Catch up? They started in '73.
Economy without fossil fuels
- Thread starter zox
- Start date
^^ Don't forget what the US has done in the past when it needed to ramp up production. Besides, if demand is high enough, the supply will come. Also, catching up would be easy if France handles its power problems, but we haven't. They won't need to continue building as fast as we will be. We really need to get over our fears and come up with a good waste solution, because Nuclear is the Green future of power production.
You are correct. I'm still not sure where oil comes from. And if you feel 100% sure that oil is decomposed biomass, then you are somehow more brilliant than every geologist and biologist on Earth, congratulations.
Are you aware that oil has been extracted from compressing granite? Oil isn't supposed to be in granite, according to the experts. A well was drilled over a mile deep into a part of the crust that was supposed to contain no oil by all of the current models. Guess what came up? Oil.
The generation of oil is still a mystery. I know enough to be aware of this. So why are you being rude and cussing at me? Why try to shut me down, instead of having a rational discourse with me? I've had respect for you due to other posts in other threads, and I'm willing to chalk this outburst on you having a bad day, but please, let's try to be respectful, syzygys.
You are correct. I'm still not sure where oil comes from. And if you feel 100% sure that oil is decomposed biomass, then you are somehow more brilliant than every geologist and biologist on Earth, congratulations.
Are you aware that oil has been extracted from compressing granite? Oil isn't supposed to be in granite, according to the experts. A well was drilled over a mile deep into a part of the crust that was supposed to contain no oil by all of the current models. Guess what came up? Oil.
The generation of oil is still a mystery. I know enough to be aware of this. So why are you being rude and cussing at me? Why try to shut me down, instead of having a rational discourse with me? I've had respect for you due to other posts in other threads, and I'm willing to chalk this outburst on you having a bad day, but please, let's try to be respectful, syzygys.
Are you referring to the Abiotic Theory of Oil Formation?
That is one theory, though biological markers in most oil deposits make most people shy away from it.
I'm even more interested in the subterranean life models. There have been extremophiles found just about anywhere one has looked. Even straight down in rock. I recently attended a lecture where the guy was talking about these extremophiles found in Australia that live in such barren expanses of rock that they have no predators, and no rapidly-changing environment, so their metabolic processes had slowed to the point that it was thought, at first, that they were fossils. These are single-celled organisms that are thought to live for hundreds of years before dividing. Stunning.
One of the shocking conclusions of this field of research is this: WE could be the extremophiles, not them. Living up here, in the harsh glare of the deadly sun, with toxic Oxygen all around, and a quickly-changing environment prone to seasonal extremes... WE could be the extremophiles, and the extremophiles could be the natural order of business. Another reason this could be the case... as far as biomass goes, we could be in the minority. There could be more combined biomass LIVING in the Earth's crust than on top of it.
That much biomass, living and dying, for billions of years. Source of oil?
Maybe, maybe not. The evidence, from where I sit, seems to be out on all three cases. Abiotic has some merits, since we see methane and other hydrocarbons on meteors and in interstellar dust clouds (we are pretty sure swamps were never there). Extremophile waste has plenty of merit, and it is a field in its infancy. And there is the possibility that trillions of barrels of swamp were all covered up and kept from decomposing in the highly reactive atmosphere, and this is a possibility.
I think we will know in my lifetime. Right now, some people just pretend to know.
I know, there are some anomalies, but NOBODY seriously considering in the oilbusiness or in the scientific communitiy,that oil is a replenishable resource...
Cussing? I simply expressed my opinion that your knowledge on oil seriously lacks.
See my first sentence in this post. Again, there is absolutely no evidence that petroleum resources could be replenished.
But you know what? Start a separate thread on it and I debate you there..
Peak oil is very real and trying to obfuscate the matter sure don't help.
Again, I am willing to debate both peakoil or the finite nature of the petroleum reserves...
Well, not NOBODY...
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/pagerender.fcgi?artid=49434&pageindex=1
I highly recommend this link: http://peswiki.com/index.php/Petroleum
I don't like getting info from the web, and wiki's scare me, but this is actually the rare entry that covers many topics, and all of them well.
I'm not fully onboard with the abiotic theory, or with the deep biomass theory, or with the rotten swamp theory. I'm still taking it all in. I just point out that there are some huge names out there that are still working on this, and the vast majority of people in this field don't care where oil comes from, they are just paid to find it. Which is why you can find a huge number that turn their noses up at these theories, they are snobbish oil-chasers that aren't doing any real science at all. I distrust all of them.
Besides, that same cadre said that drilling in Texas was insane about 100 years ago. You should read the "Prize", if you haven't already, it is a brilliant book.
