# The end of the oil era: The fall of civilization, or just a bump in the road? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 24, 2003, 5:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-end-of-the-oil-era-the-fall-of-civilization-or-just-a-bump-in-the-road/184075 "2003-06-24T17:11:42Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 13
**Author:** ![eschereal](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eschereal/32/18939_2.png) [@eschereal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eschereal)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2014, 2:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-end-of-the-oil-era-the-fall-of-civilization-or-just-a-bump-in-the-road/184075/241 "2014-04-30T02:32:56Z")
Interesting issue to consider in this debate: [fossil fuels are subsidized at a rate more than 4 times that of “green” energy sources](http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-27142377). While it does call into question the non-viability of wind, solar, et al, the more important question would be in what ways will our economies (local, national and global) have to adapt when the subsidies at pulled out from under them. Because if an energy source must be that heavily subsidized, it is clearly not sustainable. ---
**Author:** ![Rune](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e68b1a/32.png) [@Rune](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rune)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2014, 9:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-end-of-the-oil-era-the-fall-of-civilization-or-just-a-bump-in-the-road/184075/242 "2014-04-30T09:50:33Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > I agree that we don’t need to stop using oil. But I think we should be acknowledging the issue is on the horizon and be making plans. > > For example, suppose we acknowledge that fifty years from now nuclear power rather than fossil fuels will be the primary means of generating electricity. Are we making plans for building the nuclear reactors we’re going to want? It’ll be a lot easier to build them now when we have other abundant sources of energy rather than wait until those other sources are running low. Why do you think nothing is being done, and why this singular focus on nuclear power? New solar and wind installations are every year reaching new records. In 2013 wind and solar was almost 40% of all new energy in the USA. New US solar installation was 4.2 GW. How many nuclear power plants is that? All the new cheap shale gas is probably going to delay it a bit, but the transmission away from fossil fuels is already in full swing. More nuclear would be nice, but not particularly needed. ---
**Author:** ![JohnT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnt/32/15048_2.png) [@JohnT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JohnT)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2014, 1:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-end-of-the-oil-era-the-fall-of-civilization-or-just-a-bump-in-the-road/184075/243 "2014-04-30T13:01:13Z")
> [@eschereal](#): > > Interesting issue to consider in this debate: [fossil fuels are subsidized at a rate more than 4 times that of “green” energy sources](http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-27142377). While it does call into question the non-viability of wind, solar, et al, the more important question would be in what ways will our economies (local, national and global) have to adapt when the subsidies at pulled out from under them. Because if an energy source must be that heavily subsidized, it is clearly not sustainable. And, if you read the cite, you will see that the vast majority of these subsidies come in countries that are politically… “challenged”, to put it nicely, in one shape or other. And the only way you can argue that fuel subsidies amount to 3.5% of US GDP is to literally take everything from road construction to differing tax rates among states\* and the kitchen sink and add them in. This is, in fact, one of the ways they define subsidy. For example, in the UK gas has a VAT of 5% but other products have a VAT of 20%. This article claims that this 15% difference is a subsidy, and adds that to the UK totals. Therefore, with the US having over 50 differing districts (the Feds and the states and DC all impose gasoline taxes), I can only assume they did the same: Compared NY States .50/gallon tax (the highest in the country), declared that .50/gal to be the standard, and therefore called all rates below that “subsidies.” You do that, it’s easy to see how you can say 3.5% of the US economy is dedicated to subsidizing the oil industry. Whether or not this approach is intellectually honest… well, I leave it for the reader to decide. :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![JohnT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnt/32/15048_2.png) [@JohnT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JohnT)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2014, 1:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-end-of-the-oil-era-the-fall-of-civilization-or-just-a-bump-in-the-road/184075/244 "2014-04-30T13:11:02Z")
