don't see "alternative energy" as replacing petroleum. At best, it will just supplement it for a while. Fact is, that all of the alternatives combined can't replace what petroleum produces.

When do I see this happening? Several hundred years in the future. I think we have plenty of oil to last us centuries. Sure, the easy-to-get light, sweet crude is running out, but there are still the tar sands in Canada and other, larger sources that are tough to extract.

[Tobra]

shame to burn it, petroleum is such an excellent raw material for making practically anything

[jyl]

Cue the Road Warrior theme . . .

I think that is too bleak.

For stationary power uses (i.e. generating electricity) there is nuclear, solar, wind, even coal and natural gas have a place. France gets 80% of its electricity from 58 nuclear power plants (the country started building its nuclear infrastructure during the oil shocks of the 1970s). Germany gets 14% of its electricity from renewable sources (wind the largest, also hydro, biomass, landfill gas, solar), this was only 6% in 2000. Europe is pretty motivated to develop alternative energy sources, because their natural gas comes from Russia which has been blatant about restricting supplies as a political weapon. We (the US) could get equally motivated about developing alternative energy sources too.

For mobile power uses (vehicles) there are biofuels, synthetic gasoline (from coal or natgas), hydrogen fuel cell, and for shorter periods batteries. The US military is investigating running its vehicles and aircraft on alternative fuels, not just for environmental reasons but for logistical and energy independence reasons. I think a USAF bomber just took a test flight on biofuels.

I hope we get aggressive about it, rather than let the oil industry and the oil producing customers lull us back to oil dependence the next time the oil price dips.

[Mule]

Trust me, at some point this suicidal approach dictated by the enviro-nazis will be thrown in the toilet & it will be on! Drilling, coal to oil, nuclear, alternatives, this country is not done!

[the]

That won't happen. Way too many alternative sources of energy. Maybe not super-aggressively pursued right now, because we have plenty of oil. But oil won't run out over night, and there is lots of time for the alternatives to be developed.

[TechnoViking]

Necessity is the mother of invention.

[KaptKaos]

The earth is (basically) a closed system. The earth is a carbon pump.

[Mule]

Originally Posted by KaptKaos

The earth is (basically) a closed system. The earth is a carbon pump.

Thus sayeth the lord, Algore!

[stomachmonkey]

It's generally a bad idea to say something can't or won't be done, especially in the realm of science and technology. The following are quotations from the past that haunt their speakers today:

* "I think there is a world market for maybe five computers." -- Thomas Watson, chairman of IBM, 1943.

* "Where a calculator on the ENIAC is equipped with 18,000 vacuum tubes and weighs 30 tons, computers in the future may have only 1,000 vacuum tubes and weigh only 1.5 tons." -- Popular Mechanics, 1949

* "I have traveled the length and breadth of this country and talked with the best people, and I can assure you that data processing is a fad that won't last out the year." -- The editor in charge of business books for Prentice Hall, 1957.

* "But what...is it good for?" -- Engineer at the Advanced Computing Systems Division of IBM, 1968, commenting on the microchip.

* "There is no reason anyone would want a computer in their home." -- Ken Olson, president, chairman and founder of Digital Equipment Corp., 1977.

* "640K ought to be enough for anybody." -- Attributed to Bill Gates, 1981, but believed to be an urban legend.

* "This 'telephone' has too many shortcomings to be seriously considered as a means of communication. The device is inherently of no value to us." -- Western Union internal memo, 1876.

* "The Americans have need of the telephone, but we do not. We have plenty of messenger boys." -- Sir William Preece, chief engineer of the British Post Office, 1876.

* "The wireless music box has no imaginable commercial value. Who would pay for a message sent to nobody in particular?" -- David Sarnoff's associates in response to his urgings for investment in the radio in the 1920s.

* "While theoretically and technically television may be feasible, commercially and financially it is an impossibility." -- Lee DeForest, inventor.

More

[Porsche-O-Phile]

Originally Posted by Martin Smith

Necessity is the mother of invention.

Completely agreed.

We can and will synthesize enough long-chain hydrocarbons in order to keep society going, but ultimately our energy demands must be brought into line with what is sustainable. This ain't rocket surgery - it means two things:

1. Reduced demand
2. Alternative methods of production

#1 can include lower human populations and reduced consumption (which to date has been nothing short of gluttonous)

#2 will include renewable sources like solar, wind, tidal, geothermal, etc. but probably also nuclear and coal. And probably some we haven't thought of yet.

One thing is for damn sure - our planet cannot support the lifestyles of the current populations. Not a chance. There are currently SIX BILLION people on this ball. Six B-I-L-L-I-O-N. With projections of anywhere between 10 and 20 BILLION by 2050. This is ridiculous. Think of the amount of energy a human being uses in just one year. Or the amount of waste they produce. Or the amount of resources they consume (water, food, energy, etc.) Now multiply that by the average 70-ish year lifespan of a person. Times 10 BILLION.

