Apathy vs Oil vs Energy vs Survival

[genebujold]

I ran the numbers myself using sources obtained from the federal government:

Current oil reserves (known technology)
Future oil reserves (known technology)
Current additional reserves (future extraction technology)
Future oil reserves (future extraction technology)
Potentially unknown future reserves (known and future technologies)

Add them all together, then apply them against the projected energy consumption rates, and wall - 2048 is the last year a drop of oil will drive anything here on this planet.

Well, that was my theory, which seems to approximate Hubbert's own theory quite closely, with a current peak production, and a drop to just 20% of current production by 2050.

Not bad for this armchair scientist!

The question is - what do we do about it???

Simple, but there are several more pieces to the equation:

1. Natural gas runs dry in 2017, just 13 years away.

2. Coal is good for a while, but pollutes the heck out of the atmosphere and waterways, oceans, etc., interrupting the food chain...

3. Nuclear fission is good to go for a couple hundred years, by which time either we've perfected fusion or we're really stupid and deserve to let bacteria inherit the planet.

4. Nuclear fusion is good to go for about 50,000 years, by which time we've either harnessed inter-quantum energy or we're really stupid and deserve to let bacteria inherit the planet.

5. All the solar, wind, tide, and geothermal sources combined won't amount to but a small fraction of our current needs, much less our future needs.

As for the nuclear nay-sayers - countless studies have proven the safety of nuclear energy over alternative forms of energy - and that's based on decades old, active-cooling reactor designs. Current, passive-cooling, dynamically stable reactors pose but a tiny fraction of the threat, and, if adopted, will reduce nuclear energy's detriments to incredibly small fraction of the detriments posed by alternative forms of energy.

So, here's what we do:

1. Write your Congressman. You're all scientists!!! They'll listen to you!!!

2. Research the facts and give them the facts.

3. When they realize they have 1,000 letters from scientists pouring in, all of which are on the same sheet of music, and that all the letters invalidate the widely varying research from a number of different lobbying groups, they'll go, "Gasp! I think there's something to this!!!"

4. Write your President. If Congress chucks too many of your letters, then the President, receiving all 1,000 in his own office, will have little recourse but to give it serious consideration and "Gasp! I think there's something to this!!!"

At which point the Congressional Inquiry begins.

That takes ten years, at which point natural gas has just three years remaining.

A crisis is declared, and 24 years later, they've mandate nuclear fission as the desired fuel of choice, which gives them just 7 years, in the midst of rampant rationing and hoarding, to finish enough nuclear power plants so as to keep the basics of human life, ie., food and water, in steady supply.

Yes, I'm amazed by the apathy of our government when it comes to issues such as these which require "long-term" (20 yrs) thinking (while at the same time they're mandating a plan for the second 10,000 years at Yucca??????????????????????????????????????????

But I'm more amazed at the apathy of readers like you who read this stuff and...

DO ABSOLUTELY NOTHING ABOUT IT

Why?

Why are you spending the next 2 hours on this board when you could spend the next 20 minutes writing both your Congressmen and your President?

Dudes and Dudettes - if we bite the dust in 44 years, it's YOUR fault - the fault of apathy.

Gett off your duffs and DO something about it!!![/u]

[Maksutov]

No vote here since I consider the title of your poll to be an insult.

Re

I ran the numbers myself using sources obtained from the federal government

Always a good source of reliable information. That's the same source that told us in 1973 that we'd be out of oil 15 years ago.

#-o

[mid]

Write your Congressman. You're all scientists!!! They'll listen to you!!!

Any lengthy reply to this is going to be considered political, even though it wouldn't be party political. Suffice to say, while I'll admit to some apathy, its helped along by an awful lot more cynicism.

[Manchurian Taikonaut]

Yes, there is a bit of insult in your poll, but it's a good subject

I don't want to be too political but there are freaks who messed up things on the global level for the last few decades like Bush and Mad Mao

take a look at the land that was once ruled by Mad Mao, now the economy is moving.


