5 ms·

The end result of the 21st century will be that we will use every single gram of fossil fuel of every type (petroleum, natural gas, coal) that can be dug up for

by beat 13y ago

The end result of the 21st century will be that we will use every single gram of fossil fuel of every type (petroleum, natural gas, coal) that can be dug up for less cost than wind/solar. The more reserves we find, the more carbon winds up in the atmosphere. Environmental handwringing will be about as effective as standing in front of an oncoming train and whispering "stop, please". At best, the environmentalists will succeed in slowing fossil fuel consumption down by a decade or two before we hit the inevitable wall of it no longer being economically viable. Meanwhile, we'll slam into Hubbert's Peak at the global level some years before the dinosaur farts run out, resulting in a steep drop in energy availability and a steep increase in cost. This will send shockwaves through the global economy, and set off resource wars the likes of which we've never seen. If we're very, very smart, and very, very lucky, we won't see half the population of the Earth wiped out in resource wars and famine during this century. :(

rayiner 13y ago
Resource wars will, if anything, validate the American strategy of stockpiling more weapons than the rest of the planet combined. Don't get me wrong--I hope it doesn't come to that. I'm just saying I like our odds. China would do well to remember the power balance before they dig up and burn every piece of coal they can find.
- beat 13y ago
  Indeed. China doesn't have the practice of actually projecting military force the way we do. On the other hand, long distance fuel transport is a highly vulnerable situation. It doesn't take much to bomb a pipeline into uselessness. I fear the odds favor localized terrorism over massive force.
  - JimJames 13y ago
    Some communities might even preemptively sabotage natural oil reserves if the alternative is a possible military occupation.
    - pyre 13y ago
      See the Kuwait oil fields for an example.
  - VandyILL 13y ago
    During the Iraq war and what we're still doing in Afgahnistan the US has spent over $400/gallon to transport fuel to bases. The Pentagon already acknowledges this is not sustainable. In Iraq they adopted soar and wind power for bases to reduce fuel consumption and learned to become so efficient that at times some bases were supplying free electricity to locals. The DOD has also invested in private biofuel companies with the intent of eventually being able to grow fuel for combustion on their bases. The wiser long term strategy the defense establishment is taking isn't just stockpiling weapons for a resource war, but learning how to innovate so they won't even need to fight over those resources.
- christkv 13y ago
  Jupp just like the current syria proxy war about controlling the gas pipe conduit to Europe. http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/earth-insight/2013/may/13/1 http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/earth-insight/2013/may...
- angersock 13y ago
  A very, very cynical way of looking at it, but I too would be darkly amused at validation of the "America, Fuck Yeah!" school of weapon policy. Shame that the common people aren't interested in nuclear power anymore due to stupid badvertising.
joshuahedlund 13y ago
That's a rather pessimistic view that reminds me of past views that proved too pessimistic; I don't think we'll slam into anything. Solar costs continue to drop exponentially[0] and it's possible that it will be cheaper than fossil fuels within a couple of decades. Whether it gets there or not, it will likely keep dropping, and the "dinosaur farts" won't run out[1], they'll just rise in price to meet the cost of extraction until other things are more viable. Rising prices spur demand for more efficient uses, and eventually through a combination of reduced demand and alternative energy sources, we all switch over without a big crisis. Not saying it's the guaranteed or even most likely scenario, but in my opinion we're not so doomed we need to be "very, very lucky". [0]http://azizonomics.com/2013/01/25/when-solar-becomes-cheaper-than-fossil-fuels/ http://azizonomics.com/2013/01/25/when-solar-becomes-cheaper... [1]http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2013/05/what-if-we-never-run-out-of-oil/309294/ http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2013/05/what-if-...
- beat 13y ago
  I think solar/wind becoming cheaper than fossil fuel substantially before the global Hubbert's Peak would fall under my "very, very lucky" clause. It's nice to hope for, and I do have my hopes up. But. :(
- VLM 13y ago
  "I don't think we'll slam into anything." The traditional response is something along the lines of "the stone age didn't end because we ran out of stone". Other than Easter Isle we don't have much experience with this and similar things have not turned out well.
- mark-r 13y ago
  No matter how cheap solar energy becomes, it won't be a complete solution until the energy storage problem is solved. I don't see the same rate of progress on that. If you can't store the energy you'll need a backup that can supply the missing power when the sun isn't shining - you'll need to keep building the old fashioned power plants even if you don't run them as often. Unfortunately there's no guarantee that prices will rise at the time and pace required for efficient uptake of new technologies. The easiest way to reduce demand is to tank the economy. We got a taste of that in 2008, and I'm not looking forward to it happening again.
andylei 13y ago
or maybe, as fossil becomes more scarce and prices rise, we develop more efficient means of harvesting solar and wind energy. malthus thought the same things about food that you think about energy. but instead of global food wars, the green revolution happened, we became more efficient at producing food, and massive famine / famine-war didn't happen.
