The last drop is gone

[NaidRaida]

I saw this report some time ago on German news channel N24 which is one of my favorite channels just because of such interesting reports (it was synchronized):

 

 

 

Part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RVvacFmgoB4

Part 3: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tozcI--pqnI

 

I recommend to watch this report completely, it´s interesting.

 

Basically it´s a scenario where the oil is gone in very short time. This will happen, this is sure, but not that fast as told in this report.

The result will be the same: no oil anymore. Our actual economy would completely brake. Millions may die. Society will break.

 

As shown inside the modern nations will fall back to a much more natural life with a lot less technic cause there is

no appropriate alternative power source. Finally we are all oil addicted. There are several alternatives (f.e. hydrogen, electric, organic fuels...), but do they have a real future?

 

Do you think a much more natural lifestyle would be that bad? Or do you focus on alternatives? Is it necessary to maintain this "oil-addicted-lifestyle"?

I personally think the change is coming to slow and this could end pretty bad although all of us here now will probably not see the end of the oil story.

[lil weasel]

It would be easier to reduce the world's user population by 50 to 75%.

[sivispacem]

I don't quite "get" the premise of these documentaries. The implication is that oil disappears over a very short period of time. This just simply isn't going to happen. That said, I think such a situation probably would cause huge social and civil unrest- in fact, many of the nations who are currently rapidly rising in terms of economic strength are those with recently discovered oil reserves. Were oil to collapse and something else- say, nuclear- replace it, the entire global economy would turn on it's head whilst overnight growing nations loose all income and nations struggling to trade the assets they do have are suddenly in massive demand. It's foolish to say that we won't ever need to transition away from oil- but how about viable alternatives? Can oil be created entirely synthetically, without a requirement for natural reserves? After all, all oil products are basically just hydrogen and carbon.

[freak2121]

Would have been better if it was a more realistic scenario where oil gradually runs out over a period of time.

[Mati]

How do you guys think the world will change without oil? Will it ''only'' ruin our economy?

I really can't imagine what will happen.

[Staten]

This story comes up every decade or so, doesn't it? It's like the "population bomb" scares that used to get reported: yes, it is pretty scary to think about what would happen, but it gets less scary if people keep on making predictions that it'll happen in a few years, and then those few years pass without incident.

 

In answer to your questions, NaidRaida, mankind does have an addiction to oil, but like all addictions, it is almost impossible to break. It's not as if we can stage an intervention for Big Oil, is it? I imagine (hope?) that steeply rising oil prices will drive dependencies on new sources of energy.

Edited September 5, 2011 by Staten

[Whiskey]

Can oil be created entirely synthetically, without a requirement for natural reserves? After all, all oil products are basically just hydrogen and carbon.

I wonder, maybe in the future. I could imagine what would happen if this was ever to be invented. Juice for the car would finally be cheap again.

[Typhus]

I have heard that there is an alternative, renewable energy source that could replace oil. But introducing it would upset the economy? Is this feasible or just common bunk?

[WF the Hobgoblin]

 

How do you guys think the world will change without oil? Will it ''only'' ruin our economy?

I really can't imagine what will happen.

Just watch the Mad Max trilogy.

 

Edited September 5, 2011 by WF the Hobgoblin

[A loaded rifle]

By that time we would have found another way to power our cars and planes.(Solar Power)

[sivispacem]

By that time we would have found another way to power our cars and planes.(Solar Power)

Nuclear, more likely. It's the only vaguely feasible non-fossil-fuel solution that balances power production with cost.

[WF the Hobgoblin]

Possibly stupid but serious question all the same: Why don't we use more nuclear power at the moment? Is it deemed too risky or costly?

[A loaded rifle]

Possibly stupid but serious question all the same: Why don't we use more nuclear power at the moment? Is it deemed too risky or costly?

Good question,If someone bought you a $2,000 PC for your birthday and you had everything set up already (Name,Programs,Passwords,ETC.).Then you wouldn't want to waste all your time to get a $2,100 computer that is just a tad bit faster.Would you?

[Whiskey]

 

Possibly stupid but serious question all the same: Why don't we use more nuclear power at the moment?

Envronmental issues id presume, such things like what to do with the Nuclear waste it produces. There's only so much room under the ground. Plus ever since the Japan Nuclear accident, some groups have become skeptical.

 

If Fusion Power were to ever take off, we'd see massive improvments. I think Nuclear waste can be used as fuel and all it creates is Hydrogen as a waste product also. Not too sure though. Apparently at this stage of research it's not economically viable.

