@christo930 Excellent. Now can they just hurry up and find a way to get more energy out of it than they put in and make it commercially viable so we won't be stuck in perpetual pre-industrial splendor for the next three thousand years.
I have a question, is EROEI proportional to money received over money invested, providing prices aren't fiddled? If we would eventually be drilling at an energy loss, would we also be drilling at a constant financial loss too? Would any oil companies be altruistic enough to intentionally sink into debt to keep world oil moving? Or would they start charging ridiculous amounts of money that nobody can afford?
Another question: would a big oil field which works at a financial loss be irrelevant?
@Standuble You can drill oil at negative EROEI as long as the input energy isn't oil and doesn't cost more than the oil. For example, we could build a solar thermal plant near shale and use the heat or electricity produced by the solar plant to pump oil at a net energy loss. Remember, not all forms of energy are equal. Peak oil is a liquid fuels problem.
@christo930 Unless you're using fusion, that's a heck of a lot of renewable power plants across the world being used to extract oil to keep up with demand. Besides, fusion can't replace oil unless fusion energy can on its own be formed into plastics, petro-chemical fertilisers, asphalt and vehicle fuels without relying on oil which is a criticl component in all of these.
@Standuble Sure it can, for one, the hydrogen economy becomes possible with fusion because with low cost electricity, we can made our own hydrogen, we can also make liquid ammonia for running automobiles and we can pump and process oil at a net energy loss for things like plastics and other petrochemicals.
I want someone to explain to me why we can't build windmills, nuclear, hydrothermal etc next to an oil field and pump the oil at an energy loss? If there is an excess of electricity, you can use it to pump oil from the ground at an energy loss. Peak oil IS a LIQUID fuel problem. We are also dismissing the price system. As the price of oil rises, less efficient uses of oil cease! It's not going to cut across all uses evenly because the price system will force bad use out of the system.
There may be all kinds of effects, and some different types may be more isolated than wide-spread. We aren't sure specifically because we can't know all of the future variables that will come into account, not to mention that this is a global problem.
Then again, I'm not well versed enough to specifically deconstruct your comment. I'm just aware of the issue. So, that's just my opinion.
@VarmitC Thanks. I do accept peak oil and I think we actually peaked a few years ago (conventional oil, not all liquids). I used to worry about it a great deal but when I started to realize that the pricing system would really, really help and that there was no reason that we can't pump oil at an energy loss, so long as the input energy isn't oil, it helped my a great deal. The one inescapable fact is that unless an alternative SOURCE of energy is found, we will eventually be less wealthy.
@christo930 LOL. Oil cannot be replaced by even a combination of other energy sources. It's that simple. The numbers don't lie. If you'd like me to cite and explain my answer, I will. But the base facts are that we simply use too much of everything.
@Gumbi1012 Fusion would be a total game changer, even certain types of fission would do a great deal. We can eliminate a lot of the oil we use for heating with electricity. We can also accept that we are going to be driving less, a lot less.
@christo930 Fusion isn't likely to be possible for another 30 to 40 years. More for it be commercially available. Not to mention the possibility of some country holding it to ransom, potentially starting a world war. I don't see the logic in us driving a lot less if we have fusion...
@Gumbi1012 Fusion isn't 30-40 years away, it's a technological or engineering feat away, which could be next week or never or anywhere in-between. Fusion, even dirt cheap fusion doesn't necessarily mean we will be driving as much.
so if the world peaks before we take any real action for reducing oil dependency ,the society will brake down ,think about it 3 times lower in 30 years personal transportation ,cars acount for ~30% of the oil use the rest is comercial transports chemicals energy ,in 10 years you can't have all car sales to be electric ,you can't go from power from oil to a lot more power from renwabal sources etc ,once the peak with no action taken before were doomed i mean the litle people not the rich .
Most oil producing countries in the world are past their peak oil point including the U.S. (1971). I'm not sure what the debate is about unless you don't understand how subsidized our lives are by oil and Chindia wants to live like us.....
@MrEnergyCzar Chindia doesn't want to live like you (americans), at least at this moment. China has about 3billion US dollars in its banks, it's their savings. They produce more richness than they spend... they are the SMART ones (i'm not chineese, not even asian!!!) They are waiting the right time to take over the strongest economies in the world which are falling quite fast, i'd say!