- seren 13y ago
  We are not "saved" yet because the green revolution is really petro-dependent for both mechanization and fertilizer production. That being said, all these intertwined topics (energy/population/food/health) are more complex than the false dichotomy we are saved or doomed.
DennisP 13y ago
Or we start building nuclear plants, which can provide reliable, affordable power without needing the energy storage, overproduction, smart grids, and long-distance high-voltage lines that come into play when you want to use wind/solar for more than 20% or so of your power (and which tend to be overlooked when people compare costs).
- pyre 13y ago
  1. A lot of people are afraid of the term 'nuclear.' 2. There's a lot of "Not in my Backyard"-ism. 3. They don't get built over-night. Most of those projects are measured in decades.
  - DennisP 13y ago
    Yes, nuclear has a lot of political difficulties. It's frustrating. Politics is a big reason why they take so long to build. To the extent the build problems are technical, factory-built small modular reactors would help a lot.
Spooky23 13y ago
Take a breath. We've transitioned from horse fodder, whale oil, peat, wood and other fuels as better, cleaner alternatives appeared. This is no different. We're all benefiting from cleaner and more efficient combustion engines. The cadence of innovation will continue that trend.
bryanlarsen 13y ago
I predict that oil will be cheaper (adjusted for inflation) in 50 years than it is now. Several reasons: 1. there are huge amounts of oil in places like the oil sands that only recently became economically viable to extract. Economics says that the price of a commodity is the cost of production of the marginal unit. We're still extracting lots of $30 oil, but we're also extracting some $80 oil. In the future, there'll be less $30 oil but we'll still have lots of $80 oil. But that $80 oil will have the benefit of 50 years of technological advances to drive its price down. 2. The cost of solar energy is currently following Moore's law. If that continues it won't be long before it's much cheaper than everything else. So many of the current uses for fossil fuels will be replaced with solar energy because it's cheaper. That won't unseat petroleum's status as the best portable dense energy source unless 3: We're putting a lot of money into battery & capacitor research. Right now batteries are heavy & expensive & slow to fill compared to a gas tank, but I'm willing to bet that this will change sometime in the next 50 years. Once an electric car is better in all ways than a gas one, demand for petroleum will drop like a rock, and so will prices.
- beat 13y ago
  I'm not so hopeful about electric cars. The nice version of the Tesla S has an 85kwh battery to accomplish adequate range, and its drivetrain is probably pushing 90% efficiency. It really does take 80-100kwh to drive a midsized sedan for 250+ miles. Even a doubling of battery power/weight ratio from now is optimistic. And charging times are tied to that massive storage - a 20kw source (the equivalent of a 200 amp circuit at home) would take over four hours to charge it. And that's, say, 20 amps at 1000 volts - enough to jump a spark a few feet and leave a smoking puddle where your shoes used to be if there's a problem. So faster charging requires specialized charging stations that must be carefully managed, a lead Tesla has taken. And even those stations can only do half-full on power. The battery won't take the abuse of high speed charging all the way. So the car tech is already here. The charging problem, on the other hand, is borderline unsolveable.
run4yourlives 13y ago
I'm not so sure. I agree that there is massive demand for fossil fuels, and John and Jane Treehugger aren't going to change that. But then I look at someone that might change that - Elon Musk - and I'm not as convinced that our future is so certainly bleak. The electric car is a viable - some would say likely - disruptor of your inevitability. Considering that even today, 25% of fossil fuel burning is done by the US, most of it to run cars, the conversion of even that market would be substantial. In every other case besides cars and plastics, fossil fuels are a means to an end. Factories and cities are powered by electricity, and there are numerous ways to make electricity that will become much more viable should fossil fuels jump in price. Even now, we burn coal because it's generally the most viable, not just because it's the cheapest. We will naturally start building other things when governments start to see risk in securing fuel in the 10-15 year span. Those "other things" aren't risky solar and wind ventures - they're nuclear and hydro projects that exist everywhere already. It is possible right now to generate electricity in a "clean and safe" manner. Here is Canada right now: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Electricity_production_in_Canada.svg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Electricity_production_in_... What actually bothers me most is that if we shift cars onto electricity, that jump in price/lack of availablity will likely be delayed. Even if one must rely on fossil fuels to produce electricity though, the effect of the Hubbert curve on any one country is much less pronounced when vehicles are not directly burning gas - It's a matter of finding a way to generate electricity, not finding something to run your car on. While that is an issue, it's a solvable one. There will be some tough times ahead, that's for sure. However if we are going to blow ourselves to kingdom come, it will likely be more related to water (which will be exacerbated by climate change) than it will be to fossil fuels directly.

