M
mythbuster1
Guest
The mass of the Earth is finite. Therefore, there is a limit on how many minerals can be extracted from the Earth. What that limit is for petroleum, I do not know.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
T
Theo520
Guest
That is a blatant lie disproven by actual data across the globe. Nuclear may not be the cheapest, but it is far from the most expensive and definitely not “obscene” in comparison.Nuclear power is obscenely expensive,
E
edwest211
Guest
Spent nuclear fuel rods going into water storage are increasing in number. No safe storage has been decided on. Billions have been spent for site selection but no decision. Depleted Uranium is littering the ground in some countries, leaving behind low-level radiation.
P
Pattylt
Guest
Being a perennial optimist, one thing I noticed is that every time a doom and gloom prediction forecasts our running out of some commodity, the nay sayers forget to take into account human ingenuity and technological advances.
Not enough food to feed the growth of humanity failed to consider improved agriculture. Running out of oil fails to consider alternative sources and advances in extraction.
I think that by the time we run out of cost effective oil, we will have moved on to alternative sources that will supply our needs. Just because we can’t know the answer right now, doesn’t mean there isn’t one. And yes, some may require changes in how we live day to day. Often that fear is the real problem!
Not enough food to feed the growth of humanity failed to consider improved agriculture. Running out of oil fails to consider alternative sources and advances in extraction.
I think that by the time we run out of cost effective oil, we will have moved on to alternative sources that will supply our needs. Just because we can’t know the answer right now, doesn’t mean there isn’t one. And yes, some may require changes in how we live day to day. Often that fear is the real problem!
H
HerCrazierHalf
Guest
Nuclear’s issue is a problem around the impact of a worse case scenario.
A coal, or other fossil fuel plant should presumably burn, release toxic smoke, and contaminate the ground. But those can be cleaned to some extent or decay in a year or two. Oil spills are an example as the oil is largely consumed by microbes or broken down by UV over the following years.
A large nuclear accident, though extremely rare can make hundreds of sq miles unusable for at least 3 years, maybe decades. Land value will be depressed for decades after rehabitation. Think Fukushima.
A coal, or other fossil fuel plant should presumably burn, release toxic smoke, and contaminate the ground. But those can be cleaned to some extent or decay in a year or two. Oil spills are an example as the oil is largely consumed by microbes or broken down by UV over the following years.
A large nuclear accident, though extremely rare can make hundreds of sq miles unusable for at least 3 years, maybe decades. Land value will be depressed for decades after rehabitation. Think Fukushima.
A
ATraveller
Guest
If you mean limited as in non-renewable, then it was in the past.
But currently there is technology that can turn plastics back to petroleum. The composition of that petroleum depends on what plastics are used. If that were scaled up, then petroleum will become renewable though not necessarily environmentally friendly if used as fuel.
But currently there is technology that can turn plastics back to petroleum. The composition of that petroleum depends on what plastics are used. If that were scaled up, then petroleum will become renewable though not necessarily environmentally friendly if used as fuel.
Last edited:
B
Beryllos
Guest
Relax. If human civilization continues on its hurtling trajectory toward the destruction of the planet, oil will outlast us. In other words, oil is not going to run out because we won’t be here to finish it off.
Last edited:
P
PetraG
Guest
You can’t make fertilizer or plastic or lubricants or a lot of other petroleum-based products out of wind.Energy-wise we can always switch to renewable sources.
59% of the earth’'s crust is silica. It is the main constituent of 95% of rocks, and if the Earth were heated so as to evaporate the atmosphere, it wouldn’t evaporate. So…pretty much we have all the SiO2 we know what to do with. Go nuts.Everything in this universe is finite. Nothing, not even the oxygen we breathe, is unlimited.
Mining for petroleum under the ocean is not without its dangers, as the Gulf Coast can attest.There have been several published reports saying oil was about to run out. Nothing has changed. Total global oil reserves are unknown. In the past, it was not possible to drill in the North Sea - they figured it out.
Or learned to do without in the meantime, which isn’t always the most pleasant option.Precisely.
We never hit a “peak whale oil” or “peak lumber for heat” or whatever other energy source we’ve moved past. We just came up with something much better and more efficient.
As others have already pointed out, the limit on a commodity isn’t the point at which it runs out entirely but the point at which obtaining the commodity is too expensive compared to the benefit of getting to it.What does that have to do with the question of whether it’s a limited commodity? It either is or it isn’t.
A few of us could turn out to be in the same class as wasps, flies and of course the cockroaches, but it wouldn’t be many of us. If most mammalian life goes, most of us are going out with the Laborador retrievers.Relax. If human civilization continues on its hurtling trajectory toward the destruction of the planet, oil will outlast us. In other words, oil is not going to run out because we won’t be here to finish it off.