A better analysis of the same data can be found here: [http://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/2011/11/23/iea-review-shows-many-developing-countries-subsidize-fossil-fuel-consumption-creating-artificially-lower-prices/](http://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/2011/11/23/iea-review-shows-many-developing-countries-subsidize-fossil-fuel-consumption-creating-artificially-lower-prices/) > [@](#): > > Many Americans are confused by the large amount of global fossil fuel consumption subsidies that the IEA calculates, not realizing that these subsidies have nothing to do with tax policy, research and development or loan guarantees, where most U.S. programs are directed. In fact, \*\*most liberalized countries do not offer fossil fuel consumption subsidies that artificially lower the end-use price of the fuel. \*\*Such subsidies are common and even pervasive, however, in the developing world, particularly in economies with state-owned energy companies. > > * * * > > The IEA has been advocating for years that fossil fuel consumption subsidies should be eliminated since they encourage wasteful consumption. According to the IEA, if fossil fuel consumption subsidies were completely phased out by 2020, 4.4 million barrels of oil per day would be saved in 2035\*, global primary energy demand would be reduced by nearly 5 percent, and carbon dioxide emissions would be reduced by 5.8 percent.[viii] > > While eliminating fossil fuel consumption subsidies would help reduce wasteful consumption of fossil fuels, it would need to be accomplished gradually so citizens of those countries that subsidize fossil fuel consumption can more easily make the necessary adjustments. Peru, for example, was able to zero out these subsidies. In 2008, Peru provided $.62 billion in fossil fuel consumption subsidies to oil, natural gas and electricity, but zeroed them out by 2009.[ix] Iran is trying to reduce fossil fuel consumption subsidies. In December 2010, the country started a 5-year program to bring fossil fuel consumption subsidies for oil, natural gas, and electricity in line with international market prices. > > **These welfare transfers can be differentiated from subsidies in the name of commercializing or sustaining uneconomic energy sources such as on-grid wind or solar, which the United States and other industrialized countries have been heavily subsidizing.** These forms of energy subsidies that help promote production of uneconomic energy sources can be abolished without detrimental affects to the U.S. economy or its citizens, and in fact would increase economic efficiency since by their very nature, they are more expensive than competing forms of energy. \*That’s another 1/2 of Saudi production that we gain year-over-year. ---
**Author:** ![nevadaexile](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/eb8c5e/32.png) [@nevadaexile](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/nevadaexile)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2014, 1:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-end-of-the-oil-era-the-fall-of-civilization-or-just-a-bump-in-the-road/184075/245 "2014-04-30T13:40:16Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > Are you saying there was a period when helicopters were used for casual travel in the United States? Certainly. In the 1970s and 1980s, businessmen routinely used helicopters to travel from suburbs of Los Angeles and New York City into their offices. Johnny Carson, as one example, often had a helicopter take him from his home in Malibu to the Tonight Show studios in Burbank to avoid the lengthy commute in traffic The Pan Am building (now Met Life) in Midtown Manhattan used to have a heliport on their roof until the 1977 accident there that killed five people.That was for a 7-10 minute flight to JFK Airport. ---
**Author:** ![nevadaexile](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/eb8c5e/32.png) [@nevadaexile](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/nevadaexile)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2014, 1:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-end-of-the-oil-era-the-fall-of-civilization-or-just-a-bump-in-the-road/184075/246 "2014-04-30T13:47:33Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > Cost is the basic economic concept you’re ignoring. You can’t just blithely say “we’ll replace fossil fuel with nuclear power” is nuclear power costs substantially more than fossil fuel. If we could just choose to use any energy source we wanted, we wouldn’t be using the one that OPEC sells. > > So if we switch to an