Oil, what if?

[Lost_one]

Im sure this has been asked a million times, but what would happen if oil suddenly dried up. I dont mean the long term effects, as obviously we would eventually come up with new ways to live without oil, but what about the short term effects of this?

Think about it like this. An announcer on TV has just informed us that the oil reserve will run out in 1 month. After this, there will be no oil on earth, anywhere. Not even for military or government use.

I would assume there would be a rush to fill cars and the like, which i expect would lead to some unrest and criminality. But once its gone, its gone and this type of behaviour will be pointless, although i expect some would continue, simply for the pleasure of it.

After that, i dont know. Would it be a case of going back to the horse and cart for a time?

Thanks

[Hemidakota]

Will your blood dry up in your veins? Then what?

At this time, if is already known, the lands in the northern hemisphere will have the capacity of producing more oil now than what is given in the middle portion of the earth.

[NeuroTypical]

Im sure this has been asked a million times, but what would happen if oil suddenly dried up.

Then reality would be different than it is today.

Here's the closest thing we got to your scenario: Peak Oil

LM

[Canuck Mormon]

Im sure this has been asked a million times, but what would happen if oil suddenly dried up. I dont mean the long term effects, as obviously we would eventually come up with new ways to live without oil, but what about the short term effects of this?

Think about it like this. An announcer on TV has just informed us that the oil reserve will run out in 1 month. After this, there will be no oil on earth, anywhere. Not even for military or government use.

I would assume there would be a rush to fill cars and the like, which i expect would lead to some unrest and criminality. But once its gone, its gone and this type of behaviour will be pointless, although i expect some would continue, simply for the pleasure of it.

After that, i dont know. Would it be a case of going back to the horse and cart for a time?

Thanks

Well, I'd be out of a job to start with.

[Aesa]

The reality is there are already options available which far surpass the energy producing capabilities of oil, such as geothermal energy (but, sustainability is not profitable).

"A 2006 report by MIT, that took into account the use of enhanced geothermal system, estimated that an investment of 1 billion US dollars in research and development over 15 years would permit the development of 100 GW of generating capacity by 2050 in the United States alone.[11] The MIT report estimated that over 200 ZJ would be extractable, with the potential to increase this to over 2,000 ZJ with technology improvements - sufficient to provide all the world's present energy needs for several millennia" Geothermal power - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Just for comparison with the 200ZJ estimated available, the planets people use about 0.5ZJ per year.

Here's the MIT study: http://geothermal.inel.gov/publications/future_of_geothermal_energy.pdf

We have no good reason to be using oil, at all, in the face of renewable energy.

[Traveler]

What if the world’s second largest and active volcano (located near the south pole) erupted (predicted as eminent) and melted the southern polar ice cap raising the oceans globally from 12 to 20 feet forcing 80% of the world’s human population to move overnight.

It would be far more catastrophic and far more likely. But considering such is currently politically very unpopular. It is much more fun for self proclaimed intellectuals to point and blame other people not aligned with their agendas for stuff that most likely will never happen.

The Traveler

[Dravin]

• You'd have massive amounts of unemployed people as businesses that depend on oil based products shut their doors, some would be able to retool but not all of them would pull it off.

  .

• farm equipment that runs on diesel and the transportation industry would stop working, enthonol would provide some fuel but it wouldn't be sufficent. As a result you would have mass famine as food could not be planted or harvested in the quantities that mechanization allows, even if that wasn't a problem the food couldn't move anywhere in the quantities or the speed needed. In short supply grocery store shelfs would be bare as people started to realize this. You'd have massive rioting over food and basic neccesities. Places where population density is the greatest would have the hardest time.

  .

• Power generation would be interrupted as oil fired plants ran through their reserves and died. There would be a massive switch to coal, but transportation remains a problem so you'd still have problems. Without oil back-up generators in hospitals and other important places would start to fail. A lack of electricity would bring down communications, places stuck without power would find medical care severely interrupted as doctors go back to the 19th century as they machines fail to work and supplies of things like medicine dwindle. Law enforcement would have issues as well because of a lack communication and no vehicles to patrol in besides bicycles. Places with geothermal, nuclear, or hydroelectric power might be spared this.

