And so it all began. From that arose a world culture entirely dependent on oil.
Think of oil powered agriculture/distribution, global and domestic transportation (grease for every wheel), communications and power for all the air conditioning, heating, refrigeration and stadium lights that man requires now, not to mention, that these requirements are every day increasing with no end in sight.
Imagine that gone. Without oil, our armies would still be on horseback, our navies coal-powered ironclads and our air forces reduced to hot air balloons. Try to imagine a US global hegemony without oil or, for that matter, the two world wars which put us on top of the world. Try to imagine the wholesale destruction of rain forests, the disappearance of the family farm into giant conglomerates, Walmart or huge urban areas supported 24/7 by convoys of semis from across the country and around the world. Without oil, we’d be back in the 1850’s with some improvements like local gas companies distilling kerosene for local markets, better steam engines and the commercial development of hydro. Vulcan Street Plant - Wikipedia . Even then, we’d have our problems.
Part Two will raise the questions What Is Peak Oil and need we be concerned about it? It will appear in GD, I’m thinking.
Aren’t you forgetting the Fischer-Tropp process? And electricity? And nuclear power? And hydro-electric power? And what about all the other non-oil, non-energy related discoveries? Oil wasn’t necessary to discover penicillin, for instance.
Yes, I think the history of the past 150 years would have been very different, but for us to have made next to no advances is a very bold statement.
I’m merely asking your opinion as to what the world would look like today if the Drake well if had not revealed the extent and ease of extraction of oil. And I’m not saying the 1850’s didn’t suck in regard to health and convenience from my own oil-nourished point of view.
As far as malnourishment goes, I do believe that the world was feeding itself pretty well before cluster bombs and agent orange. Oh, it was a bit more work but back then folks had a lot of time on their hands.
I think the answer, as suggested above, is that progress definitely wouldn’t have stopped. We would have developed a great many non-oil things. Of course, our development of nuclear power relied upon cheap energy of other sorts in order to power those separation devices and all, but we had hydro and the like.
The problem is that such development doesn’t hinge on one person. If Frank Drake hadn’t done it, someone else would have soon enough. Unless you stipulate that, for some reason, oil exploitation would not be possible, it’s impossible to imagine that we wouldn’t have discovered it and developed our oil dependency without Drake and his well.
If you ARE asking that, then it’s an interesting course to speculate on, but don’t imagine that we’d be frozen in Drake-era technology and science.
Anyway… let’s see. What would the world be like if oil wasn’t discovered…
… Many species of whales would be extinct.
… Massive deforestation.
… Much more coal being burned, possibly leading to a worse greenhouse effect than we have today.
… No air transportation other than lighter-than-air ships.
… I can’t imagine that the technological infrastructure needed to build the internet could arise… how would all the computers be powered? Coal furnaces?
… Famines would occur regularly as petroleum-based fertilizers never came to be. Likely there would be no Green Revolution.
You seem to be under the impression that electricity is generated primarily by the burning of petroleum. That is totally incorrect. Electricity is generated by coal, hydro, and nuclear. Oil is used overwhelmingly as a transportation fuel.
And of course, during the early development of the automobile, internal combustion petroleum engines were only one of the many designs explored. There were electric cars being built in the 19th Century.
Our modern transportation infrastructure depends on oil, it’s true. Goods are transported by petroleum-burning trucks, trains, cargo ships and airplanes. But have you never heard of steam trains? Surely you’re aware that diesel-electric trains are a modern innovation, and most trains were powered by coal. Without cheap oil, that means trains would continue to burn coal, not that we’d have no trains.
Without cheap oil we’d rely on steam and electric for the vast majority of our transportation. We’d have a more centralized transportation system with light rail rather than roads and privately owned cars and trucks. Air travel would be more expensive because we’d have to manufacture liquid fuel from coal or biomass. We’d probably have a lower standard of living on average, because cheap oil means cheaper everything. But we wouldn’t have plateaued in 1850, because even in 1900 oil production was miniscule. As for the world wars, in WWII horses were still an important part of Nazi Germany’s transport. Despite our image of a war machine fueld by oil, they were using horse drawn artillery, supplies were transported by rail rather than by truck, and most soldiers still walked.
Hydro mentioned and cited in the OP. Nuclear? as you say.
Given Drake or someone drilling in a land with great reserves of oil and huge accumulations of private capital, our oil culture or something like it was inevitable. So yes I’m stipulating.
You miss the distinction – I’m saying that we would have hydro to develop nuclear, not on its own.
No, it doesn’t – you give a list of drake-era technologies with no advances. Hot air balloons? nonsense – we’d have gliders and, probably, electrically-aided powered craft. “Coal Powered Ironclads?” That’s what they had then. People would be converting hard coal to a more uniform oil-like liquid, as Germany was trying to do, and we might have nukes by this time.
Maybe, maybe not. Think the Manhattan Project would ever have been conceived without the stimulus of our oil-powered world wars. Nuclear reactors developed out of that research.
I can only say that Germany’s enterprise was in response to the allies’ control of the world’s oil. Nukes dropped from gliders and electric planes?
Sure, electric cars. How efficient were batteries ever going to be without plastics?
And I said different? I do know that the Transcontinental RR was complered in Lincoln’s time. How things would have developed without diesel-electric, I don’t know.
Again gliders and electric planes? Even the Wright Bros used gas.
Do you think that having planes and tanks had anything to do with Nazi Germany’s foreign policy?
