Oil Reserves, Running Out?

[epoxi]

I think all arguments about sustainability and environment are moot points, as sivis pointed out the relative cost of alternatives is coming down to the point they are viable options. I believe the main motive to move away from fossil fuel is political: the world without oil dependency will be a lot less hypocritical and arguably a lot more stable. No longer will the world have to pander to and fund states with ulterior motives and questionable regimes.

 

Moving away from oil/gas decentralises energy production, and turns energy into a different ball game. With nuclear being the most cost effective, comparably environmentally friendly and efficient means of power arguably there will be a shift of political power towards nuclear nations, but it has to be a better situation than what we have today. Each locality has its own opportunities though, for instance China has shifted to being the largest solar power producer in the world in a matter of 3 years: that's quicker than it takes for most academics just to publish reports on the state of energy consumption.

Edited May 21, 2016 by epoxi

[MyName'sJeff]

Well, I guess you could call it a slippery slope. As Karl Pilkington once said, we could always use our own sh*t while driving to use as fuel. No more stopping at service stations to take a break, just simply pull your pants down, and let your anus do the talking in the built in toilet seat. With your grandma in the back doing the same sh*t. Pun intended. Yeah.

Edited May 21, 2016 by MyName'sJeff

[GTA_stu]

With your grandma in the back doing the same sh*t.

 

>Allowing your grandmother to ride in the car

>Not sticking her on the roof rack

[Jehannum]

You guys who think the oil won't run out ... give me your reasoning. Do you think God is providing it or something?

 

And what prejudice makes me associate this level of stupidity with Americans?

[Fuzzknuckles]

I heard a similar number (30 years) when I was in middle school. In the early 90's.

Same. In the early '80s.

 

The sad thing is, there's plenty of efficient and reliable ways to generate power that don't rely on oil, which are being wholesale ignored due to the vested financial interests of the power companies and their links to oil. We could all be living off solar and wind generated power if those companies would get behind them and make the investments they need to make, to develop cheap and plentiful solar and wind products, rather than relying on gas guzzlers and planes to fund their profits and retirement funds.

 

We really don't need to be burning so much fossil fuel. And we absolutely shouldn't be.

[sivispacem]

You guys who think the oil won't run out ... give me your reasoning.

I don't think anyone had claimed oil isn't going to run out, just that's it's likely to be replaced by synthetic or alternative fuels before that point (simple question of economic viability, once the costs of oil extraction become higher than the costs of refining hydrocarbons from another source it'll become obsolete). And that the initial estimates posted in the now changed thread title are woefully inaccurate.

[Voodoo]

Oil is in everything. Look around you right now and try to find something that doesn't have oil in it or wasn't produced/transported to you through the use of oil. Now think about how the population is growing as a result of the abundance of cheap energy. Cheap as in the amount of time it takes to produce a result. There will never be another energy source that yields so much for so little effort in our lifetime.

 

Also bear in mind that oil is finite but populations in developing countries are swelling and no one is going to be able to tell them that they can't enjoy every little thing the western world has had post WW2. It may be more that 30 years or less but the world as it is today is not sustainable.

 

E - My main point is that none of the currently available alternative energy sources can come anywhere near the amount of easy energy we get from fossil fuels. Not enough people are doing anything about it, either. Humans are really good at compartmentalizing problems. We generally don't react until the last possible moment. We're easily distracted, too. It's five minutes of "let's do something about it" and then it's back to whatever entertainment source we prefer to plug into.

[sivispacem]

50% of oil use is in the production of petrol and diesel. There are already perfectly viable alternatives in the marketplace such as biofuel, and commercial synthetic fuel production is increasing hugely. The technologies are there, but you are right- there won't be a fundamental reaction until such a point as which we're perilously close to the point of no return.

 

Coal looks healthier in the long term, 261 years of known US reserves as of 2013 according to the EIA. Gas globally 58 years known excluding shake gas.

