Reading Current Events

Of course not. Why do we act as though they are?

Consider metals. What if we started running out of, say, iron. It would be devastating, but there would be hope in some sense that we could use another metal, and eventually could even mine more iron from celestial bodies. And of course we could recycle iron as well.

In other words, running out of a given metal would be terrible, but not as catastrophic as running out of fossil fuels. Nothing quite compares to what will happen when oil is gone.

Fossil fuels are not only a limited resource, they are an irreplaceable resource (nonrenewable). There is no other substance that yields the calories per volume that oil does. It's a precious and peculiar substance with unrivaled energy density.

Perhaps, you think, there are new batches of oil being produced from decaying organic matter to replace the oil we're using up. Yes, that's probably true: but the transformation takes place in geologic time, and we are using up the resources in exponential time.

Perhaps you think we will discover new reserves. I hope you're right, but we rarely find reserves large enough to supply the 80-90 megabarrels of oil the world consumes in a single day--and that number is expected to rise exponentially in the coming years.

You can take solace in nuclear power, but think about it: how does all that uranium get mined? Diesel machinery. How does it get transported? Diesel and kerosene machinery.

How is the world's food produced and distributed? Will a nuclear power plant power combines, trucks, trains, and airplanes?

If it could, is there even enough uranium to power all these devices?

Hydrogen is unproven, other technologies are unimplemented, and we hurtle towards catastrophe as though nothing were wrong.

Perhaps you have some sort of faith that the ingenuity of man will save the day. I would wish I shared your optimism if it were just that, optimism, and not misplaced faith.

We're in big trouble. When the oil runs out, I fear we will see a global pandemic of starvation and economic and social chaos. It will make all of histories' trials pale by comparison.

It's past time to start making preparations for the end of oil.

Ewige Blumenkraft!

...and it is already and will be a perfect example for man's egoism. It is and will be always the poor and weak, who will suffer most from it, on global scale just the same as on national and personal scale. The US and its allies will surely be the last nations beginning to suffer from it, though at the end of the day its just a matter of time for them/us as well. Still, there will be no global solidarity, no tries to conquer that problem as one world, but just national pride and egoism, force of arms and fights. More than the social chaos I'm scared of the wars for the final few drops, which already started, but are nothing yet compared to what we will see during the next 50 years... I'm not blaming anyone special, but just mankind as a whole for being so dull, socially incompetent and dead without knowing it.

After decades of construction my website is finally up an running: www.kkds.de

This post was edited by Martin on Nov 25, 2005.

The US and its allies will surely be the last nations beginning to suffer from it,

I'm not so sure of that if China and India join the party. There are few nations in the world that could kick the US Army's butt, but if it comes down to a fight USA vs China, it's not the USA I'd put my money on. Also, if the oil resources are spread equally among all countries, the USA will be by far the first to run out of the precious liquid if there's not a drastic change in lifestyle (which, let's be honest, is so not gonna happen). A major oil shortage in China will likely hurt the ongoing economic expansion and kill quite a few jobs, but how much oil does the average Chinese need to just survive? Not that much really.
I think it's the western countries (that includes us), and of those the big cities and suburbs, that will be hit the hardest. Losing your mobility is the least problem when the supermarkets run out of food and goods that used to be delivered from far away by trucks, plastic gets prohibitively expensive (think about how many every-day things are made of plastic!) and most people can't afford heating in winter anymore. If it comes to that, the very rich and people living in rural communities near small farms will be the most likely to survive.

Having said that, if you're in the mood for a little bit of doomsday atmosphere, try Idleworm.

When life hands you a lemon, that's 40% of your RDA of vitamin C taken care of.

This post was edited by null on Nov 25, 2005.

Well I strongly feel that running out of oil will be no problems at all. Why do I feel this way?