I'm not trying to be political but what happens when every Chinaman whats a new sink in their kitchen, when every household wants oil heating, or an automobile


..A growing Economy, cheap labour force and they are getting scientific, military and aerospace benefits from Space technologies. What happens when every 1.2 billion people in China starts moving and buying all this stuff..the world will run out of resources, gas, steel

We need a better outlook on the world economy structures, new technologies are needed, and we need to escape from being dependant on the Middle east for Energy..we need a better place for fuel or new forms of gas power because that area of the world is so much trouble. Why haven't other ideas been put forward ?

[TriangleMan]

The title of the poll and general tone of the post lessens the impact of your message, no vote from me.

I do not have a Congressman, nor a President, to write to. 8)

[VMA131Marine]

5. All the solar, wind, tide, and geothermal sources combined won't amount to but a small fraction of our current needs, much less our future needs.

The sun is good for another 4-5 billion years or so, after which there won't be a planet left for bacteria to inhabit . The US could supply all it's current electricity needs with a square solar photovoltaic array about 300 miles on a side ... and that's with panels that are only 10-11% efficient at converting sunlight to electricity. Experimental cells have demonstrated efficiencies in the 30% range so it's not unreasonable to think that improvements can be made in this area.

On the other hand, all the solar panel ever made would only form an array about 10 miles on a side so there is a long way to go. The bigger challenge with solar PV is building storage systems so that you still have power at night. This can be done on the scale of a single family residence but it's not clear how big storage systems can be made. As a result wind turbines will be an important component of our energy future ... the wind is always blowing somewhere. In addition, if you start putting solar arrays in space and beaming the power back to earth then the amount of power that you can potentially collect gets much larger.

They key, IMHO, is realising that a social and economic system based on continuous and therefore unlimited growth is not conducive to long term survival. Here's an example:

It is possible to calculate an absolute upper limit to the amount of crude oil the earth could contain. We simply assert that the volume of petroleum in the earth cannot be larger than the volume of the earth. The volume of the earth is 6.81 x 1021 barrels, which would last for 4.1 x 1011 yr if the 1970 rate of consumption of oil held constant with no growth. The use of Eq. (6) shows that if the rate of consumption of petroleum continued on the growth curve of 7.04 % / yr of Fig. 2, this earth full of oil will last only 342 yr!

http://www.npg.org/specialreports/bartlett_section3.htm

By a similar analogy, you can show that if we had fusion and we increased the amount of fusion generated by 2-3% per year it would not be long (a few hundred years) before the amount of power generated became a sizable fraction of the total amount of energy received from the Sun.

At some point, humanity has to figure out how to start living a "steady-state" existence. Physical systems that don't tend to a steady-state from some set of initial conditions either destroy themselves or oscillate. Why should humanity be different?

[SciFi Chick]

How rude! Are you trying to get yourself banned again?






[edited for typo]

[jrkeller]

Goggling around I found your numbers for natural gas reserves extremely low. Using the current values of known NG reserves and current and projected use, the US can supply its own Natural Gas needs for at least 50 more years. It is estimated that about 30 year supply still has not been found.

At that point who cares, I'll be dead. :roll: :roll:


Seriously, I do think the world's energy comsumption is a problem, but I think a far greater problem is the population explosion of the past 40 or so years.

[Musashi]

No vote here since I consider the title of your poll to be an insult.

Re

I ran the numbers myself using sources obtained from the federal government

Always a good source of reliable information. That's the same source that told us in 1973 that we'd be out of oil 15 years ago.

#-o

In fact, I think that cycle has been going on for quite some time. Every 10-20 years there seems to be a report that we only have 10-20 years of oil left. Odd.

[Manchurian Taikonaut]

yes we are running very low
but we might not run out
but the 'other stuff' is at astronomical prices !

I've read up on this before, it's hard to explain what is really going on but I could put it all in a very simple manner
it goes a little like this: most of the resources in the middle East have Oil and pertoleum in its purest form..there are other sources of Oil and Gas like blasting apart areas of Alsaka or digging miles down under the Atlantic Ocean but the oil here is difficult to manage, hard to extract, and trapped within the rocks and it will cost a fortune to get it working 8-[ while somewhere like the Middle East the Oil is bubbling out of the ground, just take out your shovel and dig it up like some bugs bunny cartoon and you'll get that pure blackness gushing out.

