5 ms·

I think there will be a lot to worry about before we have to worry about running out of oil.

flavor8 12y ago
There are 42 years of estimated recoverable oil left (in the top 17 producers) according to 2012 EIA numbers. 1324B/85M/365 = 42.675. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_reserves http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_reserves That assumes no consumption growth. The economic argument from peak oil people says: "OK, when we're down to 10 years of oil left, just how much more expensive is a barrel of oil going to be, given that increasing scarcity is evident? Does that price rise also feed back to 20 years? What does it do to the economy, and/or what alternate forms of energy take its place due to economic pressures?" So yeah, within your lifetime you'll probably feel the effects one way or the other.
- omilu 12y ago
  one more reason to invest in tesla and solar city. running out of oil scares the crap out of me. WW3 for sure.
  - astrodust 12y ago
    There's not enough oil left to fight WW3.
- kbutler 12y ago
  Rather than just the single data point of "current oil reserves", you need to take the 1st derivative, and look at the rate of change in current oil reserves over time. It gives a dramatically different picture.
  - flavor8 12y ago
    Can you provide a link to what you're hinting at?
  - astrodust 12y ago
    So far the delta in "estimated reserves" is tipping sharply negative because a lot of the glowy estimates by big producers such as Saudi Arabia are turning out to be nothing but wishful thinking and aren't based in reality.
Zigurd 12y ago
Not to denigrate the importance of global warming, but, for now, the economy is so intimately connected to burning oil, it is as certain as any economic prediction can be that, if there is an "oil shock" there will be a deep global recession, and maybe a global war. We're not ready for the end of the oil age. For an idea of what it will cost to get off oil, add up all the oil capex that got us here. Now spend that on something else. That's just not happening.
- noir_lord 12y ago
  The alternative to this is a construction and market boom unlike anything we've had since the industrial revolution as we adapt to a world without plentiful "cheap" oil. I'm not so pessimistic to think that this will automatically end in a global war or even necessarily a global recession in any case it will be an interesting time to be alive.
  - Zigurd 12y ago
    It's good to be optimistic, but the problem is that everything needs oil to be made and to move. Once demand can't be met, all parts of the economy bid against each other. Many people won't be able to drive to work. Many factories will not be able to make things at affordable prices and will shut down. Food will be vastly more expensive. Fertilizer is made of oil. Many more people will fall out of the middle class. Tens of millions of people, or more, will starve. The overall economic result will be stagflation and there will be nothing that can be done with the spend, tax, or money supply levers. Less oil means a shrinking economy. Energy is wealth. It took over 100 years to build this oil-based economy. We have 20-60 years left to get off oil. If we do not start a production line to mass-produce safe nuclear power plants and find a way to safely reprocess the waste, soon, it isn't going to happen in time. We spent trillions on wars and on bailing out an insane derivatives market. Will we have the capital to switch away from oil?
    - noir_lord 12y ago
      > It's good to be optimistic, but the problem is that everything needs oil to be made and to move. No, lots of things are currently manufactured using oil and moved with oil because it's relatively cheap. > Once demand can't be met, all parts of the economy bid against each other. When the price for oil goes high the different alternatives begin to look viable which partially offsets this (one example, electric cars become far more viable when oil is twice the price it is now). > Many people won't be able to drive to work. Average person already commutes to work less than the distance a current gen electric car can commute comfortable plus working habits change, remote work, live nearer to work. > Many factories will not be able to make things at affordable prices and will shut down. Rising energy costs increase the price the end consumer pays if those items then cost more than people are willing to pay the product stops been made, this is the nature of markets. > Food will be vastly more expensive. Fertilizer is made of oil. Not sure why as we don't make fertilizer from oil, we make fertiliser from methane (natural gas usually) which is used to fix the nitrogen from air (NH3) which is the primary precursor for NH4NO3 (Ammonium Nitrate), the only time ammonium nitrate and oil meet is if you want a bang (ANFO). > Many more people will fall out of the middle class. Tens of millions of people, or more, will starve. No evidence for this either way to be honest. > The overall economic result will be stagflation and there will be nothing that can be done with the spend, tax, or money supply levers. Alternatively the massive push to restructure the economy towards a post oil future will create huge new markets and foster massive investment into non-oil power sources (batteries, nuclear, renewables) much like move to coal did in the 19th century and oil in the 20th. > Energy is wealth. Arguably you could use units of energy as a form of wealth but you know what we can extract more energy than we do right now world wide and never have to burn a drop of coal or oil, We have vast untapped reserves of nuclear fuels (the low ball estimates of a few centuries are largely because no one has looked since we had enough). > It took over 100 years to build this oil-based economy. Not really, it's been over a hundred years since we have had an oil-based economy the actual usage of oil boomed over a 15-20 year period in the early 20th. > We have 20-60 years left to get off oil. We (might) have 20-60 years to get off oil if we continue to consume it at our current rates, the price will go up as supply goes down, alternatives then become viable (nuclear and PV are not that far off on a kW/h basis already over their lifespan). > If we do not start a production line to mass-produce safe nuclear power plants and find a way to safely reprocess the waste, it isn't going to happen in time. Define "in time" - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Electricity_in_France.svg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Electricity_in_France.svg France went from generating a third of their electricity needs to 75% in under 20 years, they now generate 40% of their entire energy consumption from nuclear. As for the waste problem that is largely solved with modern designs, old plants where dirty they where dirty because the technology was less developed and because they where designed to produce nuclear material for weapons, We can and have built plants that use their own waste as a useful by product produces vastly less waste. > We spent trillions on wars and on bailing out an insane derivatives market The US spent trillion on wars and on bailing out the insane derivatives market but you know what the biggest producer of PV panels and nuclear plants isn't the US... > Will we have the capital to switch away from oil? Yes of course, given raw materials and energy we can move from oil. Will a "post-oil" society look radically different to the one we have today probably and in ways I can't even begin to imagine but it's not a death knell for the human race (in fact getting off burning that crap for energy on the whole will be a good thing...the irony is we might stop fucking up the planet (in terms of CO2 emissions) purely because we no longer can. As a european socialist by inclination it's ironic that I think the solution is largely going to be market driven but hey whatever works.