 

Nuclear is the one technology capable of meeting our electricity requirements without direct fossil fuel reliance. Added bonus that the majority of exploitable Uranium reserves are in relatively democratic and stable nations like Canada, Australia and Namibia. Downsides is decades of underinvestment and NIMBY scaremongering.

[MyName'sJeff]

Solar energy seems the most realistic and energy efficient / cost friendly at the moment. But as far as I'm concerned, the only thing that can be used with solar energy as of now is solar panels that could power our electricity and heating in our houses, but even that's in the really early stages and is expensive. The process is in the slow side because humans don't seem to be doing anything about it mostly right now, so why hypocritically argue about it when actions speak louder than words?

[El Dildo]

HOW ARE WE GOING TO MAKE PLASTIC FORKS

 

SOMEONE PLEASE THINK OF THE PLASTIC FORKS

[Arachne]

I'm pretty sure with the bright minds around the world will come with efficient solution to this problem...perhaps another material or invention? maybe have the human race to migrate to a whole new planet?? of course, the later scenario may only happen once technology gets very far... but until that time, we may not even exist anymore.

Edited May 24, 2016 by Arachne

[X S]

Did someone say fusion? Haha! Time to colonize the Moon, bitches!

 

https://www.technologyreview.com/s/408558/mining-the-moon/

 

[Aqua]

As for nuclear power its not the power plants, I'm sure there 99.9% safe. It's what they do with the spent fuel rods afterwards that concerns me.

Edited May 24, 2016 by ~SophisticatedAviator~

[El Dildo]

As for nuclear power its not the power plants, I'm sure there 99.9% safe. It's what they do with the spent fuel rods afterwards the concerns me.

spent fuel rods?

ain't nobody got time for that!

 

just strap them onto a rocket and shoot that sh/t into the sun.

problem solved!

[Aqua]

I wish, what they actually do is send them off to Sellafield and store and reprocess them. But that site is one of the most hazardous is Europe... So many radioactive leaks from that place... Its made the Irish sea the most radioactive sea in the world. I know over here on the island the government always keeps an eye on levels of radioactivity from that place, but they are always well below safe limits which is good. But the main thing is its there, its in our food, fish and milk etc... And on our beaches... Not good.

[sivispacem]

As for nuclear power its not the power plants, I'm sure there 99.9% safe. It's what they do with the spent fuel rods afterwards the concerns me.

We can reprocess the vast majority of expended nuclear material into more fuel; there are numerous designs of reactor which allow the "breeding" of fuel. That is, they produce more nuclear fuel than they consume whilst still generating electricity.

 

You still have the problem with lower level waste but that's hardly insurmountable.

 

Also, the Irish Sea being the most radioactive in the world, though a handy sound byte for Greenpeace, isn't actually true.

[gtamann123]

 

 

I'm the 70s we were going to run out in the late 80s. In the 80s. It was the year 2000 and in the 90s it was 2020.

 

It will run out eventually but I won't be alive when it does. So I don't really care about the damage the reulting fallout will cause because I will be safe and sound 6 feet under.

I was gonna say "but what about your kids" but realized the requirements therein

 

Holy sh*t, this might just be the cruelest burn I've ever read. Well done, bae.

He knows me. And knows that the Detroit Lions have a better chance of winning a super bowl than I do of having kids.

[AlienTwo]

 

As for nuclear power its not the power plants, I'm sure there 99.9% safe. It's what they do with the spent fuel rods afterwards the concerns me.

We can reprocess the vast majority of expended nuclear material into more fuel; there are numerous designs of reactor which allow the "breeding" of fuel. That is, they produce more nuclear fuel than they consume whilst still generating electricity.

 

You still have the problem with lower level waste but that's hardly insurmountable.

 

Also, the Irish Sea being the most radioactive in the world, though a handy sound byte for Greenpeace, isn't actually true.

Deja vu.

