(re synthesising petrol)
As long as it’s economic, so what? Petrol is a means of storing energy. We can get that energy from other processes, like nuclear, solar, wind, etc. Converting that energy into petrol is the issue. The person who patents an economic way of doing it will become very rich indeed.
Even for someone who is an expert on geology wrt oil reserves probably wouldn’t take on that one…too many variables. Personally I think we’ll still have plenty of oil in 2109, because I think we will have moved on to other technologies long before then. Sort of like we still have whales today…and most of the other things people worried about being scarce in the past. At some point the price of crude will reach a level where several alternatives will become viable…alternatives that haven’t been fully developed and put into production because oil is so cheap and plentiful that it wouldn’t make economic sense. If the price of crude goes higher and stays there, though, this will change, and those uneconomical alternatives will suddenly look a lot better wrt serious investment capital for full scale production.
What those might be is anyone’s guess, and impossible for us to know. As Blake said, look back 100 years and from their perspective try and guess where we’d be today. It’s impossible…and the rate of technology change has greatly increased today from what it was even 100 years ago.
Well, answer that yourself. If you were in 1909, and given what they knew then, could you have predicted even broadly how our society has changed wrt our technology?
This, to me, is like someone in the late 19th century asking, ‘Would anyone like to predict if we will be able to produce the same volume of whale oil 100 years from now?’. I seriously doubt we’ll be producing the same volume of crude oil 100 years from now, not because there won’t be any oil, but because we won’t be using it like we are today. Myself, I think within the next 20 years the price of oil will finally reach a (stable) level that begins to make alternatives viable…though, of course, some of those alternatives simply include alternative sources (oil sands, shale oils, etc).
To summarize, I don’t think we’d have trouble producing thirty billion barrels a day 100 years from now…but no one would dream of doing so, just like no one is trying to meet the volumes during the peak of whale oil.
From everything I’ve seen, populations are dropping in most industrialized countries (discounting immigration), and I doubt this trend will stop. You are free to make any assumptions you like on what the population in 2109 MIGHT be, but they would be assumptions. If you factor in predictions about GW, for instance, how will this impact projections of population? How will it impact the future direction of technology, especially wrt personal transport? Assuming there are major brake throughs in technology in the next 50 years (a not unwarranted assumption), who might the early adopters of such technology be?
There are too many factors to make even a reasonable guess as to what direction technology will take. Myself, I don’t see it as unreasonable that we could see some fairly major advances by next year…certainly before the next decade is done. Let alone in the next 50-100 years.
1 - No way to make any meaningful predictions or plans so far in the future. Again, put yourself in the mind set of those in 1909 and try and extrapolate to where we are today. Or in 1809 and predict where they were in 1909. Or in 1709 to 1809. You can’t do it. You’d have to go back a LONG way, when technological change was really limited to be able to make any kind of meaningful predictions over even as short a time as a century.
2 - It’s a false question, IMHO. Like I said, this is equivalent to saying ‘will whale oil production decline?’. I don’t think production will decline so much as that the price will eventually make the product less attractive, and open up alternatives. There will be a tipping point where oil production will drop dramatically as alternatives capture market share…not because we ran out of oil, or couldn’t produce more, but because oil won’t be as attractive a product in the volumes we used it before.
3 - I’d say that’s a near certainty. Heck, I’d say technology will have replaced our current methods and sources of oil before 2020…or at least be well on it’s way to replacing it.
-XT
Irrelevant. Nobody who examines current trends sees a doubling, much less a quadrupling, of the population in the next hundred years. All signs point to a peak at about 9 billion and then a slow decline as the demographic transition (i.e. First World living standards cause people to shift toward more individual attention to fewer children) spreads to larger areas of the globe.
Item 3 is a proactical certainty, and actually drives the first two (it’s hard to predict which of the various options will supplant oil, so there’s really no way to plan in any detail, and oil production will decline without much affecting the economy as demand for it falls off).
How do you justify your assertion that it will be economic? Currently, 80-90% of our energy budget comes from burning fossil fuels.
How about (4) - We already have the technology to avoid the collapse of society, but choose not to use it because oil is cheaper. We wouldn’t need the end of oil to switch over, simply the sort of increase in price that we’ve seen already, although one that convinced the major players that it was going to be persistent, meaning alternative energy sources made more sense as an investment. If oil is truly running out soon, we will certainly see these price increases.
This increase in the cost of energy may be a negative drain on growth, but it won’t kill society, and might even be difficult to notice in the regular waxing and waning of our economies. Many countries already choose self inflicted increases in energy costs through huge taxes, and still enjoy a Mad Max free existence. Many people want other countries, including the United States, to do the same for environmental reasons. I can very easily imagine a world in which oil is expensive not because of the fear that it is running out, but because governments penalize its use in favor of cleaner technologies.