That's why it's so cost effective for nations to import their oil from the middle East, but there are other factors now, political problems, the oil resources are running low, and the area has become unstable and isn't secure..that's when prices start to skyrocket..have you not noticed the price of gas is costing an arm and a leg..just wait for the cost of winter oil to heat your homes 8-[

A lot of research should be done into looking at other forms fuel, not being so dependant on the middle east and creating other means of getting of Energy

[mike alexander]

Hi, gene. Just to let you know that I don't consider a cry of the heart to be insulting. And that at the core I agree with you.

If genes and probability are any indication I'll be dead much sooner than fifty years from now, but my son hopefully won't be, or his children.

There are large error bars around both production and consumption rates, but that does not affect the final outcome of the process: sooner or later there is a maximum production rate followed by a decline. Inevitable for any finite resource.

One problem is looking only at the final figures, which can give some comfort but may miss some intermediate problems. Extreme example: the sun will stay on the main sequence for several billion more years. But, it's increasing thermal output will make the earth uninhabitable in a billion years or less.

If we look at oil or gas production the key number is not when we run out completely, but when the incompatibility of supply and demand produce economic and social dislocations our civilization cannot endure. As a thought experiment, what would be the effect of a relatively small, say 10% drop in oil production on the world at large?

I ultimately agree that constant-rate (or increasing rate as seems to be occuring now) increase in use is not sustainable. Compound interest is a sneaky thing, but it can either make you very rich or quite dead in a remarkably short time.

[SciFi Chick]

Hi, gene. Just to let you know that I don't consider a cry of the heart to be insulting. And that at the core I agree with you.

No one would, but to approach a subject as if everyone who disagrees with you is dumb, is insulting.

[Glom]

fission fission fission fission fission fission fission fission fission fission fission fission fission fission fission fission fission fission fission fission fission fission fission fission fission fission fission fission fission fission fission fission fission fission fission fission

[SciFi Chick]

I just had an idea for a solution. I don't know if it came from the ether or what. I don't want to sound like a woo woo, but it just came to me.

How about fission?



:wink:

[TriangleMan]

How about fission?

Nah, people who go on and on about fission are crackpots. :wink:

[VMA131Marine]

How about fission?

Nah, people who go on and on about fission are crackpots. :wink:

Fission is only viable if we use breeder reactors and figure out how to make Thorium fission reactors. Otherwise there isn't enough U-235 to provide more than a few decades of power if it were employed as a substitute for natural gas or to make hydrogen to replace oil.

[xbck1]

1. How do you know that all the oil will run dry by the year 2017? Is there any actual way that you can prove this? I mean, come on! The stuff is underground! And are you just thinking oil from the Middle East, or are you thinking all the oil on the planet is going to all be sucked up by that year? I, personally, find it hard to believe either way.

2. We're not "all scientists". I'm only 17, and I find it a bit hard to believe that some congressman is going to listen to some nobody 17-year-old from out in the boonies.

3. We can't all write our congressmen because they don't have them in some places... like Bermuda, as TriangleMan pointed out.

4. When was the last time you actually heard of the United States' government actually listening to scientists when it doesn't have anything to do with blowing people up in a really fancy way?

5. I refuse to participate in a poll that calls me really stupid for not reading all of a junk post, which yours seems to be.

[Argos]

Oil derivatives have the merit of being portable. Autonomy and individual mobility (made possible by oil economy) have shaped our way of life. When oil is gone a great deal of that mobility - ergo the civilization as we know it - will be lost.

The spectre of a colective life looms.

[VMA131Marine]

1. How do you know that all the oil will run dry by the year 2017? Is there any actual way that you can prove this? I mean, come on! The stuff is underground! And are you just thinking oil from the Middle East, or are you thinking all the oil on the planet is going to all be sucked up by that year? I, personally, find it hard to believe either way.

Nobody is saying that oil is going to run out by 2017. What peak oil means is that, probably sometime between now and 2010 mankind will have consumed half of the recoverable oil on the planet. The recoverable part is important because even in oil fields that are now deemed to be "dead" there is lots of oil left. It just takes more energy to get it out of the ground than you get back when you burn it.

