Ask Slashdot: What If We Don't Run Out of Oil? 663
symbolset writes "The Atlantic recently ran an in-depth article about energy resources. The premise is that there remain incalculable and little-understood carbon fuel assets which far outweigh all the fossil fuels ever discovered. The article lists them and discusses their potentials and consequences, both fiscal and environmental. 'The clash occurs when renewables are ready for prime time—and natural gas is still hanging around like an old and dirty but reliable car, still cheap to produce and use, after shale fracking is replaced globally by undersea mining of methane hydrate. Revamping the electrical grid from conventionals like coal and oil to accommodate unconventionals like natural gas and solar power will be enormously difficult, economically and technically.' Along these lines, yesterday the U.S. Geological Survey more than doubled their estimate of Bakken shale oil reserve in North Dakota and Montana to 7.4-11 billion barrels. Part of the push for renewables over the past few decades was the idea that old methods just weren't going to last. What happens to that push if fossil fuels remain plentiful?"
We will (Score:5, Insightful)
Oil is a finite resource, it will inevitably run out eventually. In the meantime it is getting harder to get out of the ground and tends to involve us with countries we would rather not be too closely involved with.
Re:We will (Score:3, Insightful)
There is a lot of oil right here in North America, the advantage that OPEC has is that their countries tend to be brutal regimes that shut down environmental activism.
LK
Re:We Wish (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:We will (Score:2, Insightful)
Oil is a finite resource, it will inevitably run out eventually.
Indeed. A better headline for this story would be "Neocon Owned Magazine Presents Cornucopian Myth."
We turn the planet into Venus (Score:5, Insightful)
What happens if we don't run out of oil? We continue to pump out CO2 until we turn the planet into Venus. Switching to renewables isn't just about running out of oil.
Run Out? (Score:4, Insightful)
I doubt we will ever run out. What will happen is that it will become more expensive as the low hanging fruit gets used up and efficiency and alternatives become a better bang for the buck and we migrate to other technologies. I'd rather be on the early adopters end of this one.
Re:We Wish (Score:5, Insightful)
Environmentalists are not saying we're running out of oil. "Peak Oil" does not mean the end of oil. Indeed it's believed to happen when around half the oil has been extracted, and half is still in the ground. The reason production goes down is because the remaining oil gets more and more difficult to extract. Costly both financially and in terms of energy. And if it cost > 1 joule of energy to extract oil that gives 1 joule, it's not worth it.
Note that the first 50% of oil was mostly consumed in a century. Because of increased consumption, even if the second 50% were easy to extract, it wouldn't last a century.
Environmentalists ARE saying that oil is polluting, both in terms of traditional pollutants, and releasing green house gasses. And if we have to switch to renewables anyway, why not do it as soon as possible.
Re:We will (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, methane hydrates are actually a pretty plausible energy source, since if we don't mine them and global temperatures continue to go up, they will eventually wind up in the atmosphere anyway. Of course, burning them will make the CO2 situation even worse.
The bottom line is that taking refuge in the idea that "peak oil will save us from destroying the environment" is incredibly wrong-headed. If we are concerned about global warming, we need to deal with it now and not wait. Getting rid of subsidies for oil exploration would help—a lot of this stuff would be economically infeasible compared to solar if the producers couldn't deduct the recovery costs on their taxes.
Economics (Score:5, Insightful)
There are a couple of economic reasons that will drive renewable adoption:
It's not the size of the reserves but the cost of extraction that will drive adoption of renewables. As long as natural gas is cheap (and prices can be hedged) utilities will build natural gas plants at the expense of renewables. If prices rise sharply, gas becomes less attractive (since much of the cost per KW is for fuel) and other energy sources become viable options.
The energy density of the energy source. If a lot of space is required per BTU fossil fuels will dominate in many places. For example, a gas plant is relatively compact compared to a wind farm of similar capacity; so it is much easier to acquire land for a gas plant. For small scale uses, such as automotive or home fuels, the ability to get a long range or have a reasonably small supply pipe vs large panels favors fossil fuels currently. The economic driver here is "what fuel source gives me the best return on my needs;" such as the ability to travel or not want a roof full of solar panels.
Economics is what limits OPEC's ability to rise prices - eventually alternatives are viable on a cost basis as well as an energy self sufficiency one.
Quite frankly, global warning is not as major concern to most people than the ability to afford fuel drive, cook, and heat their houses; so selling renewables on that basis is very difficult.
Re:We Wish (Score:5, Insightful)
This question is easier to ask when you're making well-above-average computer-programmer-level salaries and quadrupling the price of electricity and fuel (or something) and the various manufactured things which depend on that price isn't going to really ding your lifestyle. But given the number of people in this world who make a trivial fraction of that, it gets more complicated.
