According to Hubbert, about 2150. IMO that is probably a good number, - 50/+100 years.
Peak oil does not mean the oil is completely used up. It doesn’t necessarily even mean that the cheap, easily-accessible oil is used up, though that’s probably the most likely way for it to happen. It just means that the rate of oil production has reached a peak. If oil becomes so expensive that we won’t use it any more, then production will go way down, and we’ll be past the peak.
Really, it is two different ideas. There’s the Chronos definition of simply maximum production and the more “textbook” definition of there being a finite resource extracted the same way until production begins to fall.
My understanding is, under the first definition, knowing peaks is rather worthless since it just reflects preferences in the market, which might be full of alternatives. Alternatively, the textbook theory doesn’t exactly apply to make predictions since it doesn’t factor in many real world concerns such as improving technologies and different reserve types that become economical as the price goes up. What I take away is that who knows when peak oil will be but almost certainly in the next 50 years the price will drive the market to produce alternatives and oil will be taking a backseat.
I guess I meant that our demand might be able to stay ahead of the peak oil curve. IOW, we find some way to avoid the negative effects of a declining oil production, maybe we discover cold fusion or some way to make solar power commercially feasible.
Actually, per this thread, the Earth is losing 100K tonnes of hydrogen a year, so replenishing it by burning fossil fuels and so releasing water is actually a good thing, in the very long term.
I don’t think it’s the hydrogen that people are concerned about, so much as the carbon.
I was talking to a Rush dittohead the other day. He explained that there is no such thing as peak oil. It is not a fossil fuel at all. The leak in the gulf proves that the world itself creates oil and continues top create it all the time. There is no animal or plant life responsible for creating the gulf oil. Therefore we can close this thread.
Oh, sure, that’s possible and to be hoped for, though I’d bet on hot fusion before cold.
That’s called the abiogenic oil theory, and actually it was a theory that came out of the Soviet Union, invented by a geologist named Nikolai Kudryavtsev. It’s not widely believed, and there’s not much evidence for it.
So, it’s more a favorite of Glenn Beck than Limbaugh? 
OilDrum.com has a detailed analysis of peak oil that they update regularly. They appear to cut through the crap and innuendo. The near term outlook isn’t good, no matter what your agenda may be.
My feeling is that peak oil is supposed to be an ominous event, one in which the amount of energy available inexorably declines, regardless of what happens on the demand side. Lots of skeptics doubt alternative energy can pick up the slack. I could find the cite on demand, but I recall that at current usage, there is enough oil to last about 37 years.
Here it is, the statement of faith.
No, there isn’t. In fact, I don’t believe there is any kind of oil in the world – and probably not in the universe – that is neither synthetic nor biogenic. Even “mineral oil” is a petroleum derivative.
:dubious: We may hope. But, never forget, if the survival of industrial civilization depended on the invention of a faster-than-light drive or a perpetual motion machine, industrial civilization would die. All the market demand in the world cannot make the physically impossible possible.
Some interesting stuff there. I found this chart especially revealing regarding alternative energy sources. If we lose petroleum, scaling up coal, natural gas and nuclear seems to be the only realistic option to replace it. Of course, those energy sources aren’t infinite either.
See this Wiki article on peak uranium:
The book Why Your World Is About To Get A Whole Lot Smaller by Jeff Rubin examines peak oil and all the alternative fuels, and his conclusion is get yourself a sturdy bicycle. We have a serious, global problem on our hands (to go along with all the other concurrent serious, global problems), and the response from politicians and corporations is to keep playing politics as usual.
No, but all the market demand in the world can sure make a lot of Prius’s.
Or even the original EV1 (Electric Vehicle number 1, made famous by the movie [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Who_Killed_the_Electric_Car%3F"*Who killed the Electric car. ). There’s no need to rely on physically impossible inventions. The technology already exists right now.
And when we start needing more electricity, it will be market demand that builds nuclear power stations to supply the needs of all those cars.
Very simple, actually.
For example, when market demand quintuples next year because of the vastly increased production and buying of electric cars, where will the nuclear energy come from since building new nuclear electrical generation has a 15-20 year time lag?
FWIW, I believe in the peak oil concept, I think we are already at peak oil, and we’re not prepared. All that is need is a global oil shock, followed by a recalcitrant oil lobby (be it OPEC or the oil companies themselves) refusing to acquise to “market forces” and keep the price of oil exorbitant. Ramping up alternative energy will not happen fast enough or wise enough to stop critical damage to economy, political structure and social upheaval.
Electric cars?
Aside from the aforementioned peak uranium problem, meet peak lithium.