/sci/ - Science & Math

Only if you don't get off your ass and do something about it.

Rather than pumping massively expensive fuel into your car for rediculously low milage, get a hybrid.

Go out and buy efficient bulbs.

These things NOT ONLY SAVE YOU MONEY, but are better for the enviroment, on top of this you are letting the great capitalist god 'free market' know that you want change.

>>4628397
it will change nothing if the +7 billion people won't change their habits too

>>4628405
and they won't, civilization will collapse, billios will die and then it will slowly be rebuilt into a more sustainable form (by necessity).

so yeah, I'd say we're pretty fucked on the short term.

>>4628397
>efficient bulbs
>better for the enviroment
lol

>>4628410
>and they won't
True
>civilization will collapse,
no
>billios will die
no
> and then it will slowly be rebuilt into a more sustainable form (by necessity).
no
>so yeah, I'd say we're pretty fucked on the short term.
no.

Every prediction of disaster fails, because they're almost always based on extrapolations that assume no progress and no adaptation to the problem, not to mention simple things like feedback.
Oil won't hit $200 over night, and the response to $200 oil won't be civil war.
We'll instead see a simultaneous decrease in oil usage and more investment in alternate paths to oil(coal to oil), alternate fuels(electric vehicles) and more nuclear/coal power plants(and some solar and wind to appease the greens)

>>4628389
>It takes away all my motivation. Unbearable to think that I work hard a few decades and peak oil makes it all amount to nothing.

Why don't you work on becoming self-sufficient then? Look into homesteading for instance.

>fracking

>>4628425
>We'll instead see a simultaneous decrease in oil usage and more investment in alternate paths to oil(coal to oil), alternate fuels(electric vehicles) and more nuclear/coal power plants(and some solar and wind to appease the greens)
It could be like that. Or it could result in a global recognition that failing oil supply is the problem and that we are at the start of an inexorable oil decline may result in loss of confidence in long-term investment gain, so that many withdraw from the market—fleeing to gold or cash or other escapes deemed safe against year-over-year declines. Foreign investors could pull out of U.S. holdings, lacking confidence in our ability to grow against a backdrop of oil decline. The dollar could be abandoned as the standard currency for oil exchanges. A long-term global crisis of confidence could dramatically change the rules of the game.

Crash programs in solar, wind, or nuclear infrastructure—besides suffering from the Energy Trap ( http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2011/10/the-energy-trap/ ) phenomenon—do not address the fundamental problem. Replacing a fleet of vehicles with electric cars or plug-in hybrids will take decades to accomplish, amidst decline and hardship. Biofuels that can scale to meet the demand gap and that do not compete directly with food supply have not been demonstrated

There will be a recession (like there is now) and people will gradually replace oil with biofuels to fuel existing cars, new cars will be powered by electric. Thats it.

just saiyan

>>4628397
>buy stuff, consume more
>for gods sake consume more
>the free market will make it all beter
EROI

Hey, you'll make the Great Humongous a fine smegma boy.

a free market solution

I'm actually quite optimistic. Americunts are already throwing a hissy fit when gas prices go up a few of their worthless dollar cents.
A customer driven free market solution is near.

THORIUM

alternative #1

>>4628575
fake another holocaust?

I like your style

alternative #2

alternative #3
mars

Peak oil is believed to have occurred sometime in the 2000's. And look, everything still works. The reason is that after the peak, there will be a *gradual* decline which gives humanity enough time to find alternatives/solutions. Peak oil is a good thing because we will eventually have less pollution as 1st world countries switch to Solar/Nuclear/Thorium/Wind/Fusion and then it's plain sailing until the Sun burns out.

>>4628683
Except, it's peak plateau as you can see from the picture. The downfall and transition haven't even begun.

>>4628683
>free market still works

>>4628425
Agreed, and BTW, oil will never hit more than around $150 a barrel because at that price it's equivalent to pulling oil out of tar sands. Peak oil is the end of cheap oil, but not the end of oil. We have ample production capacity and wealth to afford it, in the Western world.

Also, that price will pur alternatives such as biodiesel and even renewable energy on a more equal footing.

Peak oil won't be pretty, but the idea that 'billions will die' is alarmist bullshit.

>>4628683
No way man. You think we got 5 billion years on the main sequence? In 2 billion years we collide with Andromeda and get flung into deep empty space.

We are FUCKED.

>>4628760
Why would the collision necessarily fling us into space? More likely the Sun keeps all its pieces and we just get a chance to spread into another galaxy.

>>4628772
If we can't travel to other galaxies regulary in 2 billion years, we have other problems.

>>4628591
dress rehearsal
but ya

>>4628487
>free energy = free market
rossi = ponzi
yep

>>4628786
>2 billion years

Do you even know how progress works?

>>4628786
>implying humans will be around in 1000 years
nigga u dum

>>4628799
>collisions with other galaxies will enable us to spread
>in 2 billion years that won't be our problem
>durr hurr you don't know how progress works
Nigga, you just went full retard.

>>4628800
>implying
No.

>>4628737
>implying most of the downward trend doesnt come from replacing disposable child labor with automated computer-controlled machines that never fuck up or get their arms ripped off

>>4628917
>engineers
>unemployed
>math
>300k starting
The economy knows best.

