Running out of Oil
Thread Starter
Registered User
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 1,143
Likes: 0
From: Garden Grove, CA
Running out of Oil
End of Oil Could Fuel 'End of Civilization as We Know It'
By Robert Roy Britt
LiveScience Senior Writer
posted: 14 December 2004
03:28 pm ET
http://www.livescience.com/environme...il_041214.html
SAN FRANCISCO -- Opponents in a long-running debate over when the world will run out of oil squared off Tuesday in a crowded room of scientists, reaching only one conclusion: The supply of fossil fuels is fixed and the world economy will eventually have to wean itself from oil.
The most dire and perhaps speculative forecast calls for global oil production to peak next year -- specifically on Thanksgiving.
Others say the end can't be accurately predicted, but that it is likely decades rather then centuries away, and that the consequences will be grave: huge inflation, global resource wars -- China vs. the United States was emphasized as a possibility -- and the end of civilization as we know it.
Other experts at the face-off, held here during a meeting of the American Geophysical Union, said there is nothing to worry about in the short term.
U.S. peaked already
The argument stretches back to a 1956 prediction by M. King Hubbert that oil production in the lower 48 U.S. states would peak in the early 1970s. He was right. The United States now imports nearly 60 percent of the oil it uses.
Kenneth Deffeyes, a Professor Emeritus at Princeton University, has taken Hubbert's logic a step further and predicts the world's oil production will top out late in 2005.
"It's Thanksgiving plus or minus three weeks," said Deffeyes, who grew up in the oil fields and was a researcher at Shell Oil for several years.
Deffeyes second book on the topic, "Beyond Oil: The View from Hubbert's Peak" (Hill and Wang) is due out in March. His crystal ball is full of complex formulas and, most scientists agree, numbers that are impossible to accurately pin down, such as the amount of oil in known fields and how much more will be found.
"This is not science," said Michael Lynch, a political scientist and energy consultant. "This is forecasting."
Lynch agrees there are problems with relying so heavily on oil, and he sees more price volatility ahead. But he argues that many smaller deposits will be found and they will add up to "a lot of oil" over time. He also faults the running-dry-soon predictions as being based not on geology, but on politics and economics: Oil production in various countries has flattened or fell at certain times for reasons having nothing to do with how much they could produce, Lynch says.
Further, Lynch contends, it is not possible to predict the discovery of new oil fields or the true size of existing in-ground reserves. He likens current oil forecasts to stock market prediction. Charts fit history well, he says, "but they're not predictive."
Alternatives?
Likewise, analyst Bill Fisher of the University of Texas at Austin sees plenty of oil over the next few decades. Fisher sees no reason to panic. He expects the world to gradually transition to an economy based on natural gas during the first half of this century, then to a hydrogen economy before 2100. He pointed out that estimates of oil reserves tend to grow over time, no matter who does the guessing.
The debate got more complex at this point.
Caltech physicist David Goodstein sees little hope for hydrogen, which he said requires fossil fuels in order to extract. And natural gas, like oil and coal and shale (another proposed alternative) are all finite, Goodstein argues.
"The oil will run out," he said. "The only question is when."
Goodstein puts little stock in nuclear fusion, which for decades has been proposed as the cousin of fission with unlimited potential. "Fusion and shale oil are the energy sources of the future, and they always will be," he quipped. Solar energy shows promise, he said, but "we haven't figured out how to use it."
So Goodstein takes a pragmatic approach. It doesn't matter so much when we run out, he argues, but what we do about it.
Global trap
Goodstein, author of the book "Out of Gas: The End of the Age of Oil" (W.W. Norton & Company) sees a looming world crisis that could fuel war and bring society to its knees.
"We have created a trap for ourselves," Goodstein said.
The United States has so far avoided serious consequences from the trap by relying on imports. The country uses about 7 billion of the 30 billion barrels of oil produced annually around the globe. And it makes us rich. Oil consumption equals standard of living, experts agree.
Meanwhile, other countries are beginning to clamor for oil at unprecedented rates, and therein lies the recipe for potential disaster.
China uses a comparatively modest 1.5 billion barrels a year (perhaps 2.4 billion this year) according to some estimates. India consumes less. Both countries' economies are becoming increasingly dependent on oil, however. China's consumption is expected to grow 7.5 percent per year, and India
By Robert Roy Britt
LiveScience Senior Writer
posted: 14 December 2004
03:28 pm ET
http://www.livescience.com/environme...il_041214.html
SAN FRANCISCO -- Opponents in a long-running debate over when the world will run out of oil squared off Tuesday in a crowded room of scientists, reaching only one conclusion: The supply of fossil fuels is fixed and the world economy will eventually have to wean itself from oil.
The most dire and perhaps speculative forecast calls for global oil production to peak next year -- specifically on Thanksgiving.
Others say the end can't be accurately predicted, but that it is likely decades rather then centuries away, and that the consequences will be grave: huge inflation, global resource wars -- China vs. the United States was emphasized as a possibility -- and the end of civilization as we know it.
Other experts at the face-off, held here during a meeting of the American Geophysical Union, said there is nothing to worry about in the short term.
U.S. peaked already
The argument stretches back to a 1956 prediction by M. King Hubbert that oil production in the lower 48 U.S. states would peak in the early 1970s. He was right. The United States now imports nearly 60 percent of the oil it uses.
Kenneth Deffeyes, a Professor Emeritus at Princeton University, has taken Hubbert's logic a step further and predicts the world's oil production will top out late in 2005.
"It's Thanksgiving plus or minus three weeks," said Deffeyes, who grew up in the oil fields and was a researcher at Shell Oil for several years.
