4 ms·

The peak and decline of US oil production is going to be one of the geopolitical stories of the next 25 years. If US renewables and nuclear don't fill the gap t

by sgt101 1y ago

The peak and decline of US oil production is going to be one of the geopolitical stories of the next 25 years. If US renewables and nuclear don't fill the gap the need for global naval dominance is going to come knock knock knocking again. It looks very like there are three factors that are going to mean that reasserting dominace isn't just very hard: - Missile tech has advanced and proliferated. - US ship building is crippled, and expanding it (especially where needed) is going to be very difficult. Basically the US is going to need a lot of SSN and it won't be able to make them. - There is a competitor power with sufficient resources to make it a real competition, and a very different conceptualisation of how the world should work.

downrightmike 1y ago
Don't worry, I'm sure they are working to deliver war drones via ICBM
mempko 1y ago
I don't think people realize that at current growth rates we have only 60 to 100 years or oil left. Growth will obviously flatten and decline way before then. The age of oil is over folks.
- cryptonector 1y ago
  We've been saying that for 60 years.
- vdupras 1y ago
  I don't think people care. After all, they don't care about the degradation of our life support, which doesn't have much more than that either, at least at a civilization-sustaining level.
chasd00 1y ago
> The peak and decline of US oil production is going to be one of the geopolitical stories of the next 25 years people have been saying that since the 70s at least. The reason why no one is fracking is because oil/gs is so cheap it's not worth it. If the price rises enough the wells turn back on and everyone starts doing it again. Renewables, demand, and regional stability is keeping prices low so putting in the extra effort fracking requires just isn't worth the return. Google says the average break even price of a fracking well in the Permian Basin (SW Texas) is $65/barrel. And the price of oil as of this comment is $65.98 so that would mean a lot of wells are just sitting there because it's not worth the money to pump.
- vdupras 1y ago
  And that's what it's all about: Energy Return on Investment. Conventional oil has a much much better return than fracking, and the US is out of it. This is what is meant by "decline". Sure, there's plenty of oil, but it's more expensive to get out, so we don't. On the flip side, our economy is dependent on a certain EROI. Below that, it chokes because we don't have enough energy "slaves" to render the services we've came to depend upon.
cryptonector 1y ago
> The peak and decline of US oil production... The peak and decline of global oil production -not just U.S.- has been predicated for longer than I am alive. It's still in the future, and reserves have grown significantly. And the U.S. has natural gas reserves that are enormous, so at least the energy side is covered (though not non-fuel things like plastics and lubricants). As for U.S. ship building... that could probably be fixed, though it will take years, but not so many that the USN's current advantages dissipate completely.
mrtksn 1y ago
America was doing very well on renewable energy, it started a bit late than EU but accelerated quickly and just caught up. For some reason the new administration decided not to proceed any further.
grepfru_it 1y ago
Nuclear replaces one problem with another (waste). Renewables are the only way
- Teever 1y ago
  Nuclear waste is in no way comparable to the environmental damage incurred from the use of hydrocarbons in our economy.
- idiotsecant 1y ago
  Nuclear waste is not a substantial problem, technically. It's a NIMBY problem. It's just tradeoffs. Nuke is a wonderful power source that works today. That's better than tech that will work once we have 30 years of investment into storage and transmission networks. We do need renewables. We also need something to fill the gap in the meantime that isn't spewing carbon into an ecosystem that is already past a tipping point.
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
- wpm 1y ago
  Nuclear "waste" is barely even waste, it's still full of a bunch of energy that could be put to use if we improved the reactors. It's just unusable in what we have now. It's also miniscule.
  - ceph_ 1y ago
    This is not true for any of the nuclear waste generated in the US. Your talking about a fantasy world, not the current state.
  - sidewndr46 1y ago
    The US to date has primarily approached the problem of civilian nuclear waste by planning for and building a single facility, then cancelling the entire thing before any waste was ever moved there. There are a couple pilot plants, those are exactly what they sound like. The US will never solve the problem of nuclear waste.
arevno 1y ago
I don't know to what extent naval dominance will be useful. Even with EOR and TOR, Ghawar continues to decline, along with most of ME and Russian fields. Global conventional peaked a long time ago, and EOR/TOR will only keep the game going another decade or so. Renewables and nuclear are the only long-term options. There's also coal, of which we have at least a hundred years in the PRB alone, if we're willing to match China in the "fuck the environment" game.
- dredmorbius 1y ago
  PRB: Powder River Basin, for the curious: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Powder_River_Basin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Powder_River_Basin>
- cryptonector 1y ago
  IIUC the U.S. has over a millenium's worth of energy usage in natural gas reserves. It does require using it, which means either EVs or nat. gas burning engines, and since we're already on our way to EVs that makes sense.