energy source that costs more, we’ll end up buying less of it. And that means we’ll have a society with less energy being produced. > > And let me repeat for the twentieth or thirtieth time, I’m not talking about an end to civilization. Although if I stay in this thread, I’m sure I’ll be told several dozen more times that I predicted the end of civilization. We can switch nuclear at any time. We choose not for social, rather than economic, reasons. The US currently produces 20% of its electricity using nuclear power.France produces almost 80% of theirs.If fossil fuels were in danger of becoming scarce (if we don’t include methane hydrates under the ocean which will probably last mankind an additional 50-100 years at current usage rates) then pivoting towards nuclear while expensive (itself an artificial constraint, not a real one) would be the most effective method of resolving any possible energy crises in the future. Outside of transportation and petrochemicals , oil can be replaced by nuclear, tidal and hydroelectric. Even natural gas and coal-based synthetic petroleum can be utilized to bridge the gap between any slowing oil production and the beginning of alternative energy sources. ---
**Author:** ![eschereal](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eschereal/32/18939_2.png) [@eschereal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eschereal)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2014, 3:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-end-of-the-oil-era-the-fall-of-civilization-or-just-a-bump-in-the-road/184075/247 "2014-04-30T15:34:06Z")
> [@JohnT](#): > > A better analysis of the same data can be found here: [http://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/2011/11/23/iea-review-shows-many-developing-countries-subsidize-fossil-fuel-consumption-creating-artificially-lower-prices/](http://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/2011/11/23/iea-review-shows-many-developing-countries-subsidize-fossil-fuel-consumption-creating-artificially-lower-prices/) “Better analysis”? No, a _different_ analysis. In the first place, it never really says what it claims to say (I mean, how can you say that subsidies at the production end do not percolate to consumer prices). In the second place, the source is so ridiculously biased that it is almost impossible to take anything they say seriously. ---
**Author:** ![ralfy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ralfy/32/600_2.png) [@ralfy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ralfy)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2014, 9:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-end-of-the-oil-era-the-fall-of-civilization-or-just-a-bump-in-the-road/184075/248 "2014-05-01T09:40:05Z")
> [@Try2B\_Comprehensive](#): > > Shale + tar sands + crude = oil. > > If crude peaks, but shale and tar sands pick up the slack and more, then we have not witnessed ‘peak oil’. Is oil more expensive? Yes. Does that have global consequences? Sure. Will we see total oil production peak in our lifetimes? I think so, but who knows. But it has not happened yet. > > If you want to say the peak in crude is the canary in the coal mine, fine, but at least acknowledge that total global oil production is still increasing. Shale oil will last for only a few years, and all unconventional sources have low energy returns. Meanwhile, the global economy needs high energy returns, and given a growing global middle class, even higher. ---
**Author:** ![ralfy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ralfy/32/600_2.png) [@ralfy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ralfy)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2014, 9:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-end-of-the-oil-era-the-fall-of-civilization-or-just-a-bump-in-the-road/184075/249 "2014-05-01T09:44:09Z")
> [@Precambrianmollusc](#): > > Yet newer data shows other wise. > To quote from IEA 2012 > “Growth in North American light, tight oil and non-conventional supply has reached game-changing levels” > > “developments have challenged earlier assumptions and significantly changed the oil market outlook for the next five years” > > So the people who wrote the 2010 report you refer to have updated and said “its all a bit different now” so once again - give up on the 2010 data. > > You insist on stating crude is flat, which has been pointed out, really doesn’t matter, total liquids supply to the market is rising. Deep water, tight liquids, NGLs , Oil sands, bio fuels etc > All are liquids that are available , in growing capacity and will meet the demand. > > Have a look at ExxonMobil report “a view to 2040” > [http://cdn.exxonmobil.com/~/media/Reports/Outlook%20For%20Energy/2014/2014-Outlook-for-Energy-low-resolution.pdf](http://cdn.exxonmobil.com/~/media/Reports/Outlook%20For%20Energy/2014/2014-Outlook-for-Energy-low-resolution.pdf) > > It