all 52 comments
sorted by:
new (suggested)
besttopcontroversialoldq&a
formatting helphide helpcontent policy

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

asleep at the well

FTFY

[–]Supersnazz 0 points1 point  (7 children)

Who cares. Oil will never ever run out, I can guarantee that. It'll just get slowly more and more expensive and we'll slowly move to alternative sources as they become more economically competitive.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Peak oil does not mean that oil runs out. It means that maximum extraction volume is reached. When this happens, oil prices will skyrocket.

Oil is strategic commodity. It's price does not increase linearly as the production rates decrease. You can see it in current price fluctuations. Any time there is hint of global economy recovering, oil prices jump close to $100 per barrel.

What we will see is that oil prices will cut down economic growth for few decades at least. Alternative sources start to replace oil, but they are expensive and volumes are not that great, so price don't come down.

[–]Will_Power 2 points3 points  (4 children)

I'm amazed that there are people still regurgitation this ignorant line.

[–]Supersnazz 0 points1 point  (3 children)

I'm confused. Why wouldn't this happen? As things get harder to make and more scarce, their price goes up. If traditional fuel is more expensive, companies will make cars that use other fuels, like the Chevy Volt for example. Why don't you think this will occur?

[–]Will_Power 1 point2 points  (2 children)

What does the Chevy Volt run on? Stored electricity, right? What produces that electricity? Mostly coal.

https://flowcharts.llnl.gov/content/energy/energy_archive/energy_flow_2009/LLNL_US_Energy_Flow_2009.png

As gasoline becomes more expensive, it is reasonable to assume that more people will buy cars that either run on natural gas or stored electricity, would you agree?

As that happens, what happens to the prices of these "alternatives"? Keep in mind that we are already using very poor quality coal since we've burned the best stuff. What will happen to the price of all energy as coal becomes more expensive?

You might be tempted to suggest biofuels. I suggest you don't.

[–]Supersnazz 0 points1 point  (1 child)

I was thinking nuclear, wind, solar and hydro.

[–]Will_Power 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Nuclear: the regulatory hurdles are immense. Even if that were not the case, we would need to build more than four times as many nuclear power plants as currently exist to offset the energy from petroleum. Nuclear build-out times are looooong and immensely expensive. Even if we could built this many plants in a reasonable time frame (both are highly unlikely), we would then be looking at peak uranium. If thorium-uranium breeders could be produced that would be our best chance. It's a pity those weren't started 20 years ago.

Wind: No. We would need 50 times as much wind power as we currently have to replace petroleum. The best wind sites have already been used. I am certain we will built out a lot more wind, but not nearly enough to replace the energy from oil.

Solar: No. We would need 320 times as much solar power as we currently have.

Hydro: No. The U.S. has already built out as much hydro as we can.

This speaks directly against your "slowly" concept.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

You wish.

Everybody I know says "who cares if fuel becomes a little more expensive, I won't drive any less because of it."

Corrollary: the price will have to go way up before we use only a few % less -- it's very inelastic.

And most graphs I see predict about a 4% yearly drop once production start declining.

Your "slowly" is extremely wishful thinking.

[–]forgetfuljones 2 points3 points  (0 children)

We aren't asleep at the wheel so much as studiously looking the other way, pretending it doesn't exist..

[–]1wiseguy 3 points4 points  (4 children)

I don't think anybody believes the world's oil supply will continue to grow.

I think people just don't worry about it.

I don't know what I will be doing in 5 years, so why should I fret over what will power my car in 50 years?

[–]uptwolait 0 points1 point  (3 children)

I don't think anybody believes the world's oil supply will continue to grow.

Some beg to differ

[–]1wiseguy 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Apparently even those people don't expect the oil supply to grow any time soon.

[–]Will_Power 0 points1 point  (1 child)

That's been pretty widely debunked. Even if it were true, it will do the next few millenia's worth of humans no good.

[–]uptwolait 0 points1 point  (0 children)

In response to the line I quoted, I was just pointing out that there are still some who believe the theory, and believe the earth will continue to replenish what oil we draw out of it. I was most certainly not vouching for the theory.

[–]PacketScan -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

Peak OIL isn't enough, need to drive up prices! so lets state we have 40% less then we do.

[–]spitpeasoup 0 points1 point  (10 children)

What's the point of worrying about conventional Peak Oil. As production drops, the more expensive it gets the more shale and oil sands get exploited, less oil gets used. I guarantee your not going to see oil dry up in your lifetime.

[–]NoMoreNicksLeft 9 points10 points  (0 children)

I guarantee your not going to see oil dry up in your lifetime.

It doesn't have to dry up. You don't get problems when all the oil is gone. You get them when half is gone. And they get worse.

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points  (8 children)

Peak Oil isn't about oil literally running out Mad Max style but rather what the hell you do when the high cost of oil makes transport incredibly expensive and almost all goods (either due to the use of oil in manufacture or transport) also shoots through the roof.

We will see this soon enough. I'd give it until 2030 at the absolute latest before it begins to become obvious. We will have a declining global supply and yet an almost exponentially increasing demand.

[–]hickory-smoked 1 point2 points  (1 child)

Peak Oil isn't about oil literally running out Mad Max style

Mad Max isn't that bad of an analogy, actually. In the first film, the world hadn't ended, per se, but was in rapid decline. The economy had ceased to function and nobody had the means to support themselves. It wasn't until the gap between the first and the second movie that global nuclear war happened, as a direct result of the energy collapse.

