Surviving the end of the Oil Age

[Mike_C]

I was at a very interesting a thought provoking lecture last night in UCC on the topic of Permaculture. As it was an introduction to the course the lecturer outlined why we needed to reduce our high energy demand.

Mother nature laid down approximately 2 trillion barrels of oil over 90 million years ago. In less than 150 years we have consumed 1 trillion barrels of this natural resource. Globally we are consuming oil at a rate of 84 million barrels a year, using simple math that means we have less than 50 years supply left! Thats assuming our oil addition remains constant.

My question is how does this money conscious forum see our energy guzzling world survive the END OF THE OIL AGE

 

[Sherman]

Technology. Simple.

Just as the coal age was replaced by the oil age, so the oil age will eventually be replaced by another fuel age, once such a switch becomes economically compelling.

In the meantime, the global economy is vastly more [broken link removed] in its use of fuels than it was even 20 years ago.

Never underestimate the ingenuity of humankind to innovate its way out of trouble.

 

[pernickety]

There was an interesting report on geothermal heating on yesterdays France 2 news at 1o'clock (see below if you can understand French)

http://jt.france2.fr/13h/
"petrole cher: la geothermie revient a la mode"


Apart from talking about the trend towards geothermal for individuals, there are towns in France now using geothermal for heating the local pool, city hall, schools etc.
More importantly they mentioned the reservoirs of hot water (from the jurassic period?) in France. There are 3 big reservoirs, one of which is located under Paris. They estimate that if it was tapped it could provide heat and hot water for Paris for up to 100 years.

Interesting stuff! I wonder if there are such reservoirs in Ireland?

 

[demoivre]

.
Mother nature laid down approximately 2 trillion barrels.......

That estimate has changed over the years.
In May 1920, the U.S. Geological Survey announced that the world’s total endowment of oil amounted to 60 billion barrels.
In 1950, geologists estimated the world’s total oil endowment at around 600 billion barrels.
From 1970 through 1990, their estimates increased to between 1,500 and 2,000 billion barrels.
In 1994, the U.S. Geological Survey raised the estimate to 2,400 billion barrels, and their most recent estimate (2000) was of a 3,000-billion-barrel endowment.
The estimates above do not include unconventional oil resources.
* Oil production from tar sands in Canada and South America would add about 600 billion barrels to the world’s supply.
* Rocks found in the three western states of Colorado, Utah and Wyoming alone contain 1,500 billion barrels of oil.
* Worldwide, the oil-shale resource base could easily be as large as 14,000 billion barrels — more than 500 years of oil supply at year 2000 production rates.
(Source of above info. NCPA.)

In any event I don't believe for a minute that the demand for oil is perfectly inelastic ( that was discussed in another thread here before ) - most consumers don't need to use anywhere near as much oil as they do - demand for the black stuff could decrease if it becomes too expensive imo.

 

[Mike_C]

Whilst there may be other sources of oil, the problem is we are running out of cheap oil. the light sweet oil that was near the surface has been largely exhausted, as have the more accessible oil fields. oil companies are moving into more inhospitable environments such as the Antarctic in search of oil which is more energy demanding to produce.
Whilst most consumers dont need to use anywhere near as much oil as WE do, demand is not going to decrease because we have become energy junkies, how can we survive without our energy demanding cars, airplanes, electrical equipment. Alternatives are a potential source of relieve yet our political leaders are reluctant to fund the biofuel industry apart from minor tax reliefs.

 

[tiger]

Apparently in the 1870's, US cities were in a transportation crisis:
The 3.5 million horses resident in urban America each produced 20 pounds of waste daily, much of which wound up on the streets or in manure pits within the city limits [broken link removed]

 

[Brendan Burgess]

Mike C

This is an interesting and important topic but as it is not a financial topic or a typical question and answer, I have moved it to Letting Off Steam. This forum is for those who have been long term contributors to Askaboutmoney.