has some excellent analysis on demand ( by sector country fuel type etc) well worth reading, even has some quotes from Maria van der Hoeven in it. Highly recommend looking at the breakdown of demand by sector, a view on transportation efficiencies by car types, and industrial efficiency gains. > The report has energy demand for the world rising from 500 to about 730 quadrillion BTUs. Of that 730QBTUS by 2040 300 is for electricity generation, of which about 10Qbtu come from oil. > So big a chunk of work energy demand is not needing oil. Transportation using about 75mm boe /day by2040 is the big usage of liquids. > > Anyway > > On page 38 you will see liquids supply forecast (liquids forecasts not energy - you need to factor in natural gas and other sources for total energy supply) > > Conventional crude and condensate stays flat to drops over the 2000-2040 range, so what? Total liquids supply rising to 110mm oil equivalent bbl/day. > North America has a drop from 8 to about 5 mm boe/day across the forecast period, however total liquids for north amerce does not shows a rise from 15MM to 23MM in 2035 after which , at the end of the forecast period shows a slight decline. (US does decline in that North America bundle, see EIA 2014 report > [http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/er/pdf/0383er(2014).pdf](http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/er/pdf/0383er(2014).pdf)) > > Can you see that the supply of liquids is rising and appears to be meeting demand for liquids? If you can agree on that we can talk development technology and total upstream costs, which would dictate if anyone actually bothers to develop these resources. > > On the report you linked there are few down right odd comments from Maria van der Hoeven. > " The land ownership and the resource ownership go together here in the United States – the only country where that is the case." > > Going to have to say the middle east countries ( which has some significant shale resources) land ownership and resources are quite heavily tied. Also it’s a bit of a bizarre statement to imply developing shale gas elsewhere somehow requires the land and mineral rights to be tied together. Conventional liquids have the same issue , yet somehow the US oil boom of a long time ago was replicated around the world and managed to deal with the separation of land ownership and mineral rights. About the only technology difference between shale and conventional is the need for a large number of pumping trucks to turn up at the well site ( even this isn’t true for deep water wells, many of which are frac packed for production and sand control reasons). > > Also > “. It’s also about having the right gas industry, the right knowledge, the right infrastructure, the water, the human skills, the geological information, etc. And geology in this part of the world, especially where the shale gas boom is, is quite different from Ukraine or Poland. You can learn from it, but it’s not a copy-and-paste” > > Is entirely true, and is entirely true for conventional liquids. Yet somehow technology and knowledge transfer for conventional liquids has taken place between different regions and conventional production ramped up, so this is also a bit of a strange statement and really not a barrier that would make the US shale boom difficult to replicate elsewhere. If the price is worth developing the shale liquid, 3rd party suppliers will move in to make money. According to the articles I shared earlier, the EIA acknowledges that shale oil will last for only a few years, and that’s assuming that producers absorb increasing capital expenditures. The same applies to crude oil producers. See the lecture shared earlier for details. Also, crude oil production is expected to drop. Meanwhile, oil demand has to keep rising, likely even faster given a growing global middle class. Details on that were shared earlier. How will unconventional sources meet a decline in crude oil production and an increase in demand? The IEA concludes that given current conditions, we will need the equivalent of one Saudi Arabia every seven years. Given a growing global middle class, one every three to four years. Can unconventional production meet that demand? According to the IEA, at best all oil and gas sources will increase total production by only 9 pct during the next two decades. Meanwhile, global oil demand has to increase by 2 pct a year to ensure economic growth. More details in the report shared earlier. ---