Read this: http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/52/25/36760950.pdf --actually find the book and read it (same name and author), but this'll hit the high points. Specifically, pay attention to the section entitled "Historical Perspectives"

Also note that energy is this author's specialty and he's been studying it for decades.

>>4629192
I agree with the principle, that slow, long-term develoopments have more influence in society than quick changes instigated by small groups. Their changes are just washed away with the general trend.

However, one thing I do not agree with: The phrase about fusion tech being a "fata morgana" which "uselessly" receives millions of dollars for research. I don't want to defen fusion or its usefullness, nor do I want to say it will be a significant contribution to global energy production any time soon.

BUT

If it doesn't work yet, it's a sign we should research MORE, not LESS, so dont CUT THE FUCKING RESEARCH BUDGET JUST BECAUSE IT'S NOT WORKING IN THE TIME YOU WANT YOU LITTLE PRICK.

Seriously, all my rage.

As oil sources get more difficult to extract and refine, and as demand rises from developing countries like China and India, the price of oil will rise and never come back down. This means that energy costs in general will be higher, and everything will get more expensive, especially things that use lots of energy or require long-distance transportation.

We can switch to other energy sources, but it will require lots of expensive infrastructure to be built and will probably never be as cheap as oil is currently.

The energy crisis will be a matter of steadily rising oil prices over several decades - and that's when we'll make the switch to other primary energy sources. It will suck, but it won't be the end of civilization.

>>4629374
Also, even though they'll last a lot longer than oil itself, we're going to burn all of our natural gas and coal eventually. Sorry global climate. Only the sudden appearance of a stupidly cheap energy source (like nearly magical progress in fusion technology) could prevent it.

>>4629378
That's prbably true.
I still hope global climate will cause most catastrophies in... wherever I do not live.

Sorry, equatorial countries. And islands.

>>4629353
>all your rage are belong to us
first paragraph in OPs link sums it up:
>>inadequacies on all fronts
including the fictitious "free market"
~
last paragraph:
>>there will be a change of lifestyle
global third-world conditions

>>4629378
Or realizing that there's not a worldwide answer. Instead of the world relying on just one technology for energy, diversity is what we need. Hydro works for some areas, wind works for others, geothermal for others still, PVs for others, thermal capture for more, supplemented with something like nuclear.

Companies in the energy business really, really do not like this as the answer because it will help break their local monopolies. They want a magic bullet answer so they can control it. Hell, one of the reasons thorium salt pile plants don't exist is simple economics: and no I'm not talking about the economics of researching the technology, but if you install a GE nuclear set up, part of the agreement is that you'll only ever use GE supplied uranium. Why would they allow a distribution chain to be set up that they couldn't control fully like they do with uranium? There's *no* good business reason for them to pursue the technology. There won't be nearly the barriers to entry for someone else to set-up shop for thorium because you can't turn that into a nuke so the federal government doesn't nearly give as much a damn about it.

>>4629392

>>4629406
I agree. I was only saying that you would need at least one globally available and stupidly cheap energy source to keep the other fossil fuels from being burned for energy.

>>4628794
>gasified gas

english is fucking retarded sometimes

the fish grow to fill the fish bowl and consume all resources available
what next?

>>4628425
> Every prediction of disaster fails, because they're almost always based on extrapolations that assume no progress and no adaptation to the problem, not to mention simple things like feedback.

Except you can't "adapt" to having no energy except to have nothing like the current lifestyle. The United States will devolve into Brazil and you'll still be sitting there saying that the predicted disaster failed. Bitch, THE DISASTER IS ONGOING. The Holy American Empire is collapsing, from an almost complete reliance on cheap energy.

Remember, RETARDS AND FAGGOTS, that no technology actually CREATES energy. It only exploits what actually exists. And nothing replaced petroleum. There's no way to 'adapt' to its withdrawal from the First World cultural monobloc. It's withdrawal will throw that monobloc into what's currently called the "Second World". Eventually, without petroleum, then without natural gas, then without coal, the world must devolve to the 1700s sort of lifestyle. And we can't feed 9-12 billion people on that sort of thing.

By the year 2150 AD, the maximum population of the zero-fossil-fuel Earth will be 1-2 billion, and it's likely that pervasive wars over disappearing fossil fuels will push that towards the low end.

It is not a big deal peak oil does exist but not in the way the media tells you.

http://pastebin.com/dY4iTsU5

>>4628389
This is bullshit because this is proven reserves, not known reserves. Learn the difference.

things stabilize

>>4630744
> It is not a big deal peak oil does exist but not in the way the media tells you.

Not a big deal? You run nearly everything on petroleum, and it's running out, and nothing (but NOTHING) can replace petroleum for what it does for us.

How can running down all the engines of world cultures NOT count as a "big deal", you moron?

>>4630760
> things stabilize

Yes, in the biological sense. But population crashes aren't what Humans call "stabilizing" when it happens to them. Billions dying within a 50-year span, isn't what we call "stabilizing". It's called a MOTHERFUCKING CATASTROPHE. It's the biggest disaster to happen to Humanity, ever. Far bigger than our current record-holders, our World Wars.

