How long until the final Energy Crisis?

[jmullaney]

I've heard tell that we only have enough oil for another 30 years, and enough uranium for another 100 after that. So unless we get fusion working, 2130 ain't gonna be a fun year, though we probably won't live see it. Any truth to this?

[Zenster]

How long until the final Energy Crisis?

By the last reckoning, several billion years until the sun burns out.

[Lemur866]

What's going to happen is that oil will get more and more expensive. Coal will start to get more and more expensive. It won't just "run out". An oil field that is currently worthless because it costs $2.00 a gallon to extract the oil will become valuable if oil goes over $2.00 a gallon.

We've got lots and lots of marginal oil and coal fields out there. They should be enough to keep us in expensive fossil fuels after we've exhausted the cheap fossil fuels. These estimates of future oil reserves are pure guesswork. Usually they take the total amount of known reserves, divide by current consumption, and presto! That's how long the oil will last. But of course this ignores all sorts of things....

Maybe what you're really asking is "when will gasoline become so expensive that most cars won't be able to use it?" For that, I don't know...I don't think anyone knows.

[hawthorne]

Lemur866 has posted the first half of the answer. The second part is that as oil and coal prices rise, research into alternative energy sources and measures to reduce energy consumption will become more profitable.

[sailor]

my guess is *yes* it is going to happen sooner or later but it will be later, rather than sooner. In other words, I do not see any major crunch in the next 30 years. As an individual i do not feel I need to worry a lot or start stockpiling.

But as humanity we definitely need to start looking for alternatives and planning for the future. Unfortunately voters and politicians can hardly see beyond their noses and long term thinking is not high up there.

IMHO, population growth is a big part of the energy problem and most other problems humanity faces. Nobody is talking about this now and they will not start talking until the problem becomes acute. By then I will probably not be around or be too old to care.

I would definitely vote for a candidate who supports population planning for the entire world. The fewer people around, the more they each get of the limited resources.

[Lumpy]

The coal supply is estimated to be good for 500-1000 years depending on the estimated demand and how low-grade (lignite, etc.) you count. Before natural gas was widely available, the "gas" used in the 19th century was a mixture of carbon monoxide and hydrogen generated from coal. Coal is still important for steel smelting and generating electricity. So it'll be a while before the industrial revolution goes broke and we have to go back to horsedrawn plows.

Petroleum is more widely used today for a variety of reasons: cleaner, easier to transport, higher energy density, more versitile chemically. As stated above, the issue isn't when the last drop of crude is tapped, but at what point petroleum ceases to be cheap enough to use as we've been doing.

The reason there's so much uncertainty is that technology has been advancing so that we're already able to tap reserves that wouldn't have been economical decades ago. Things like deep-sea drilling, computer interpretation of seismic data, robotic drilling methods, etc. In 100 years, maybe we'll have nanomachines that can turn coal and seawater into high-grade gasoline. Right now civilization is running a race between depletion of reserves and cleverness in finding more or developing substitutes.

Of course in the very long run we'll have to either finally develop practical nuclear power, or rely entirely on renewable energy sources.

[LazarusLong42]

The heat death of the universe, assuming an open universe, would be in a couple hundred billion years. That's the "final" energy crisis.

LL

[dtilque]

Originally posted by LazarusLong42
The heat death of the universe, assuming an open universe, would be in a couple hundred billion years. That's the "final" energy crisis.

This is pessimistic. The last stars will sputter out about 100 trillion (1014) years from now. Here's (http://www.windows.ucar.edu/cgi-bin/tour.cgi?link=/the_universe/Eternal.html&cd=false&cdp=/windows3.html&art=ok&frp=/windows3.html&fr=f&sw=false&edu=high) an interesting site about about the future of the universe, assuming the universe is open or flat, which current data seems to indicate.

[Bobort]

There's enough Uranium in the ocean water to keep us going for literally millions of years. Of course, extracting it would be more expensive than digging it out of the ground, but Uranium is useful in such small quantities that it would still be reasonably economically viable (AFAIK) if there were no more Uranium in the ground to easily extract. I have no idea how long current Uranium mines will last, but you have to remember that it takes several orders of magnitude less Uranium to generate a given amount of energy than fossil fuels.