[Triple Vacuum Seal]

Nuclear gets such a bad rap. We only hear about it in the rare instance of something going wrong under lax procedures. Within the coming decades we'll likely have the opportunity to viably generate energy via nuclear fusion instead of the current fission process. At that point, virtually all other power generation methods would take a backseat to nuclear. Sure solar and wind are sexier alternatives to the dirty fossil fuels. We should indeed embrace these cleaner alternatives (especially in regards to panels on urban rooftops). But why harness solar energy from a nuclear fusion reactor nearly 150 million km away when we can build our own fusion reactor here on earth?

 

Issues ranging from clean drinking water to conflicts over natural resources would all but disappear when we harness fusion.

Edited May 25, 2016 by Triple Vacuum Seal

[MyName'sJeff]

Nuclear gets such a bad rap. We only hear about it in the rare instance of something going wrong under lax procedures. Within the coming decades we'll likely have the opportunity to viably generate energy via nuclear fusion instead of the current fission process. At that point, virtually all other power generation methods would take a backseat to nuclear. Sure solar and wind are sexier alternatives to the dirty fossil fuels. We should indeed embrace these cleaner alternatives (especially in regards to panels on urban rooftops). But why harness solar energy from a nuclear fusion reactor nearly 150 million km away when we can build our own fusion reactor here on earth?

 

Issues ranging from clean drinking water to conflicts over natural resources would all but disappear when we harness fusion.

Ever watched Spider-Man 2? Yeah.

 

 

 

jk jk

 

 

Seriously, building our own fusion reactor is not construction work that can be complete within a year or two, it's going to take a long time, we barely have the tech, and that's before we estimate the size of the reactor and risk of using it. One mistake could lead to a disaster, so the best thing to do is go with other alternatives first, such as solar energy which is at least the safest and most reliable option right now, but even then we need to wait a while till they figure out how to bring the cost down and find more methods than just solar panels which most of the people don't have anyway.

[Abel.]

One mistake could lead to a disaster

 

I find this to be a very strange attitude. Chernobyl was caused by a great deal of complacency, awful safety measures and all sorts of mismanagement. Alternative forms of energy don't offer anywhere near the capabilities or practicality of nuclear energy.

 

You mention Spiderman 2 jokingly, but I honestly think it's misleading media representations that have soured nuclear energy, the only viable alternative to fossil fuels, in the eyes of environmentalists. There's also the association people have between it and nuclear weapons, but this isn't rational in any way. Issues of waste management can be resolved. What really frustrates me is that the complaints tend to come from people with no scientific or technical background. That's not to say a layman shouldn't voice concerns, especially if nuclear facilities are to be built near them, but understanding the theory of nuclear power production would go a long way to assuaging the fears regarding nuclear energy.

 

 

In any case, as bad as a nuclear disaster would be, how does it compare to the apocalyptic scenario environment people predict if we don't ween ourselves off fossil fuels? Personally I don't care as I think environmental shifts are inevitable. Even if our actions are accelerating such things I think it's better to assume the worst and prepare society for changes that are certain to happen. I feel that environmental projects should be local, where differences can actually be made.

 

 

 

I honestly don't understand the resistance to nuclear energy from supposedly progressive people.

Edited May 26, 2016 by Failure

[sivispacem]

More people die mining coal a year, or of the long-term health impacts of such mining, never mind the consequences of the polution burning it produces, than have been killed by accidents in the entire global history of civil nuclear power.

 

Nearly ten times as many people a year in the UK alone die from the health effects of fossil fuel polution than have been killed by accidents in the entire global history of civil nuclear power.

[am30]

There's plenty of oil around. If there wasn't why would there still be investment in the North Sea and the West of Shetland area of the Atlantic? Simple fact is there are plenty of reserves left. However, all the easy to get stuff has been extracted. What's left is deeper and more costly to obtain.

 

Nuclear power is certainly the way forward however, when it goes wrong it is disastrous. Regardless of all the controls and safety measures, human stupidity and laziness will always remain a problem.

 

And someone mentioned solar power. Come live in Scotland and suggest that!

[Abel.]

Again, you talk about stupidity and laziness but surely this is a factor in other facets of modern life? It's disastrous when planes crash but we don't approach flying with anywhere near as much trepidation because we see it as an essential part of the modern world, which nuclear energy may well be one day.