The half part is important because when you talk about exponential growth in the consumption of anything a key number is the length of time it takes to double your rate of consumption. This is like compound interest in reverse. If you've been consuming a resource for say 50 years and the rate of consumption doubles every 10 years then between the 50th and 60th year you will consume as much of the resource as you did in the first 50 years. More importantly, if you had consumed half the resource after 50 years, then after 60 years it will ALL be gone. Oil consumption is increasing at about 4% per year which means the rate of consumption will double, if unconstrained, in 19 years. Therefore, if we have now consumed half the recoverable oil on the planet then 19 years from now it will all be gone.

Except, there are limits to how fast oil can be extracted from the ground. As oil wells are drained, they "age" and production falls. The first half of the oil is also the easiest to get. This is why the scenario is termed Peak Oil, because at or near the point where 50% of the original resource is used up the rate of production also hits its maximum. After the peak production can be expected to follow an exponential decline and no matter what you try to do you'll never equal that production peak, the so-called Hubbert Peak.

2. We're not "all scientists". I'm only 17, and I find it a bit hard to believe that some congressman is going to listen to some nobody 17-year-old from out in the boonies.

One 17-year old? Probably not! But lots of 17-year olds and their parents, relatives, siblings, definitely!

3. We can't all write our congressmen because they don't have them in some places... like Bermuda, as TriangleMan pointed out.

This seems a bit argumentative as even Bermuda has some form of government.

4. When was the last time you actually heard of the United States' government actually listening to scientists when it doesn't have anything to do with blowing people up in a really fancy way?

Touche!

5. I refuse to participate in a poll that calls me really stupid for not reading all of a junk post, which yours seems to be.

I can't comment on the validity of the poll since this is not my thread, but the subject is very real and prescient.

[Stylesjl]

Assuming alternative energy fails to meet the middle class prices i propose a scenario as to what will happen

Oil now is okay but soon prices will go up until most of the poor class is unable to drive cars and some plastic product prices might go up

Then the middle class will soon have problems driving cars because of the prices and the government will subsidise petroleum products and power generation so thet will probaly reamain the same

Soon only the rich will drive cars and power generation will start having problems but plastic is only 15% of oil burned so it should be fine

Food production, Petroleum products, and Power generation will be subsided by the government WHEN THE OIL STARTS RUNNING LOW when people are not driving cars about three quarters of oil is saved probaly giving oil another 150 years enough time to think of alternative energy

Im optimistic for the future 8)

[Trinity]

We supposedly ran out of oil in 1975, again in 1989, and again in 1994. I'm sure there was a report for every year saying we were supposed to run out of oil. I'm tired of hearing this.

[VMA131Marine]

We supposedly ran out of oil in 1975, again in 1989, and again in 1994. I'm sure there was a report for every year saying we were supposed to run out of oil. I'm tired of hearing this.

Again, nobody is saying that oil is imminently running out.

[Morrolan]

1. Natural gas runs dry in 2017, just 13 years away.

what data do you base this statement on?

edit to add an interesting little tidbit of information:

oil consumption in China is currently 50% of that of the USA whereas the average Chinese citizen uses only 10% of the energy the average American does. and we're not even talking about India, another fast growing economy with 1 billion people. this demand alone will keep crude oil prices way above the USD 30/barrel (Brent) for ever, so don't hold your breath for lower gas prices now or ever. they will get higher.

i may not agree with what was brought up in the OP (or they way it was brought up), but it is becoming painfully obvious that in all probability the world doesn't have enough oil in any way shape or form to support the demand of a future Chinese economy in full swing and an energy consumption per capita equal to the US.

of course, the US per capita energy consumption is ludicrously high to begin with. time for some better fuel economy in those cars some people are intent on using!

[NGR]

what data do you base this statement on?

Yes I would like the answer to this as well.

You might like to know that in November 2003 Australia signed a deal with China worth US$13.75 billion to supply 3.3 million tons of LNG a year for 25 years starting from 2005 to China's Guangdong Province. This followed an earlier contract for a similar 25 year deal to start in 2008. Boy the Chinese are going to be pissed when they find out there is no gas beyond 2012.