@MrEnergyCzar man that's true i don't know real true informations about other countries oil production ,for my country Romania was one of the first countries to start using oil productin peaked in 1976 , at that time we were exporting more than half of the production ,now in 2010 the production is 3 times lower and we are importing 35-40% of the oil so once the peak is reached the production decline is very fast 3 times in 30 years .
This is what's called a clusterfuck, because global warming will become reality as well, then there will be even more rapid dieoff's because not only will there be food shortages, but water shortage in places with little water now, and major floods in places with lots of water now.
New alternatives need to be constructed within the next 20 years, because just about everything uses oil - the new infrastructure needed, the transportation of materials for it etc.
Not, it exists. On Wikipedia's page for Hubbert's Peak there are some graphs testing actual values of oil production against predicitons made by Hubbert's methods. They're a very [very, very, very] close match. If you're looking for accurate predictions, Nostradamus hasn't got shit on this.
@VarmitC Peak oil doesn't exist, because as drilling for standard oil becomes more pricey, drilling for the harder to process oils will become more viable. Plus there's still the arctic and who knows what's under Antarctica?
We just need to stave off lack of oil until we can master either fusion or some other more efficient means of energy.
@jreed136 Reputable sources of information show neither the Arctic nor Antarctic have the 6 Saudi Arabias of oil reserves we need to increase production. In the past decades, over 20 exploratory wells were drilled to find oil in the Arctic. All were dry. Oil discovery peaked in the 1960's. We used more oil than we found since the 1980's. The EXPENSIVE oil you hope for does not exist.
Yes, we can conserve; however, hundreds of millions in China still want to buy oil powered vehicles.
@jreed136 Shale oil is a rock called kerogen. Oil sand is a rock called bitumen. Both need to be processed to be turned into it can be burned in an internal combustion engine which is very expensive.
Oil sands use half the water from the Athabasca River and half the natural gas of all of Canada to produce about a million barrels per day in a strip mining operation. Canada reject plans to build 10 nuke plants for the in situ processing to scale up. Shale is a research project, not an oil source.
Peak oil isn't simply just about what can be recovered, it's about what can be recovered cost effectively and about how much Oil can be recovered at all. And Antartica would have to produce the mother of all oil fields to postpone Hubert's peak for more than a decade or so.
@VarmitC Good video and good for you for standing up to the deniers.
I am working my butt off (unpaid!) on the mathematics (differential equations) which will be necessary for nanotechnology and making wind, solar, wave power more efficient and storable. But, I cannot fight stupidity alone. I cannot fight overpopulation-deniers & AGW-deniers & anti-Socialists alone. Only a well-trained gov't army can do that.
This kind of stuff needs far more public attention. A lot of people just "don't bother" with it nowadays, especially here in the UK with the recession - they want cheap, not eco-friendly :(
People will deny for a long time before even going through the other three stages of grief that precede acceptance, which is what we'd need on a major scale in order for these issues to be seriously addressed.
@christo930 Excellent. Now can they just hurry up and find a way to get more energy out of it than they put in and make it commercially viable so we won't be stuck in perpetual pre-industrial splendor for the next three thousand years.
Standuble 3 days ago
I have a question, is EROEI proportional to money received over money invested, providing prices aren't fiddled? If we would eventually be drilling at an energy loss, would we also be drilling at a constant financial loss too? Would any oil companies be altruistic enough to intentionally sink into debt to keep world oil moving? Or would they start charging ridiculous amounts of money that nobody can afford?
Another question: would a big oil field which works at a financial loss be irrelevant?
Standuble 8 months ago
@Standuble You can drill oil at negative EROEI as long as the input energy isn't oil and doesn't cost more than the oil. For example, we could build a solar thermal plant near shale and use the heat or electricity produced by the solar plant to pump oil at a net energy loss. Remember, not all forms of energy are equal. Peak oil is a liquid fuels problem.
christo930 1 week ago
@christo930 Unless you're using fusion, that's a heck of a lot of renewable power plants across the world being used to extract oil to keep up with demand. Besides, fusion can't replace oil unless fusion energy can on its own be formed into plastics, petro-chemical fertilisers, asphalt and vehicle fuels without relying on oil which is a criticl component in all of these.