Deffeyes second book on the topic, "Beyond Oil: The View from Hubbert's Peak" (Hill and Wang) is due out in March. His crystal ball is full of complex formulas and, most scientists agree, numbers that are impossible to accurately pin down, such as the amount of oil in known fields and how much more will be found.
"This is not science," said Michael Lynch, a political scientist and energy consultant. "This is forecasting."
Lynch agrees there are problems with relying so heavily on oil, and he sees more price volatility ahead. But he argues that many smaller deposits will be found and they will add up to "a lot of oil" over time. He also faults the running-dry-soon predictions as being based not on geology, but on politics and economics: Oil production in various countries has flattened or fell at certain times for reasons having nothing to do with how much they could produce, Lynch says.
Further, Lynch contends, it is not possible to predict the discovery of new oil fields or the true size of existing in-ground reserves. He likens current oil forecasts to stock market prediction. Charts fit history well, he says, "but they're not predictive."
Alternatives?
Likewise, analyst Bill Fisher of the University of Texas at Austin sees plenty of oil over the next few decades. Fisher sees no reason to panic. He expects the world to gradually transition to an economy based on natural gas during the first half of this century, then to a hydrogen economy before 2100. He pointed out that estimates of oil reserves tend to grow over time, no matter who does the guessing.
The debate got more complex at this point.
Caltech physicist David Goodstein sees little hope for hydrogen, which he said requires fossil fuels in order to extract. And natural gas, like oil and coal and shale (another proposed alternative) are all finite, Goodstein argues.
"The oil will run out," he said. "The only question is when."
Goodstein puts little stock in nuclear fusion, which for decades has been proposed as the cousin of fission with unlimited potential. "Fusion and shale oil are the energy sources of the future, and they always will be," he quipped. Solar energy shows promise, he said, but "we haven't figured out how to use it."
So Goodstein takes a pragmatic approach. It doesn't matter so much when we run out, he argues, but what we do about it.
Global trap
Goodstein, author of the book "Out of Gas: The End of the Age of Oil" (W.W. Norton & Company) sees a looming world crisis that could fuel war and bring society to its knees.
"We have created a trap for ourselves," Goodstein said.
The United States has so far avoided serious consequences from the trap by relying on imports. The country uses about 7 billion of the 30 billion barrels of oil produced annually around the globe. And it makes us rich. Oil consumption equals standard of living, experts agree.
Meanwhile, other countries are beginning to clamor for oil at unprecedented rates, and therein lies the recipe for potential disaster.
China uses a comparatively modest 1.5 billion barrels a year (perhaps 2.4 billion this year) according to some estimates. India consumes less. Both countries' economies are becoming increasingly dependent on oil, however. China's consumption is expected to grow 7.5 percent per year, and India
Registered User
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 1,395
Likes: 0
From: The Empire State
I just filled up my fathers Exloprer, $42.50, my car (1993 Subaru Wagon) cannot go over $20. Now he goes just as far away from home as I do to get to work. He has to fill up a little less than me, maybe every 9 days, me every 7. Its just great that he drives that thing, seeing how he only has to tow his boat twice a year, has at least 4 friends with trucks that will tow it for him, and his brother towed it the last time it needed to be towed.
I hate SUVs.
I think if you drive a H2 you should be forced by law to place a bumper sticker on it that reads "I support our troops, and thier right to die for my oil."
I hate SUVs.
I think if you drive a H2 you should be forced by law to place a bumper sticker on it that reads "I support our troops, and thier right to die for my oil."
Registered User
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 2,432
Likes: 0
From: South Jersey
Registered User
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 4,281
Likes: 0
From: N. Tx.
My dad is a Geophysicist(he finds oil for all the big companies). He says that we shouldn't run out of oil for another 125-150 years. IOW, I doubt you have to worry about it. Sure your kids, and Grandkids have to worry about it, but by then the brilliant scientists should be able to come up with some alternative source of energy.
BTW, all you SUV haters shouldn't buy a Ferrari or a Lambo because it give about the same mileage as a H2.
BTW, all you SUV haters shouldn't buy a Ferrari or a Lambo because it give about the same mileage as a H2.
Registered User
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 5,094
Likes: 6
From: Vienna, VA
BTW, the US has PLENTY of oil. Why do we import? So when everyone else runs out, we'll have plenty. Many countries' economies are based on oil, so they are more than happy to export it. I also hate it when people say we went to Iraq for oil...before the war we were buying it DIRT CHEAP!
Hydrogen is not viable. Yes, it is common, but actually gathering it in H2 form is expensive and requires other energy. Until H2 can be cheaply gathered with minimal energy, Hyrdogen probably never will take off.
Nuclear fission and fusion are the best ways to get energy. fission has a bad rap, but fusion is clean (but we have to get it working first). Once battery tech improves, this will be the best way to get energy.
Hydrogen is not viable. Yes, it is common, but actually gathering it in H2 form is expensive and requires other energy. Until H2 can be cheaply gathered with minimal energy, Hyrdogen probably never will take off.
Nuclear fission and fusion are the best ways to get energy. fission has a bad rap, but fusion is clean (but we have to get it working first). Once battery tech improves, this will be the best way to get energy.
Trending Topics
Registered User
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 374
Likes: 0
From: Roswell
yea and the ability to maintain/control the rediculous amount of heat given off after smashing nuclei together is near implausible... my say, we dont have the materials to contain the power of the sun.
Registered User
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 5,094
Likes: 6
From: Vienna, VA
i still think nuclear is the best. it is pretty safe, too. it just has a bad rap due to 3 mile and chernobyl.
an aircraft carrier can go 1 million miles with a small amount of fuel. how many barrels of oil would that take?
an aircraft carrier can go 1 million miles with a small amount of fuel. how many barrels of oil would that take?