Incidently I believe that Australia is also chasing contracts to supply California with gas so there would not appear to be any world shortage just shortages in some areas. Good business opportunity that. :wink:

[genebujold]

No vote here since I consider the title of your poll to be an insult.

Re

I ran the numbers myself using sources obtained from the federal government

Always a good source of reliable information. That's the same source that told us in 1973 that we'd be out of oil 15 years ago.

#-o

Yet if you'll just take the time to read beyond the first few words, you'll realize (gasp!) that I actually included several categories for those who're not only not stupid, but who're exceptionally bright!

I really am sorry you were offended by the title. But I have to ask, if the title is only as far as you got...

[genebujold]

What happens when every 1.2 billion people in China starts moving and buying all this stuff..the world will run out of resources, gas, steel...

We need a better outlook on the world economy structures, new technologies are needed, and we need to escape from being dependant on the Middle east for Energy..we need a better place for fuel or new forms of gas power because that area of the world is so much trouble. Why haven't other ideas been put forward ?

Steel's easy - just warp an iron-laden Mars-Jupiter asteroid into L5 using an ion engine pack. Mine as necessary. Thrown massive chunks of iron to Earth for collection. The melting point is high enough that if you make it big enough, you can recover 90% of it without much trouble at all. Ocean landings are the best, preferrably in shallow water.

Plays hell with the environmentalists and naysayers, though... "what if one missed, and landed in my backyard? Wahhhh...!"

[genebujold]

Yeah! It finally reached two pages!!!

The ONE event in this world that will have the MOST impact on all mankind over the next 50 years took THREE DAYS to make the second page.

Pathetic, people.

Get with it.

[genebujold]

The title of the poll and general tone of the post lessens the impact of your message, no vote from me.

I do not have a Congressman, nor a President, to write to. 8)

But you do have a Prime Minister, as well as a Parliament.

Stop making excuses and get busy, or you'll be bicycling to work, and sailing back to Great Britain!

[genebujold]

5. All the solar, wind, tide, and geothermal sources combined won't amount to but a small fraction of our current needs, much less our future needs.

The sun is good for another 4-5 billion years or so, after which there won't be a planet left for bacteria to inhabit . The US could supply all it's current electricity needs with a square solar photovoltaic array about 300 miles on a side ... and that's with panels that are only 10-11% efficient at converting sunlight to electricity. Experimental cells have demonstrated efficiencies in the 30% range so it's not unreasonable to think that improvements can be made in this area.

On the other hand, all the solar panel ever made would only form an array about 10 miles on a side so there is a long way to go. The bigger challenge with solar PV is building storage systems so that you still have power at night. This can be done on the scale of a single family residence but it's not clear how big storage systems can be made. As a result wind turbines will be an important component of our energy future ... the wind is always blowing somewhere. In addition, if you start putting solar arrays in space and beaming the power back to earth then the amount of power that you can potentially collect gets much larger.

They key, IMHO, is realising that a social and economic system based on continuous and therefore unlimited growth is not conducive to long term survival. Here's an example:

It is possible to calculate an absolute upper limit to the amount of crude oil the earth could contain. We simply assert that the volume of petroleum in the earth cannot be larger than the volume of the earth. The volume of the earth is 6.81 x 1021 barrels, which would last for 4.1 x 1011 yr if the 1970 rate of consumption of oil held constant with no growth. The use of Eq. (6) shows that if the rate of consumption of petroleum continued on the growth curve of 7.04 % / yr of Fig. 2, this earth full of oil will last only 342 yr!

http://www.npg.org/specialreports/bartlett_section3.htm

By a similar analogy, you can show that if we had fusion and we increased the amount of fusion generated by 2-3% per year it would not be long (a few hundred years) before the amount of power generated became a sizable fraction of the total amount of energy received from the Sun.

At some point, humanity has to figure out how to start living a "steady-state" existence. Physical systems that don't tend to a steady-state from some set of initial conditions either destroy themselves or oscillate. Why should humanity be different?

Ahhh... At last! Some intelligent examination of the problem!

Personal solar panels are not only a possibility, they're a reality. They've been incorporated into roofing tiles since the mid-90's. A little more expensive, at $10,000 for a roof as opposed to $4,000, but the additional $6,000 you spend is equivalent over their estimated 10-year life span energy bill-equivalent of less than 5 years.

