3 ms·

There is no such thing as running out of oil. There is only oil becoming more expensive to extract than alternatives.

camccann 17y ago
Trivially true, but not necessarily helpful. No one is suggesting that dwindling oil supply means we'll be going back to pre-industrial technology levels (well, no one sane, at least). The concern is potential economic shocks due to large increases in the relative price of oil and, by extension, oil-derived goods including anything that requires long-distance shipping. It's a legitimate concern, but probably overblown. With a sufficient range of alternatives, the inevitable price increases are likely to be gradual and steady, giving plenty of time to adjust. Anybody heavily dependent on cheap transportation is probably still screwed in the mid-to-long term, but at least they'll have time to fail gracefully rather than crash and burn overnight.
- bokonist 17y ago
  There is no guarantee that the price increases will be gradual. If exporters of oil all have low time preference (which they do), then plummet could come very suddenly as wells start to go dry with no replacements (eg, an 80% drop off over a ten year period). There is also no guaranteed that we'll be able to find a suitable replacement. Only nuclear has anything close to the EREOI of oil, and nuclear plants takes a lot of time to build.
  - abalashov 17y ago
    nuclear plants takes a lot of time to build. And a lot of oil to build. And you can't put nuclear reactors in cars or planes. And you can't make plastics and most industrial inputs out of nuclear energy.
prodigal_erik 17y ago
There is also oil which requires more energy to extract than it contains (beyond which you'd only do it because you need some energy stored in liquid form).
- barry-cotter 17y ago
  No, you wouldn't. At current energy use levels Nort America contains enough coal for 200 years at the current population, and you can make liquid fuels from coal by gasification. http://aaenvironment.com/CECE/SynthesisofHydrocarbonFuels.pdf http://aaenvironment.com/CECE/SynthesisofHydrocarbonFuels.pd... I can't find the reference, but I think there was a French study in the 80's that claimed at $200/barrel it'd be economical to make liquid hydrocarbons for energy using air and nuclear power.
  - tome 17y ago
    That's a extreme, and highly interesting claim, and I'd appreciate a reference if you can find it.
  - icefox 17y ago
    Using the current population numbers always seems odd. At the current population growth rate does that mean we have only some much smaller amount, say 40 years left?
RyanMcGreal 17y ago
Peak oil != running out of oil. Peak oil means that the rate of production is set to go into permanent decline and the price of oil is set to become extremely volatile, as a cyclical wave of super-spikes to kill off demand lead to sharp recessions and a downward grind in material standards of living. We just saw the first iteration of this trend in 2008 and 2009.
- ivankirigin 17y ago
  I know, and agree. I'm saying the title is close to link bait.
  - abalashov 17y ago
    The title was extracted straight from the phraseology of the article - not a deliberate formulation.
dstorrs 17y ago
The supply is infinite? Good to know. (Yes, I understand your point. We will reach "economically unfeasible" before we ever reach "gone", but nonetheless, there is also an absolute limit.)
- ivankirigin 17y ago
  You can manufacture almost anything. We could turn peanut butter into diamonds. But it isn't economically feasible. The supply of materials and energy is effectively infinite once your scope is beyond the earth. Animals and plants that can go extinct aren't the same as commodities like oil.

Trivially true, but not necessarily helpful. No one is suggesting that dwindling oil supply means we'll be going back to pre-industrial technology levels (well, no one sane, at least). The concern is potential economic shocks due to large increases in the relative price of oil and, by extension, oil-derived goods including anything that requires long-distance shipping. It's a legitimate concern, but probably overblown. With a sufficient range of alternatives, the inevitable price increases are likely to be gradual and steady, giving plenty of time to adjust. Anybody heavily dependent on cheap transportation is probably still screwed in the mid-to-long term, but at least they'll have time to fail gracefully rather than crash and burn overnight.

bokonist 17y ago
There is no guarantee that the price increases will be gradual. If exporters of oil all have low time preference (which they do), then plummet could come very suddenly as wells start to go dry with no replacements (eg, an 80% drop off over a ten year period). There is also no guaranteed that we'll be able to find a suitable replacement. Only nuclear has anything close to the EREOI of oil, and nuclear plants takes a lot of time to build.
- abalashov 17y ago
  nuclear plants takes a lot of time to build. And a lot of oil to build. And you can't put nuclear reactors in cars or planes. And you can't make plastics and most industrial inputs out of nuclear energy.

prodigal_erik 17y ago

There is also oil which requires more energy to extract than it contains (beyond which you'd only do it because you need some energy stored in liquid form).

barry-cotter 17y ago
No, you wouldn't. At current energy use levels Nort America contains enough coal for 200 years at the current population, and you can make liquid fuels from coal by gasification. http://aaenvironment.com/CECE/SynthesisofHydrocarbonFuels.pdf http://aaenvironment.com/CECE/SynthesisofHydrocarbonFuels.pd... I can't find the reference, but I think there was a French study in the 80's that claimed at $200/barrel it'd be economical to make liquid hydrocarbons for energy using air and nuclear power.
- tome 17y ago
  That's a extreme, and highly interesting claim, and I'd appreciate a reference if you can find it.
- icefox 17y ago
  Using the current population numbers always seems odd. At the current population growth rate does that mean we have only some much smaller amount, say 40 years left?

RyanMcGreal 17y ago

Peak oil != running out of oil. Peak oil means that the rate of production is set to go into permanent decline and the price of oil is set to become extremely volatile, as a cyclical wave of super-spikes to kill off demand lead to sharp recessions and a downward grind in material standards of living. We just saw the first iteration of this trend in 2008 and 2009.

ivankirigin 17y ago
I know, and agree. I'm saying the title is close to link bait.
- abalashov 17y ago
  The title was extracted straight from the phraseology of the article - not a deliberate formulation.

dstorrs 17y ago

The supply is infinite? Good to know. (Yes, I understand your point. We will reach "economically unfeasible" before we ever reach "gone", but nonetheless, there is also an absolute limit.)

ivankirigin 17y ago
You can manufacture almost anything. We could turn peanut butter into diamonds. But it isn't economically feasible. The supply of materials and energy is effectively infinite once your scope is beyond the earth. Animals and plants that can go extinct aren't the same as commodities like oil.