And I hope you can see how premature and rude you were to dismiss my humble input on this topic. And it is not tangential to this thread. This is precisely what this thread should be debating. Because without establishing the nature of oil, the questions in the original post are meaningless.
*I* was the one who mentioned the book The Prize first in this thread, and of course I read it... 
Anyway, going back to the abiotic theory. I even except it as true. Does it matter? No. Why? Because it boils down to the practicality of extraction and the economic viability of producing oil.
Thus let's say if it takes 3 months and 1 million dollars to make 1 glass of oil out of 5 tons of granite, then it is clearly not going to help the world.
As oilprices increase, sure some of the more expensive methods of oilmaking becomes viable.(oilsands in Canada,etc.) That still is not going to help us in the long run, maybe give us a few extra years to come up with a REAL solution.
Today the world uses about 86 million barrels a day, and in 10 years they expect the demand to rise up to 110. I personally don't think that world output will ever pass 90 m barrels, thus you can see the problem with the growing demand and not growing output.
Again, let me quote your source, just to drive the point home:
"Hydrocarbons were found, though in an economically unviable form of sludge."
P.S.: I apologize, I was a bit careless with my original remark to you.
Anyway, going back to the abiotic theory. I even except it as true. Does it matter? No. Why? Because it boils down to the practicality of extraction and the economic viability of producing oil.
Thus let's say if it takes 3 months and 1 million dollars to make 1 glass of oil out of 5 tons of granite, then it is clearly not going to help the world.
As oilprices increase, sure some of the more expensive methods of oilmaking becomes viable.(oilsands in Canada,etc.) That still is not going to help us in the long run, maybe give us a few extra years to come up with a REAL solution.
Today the world uses about 86 million barrels a day, and in 10 years they expect the demand to rise up to 110. I personally don't think that world output will ever pass 90 m barrels, thus you can see the problem with the growing demand and not growing output.
Again, let me quote your source, just to drive the point home:
"Hydrocarbons were found, though in an economically unviable form of sludge."
P.S.: I apologize, I was a bit careless with my original remark to you.
*I* was the one who mentioned the book The Prize first in this thread, and of course I read it...
Anyway, going back to the abiotic theory. I even except it as true. Does it matter? No. Why? Because it boils down to the practicality of extraction and the economic viability of producing oil.
Thus let's say if it takes 3 months and 1 million dolars to make 1 glass of oil out of 5 tons of granite, then it is clearly not going to help the world.
As oilprices increase, sure some of the more expensive methods of oilmaking becomes viable.(oilsands in Canada,etc.) That still is not going to elp us in the long run, maybe give us a few extra years to come up with a REAL solution.
Today the world uses about 86 million barrels a day, and in 10 years they expect the demand to rise to 110. I personally don't tink that world output will ever pass 90 m barrels, thus you can see the problem with the growing demand and not growing output.
Again, let me quote your source, just to drive the point home:
"Hydrocarbons were found, though in an economically unviable form of sludge."
P.S.: I apologize, I was a bit careless with my original remark to you.
We have the results of 7 years of work, with almost no funding, and you are closing the book? People also said it would never be economically viable to extract oil from shale. There are operations in Canada, just now spinning up, that are blowing this concept out of the water. (aren't they the number one exporter of oil to the US?)
Anyway, the Earth is a very big ball. For all we know, there is 3,000 years of oil in reserve even taking increased consumption rate into account. If we went from banging stones to setting foot on the moon in 3,000 years, my assumption is that we will not have a problem even if we run out of oil at that time. It will be horses and whale blubber then, and future generations will look at us as primeval for even pumping the stuff, the way metallurgists look at the bronze age.
People keep getting rich and famous by telling us that we will run out of the stuff in their lifetime. And those people keep dying while we find TRILLIONS more in reserve, and new ways of extracting previously unreachable fuel. I just don't see the sky falling the way the media sees it. Their coverage of all events leads to unfounded pessimism.
I'm a scientists, first and foremost. I just want to know the truth, I don't care about the politics of choosing a side and throwing punches at the opposition. I wish the oil companies cared more, you would think it would be in their economic interests to. They should all devote a good portion of their gross to oil genesis research.
Meanwhile, I'll do the studying that I can, and play with my microscopes, and continue to poke holes in the arguments of the hubris-filled majority that think they have it all figured out. Respectfully, of course.
Here is an indirect argument:
The oilcompanies are very good at bullshitting us. Remember, they are the ones paying scientists to argue AGAINST global warming. So if oil was an infinite source, wouldn't you think they would use it as an argument? After all, if responsible governments think oil eventually runs out, they should start to look somewhere else, which is not good for Big Oil. But Big Oil is not using the abiotic argument, that tells me it is not even viable for bullshitting us.