[Tomcat]

Anyone read about Methane Hydrate? Millions of years of fish poop under severe compression at the bottom of the ocean has created a large supply of the stuff. Its looks exactly like dry ice, but you can light it on fire. Supposedly there are dangers and benefits of this stuff- dangerous because it's starting to break off into huge chunks (acres of the stuff) and rising to the surface, where it evaporates into the atmosphere. Beneficial because if we develop a way to harvest it, then methane is a great alternative enrgy source.

Plus there are new advances in fuel cell technology, wind generators, solar-cells, etc. We're going to have plenty of energy for a long while. Even enough to support a world population of 10 to 12 billion (which should happen around 2050, and after that the population should start to decline)(yes, its true, been studying it for years now. The over-population cries of the early 90's don't hold up to close scrutiny).

Seeya-
-Tomcat

[Mofo Rising]

Being of the slightly paranoid bent, I always assumed that cars would be continually made on the gas powered engine until it no longer became profitable. Right now, gas powered engines are cheap to build and plentiful. Gas is still relatively plentiful, so there is no reason to look into alternative energy sources for vehicles. This will go on for a while, as I would guess that people will put up with rising gas prices for a while. (They'll complain, but they'll still put up with it.) But sometime in the near future gas prices will be so ridiculous that people will get really up in arms and start actively looking into alternatives, whatever that will be. When that happens the money will no longer be in supporting fossil fueled engines. This is when the real research will go into the new energy source for vehicles. Once the money is in, it shouldn't take too long to find an effective alternative to gas engines. But like I said, I'm slightly paranoid.

Then there is the often cited example of gas powered lamps. There was a time a while ago when most streetlights were fueled by whale blubber (or somesuch, I don't remember the exact details). It came to a point when there wasn't enough of the stuff to go around. People started mentioning that we would have to go about rationing the stuff, since there wasn't enough to go around. Then along came a gent of Thomas Edison (and his team of research scientists) who came up with a new way to power lights, by an electrical system. All previous talk of whale blubber went out the window, and it is now a historical footnote. The point was, an innovation in the gathering of energy brought about more than these people had thought possible. It is probable that we will stumble upon a new source that will give an newfound abundance. Sounds good, but the story also sounds highly apocryphal, and if one were to take it the wrong way, highly dangerous.

Anyway, I would venture that people a hundred years from now will be using energy sources that we never thought of. Either that, or we will all horribly die of overcrowding. Whichever.

[PunditLisa]

Necessity is the mother of invention. Don't underestimate humans' resourcefulness in a pinch. And I'd say not being able to heat our homes in the dead of winter is a "pinch."

There are all sorts of energy alternatives that are not being implemented on a grand scale because of the costs involved. For instance, electric cars are a great idea, but until they become affordable and convenient for the average consumer, they won't be a viable alternative to gasoline fueled cars. Just the costs of installing "fueling" stations is prohibitive.

Of course, people used to say that about the horseless carriage, too.

[lucwarm]

It's fascinating just how unpredictable the future is. I remember back in the 70s being told by many authoritative sources that there are only 20 years worth of oil left. And people probably had good reason to believe that at the time - they just didn't count on certain things, such as advances in technology that allowed oil to be extracted more cheaply.

As a slightly off-topic example of the difficulty of prediction, I remember the following prediction from the 80s: Shortage of university professors

So I would say that it's really hard to predict when the Final Energy Crisis will take place. Even the "heat death" of the universe may (possibly)be surmountable with the right technology.

[jmullaney]

Originally posted by Bobort
There's enough Uranium in the ocean water to keep us going for literally millions of years.

That is the first I've heard of this!

[muppetsoup]

does anyone know how much of it is 'synthetic', i.e. man-made?