Atlantic article a thinly veiled propaganda piece (Score:5, Insightful)
The major oil companies are promoting "No peak oil" stories to influence google results. They need to do this to keep asset prices up, soothe investors and keep the financing on which they depend flowing.
For a numerate look at exactly what we're facing, start here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cubic_mile_of_oil [wikipedia.org]
"Peak oil" itself is a bit of a straw man. The problem is declining net energy from hydrocarbons. Net energy from shallow easy wells that produced light sweet crude was great. Net energy from deepwater gulf wells producing heavy sour crude or oil sands where the bitumen has to be heated in order to be liquid? Not so great.
So bottom line. The absolute quantity of net energy in the first half of the oil on the plant is much greater than the net energy in the second half. Oil supply is NOT the same as energy supply.
Re:We turn the planet into Venus (Score:5, Insightful)
Thats a bit egotistical. The co2 being pumped out will only continue until a massive dieoff because the weather becomes too hot for human food crops and nature will right itself in 10 or 20 thousand years with a lot less people on it. Overpopulation and global warming solved...the hard way.
Re:We Wish (Score:5, Insightful)
So let's say we take the high end estimate. 11 billion barrels of shale oil available.
Current US oil consumption runs around 19 million barrels per day. You just discovered enough oil to last the United States for twenty months.
I guess you might be correct, for very small values of plenty.
Neverending is not infinite. (Score:5, Insightful)
“When will the world’s supply of oil be exhausted?” asked the MIT economist Morris Adelman, perhaps the most important exponent of this view. “The best one-word answer: never.” Effectively, energy supplies are infinite.
This is dead wrong. The economic argument says that oil production is tied to the profitability of ever-more-expensive production technologies. We will never "run out of oil" because eventually we won't be able to afford to extract it, but this will happen while there's still oil in the ground. There's a similar physics argument, based on "energy return on energy invested": fossil fuel production ends when the energy required to pull it out of the ground is greater than the energy of the fuel itself. There will still be some in the ground, and it might be useful for making expensive chemicals, dyes, or lubricants, but it's pointless as a fuel.
So no, we won't ever run out of oil. But we will reach a point where you can't have any. To characterize this situation as "infinite supply" is ludicrous.
Re:We Wish (Score:5, Insightful)
I wish we could differentiated environmentalist from the scientists and the raving hippy nuts.
Every choice has a trade off. We need to diversify our energy sources vs finding the magic bullet of perfect energy that just doesn't exist.
Fossil Fuels offer a good energy per unit ratio, they can be transported, and stored. They can be used in small affordable machines, and it is rather cheap. The down side is when spent it produces harmful gases, and creates increases global warming.
Nuclear Energy can offer a lot of energy, raw material can be transported and stored, its output doesn't create toxic gasses. However, it does create radioactive waste that is hard to manage, and energy needs to be processed at large power plants.
Hydroelectric (They don't talk about this much, I am not sure why), Good source of energy, clean (assuming you don't kill too many fish). However you will need power plants, and an infrastructure to send energy, and you need to build it around water sources, not portable. (the best location is also what people would say is prime vacation areas and dosn't want the nature in that area to be spoiled with a large building. ...
You start seeing the point. What ever energy we choose to use will have its good side and bad side. The trick is to get the right balance, and improve efficiencies where possible.
Do we put solar panels on our homes, and have a smaller natural gas or nuclear plant to cover the rest?
Can we make more efficient cars such as hybrids, or plugin electric with gas backup? Can you do this with more powerful cars/trucks people want?
Could we have a small generator in a creak powering a few local home?
They are a lot of options. The trick is to get the right balance.
Re:We Wish (Score:5, Insightful)
This question is easier to ask when you're making well-above-average computer-programmer-level salaries and quadrupling the price of electricity and fuel (or something) and the various manufactured things which depend on that price isn't going to really ding your lifestyle. But given the number of people in this world who make a trivial fraction of that, it gets more complicated.
That sounds a lot like figuring the cost of something based solely on what you paid at the cash register.
How about this, instead? We invest in alternative energy technologies R&D now? Then when (or if, if you prefer) the cost of oil-based energy becomes prohibitive, we'll be prepared, instead of waiting until the last moment and running around like the denizens of Tokyo when Godzilla comes to town? We'll have already learned the expensive mistakes and false starts, and be able to more efficiently deploy the most cost-effective alternatives when we need them.
I realize that there is a large segment of the population that screams we're absolutely utterly helpless whenever a problem comes up that cannot be solved by invading and pillaging, but I have a little bit more faith in both Nature and the human race. If we just take some responsibility and do something instead of waiting around quivering until the oil taps run dry, we just might achieve something worthwhile.