>>4628463
problem; the "green solution", that is, CO2 less energy, tends to be crap
aside from nuclear energy which is essential
but the greenies hate that

hey, here's a funny question, how many people died or received radiation damage from fukushima?

>>4630812
It's not a big deal because if you read the pastebin you'd understand that it won't occur until 2070 at the earliest and nuclear power can be used to economically created a replacement fuel in the form of hydrogen.

To the herp-derp SKY IS FALLING IT'S GOING TO BE LIKE IN THE GAME FALLOUT BUT WITHOUT THE COOL RETRO FEEL, ROBOTS, OR AS MUCH FALLOUT people:

You're idiots. There's no two ways about it, you're idiots. Can we use fossil fuels forever? No. Will we try to? Nope. Are fossil fuels going to run out any time terribly soon? Nope.
Might the transition be painful? Probably. Will there be some worldwide panic? Nope. People can live with a much tighter energy budget. We've done it for most of our history. Quite a lot of current energy usage is not even remotely "necessary" energy usage. Hell, there was a time when people believed the entire world's economy would collapse if gas hit $3.00 a gallon--I can't even remember the last time I saw gas under $3.00. Do things suck a little more now? Yes. Are we adjusting our behaviors because of it? Yes.

There are a lot of options that can and will replace fossil fuels. As the price of fossil fuels goes up, more and more of these will become more common, until using fossil fuels is practically phased out entirely.

Stop fearmongering. The market will take care of itself.

some ppl in this thread dont understand peak oil runs more than our cars, it runs our very civilization. Food production and distribution, technological advancement, and totally unrelated aspects of our economy are all dependent on oil.

watch this movie:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1503769/

There is going to be a huge decline in population just based on food production alone after peak oil.

If you faggots refuse to read the pastebin then I will paste it here.

We are not running out of hydrocarbon fuel sources that quickly. There is still a 73 year supply of cheap oil(cheap meaning able to produce gasoline for less then 4.10 2001USD/gallon assuming a 5% increase in demand compounded yearly) based on known recoverable reserves. And there is a 225-300 year supply of coal, assuming a 4% increase in demand compounded yearly. And a 150-200+ year supply of gas assuming a 4% increase in consumption compounded annually.

My number was based on the current estimated known recoverable reserves from cratonic(on shore) oil drilling only, from various AAPG Bulletins. The peak oil graph you guys use alot on your sites is on the Hubbard Decline Curve. However this only counts proved recoverable reserves rather than known recoverable reserves. Proved means that you have 4 wells within the drainage radius of the proposed well site, which ensures that you will hit oil. Putting this way, proved reserves are for areas with active drilling, while known reserves are estimates based on geology but in sections of oil fields without enough active drilling to prove the reserve exists. I always used the lower estimates though, so the number should be as conservative as the current data allows.

>>4630870
The Hubbard Decline Curve is also optimized to predict decline of oil production from Texas limestones, in fields where all data is available(Texas law states that all companies have to give their well logs and production reports to the state and that they must be accurate), and that there are outside markets that cause diminishing returns from marginally producing wells. This was an excellent graph that tracked the production of Texan oil very well. However a graph showing the worlds production of petroleum as it is exhausted would be a descending plateau rather than a peak, since there is no outside source of oil to make the marginally producing wells undesirable. So instead of a 150 year rapid decline from a peak, you get a 70 year plateau and a steep drop off at the end.

Even after the exhaustion of all hydrocarbon resources it would still be possible to make hydrogen to fuel internal combustion engines(methane engines are in common use today) using electrolysis. The only thing humanity really needs to continue industrial production is electricity. With enough electricity many things that are not currently economically viable become possible. And with nuclear breeder reactors U238 and Thorium can be breed into the nuclear fuels Pu239 and U237 respectfully. This will provide sufficient electrical generation capacity, assuming an 8.5% increase in the consumption of electricity compounded yearly for population of 10 billion for at least 30,000 years. Supplementing this with solar, wind, and water power will ensure our survival for the foreseeable future.

>>4630872
Of course generating hydrogen through hydrolysis has a negative energy return. The point is that if you make electricity ridiculously cheap, which you can with nuclear breeder reactors, you can produce that hydrogen and sell it as fuel to make a bigger net profit than you would if you produced less electricity and sold it for a higher price per KW/hr. Currently you get back about 12/1 out of gasoline for the energy you expend to find, extract, and refine it from oil. But the average return for a non-breeder light water reactor the energy return is about 55/1(Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, can’t remember the number right now.). With a breeder reactor that return by be as high as 80/1 but lets assume it is 55/1. The best you can expect as a return from hydrogen produced through hydrolysis is about 1/3 if you are using the hydrogen in an internal combustion engine. So the return for hydrogen fuel produced solely by electricity derived from a U238 light water moderated fast breeder reactor would be 18.3/1. Which is still slightly higher than the return from modern petroleum, though not as high as the turn of the century return. Back then all oil wells were open flow(similar to artesian water wells) an gave you a return of over 100/1 since you didn’t have to drill, pump, or frac much.

>>4630870

the earth is finite. your argument is invalid

>>4630880
>implying I insinuated mineral resources are not finite

Jesus, you fucking /sci/kiddies suck Carl Sagan's cock but when anyone with graduate degree comes in here and gives you a concise assessment of the data rather then spew politicized emotional bullshit you bitch and moan.