Standuble 1 week ago
@Standuble Sure it can, for one, the hydrogen economy becomes possible with fusion because with low cost electricity, we can made our own hydrogen, we can also make liquid ammonia for running automobiles and we can pump and process oil at a net energy loss for things like plastics and other petrochemicals.
christo930 3 days ago
I want someone to explain to me why we can't build windmills, nuclear, hydrothermal etc next to an oil field and pump the oil at an energy loss? If there is an excess of electricity, you can use it to pump oil from the ground at an energy loss. Peak oil IS a LIQUID fuel problem. We are also dismissing the price system. As the price of oil rises, less efficient uses of oil cease! It's not going to cut across all uses evenly because the price system will force bad use out of the system.
christo930 10 months ago
There may be all kinds of effects, and some different types may be more isolated than wide-spread. We aren't sure specifically because we can't know all of the future variables that will come into account, not to mention that this is a global problem.
Then again, I'm not well versed enough to specifically deconstruct your comment. I'm just aware of the issue. So, that's just my opinion.
VarmitC 10 months ago
@VarmitC Thanks. I do accept peak oil and I think we actually peaked a few years ago (conventional oil, not all liquids). I used to worry about it a great deal but when I started to realize that the pricing system would really, really help and that there was no reason that we can't pump oil at an energy loss, so long as the input energy isn't oil, it helped my a great deal. The one inescapable fact is that unless an alternative SOURCE of energy is found, we will eventually be less wealthy.
christo930 10 months ago
@christo930 LOL. Oil cannot be replaced by even a combination of other energy sources. It's that simple. The numbers don't lie. If you'd like me to cite and explain my answer, I will. But the base facts are that we simply use too much of everything.
Gumbi1012 1 week ago
@Gumbi1012 Fusion would be a total game changer, even certain types of fission would do a great deal. We can eliminate a lot of the oil we use for heating with electricity. We can also accept that we are going to be driving less, a lot less.
christo930 1 week ago
@christo930 Fusion isn't likely to be possible for another 30 to 40 years. More for it be commercially available. Not to mention the possibility of some country holding it to ransom, potentially starting a world war. I don't see the logic in us driving a lot less if we have fusion...
Gumbi1012 1 week ago
@Gumbi1012 Fusion isn't 30-40 years away, it's a technological or engineering feat away, which could be next week or never or anywhere in-between. Fusion, even dirt cheap fusion doesn't necessarily mean we will be driving as much.
christo930 1 week ago
I predict that we hit peak oil 4 years ago
NeuterSkooter 1 year ago
I concur. ^^
VarmitC 1 year ago
@NeuterSkooter I agree
raymondo900 1 year ago
Was that Alan Alda narrating the algae section?
firstaidtogo 1 year ago
so if the world peaks before we take any real action for reducing oil dependency ,the society will brake down ,think about it 3 times lower in 30 years personal transportation ,cars acount for ~30% of the oil use the rest is comercial transports chemicals energy ,in 10 years you can't have all car sales to be electric ,you can't go from power from oil to a lot more power from renwabal sources etc ,once the peak with no action taken before were doomed i mean the litle people not the rich .
iooo007 1 year ago
It looks as though we've passed peak, if you trust the military estimates of when the production decline should start at the tail end of 2012.
VarmitC 1 year ago
Most oil producing countries in the world are past their peak oil point including the U.S. (1971). I'm not sure what the debate is about unless you don't understand how subsidized our lives are by oil and Chindia wants to live like us.....
MrEnergyCzar 1 year ago
I agree. There is no debate.
VarmitC 1 year ago
@MrEnergyCzar Chindia doesn't want to live like you (americans), at least at this moment. China has about 3billion US dollars in its banks, it's their savings. They produce more richness than they spend... they are the SMART ones (i'm not chineese, not even asian!!!) They are waiting the right time to take over the strongest economies in the world which are falling quite fast, i'd say!
antnfedak 1 year ago
@MrEnergyCzar man that's true i don't know real true informations about other countries oil production ,for my country Romania was one of the first countries to start using oil productin peaked in 1976 , at that time we were exporting more than half of the production ,now in 2010 the production is 3 times lower and we are importing 35-40% of the oil so once the peak is reached the production decline is very fast 3 times in 30 years .
