What happens after the oil is gone?

I have been doing some research on globalization, world economies, mono-cropping, and the oil economy for an anthropology class and I thought I would ask some questions of people on this forum.Reading through the EUR reports and the IOEC and DOE reports along with university research using Hubbert models for oil peaks, I was wondering what concerns or positions you all had on the coming oil crisis (if there'll be a crisis, etc.)?It seems to me that we are headed for an industrial (pardon the pun ) sized crisis when oil stocks start declining. Many poeple do not realize how dependent our economy is on oil production. Working in my professors research lab I have come to realize that even most of the chemicals we use in the lab come from oil "cracker" plants. 50% of the energy used to mine for coal comes from oil, the electricity we depend on for "peak" usage comes from gas-turbine plants, to run our cars, trains, planes, ocean going vessels, military complex depends almost exclusively on oil, and our refining, manufacturing, fertilizer industries depend on oil.In the case that we do run out of oil, do you believe that humans will go extinct, revert to stone-age existence, or will science overcome all?If we do revert to a stone age existence what can we expect for the evolution of the human species? I am assuming that geographical isolation(limited migration?) will create opportunities for evolution? Or are we enough of a migrating, ie exploring type, species that isolation would be limited?I would like to talk about mono-cropping, third world debt, and globalization but I'll leave that for another time.

Running out of oil is essentially a non-issue at this point. Even if we ran out of cheap oil, there's always more expensive oil to dig and pump out. And, new reserves are constantly being found - look at Iran's monster of a find a few months ago.The amount of reserves that are not economically recoverable at current times dwarf those that are. It's an issue of cost. If fuel costs rise enough, even ethanol will become cheaper than oil (not to mention, ethanol is getting cheaper). It's all about how expensive global energy costs will be.Finally, when you start replacing oil for energy generation with fixed power methods (wind, hydro, nuclear, etc which are slowly becoming cheaper), that moves oil from such uses into uses such as transportation, petrochemicals, etc.------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

Well, in terms of oil use in cars, hopefully we will start moving over to hydrogen. Once we start the transition it will be killing two birds with one stone. Hydrogen creates only pure water as waste (No more pollution) and Hydrogen is also the most abundant element in the universe (Low prices and no need of oil). Although it is quite expensive to get a Hydrogen powered cars right now in a few years they will be pretty common.

Ahh but the problem of the more expensive oil is that it is not as economically viable to extract it or just worthless. Right now we are running at about 5 barrels of oil produced per 1 barrel of oil invested in drilling and pumping. Estimates suggest that by 2005 that ratio will come close to 1 to 1. This just makes it economically unviable. You end up using the oil you just produced, a no-win situation. Even if oil reaches $500 a barrel, it doesn't make sense "energy wise" to recover.How much does ethanol replace our usage of oil? Can we switch over from an oil based economy to an ethanol based one? Remebr that our world population is increasing and our agricultural output peaked sometime in the early 80's. Our fisheries are in drastic decline or facing extinction so agriculture doesn't and will not have the output necessary to replace the oil production loss. We use oil as fertilizer as well, so what are we gaining by using the "food" we just produced to create more food? Its a net loss strategy. Without fertilizer we go from about 130 bushels per acre to 30 bushels.Current predictions are for an oil production peak somewhere around 2010, with optimistic estimates closer to 2020. This is not much time for us to "realise" other energy alternatives. Right now most other "clean" alternatives, if we use them all, would only produce about 30% of the energy needs of our economy. This doesn't include transportation. What about all the airlines, cars, and ocean going vessels? On this subject what can we expect of those emerging superpower-like nations such as China or India, who would like their economies to mirror the United states standard of living? Do you think that this world can afford a car for every Chinese or Indian? Do you think that they should "expect" such a life-style? What happens when those emerging economies lack the know-how to switch to other than an oil using economy?Claiming that running out of oil is a "non-issue" is to close our eyes to that big mack truck of a problem coming into our lane of the highway.

The problem with that scenario, at least right now, is that how do you think the hydrogen is "produced"? Thats right, oil powered electricity. Without the oil to produce the electricity, there is no production of hydrogen.