[egkelly]

..was made by the nazis, during WWII. They used a process which reacted coal dust with hydrogen under extremely high pressures (10,000 PSI), in the presence of a catalyst. This made tolerably good gasoline...except for one slight problem-the process is energy inefficient-you put a whole lot more energy into making a gallon of gasoline, than the enegy in the gasoline.
The best solution to ourproblem-convert our cars to LP gas. Thsi would do two things:
1) reduce the price of oil drastically
2) clean the air. Auto engines running on LP/natural gas are virtually pollution-free.
of course, the conversion costs around $1500.00/car-but thius is a damn sight cheaper than fighting a new version of "Desert Storm" (around $15 billion, at last estimate).

[UncleBeer]

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=38077 Take a look at this thread. We are trying to decide just how much oil is really left. Beatle has an excellent post on estimating reserves.

[Sam Stone]

We're already facing one type of energy crisis - a regulatory one. There are a number of areas that are going to be short of electrical power soon because the citizens in that area will not allow new power plants. The result is rationing, brownouts, etc.

If we had widespread nuclear power use we'd all be better off, but it's almost impossible to build a new nuclear reactor in North America now. And people are fighting against the construction of other types of power plants as well. Yet they still want their power. I guess they want to believe in the green energy fairy or something.

[jmullaney]

Originally posted by UncleBeer
Take a look at this thread.

Thanks. Is natural gas a renewable energy source?

[Phobos]

Originally posted by lucwarm
Even the "heat death" of the universe may (possibly)be surmountable with the right technology.


Tough to imagine. The laws of nature are such that entropy wins out in the end. Every atom will eventually decay. Try stopping that across the universe.

Originally posted by dtilque
This is pessimistic. The last stars will sputter out about 100 trillion (10^14) years from now.


Here's a couple more links about the fate of the universe...
http://itss.raytheon.com/cafe/qadir/q2864.html
http://itss.raytheon.com/cafe/qadir/q2633.html

[Akatsukami]

Originally posted by jmullaney
Originally posted by Bobort
There's enough Uranium in the ocean water to keep us going for literally millions of years.

That is the first I've heard of this!

You may wish to take a look at John McCarthy's sustainability pages (http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/cohen.html), and (if it is available to you) read "Breeder reactors: A renewable energy source", American Journal of Physics, vol. 51, (1), Jan. 1983.

[Chronos]

The Heat Death of the Universe? Bah, that's old news. It happened about three minutes after the Big Bang... We've been living on the leftovers ever since.
It may well be impossible to reverse entropy, but you'd better believe that if humans should happen to survive that long, we'll be trying our darndest, anyway.

[jmullaney]

Originally posted by Akatsukami
You may wish to take a look at John McCarthy's sustainability pages (http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/cohen.html)

5 billion years. Gee.

[sqweels]

We need to put resources into long-term development of alternative energy sources now and not wait untile high energy prices cause serious disruption before we hop to it.

The republicans have been lambasting Gore and Clinton for not having developed an energy policy, and they would have a point exept for one thing: They themselves would never have accepted any big-government energy policy proposed by Bill Clinton.

[lucwarm]

>Tough to imagine. The laws of nature are such that >entropy wins out in the end. Every atom will eventually >decay. Try stopping that across the universe.


I agree that it is tough to imagine, but in fairness, I think it is also impossible to rule out right now.

To address your example, it is certainly conceivable to me that we may someday be able to construct new atoms. Why do I think so? Well, atoms were created at some point by some process. Who's to say that humanity will never be able to duplicate that process in the future, to a limited (or even greater) extent?

I have read many theories about the ultimate fate of the universe, and believe that some uncertainty is added when you think about the role of humanity in that fate.

[Una Persson]

Originally posted by Sam Stone
We're already facing one type of energy crisis - a regulatory one. There are a number of areas that are going to be short of electrical power soon because the citizens in that area will not allow new power plants. The result is rationing, brownouts, etc.

If we had widespread nuclear power use we'd all be better off, but it's almost impossible to build a new nuclear reactor in North America now. And people are fighting against the construction of other types of power plants as well. Yet they still want their power. I guess they want to believe in the green energy fairy or something.
It's almost as hard to get a new coal plant built here in the US as it is a new nuclear plant. This is partially due to local pressures and partially due to the EPA, which has cracked down hard on any potential new coal plant construction with obstructionist tactics that at best can be considered sabotage.