That was when oil was at $3 per barrel. It is still not viable oil at $60 per barrel, although we are getting to the economic treshold. But that is beside the point, when we aregue about the finite nature of hydrocarbons, specially light crude.
One other thing is the production ratio, how much energy needs to extract 1 barrel of oil. Back in the Texas old days of the 30's it was 1 barrel for every 5 barrels extracted. Today it is down to 1 barrel used to extract 2 barrels, and obviously closer we get to the 1 :1 ratio, it becomes less and less economic to extract the oil. Even a 1 to 1.2 would be a huge waste of energy, which is exactly the case with tarsands...
Apparently not anymore. Most of the possible places were searched. We can hope to find a giant field, but you can also play the lottery as a retirement plan...
OK, not to take too personally, but your numbers are bullshit. It is a simple math, dividing the known reserves with the current demand and you get NOWHERE close to not even 300 years. Also as YOU mentioned it is enough when production starts to decline, you don't have to run out to have problems.
Out of the 3 biggest oilfields, 2 already peaked, and the 3rd is most likely peaking now. There were no major big oilfield discoveries in the last 20 years.
Add that together and see what you get....
We ALREADY have problems. China has a hard time to get all the oil what its exploding economy needs. We are already fighting petrowars in Afghanistan (natural gas) and Iraq (oil).
Also most people are not aware that we use oilproducts in a much wider range than just for transportation. The technological revolution of the last 100 yearsd would have been impossible without petroleum....
Feel free to provide examples so I can show you they don't exists....
True, but see my above note on the economy of extraction.
The media? The media is actually ignoring the issue. This is much more serious and complex, it should be in the news everyday. Well, it is in the case of Iraq....
I am an engineer with common sense and practicality...
Hey, I would be the happier if you were right, but I researched the problem and you are not. The end of the oilage is going to come to a quick end in 50 years if not sooner....
Last edited:
I am sorry, but I still can't get over this 3000 years of reserves. You say you are a scientist, although you :
1. Take this number at facevalue.
2. If it was true, nobody would give a shit about oil being finite...
So first this number is illogical and not to mention just plain incorrect.
Here are 2 ways to figure out how much time we have:
1. If we except that oilproduction is peaking and industrial oilusage started back in let's say 1860 (Colonel Drake), that means we reached halfway in 150 years. Since we can safely assume we are using oil in a much faster rate than in the previous 150 years, the reserves are going to be depleted in LESS than 150 years, but most likely way sooner...
2. We can just divide the KNOWN reserves with today's demand, assuming that the demand level will not fail much. (unless worldwars or viruses come to play, they should increase)
Here is the known reserves (the OPEC countries' numbers are highly suspicious, by the way):
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/ene_oil_res-energy-oil-reserves
Divide that number by 365 (you get the years) and by 86 million (daily usage) and you get 42 years!!!!
So Mr. Scientists, where do you get your 3000 years of reserves? If you notice my 2 methods of counting actually COMPLIMENT each other and they gave similar results...
1. Take this number at facevalue.
2. If it was true, nobody would give a shit about oil being finite...
So first this number is illogical and not to mention just plain incorrect.
Here are 2 ways to figure out how much time we have:
1. If we except that oilproduction is peaking and industrial oilusage started back in let's say 1860 (Colonel Drake), that means we reached halfway in 150 years. Since we can safely assume we are using oil in a much faster rate than in the previous 150 years, the reserves are going to be depleted in LESS than 150 years, but most likely way sooner...
2. We can just divide the KNOWN reserves with today's demand, assuming that the demand level will not fail much. (unless worldwars or viruses come to play, they should increase)
Here is the known reserves (the OPEC countries' numbers are highly suspicious, by the way):
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/ene_oil_res-energy-oil-reserves
Divide that number by 365 (you get the years) and by 86 million (daily usage) and you get 42 years!!!!
So Mr. Scientists, where do you get your 3000 years of reserves? If you notice my 2 methods of counting actually COMPLIMENT each other and they gave similar results...
To be fair, I think he was suggesting there could be 3000 years of oil - but that we cant be sure that there isnt.
The problem I have with that logic is that you can't assume you'll find any more oil just because we dont know for sure there arent more undiscovered reserves. So far, of the oil reserves we DO know about, there is a limited finite supply that could easily run out in decades. Saying we can just carry on as we are becasue "we are bound to find more oil" is really short sighted.
If you dont accept the possibility that oil will run out one day you wont bother preparing yourself for the day when it does. Hoping for the best by expecting markets forces or technology to come and save the day just isnt going to happen if investment isnt going in now - while oil is abundant. This makes the questions in the OP entirely relevant.