That “best expresses” my reasons, although (3) will almost certainly play a huge role. But you could add the complete halt of technological progress to the equation and I still don’t think we’ll see society destroying results from running out of oil.
What do such ridiculously long timelines mean? 5000 years ago most of us were living in the mud and wearing skins. If oil runs out in 150 years, we aren’t going to go back to that stage, we are too educated and intelligent. So we might have to ride bikes instead of drive cars. So what? We might have fewer consumer products, so what? I don’t see a demise of electricity. That can be produced and distributed without oil. People have already conceded that short commutes are adequately served by electric cars. If we were running out of oil we could build electric trains, or have trucking lanes where the truck can get electricity straight from a rail in the center of the road or something. There are lots of ways we can power things.
I see the end of car culture maybe, but not much else.
In 1909 people were still using horses and buggies as their primary mode of transportation and trains were powered by coal, not diesel. A lot will change in 100 years just as a lot has changed in the last 100 years.
I don’t. I’m saying that the person who patents an economic method will make a fortune. That the method may require considerably more energy than can be extracted from the resulting fuel is irrelevant. Only that it’s economic is relevant. If it costs you $1.00 to make (inclusive of everything including your solar / nuclear / whatever power plant) and you can sell it for $1.10 (plus taxes etc), you’re making money.
And the sooner we cut that down the better.
IMHO you won’t see a total collapse but a leading ‘empire’ fall, those that were kept down by it will be able to advance and take the lead. This is the pattern we see in history, Greece, Rome, Europe, and very possibly we are watching the end of the US ‘empire’. As the US rose to power over the smoke of Europe, some other civilization will rise and take the lead. As for issues of peak oil, historically, a critical resource is sometimes/often blamed for collapse, but civilization does continue to advance even with the leading force fallen. And looking back any resource shortage is really temporary until more supply is found or a alternative is found - peak oil theory is no different.
All it would take are a couple of zombies…
There is no sound evidence that the United States is in decline. In the recent economic madness the United States took it hard, but everywhere else took it worse. I just have not yet heard a compelling argument that the United States is in decline relative to some successor.
The end of cheap oil will mean people will have to make different choices.
Take a look at some of the threads about electric cars. Many people say "Sure, I’d love an electric car and it would work perfectly for my daily commute, but a couple times every year I want to drive across the country to visit Grandma/The Grand Canyon/The Biggest Ball of Twine In Minnesota, and since electric cars don’t have the range, I wouldn’t switch.
People don’t switch to electric cars, not because electric cars don’t work, but because internal combustion cars have certain advantages of electric cars–easy refuel, existing infrastructure, cheaper, the technology is mature, and so on.
But if oil starts to get really expensive, then those driving trips across the country suddenly stop being a “necessity”. And it’s not like people won’t be able to travel either. They could fly, or we could start building rail, or they could rent an IC car once a year. These alternatives already exist. We don’t need any new technology, we already have the technology, it’s just that people would rather use the old technology because as of today it’s cheaper and more convenient.
Sure. I’ve never said we’re all going to die. (Why do people keep arguing aginst claims nobody is making?) We had a non-oil based economy in the recent past and there’s no reason we can’t go back to one.
But too many people seem to assume that economic growth is somehow irreversible - that the world will never go back to a previous level? Why assume this is true?
We had a non-oil economy in 1850. Then we developed oil as a cheap source of energy and our economy grew to its 2000 level. Now project things forward another 150 years. Assume for the sake of argument, that the oil supply has significantly declined by that point. So if 1850 economy + oil = 2000 economy then isn’t it possible to figure that 2150 economy - oil = 1850 economy not 2000 economy? If you have an economy that reachs a plateau and then when you add cheap oil it grows to a much higher level, then the evidence is strong that cheap oil was the cause of that growth. Now if you remove the factor that caused the growth, what is the likely result? Some people are insisting that the growth will continue. Not “it might continue” or “it could continue” - they’re saying it will continue.
I’m not saying there’s a hundred percent chance that the economy will decline. But how do people insist that there’s zero percent chance of it declining? Who’s living in denial here?
Here here, and if the price of oil became exorbitant then the electric cars would be cheaper and more convenient.
I’m not trying to put words in your mouth or bail straw, I am just addressing the thrust of the OP in that I don’t think modern civilization would collapse.
Because it wouldn’t go to a previous level, progress is not linear. We’d develop in some different direction that didn’t include cars. Yes, economically we might see a reduction in our standard of living, but that’s not a step backwards technologically. If we stopped having oil you might still have your PDA while you are riding your bike to work.