by beat 13y ago

rayiner 13y ago

Resource wars will, if anything, validate the American strategy of stockpiling more weapons than the rest of the planet combined. Don't get me wrong--I hope it doesn't come to that. I'm just saying I like our odds. China would do well to remember the power balance before they dig up and burn every piece of coal they can find.

beat 13y ago
Indeed. China doesn't have the practice of actually projecting military force the way we do. On the other hand, long distance fuel transport is a highly vulnerable situation. It doesn't take much to bomb a pipeline into uselessness. I fear the odds favor localized terrorism over massive force.
- JimJames 13y ago
  Some communities might even preemptively sabotage natural oil reserves if the alternative is a possible military occupation.
  - pyre 13y ago
    See the Kuwait oil fields for an example.
- VandyILL 13y ago
  During the Iraq war and what we're still doing in Afgahnistan the US has spent over $400/gallon to transport fuel to bases. The Pentagon already acknowledges this is not sustainable. In Iraq they adopted soar and wind power for bases to reduce fuel consumption and learned to become so efficient that at times some bases were supplying free electricity to locals. The DOD has also invested in private biofuel companies with the intent of eventually being able to grow fuel for combustion on their bases. The wiser long term strategy the defense establishment is taking isn't just stockpiling weapons for a resource war, but learning how to innovate so they won't even need to fight over those resources.
christkv 13y ago
Jupp just like the current syria proxy war about controlling the gas pipe conduit to Europe. http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/earth-insight/2013/may/13/1 http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/earth-insight/2013/may...
angersock 13y ago
A very, very cynical way of looking at it, but I too would be darkly amused at validation of the "America, Fuck Yeah!" school of weapon policy. Shame that the common people aren't interested in nuclear power anymore due to stupid badvertising.

joshuahedlund 13y ago

That's a rather pessimistic view that reminds me of past views that proved too pessimistic; I don't think we'll slam into anything. Solar costs continue to drop exponentially[0] and it's possible that it will be cheaper than fossil fuels within a couple of decades. Whether it gets there or not, it will likely keep dropping, and the "dinosaur farts" won't run out[1], they'll just rise in price to meet the cost of extraction until other things are more viable. Rising prices spur demand for more efficient uses, and eventually through a combination of reduced demand and alternative energy sources, we all switch over without a big crisis. Not saying it's the guaranteed or even most likely scenario, but in my opinion we're not so doomed we need to be "very, very lucky". [0]http://azizonomics.com/2013/01/25/when-solar-becomes-cheaper-than-fossil-fuels/ http://azizonomics.com/2013/01/25/when-solar-becomes-cheaper... [1]http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2013/05/what-if-we-never-run-out-of-oil/309294/ http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2013/05/what-if-...

beat 13y ago
I think solar/wind becoming cheaper than fossil fuel substantially before the global Hubbert's Peak would fall under my "very, very lucky" clause. It's nice to hope for, and I do have my hopes up. But. :(
VLM 13y ago
"I don't think we'll slam into anything." The traditional response is something along the lines of "the stone age didn't end because we ran out of stone". Other than Easter Isle we don't have much experience with this and similar things have not turned out well.
mark-r 13y ago
No matter how cheap solar energy becomes, it won't be a complete solution until the energy storage problem is solved. I don't see the same rate of progress on that. If you can't store the energy you'll need a backup that can supply the missing power when the sun isn't shining - you'll need to keep building the old fashioned power plants even if you don't run them as often. Unfortunately there's no guarantee that prices will rise at the time and pace required for efficient uptake of new technologies. The easiest way to reduce demand is to tank the economy. We got a taste of that in 2008, and I'm not looking forward to it happening again.

andylei 13y ago

or maybe, as fossil becomes more scarce and prices rise, we develop more efficient means of harvesting solar and wind energy. malthus thought the same things about food that you think about energy. but instead of global food wars, the green revolution happened, we became more efficient at producing food, and massive famine / famine-war didn't happen.

seren 13y ago
We are not "saved" yet because the green revolution is really petro-dependent for both mechanization and fertilizer production. That being said, all these intertwined topics (energy/population/food/health) are more complex than the false dichotomy we are saved or doomed.