 

 

I don't understand why everyone seems to think that people running nuclear plants are on par with corrupt inexperienced Soviet authorities or bumbling idiots.

Edited May 26, 2016 by Failure

[am30]

Again, you talk about stupidity and laziness but surely this is a factor in other facets of modern life? It's disastrous when planes crash but we don't approach flying with anywhere near as much trepidation because we see it as an essential part of the modern world, which nuclear energy may well be one day.

 

 

I don't understand why everyone seems to think that people running nuclear plants are on par with corrupt inexperienced Soviet authorities or bumbling idiots.

 

It is a factor in everything. Put it this way, a plane crashes, it kills however many are inside. That's it. The effects of Chernobyl are still being felt 30 years later and will continue to be felt for decades.

 

It doesn't matter which nation or government runs it, bumbling idiots exist everywhere (it's not just the Soviets that have had problems). Some areas are prone to natural disasters - look at Fukushima. Whilst I agree that nuclear power is the way forward, you cannot deny that there is a high risk involved which can never be completely factored out. What you have to accept is that when a nuclear power plant fails, it fails on a massive scale and this is where the danger and public fear understandably comes in.

[TheMcSame]

Again, you talk about stupidity and laziness but surely this is a factor in other facets of modern life? It's disastrous when planes crash but we don't approach flying with anywhere near as much trepidation because we see it as an essential part of the modern world, which nuclear energy may well be one day.

You can't even compare the two...

 

A plane crash might cause problems for a few years, if that.

A nuclear disaster can make an area uninhabitable by humans for many, many millennia...

[sivispacem]

What you have to accept is that when a nuclear power plant fails, it fails on a massive scale and this is where the danger and public fear understandably comes in.

This isn't really true, though. There have been dozens of nuclear accidents that rank at 3 or higher on the International Nuclear Events Scale, but only two of these are even known to the vast majority of people and one of those isn't likely to have a particularly long lasting consequences as the actual release of radioactive material is relatively small and the only reason it ranks so highly on the scale is the addition of multiple events of different scales. The evacuation order was lifted at Fukushima a while ago and people have been able to return home, the only area which remains significantly contaminated is the plant itself.

 

The overwhelming majority of nuclear incidents have a wider impact that's somewhere between nil and negligible. The only nuclear events with long-lasting damage outside of the immediate area (Chernobyl and Kyshtym) have been as a result of catastrophically poor design, and one was right at the beginning of the nuclear age.

[Abel.]

 

Again, you talk about stupidity and laziness but surely this is a factor in other facets of modern life? It's disastrous when planes crash but we don't approach flying with anywhere near as much trepidation because we see it as an essential part of the modern world, which nuclear energy may well be one day.

 

 

I don't understand why everyone seems to think that people running nuclear plants are on par with corrupt inexperienced Soviet authorities or bumbling idiots.

 

It is a factor in everything. Put it this way, a plane crashes, it kills however many are inside. That's it. The effects of Chernobyl are still being felt 30 years later and will continue to be felt for decades.

 

It doesn't matter which nation or government runs it, bumbling idiots exist everywhere (it's not just the Soviets that have had problems). Some areas are prone to natural disasters - look at Fukushima. Whilst I agree that nuclear power is the way forward, you cannot deny that there is a high risk involved which can never be completely factored out. What you have to accept is that when a nuclear power plant fails, it fails on a massive scale and this is where the danger and public fear understandably comes in.

 

 

 

Not really though. When a plant fails, various safety measures could be (and now would be) in place to mitigate the worst scenario. Assuming that every problem is going to be on the level of Chernobyl isn't right. Indeed, Fukushima wasn't and the problems there were largely due to mismanagement.

 

 

Believe me I'm no optimist, but I do feel that we have the experience now to prevent the worst kind of disasters from happening.

 

 

 

I also wasn't trying to compare a nuclear disaster to a plane crash, but they can certainly be mentioned together.