You don't like what the data says? Then you read through 30 years of AAPG back volumes and create your own estimate.

per capita energy = good times

peek gasoline

girl) am I pretty?
(boy) NO
(girl) do u want to be with me forever?
(boy) NO
(girl) would u cry if I walked away
(boy) NO
she heard enough and was hurt,she walked away tears ran down her face
The boy grabbed her arm:
(boy) your not pretty...,your beautiful
(boy) I don't want to be with you forever...,I need to be with you forever
(boy) I wouldn't cry if you walked away...,I would DIE!
(boy whispers) plzz stay with me
(girl whispers) I will...

Tonight at midnight your true love will realize they love you
Something good will happen to you between 1-4 pm
Tomorrow it could be anywhere
Get ready for the biggest shock of your life! If you don't post this to three other boards...you will have relationship problems for the next ten years!!!

peek prosperity

>>4630901
The peak was created by development of much more efficient engines, partially in response to higher fuel costs.

But go ahead use pointless non-descriptive buzzwords instead of assessing total reserves and how economic the extraction of those reserves is.

old but correct to date

>>4630859
> People can live with a much tighter energy budget.

No, you can't. 300 million people (4% of the world's population) in just the USA consume 20% of the world's petroleum. Clip that just a little bit, and their economy collapses, as it's collapsing now, and it's taking down the entire world economy. But billions are fed by that economy. So billions must die. And those 300 million Americans aren't just going to use less because you say so. They will kill and kill and kill when you try to say so, and when reality says so.

Billions must die. They are really only alive today because they are EFFECTIVELY EATING PETROLEUM TO LIVE. And nothing replaces petroleum. NOTHING. Nothing ever, EVER delivers the same CHEAPNESS, with the same ENERGY DENSITY, and with the same PRACTICALITY, as petroleum does. It wholly lifted Humanity into a technological age, but as it leaves, and as nothing (naturally) replaces it, so must the tech-age DIE.

So you still believe that people will just 'adjust'? YOU FIRST. Stop getting 99.5% of your food from the local store and instead try to FUCKING GROW IT ALL. You can't do it. 100s of millions of people like you, also can't do it. That's why BILLIONS MUST DIE. The energy inputs DEMAND IT. You can't get around the energy inputs. There's a reason why we gave energy that name, RETARD. Without energy, NOTHING FUCKING HAPPENS.

>>4630870
>known reserves are estimates based on geology but in sections of oil fields without enough active drilling to prove the reserve exists.
If the dry-hole data aren't enough to convince you that the happy AAPG estimates are optimistic bullshit, then nothing ever will.

>>4630907
What does the median look like?

>>4630987
Dry holes are usually wildcats to provide electric logs of new areas, we wouldn't make much money if we drilled dry holes.

>>4630987
Did you miss the part where I only counted cratonic reserves. I intentionally excluded reserves on the continental shelf. Since there are more reserves offshore than on the craton, I would say it is conservative.

>>4631000
>we wouldn't make much money
>oil over $100 per barrel
Riiight.

>>4628425
> We'll instead see a simultaneous decrease in oil usage and more investment in alternate paths

This sort of blithe overconfidence is common. I used to feel the same way but after reading up on the topic, I think there's a significant likelihood that we will not be able to make the necessary adjustments in the required time.

What is most frightening is the interaction between the "four horsemen" ie energy and minerals, food, water, pollution. As pollution gets worse, it takes more and more energy to abate it. As mineral grades decline it takes more energy and water to extract them. More energy is needed to push up food yields. Fossil water supplies are being exhausted. They will have to be replaced by energy-expensive desalination plants. Even if we found another energy source, the conversion costs are huge and not affordable by the time the oil is gone.

And population increase (another 2 Billion in the next few decades) is the icing on the cake.

"The Crash Course: The Unsustainable Future Of Our Economy, Energy, And Environment" by Chris Martenson is probably the best place to start.

I just spent a month traveling around Turkey looking at the ruins of past civilizations. It is normal for civilizations to collapse and ours will collapse too. It will be very ugly and billions will die.

>>4630870
Your estimates are way over-optimistic. And as for nuclear...

>>4630954
Wow, all of that and you're still amazingly wrong.

You keep building up this implicit strawman that there must be one magic bullet solution and then you shoot down every possibility because it can't work by itself.

Additionally, you work from the assumption that steps will not be taken to mitigate whatever effects a decrease in the supply of oil will cause entirely ignoring the economics of the situation. Hell, we're already seeing first steps in mitigating those issues, and pretty serious first steps as well. These will accelerate as the price of oil goes up. That will create opportunities for people to actually get things like stirling engines and PV cells economically viable--which can easily happen when there is an economy of scale that does not yet exist. Battery technology is growing by leaps and bounds--each of these things, in and of themselves cannot solve the problem individually, but each little step will add up. Swapping over commercial fleets to natural gas, reducing usage of coal for power production (which requires fuel to move and mine), having a viable electric/hybrid vehicle or hell, even a stirling engine car could be ran off of practically anything you can think of that creates heat.

