Let's pretend for a moment that Peak Oil(tm) happens...what could be done, today, in 2020?

So you’re asking about what would happen in the magical scenario where within 5 years 95% of oil is gone because it leaked through cracks into Earth’s core or we severely overestimated how much there is or our leaders have been lying to us or something, then yeah things would be very chaotic.

Renewables may let us have a soft landing from fossil fuels, but that will take a long time even if we were prioritizing it more heavily. On the time frame we’re talking about and to keep our modern global society going, we would need something that provides far more energy, quickly, and allows for sufficient energy density to keep things like freighters moving NOW. The only way I see to do this is to invest very heavily in nuclear.

We would need to stop using cars for individual transport, unless they’re electric. We are gonna need every drop of remaining oil to keep things like tractors running. We will need to convert to electric cars, electric trucks – the technology is there.

The technology is not there yet for massive international freighters to keep world trade going on electricity. I don’t see a way to keep them moving other than to put reactors on them which would be expensive and a security risk; but our global society wouldn’t survive without that sort of shipping. I don’t think we have a choice.

If we can do those things, it would be chaotic, the economic damage severe, and regime changes around the world would undoubtedly be very common. But if the petroleum was really disappearing, and if we had the will to do it, we could power the world many times over on uranium, long enough to get renewable online.

I wonder why nobody is mentioning Nuclear, which is the only real green energy.

Hey, it’s fun to talk about hypotheticals.

So, we find that oil supply will collapse in five years.

There are a few scenarios that immediately come to mind.
Historical: Nazi Germany and South Africa had made a lot of progress by turning coal into Synthetic Oil, which is a particularly dirty ad hoc solution, albeit one that would prevent Armageddon by fighting over the dwindling remains. This kept the Germans in the game in 1944, and it’s clear this could keep emergency systems running, particularly with the ample and unaffected amounts of coal recoverable.

There would be no choice but to sprint to other sources of energy, and coal isn’t one of those choices.

A moonshot level of funding could go into Generation IV Fission, Biodiesels, Fusion Power, or Space Based Solar (Or a combination of the above). While this happening, heavy rationing is imposed. Efficiency improvements, a massive proliferation of solar and wind power plants, all go forward. It’s very possible this simply stretches out supply long enough for less drastic scenarios, so second fun warning here that this probably gets a little unrealistic here too.

Let’s talk about what these options mean.

Gen IV Fission: Chernobyl and Fukushima have made clear that nuclear power, as designed, is unacceptably dangerous. Catastrophic meltdown needs to never happen, and there are interesting ideas that can offer higher levels of safety than previous designs. Nuclear power, however, has a lot of baggage, and it’s not clear that this would be society’s major choice. Desperate people looking for any answers might well decide to just run crude reactors in the middle of nowhere, but in this scenario there are five years left and I don’t think people are going to accept random radiation roulette.

Biodiesels. When the people who created Aftermath: Population Zero created a scenario of Life after Oil, they didn’t humanity five years to figure out what to do. In their concept, Biodiesels emerge as a major source of fuel in ten years. Uncritically copying this figure would make clear that Biodiesels can not save humanity on their own, even with all of humanity on moonshot / National Crisis level of motivation, and so they’re not going to be ready for prime time. There’s no reason farmers couldn’t continue to convert crops into Alcohols, and these blending agents decrease the amount of gasoline actually used, but Alcohol is simply less powerful a fuel and this has many other problems, not least of which is that everyone still needs to eat.

Fusion Power. Well, mankind figured out how to use Fusion Power to make nuclear weapons one hundred times as scary in the 1950s. It’s been a long time. And Fusion power has obvious promise, obvious potential and obvious advantages. While humanity has never gone into ‘moonshot’ levels of funding for Fusion, we have been grinding against this and making gradual improvements. Unlike the other options on this set of choices, Fusion Power is probably the entry that simply falls flat: We don’t have a proof of working concept, and while vastly increased resources would move that forward, actually getting this into a power plant in five years is hands down impossible. Doing it in twenty years would require many things to work successfully where they have not.