  .

• Depending on the time of year heating and cooling would be an issue. Some would die of heat exhaustion in extremely hot climates, if the past outages of AC are any example, mostly the elderly. This would be compounded by not having running water in such places (no pumps for water stations or home owned wells), they wouldn't even be able to run fans. If in the winter people who depend on electric or oil heating (natural gas if you are including that) may freeze to death. People would fight over wood stoves, and burn what ever they could get their hands on to stay warm. Again, places with geothermal, nuclear, or hydroelectric power might be spared this. For the oil fired folk, expect a run on space heaters.

Okay there is probably flaws in the above, but the basic infrastructure that we've come to rely upon would suffer serious problems.

Edited April 16, 2009 by Dravin

[Lost_one]

Within the church, we are told to make ready for such events. What would be expected of us as church members in this kind of situation?

[Vort]

Mass starvation. Within two years, 80% of the earth's population would either die of starvation or be killed in wars over food and water.

Our modern agricultural system is the science of turning petroleum into food.

[Aesa]

It's very unfortunate, isn't it?

I see this sort of thing as very urgent for not only is oil a finite resource, it's also destructive to our environment.

Our society needs to begin a transition (meaning, moving toward while still using oil) as soon as is possible to renewable energy (regardless of the fact that it'll destroy the monetary system) if we're going to avoid terrible things in the future.

Thankfully, some areas are beginning this transition.

Edited April 17, 2009 by Aesa

[NeuroTypical]

Within the church, we are told to make ready for such events.

What 'such events'? Mad Max sci-fi plotline apocalyptic B-movie events? The oil isn't going to "suddenly dry up". Who in the church is telling us to prepare for such things? All the urging I see from church leaders involve getting out of debt, being as self-reliant as possible, and storing resources against periods of hardship. I see concern about pandemic influenza and economic downturn. I don't see anyone in a leadership position forecasting the end of civilization as we know it, other than vague and nonspecific talk about living in the last days.

Could you cite your sources?

What would be expected of us as church members in this kind of situation?

Well, since you are the one hearing from the church about such things, what are they telling us to do?

[Moksha]

Eventually the supply will be depleted. It is hoped that by then substitutes for lubrication purposes will be readily manufacturable and that other energy sources will have been developed.

So much of our chemical industry is dependent on oil derivatives that a end to oil would be devastating.

[Aesa]

other energy sources will have been developed.

Already, long done.

Eventually the supply will be depleted.

Not only that, it will become expensive to harvest and oil companies will continue what they've been doing (slowing production to raise price).

On top of that, we just can't sustain this polluting energy source.

Years of production left in the ground with the most optimistic proved reserve estimates (Oil & Gas Journal, World Oil)

Oil: 1,317,000 million barrel reserve/84 million barrels used per day/365 days per year= 43 years

Gas: 1,161,000 million barrels equivalent reserve/19 million barrel equivalent used per day/365 days per year= 167 years

Coal: 4,416,000 million barrels equivalent reserve/29 million barrel equivalent used per day/365 days per year= 417 years

Note that this calculation assumes that the product could be produced at a constant level for that number of years and that all of the proved reserves could be recovered. In reality, consumption of all three resources has been increasing. While this suggests that the resource will be used up more quickly, in reality, the production curve is much more akin to a bell curve. At some point in time, the production of each resource within an area, country, or globally will reach a maximum value, after which, the production will decline until it reaches a point where is no longer economically feasible or physically possible to produce.

You can see, how very unsustainable this is. Edited April 17, 2009 by Aesa

[bcguy]

Lost_one.

I have been following the state of our worlds dependance on oil for a long time. What you may have read from use users is some what grim but is also true. Here is what would really happen long before the earth runs out of oil.

Most of the wold depends on oil not as a convience, but as a life line. Most of the plantets worlds populations is litterly subsidezed by oil.

Every thing you see, touch, feel and eat, buy and walk on "other then raw undisturbed earth" was created, moved or built from oil. Think about the serios consequences if we did not have it. There is not enough biodiesel or natural gas to move the worlds Ships, Trucks, cars, Rail ways, busses, tracktors ect on oil. All modern day plastics are created as a byproduct of petroleum.