Even with a best case scenario, ie. 2020 "peak", is it possible to replace our oil economies with renewables?Back to the question. What future do we have as a species after oil, when population is expanding? When will the principles of Malthus kick in?{edited for content}[This message has been edited by DBlevins, 11-13-2003]

Very little oil takes more energy to pump than it contains. Most oil that is not economically recoverable is just that: it costs too much to produce. That doesn't mean it takes more energy than it produces (and even if it did, that's not necessarily a show stopper, because there are differences between a moble source of fuel such as oil and a fixed source such as nuclear)Any increase in energy costs as a whole reduces production. The more energy costs increase, the more production decreases. Of course this strain's the world's capacity - but that's more of an issue pertaining to overpopulation than fuel. Going up to ethanol prices and shifting land-based energy toward renewable is hardly a show stopper for planet Earth. It just is a temporary setback in human development until efficiency gains recouperate the loss.

quote:

---

Current predictions are for an oil production peak somewhere around 2010, with optimistic estimates closer to 2020

---

Yes, the peak of oil production and the end of the reserves has always been 10-20 years away. They've been giving that distance from the current date since the 1960s. It keeps going back, just as Moore's Law just won't die.

quote:

---

Right now most other "clean" alternatives, if we use them all, would only produce about 30% of the energy needs of our economy.

---

If ethanol was the fuel replacement, the oil companies would switch to producing ethanol en masse. If it was biofuel, they'd use that. Whatever it turned out to be, they'd switch to producing it - and they'd produce *lots* of it.Again, there's plenty of options. Right now, oil is just the cheapest. If oil runs low, other options will be the cheapest. There are more options for creating power than you can shake a stick at - the problem is, in the present day, they just can't beat low-priced oil.------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

quote:

---

The problem with that scenario, at least right now, is that how do you think the hydrogen is "produced"? Thats right, oil powered electricity. Without the oil to produce the electricity, there is no production of hydrogen.

---

Actually, it's even worse than that: we strip the hydrogen from the oil itself And our byproduct? CO2! The people who think hydrogen is "free power" don't know what they're talking about. On planet Earth, most hydrogen is locked up in water. It's at an energy state that it wants to be at. To get the hydrogen off of water, you have to put a lot of energy in - more energy than you get back by burning the hydrogen back to the water from whence it came. The only way we can get hydrogen for "free" en masse is from oil.Hydrogen is not an energy source - it is an energy storage method. Oil is an energy source. So are many other things. But hydrogen is not one of them.------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

Of course an increase in energy costs reduces production. That was the point I was making. The problem with switching to ethanol is over-population. It isn't a viable alternative. Population even if everyone begins to have just one child per family will still continue to grow for a period of time, and THAT ain't happening. We can't feed the population we have now, much less one that relies on ethanol as a fuel alternative which would reduce available food. And my question still remains whether you "push-back" the oil peak or not. What happens when it is gone? It is a finite resource that isn't going to last us more than 30-50 years. What has our government done to conserve this resource in order to slow down the coming crisis and give us time to implement alternatives? The answer they give is to increase gas power plants, keep fuel standards the same or lower, increase SUV's.How long before we can increase the efficiency of the alternatives? Economically I just don't see it happening with alternatives right now. They just are not environmentally/economically viable.You may say that, ooh but we have plenty of options, but I am not sure that you have actually looked at the data. Those alternatives are not economically viable right now, and at our present rate of consumption we don't have time to increase their efficiency before the oil market "goes postal."

I thought I would add some links for people to peruse should they feel inclined. World Energy Crisis
nice site with proposal for sofetning the impact of an oil crisis.http://www.oilcrisis.com/bartlett/
has some good links to debates on the oil crisis.DieOff -
nice site with excellent links at bottom of page.http://orc.pennnet.com/articles/print_toc.cfm?volume=2001...
oil&Gas online research site. List of countries and oil production.The issue is not if but when...

We use oil 'cos it's cheap, when it ceases to be cheap we'll use other fuels. Life will go on.Seriously, we've got much bigger problems than running out of oil.

Well, I am not sure if I should be surprised at the lack of foresight with regards to the oil crisis. It's not like it is much talked about it on television, or other mass media. I wonder what problem you think is bigger than this crisis? I am unaware of any world problem that is coming this close to disaster as is the oil crisis and I believe that it is coming a lot faster than people had suspected.

The question I'd like to ask is where do poeple think our future is headed? Whatever problem that you believe faces us in the near future, what direction are we headed as a species? Will we fall under one of the Malthusian principles? If we don't become extinct as a species, what do you believe will happen to us? Speculation is cheap and I thought it would be interesting to see in what direction people see us moving into? WIll we move back into a stone-age existence or are we so caught up in our lifestyles now that we kick the bucket?I am tempted to see us revert to a stone-age existence, with the slight chance that once population stabilizes we undergo some form of re-industrialization, either using coal or some other "surprise" means. I have faith in our ingenuity, but only when our population is at a stable level.I wonder how many poeple have the knowledge to survive without electricity? If you do survive, what areas are rich in game or farmland? How would you get to this area? If you find such a resource will you know how to grow or catch the food necessary? Will others find your resource worth fighting over? Will you share or will they share the resource? Will you be able to kill them if not?I think those questions are worth thinking about. It may not happen within 5 years but I believe it is closer than the average person suspects.