[OchyGTA]

There is a theory that the oil companies are covering up a good electric car so that we are slaves to the oil corporations until it runs out. Then again, I just watched a bit of Zeitgeist so I'm in conspiracy mode.

[sivispacem]

Possibly stupid but serious question all the same: Why don't we use more nuclear power at the moment?

Envronmental issues id presume, such things like what to do with the Nuclear waste it produces. There's only so much room under the ground. Plus ever since the Japan Nuclear accident, some groups have become skeptical.

It's mostly due to popular misconception rather than anything tangible. Even waste can be reprocessed into more usable fuel in modern breeder reactors. The actual quantity of fuel that reactors use is pretty minuscule if all the proper measures are taken- but because of the idiotic "green" anti-nuclear lobby in Europe in particular, plus a couple of minor incidents (in the grand scheme of things, even Chernobyl was a minor incident- every year more people around the world are killed in the production and processing of coal alone than have been killed in the entire history of civil nuclear power generation) have tarnished it's reputation. Which is depressing as, per megawatt of power generated, it's basically the safest form of power generation out there.

[Lithium]

Possibly stupid but serious question all the same: Why don't we use more nuclear power at the moment?

Envronmental issues id presume, such things like what to do with the Nuclear waste it produces. There's only so much room under the ground. Plus ever since the Japan Nuclear accident, some groups have become skeptical.

It's mostly due to popular misconception rather than anything tangible. Even waste can be reprocessed into more usable fuel in modern breeder reactors. The actual quantity of fuel that reactors use is pretty minuscule if all the proper measures are taken- but because of the idiotic "green" anti-nuclear lobby in Europe in particular, plus a couple of minor incidents (in the grand scheme of things, even Chernobyl was a minor incident- every year more people around the world are killed in the production and processing of coal alone than have been killed in the entire history of civil nuclear power generation) have tarnished it's reputation. Which is depressing as, per megawatt of power generated, it's basically the safest form of power generation out there.

I thought that plutonium and all that good stuff is actually rarer than most people think?

[leik oh em jeez!]

There's so much oil we haven't even began to use, we simply won't run out anytime soon. Even though we might be using it faster than the planet can produce it, remember the earth had a head start of billions of years.

[Lithium]

There's so much oil we haven't even began to use, we simply won't run out anytime soon. Even though we might be using it faster than the planet can produce it, remember the earth had a head start of billions of years.

It's estimated we will run out within the next 30 years or so. That can creep up pretty fast, and since we're still young we'll probably be around to see it.

[Saggy]

There's so much oil we haven't even began to use, we simply won't run out anytime soon. Even though we might be using it faster than the planet can produce it, remember the earth had a head start of billions of years.

It's estimated we will run out within the next 30 years or so. That can creep up pretty fast, and since we're still young we'll probably be around to see it.

Yes, but this assume that we won't find a new massive reservoir, which happens every once in a while.

 

There's several renewable energy technologies that are being developed that are feasible. Hydrogen, solar, wind farms, bio-mass fuels, etc. The big opposition to these is that creating an infrastructure where energy can be harnessed and delivered with them would require billions and billions of dollars to replace the current petroleum-oriented infrastructure. Basically put, we have tons of technologies which could provide us with clean, renewable energy, but most people don't want to implement them because they're slightly costlier and newer than methods that have been in favor. A lot of people think the oil companies are the ones responsible for making them unpopular, but realistically a lot of the oil companies are the ones investing in the technology so that doesn't make sense. What the real answer is that developers, engineers, etc. are all so used to working with petroleum based energy sources and infrastructure that they don't want to put up with the new costs and challenges of switching to something else.

 

Realistically the bigger concern we should have of oil disappearing is our new found dependence on plastic products. Petroleum oil products have made the production of plastic products very cheap, but if we suddenly had to rely on different sources for the elements necessary in producing plastic then we may find it becoming much costlier. I think this has far more implications than oil running out as an energy source, because while there has been a lot of development and research into finding an alternative energy source, there hasn't really been a lot of work invested in what we'll make our plastics out of. As it stands bio-mass technology can produce cellulose that can be used to produce plastics similar to what we already have, but who even knows if the amount of plastic you can produce per acre of biomass is anywhere near the amount you can produce per barrel of oil--I have a feeling that it is substantially less, and so our rate of production would slow down tremendously waiting for more biomass to be grown and processed into oil--whereas today we can just siphon a couple billion gallons out of the ground in a matter of weeks.