By 2150 alternative energy resources will have advanced by that much. Take Solar for instance. Today solar is increasing in efficiency by over 100% per year, and the price threshold has been plummeting. Take advances in new materials (nanotech) and apply them to photovoltaics and in 150 years solar power might be far more advanced than it is today. Maybe nanoscale production will introduce a new era of advanced throughput by reducing the likelihood of crevices in electrical transmission lines, thus assuring that we get more of the electricity from our source, less loss as it travels over the line. So IMV the likely result is not a regression to 1850s standards, but a progression to 2150 standards, which may include a revival of coal power for some things, and might not. There is no reason to believe that we’d be using steam engines of the 1850s ilk. Even if we went back to steam engines the steam engine we’d invent in 2100 would be far and away more advanced than the steam engine of 1850. It’s be a Steampunk/Neovic paradise. 
Economic decline and technological decline are not synonymous. There is no rational reason to believe that we’d forget about 300 years of technological innovation just because we lost oil by 2150.
You’re neglecting the availability of replacement technologies. Those technologies are available now. Sure they’re more expensive right now, but economies of scale and efficiencies will kick in, and they’ll become more economic as the cost of oil rises. You’re also ignoring the huge reserves out there. And the more the price of oil rises, the more the reserves that can be economically tapped.
YOU didn’t make these claims, but as I said up thread, they are part of the Peak Oil mantra for some. Also, this thread is about the collapse of modern society…so, it’s applicable, no?
Um…no. That would be a really silly argument. Why? Well, think about it Nemo. What do we have that they didn’t have in 1850, even without oil?? If we didn’t have another drop of oil we would still have…that’s right, electricity. Not to mention all the other stuff that we have that they didn’t even dream about in 1850, that alone would make things completely different. We wouldn’t need to go back to horse and buggies (or even steam powered rail roads).
<sorry to cut this short, have to run to a meeting>
-XT
The issue isn’t running out of oil - it’s running low on cheap oil. Sure other forms of fuel exist. And they’ve existed all along. So why do we use oil? Because we love Hugo Chavez and the House of Saud? No, we use oil because it’s substantially cheaper than other forms of fuel.
There’s no reason to assume that if the cost of oil rises higher the cost of other replacement fuels will lower to compensate. That’s just wishful thinking - the equivalent of my lottery winner thinking that as his lottery payments get smaller, his boss will start increasing his salary so his income remains the same. The reality is that we have a number of expensive fuel sources: coal, uranium, wind, solar, water, geothermal, etc and one cheap one: oil. If oil joins the expensive group there’s no reason to assume one of the other fuels will cooperatively decide to replace oil as the cheap fuel.
As I said above, oil problems are not new. If we could have replaced oil with some other cheap alternative like coal, we would have done so decades ago. But despite several decades of trying, we have not been able to process any other form of fuel into energy as cheaply as we can with oil. What’s the basis for assuming we’re on the verge of some breakthrough?
That’s right, and the point is that when it is no longer cheaper those other forms of energy will take over.
They don’t have to lower to compensate, if they stay stable while oil rises, eventually oil will be more expensive. But the fact of the matter is Solar is getting cheaper exponentially every year. Prices are going down and efficiency is going up. Solar power is the best kind of energy because the Sun is not going to run out on any time scale that we can fathom as individuals.
Right, but the price of oil will rise as it becomes more scarce, and those other alternatives will become more cost-effective and thus be used more.
True, but it’s really not clear what the economic, political and social consequences will be. If energy costs triple in real terms (not a pessimistic prediction in my opinion) it will impact a lot of people.
That won’t continue indefinitely, there are physical limitations. The best commercial panels are about 18% efficient. Economies of scale lower prices, but increased demand raises them. Development of renewables will give us a useful energy budget, but it’s no magic bullet. Expect to see a lot more nuclear power down the line.
When crystal-balling, I think the scenarios we see as most likely to occur have as much to do with our tempraments as the facts. There are far too many unknowns to make accurate predictions. However, I think everyone should be able to understand that we may be facing an energy-poor future, and the dangers involved.
Depends what you mean. Prices for essential commodities go up and down all the time and they always have. Salaries and wages are adjusted to reflect that and that in turn has feedbacks to inflation and interest rates. So over any reasonable time period, say 30+ years, people don’t come out any worse off as a result of price increases. Any economic pain is felt in the short transitional period when the economy is trying to adjust to the new situation.
We may be facing a thermonuclear war, an an asteroid strike, and a new bubonic plague as well. All these things are plausible and about as likely (ie we have no idea how likely they are). We can’t plan for every possible chicken little scenario with more than a cursory attention to detail. Partly because we can’t afford it and partly because planning for ill-defined threats is pointless.