Several reasons:

1) Businesses are inherently greedy. If there was an alternative source of energy, businesses dependent upon this oil for its success will be sure to hide these alternative sources as long as possible in an effort to maintain profits. And if I can convince you of this, it is only a small step to convince you that this is already happening. There is reason to believe that there is a hydroxide fuel that can be made cheaper than gasoline, and exerts O^2 and water as exhaust. Of course it is only rumor, but supposedly gasoline companies would stand to lose money to switch simply because it is not an "irreplaceable" resource.

2) The world market is not a fragile thing when it comes to such things. For example, if we run out of gold, immediately the value of every gold metal substitute will rise until it is met by an increasing supply of gold substitute to even out the new demand for these substances. The only reason other fuel sources have not been researched yet is because it is not cost-effective. If supply decreases and demand stays the same, all it does is increase the need for an alternative fuel source, which pushes the need to be cost-effective.

3) It isn't because it is for the better good or because the "world" needs an alternative to oil. It is because of profit, and profit goes a long way. Ultimately, the goal is the same, irregardless of the motive. The only difference is that there has to be a stack of money and a bunch of drooling CEOs to start this project, not a world ridden of oil. Fortunately for us all, when the world is ridden of oil, the CEOs will have their stacks of money by default.

I feel this way about recycling too. This isn't to say that I wouldn't recycle if given the chance, but at the same time, I feel that when the need for recycling gets to the point in which something needs to be done, companies will be the ones to do it because they stand to gain money.

At the very least, we can expect only a temporarily hike in gasoline prices until a better solution is met. Demand fuels supply. Supply fuels demand. I am confident that there will never be a point in which we do not wish to demand a product, but we need it badly for our survival on this planet.

If the world should blow itself up,the last audible voice would be an expert saying it can't be done

This post was edited by Hawkeye on Nov 27, 2005.

that running out of oil will be no problems at all.

I really don't think so.
While I agree that the most obvious problem - transportation - could be solved given some time (the amount of 'alternate energy' patents held by Big Oil is ridiculous), I still expect some major problems. Above all because everything - the vehicles, the filling stations and their logistics - are built for petrol and would either have to be replaced or considerably altered. Many people won't even be able to afford that.
Second, hydrogen-powered vehicles are nice, but hydrogen is usually produced by splitting water molecules. The energy for that process has to come from somewhere - and especially in the USA and parts of eastern Europe, this means coal- and oil-powered power plants.
Third, alternate energy technologies are, compared to petrol-based technologies, still in their infancy. Building a hydrogen-, biodiesel- or electricity-powered car to transport 4-5 persons is easy. Replacing an 800hp diesel engine in a 40-ton truck, or getting an alternate-energy plane turbine to even start twitching (let alone moving a jumbo jet), is quite another story.

And then there's the biggest problem of all. It's not transportation. If the oil-powered trucks stop moving and bringing vital stuff to supermarkets in cities and suburbs all across the world, that won't even matter, because at that time there won't be much stuff left to transport in the first place.
All kinds of plastic are based on oil. Stop for a minute and think of all the things that are made of plastic. Imagine they're all gone, and think of the consequences.
The big farms totally depend on oil - for their machines, for fertilizer and for most kinds of insecticides. (Granted, they could grow their own biodiesel - after a transition period of maybe one year.)
Most processed foods require some kind of oil. That starts with preservatives. Go to your average supermarket and measure the time it takes you to find ten unprocessed products without preservatives outside of the fruit/vegetables stand. (Then imagine the fruit/vegetables stand is nearly empty because the farmers have a hard time cultivating their fields without oil.)
Electricity - all oil-dependent power plants will have to be shut down.

Technically, virtually everything that can be made of oil can also be made of coal. Maybe Big Oil will turn into Big Coal, who knows. A whole new industry, whee! But what happens when we run out of coal too, an event which wouldn't be too far in the future?
And then there's always the awful big lot of people and companies who just can't afford the switch.