We always seem to be able to find the money to fund wars, so I don't buy into the idea that we cannot afford to provide for our own future. What's the point of winning the wars if the country is destroyed by its own negligence?
Re:We Wish (Score:5, Insightful)
and quadrupling the price of electricity and fuel (or something)
Or something? You're making an argument when you don't even know? Check out green energy tariffs. They are a bit more expensive than ordinary ones. But not 4 times, that would be ridiculous.
But that's by the by. Fossil fuels are not a repeatable bargain. The human race can extract them once every several million years. What makes you think that you saving a bit of money is justification for using up all of a particular resource, and polluting the place in the process? Why do you deserve it more than your grandchildren, great grandchildren and so on.
Remember, oil isn't just for energy. It's a raw material for manufacturing most products too. Do you really think it's wise to burn it off in the next generation, leaving nothing left for the thousands of generations to come?
Re:We Wish (Score:3, Insightful)
And if it cost > 1 joule of energy to extract oil that gives 1 joule, it's not worth it.
it isn't that simple. Oil makes a tremendously good battery. it is highly portable and has a very high energy density. It is better than any other battery we currently have. So even if it begins costing >1 joule of energy to extract 1 joule worth of oil, it will still be in high demand for its energy storage capability unless we invent a better battery. if it takes more energy to pull out of the earth than we get from it, then we will just find other means to pull it out of the earth, such as powering our oil rigs with solar or wind power.
Re:We Wish (Score:4, Insightful)
Renewable energy is already feasible. It's already widely used. Just not widely enough yet.
The rest of your post is basically an assumption that we should allow the oil companies to dictate energy policy according to what's profitable for them. Well, it probably will go like that. But it shouldn't and it doesn't have to.
Economics is not God. It doesn't need your worship.
Re:Roast (Score:4, Insightful)
The free market is not the answer. The free market may be the efficient decision maker, but it lacks the things we say makes us human. The free market has no empathy, compassion, intelligence, foresight, or shame. Would you ask a person lacking those trait to be your boss?
Re:Roast (Score:4, Insightful)
The best "decision" we could make as a society is to get rid of all the government distortions in the market.
There has never been a society with both a functional government and no government distortions in the market. That's because *any* government action distorts the marketplace.
If the government has a police force to enforce laws, suddenly there's a demand for cruisers, tasers, nightsticks, pepper-spray, etc that wasn't there before, distorting the market. If the government has a fire department (with a very real government interest that its cities don't burn down), there's a demand for hoses, trucks, pumps, hydrants, etc that wasn't there before, distorting the market. If the government builds a road (to ensure that its police and fire departments can get to where they're needed), that distorts the property values around the road (e.g. look at what happens at nearly every exit ramp of major highways). If the government fights a war, that causes major distortions in the markets for clothing, weapons, ships, fuel, food, and just about everything else. If the government sets up any kind of court system, then that creates an entirely new market for people who know how to navigate that court system (a.k.a. lawyers). And of course any kind of tax or fee system set up to pay for the government's existence also distorts the market.
And that's just the basic functions of what we typically see has government.
There's a legitimate question of whether a government should have specific involvement in the energy sector. But the idea that there can be no government distortion of the free market is simply wrong.
Re:We Wish (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:We Wish (Score:5, Insightful)
Not to mention a massive waste of opportunity to use what cheap reserves are left more appropriately, i.e., as a stepping stone to more sustainable energy sources.
Re:We Wish (Score:4, Insightful)
Hubbert was a geologist working for an oil company. The fact that new discoveries come along, but at an ever slowing pace, was hardly something he wasn't aware of, and isn't a flaw in the theory.
The 50% is "50% of oil in the ground", not "50% of oil that we've discovered". The 100% doesn't move, other than at the pace of geological time frames.
That doesn't even make sense. At any point in time, what we think is 50% is, uhm, you know, base on what we think is 100%. That number keeps going up and up. But how much we used in the first century of use, somehow, manages to stay the same, and thus is a smaller and smaller portion of what we think the total in ground is.
Also, new discoveries have not been at "an ever-slowing pace".
Re:We Wish (Score:5, Insightful)
If you're going to use the word "invest", let's talk investment and ask the tough questions, see if we can come up with some good answers. What is the return on this investment? Is it financial, or non-financial? Are the returns earned by the owner of the investment or by third parties? Who is qualified to estimate the size of these returns in an unbiased manner? (If non-financial returns are being earned by the third parties, it may be better understood as an exercise in philanthropy than in investment.) What is the opportunity cost of this investment: are there other investments which could make a non-philanthropic investor more money, or, if we're operating in the realm of philanthropy, are there other worthier philanthropic endeavors with larger and more immediate returns that we ought to be investing in, instead of this? (There are a lot of candidate investments in the class of "get clean water to $african_village".)
