The Future of Oil

[jstack61]

dwijaa - electric can replace diesel with electric vehicles and no exhast and 4 times more efficient. We can make pharma chemicals and plastic with plant based oils and fiber.

I run my home and vehicle on solar and still make extra for the utiltiy and get credit.

It's the 21st century, get up tp speed ...

[lovelplants]

ayus ka bai.. it's really his expertise.. like it..

[potpie921]

excellent!

[thebigfootme]

that is so amazing..very informational

[agapitoflores001]

It really amazes me. It's nice to learn the amount of reserves Earth has.

[mquiroz90]

i dont think oil will be around forever soon we wont need oil and gas

[kraigthorne]

WTF!!! 0:01:28 did he just say that a Uranium is a fossil-fuel? I always though that Uranium (pronounced /jʊˈreɪniəm/ yoo-RAY-nee-əm) a silvery-white metallic chemical element in the actinide series of the periodic table with atomic number 92. It is assigned the chemical symbol U. A uranium atom has 92 protons and 92 electrons, 6 of the latter are valence electrons, but he does have a PhD, so he has to be right.

[llothar68]

@kraigthorne

What he says is that it is not regenerated energy (at least not in any time-span that is relevant for human beings). So yes you can call it a fossile fuel in a very broad term. Fossile fuels is not a scientific term its a political classification.

[kraigthorne]

Fossil fuels or gas fuels are fuels formed by natural resources such as anaerobic decomposition of buried dead organisms. The age of the organisms and their resulting fossil fuels is typically millions of years, and sometimes exceeds 650 million years. These fuels contain a high percentage of carbon and hydrocarbons.

[llothar68]

How can he talk about fortunetellers and forget to mention banksters and brokers?

[SKUNKBALLScom]

Once we run out of oil we can use COAL.

Oh snap, Obama wants to destroy the COAL industry...

[CrazyHorseInvincible]

Combined synthetic fuel production from coal, natural gas, and biomass is equivalent of 240,000 bbls per day. If oil production drops by 1%, that's about 800000 fewer bbls per day produced. Global production of synth fuel would have to more than triple to offset that 1% loss, assuming zero population growth.

[SKUNKBALLScom]

but why let politicians and big government dictate the future of energy when the free market can naturally do it cheaper by whatever means necessary.

What if we spend 5x's 10x's the cost per watt generating green power instead of using natural gas etc.?

We may discover fission or geothermal power in the next 50 years, why should we spend an excess amount of money hampering the US economy on green power in the meantime?

[CrazyHorseInvincible]

I am not a proponent of big government or politicians at all. Nor am I a proponent of delusional "green" power. I know, it's hard to believe, but it is actually possible to see facts and not merely choose a politically constructed reality. The free market, the cheapest and most ideal environment, will NOT deal with this situation by replacing oil with something that doesn't scale. Just accept it, this is going to hurt, and it's going to hurt humanity a hell of a lot even in the best scenario.

[SKUNKBALLScom]

We have these huge energy companies that forecast and prospect sources of energy. I would think they're already getting ready to expand into a new form of energy regardless of the government. Gas to Natural Gas etc..

Also there should be a government agency that researches the amount of energy available in case the SHTF scenario occurs.

Also, auto manufacturers would naturally move to alternative fuel vehicles once they were privy to fact gas is running out. Just so they can keep making money.

[CrazyHorseInvincible]

That "new" form of energy is old fashioned nuclear fission, but that's for keeping the lights on, NOT for producing plastics, petrochemicals (such as medicine), and keeping alive the auto industry.

There is such a government agency. Google the Hirsch Report. It comes from the Department of Energy.

The auto makers would do no such thing. They would ask for more bailouts. It's much cheaper than looking for alternatives, and much more certain.

[SKUNKBALLScom]

I think you and I want the same end result we have different ways of achieving it.

I'm coming from the libertarian / anarchist point of view I suppose, I thought the bailouts were a bad idea, ethanol subsidies were even worse, same with the banks. Failing companies need to fail, we cannot subsidize their inefficiency. All the government intervention was very anti-free market and wouldn't fly in a truly free market. If the Obama/McCain parties would just let GM / Banks die, it could work

[CrazyHorseInvincible]

The bailouts were in line with the auto industry's whole history. They're about the most anti-capitalist "companies" besides the banks. They have so far conned the US government and the governments of countries trying to emulate the US into thinking that a million dollar per mile 99% tax funded highway system is the norm, and that ridiculous zoning restrictions all designed to feed this are somehow necessary for a "free market."

[Theimmortalwhitewolf]

@CrazyHorseInvincible Its possible. Renewable sources,geothermal and hydro power,provide effectively all of Iceland's electricity and around 80% of the nation's total energy, with most of the remainder from imported oil used in transportation and in the fishing fleet. Iceland is in talks to either put quick charge(for electric cars) or hydrogen stations (for full cell cars).

