What will we do when the oil runs out?

[Nukeman]

woops. Also forgot to comment on scm1001’s post:

Not everyone thinks there is lots of oil left e.g see http://www.swenson.com/ron/961024b.htm. The problem is not that there is not lots of oil, but that most of it is too hard to get. E.g. at 100 dollars a barrel, sure you might be able to access billion of barrels, but the worlds economy is screwed. As a scientist, I don’t necessarily see technology saving us, though I hope for my children’s sake it does, else it is Mad Max II for them.

Well, it is hard to get, but the theory is that technology will improve and demand will increase until it is viable.

One of the previous answers talked about whale oil. I remember a bath product that claimed to contain “baby oil” - so perhaps there is an alternative energy source after all.

classic.

[CurtC]

Originally posted by Pugluvr:
Is mass production of ethanol a realistic substitute? If so, why aren’t we producing it now and so reducing our dependence on oil?

The article at Ethanol Wastes Energy and Robs Taxpayers says: “According to Pimentel, it takes 131,000 British thermal units (BTUs) to produce one gallon of ethanol, which only yields about 77,000 BTUs of fuel energy. That’s a net energy loss of roughly 70 percent.”

[Crafter_Man]

*Originally posted by CurtC *
**

Originally posted by Pugluvr:
Is mass production of ethanol a realistic substitute? If so, why aren’t we producing it now and so reducing our dependence on oil?

The article at Ethanol Wastes Energy and Robs Taxpayers says: “According to Pimentel, it takes 131,000 British thermal units (BTUs) to produce one gallon of ethanol, which only yields about 77,000 BTUs of fuel energy. That’s a net energy loss of roughly 70 percent.” **

You’re correct.

As an example, let’s say a farmer puts 2 gallons of gasoline in his tractor, and he pulls enough corn to yield 1 gallon of alcohol. A environmentalist then takes the alcohol, pours it in an engine, and proclaims, “Ah, a clean burning fuel!”

Uh, not quite…

[Crafter_Man]

The article claims “a net energy loss of roughly 70 percent.” I calculate 41%. That’s still bad…

[kanicbird]

believe fusion is possible now, it just takes more energy to power it that it can produce.

[nitpick]Just want to point out that is only the case for controlled fusion. A thermonuclear device puts out much more energy then it takes in. [/nitpick]

[JRDelirious]

Also, as pointed out before, at some point be it 50 or 100 or 200 years down the road, if petroleum as such starts getting scarce, rising prices will make it profitable to go for hard-to-extract oil (shales, etc), coal-to-oil, and ethanol – insofar as producing combustibles is concerned.

scm1001 says, sure, the market will adjust, but it will mean that some point fossil-fuel-derived energy will be at the equivalent of a modern-day $100/bbl oil – well, that may NOT be the disaster that is imagined. $100/bbl oil would wreck the economy NOW, or within 10 years, because we’ve got no workaround. But if it’s something that happens gradually over a century, the market would adapt by incremental steps (such as, for instance, the extinction of the second family car and the SUV if gas in the US hits the equivalent of $10/gal in today’s money [sub][note: I like SUV’s; I’m just mentioning a possible scenario][/sub]).

It doesn’t have to be technology saving us, it’s not just new exotic means of transportation and energy generation – it’s also alternative sources of both power and synthetics that may exist already but are just economic losers as long as there’s oil at less than $100/bbl around; and, yes, the adoption over time of ways-of-living and doing business that are different. Many inhabitants of Manhattan and other hi-density cities lead full lives w/o having a private automobile.

At some point we may even get to the point we see using fossil hydrocarbons to burn instead of for synthetics as something akin to clear-cutting primary forest for firewood, instead of using managed forests for lumber for building and furniture.

Then the impetus will become to maximize all other sources of energy for power-plant applications: not just the exotic, as in solar powersat or fusion, or the known but mostly untested as in ocean thermal; but also the locally available such as geothermal, wind, tidal, or improvements in extant sources, as in ground-based solar, or fission – or heck, waste-to-energy! Fuel the power plant with garbage, brew methane from sewage!

The reason we don’t already do it? It’s just not cost effective as long as there’s oil, coal and gas to be had for a price the economy is willing to pay. No amount of pontificating that “it’s the right thing to do” can change that. And trying to force people to alter their way-of-life by decree (a) may not work and (b) will piss off the people.

Now, if the situation is true outright exhaustion of “fossil fuels” including nat. gas and coal, then hey, you better have developed a plentiful and efficient non-fossil energy source. Then it’s a matter of taking energy, hydrogen (seawater) and carbonate (rocks) and you make hydrocarbons. Sure, expensive HC’s, but better than nothing.

[justwannano]

Those crazy crazy Iowans.

They are building 7 more Ethanol plants. They will then have 14 plants. Tied with Minnesota.

I’ve forgotten how many soy diesel plants they have built.

Uh clean burning fuel

[justwannano]

A couple of sites shamelessly promoting alternative fuels

Here is a site for you
http://www.hempcar.org/petvshemp.shtml

This ones interesting
http://www.hort.purdue.edu/newcrop/duke_energy/dukeindex.html

Click on the Jet Truck.
http://www.biodiesel.org/default2.htm