Just because we're not doing it at this precise moment does not mean it cannot be done.

Also, fuck off and die: I grow the vast majority of my own food. I've lived on a farm my entire life, it's not that hard.

>>4631068
Wow, a farmer on /sci/

>>4631068
> Also, fuck off and die: I grow the vast majority of my own food. I've lived on a farm my entire life, it's not that hard.

When you analyze it, you would be surprised how much fossil energy still comes in the farm gate.

There are huge areas without any practical solution (eg transport). And the transition costs are **huge**. "Let's just restructure cities so they are more energy-friendly". How much energy will that take? Even solar cells take over three years to break even, on an optimistic accounting.

There are many alternate energy solutions and they all suck.

Nuclear - terrorism, pollution, useless for transport.
Solar - doesn't work at night, useless for transport, has to be transported huge distances
Wind - unreliable, useless for transport
Fusion - doesn't work
Tidal - not enough of it, hostile environment
Geothermal - rapidly exhausted, too diffuse (0.1w/m^2/sec)

There is no good solution for energy storage (light, energy-dense) other than oil and the losses in making oil from coal are huge. Which makes the problem far worse.

Upcoming increases in population and exponential increases in the economy will exhaust solar within decades, even if it was a solution now (ie the whole world would have to be covered by solar cells, which would make food production rather difficult).

ctd...

>>4631068

While living off the land on your own accords is good, how much input of store bought aids and how much input on energy intensive tools and mechanics do you use?

That could all be useless and make life much, much harder if the system of production to buy products and the energy to provide your tools is gone.

>>4631089

The latest edition of Limits to Growth does paint a scenario that could barely work. This involves pushing hard against population increases, and aggressively restructuring society and energy and resource use away from the current model of exponential increases. The chance of this happening is zero.

inb4 LTG was wrong. In fact their predictions have panned out quite well, and in any case if you pit exponential growth against finite resources the outcome can be predicted without a big computer.

>>4631097
And in any case, can you really expect that in a time of famine, people are going to respect your ownership of the land? Men with guns or swords will come and take it off you, as they have always done.

>>4631107
Yes that too.

Best options for survival is setting up small community of people in remote locations, where land is fertile (wont rely on unnatural fertilizers), and clean spring water is abundant. Providing each other help and security.

Now will that stop a hostile "government" hell bent on seizing resources and your person with their massively superior forces? No, but if you are isolated maybe your chance are much better than the average schmoes in cities or highly dense population areas.

I kind of see the worst of things will come, so I really have a survivalist mentality over the past decade.

OP here. My impression of this thread is that there are two kinds of people. Some say that the civilization is doomed, billions will die etc. and others say that the free market will solve everything. I'm a bit confused.

>>4631281
billions dying is how the free market would solve everything

human bubble?

Looks a lot like the mania phase.

I swear I see the same guy every time an oil peak thread shows up (which seems to be daily). The one randomly capitalising words and saying the same things about how everything runs on oil. We get it. Why are you so invested in this?

>>4631281
There's two other extremes:
-rationality will fix it: people will come to their senses and change the infrastructure to one not dependent on oil
-technology will fix it: people will come up with systems that can be used to replace natural oil

Then there's a multitude of mix-and-match thoughts.
As big as the problem is, there's a lot of room for speculation.

>>4631660
he's a troll from /lounge/ that goes by the name of redcream. starts the peak oil threads all the time and then samefags

>>4628425

This really should've been the /thread point, right here.

OP, please take this advice seriously:

Peak oil is a simple mathematical fact. Our oil usage grows, and we live on a finite planet. You can push the date of the peak around with different use and discovery estimates, but we *will*, left unchecked, eventually use up all the oil.

You must keep this in mind, because it means that anyone who tells you that peak oil isn't a real thing is either extremely misinformed or lying to you. Because the "crash" in oil usage is likely decades away, many millions of people still have a vested political and economic interest in just lying.

I am optimistic that the free market can "fix" our problems by gently guiding a cushioned transition to a different energy source, and if it doesn't, there's still no reason to run around like a headless chicken, because the laws of nature will force change where the laws of the market don't.

So the main use of peak oil theory is this: it's a barometer. It is one of the best ways to tell whether the people you're in conversation with are well informed and willing to put empiricism above their ideology.

>>4630954

>Billions must die. They are really only alive today because they are EFFECTIVELY EATING PETROLEUM TO LIVE.
No they are actually eating natural gas to live, see oil is used to make petrochemical pesticides and fuel farming machinery. Fertilizers are created with the Habner process which fixes nitrogen with methane. Now you can fix nitrogen using only electricity but it is twice as energy intensive. We have a 150 year supply of gas in conventional reserves. Shale reserves may extend that to 200-300 years. Which is a ridiculous amount

>And nothing replaces petroleum. NOTHING.
Indeed that is why we use it, but if nuclear fission is pervasive enough and economcy of scale can be created and the cheap electricity generated can be used to create methane and hydrogen for use as a high density fluid energy medium to run internal combustion engines. It is actually more efficient to do that than use batteries.