There are 42 years of estimated recoverable oil left (in the top 17 producers) according to 2012 EIA numbers. 1324B/85M/365 = 42.675. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_reserves http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_reserves That assumes no consumption growth. The economic argument from peak oil people says: "OK, when we're down to 10 years of oil left, just how much more expensive is a barrel of oil going to be, given that increasing scarcity is evident? Does that price rise also feed back to 20 years? What does it do to the economy, and/or what alternate forms of energy take its place due to economic pressures?" So yeah, within your lifetime you'll probably feel the effects one way or the other.

omilu 12y ago
one more reason to invest in tesla and solar city. running out of oil scares the crap out of me. WW3 for sure.
- astrodust 12y ago
  There's not enough oil left to fight WW3.
kbutler 12y ago
Rather than just the single data point of "current oil reserves", you need to take the 1st derivative, and look at the rate of change in current oil reserves over time. It gives a dramatically different picture.
- flavor8 12y ago
  Can you provide a link to what you're hinting at?
- astrodust 12y ago
  So far the delta in "estimated reserves" is tipping sharply negative because a lot of the glowy estimates by big producers such as Saudi Arabia are turning out to be nothing but wishful thinking and aren't based in reality.

Zigurd 12y ago

Not to denigrate the importance of global warming, but, for now, the economy is so intimately connected to burning oil, it is as certain as any economic prediction can be that, if there is an "oil shock" there will be a deep global recession, and maybe a global war. We're not ready for the end of the oil age. For an idea of what it will cost to get off oil, add up all the oil capex that got us here. Now spend that on something else. That's just not happening.