**Author:** ![ralfy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ralfy/32/600_2.png) [@ralfy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ralfy)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2014, 9:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-end-of-the-oil-era-the-fall-of-civilization-or-just-a-bump-in-the-road/184075/250 "2014-05-01T09:49:02Z")
> [@XT](#): > > Thought I’d post [this](http://www.forbes.com/sites/davidblackmon/2013/05/13/the-illogic-and-folly-of-peak-oil-or-is-it-peak-gas-alarmism/) article that deals with some of the assertions about fracking and shale oils: FWIW, global oil production per capita (which is more logical) peaked back in 1979. Also, we need to look at production rate instead of reserves. According to the EIA, shale oil production will peak after only a few years. At the same time, it will have to meet increasing global demand plus an eventual decline in crude oil production. To recap, global oil demand has to go up by up to 2 pct per annum to maintain economic growth, or the equivalent of one Saudi Arabia every seven years. To meet a growing global middle class plus make up for a decline in crude oil production, we will need one every three to four years. ---
**Author:** ![ralfy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ralfy/32/600_2.png) [@ralfy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ralfy)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2014, 9:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-end-of-the-oil-era-the-fall-of-civilization-or-just-a-bump-in-the-road/184075/251 "2014-05-01T09:50:55Z")
> [@XT](#): > > And [another](http://seekingalpha.com/article/841401-peak-oil-myth-debunking-the-peak-oil-theory) one: In relation to that, “Oil glut forecaster Maugeri admits duff maths” [http://www.davidstrahan.com/blog/?p=1570](http://www.davidstrahan.com/blog/?p=1570) ---
**Author:** ![ralfy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ralfy/32/600_2.png) [@ralfy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ralfy)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2014, 9:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-end-of-the-oil-era-the-fall-of-civilization-or-just-a-bump-in-the-road/184075/252 "2014-05-01T09:53:00Z")
> [@Precambrianmollusc](#): > > Hey XT > > This is starting to feel like Spingears “Will we see $2.00 gas” thread, from back in '07, all over again. In many ways, we can consider this issue resolved if crude oil production rises to around 100 Mb/d and oil prices drop to less than $30 a barrel. ---
**Author:** ![ralfy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ralfy/32/600_2.png) [@ralfy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ralfy)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2014, 9:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-end-of-the-oil-era-the-fall-of-civilization-or-just-a-bump-in-the-road/184075/253 "2014-05-01T09:57:44Z")
> [@Try2B\_Comprehensive](#): > > No, electricity is cheaper than gasoline in 1990, and if trends continue, electricity from wind and especially solar will be cheaper than it is now, possibly by a wide margin. > > The problem isn’t with cheap fuel, it is the fact that the vehicles that run on electricity are so expensive. > > Maybe, we’ll see. I guess the issue is with the paradigm shift. Everything is set up to run on gasoline now, and to change that to just about any alternative will require a huge aggregate global CapEx- even if evs turn out to cost only half as much as cars today, everyone will still have to go out and buy one. Going through that process might feel like an extended recession, but once it is complete, who knows, the world of 2100 and beyond may very well run much more smoothly and efficiently than today’s. Not only that, but vehicles (and many other products) involve a manufacturing and shipping process that is significantly dependent on oil, both for energy and for petrochemicals. According to one article shared earlier, it will take decades to make the transition to minimizing fossil fuel use, if not incredible levels of cooperation and coordination between countries, not to mention crude oil producers going for maximum depletion rates. More details are given in the IEA report, but I think the gist is that to ensure economic growth oil demand has to keep rising by around 2 pct a year. However, all oil and gas production will rise by only 9 pct during the next two decades (and that’s assuming that crude oil production flat lines indefinitely). The slack (around 70 pct of annual oil demand increase) has to be replaced by renewable energy. ---