Two to one - I could buy that.

But that's an "average." While that may help the folks in Arizona, Texas, New Mexico, Nevada, and California, those of us in less sunny states will be hard-pressed to break even.

[quote]In addition, if you start putting solar arrays in space and beaming the power back to earth then the amount of power that you can potentially collect gets much larger.[/quote

You're right!!! So why aren't we doing it? Is it because we're afraid the microwave transmissions might distort our genes?

Seriously, this is a very salient idea. I'm not sure of the cost per megawatt, however, although I suspect it's significantly higher than nuclear fusion, which is perhaps one reason why we haven't gone this route.

We simply assert that the volume of petroleum in the earth cannot be larger than the volume of the earth... ...this earth full of oil will last only 342 yr!

This one approach, is ingenious. By itself it shows how much oil we consume compared to what the planet will give.

The problem isn't understanding - it's apathy. I wrote my father, only to read "I'm not all that concerned, after all, I really don't think I'll be around then..."

Whatever happened to caring for one's progeny, for perpetuating the species? How selfish! How crass to say, "I'll be dead in 30 years, so it makes no difference to me."

Come on!!!

Does the older generation really care that little about their children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren to adopt the "it doesn't concern me" approach and condemn them to a hellacious life (if any) because their progenitors failed to take the appropriate action???

If there's any worse test of the failure of any species to fail to provide for it's decendants...

I guess this disproves Darwin, huh!!!

Or at the very least, proves why the human race deserves extinction: "We don't care."

By a similar analogy, you can show that if we had fusion and we increased the amount of fusion generated by 2-3% per year it would not be long (a few hundred years) before the amount of power generated became a sizable fraction of the total amount of energy received from the Sun.

But I could also show you similar charts as to how much more efficient our houses are now than the long-houses of old, that took half a cord of wood to keep the average temp at just 15 degrees above a freezing 32 at night.

My uncle designed and built his own house in Michigan for significantly less $$ than he would have paid for the same house if contractor or tract-house built. When he went to get the heat-pump, the salesmen laughed at him, claiming that it was less than 1/4 what he needed.

It took his reviewer architect's stamp of approval before they sold him the heat pump he wanted (state law), yet over the last 11 years, he's never run his heat pump, summer or winter, more than 3 hours in any 24-hour period - that's how good his design was.

And did it require massively expensive windows or strange insulation requirements?

Nope.

Just good old-fashioned know-how and a penchant for spending where it counts, and cutting costs where it doesn't.

In fact, in the summer of 1994, I even helped him build that house!!! Mostly hanging soffet and siding.

If anyone wants construction details, send me a PM and I'll gladly supply them.

[genebujold]

Goggling around I found your numbers for natural gas reserves extremely low. Using the current values of known NG reserves and current and projected use, the US can supply its own Natural Gas needs for at least 50 more years. It is estimated that about 30 year supply still has not been found.

At that point who cares, I'll be dead. :roll: :roll:

Seriously, I do think the world's energy comsumption is a problem, but I think a far greater problem is the population explosion of the past 40 or so years.

Reference my previous message for you obvious lack of concern for your progeny...

As for the population explosion, it's a well-documented fact that industrialized societies (USA, UK, ROK, Japan, Germany, Italy, etc.) tend to limit their own populations quite well, and this not due to abortion, but to other causes. I'm not sure what those causes might be, but I do find the fact most intriguing!

Reminds me of a NOVA episode which studied rats living in a confined space over a period of 22 months. At first, the few rats that were introduced (about 12, I think) were happy, healthy, well-adjusted rats with no abnormal personality traits. Conditions - unlimited food/water supply, refuse processing, and habitat material.

After the first year, the rats began exhibiting some bizaar behaviors, including agression (biting the tails off other rats), preening (constant self-cleaning behaviors), and what can only be termed as "political one-upmanship," with showy behaviors resembling those of modern politicians.

Or merely rats competing for mating rites.

Eventually, the rat population crumbled to a much more sustainable percentage of less than 1/5 of it's peak population.

One can't help but wonder what we're headed for...