The world is simultaneously very large and very small. But when you start talking about numbers like billions, resources go very, very quickly. We are currently completely unsustainable and nature WILL eventually push back on us - and hard. And probably soon. To think that our technology will allow us to completely violate basic principles of ecological balance is ridiculous. We can influence and we can even control but only within certain ultimate parameters, and I think we're either at them now, or very soon to reach them. We simply can't keep stressing our planet the way that six BILLION of us do (without even realizing it in most cases, probably) with impunity.

So yes, I agree with you that change is coming. Like it or not, by choice or by force - change is coming. But I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing either. Heaven knows the human gene pool could use a little (or a lot) of chlorine.

[kstar]

I strongly disagree with the premise of this thread.

[slodave]

Does this mean I can stop wearing my shades?

[kstar]

Originally Posted by slodave

Does this mean I can stop wearing my shades?

Only at night.

[KaptKaos]

Originally Posted by Mule

Thus sayeth the lord, Algore!

Meaning that there is plenty of oil.

[Mule]

Originally Posted by KaptKaos

Meaning that there is plenty of oil.

Brasil just struck enough in the Atlantic for energy independence. China & Venezuela are drilling off our coasts, but we wont. There's plenty of oil! See "if a candidate said."

If A Candidate Said:

[dtw]

When we run out of it here, in the future we will mine petroleum from asteroids.






Crap, wait...

[jyl]

If you divide current global proven oil reserves by current annual global oil consumption, you get about 40 years.

Now, new reserves will be proven, some currently undiscovered and some known but weren't economically viable at lower oil px. But seems unwise to count on proven reserves growing dramatically (the new conventional oil fields discovered in the past decade or so aren't huge relative to the fields that we've been pumping for 60 years). The unconventional deposits, like deep oil shale, may be much less productive (i.e. low % of oil that can actually recovered).

And consumption will grow, for many years to come. The economic development of China, India, and other emerging countries practically guarantees it.

So maybe that "40 years" is really "30", maybe it is "60", but its probably not "100" and certainly is not "forever".

What happens as we get closer and closer to the end of that "X years"? The price of oil rises, and rises. Because the remaining oil becomes more precious, and because much of it is expensive to produce. Ultimately, we will never "run out" of oil. Oil will just get more and more expensive until we can't actually afford to buy enough to "run out".

And in the meantime, probably oil px remains volatile, and we will continue to face the problems caused by the unstable and unfriendly nations that produce much of the oil.

So, looking out decades, oil probably gives us three problems. First, the long-term trend will be to get more expensive. Second, in the medium/short-term the price will swing up and down, creating periodic oil shocks to our economy. Third, we'll keep sending hundreds of billions of $ annually to the oil producing countries, some of which are our enemies.

The way to address this is to replace oil by other energies. Can't be done all at once, of course. But over time, if the US is serious about it, we can steadily cut our dependence on oil.

Some people here will tell you that this is impossible. Gosh, you mean we can't do what the French have done? What the Germans are doing? We can't develop 80 mpg cars and then non-gasoline cars? Sounds pretty defeatist.

But we really need to get committed to it, because it will be a long road. Better to make good solid progress before oil is $150, $200, $300, etc rather than waiting until then to get serious.

[dd74]

Your pocketbook will run out of money for oil long before oil runs out.

[jyl]

The Brazilian "Tupi" and "Jupiter" fields, combined, are by far the biggest discovery of oil in the last 30 years. Bigger that Khazakstan.

They are thought to hold appx 16BN barrels of recoverable oil and gas. I don't know how much oil vs how much gas, suppose it is all oil.

Brazil consumes appx 0.77BN barrels/yr of oil. So, fine, that is two decades of oil "independence" for Brazil.

But Brazil isn't the US. The US consumes appx 10X more - 8BN barrels of oil each year.

So these huge fields - combined, the biggest new discovery in 3 decades - amount to 2 years' oil consumption for the US.

By the way, global proven oil reserves are about 1.3TR barrels. So the Tupi/Jupiter fields have increased global reserves by about 1%. Not a lot.

And the world currently consumes roughly 32BN barrels/yr. As I said earlier, divide 1.3TR by 32BN and you get 40 years. And the Tupi/Jupiter fields have maybe added 6 months to that. Hmm.

Think about it. The biggest discoveries in the last 30 years, and they only amount to 6 months of world oil consumption.

Unless you think Tupi/Jupiter-size discoveries are going to start popping up like dandelions, it is silly to think that more oil exploration is the long-term answer.

Originally Posted by Mule

Brasil just struck enough in the Atlantic for energy independence. China & Venezuela are drilling off our coasts, but we wont. There's plenty of oil! See "if a candidate said."

If A Candidate Said:

[tabs]

Wouldn't it be nice to be back in the day when all we had to worry about was the Prez getting a BJ in the oval office.

However those were the days when we were like ostrichs, with our head in the sand. The problems were still there but we were still able to just ignore them.

That is where the leadership of Bill fell down. He allowed the US to just ignore future problems. It was not only Bills fault, the American people themselves had just come off a 45 year Cold War and just wanted to party as if we didn't have a care left in the world.

Ironically it was 9 months into the new term that changed the world..911 woke America and the world back up to reality.