**Author:** ![ralfy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ralfy/32/600_2.png) [@ralfy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ralfy)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2014, 10:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-end-of-the-oil-era-the-fall-of-civilization-or-just-a-bump-in-the-road/184075/254 "2014-05-01T10:02:01Z")
> [@Precambrianmollusc](#): > > Regarding expected hybrid to conventional gasoline mix, have a look at the Exxon Mobil report I linked to. > > warning - pdf > > [http://cdn.exxonmobil.com/~/media/Reports/Outlook%20For%20Energy/2014/2014-Outlook-for-](http://cdn.exxonmobil.com/~/media/Reports/Outlook%20For%20Energy/2014/2014-Outlook-for-) > Energy-low-resolution.pdf > > They obviously are a large company that makes money by selling energy, but given the huge capital costs they incur with significant time lengths on the projects, they can loose truly epic amounts of money if they project incorrectly, so they are somewhat motivated to work on correct forecasts. Well that and convincing shareholders it a is a long term viable business, as getting capital from the markets is actually a requirement for oil companies. > On page 20 you have two graphs one showing average vehicle efficiency. Europe rises from 30-60 mpg by 2040 . Note average not the best that is available. US goes from 20 to 38 mpg > > Car type ( ok light duty fleet they call it) mix in 2010 there are about 700 million cars using gasoline, another 100 million using diesel ( slightly rounding numbers from the bar graph so please excuse a few million car error) > By 2040 convention gasoline is at about 800 million ( after a rise to 900 million in 2030) diesel stays rises slightly to about 150 million. > There are another 750 million cars ( total of about 1,700 million cars) or which 70 million are full electric, slightly less CNG/lpg and the balance ,35%, ( call it 600 million?) are hybrid. > > Light duty vehicle’s will account for about 20 million boe/day by 2040. Heavy duty ( trucks and all) about 30 million boe/day > To ralfys point about economic growth and energy usage. The report has total world GDP ( in 2005 dollars) going from 40 trillion in 2000 to just shy of 120 trillion in 2040. Energy usage going from 420 to 730 quadrillion BTUs. A one to one match in GDP rise with energy useage is not there, why , increasing efficiencies due to technology and increasing urbanization. The problem is that in a global capitalist system, efficiency leads to more consumption, not less. Whatever is saved due to combinations of efficiency and demand destruction are consumed elsewhere. More details can be seen in the peak demand article I shared earlier. That’s why according to the IEA, in order to continue economic growth, oil demand has to keep rising. The reason is obvious: the rest of the world wants more oil and other resources, especially due to a growing global middle class. (See article shared earlier.) How much new oil will be needed? According to the IEA, around one Saudi Arabia every seven years. To meet a growing global middle class plus production issues with crude oil, one every three to four years. ---
**Author:** ![ralfy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ralfy/32/600_2.png) [@ralfy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ralfy)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2014, 10:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-end-of-the-oil-era-the-fall-of-civilization-or-just-a-bump-in-the-road/184075/255 "2014-05-01T10:03:38Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > The thing is you can’t talk about switching from fossil fuels to electricity. We don’t have electricity mines. Electricity is a product we have to produce out of something: fossil fuels, nuclear energy, wind, solar, or hydropower. And of the sources, nuclear is the only one we can really scale up on. Very good point. In fact, may components needed for nuclear energy, renewable energy, etc., require oil for the manufacturing and shipping process. And not just components but even infrastructure needed to deliver energy and the finished goods that will use electricity. ---
**Author:** ![ralfy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ralfy/32/600_2.png) [@ralfy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ralfy)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2014, 10:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-end-of-the-oil-era-the-fall-of-civilization-or-just-a-bump-in-the-road/184075/256 "2014-05-01T10:06:00Z")
> [@JohnT](#): > > Very true. As mentioned in this thread previously, _currently_ the US uses the same amount of oil as it did in 1978, but somehow the economy has almost tripled in size since then. > > This evidence is not in line with some of the arguments made in this thread: that in order to have a growing economy/civilization you must increase your use of petroleum. Also, the U.S. needs lots of energy, and with a return of around 40 (according to the EROI article shared earlier). It has less than 5 pct of the world’s population but needs up to a quarter of world oil production to maintain living standards. For the world to do the same, we will need several earths. And as it is, there is a growing global middle class in BRIC and emerging markets that is increasing resource and energy consumption. ---