by sgt101 1y ago

downrightmike 1y ago

Don't worry, I'm sure they are working to deliver war drones via ICBM

mempko 1y ago

I don't think people realize that at current growth rates we have only 60 to 100 years or oil left. Growth will obviously flatten and decline way before then. The age of oil is over folks.

cryptonector 1y ago
We've been saying that for 60 years.
vdupras 1y ago
I don't think people care. After all, they don't care about the degradation of our life support, which doesn't have much more than that either, at least at a civilization-sustaining level.

chasd00 1y ago

> The peak and decline of US oil production is going to be one of the geopolitical stories of the next 25 years people have been saying that since the 70s at least. The reason why no one is fracking is because oil/gs is so cheap it's not worth it. If the price rises enough the wells turn back on and everyone starts doing it again. Renewables, demand, and regional stability is keeping prices low so putting in the extra effort fracking requires just isn't worth the return. Google says the average break even price of a fracking well in the Permian Basin (SW Texas) is $65/barrel. And the price of oil as of this comment is $65.98 so that would mean a lot of wells are just sitting there because it's not worth the money to pump.

vdupras 1y ago
And that's what it's all about: Energy Return on Investment. Conventional oil has a much much better return than fracking, and the US is out of it. This is what is meant by "decline". Sure, there's plenty of oil, but it's more expensive to get out, so we don't. On the flip side, our economy is dependent on a certain EROI. Below that, it chokes because we don't have enough energy "slaves" to render the services we've came to depend upon.

cryptonector 1y ago

> The peak and decline of US oil production... The peak and decline of global oil production -not just U.S.- has been predicated for longer than I am alive. It's still in the future, and reserves have grown significantly. And the U.S. has natural gas reserves that are enormous, so at least the energy side is covered (though not non-fuel things like plastics and lubricants). As for U.S. ship building... that could probably be fixed, though it will take years, but not so many that the USN's current advantages dissipate completely.

mrtksn 1y ago

America was doing very well on renewable energy, it started a bit late than EU but accelerated quickly and just caught up. For some reason the new administration decided not to proceed any further.

grepfru_it 1y ago

Nuclear replaces one problem with another (waste). Renewables are the only way

Teever 1y ago
Nuclear waste is in no way comparable to the environmental damage incurred from the use of hydrocarbons in our economy.
idiotsecant 1y ago
Nuclear waste is not a substantial problem, technically. It's a NIMBY problem. It's just tradeoffs. Nuke is a wonderful power source that works today. That's better than tech that will work once we have 30 years of investment into storage and transmission networks. We do need renewables. We also need something to fill the gap in the meantime that isn't spewing carbon into an ecosystem that is already past a tipping point.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
wpm 1y ago
Nuclear "waste" is barely even waste, it's still full of a bunch of energy that could be put to use if we improved the reactors. It's just unusable in what we have now. It's also miniscule.
- ceph_ 1y ago
  This is not true for any of the nuclear waste generated in the US. Your talking about a fantasy world, not the current state.
- sidewndr46 1y ago
  The US to date has primarily approached the problem of civilian nuclear waste by planning for and building a single facility, then cancelling the entire thing before any waste was ever moved there. There are a couple pilot plants, those are exactly what they sound like. The US will never solve the problem of nuclear waste.

arevno 1y ago

I don't know to what extent naval dominance will be useful. Even with EOR and TOR, Ghawar continues to decline, along with most of ME and Russian fields. Global conventional peaked a long time ago, and EOR/TOR will only keep the game going another decade or so. Renewables and nuclear are the only long-term options. There's also coal, of which we have at least a hundred years in the PRB alone, if we're willing to match China in the "fuck the environment" game.

dredmorbius 1y ago
PRB: Powder River Basin, for the curious: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Powder_River_Basin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Powder_River_Basin>
cryptonector 1y ago
IIUC the U.S. has over a millenium's worth of energy usage in natural gas reserves. It does require using it, which means either EVs or nat. gas burning engines, and since we're already on our way to EVs that makes sense.