A
angel12
Guest
That’s has nothing to do with what I was asking Maxirad. Perhaps you meant to address someone else.As others have already pointed out, the limit on a commodity isn’t the point at which it runs out entirely but the point at which obtaining the commodity is too expensive compared to the benefit of getting to it.
Last edited:
G
GiftofMercy
Guest
Which oil? Are you referring to sacramental oils?
I
Inquisitor85
Guest
Yes, there is a finite supply of oil. It shouldn’t be a massive issue going forwards, renewables with energy storage are there along with hydrogen coming along. As for plastics some can be plant based and better recycling techniques should make things easier, the biggest bump in the road that I can see is fertiliser.
J
JButky
Guest
Just throwing this out there for discussion…
K
Kirk_O
Guest
the earth produces oil and is not made by old plants and dinosaurs. Calling coal and oil fossil fuels is just bad science.
T
tafan2
Guest
Peak oil theory held that world wide production would peak at some point and then enter a terminal decline, all driven by a depletion of resources. It often then went on to describe the effects on the world economy based on energy supplies shrinking. It did not occur at all. Oil production has continued to climb along with the economy. To some extent, this theory is what drove oil prices to outrageous levels in 2007. Simply the expectation that we were running out of oil.
Now, we are largely running out of “cheap oil”, that is the traditional reserve where you drill a hole and oil comes out of the ground, perhaps you have to put a pump jack on it and you are done.
But the amount of oil resources in the world is quite large. The proven reserves for oil is now estimated at around 1700 billion barrels of oil. That is roughly 50 years worth of global consumption. Now, to be counted as a proven reserve, there has to be a very high probability the oil can be obtained out of the ground economically. So its basically what we found already, put a hole into to make sure it was there, and know it can be economically produced. As we use our 100 million barrels a day, the proven reserves do not shrink, because we find more or we determine how to profitably produce more.
There is a lot, and I mean a lot, of oil still in the ground. Here are just a couple of anecdotes to illustrate the point. The production in the US has shot up in the last 10 years due to figuring out how to produce tight oil (shale oil). 15 years ago, none of these shale oil reserves were counted as proven reserves. Now, the interesting thing is the US is largely the only country who is producing shale oil at this time. Do we really think the only major tight oil formations happen to be under North America?
Or has anyone considered the BP Deep Water Horizon oil spill? That one hole in the ground was releasing 60 thousand barrels a day into the ocean. To put that in perspective, that is 3% of the entire US consumption. Now, that deep oil is there, but it is no longer economical to produce because oil is not at 120/barrel. But the oil is down there, in vast amounts.
All of this is to say, we will not run out of oil. I certainly hope that the vast majority of oil in the ground we will never produce. I happen to believe in global warming and we need to quit burning the stuff to a large extent.
Now, we are largely running out of “cheap oil”, that is the traditional reserve where you drill a hole and oil comes out of the ground, perhaps you have to put a pump jack on it and you are done.
But the amount of oil resources in the world is quite large. The proven reserves for oil is now estimated at around 1700 billion barrels of oil. That is roughly 50 years worth of global consumption. Now, to be counted as a proven reserve, there has to be a very high probability the oil can be obtained out of the ground economically. So its basically what we found already, put a hole into to make sure it was there, and know it can be economically produced. As we use our 100 million barrels a day, the proven reserves do not shrink, because we find more or we determine how to profitably produce more.
There is a lot, and I mean a lot, of oil still in the ground. Here are just a couple of anecdotes to illustrate the point. The production in the US has shot up in the last 10 years due to figuring out how to produce tight oil (shale oil). 15 years ago, none of these shale oil reserves were counted as proven reserves. Now, the interesting thing is the US is largely the only country who is producing shale oil at this time. Do we really think the only major tight oil formations happen to be under North America?
Or has anyone considered the BP Deep Water Horizon oil spill? That one hole in the ground was releasing 60 thousand barrels a day into the ocean. To put that in perspective, that is 3% of the entire US consumption. Now, that deep oil is there, but it is no longer economical to produce because oil is not at 120/barrel. But the oil is down there, in vast amounts.
All of this is to say, we will not run out of oil. I certainly hope that the vast majority of oil in the ground we will never produce. I happen to believe in global warming and we need to quit burning the stuff to a large extent.
Last edited:
T
tafan2
Guest
continued:
As I said, we need to stop relying on oil for our energy to the greatest extent possible. And, slowly, but surely, we are moving in that direction. There is, hopefully peak oil in the near future, but that is not based on a shortage of the resource, but a decline in the demand. Oil production will hopefully peak and then go into a (near) terminal decline because there people simply don’t use as much of it as before. This is difficult, but it looks somewhat promising.