**Author:** ![ralfy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ralfy/32/600_2.png) [@ralfy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ralfy)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2014, 10:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-end-of-the-oil-era-the-fall-of-civilization-or-just-a-bump-in-the-road/184075/257 "2014-05-01T10:10:43Z")
> [@JohnT](#): > > Sorry… hit submit too soon > > I referenced earlier in this thread a [Business Insider article](http://www.businessinsider.com/solar-price-terrordome-chart-2014-4) about a report from Alliance Bernstein, a hedge fund that invests in Asian energy markets who also generates reports about the state and future of the energy industry. > > [Here is the report itself (PDF.)](http://reneweconomy.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/Bernstein-solar.pdf) The salient information is on the first 3 pages, with the remaining 9 being supporting documentation, their investment predictions for significant companies, etc. But for those of you who don’t want to read that much, here are the main points: > > 1. In the developing world, solar has already reached a price point where it is competitive with coal, oil, and natural gas. (This isn’t because they have cheaper solar, it’s because the developing world pays more for gas, coal, oil because of a lack of infrastructure.) > 2. Given that solar is a _technological_ energy source (as opposed to a _physical_ resource), solar energy is guaranteed to be driven lower in price on a per-watt basis. > 3. On the other hand, physical resources, by default, will increase in price with (for example) AB predicting an average $150/barrel price for oil in 2020. > > Reading further, you will find that these _investors_, i.e., people with money in the game, are more worried about overall energy **deflation** brought about by improving _technological_ sources of energy such as solar, wind, and hydro than they are worried about rising costs of energy brought about by physical depletion of hydrocarbon stocks. And the reason why they are worried is because these technologies, while too small to make an imprint now, will only get cheaper as more people buy into it and, eventually, within 10-30 years, the overall energy market will begin to feel the effects of a virtually limitless source of energy. > > (Please note that nobody is saying that solar can, or will, power all, but it can power a lot of what oil is currently powering.) > > And I see reports like this all the time. The BP Report of Global Energy Use that comes out every June. This PDF and others from AB (you ought to see their predictions about coal use in China - it’s going to peak and then drop dramatically because of solar.) Presentations on solar put together by CPS Energy here in San Antonio. > > So… yes, crude oil is becoming more expensive, but the effect on the overall energy market may not be enough to offset the deflationary pressures exacted by a world going to renewables. > > At the worst, this means that we’ll have to stop burning the stuff so wantonly. And learn to use it more efficiently so that we can do better than triple our economy while using the same amount of the stuff that we did 35 years ago. (Actually, we’ve done that last already, but nobody seems impressed by it.) I would also look at energy returns and energy quantity: [http://www.theoildrum.com/node/3786](http://www.theoildrum.com/node/3786) That is, given the chart, combinations of energy sources might be able to meet middle class needs of only the U.S. and a few other countries. It will likely not meet the needs of a growing global middle class. The catch is that a global capitalist system requires ever-increasing resource and energy demands met, i.e., an expanding market supplied with increasing production to guarantee increasing profits. ---
**Author:** ![ralfy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ralfy/32/600_2.png) [@ralfy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ralfy)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2014, 10:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-end-of-the-oil-era-the-fall-of-civilization-or-just-a-bump-in-the-road/184075/258 "2014-05-01T10:16:24Z")
> [@XT](#): > > There IS a disconnect between what the Peak Oil/Chicken Little folks have been predicting and reality. We’ve seen that in the last 10 years, as the Peak Oil movement has basically died out except for the really fervent few die hards. As I said, no one is in the Don’t Worry About It People group…at least not that I’ve seen in this thread. That’s really a strawman argument that no one is making. People ARE worried about it…or, I should say, they see the potential issue, and see opportunity in it. That’s why companies have spent literally billions of dollars in R&D and exploration. Because peak oil(no caps) WILL happen. Most likely it will happen because, at a certain price point the demand for oil will drop as we first transition then fully adopt something else. Various companies are betting billions on various potential alternatives. The ones who are right