The end of oil

Is anyone else slightly worried about this?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/feature/story/0,13026,1464050,00.html

http://www.livescience.com/environment/end_oil_041214.html

http://www.technologyreview.com/read_article.aspx?id=14178&ch=energy

Not personally, no.

It's not going to happen. Don't be such a freedom-hating Communist.

Reply 3

bikerx23

1

Agent Smith

It's not going to happen. Don't be such a freedom-hating Communist.

pfft! thats your answer for everything.... :wink:

Reply 4

Arminius

14

Yes, sustainable energy ftw. Oil is soo 20th century.

Reply 5

Nefarious

16

As long as nuclear power usage is stepped up to meet the demand there shouldn't be a problem. Of course the supply of nuclear fuel isn't infinite either.

Reply 6

Agent Smith

11

Ah, but nuclear is dirty. Every hippy "knows" that, and worse so does every Average Joe, so democratic countries still can't do what they should have done at least thirty years ago, namely go nuclear.

So, Nef, your "as long as" - a smooth transition, for which time is already running out - is not going to happen. What is going to happen is one hell of a global argy-bargy between the OPEC and the West.

It would be so easy to continue into a big-assed rant here, but it would be wasted.

Suffice to say that we are going to live in interesting times.

Reply 7

City bound

We will stop using oil, in a mass usage way, before it runs out. OPEC are pretty keen on keeping the price high, people are gearing up for high prices and improving their efficiency and technology is moving beyond oil because of people's irrational fears. e.g. Hydrogen powered cars are fully designed, functioning, workable (in terms of our demands) and will be ready for mass production by 2015. The most important point is that, as the price hits certain target levels, new reserves of oil that weren't included in previous estimates (of how much oil there is) come online as they become economically viable. The most prominent example is the Canadian oil sands that mean Canada actually contains more oil than anywhere else, bar Saudi Arabia. We know less about the bottom of the ocean than the surface of the moon, how could we know everything about what's underneath it?

As long as people keep being scared about oil running out it never will. So people, be afraid, be very afraid.

Reply 8

Arminius

14

Good points city bound, but we have to be carefull not to be complacent. You attitude almost seems like "why worry, another oil field might be found tomorrow". You can't pin the worlds energy security on hopes.

I also disagree with this idea of using up our resources as long as it is economical to do so! what sort of short sighted thinking is that? we should be storing our hydrocarbons for things that we have no substitute for.

Unfortuantely is the way the capitalist market works, in that we choose the most econimical action now, rather than take the best action for a sustainable future.

For example the sonner we reduce the co2 emmissions the less drastic the cuts need to be. And it would all be easier to achieve.

Reply 9

City bound

Zebedee

Good points city bound, but we have to be carefull not to be complacent. You attitude almost seems like "why worry, another oil field might be found tomorrow". You can't pin the worlds energy security on hopes.

I also disagree with this idea of using up our resources as long as it is economical to do so! what sort of short sighted thinking is that? we should be storing our hydrocarbons for things that we have no substitute for.

Unfortuantely is the way the capitalist market works, in that we choose the most econimical action now, rather than take the best action for a sustainable future.

For example the sonner we reduce the co2 emmissions the less drastic the cuts need to be. And it would all be easier to achieve.

The reason we are becoming more efficient with our oil usage is the direct effects of the free market. The problem we have at the moment is that there isn't a market for pollution. We need to be able to internalize the externality, then our oil efficiency would improve even faster. Consumers and businesses will always primarily think about their pockets, if the cost of a product's pollution isn't fully reflected in the price then we won't be able to reduce our pollution any time soon. Pollution taxes on vehicles will help the transition to hydrogen and pollution credits for businesses will help speed efficiency. Price has already proven the most effective weapon, as it is removed from political manipulation, and should be the main method of pollution control.

Reply 10

Agent Smith

11

But you can't include a product's pollutant value in its price without taking a bit of the "free" out of "free market".

Reply 11

Nefarious

16

City bound

Hydrogen powered cars are fully designed, functioning, workable (in terms of our demands) and will be ready for mass production by 2015.

Yes they are but do you know how they work? Hydrogen and Oxygen are the inputs to the fuel cell and the output is water. The trouble is the only viable source of hydrogen is splitting water. This requires a pretty large energy input to achieve. You can't extract the hydrogen with out using another power source to do so.

Reply 12

City bound

Agent Smith

But you can't include a product's pollutant value in its price without taking a bit of the "free" out of "free market".

It would be ridiculous to suggest that markets get the price right 100% of the time. In this case, there are large externalities that the individual cannot take into account. Or, "neighborhood effects" if you will. There is an obvious failure in price. It is not guaranteed that the government, or whoever sets the corrective measure, would get it right because nobody knows what "right" is.

I am of the opinion that a global approach is needed and that a global pollution exchange should be set up. Individual businesses would be able to exchange their pollution credits at the newly established market price. Small firms would be able to buy credits from brokers as they currently do with currencies or commodities. It is a tried and tested method of establishing a worldwide price system for universal materials and the closest that we come to finding a perfectly efficient market.

Reply 13

City bound

Nefarious

Yes they are but do you know how they work? Hydrogen and Oxygen are the inputs to the fuel cell and the output is water. The trouble is the only viable source of hydrogen is splitting water. This requires a pretty large energy input to achieve. You can't extract the hydrogen with out using another power source to do so.

I'm not an expert on this subject but I have heard, from a reputable engineer involved in this type of technology, that nuclear could be involved somewhere. If Toyota and GM think it's a viable idea then I'm pretty sure there's a viable way of producing this stuff!

Reply 14

Nefarious

16

City bound

I'm not an expert on this subject but I have heard, from a reputable engineer involved in this type of technology, that nuclear could be involved somewhere. If Toyota and GM think it's a viable idea then I'm pretty sure there's a viable way of producing this stuff!

Yep nuclear power. Considering we are rapidly running out of oil and we aren't nearly good enough at renewable energy it's pretty much the only option at least in the foreseeable future. But as AS rightly said the poor press that nuclear gets, quite unjustifiably, means there may be a really serious energy crisis in the not to distant future.

Reply 15

Agent Smith

11

Except, being the cynic I am, I painted it far, far blacker than that. :p:

In any case, ITER ftw.

Reply 16

Giliwoo

This is one of the most under-appreciated long-term problems of our time. Replacing oil poses a particular problem that few people talk about: oil is food. The ratio of oil used for food production, storage and transportation is roughly 1:1 per unit of energy. Weaning ourselves off oil "naturally" would be far more effective than dealing with the consequences.

Reply 17

Arminius

14

One think the government never talks about is that there is currently no form of air transport (almost) that doesn't require a hydrocarbon. Transatlantic flights will probably become a thing of the past. We may have to go back to using ships!

Obviously, something might be invented but i can't think of any technology at the moment that could provide anything near the thrust of a jet engine without burning fuel.

I think its best we come to turms with it, i have. But i don't think alot of people in the government really consider it reality. Don't get me started on the americans either.