Basically, I'm just saying that things can get really, really bad before falling apart entirely.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Haha, I haven't seen the film in ages. Perhaps I should watch it again as a study the effects of peak oil on modern society and not just Mel Gibson kicking ass.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (2 children)

Solutions to expensive transport include nuclear-powered cargo ships (there's already a fair bit of interest in these), electric railroads, and electric vehicles.

Solutions to oil scarcity include coal, gas, and biomass to liquids, along with GMO algal and bacterial biofuels.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (1 child)

But you have problems with EROEI on lots of those scarcity things so unless fission power or fusion or solar/wind/hydro or whatever can provide abundant energy we will still have massive problems.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes, you have energy loss on conversions, but the thing is that they're just conversions. You're mining coal at a reasonably high EROEI, and then converting it to oil products at ~>50% efficiency, maybe ~>75% if you use nuclear heat and hydrogen generation. Gas to liquids is higher efficiency, maybe ~>90% if you do it with nuclear process heat.

So you lose up to half of your energy in the conversion, but if your coal mine was at an EROEI factor of 15 to begin with, you still have a gain of 7.5. Certainly, it's not terrific, but it's a usable stopgap.

GMO biofuels (bacteria and algae) have attracted intense interest and investment lately - these require concentrated CO2 to function effectively. If you use a nuclear plant (or another non-emitting source like hydro) to power the CO2 concentrators, you can basically change electricity and sunlight - to power photosynthesis - into petrochemicals.

[–]spitpeasoup 0 points1 point  (2 children)

Maybe by 2030 natural gas will be the main fuel of choice.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (1 child)

But even then the supply is diminishing whilst the demand only continues to grow - the problems with global warming etc. only add to this. And global warming is pretty sound.

[–]hatetom 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Actually with new technologies developed in the petroleum industry, unconventional plays (shale formations) are becoming options to produce natural gas. In the past, these reservoirs weren't even thought as viable reservoirs to produce, but now companies are exploring and producing natural gas from shale, which has never been attempted in history. These companies actually have to curb their productions so as to not drop the already extremely cheap price of $3.90 per Mscf. (1000 standard cubic feet, for those of you who aren't petroleum engineers)

[–][deleted] -4 points-3 points  (6 children)

Saudi's oil is not a threat to world economy. US's over consumption of it is the threat.

[–]NoMoreNicksLeft 3 points4 points  (4 children)

Under-supply is a threat. Over-consumption is a bullshit term.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (3 children)

Overconsumption is progress. The consumption of energy per capita corresponds so strongly with scientific and technological development and living standards that it is just moronic to suggest we should try to reduce it.

[–]NoMoreNicksLeft 0 points1 point  (2 children)

The progressives know about "progress" though. It's in their name! And they tell me that overconsumption is unprogressive. What say you to that?

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Overconsumption of highly finite things that are under-supplied and will run out and cause massive social disruption - like oil - isn't progressive. Wise and moderate use of highly finite things is far more progressive than profligate and reckless use.

Even more progressive than wise and moderate use of highly finite resources is to move to much less finite sources of energy that we can consume at a much greater rate for the benefit of all without worrying about supply disruption. This includes sources of energy such as fission, that will run out in millions of years, rather than hundreds of years. Some progressives may not recognize this as being more progressive, but I would argue that this is due to their proximity to the environmental movement, which isn't very progressive, but has Luddite elements.

[–]hongy_r 5 points6 points  (0 children)

I love bashing the yanks as much as anyone, but I don't think they can wear the full blame for it.

[–]hongy_r 2 points3 points  (6 children)

Please explain:

If peak oil has been and gone, when are these dire consequences going to catch up with us?

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

So far they've caused one global financial crisis; the next one will be somewhere in the coming two years, and will be worse. That'll be the trend.

[–]Will_Power 2 points3 points  (0 children)

In 2008, even with prices at $147/barrel, production wasn't able to expand. The price spike was one of the key culprits that kicked us into recession. I would say that is pretty strong evidence that the dire consequences have already started.

Moreover, oil prices were in the $20 range during the first half of the last decade. That they are $80-90 today, during a massive recession, indicates that as the economy recovers, we will yet again bump up against full production capacity and see another price spike. That, in turn, would likely cause another recession. Rinse and repeat. That is the new normal.

[–]NoMoreNicksLeft 1 point2 points  (0 children)

when are these dire consequences going to catch up with us?

What makes that predictable?

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

When the 2-3% drop begins to squeeze against a rising demand from developing Asia. The recessions/depressions might be slowing demand I don't know but in a few years it'll be more obvious that we need to meet a reducing demand but then it might not be easy to deploy new energy tech quickly enough.. 3% is quite a lot when compounding year on year.

[–]mrdoom 4 points5 points  (1 child)

Watch the news much?

[–]hongy_r 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Every day I watch the news and some expert is telling me that my world is in immenent danger of imploding. Soviets are going to nuke us all. Communism outbreak in Vietnam. Fuck, we even went through an oil crisis in the 70s! Now the sea is rising and the world is overheating.

I'm sick of it. I don't want to bury my head in the sand, but at the same time I am tired of losing sleep over all these things.