Should that day come, nations will rise apon nations in wars for the last remaining petroleum reserves.

People who live a primitve life in remote locations where thay raise there own food will be the least affected by the dimminishing petroleum reserves. Those who live in the cities will cease to exist.

So basicly think or study what is was to live in the pre industrial age and mix in enviromentally friendly forms of energy and thats how life will be like.

It is only when you create some form of energy for your self "solar,wind,hydro" where you will be better off. But still, these items are generally mfg and transported by oil.

I am currently gathering parts to create a freznel lenz based stirling engine that will pump water or produce electricity on a small scale.

Edited April 17, 2009 by bcguy

[Aesa]

Solar, wind and geothermal are promising, but the technology is not yet to the point where they are economically viable.

That is utter nonsense John. The problem is, in-fact, that they're way too abundant and as based on the laws of supply and demand when something is abundant and well distributed it's price is low (or even free) and therefore profit cannot be gained from such mediums. It is these abundant technologies that are putting monetary economics on a collision course to "the end."

Every thing you see, touch, feel and eat, buy and walk on "other then raw undisturbed earth" was created, moved or built from oil.

That is true, but it is certainly not the most efficient means for producing a lot of the things we have. I should add the invention of substitutes, is relatively easy - all it takes us to put our creative ingenuity to such a task. All the inventions in our society didn't happen by some 'freak accident' - a scientists creates something by means of knowing that it is possible based on whether it is a 'physical phenomenon' and this is why inventors know they can do something before they do it.

[Dravin]

That is utter nonsense John. The problem is, in-fact, that they're way too abundant and as based on the laws of supply and demand when something is abundant and well distributed it's price is low (or even free) and therefore profit cannot be gained from such mediums. It is these abundant technologies that are putting monetary economics on a collision course to "the end."

All the data I've seen indicates that solar and wind generated energy costs more to produce than oil and coal. I'd like to see a cite for your claims that such sources for energy are cheaper than fossil fuels.

For instance, considering Solar Energy from here:

For wind we get, from here, 7.5 cents per kWh, look at the second heading, "How Expensive is Wind-Generated Electricity?" I imagine that is factoring good wind sites, there are plenty of sites where a fossil fuel plant could run just fine that isn't true for wind (or solar).

From here Geothermal comes to closest at 5 cents for kWh estimated for a new plant. Looks like the extant one mentioned can compete though (3.5 kWh). It also has placement issues at present because not every place has geothermal heat sources near the surface.

This will of course change as the price of oil goes up (the US still has plenty of coal though), but currently the fossil fuels are less expensive as a means of producing energy, not more.

Edited April 17, 2009 by Dravin

[john doe]

That is utter nonsense John. The problem is, in-fact, that they're way too abundant and as based on the laws of supply and demand when something is abundant and well distributed it's price is low (or even free) and therefore profit cannot be gained from such mediums. It is these abundant technologies that are putting monetary economics on a collision course to "the end."

Are you serious? Are you actually saying that solar and wind power are so cheap to generate that no one will sell the equipment to harness it? Is this a joke thread?

[Vort]

Are you serious? Are you actually saying that solar and wind power are so cheap to generate that no one will sell the equipment to harness it? Is this a joke thread?

The thread itself is not a joke, but Aesa has proven himself to be a troll in many other threads. Probably best just to ignore him.

[bytebear]

Necessity is the mother of invention.

[Traveler]

It's very unfortunate, isn't it?

I see this sort of thing as very urgent for not only is oil a finite resource, it's also destructive to our environment.

Our society needs to begin a transition (meaning, moving toward while still using oil) as soon as is possible to renewable energy (regardless of the fact that it'll destroy the monetary system) if we're going to avoid terrible things in the future.

Thankfully, some areas are beginning this transition.

There are indications that hydrocarbons (petroleum) is one of the universe’s most renewable resources as well as one of the most benign on our environment. For example a single volcanic eruption has a much more significant impact than years of human burning of fossil fuels. Which buy the way was the cause of the last major significant climate change on this planet.