By "let's invest" do you primarily mean "let's have the government levy taxes and attempt to make this happen"? What sort of incentives are in place to make sure that the "investment" actually is done wisely, rather than becoming an exercise in corporate leeches clamoring for government funds but producing nothing of value? Or even just bankruptcy a la Solyndra? (There's room enough for criticism about where the money gets to when the government "always seem[s] to be able to find money to fund wars", and wars are relatively easy to measure results on.) What is the real price of this investment to taxpayers, in terms of taxes or debt and debt-service (and the effects of debt like the government calls "crowding out"?) And if "we always seem to be able to find the money to fund wars", what about the ~50% increase in US government spending combined with ~0% increase in government revenues since 2007, and the commensurate increase in the annual deficit to ~50% of revenues? That's easily more spending than the Iraq and Afghanistan wars combined; should we roll some of the new programs back in order to pay for this proposed investment? How do you sell the policy changes to people as politically active entities, especially if they will suffer material setbacks (taxes or higher energy costs)? Even if they're willing to suffer setbacks in theory, do the people trust these investments to actually deliver meaningful value of some sort?
Not that all these questions are unanswerable. But let's not kid ourselves into thinking it's easy.
Re:We Wish (Score:3, Insightful)
Without counting the electrons in an AA battery, how can you know how many are left without destroying the battery? "It's simply impossible - mathematically and logically."
And yet we can tell by examining the profile of the power it's giving out over time.
Peak oil is a theory, not a law. Theories can and do base themselves on things that are not yet known for sure. If as time goes on, we make more observations that were predicted by the theory, we become more confident that the theory was right.
Peak Oil Theory has been right since 1956. It's now predicted peak oil in more than 50 countries. So we can be pretty confident in it.
Peak Oil Theory is based on the idea that the extraction curve of oil approximates a normal bell curve. It's a secondary observation that in a normal bell curve, the peak is at 50%. But it is only an approximation, which is why I said "when around half the oil has been extracted"
Article written by a radical (Score:3, Insightful)
I read the article several days back and if you read carefully you will see that their conclusions betray their politics. Amongst other things the article literally doesn't even acknowledge nuclear energy when discussing all of the assorted form of low carbon energy. Considering that nuclear power is the cleanest form of main load power that we have this can hardly be an oversight.
The author is well aware of the human toll being extracted by the use of coal:
Natural gas would significantly reduce the source causes of these deaths and the author is aware:
However instead of supporting a transition to cleaner burning natural gas the author shows what they would rather have happen:
The authors radical viewpoint is exposed here with the following view which they know has never happened in human history. The fact that this could result in the economic collapse of society is sort of acknowledged by the author:
Re:We Wish (Score:4, Insightful)
What is the return on this investment?
Jobs, future markets, less pollution, energy security, advancement of science
Is it financial, or non-financial?
Yes and yes.
Are the returns earned by the owner of the investment or by third parties?
Yes and yes.
Who is qualified to estimate the size of these returns in an unbiased manner?
Banks, actuaries, scientists
What is the opportunity cost of this investment
The influence of existing interests (Koch/Exxon, etc.) will wane.
Electricity usage will come down (see the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, which covers 20% of the US economy, which grew relative to the rest of the US economy) giving factories a competitive advantage.
New economies will grow -- a small portion of Exxon's profits gets injected directly into the local economy creating jobs that improve energy efficiency in industry and housing.
It's really a non-brainer, and there is empirical proof that these are the effects, because other parts of the world (and the US) have already started trying these thing.
I found this amusing:
"let's have the government levy taxes and attempt to make this happen"
Conservatives harp on about incentive structures, so, to adopt a neo-liberal (market fundamentalist) approach to solving GHG emissions, let's tax what we don't want (carbon), and let the market sort out the rest. Heck, we can reduce taxes on what we do want (labour/entrepreneurship).
You want to talk opportunity cost? Do you want more carbon in the atmosphere and higher taxes on labour, or less carbon in the atmosphere and lower taxes on labour?
I could go on about Solyndra, but I think that's enough for now. Just look further into the program that funded Solyndra and ask yourself home much money was wasted/earned in *totality*, and how that compares to typical venture capitalism.
Re:We Wish (Score:5, Insightful)
Gas is cheaper in inflation-adjusted dollars than when I started paying attention to it. Commodity prices are cyclical. Fearing that they will go to infinity because you've only experienced on upswing is just like fearing the oceans will all boil during the first Summer of your life.
If solar ever does become cheaper than natural gas (and eventually it will), everyone will switch then. Trying to force other people to consume some product that you think is cool is about being a control freak, plain and simple.
Re:Neverending is not infinite. (Score:4, Insightful)