Space Based Solar: It’s solar power IN SPACE. Seriously, no weather, no giant piles of dust, dirt or mud to clear off the panels, just uninterrupted power. That said, there is a problem with scale: The world consumes Terawatts of power, however the largest solar power plant generates around 350 Megawatts (1/3,000th of a Terrawatt). SBS is a big bet on launch capacity and means humanity’s answer to peak oil is based on space. It’s not going to do much in five years.


The realities of the scenario is that major R&D milestones will happen, but they’re too far ahead to implement. The most likely answer is a forced transition to renewables, with several of these ideas being rapidly advanced to augment the energy mix that supplies the world.

Heavy rationing of Oil, efficiency improvements, and potentially even a parallel deployment of Natural Gas automobilies and gas station infrastructure probably makes some effect in pushing back the specific date man runs out of fuel.

It attacks the scenario, so I didn’t bake it in, but the UN proceeds to shred various bans on prospecting for resources in Antarctica. A full on frenzy to ‘find more oil’ is assumed to fail, and I recognize that there’s a large difference between the Saudis pumping it into a well designed infrastructure and having to build that same infrastructure to the South Pole, but getting harder, more expensive oil would be an answer.

Much of the world is winners and losers in this trade off. Coal could briefly see some additional use; Natural Gas, Uranium and Lithium (for the required batteries to store peak energy from renewables) win big. Oil, and the nations that rely heavily on procuring it are screwed. Venezuela and Russia are in serious trouble, the Arab Nations implode. This could be war–but also remember that the world got into this position because of a silly agreement. Humanity tends to respond to difficulties WHILE COOPERATING by further cooperation.

Sometimes progress needs a push.

Invest a little bit of money in companies that research alternative energy sources.

Invest a lot of money in companies that breed horses.

If we’re going back to where horses and wagons mayter, your investments certainly won’t.

It’s been mentioned more than once upthread.

Even if you ignore every regulatory & legal hurdle, you can’t design and build even a single new plant in 5 years. Try 10 or 12 years. With a max throughput of the nuclear supply industry of just a few plants per year.

All that can of course be sped up, given the lead time to do so.

The real problem with the OP’s scenario isn’t the “Peak Oil™” part. It’s the “5 years” part. That’s just too short a time for major scale up of anything, much less the several things mentioned in @Blue_Max’s fine post.

So civilization will go through a choke point where a large amount of current energy consumption must end. Reserving the dwindling supply to power the construction of the replacement infrastructure means even less for everything else. I predict we don’t make that jump successfully.

There’s an interesting squeeze play here. For problems that materialize too slowly (e.g. AGW), humanity won’t act soon enough due to sloth and entrenched interests. Whereas for problems that materialize too quickly (e.g. 5 years to nil oil), humanity can’t act soon enough due to engineering and scale challenges.

There is a max rate of change and a max impetus of urgency. Where those two cross nicely we can get a LOT done.

For a highly current example, imagine COVID having happened in a world of 21st century populations and global transportation but with 1970s biochemical science and no internet.

It’d be like the Black Death plus the Great Depression for years if not decades. Because that 1970s world couldn’t adapt fast enough to get ahead of the problem before it collapsed under the stress of the problem it was trying to adapt to.

From what so can gather, we will never hit peak oil. The issue is that end stage global warming and the societal disruption, and decreased demand for oil that entails, will occur before oil starts to run out.

Even if we could build the plants fast enough (and while we can’t for fission, I think we might with an all-of-the-above approach), the limiting factor here isn’t supplying enough electricity. It’s the end-use technologies. The stuff that currently burns petroleum products (i.e. not power plants) can’t be switched to electricity fast enough.

However, the technology is there to run freighters off of LNG, ammonia, DME. Converting in five years is likely too heavy a lift though IME.

Agree completely.

In that paragraph I was essentially replying to the one-line wonder upthread who was strongly implying “Nukes are the answer. Except that the enviro-scaredycat-Librul wackos won’t let us”. To which my reply was “No, actually, there’s a lot more obstacles than just the politics you’re opposed to.”

While there’s pretty broad agreement that a five-year ramp = trouble, a related question (although somewhat a tangent from the OP) is about where the inflection point is, and what the pain points are (i.e. specific technologies that limit the ramp rate.)