The Traveler

[Aesa]

For wind we get, from here, 7.5 cents per kWh, look at the second heading, "How Expensive is Wind-Generated Electricity?" I imagine that is factoring good wind sites, there are plenty of sites where a fossil fuel plant could run just fine that isn't true for wind (or solar).

Actually, the US Department of energy has admitted that wind power utilised properly in just 3 states of the US would power the entire nation.

This will of course change as the price of oil goes up (the US still has plenty of coal though), but currently the fossil fuels are less expensive as a means of producing energy, not more.

The cost was, and is not, a concern to me or most other people who advocate a move to these energies. Yes implementing them will destroy whole sectors of employment, yes they will implode the economy if officially harnessed. But, that's an absolutely good thing on so many levels.

Are you serious? Are you actually saying that solar and wind power are so cheap to generate that no one will sell the equipment to harness it? Is this a joke thread?

No, that's not what I'm saying. But they're largely unprofitable after installation. The only reason they make money today is because they're feeding energy into a system which is always in need of "top ups" - but if renewable energy is to become the only form of energy harnessing, no one will be able to make money off it once it's all working (it will be a contraction by comparison with present energy harnessing methods).

"People have harnessed the wind to deliver energy for centuries. Today, wind generates electricity that powers millions of American homes and businesses and is one our nation’s fastest-growing sources of energy. Taking advantage of this abundant domestic resource to generate electricity helps meet America’s growing energy demands while improving our energy security and protecting our environment." Department of Energy - Wind

Here's some things that might be of interest in regards to using renewable energy: Inhabitat Florida Announces World’s First Solar-Powered City (It's a lie to say it's the first though - there is also Masdar City - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

" A British Wind Energy Association report gives an average generation cost of onshore wind power of around 3.2 cents per kilowatt hour (2005)" And it's getting cheaper. "In 2004, wind energy cost one-fifth of what it did in the 1980s, and some expected that downward trend to continue as larger multi-megawatt turbines were mass-produced." Uncle Sam's New Year's Resolution

"The most comprehensive study to date found the potential of wind power on land and near-shore to be 72 TW, equivalent to 54,000 MToE (million tons of oil equivalent) per year, or over five times the world's current energy use in all forms" Global wind power at 80 m

Renewable energy is nothing but abundant on this planet. There are two things holding it back: lack of brains in politics, and the need to profit. Oil and other increasingly scarce fossil fuels are much more profitable to maintain than renewable energy.

Edited April 18, 2009 by Aesa

[NeuroTypical]

I've considered installing a small home windmill for a while. There is a company (not offering service in my state) which will provide a free windmill, in exchange for the energy credits paid by the electric company for 7 years.

There is no single alternative energy source that is "the answer" right now - and maybe not ever. But every decade that rolls by, they get a bit better. Everything got renewed interest when gas was pushing $5/gal. Perhaps that interest will carry us into a few good reliable cheap viable alternatives.

LM

[john doe]

Yeah, whatever. Count me as one of the people who will fight against the idea of destroying our economy in the interests of trying something else just for the sake of doing so. As technology gets better, we will see these other ideas make inroads. But to shut off the oil pumps just to see what would happen is a stupid thing to do.

[Aesa]

Just to see what will happen? Countless studies have concluded that we by far have enough renewable energy sources to power the whole world. Just to name a few: Wind, Tidal, Wave, Solar, Geothermal... and we will find more, they are way more abundant than fossil fuel energy creation ever will be.

We can have total energy abundance with these means. Fighting against destroying our economy, but that would lead to the conclusion that you'll want to hold back technology in favor of preserving such a structure?

[john doe]

Son, put down the crack pipe for a minute and think. Can you do that?

Yeah, call me crazy, but destroying the economy is not a good thing, no matter how much Obama's boys say different. Maybe if you would read (can you do that?) you will notice that I have been talking about technology advances. I'm all for that. But technology for these alternative renewable energies have not yet reached the point where they are economically viable on a large scale. When they get to that point, they will become integrated into the system and replace the older technologies, which will by that time be more expensive than the newer technologies. You don't need to blow up the petroleum industry. Change will come, it always does. But we didn't one day just outlaw horses, they were slowly replaced as the automobile became more ecomonically viable. It's a natural progression.

Okay, you can light up that crack pipe again.