Even 10 years ago I would have said the exhaustion of oil would fuck us because of the loss of plastics and pesticides. But Dupont has already patented a process buy which they can create a short chain hydrocarbon base from bacteria and from that base you can create all the polymers and hydrocarbons we use. It is just expensive so do so. Also the there is a huge amount of oil that is too expensive to extract to every be used for fuel but would be suited for plastic production.

>>4630954

>So you still believe that people will just 'adjust'? YOU FIRST. Stop getting 99.5% of your food from the local store and instead try to FUCKING GROW IT ALL.
Well I do actually I have a 1/2 acre garden. It is cheaper to grow it than they buy it. Also I make a special spaghetti sauce because store sauce sucks dick.

>You can't do it. 100s of millions of people like you, also can't do it. That's why BILLIONS MUST DIE.
In the 3rd world. FTFY the US and Canada in particular are sitty pretty on plenty of good land. We keep 1/3 of farmland fallow in the US to mitigate erosion. And there is plenty of marginal land that could be used for farming. We use only 7% of the arable land we have in a given year.

In the meantime I leave you with one of my all time favorite Slashdot posts, by fermion, on Oct 9 2011:

>Unless one is a religious/capitalist wacko who believes in the abiotic origins of oil, at the current rate of consumption petroleum is a finite product.

>Economically, petroleum is even more of a finite resource. Currently Saudi and other middle eastern oil keep prices down. Estimates say it costs about $2 a barrel to extract oil in Saudi Arabia. Venezuela oil might costs three times that much to extract. US oil might be as much as $20 a barrel. At these extraction costs a barrel of oil is $80, and it costs over three dollars at the pump in the US. Now, one can blame the greed of the oil companies, but that is not going to change. Explorations costs are not going to decrease either.

>OTOH, conservative extraction costs for so-called shale oil, the better name is tar pits, is $75 dollars a barrel. If the oil companies sell at a comparative markup, this means that the selling price would be $300 a barrel. If we just add $60 profit, that would still be $135 a barrel. This puts gas firmly in the $5 a gallon range.

>Recall that the oil companies were going bust when oil was below $50 a barrel. This was still a large markup over extraction costs, but oil companies appear to be extraordinarily inefficient and require a large markup. It would be fantasy that the oil companies are going to give away the product. If shale oil forms a large percentage of the petroleum mix prices will go up, consumption will eventually go down as it did a few years ago. Oil companies will either have a choice of selling at higher prices for lower volumes, or find another product.

>Therefore shale oil is not an indication of a long term prosperous oil economy, but a clear signal that oil is becoming too costly to base an economy on.

>>4631784
Well that our they think "peak" doesn't describe the graph of oil production that will result of the the slow exhaustion of resources. But rather a plateau with an even steeper decline in production at the end of the plateau. See Peak Oil describes a graph of oil production not the obviously finite supply of oil.

I study petroleum engineering and I will tell you that if anyone says we will exhaust the supply before 2080 they are either being intentionally as pessimistic as possible or they also have a political agenda. We know there is enough to cover supplies that far. The question is whether we can keep up with demand after that.

Which hilariously follows the Fallout timeline, fuck year.

We will run out of oil on some term unless consumption drops to near zero levels.
In that sense, peak oil is a real thing.
But that doesn't mean that society will collapse, or some retarded stuff like this.

Ask yourself the following:
If you were shell, would you prefer to wait for peak oil, then go bankrupt, or research new methods of generating energy and survive as a company, when consumers (are forced to) switch away from oil.
If you are building a factory, would you be willing to pay 150$ per barrel of oil, or start looking for alternatives, if the alternatives are cheaper.
Are you going to protest increasing benzine prices, or find a more practical solution, such as mass transit, living closer to work, carpooling or electric/hydrogen cars?

The nearer we are to peak oil, the more expensive it becomes, and the most wasteful applications of oil will be outpriced first. It's simple economics.

>>4631817
>so-called shale oil, the better name is tar pits
No you're thinking of tar sands. You don't dig up oil shales. You nitro them than put steam through them. production cost is about 30 bucks a barrel.

>Recall that the oil companies were going bust when oil was below $50 a barrel.
Um no they weren't. You generally want about 0.30 cost for every dollar to make a 15% profit. Which is good for most businesses but in the oil patch we expect a 60-80% profit.

Basically femanon don't know shit about the business.

>>4631847
Expect allot of methane cars in the US, Canada, and Russia where natural gas is plentiful.

>>4631858
>Um no they weren't. You generally want about 0.30 cost for every dollar to make a 15% profit. Which is good for most businesses but in the oil patch we expect a 60-80% profit.

I don't see how what you said counters that? His point is that oil companies need their profit to be above x USD/bbl to be profitable, and again, we can argue the numbers some, but in the late 1980s oil crashed and was famously unprofitable for US firms, and in the late 1990s after the Asian crash there was a brief moment where oil was again under $20/bbl (see shitty graph here: http://www.wtrg.com/oil_graphs/oilprice1947.gif ).

All this ignores the externalities that don't go into current pricing ($$ to prop up repressive petrostates...unpaid-for environmental damage...subsidy towards oil-consuming transport, e.g., highways...even carbon emissions) but that's another, more nuanced discussion.

BTW

>I study petroleum engineering

Are you at TU by any chance?

>>4631888
No Penn State.