 

On top of this, things like biomass have another problem... If you simply turn the American landscape into a field of corn used to produce cellulose plastics and ethanol fuel, what happens when we deplete the top layer of soil again? Well, the next time there's a drought we'll get another huge dust bowl incident. So even when you look at a "renewable" resource like biomass technology, you're still looking at other resources you'll be depleting to produce it.

 

I personally believe that harnessing solar, wind and water energy is the only way we can implement a truly renewable resource without just turning something that depletes other resources. The reason oil has worked so well is because it's already there, you just have to suck it out of the ground. We just need to find something similar to that.

[sivispacem]

 

There's so much oil we haven't even began to use, we simply won't run out anytime soon. Even though we might be using it faster than the planet can produce it, remember the earth had a head start of billions of years.

It's estimated we will run out within the next 30 years or so. That can creep up pretty fast, and since we're still young we'll probably be around to see it.

Estimates seem to vary from about 30 years to over 100. Depends who ask, really.

 

With regards to the contents of nuclear fuel and waste, the majority of fuel consists of non-fissile materials. Breeder reactors basically produce more fissile material than they consume, turning these non-fissile materials (like natural uranium) into more fuel. In fact, the use of MOX fuel in plutonium breeder reactors can theoretically yield fuel with a greater proportion of plutonium than can be produced by any other means- basically multiplying fuel rather than just breeding it. Plus there are things like Thorium-based fuels, which consist of naturally-occurring isotopes and are converted to fissile material in-situ when the reactor goes critical. The more our understanding of radiophysics and radioisotopes increases, the easier it gets for us to turn non-fissile material into fissile material. That's not to say that you can create a perpetual fuel cycle, but astonishingly large quantities can be reused.

[NaidRaida]

Consider the fact that oil isn´t just the base for fuel, life will change. That´s for sure.

 

I have to agree with sivispacem: Nuclear energy is the only economic alternative - by now.

 

The thing is: How to develop new energy sources (science and research) if the development itself is depending on the oil/oil economy again.

And things related to oil will definately not become better. That´s a bit of a doom loop for me.

 

I also agree to those who said this report is exaggerated. But it shows pretty nice what is depending on oil industry today.

 

And I think that times will get hard when the oil gets really rare. I think this changing period is the difficulty, not the real aftermath.

Edited September 5, 2011 by NaidRaida

[Tchuck]

Humanity has always faced crisis of the sort and has always prevailed. If oil were to run out in such a small ammount of time, like the video is saying, then of course there would be problems. But it won't.

And there's always scientists out there researching ways to get us free from oil. Sooner rather than later we'll have a breakthrough and slowly creep out of the oil dependency.

[Democrab]

 

Possibly stupid but serious question all the same: Why don't we use more nuclear power at the moment? Is it deemed too risky or costly?

Coal/petrol is a bit cheaper and everyone has their minds stuck in the "Nuclear power is unsafe!" bullsh*t that stems from out-dated facilities and idiotic shortcuts on design that end up biting people in the ass later on.

 

Even if Nuclear is the new standard after fossil fuels, it will only be for a short amount of time, fusion power will be after that and assuming the laws of physics actually stand the test of time, anti-matter based stuff a while after that.

[Whiskey]

Even if Nuclear is the new standard after fossil fuels, it will only be for a short amount of time, fusion power will be after that and assuming the laws of physics actually stand the test of time, anti-matter based stuff a while after that.

I really do hope I live to see this.

[NaidRaida]

What about the countries that are stated as "they better don´t get anything that is raioactiv"?

They cannot just switch to this technic. It´s not that easy just to "switch" the power generating technic.

[sivispacem]

What about the countries that are stated as "they better don´t get anything that is raioactiv"?

They cannot just switch to this technic. It´s not that easy just to "switch" the power generating technic.

Can you rephrase that in a way that makes sense?

[NaidRaida]

If more development in nuclear energy would be an alternative for the future, what about countries that cannot use it properly?

 

I would suppose the US wouldn´t love to see specific countries stepping into this. Although they are buying/ripping those countries oil.

 

[unopescio]

Were all f*cked anyway, the human race is just destined for a massive population cull. Get used to it.

[leik oh em jeez!]

What about the countries that are stated as "they better don´t get anything that is raioactiv"?

They cannot just switch to this technic. It´s not that easy just to "switch" the power generating technic.

Can you rephrase that in a way that makes sense?

He meant technology where he said technic.