Actually, that’s not entirely true. You are thinking of the huge, traditional plants, but in recent years companies have been looking at much smaller, more modular plants that could be built in those time frames. I’m not sure why we’d need to build a ton of them right this second anyway…it’s the oil running out, not the things we use for power generation (I realize there might be a bit of a disconnect on natural gas, but I didn’t say anything about that running out).

The biggest thing hit by the Peak Oil™ as described in the OP is the transport industry. How do you keep your logistics systems running? How do you keep the supply chains working? And in many western countries, how do you keep people working or functional if they are reliant on personal transport that used oil or oil based products? I suppose something similar for manufactured goods or things like fertilizer that currently uses oil. How do you weather the economic disconnects that are sure to happen (the auto industry would probably collapse, or at least several of the current companies would be unable to adapt to a new paradigm, and what that paradigm is or would be would probably also be in question, as different manufacturers and even governments would push for or support different things).

Most HB plans get their hydrogen from SMR of natural gas, not oil. This does not change your overall point though. E.g. we still have to move it.

Good point, and true. Probably most of the products that used to use oil are using natural gas these days, which isn’t going to be similarly (‘magically’ as someone noted up thread) diminished in 5 years…it, as well as any other fossil fuels (as well as things like methane) are all still there exactly as they are.

You can’t power a car with nuclear, unless it is an electric car (or you’re making oil out of other forms of carbon and need energy input).

I used to worry about peak oil but I think we’ll be fine. There is so much fat that can be cut out of the western lifestyle without it affecting much. Covid has shown a lot of people are able to work from home. Even when people do need to travel theres so many options to cut oil usage.

In this scenario, it seems that we will know the future? Not “what if X happened” but “what if it was proven that X was going to happen”.

Because if it’s the 2nd, you’ll effectively have mass State appropriation of oil stocks within a year. We can talk about how industry will “transition”, but what’s gonna happen is the US military is going to land troops on a number of oil fields, and other countries will soon follow.

In the race between climate change and running out of oil, climate change is the clear winner. If we get to a point where we have to worry about running out of oil, that means we figured out climate change before it destroyed our civilization. Presumably that means whatever new technologies were used in that fight will have also solved the issue of peak oil.

ETA. I wonder if scientists knew this back in the day. I get the impression that back in the 1970s running out oil was the bigger concern.

The thing is that other than the 5 year part, this isn’t actually a hypothetical. The solution to climate change basically involves artificially inducing peak oil early to avoid an even greater catastrophe.

The entire debate about what to do in climate change can be re-framed as at what timeline does the hard peak oil nightmare outlined by the OP become a better choice than the AGW timeline of doing nothing.

From last November:

BTW, peak oil is a fact and not a theory. It’s a theory only if one can prove that oil is an unlimited resource, or that extraction can be so low that production will never peak.

Some more points I gathered:

  • Hubbert predicted that conventional production would peak in 1970. That did happen.

  • Peak oil has taken place for around two-thirds of oil-producing countries.

  • In one 1976 interview, he argued that because of the recent oil shock, the peak in world conventional production would be shifted from 1995 to around a decade later, or after 2005. In 2010, the IEA did acknowledge that conventional production did start entering a plateau after 2005. BP acknowledged the same.

  • The EIA argues that shale oil may peak earlier because of higher depletion rates. It also has high capex.

  • What’s never discussed is world oil production per capita, which is more logical because increasing oil production is fed to increasing population. According to data from the IEA, the EIA, Exxon-Mobil, etc., and UN population, data, that peaked back in 1979:

One more point: peak oil isn’t about running out of oil. It’s about oil production reaching a maximum, and that can happen for various reasons. AFAIK, almost all mainstream sources, including oil companies themselves, multinational banks, and gov’t and military agencies, are aware of that and have stated several of those reasons.

Right, Peak Oil absolutely definitely will happen, with mathematical certainty, and it’s not even very difficult math. The question is how it happens. Some peak oil scenarios would be very, very good for everyone in the world. Some peak oil scenarios would be very, very bad for everyone in the world. Probably most likely would be one of the situations in between, but just how good or bad it’ll be will depend on how we approach it.