[DrMatrix]

Originally posted by Chronos
The Heat Death of the Universe? Bah, that's old news. It happened about three minutes after the Big Bang... No. The heat death of the universe refers to what finally happens to a static (neither expanding nor contracting) universe after all of the energy has been converted to heat and thermal equilibrium has been achieved. There would be no useable energy and the universe would be truly dead.

Aren't you glad we will avoid that fate since the universe is not static?

[Una Persson]

WILL YOU GUYS PLEASE STOP TALKING ABOUT THE DEATH OF THE UNIVERSE IN A THREAD ABOUT THE WORLD'S ENERGY CRISIS?!

I have enough hideous nightmares as it is in my sleep, I don't to be thinking about this horror in my waking life.

Now I need someone to rock me to sleep at night... ;)

[hawthorne]

Posted by Anthracite
Now I need someone to rock me to sleep at night...
Yeah, but you know what they say about people like you: give you a cradle and you'll only fill it with coal.

[manhattan]

Awww, Poor Anth.

You don't need to worry about that, darling. The sun will completely engulf the earth in red fire billions of years before the heat death! ;)

[Una Persson]

Originally posted by manhattan
Awww, Poor Anth.

You don't need to worry about that, darling. The sun will completely engulf the earth in red fire billions of years before the heat death! ;)

And to think - I made you a good guy, and Eutychus an evil one in my latest story. Hmm....maybe some editing is called for...

[inertia]

"Millions of years of fish poop under severe compression at the bottom of the ocean has created a large supply of the stuff." AFAIK, fish poop's got nothing to do with methane hydrate. It's simply a crystaline solid formed under the unique conditions of the bottom of the ocean. The methane (CH4) comes from the atmosphere via disolving in sea water. It's suspected to be a part of the equilibrium of the environment on a geological scale.

As the atmosphere cools, water is deposited in the polar ice caps thereby lowering sea level and the pressure at the bottom. When the pressure decreases methane hydrate comes out of its solid crystalline form and returns to the atmosphere. After a while, the atmosphere begins to warm due to methane being a potent greenhouse gas. The ice caps melt. Pressure rises. Methane hydrate begins to redeposit and the atmosphere eventually cools. Ad infinitum.

I'm not sure it would be such a good idea to screw around with this system. We've already FUBAR'ed it with our use of petroleum and coal.

Wind and solar energy sources will be made to produce some power, but will NEVER produce "plenty". Please, let's don't be overly optimistic.

Anthracite: You don't need to worry about the end of the universe or that the sun is about to engulf the inner planets of the solar system relatively soon on a cosmic scale 'cause we're all gonna' die much sooner in about 100 years +/-.

[Tomcat]

Originally posted by inertia
"Millions of years of fish poop under severe compression at the bottom of the ocean has created a large supply of the stuff." AFAIK, fish poop's got nothing to do with methane hydrate. It's simply a crystaline solid formed under the unique conditions of the bottom of the ocean. The methane (CH4) comes from the atmosphere via disolving in sea water. It's suspected to be a part of the equilibrium of the environment on a geological scale.

As the atmosphere cools, water is deposited in the polar ice caps thereby lowering sea level and the pressure at the bottom. When the pressure decreases methane hydrate comes out of its solid crystalline form and returns to the atmosphere. After a while, the atmosphere begins to warm due to methane being a potent greenhouse gas. The ice caps melt. Pressure rises. Methane hydrate begins to redeposit and the atmosphere eventually cools. Ad infinitum.



OK, prove me wrong! But I swear I read that fish poop had something to do with it in a Nat'l Geo magazine...The only thing that I have found so far on it is this little quib:
"Methane hydrate is formed beneath the sea floor
when algae from the surface dies and sinks."
'according to new research by Stephen Hesselbo, an Oxford University researcher'
Maybe I read that the algae feed on fish poop, and THEN this happens...Gotta find that article.

Until then, I stand (partially) corrected. :)