Edited May 26, 2016 by Failure

[Triple Vacuum Seal]

Seriously, building our own fusion reactor is not construction work that can be complete within a year or two, it's going to take a long time, we barely have the tech, and that's before we estimate the size of the reactor and risk of using it.

 

There are already numerous fusion reactors. We don't lack the tech. We lack an informed public and the adequate political support. As a result, the process of making its implementation economically viable has been slow. This solar > nuclear sentiment is sheer fashion. There is no substance to it. Perhaps the lack of the political support is at least indirectly related to the massive profit motive in energy scarcity.

 

 

@am30

The potential extent of damage doesn’t necessarily increase the likelihood of a damaging event taking place. Unsafe nuclear generation comes with risks that can only diminish w/research and acceptance while safe nuclear generation brings increasing returns to the well-being of humanity. An advancement of nuclear research is precisely how we make it safer and move towards fusion. Caution is understandable, but the overall fear factor is disproportionate to the actual risk and is often misplaced. These concerns are better focused on the network security aspect of our critical infrastructure in general. But in terms of physical security and safety procedures, the anti-nuclear fears are misinformed fear mongering at best. Most people imagine some fallible Homer Simpson type in a control room with unilateral access to all plant functions making “one wrong move” and then boom!...Hiroshima. This is clearly not how things work.

 

In fact, despite the amounts of energy generated from fusion, it’s actually safer than the fission process because it requires less fuel and it does not result in a runaway chain reaction when control is lost over the reactor. Fission on the other hand, relies on a reactor SCRAM process that drops control rods into the core to stabilize the reaction.

Edited May 26, 2016 by Triple Vacuum Seal

[MyName'sJeff]

 

One mistake could lead to a disaster

 

I find this to be a very strange attitude. Chernobyl was caused by a great deal of complacency, awful safety measures and all sorts of mismanagement. Alternative forms of energy don't offer anywhere near the capabilities or practicality of nuclear energy.

 

You mention Spiderman 2 jokingly, but I honestly think it's misleading media representations that have soured nuclear energy, the only viable alternative to fossil fuels, in the eyes of environmentalists. There's also the association people have between it and nuclear weapons, but this isn't rational in any way. Issues of waste management can be resolved. What really frustrates me is that the complaints tend to come from people with no scientific or technical background. That's not to say a layman shouldn't voice concerns, especially if nuclear facilities are to be built near them, but understanding the theory of nuclear power production would go a long way to assuaging the fears regarding nuclear energy.

 

 

In any case, as bad as a nuclear disaster would be, how does it compare to the apocalyptic scenario environment people predict if we don't ween ourselves off fossil fuels? Personally I don't care as I think environmental shifts are inevitable. Even if our actions are accelerating such things I think it's better to assume the worst and prepare society for changes that are certain to happen. I feel that environmental projects should be local, where differences can actually be made.

 

 

 

I honestly don't understand the resistance to nuclear energy from supposedly progressive people.

 

I'm not saying nuclear energy isn't going to work nor is it an acceptable method in the future. Eventually, we will have to use it anyway because esaentially what's happening is that power plants will be able to generate constant energy through atoms. Also, I don't need to explain the risks so there's no point acting like you don't care about it just because you think it's unlikely. But for now, it isn't an option till people actually accept the fact that changes need to happen and WILL happen sooner rather than later. Yes, issues of waste management can be resolved if most people actually bothered to do something about it, which unfortunately isn't the case right now and with the attitude around, might not be sorted out any time soon. Which is why solar energy is perfect for the current situation because people don't have to worry about it, although the source of the power is from a burning star millions of miles away from the earth (if not more) and depends on the consistency of the energy actually reaching us, since we cannot actually harness it ourselves. There will be no acopalyptic scenario and there hasn't been any regarding the debate about fending off fossil fuels, it's just been constantly discussed about why it's harmful fiercly because it's necessary for potential changes to happen. If there's no discussion behind this topic, it only makes it incredibly harder for any progress to be made. So the only thing we can do is go through the whole process slowly by researching, and using safer methods in order to make a bigger transition later.