Fossil fuel will not be needed in the new Messianic Millenium, soon to emerge after soon coming Armageddon, with King Jesus in the global drivers seat. The cities will have been reduced to rubble in the final mother of all earthquakes (global, see Revelation, last couple of verses in chapter 16). It's back to the horse and buggy with each growing each's own gardens and building each's own house to suit. Relatively "Few men" will be left on earth, as the prophet Isaiah puts it after the Day Of Jehovah's Wrath is fullfilled (Seven bowls of God's wrath poured out upon earth, Revelation 16). Satan will be in "bottomless pit" for the millenium and all's well without fossil fuels and need of industrialization.

quote:

---

Of course an increase in energy costs reduces production. That was the point I was making. The problem with switching to ethanol is over-population. It isn't a viable alternative. Population even if everyone begins to have just one child per family will still continue to grow for a period of time, and THAT ain't happening. We can't feed the population we have now, much less one that relies on ethanol as a fuel alternative which would reduce available food.

---

Actually, we can feed the population we have now. If our only priority was feeding as many people as possible, we could feed hundreds of billions. However, it isn't, and we don't. 1 ton of grain feeds 2,250 people per day. The world produces about 1,900,000,000 tons of grain per year. That's enough to feed 11 billion people for a year if we weren't wasteful - on grain alone. Most of the farmland in the world is horridly underutilized - methods for farming don't approach the scales of efficiency that we see in the US. Furthermore, as one can see in the middle east, desert can be reclaimed to farmland. Even tundra can be reclaimed for farmland. The only issue is: what are our priorities as a people? Are they driving SUVs, living in urban palaces, jetting off to Cancun for vacation, and launching a new military invasion every 5 years, or are they feeding the world?

quote:

---

And my question still remains whether you "push-back" the oil peak or not.

---

Actually, I've addressed your concern: There are more ways to generate power than you can shake a stick at (in fact, if we really wanted to, we could generate power from shaking sticks ). The issue is cost. And the higher the cost, the lower world production. But it's never going to be some huge calamity; even with ethanol prices (about twice as much as we currently pay for oil for the same amount of energy if I recall correctly, although it's been falling fairly quickly), the world will still get by just fine.

quote:

---

The answer they give is to increase gas power plants, keep fuel standards the same or lower, increase SUV's.

---

Then don't vote Republican.

quote:

---

How long before we can increase the efficiency of the alternatives? Economically I just don't see it happening with alternatives right now. They just are not environmentally/economically viable.

---

If you follow tech news, there's been some great progress. Just ignoring efficiency increases on the usage end (such as hybrid vehicles, which while still a niche market, are becoming more and more popular, and will continue to as oil prices rise - Saturn is even making a hybrid SUV!), there have been some great advances on solar (new alloy solar cells that capture almost a third of sunlight for high-cost ones, and new cheap silicon cells for mass use that produce as much power as you used to have to use expensive alloy cells for); wind (turbines that can withstand storms better so that you can design them to capture more wind; when build, they should start rivalling fossil fuels for efficiency in places); nuclear (we're getting a lot closer to fusion power, which is pretty much endless energy without the extensive nuclear waste); hydroelectric (now people are looking into harvesting energy from oceanic conveyors; also, the first tidal power plants have been built); and even new exotic methods of generating power, such as a solar chimney which not only produces power, but acts as a greenhouse as well.

quote:

---

You may say that, ooh but we have plenty of options, but I am not sure that you have actually looked at the data.

---

I've actually followed this quite closely. For some background, my father is a vice president of Motiva (an oil company), and I myself used to be the coordinator for Iowans For Peace (so I'm of course incredibly concerned about the US's dependency on foreign oil). I have background on both sides of the issue, and as such, have researched fairly extensively.It's all about what our priorities are going to be. And it's going to be quite a while before oil prices overtake current ethanol prices - in fact, it's far more likely that ethanol prices will *fall* to oil prices than the other way around.P.S. - you may be interested in this, it's been fairly widely reported about: Thermal Depolymerization Process (it first made its fame from an article in Nature). I've done my research on it (I've actually made calls to some of the companies who are using it), and it seems to be quite legitimate. Turn most organic waste streams into oil - nice, eh?------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."[This message has been edited by Rei, 11-13-2003]