Brendan

 

[Sherman]

yet our political leaders are reluctant to fund the biofuel industry

Why should our political leaders do anything of the sort?

As soon as these alternatives become economically viable, (either through their price dropping, or the price of oil becoming prohibitive) they will replace oil as the standard fuel source.

The market will dictate the point at which reliance on and usage of oil based products ceases to make sense.

Until that time, subsidising them is a (very expensive) hiding to nothing.

 

[joe sod]

"Technology. Simple.

Just as the coal age was replaced by the oil age, so the oil age will eventually be replaced by another fuel age, once such a switch becomes economically compelling.

In the meantime, the global economy is vastly more [broken link removed] in its use of fuels than it was even 20 years ago.

Never underestimate the ingenuity of humankind to innovate its way out of trouble."
The problem is that when other fuels become "economically compelling" oil will have to rise by an awful lot more. The current global economy we now have would definitely be halted in its tracks. Because energy efficiency essentially means using less energy and the global economy we now have won't run on less energy. Every other alternative energy source has a cost, if we switch more to biofuels then food prices will have to rise alot as less agricultural land will be available for this. The 20th century was about technology coming to the rescue of every problem, in the 21st century very difficult decisions will have to be made. As for the global economy being more efficient than it was 20 years ago, its like todays 2 litre car is more efficient at burning fuel than the 1 litre car of 20 years ago. However the crucial difference is that todays 2 litre car is using more fuel than the 1 litre car of 20 years ago. And the global economy of today is using alot more fuel than the global economy of 20 years ago. So aswell as becoming more efficient the global economy will also have to contract.

 

[Sherman]

energy efficiency essentially means using less energy

No, it doesn't. You are confusing energy efficiency with energy conservation.

We use a hell of a lot more energy today than we did in say 1970, and yet we use that energy far more efficiently.

So aswell as becoming more efficient the global economy will also have to contract.

Sorry, but I have no faith in this luddite argument. Humankind has always innovated, and thus moved forward, whether it be by using flint for the first time, or using iron, or domesticating animals, or inventing the internal combustion engine.

The problem is that when other fuels become "economically compelling" oil will have to rise by an awful lot more. The current global economy we now have would definitely be halted in its tracks.

No it wouldn't. Unless we have some kind of shock akin to the 1970's oil crisis, the global economy will simply adapt gradually to the new technology, much as it adapted to oil replacing coal.

My argument is that once a fuel source becomes economically compelling, i.e. by being so cheap relative to oil that the cost of switching the global economy over to it is outweighed by the cost savings/benefits of switching, it will replace oil as the driver of the world economy. The world economy will find an equilibrium, just as it has always.

 

[lynchtp]

Mike C

This is an interesting and important topic but as it is not a financial topic or a typical question and answer, I have moved it to Letting Off Steam. This forum is for those who have been long term contributors to Askaboutmoney.

Brendan

So can Mike C reply now that its in the restricted area, or has his viewpoint been registered, and no further comment of his will be accepted.

 

[DrMoriarty]

Letting Off Steam and The Craic are — for good reason, and on the basis of long experience. Unfortunately, this means that, as a new poster, will have to make a few more posts elsewhere before he can post in this thread again — but there's nothing to stop him reading it.*

I think it's clear from Brendan's comments above that there's no intent to 'muzzle' his contribution!

[* — or, in the meantime, pursuing the discussion over on Boards.ie..! ]

 

[joe sod]

"My argument is that once a fuel source becomes economically compelling, i.e. by being so cheap relative to oil that the cost of switching the global economy over to it is outweighed by the cost savings/benefits of switching, it will replace oil as the driver of the world economy. The world economy will find an equilibrium, just as it has always"

Well then why did the 1970s oil shock not result in a new fuel source being "so cheap relative to oil". Because it doesn't exist thats why "nuclear fusion" is probably the only theoretical source of energy that could be cheaper than oil. The 1970s oil shock resulted in economic contraction and governments began facing up to the hard reality of how to change their economies to deal with more expensive energy. Of course the crisis ended with new oil discoveries not with some magical new cheap energy source, so it was an awful lot easier to try and find new oil sources than to find new energy sources. Yes the coal was replaced by oil simply because oil was a superior resource to coal. The switch to oil happened when there was still huge reserves of coal left. Why then is there not a switch from oil to a new better resource. When coal drove the global economy there was never a 1970s type oil shock, there was no fear of running out of coal like there is with oil today. So do you not think there has been a compelling desire to switch from oil for the last 40 years but it still hasn't happened. So this is a fundamental problem of resources not of technology.