will be the next generation of Bill Gates or Steve Jobs. > > THAT’S reality based thinking. According to the IEA, crude oil production peaked in 2005. If one looks at oil production per capita (which is more logical, as oil production is needed by a growing population), then various sources show that that peaked back in 1979: > **[Peak oil? What peak oil?](https://cassandralegacy.blogspot.com/2013/07/peak-oil-what-peak-oil.html)** > > A blog about collapse as caused by depletion of mineral resources and climate change Meanwhile, as the lecture earlier showed, capital expenditures are growing because we are now resorting to shale oil and new oil is becoming more difficult to extract. If any, that’s the best evidence that we are seeing peak oil. Very likely, with oil prices triple than what they should be, the only thing that is keeping more effects of peak oil in check are high oil prices coupled with high food prices, in turn leading to a weak economy while governments proclaim “recovery” every year. ---
**Author:** ![Farin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/e79b87/32.png) [@Farin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Farin)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2014, 12:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-end-of-the-oil-era-the-fall-of-civilization-or-just-a-bump-in-the-road/184075/259 "2014-05-01T12:39:05Z")
> [@ralfy](#): > > Very likely, with oil prices triple than what they should be, the only thing that is keeping more effects of peak oil in check are high oil prices coupled with high food prices, in turn leading to a weak economy while governments proclaim “recovery” every year. :dubious: What “should” oil prices be? ---
**Author:** ![Try2B\_Comprehensive](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/try2b_comprehensive/32/65_2.png) [@Try2B\_Comprehensive](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Try2B_Comprehensive)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2014, 2:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-end-of-the-oil-era-the-fall-of-civilization-or-just-a-bump-in-the-road/184075/260 "2014-05-01T14:27:28Z")
> [@DSeid](#): > > “Social unrest” is more vague than what I was looking for. Also looking for something a bit more specific than “external conflict.” > > Social unrest in many Arab countries we see already. How does decreasing oil revenues play into it. Does it strengthen the hand of fundamentalists? Does the rest of the world just disengage from the area as oil becomes a less critical resource? > > Does a Russia dealing with social unrest become more set on relieving that social discontent with a sense of militaristic pride and fuel an economy by military expansion? > > Who become the new winners in that scenario? > [@ralfy](#): > > Shale oil will last for only a few years, and all unconventional sources have low energy returns. > > Meanwhile, the global economy needs high energy returns, and given a growing global middle class, even higher. I picked up a copy, and I think both of you may be interested in checking out the latest issue of [Foreign Affairs](http://www.foreignaffairs.com/issues/2014/93/3), which focuses on shale. They claim that the costs and efficiencies of fracking are dropping very rapidly, and they claim that global shale reserves exceed the total global conventional reserves of 1.5 trillion bbl. Now, I realize reserves are not production, but the gist is that by no means is shale oil going to run out anytime soon. Consider that in the context of your Oil Drum article on EROI > [@](#): > > 1. Markets can give you information only about the cost of exploiting a fuel, which usually today has nothing to do with making or even necessarily finding it in the future. Case in point is petroleum: today globally we find only one barrel for each 4 or 5 that we extract, so that we are basically pumping out known reservoirs. Hence we are not paying, assuming that we could, the cost of finding the replacement or of making some substitute. We are just emptying our tanks. > [@](#): > > 1. Essentially all information that we have indicates that the EROI for our major fuels (solar may be an exception) are declining over time, so that in the future society will be having to invest much more money and energy into getting the necessary fuel to run the economy than we do now The trends didn’t hold. We’ve replaced ALL of our reserves with shale discoveries, the advent of horizontal drilling disrupts the trend in falling EROI (even if it still isn’t especially great for fracking), and, as your article points out, solar IS the EROI exception. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-end-of-the-oil-era-the-fall-of-civilization-or-just-a-bump-in-the-road/184075.md?page=12) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-end-of-the-oil-era-the-fall-of-civilization-or-just-a-bump-in-the-road/184075.md?page=14)