iooo007 1 year ago
You know what gets me about this? They would have to know how much oil is in the ground to know if we're gonna peak or not.
cjjaxxon 1 year ago
@cjjaxxon My friend is a geologist and he told me they have pretty much searched the entire globe everywhere and there is not much oil left anywhere.
rupertmja1 1 year ago
3:34 Who the hell dug up Rasputin to get his views on Peak Oil?
chuckyko 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Biofuels are so bad!
mickeymoo26 1 year ago
This is what's called a clusterfuck, because global warming will become reality as well, then there will be even more rapid dieoff's because not only will there be food shortages, but water shortage in places with little water now, and major floods in places with lots of water now.
New alternatives need to be constructed within the next 20 years, because just about everything uses oil - the new infrastructure needed, the transportation of materials for it etc.
Tirius9393 1 year ago
Dont forget hemp biofuel, food AND fuel
LiquidRio 1 year ago
So maybe peak oil for CHEAP oil exists, but not for oil itself.
jreed136 1 year ago
@jreed136
Not, it exists. On Wikipedia's page for Hubbert's Peak there are some graphs testing actual values of oil production against predicitons made by Hubbert's methods. They're a very [very, very, very] close match. If you're looking for accurate predictions, Nostradamus hasn't got shit on this.
WSWarthog 1 year ago
Peak oil doesn't exist.
jreed136 1 year ago
That being your claim, please provide debunking information for the evidence included on my channel.
VarmitC 1 year ago
@VarmitC Peak oil doesn't exist, because as drilling for standard oil becomes more pricey, drilling for the harder to process oils will become more viable. Plus there's still the arctic and who knows what's under Antarctica?
We just need to stave off lack of oil until we can master either fusion or some other more efficient means of energy.
jreed136 1 year ago
@jreed136 Reputable sources of information show neither the Arctic nor Antarctic have the 6 Saudi Arabias of oil reserves we need to increase production. In the past decades, over 20 exploratory wells were drilled to find oil in the Arctic. All were dry. Oil discovery peaked in the 1960's. We used more oil than we found since the 1980's. The EXPENSIVE oil you hope for does not exist.
Yes, we can conserve; however, hundreds of millions in China still want to buy oil powered vehicles.
mollytherealdeal 1 year ago
@mollytherealdeal Really? Shale oil and the oil sands in Canada don't exist?
jreed136 1 year ago
@jreed136 Shale oil is a rock called kerogen. Oil sand is a rock called bitumen. Both need to be processed to be turned into it can be burned in an internal combustion engine which is very expensive.
Oil sands use half the water from the Athabasca River and half the natural gas of all of Canada to produce about a million barrels per day in a strip mining operation. Canada reject plans to build 10 nuke plants for the in situ processing to scale up. Shale is a research project, not an oil source.
mollytherealdeal 1 year ago
None of that debunks the fact that peak oil exists, but are *potential* reasons for why we should worry *less*.
VarmitC 1 year ago 4
@jreed136
Peak oil isn't simply just about what can be recovered, it's about what can be recovered cost effectively and about how much Oil can be recovered at all. And Antartica would have to produce the mother of all oil fields to postpone Hubert's peak for more than a decade or so.
WSWarthog 1 year ago
Thank you. Again, it's math. It's simple. ^^
VarmitC 1 year ago
@VarmitC Good video and good for you for standing up to the deniers.
I am working my butt off (unpaid!) on the mathematics (differential equations) which will be necessary for nanotechnology and making wind, solar, wave power more efficient and storable. But, I cannot fight stupidity alone. I cannot fight overpopulation-deniers & AGW-deniers & anti-Socialists alone. Only a well-trained gov't army can do that.
deskset24 1 year ago
@VarmitC "It's math." That's exactly why anti-environmentalists cannot comprehend it.
deskset24 1 year ago
This kind of stuff needs far more public attention. A lot of people just "don't bother" with it nowadays, especially here in the UK with the recession - they want cheap, not eco-friendly :(
thespeedingcookie 1 year ago
People will deny for a long time before even going through the other three stages of grief that precede acceptance, which is what we'd need on a major scale in order for these issues to be seriously addressed.
VarmitC 1 year ago