$20/bbl is to cheap to turn a desirable profit for gasoline production, it would only give a net profit of about 5% for Saudi oil. Though she is wrong about production costs of US oil its usually around 5-7 dollars a barrel. 10+ dollar a barrel oil is only certain types of Pennsylvanian oil which is easily worth the cost because it is used solely for lubricant rather than fuel, which it is suited too due to naturally occurring paraffin and other sealants in the oil.

I was more reacting to her saying that $50/bbl oil was not profitable. Oil companies are somewhat spoiled they expect high net profit so they can reinvest in land acquisition and geological study.

>>4631904
>Penn State

Mah nigga. I work there.

>>4631861
I don't understand your point?
On a technical level, using methane would be a good alternative to using an overpriced fuel.
On an abstract level, we could consider methane as being oil; peak oil will be a bit later, and we should then probably call it peak fossil fuels.

>>4631904

Right, which is the point: if we are having to exploit tar sands to get oil, and they cost even $30/bbl to extract (again, slide around the number if you like, but it's much higher than extraction cost for Saudi or even normal US wells), we're either going to see

(a) actual oil prices very much over $30/bbl, if the oil companies are to maintain their spoiled high net profit, or

(b) restructuring in the global oil industry to accommodate lower profits.

The only part left to chance is which we're going to see. I would bet, as you likely are, that it's going to be (a), but either way will be painful to a lot of folks: that's just what is going to happen when the raw input cost of a process increases fivefold.

>Penn State
Eh that's fine. I'm writing this down the hall from our PEs here at TU. They're good guys.

PS Any recommendation for a source on extraction costs?

peak trees is just a fear-mongering buzzword

>>4632021
What you did there, I see it.

If anyone posts and shows that they don't understand what you did there, we can feel smart together.

>mfw we now have peak /sci/

>>4632031

Seriously, they have Collapse and Guns Germs and Steel on high school reading lists, some smarts

>>4632021
Yes, but an island is just an isolated enivronment, the earth is endless!

>>4632092
And God Bless America!

>>4631847
> The nearer we are to peak oil, the more expensive it becomes, and the most wasteful applications of oil will be outpriced first. It's simple economics.

Yes, and you fail to understand that ALL THE AMERICAN ECONOMY is a "wasteful application of oil". KEEPING BILLIONS FED is a "wasteful application of oil".

This is the end of what you commonly call "civilization". Your world runs on petroleum, PERIOD. Without petroleum, which is Humanity's MAXIMUM FUEL, then you can't run your civilization. It's back to the year 1800 for you guys. You will eventually run out of FOSSIL FUELS. And they gave you 99.5% of Humanity's amazing technological achievements. Without them, you're back to kings and fealty and horses and starvation and swords.

By the year 2100 AD, the major form of transportation in North America will be WALKING. Those who can afford to stable HORSES, will be the next form of transportation. And then the 0.1% who can afford to sustain and use technology, will use alcohol-fueled ATVs and low-altitude aeroplanes.

By the year 2200 AD, that percentage will drop to 0.01%.

By the year 3000 AD, no Human will fly through the air under controlled power, ever again. King Oil will be a legend, like King Arthur is to us today. Coal will be so rare that it will be a major reason to conduct war. And nobody will use the term "natural gas"; it will be lost to time and memory.

That /sci/tards think otherwise, reveals that regardless of education level, RELIGION IS A BLIGHT ON THE HUMAN BRAIN.

>>4632222

Has not heard about electric or hydrogen cars.

>>4632243

And planes, and trains. And nuclear power.

>>4632222
>mfw I posted >>4631847, and three hours later, I see this retardedness
What is wrong with you?

>>4632222
Wrong. Hydrocarbons are critical, yes but there exist reactions which yield the required molecules for use in (for example) fertilizer. It just requires energy and is currently far more costly than fractional distillation of oil.

Consequently, we'll all be fine because people much smarter (and with far more evidence and funding) than you are planning for these things.

>>4632243
>>4632805
>2012
>still taking RedCream serious

http://www.switchenergyproject.com/

Try to get a screening of this in your area. It gives a very realistic look at the future of energy in the next 30-50 years. It looks at pretty much all sides of the future of energy, excluding fusion.

Diversification is the future. No single source will replace the awesome compact power of oil for our energy needs. Wind, solar, hydro, and geothermal are great, but require specific environments. natural gas and nuclear can be put just about anywhere, and spit out much less emissions than oil/coal. The third world will continue to guzzle coal and to a lesser extent oil no matter what we do because its cheaaaaaap. Also, nuclear would be a much better option of the rest of the world were like France and set up proper reprocessing facilities for their nuclear materials so that we don't have giant ass piles of waste sitting in pools at reactor sites, nor would we have to designate huge underground repositories that no one wants near them.

Don't worry, guys! Dying of starvation is actually pretty painless, apparently:
https://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/20/national/20death.html?_r=1

Bring it on.

>>4632243
> Has not heard about electric or hydrogen cars.

FAGGOT, neither of those create energy or replace our existing stock of automobiles.

Electricity is primarily generated from coal. There's only so much coal, and as petroleum then natural gas deplete below critical levels, our use of coal will skyrocket as we try to keep CONSUMING. So it's no going to last as long as you've been told.