In other news, the Bush government has just thrown money after big companies who want to go after tar sands and shale oil. Even if some day it'll be possible to harvest oil from there on a large scale, only the richest will be able to afford enough of that oil to carry on with their lifestyle. It'll be a drop in the ocean.

And to top that off - oil-consuming technology is already widely available. The 80mpg car has been in mass production for quite a few years. You can effectively heat your home with wood or trash (the central heating of the office building where I work at consists of a heat pipe to the local trash burning facility - they burn trash, we get the heat). A detached house with a roof made of modern solar panels provides you with enough electricity that you can feed some back into the powerlines on sunny days.
Yet, even at a time when the Peak Oil talk has shifted from doomsday prophets to reputable analysts and Big Oil representatives, and oil prices are reaching an all-time high, how many people even think about implementing these technologies? I dare say they're few.

When life hands you a lemon, that's 40% of your RDA of vitamin C taken care of.

Yes, but all I was saying was that while there might be an 80 mpg car in production, the reason it isn't being used is because there is no demand for it. I promise that once oil runs out, everybody will get one of these cars if it meant dealing with the increasing price of gasoline. Sure it is expensive, but if the alternative proves more expensive, then there will be a need for Big Oil to come up with something fast in order to maintain business before people get smart and start using bicycles. The reason we don't do this is because it is "cheaper" to keep the old car and pay the increased gasoline prices (as of now).

Assuming all natural resources on this planet were deplenished, I imagine we would simply find another source of energy. That's all. How much of the planet is covered with solar panel? I'm sure it is a "0." followed by lots of zeros and then a 1 percent. The amount of energy we could get from the sun would most certainly superceed any source of power today. It hasn't been done only because it is "cheaper" to get oil.

I mean, if we need oil for plastics, then I'm sure we will find an alternative technology. We have so many different plastics now, I don't think it would be difficult finding one which does its job and requires little to no oil. Even if that were the case, I imagine we would evolve our technology to fit our needs. It hasn't been done only because it is "cheaper" to use what we have now.

Necessity is the mother of invention, and so if we have the necessity for an oil replacement, we will most certainly work on it. I emphasize strongly that the only factors keeping us from doing any of this is because of cost, which has never been, in the history of mankind's invention boom over the last 100 years, more important than survival.

In my humble opinion, if every way we get power today ceased to be a viable resource for energy tomorrow, we would undoubtedly work nonstop until we find another way to get energy and exploit that to ridiculous proportions. We wouldn't just throw our hands into the air and say "Well, back to the stone age." :)

If the world should blow itself up,the last audible voice would be an expert saying it can't be done

1) Businesses are inherently greedy. If there was an alternative source of energy, businesses dependent upon this oil for its success will be sure to hide these alternative sources as long as possible in an effort to maintain profits

It has absolutely nothing to do with greed, it's about physics. The fact is, the energy density of fossil fuels remains untouched by anything we've even come close to producing as a replacement. You mention the most famous canard of post-petroleum speculation, hydrogen, as an example of reason for optimism. I can use the same thing in support of my argument, which I would call "realism."

Hydrogen is of course capable of transfering energy, but it's not a pure energy source itself. It comes down to the law of thermodynamics: the energy spent in extracting hydrogen costs more than the energy harnessed. When you consider how much energy it takes to transport the hydrogen to wherever it needs to go, this deficit becomes yet more pronounced.

2) The world market is not a fragile thing when it comes to such things. For example, if we run out of gold, immediately the value of every gold metal substitute will rise until it is met by an increasing supply of gold substitute to even out the new demand for these substances. The only reason other fuel sources have not been researched yet is because it is not cost-effective. If supply decreases and demand stays the same, all it does is increase the need for an alternative fuel source, which pushes the need to be cost-effective.