noir_lord 12y ago
The alternative to this is a construction and market boom unlike anything we've had since the industrial revolution as we adapt to a world without plentiful "cheap" oil. I'm not so pessimistic to think that this will automatically end in a global war or even necessarily a global recession in any case it will be an interesting time to be alive.
- Zigurd 12y ago
  It's good to be optimistic, but the problem is that everything needs oil to be made and to move. Once demand can't be met, all parts of the economy bid against each other. Many people won't be able to drive to work. Many factories will not be able to make things at affordable prices and will shut down. Food will be vastly more expensive. Fertilizer is made of oil. Many more people will fall out of the middle class. Tens of millions of people, or more, will starve. The overall economic result will be stagflation and there will be nothing that can be done with the spend, tax, or money supply levers. Less oil means a shrinking economy. Energy is wealth. It took over 100 years to build this oil-based economy. We have 20-60 years left to get off oil. If we do not start a production line to mass-produce safe nuclear power plants and find a way to safely reprocess the waste, soon, it isn't going to happen in time. We spent trillions on wars and on bailing out an insane derivatives market. Will we have the capital to switch away from oil?
  - noir_lord 12y ago
    > It's good to be optimistic, but the problem is that everything needs oil to be made and to move. No, lots of things are currently manufactured using oil and moved with oil because it's relatively cheap. > Once demand can't be met, all parts of the economy bid against each other. When the price for oil goes high the different alternatives begin to look viable which partially offsets this (one example, electric cars become far more viable when oil is twice the price it is now). > Many people won't be able to drive to work. Average person already commutes to work less than the distance a current gen electric car can commute comfortable plus working habits change, remote work, live nearer to work. > Many factories will not be able to make things at affordable prices and will shut down. Rising energy costs increase the price the end consumer pays if those items then cost more than people are willing to pay the product stops been made, this is the nature of markets. > Food will be vastly more expensive. Fertilizer is made of oil. Not sure why as we don't make fertilizer from oil, we make fertiliser from methane (natural gas usually) which is used to fix the nitrogen from air (NH3) which is the primary precursor for NH4NO3 (Ammonium Nitrate), the only time ammonium nitrate and oil meet is if you want a bang (ANFO). > Many more people will fall out of the middle class. Tens of millions of people, or more, will starve. No evidence for this either way to be honest. > The overall economic result will be stagflation and there will be nothing that can be done with the spend, tax, or money supply levers. Alternatively the massive push to restructure the economy towards a post oil future will create huge new markets and foster massive investment into non-oil power sources (batteries, nuclear, renewables) much like move to coal did in the 19th century and oil in the 20th. > Energy is wealth. Arguably you could use units of energy as a form of wealth but you know what we can extract more energy than we do right now world wide and never have to burn a drop of coal or oil, We have vast untapped reserves of nuclear fuels (the low ball estimates of a few centuries are largely because no one has looked since we had enough). > It took over 100 years to build this oil-based economy. Not really, it's been over a hundred years since we have had an oil-based economy the actual usage of oil boomed over a 15-20 year period in the early 20th. > We have 20-60 years left to get off oil. We (might) have 20-60 years to get off oil if we continue to consume it at our current rates, the price will go up as supply goes down, alternatives then become viable (nuclear and PV are not that far off on a kW/h basis already over their lifespan). > If we do not start a production line to mass-produce safe nuclear power plants and find a way to safely reprocess the waste, it isn't going to happen in time. Define "in time" - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Electricity_in_France.svg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Electricity_in_France.svg France went from generating a third of their electricity needs to 75% in under 20 years, they now generate 40% of their entire energy consumption from nuclear. As for the waste problem that is largely solved with modern designs, old plants where dirty they where dirty because the technology was less developed and because they where designed to produce nuclear material for weapons, We can and have built plants that use their own waste as a useful by product produces vastly less waste. > We spent trillions on wars and on bailing out an insane derivatives market The US spent trillion on wars and on bailing out the insane derivatives market but you know what the biggest producer of PV panels and nuclear plants isn't the US... > Will we have the capital to switch away from oil? Yes of course, given raw materials and energy we can move from oil. Will a "post-oil" society look radically different to the one we have today probably and in ways I can't even begin to imagine but it's not a death knell for the human race (in fact getting off burning that crap for energy on the whole will be a good thing...the irony is we might stop fucking up the planet (in terms of CO2 emissions) purely because we no longer can. As a european socialist by inclination it's ironic that I think the solution is largely going to be market driven but hey whatever works.