Hydrogen is a scam. Almost all of the hydrogen is obtained from natural gas. Once nat-gas depletes below critical levels, you just won't have hydrogen anymore.

You stupid fucking assbrain.

>>4632805
> Consequently, we'll all be fine because people much smarter (and with far more evidence and funding) than you are planning for these things.

No, they are planning on having billions die off. There's no alternative. As petroleum depletes there just isn't a replacement that can be brought online in industrial quantity and anywhere near the same economics.

Billions will just be too expensive to feed. So they will be left to "fend for themselves", and you will be one of them. Can you feed yourself all year from your property? Even if you say "yes", you're about 3% of those who realistically can.

BILLIONS MUST DIE. There is no other rational conclusion. But I would never accuse /sci/tards of being rational. They are just religious pukes decked out in science clothing. They believe that science will save them from anything, like the Christies believe their big sky daddy will do the same. This is the price to pay for being a Violent Simian: You're aggressively stupid by nature.

>>4633536
I think we need to all pitch in and get you a hooker or something.

I used to think you were a troll, but you're way too consistent for that to be the case. You actually believe yourself and are way too into your own point of view.

>>4633536
>No, they are planning on having billions die off.

Good thing there are billions of "people" in third world countries.

>>4633536
I am honestly confused about where this doomsday, peak oil bullshit comes from. In order for the transition to be this dire, it would require essentially a spontaneous end to all production and reserves. Since there is still actually oil in the ground, that obviously is not going to happen.

Now, since we have established that we are not going to spontaneously run out of oil or any other fossil fuel, let's look at what other energy production means there are. Solar appears to be reaching the point where it can compete with fossil fuels in terms of cost per watt, so there is an option. I suppose that you will now say that making solar cells requires fossil fuel input, and you would be correct, but consider that the solar cell is considered to be worth more than the fossil fuels put into it and fossil fuels are not intrinsically required for any of the basic components of the photovoltaic cell. So, that argument is pure horseshit.

Of course there are the problems of switching over the infrastructure, but the switch over is already occurring and is accelerating as fossil fuel costs rise and alternative energy sources drop in price. They have not yet met the breaking point, but all trends clearly indicate that the switch over is possible [and is happening] and that when fossil fuels are starting to be truly phased out, people will probably hardly notice [unless you live in a country who's economy is built off of oil exports].

>>4632805
>(and with far more evidence and funding)

The most well funded and smartest guys in america met in the oval office for classified talks with the the past 4 presidents and vice presidents most notable in 2001 before 9/11. Executives from enron, exxon, bp, ... along with dept of energy and defense attended these meetings. Vital to the continued prosperity of America, yet vilified by the press, was the stratergy needed. This is why president Bush was a grate leader, he sacrificed his reputation to secure prosperity in iraq. And this is why obama is a nigger, because failing to secure prosperity in iran!

>>4633536
>BILLIONS MUST DIE. There is no other rational conclusion. But I would never accuse /sci/tards of being rational. They are just religious pukes decked out in science clothing. They believe that science will save them from anything, like the Christies believe their big sky daddy will do the same. This is the price to pay for being a Violent Simian: You're aggressively stupid by nature.

One word: nuclear. Now go away.

>>4629406
>Or realizing that there's not a worldwide answer. Instead of the world relying on just one technology for energy, diversity is what we need. Hydro works for some areas, wind works for others, geothermal for others still, PVs for others, thermal capture for more, supplemented with something like nuclear.

Oh look, another idiot repeating this tired refrain.

>>4631089
>Nuclear - terrorism,
what?
>pollution,
WHAT?
>useless for transport.
Synthetic diesel and gasoline, bro.

>>4633581
>Solar appears to be reaching the point where it can compete with fossil fuels in terms of cost per watt, so there is an option.
Complete bullshit.

>>4634778
Just give it another 100 years when solar is just as expensive, but oil is now $5000 a barrel.

>>4634781
Sorry, you need fundamental breakthroughs to reduce the cost of solar, /and/ you need fundamental breakthroughs to reduce the cost of storing it for the night. Solar shit out of luck until then.

We have nuclear though, so it's k.

>>4633521

Nuclear power can give us enough energy to run electric cars and create hydrogen from water.

FAGGOT.

>The most well funded and smartest guys in america met in the oval office for classified talks with the the past 4 presidents and vice presidents most notable in 2001 before 9/11. Executives from enron, exxon, bp, ... along with dept of energy and defense attended these meetings. Vital to the continued prosperity of America, yet vilified by the press, was the stratergy needed. This is why president Bush was a grate leader, he sacrificed his reputation to secure prosperity in iraq. And this is why obama is a nigger, because failing to secure prosperity in iran!

WTF will romneys morman pedo ass do?

>>4634823
romney is a bitch
pailin would have fucked up putin fo some prosperity?

>>4634786
> RUN CAR ON WATER just send $49.99 for plans
seems legit

Using Fracking will buy us a few years

>>4634891
> putin for full prosperity
FTFY

>>4628389
Working hard will help the situation, not make it worse.

>>4631847
Businesses can't look past the next quarter. If they don't do everything they can to maximize profits now then they will be put out of business by the companies that do.