DennisP 13y ago

Or we start building nuclear plants, which can provide reliable, affordable power without needing the energy storage, overproduction, smart grids, and long-distance high-voltage lines that come into play when you want to use wind/solar for more than 20% or so of your power (and which tend to be overlooked when people compare costs).

pyre 13y ago
1. A lot of people are afraid of the term 'nuclear.' 2. There's a lot of "Not in my Backyard"-ism. 3. They don't get built over-night. Most of those projects are measured in decades.
- DennisP 13y ago
  Yes, nuclear has a lot of political difficulties. It's frustrating. Politics is a big reason why they take so long to build. To the extent the build problems are technical, factory-built small modular reactors would help a lot.

Spooky23 13y ago

Take a breath. We've transitioned from horse fodder, whale oil, peat, wood and other fuels as better, cleaner alternatives appeared. This is no different. We're all benefiting from cleaner and more efficient combustion engines. The cadence of innovation will continue that trend.

bryanlarsen 13y ago

I predict that oil will be cheaper (adjusted for inflation) in 50 years than it is now. Several reasons: 1. there are huge amounts of oil in places like the oil sands that only recently became economically viable to extract. Economics says that the price of a commodity is the cost of production of the marginal unit. We're still extracting lots of $30 oil, but we're also extracting some $80 oil. In the future, there'll be less $30 oil but we'll still have lots of $80 oil. But that $80 oil will have the benefit of 50 years of technological advances to drive its price down. 2. The cost of solar energy is currently following Moore's law. If that continues it won't be long before it's much cheaper than everything else. So many of the current uses for fossil fuels will be replaced with solar energy because it's cheaper. That won't unseat petroleum's status as the best portable dense energy source unless 3: We're putting a lot of money into battery & capacitor research. Right now batteries are heavy & expensive & slow to fill compared to a gas tank, but I'm willing to bet that this will change sometime in the next 50 years. Once an electric car is better in all ways than a gas one, demand for petroleum will drop like a rock, and so will prices.

beat 13y ago
I'm not so hopeful about electric cars. The nice version of the Tesla S has an 85kwh battery to accomplish adequate range, and its drivetrain is probably pushing 90% efficiency. It really does take 80-100kwh to drive a midsized sedan for 250+ miles. Even a doubling of battery power/weight ratio from now is optimistic. And charging times are tied to that massive storage - a 20kw source (the equivalent of a 200 amp circuit at home) would take over four hours to charge it. And that's, say, 20 amps at 1000 volts - enough to jump a spark a few feet and leave a smoking puddle where your shoes used to be if there's a problem. So faster charging requires specialized charging stations that must be carefully managed, a lead Tesla has taken. And even those stations can only do half-full on power. The battery won't take the abuse of high speed charging all the way. So the car tech is already here. The charging problem, on the other hand, is borderline unsolveable.

run4yourlives 13y ago

I'm not so sure. I agree that there is massive demand for fossil fuels, and John and Jane Treehugger aren't going to change that. But then I look at someone that might change that - Elon Musk - and I'm not as convinced that our future is so certainly bleak. The electric car is a viable - some would say likely - disruptor of your inevitability. Considering that even today, 25% of fossil fuel burning is done by the US, most of it to run cars, the conversion of even that market would be substantial. In every other case besides cars and plastics, fossil fuels are a means to an end. Factories and cities are powered by electricity, and there are numerous ways to make electricity that will become much more viable should fossil fuels jump in price. Even now, we burn coal because it's generally the most viable, not just because it's the cheapest. We will naturally start building other things when governments start to see risk in securing fuel in the 10-15 year span. Those "other things" aren't risky solar and wind ventures - they're nuclear and hydro projects that exist everywhere already. It is possible right now to generate electricity in a "clean and safe" manner. Here is Canada right now: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Electricity_production_in_Canada.svg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Electricity_production_in_... What actually bothers me most is that if we shift cars onto electricity, that jump in price/lack of availablity will likely be delayed. Even if one must rely on fossil fuels to produce electricity though, the effect of the Hubbert curve on any one country is much less pronounced when vehicles are not directly burning gas - It's a matter of finding a way to generate electricity, not finding something to run your car on. While that is an issue, it's a solvable one. There will be some tough times ahead, that's for sure. However if we are going to blow ourselves to kingdom come, it will likely be more related to water (which will be exacerbated by climate change) than it will be to fossil fuels directly.