We already have the ability to make cars and trucks that run without petroleum. There are a number of alternative power sources ranging from biofuels to solar. True, they are somewhat more expensive than petroleum-based cars, but the fact remains that if all the oil wells were to run out in five years, it wouldn’t be all that bad. What’s missing is the political will to require the use of alternatives.
“Peak Oil” is by no means certain, and if it does happen, there’s no way to know when. All the previous predictions have been wildly wrong.
If it does happen, it’s going to happen like this: The price of oil will start to rise dramatically. This will make previous unprofitable sources of oil more profitable. But there are plenty of sources of petroleum if you’re willing to spend the money on them. Oil shales, oil sands, etc. In addition, we can easily convert vehicles to run on propane, natural gas, and biofuels.
At the same time, the higher cost of energy will stimulate development of nuclear, hydro, solar, and wind power.
Eventually, oil will simply price itself out of the market, and we’ll stop using it. But the process won’t happen overnight - there are decades worth of oil locked up in higher-price sources. Old wells that were closed because they were no longer profitable will be re-opened to extract the remaining oil.
On the consumption side, we already have transitional vehicles - hybrids, and especially plug-in hybrids. A plug-in hybrid opens the door to being able to commute without using oil at all, and since overall petroleum consumption is very low, it’s feasible to fuel these with flex fuels.
In short, we will transition away from a petroleum economy the same way we transitioned away from horses and buggies - relatively slowly, efficiently, and ultimately we’ll have a better world.
This thread has made me wonder how different the world would be, had oil extraction been carried out as a resource for the whole planet, and not just those who could get it out first. What right do any of the ME countries really have to be charging those unfortunate to be born elsewhere for something that is such a neccessity?
The same right that Canada has to provide the bulk of the world’s nickel. The same right that the U.S. has to profit from being in the middle of some of the world’s prime farmland.
All the world’s resources are not distributed evenly. Various countries benefit disproportionately from the resources they happen to own. That’s the way the world works.
And while the Middle East has lots of oil, it has a deficit of many other critical resources.
Well, easy enough to say after we squandered ours and exported it for sale over a period of 100 years hitting our peak oil some time in the '60s, incidentally turning oil into a “necessity” for us and the world in the process. Would the ME be the place of turmoil it is now had we turned our oil toward mundane uses instead of establishing ourselves as a super power? But we digress from the OP.
Famines do occur regularly. The “Green Revolution” destroyed a lot of traditional subsistence knowledge and replaced it with manufactured fertilizers and pesticides, that could only be purchased from foreign corporations. Soil became depleted, and only increasing new chemical “inputs” could wring out more food. More food was wrung out, allowing populations to increase… bringing us to the present, when global grain consumption exceeds production (only briefly possible, of course), new famines of unprecedented scale loom for some parts of the world, and some people are calling for a “Second Green Revolution”…
How could it not be certain? You acknowledge that there’s no new oil growing in the depths of the earth, right? There’s a fixed, finite supply. There has to be a high point in the production graph somewhere, after which global production may fluctuate some, but the overall trend will be inexorably downward.
The production graph for the last few years has been relatively flat, despite increasing expenditures on extraction techniques. I think it’s a reasonable guess that the peak moment, in terms of production, is here, or past.
Okay… but,
Can we really come up with (even over the course of “decades”) enough new energy sources to cover all the things we’ve been using oil for, and at a similar end-user cost?
What is life going to be like during this transitional phase, after the price of oil has started to “rise dramatically,” and before all those various new technologies are developed and integrated?
They would have developed about the same as now. We’d have advanced steam engines. There’s nothing magical about diesel, it’s just cheaper than anything else. And why do you need petroleum-derived plastic for batteries? You can make plastic out of biomass, the only problem is that biomass costs more than crude oil. And who says you need plastic in the first place? The first synthetic plastics were developed in the mid 19th century, well before the mass use of petroleum.
No, we wouldn’t have electric planes. We’d have liquid fueled planes, but the liquid fuel would be derived from coal and biomass rather than petroleum. There’s nothing magical about crude oil, except it’s a very cheap source of liquid hydrocarbons. You ever heard of biodiesel? That’s just vegetable oil with a bit of detergent. The Germans manufactured liquid fuel from coal during WWII when they were cut off from petroleum. We’d certainly be able to do the same thing to power aircraft.
Liquid fuels have many advantages over solid or gaseous fuels. That’s why liquid fuels are so ubiquitous in transportation. So if there was no cheap liquid fuel that we could pump from the ground, we’d just manufacture one. And yes, it would be a lot more expensive than crude oil, which means that we’d only use manufactured liquid fuels for applications where the benefits outweighed the costs. We probably wouldn’t be powering much ground transport with manufactured liquid fuels, but for aircraft we certainly would. That would mean air travel and air cargo would be more expensive than it has been, but that would mean two or three times as expensive, not ten times more expensive.
So without oil our mix of transportation and communication would certainly be different–more capital would have been sunk into communication technology rather than transporting people from place to place. Less business travel, more teleconferencing.
The idea that most industrial processes developed after 1850 rely on petroleum is just nonsensical. It might be arguable that without the coal deposits in Britain and Germany we might never have had the industrial revolution. But petroleum was a latecomer, until after WWI petroleum was an afterthought. And it wasn’t until after WWII that petroleum extraction and usage really started to begin–the oil fields of the Middle East were largely untapped until after WWII, although people had realized their potential before.
So if planet Earth never had large petroleum deposits, the history of the world up until 1920 would be largely unchanged.