Well, I cannot argue with pure conjecture, but I think there's plenty of evidence that the world economy is not nearly as resilient as you suggest, based on fluctuating markets all over the world, constant recessions, occasional depressions, and oil crises every 20-30 years. In fact, when the US bailed Mexico's economy out of a crash a few years ago, the only reason there wasn't a catastrophic worldwide economic collapse (starting with currency speculation markets) is that it was a holiday in the Asian markets. This served to contain a very dangerous market crash. If it weren't for that, we (meaning every country in the world) would have been broadsided by the devastation.

Running out of oil is an unprecedented event that WILL destroy economies. We are a petro-economy, and it's foolish to think that the elimination of the basis for our economy won't be devastating, particularly when we have lacked the foresight to prepare for life after oil.

3) It isn't because it is for the better good or because the "world" needs an alternative to oil. It is because of profit, and profit goes a long way. Ultimately, the goal is the same, irregardless of the motive. The only difference is that there has to be a stack of money and a bunch of drooling CEOs to start this project, not a world ridden of oil. Fortunately for us all, when the world is ridden of oil, the CEOs will have their stacks of money by default.

No, the reason petroleum is pervasive is, as aforementioned, its unprecedented energy density. It is simply the only substance that we have discovered that has the properties of energy density, relative innocuousness, transportability, stability, etc. that is needed to run a global economy. I have no reason to believe that there's anything that will take its place, and while I realize how morally bankrupt oil companies are, I refuse to indulge in conspiracy theory fantasies that they are squelching the next generation power source that will be our salvation.

The only way to effectively deal with a problem is a) to acknowledge it, and b) to start thinking about what to do. If your mind is working on a solution, you can possible effect a solution. If your mind is dwelling on the problem, you will accomplish nothing. The only thing worse than that is to not even acknowledge a problem exists.

Ewige Blumenkraft!

but how much oil does the average Chinese need to just survive? Not that much really.

I'm not so sure of that. If you think of fossil fuels in broader terms than personal electricity and transportation, there are over a billion Chinese who need food, sanitation, and water. The only way to generate and transport the quantities of safe and clean food and water to feed those kinds of numbers is though fossil fuels. I suspect a large percentage of China's food is imported (likely from the US) already. China is way past the point of returning to local agrarianism, its urban areas are far too dense to allow for that to happen without catastrophic death from starvation.

China and the US are in a mutually dependent situation that leave both countries very vulnerable. The US has tens of billions of dollars invested in China, and a couple hundred billion in both trade deficit and annual trade with China. The US needs China (for the market expansion and cheap labor, to name two examples), and China needs the US (the offshoring of labor providing new jobs and market growth, to name one example). But the countries hate each other. The US thinks China is an evil, Godless, barbaric realm with no respect for human rights. China thinks the US is an evil colonial power with insatiable greed and spoiled, fat, wasteful and lazy citizens. Both countries are right.

Speaking of this topic, I'm going to post a review of Syriana soon, a movie that deals with global petro-politics.

Ewige Blumenkraft!

You're of course right. :-)

Still, I think if it comes down to just using the available resources to survive, the Chinese will have a way better starting position than most western countries (especially the USA).

These are the 'footprints' of a few nations, according to the WWF. The numbers say how many planets Earth would be needed to sustain our consumption/destruction of natural resources if everybody had the same lifestyle as the people of that country.

When life hands you a lemon, that's 40% of your RDA of vitamin C taken care of.

I think those statistics might be thrown a bit by the fact that 750 million Chinese live below the poverty line. For a supposedly Communist nation, they have an extraordinarily disproportionate distribution of wealth. The Chinese model of 'socialism' outlasted the Soviet one by introducing some westernization of their economy, without adopting democratic principles.

Sadly, as Martin said, it stands to reason that if we run into a crisis of resources, the poor will start dying a lot faster than the rich will change their lifestyles. There really are no major powers that don't on some level share America's capitalist priorities.

"History is more or less bunk." - Henry Ford

This post was edited by Bunk on Dec 15, 2005.