Here in Texas, we generate 20% of our electricity from wind power. That is pretty substantial. Cars are getting more and more energy efficient. Electric cars are hopefully going to become price competitive with ICE cars in the next 10 years.
OTOH, oil has a property that is very hard to duplicate: energy density is quite high. So we will likely always need to use some of it. For example, there is nothing on the horizon that I know of that will be able to handle airline traffic besides petroleum based fuel. Replacing all petroleum is likely not feasible. But hopefully we can replace a lot of it.
So hopefully oil production will peak in the next few years and then go down at a steady rate. But it will not be due to oil being a “limited commodity”.
As I said, we need to stop relying on oil for our energy to the greatest extent possible. And, slowly, but surely, we are moving in that direction. There is, hopefully peak oil in the near future, but that is not based on a shortage of the resource, but a decline in the demand. Oil production will hopefully peak and then go into a (near) terminal decline because there people simply don’t use as much of it as before. This is difficult, but it looks somewhat promising.
Here in Texas, we generate 20% of our electricity from wind power. That is pretty substantial. Cars are getting more and more energy efficient. Electric cars are hopefully going to become price competitive with ICE cars in the next 10 years.
OTOH, oil has a property that is very hard to duplicate: energy density is quite high. So we will likely always need to use some of it. For example, there is nothing on the horizon that I know of that will be able to handle airline traffic besides petroleum based fuel. Replacing all petroleum is likely not feasible. But hopefully we can replace a lot of it.
So hopefully oil production will peak in the next few years and then go down at a steady rate. But it will not be due to oil being a “limited commodity”.
Last edited:
T
tafan2
Guest
I don’t think so. I believe the traditional thought on how petroleum is produced in the earth has not been discredited in the least. Abiogenic production of petroleum is likely very limited. That is still the consensus in the scientific community.
K
Kirk_O
Guest
We may very well have trouble finding it in the future but that’s not to say that the earth doesn’t make it. The fossil fuel rhetoric is just a political tool.
sorry to tell you but climate change has been going on for billion and billions of years. The sun is the major contributor and us humans have nearly nothing to do with it. Now on the other hand pollution is all on us.
sorry to tell you but climate change has been going on for billion and billions of years. The sun is the major contributor and us humans have nearly nothing to do with it. Now on the other hand pollution is all on us.
T
tafan2
Guest
Of course the earth makes it, but it takes a long t. Are there reserves in all stages of this formation? yes, the earth has not stopped making it. But the vast majority of petroleum was living organic material a long time ago.We may very well have trouble finding it in the future but that’s not to say that the earth doesn’t make it. The fossil fuel rhetoric is just a political tool.
If we have trouble finding abiogenic reserves, that would seem to indicate that there is not much of it, since we do a pretty good job of finding oil.
I have no idea why you would claim that the consensus of how petroleum is produced by the earth is politically motivated.
As to climate change, of course the climate has been changing for billions of years. That is obviously the case. The question is, are we going through an accelerated period of change now that is driven by burning hydro-carbons. Saying humans have nothing to do with it is nothing more than adhering to preconceived notions, typically based on political thought, and not being able to look at the scientific evidence with an open mind. I will admit, there is a lot of global warming doomsayers who exaggerate the effects of it to a great extent. But the underlying scientific data does support the existence of man-made global warming.
The sun is the major contributor and us humans have nearly nothing to do with it.
Straw man arguments don’t help.Saying humans have nothing to do with it is nothing more than adhering to preconceived notions
Last edited:
T
tafan2
Guest
I do not think it is a straw man argument. But, I won’t argue the point. Instead, I argue simply for a consistent approach into looking at these questions. @Kirk_O made the claim that the accepted theory of formation of petroleum is politically motivated. If my statement about global warming is a a straw man, than his has to also be a straw man argument. Yet it is not pointed out.
When it comes to our energy and environmental policies, what we need is an approach of looking at it without the hyperbole, on both sides of the debate. It is sorely lacking on both sides of the debate. Pointing out that my statement is a strawman argument, and not his is an example of that. One may argue that global warming is not man-made and actually find scientists who support this to some extent. One would be sorely tested to find a scientists who support the idea of abiogenic petroleum generation as the major form of source for our petroleum. Claiming that is politically motivated is a glaring example of the lack of looking at these issues with an open mind.
When it comes to our energy and environmental policies, what we need is an approach of looking at it without the hyperbole, on both sides of the debate. It is sorely lacking on both sides of the debate. Pointing out that my statement is a strawman argument, and not his is an example of that. One may argue that global warming is not man-made and actually find scientists who support this to some extent. One would be sorely tested to find a scientists who support the idea of abiogenic petroleum generation as the major form of source for our petroleum. Claiming that is politically motivated is a glaring example of the lack of looking at these issues with an open mind.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.