The problem I have with that logic is that you can't assume you'll find any more oil just because we dont know for sure there arent more undiscovered reserves. So far, of the oil reserves we DO know about, there is a limited finite supply that could easily run out in decades. Saying we can just carry on as we are becasue "we are bound to find more oil" is really short sighted.
If you dont accept the possibility that oil will run out one day you wont bother preparing yourself for the day when it does. Hoping for the best by expecting markets forces or technology to come and save the day just isnt going to happen if investment isnt going in now - while oil is abundant. This makes the questions in the OP entirely relevant.
Thats incorrect. The ratio for tarsands and oil shale is more like 1:4 or 1:5.
The fact that you would exaggerate that figure to 1:1.2 to prove your point makes me doubt every single thing you've posted here and the objectivity of it. I dont trust you. Sorry. You sound just like every other environmentalist ant-consumerism drone. You're buying into the hype in order to scare people into enacting your activist policy. Sorry. Im not gonna bite.
I find swivl to be far more objective on the matter. He's clearly much more open minded.
I also have a problem with the argument that products such as plastics and fertilizers and others are made with oil. Therefor when oil is gone, so are plastics....
There you go again with another exaggeration to try and make you point. These products most defiantly can be made with synthetics. They just arnt at the moment because its cheaper to do it with oil. Substitutes will become more economically viable if and when oil runs out.
I find it very irritating when people use bad science to enact policy.
There you go again with another exaggeration to try and make you point. These products most defiantly can be made with synthetics. They just arnt at the moment because its cheaper to do it with oil. Substitutes will become more economically viable if and when oil runs out.
I find it very irritating when people use bad science to enact policy.
Agree. You have to work pretty hard these days to sort out the people hunting for the truth, and the people who are trying to shove their own truth down your throat...
If plastic gets too expensive for everyday items, we will move back to ceramics (actually, some really cool stuff is being done with ceramics now, some call it the future plastic!), while industrial and technical uses of plastics will remain.
And I think that most plastics are made from by-products and the parts of oil that isn't used for fuel. Regardless, you can still go by huge hunks of plastic at WalMart for next-to-nothing, so I'm guessing that the cost of oil isn't affecting plastics too much.
I think if you check, you'll find that the processes in making ceramics uses lots of energy, electricity and heat, which, of course, depends on fuel ...which usually means oil.
Baron Max
Hmmm. If you read my posts you will see that I am betting on a future with lots of nuclear power. There are many being planned right now in the US. Besides, plastics take power as well, so I'm not sure that you have a point.
Oh, and check out the latest Popular Science for a look at how we are going to turn our landfills into usable energy. Fascinating stuff.
Basically NO. Our economy, at it's present scale, cannot be run on anything but oil. The market will not save us, because technology is not the same thing as energy. There isn't enough farmland to grow power as well as food, especially with oil-derived fertilizers unavailable. Nuclear power won't save us, since building nuclear plants and mining uranium are oil-intensive processes. Landfill sources won't save us, since that is a parasitic process. Less oil means less production for landfills.
Fair play, but you'll wish you pulled your head out your ass when things start to go wrong.
Name some of these substitutes.
Where will all the energy to create machinery, vehicles, synthetic materials and products utilising these synthetic materials come from?
Think, on a national scale - the US - think about the number of trucks required to get food to fill the supermarket shelves so people can eat, think about the energy that will need to be used to create huge battery packs for them or whatever other technology they're going to run on. Think about all of the different processes for the production of food - fertilizers (oil based), farming techniques (oil+machinery based), sorting (oil+machinery based), transportation (oil+machinery), production line (oil+machinery), packaging (oil+machinery), transportation (oil+machinery) and think of all the people involved in that chain of events - they drive cars to get to work, the supermarket and wherever else they need to go, right? They use natural gas and oil to heat their homes and to have electricity.
Dale Allen Pfieffer said:
If we did a test run around the world and said "right, we can't use any oil on tuesday" the world would come to a standstill. Nothing would be the same. There would be food on the shelves I guess, but imagine after a few days that no trucks could deliver the food, the refridgerators didn't have power and you couldn't keep anything cold.
You need to go to the hospital, but wait - there's no doctors there because they haven't got any petrol in the car. You need medication, but hang on - there isn't any, because funding isn't there, because the economy's totally fucked and they can't produce it due to lack of oil.
Everything depends on oil. You can talk about synthetic materials and ways out, but there aren't any that are viable. You don't see the full extent of the problem.
Gasoline can be extracted from coal, like the Germans did during WWII, but the difference in economy can make the difference between winning and losing. In spite of this technology, they were still desperate to sieze Russia and Iraq's oil fields.