 

[casiopea]

hi,
myself and my husband are currently trying to buy our home, we currently rent. This is taking a long long time, firstly because it will ideally be a long term home so we are being very fussy and secondly because for him there has to be alternative to oil heating. This is proving difficult and probably the alternative source of energy will be wood, we live in switzerland and this seems to be the case for many homes here.

Before I met my husband I had bought a house in Ireland and I must admit an alternative source of heating never went through my mind.

cas.

 

[Purple]

The 1970s oil shock resulted in economic contraction and governments began facing up to the hard reality of how to change their economies to deal with more expensive energy.

It also resulted in a huge hike in interest rates which caused most of the debt related poverty in the 3rd world. This in turn caused a collapse in commodity prices. World market were flooded with cereal crops and minerals etc. as underdeveloped countries struggled to pay the huge development loans that they had taken out when money was cheap and the world economy was on the up.
My point is that this is not just an environmental or abstract economic issue; the 1970’s oil crises caused poverty and political instability that killed millions of people and had repercussions that are still being felt today. Everything from the severity of the AIDS crisis to the support in some countries for international terrorism can be linked in part (and I mean only in part) to the 70’s oil crisis.
It’s not about if we run out of oil it’s about that happens when the cost of production becomes prohibitive and international markets loose confidence in the long term viability of the product.

 

[z102]

Please let us know the surce of such obscure "information". I thought the European Security Information Group had disapeared ?!

 

[Purple]

Hi heinbloed,
Africa Watch and the BBC news sites are good for this sort of information. For a good synopsis of the impact of the 70's oil crisis on the developing world have a look at the article by David McWilliams from the SBP below
.[broken link removed]
Maybe I'm too young but I have no idea who the European Security Information Group are/were.

 

[z102]

They are the agency (big brother) who feed the idiots with messages to spread them. BBC is a war mongering nation's "speaking opinion" and Africa watch .....check it yourself.
Do you think that the Irish famine was due to a lack of energy? Famines raved the world when energy was cheap in areas where energy was cheap.... only expensive energy makes live valuable. Think twice.
Ponys replaced children in the coal mines.Who where a replacement of adult miners. These ponys where replaced by steam engines (trains!). These steam engines where replaced by electricity. And then the coal was replaced.
This all hapened due to rising energy prices.
A humane world depends on high energy prices. What's worth nothing costs nothing.

 

[Purple]

They are the agency (big brother) who feed the idiots with messages to spread them.

That tells me what you think of them, not who or what they are.

BBC is a war mongering nation's "speaking opinion" and Africa watch .....check it yourself.

I think that despite it's pro-west slant the BBC offers quite a good world news service. I do know about Africa Watch, do you? If not have a look here [broken link removed]

Do you think that the Irish famine was due to a lack of energy? Famines raved the world when energy was cheap in areas where energy was cheap.... only expensive energy makes live valuable. Think twice.

I think you are missing the point that I was making. Economic instability, as well as political instability, contributes to poverty and famine. While climatic factors cause crop failures a stable country with a functioning economy is much more likely to be able to prevent it’s people from starving. The famines in Ethiopia and Somalia are cases in point. While Somalia has no oil and Ethiopia has very little they are still affected by commodity prices and international interest rates.
I don’t understand your comment that “only expensive energy makes live valuable”.
It may do so in some of the countries that produce it but how does it do so in countries that do not?