[CrazyHorseInvincible]

@Theimmortalwhitewolf Iceland is unique in its ability to harness geothermal power. Their aluminum smelting facilities make extensive use of hydroelectric power, so they will be able to produce durable alloys for some time after peak oil. Investing in cars of any kind would be a bad investment on their part. It may be possible for them to fish with sailing ships, but it would be much harder to detach from car based transportation. Is the rest of the world in such a good position?

[Theimmortalwhitewolf]

@CrazyHorseInvincible What im getting out every country has some form of renewable energy for the use it will mainly come form wind, solar, and hydro. As for the cars Iceland already makes enough energy that it could make all they hydrogen it needs to power its fleet of vehicles. Iceland still has some 50 TW wort of more renewable energy it could make a year from geo and hydro power. With a push from the government most 1st world countries could meet energy needs through renewables.

[Theimmortalwhitewolf]

@CrazyHorseInvincible As for boats Iceland is researching ways they could place hydrogen cells like in fuel cell cars into the boats. 

[Theimmortalwhitewolf]

@CrazyHorseInvincible Several countries do make a sizable amount of their energy from renewable.

Austria currently produces 62.89% of their needed electricity from renewables.

Denmark produces ~19-20% of its electricity .

New Zealand produces 71% of its electricity.

Norway produces ~99.5% of its power from renewables.

As of 2009 Spain's renewable energy level was 12.5%.

2007 Germany had 14%

~ 7% of China's energy was from renewable sources in '06, rise to 10% by '10 then to 16% by '20.

[CrazyHorseInvincible]

@Theimmortalwhitewolf We have the tools to survive, but do we have the mentality?

Our mental model of what makes for a good standard of living is still corrupted by no-value-added activities and a pathological living arrangement. We're still deluding ourselves that we can maintain the "privilege" of spending an hour in traffic every day to work, and landscapes built around this "privilege."

[Theimmortalwhitewolf]

@CrazyHorseInvincible For most European countries their life style can be maintained through the use of renewable energy. As for the traffic problem that has to do with they’re not being the funding needed to update and upgrade the current highway system to handle the new load on it. Also if public transportation could be improved to the level of many foreign cities then we wouldn't have a problem with transportation. I agree changes will have to be made, but most things will stay the same.

[dwijaa]

Because my brother, according to IPCC there may be no 'economy' to hamper, if we continue to ravage Mother Nature by indiscriminate fossil fuel use and misuse. The billions of dollars spent on the Central Command, the Africa Command and a plethora of such unified commands, created solely for energy geopolitics is the real "excess" undermining the US economy. I% of the Earth's land area covered by photovoltaic plates, would suffice to supplant the entire current global electricity consumption.

[apex02001]

@dwijaa

Hey dummy, electricity doesn't suffice for fertilizer which makes our food crops crow fastest. Electricity doesn't suffice for diesel which provides the torque needed in agriculture equipment. Electricity doesn't suffice for the tar in our our highways. Electricity doesn't suffice for pharmaceuticals, cosmetics, paints, plastics and everything in between. Oil isn't JUST for fuel but fort everything else in our modern lives. BTW oil isn't used for generating electricity.

[teleporttours1]

When will we get to peak SUN, Peak Wind, or Peak Hydro?

[Mikannika]

You didn't get the point...

[teleporttours1]

The Answer is A. Never for Sun, B. At max capacity we wouldn't need any other renewable. C. We pretty much have used all the large scale hydro.

[llothar68]

You forget answer D. When we run out of metals. Remember that you need rare earth metals for magnets in turbines and even 60% of the world reserves for copper is used up. This should ring more then one alarm clock

[Theimmortalwhitewolf]

@llothar68 FAIL. More than 95% of all copper ever mined and smelted has been extracted since 1900. The total amount of copper on Earth is vast (around 10^14 tons just in the top kilometer of Earth's crust, or ~5 million years worth at the current rate of extraction). However, only a tiny fraction of these reserves is economically viable, given present-day prices and tech. Estimates of existing copper reserves available for mining vary from 25- 60 years, depending assumptions such as growth rate.

[llothar68]

@Theimmortalwhitewolf

Or in percentage (to make it more obvious) almost 75% of all economically viable cooper is already wasted and now distributed in tiny non recyclable quantities in the trash dumps.

[Theimmortalwhitewolf]

@llothar68 Wasted what in the world are you talking about? Copper is 100% recyclable without any loss of quality whether in a raw state or contained in a manufactured product. Copper is the third most recycled metal after iron and aluminium. It is estimated that 80% of the copper ever mined is still in use today.

Plus i said at today's prices and tech. As the amount mined decreases, the price per ton increases those making more reserves that were once not economical, economical

[Theimmortalwhitewolf]

@teleporttours1 We have there are still a lot of area around the such as iceland for example is estimated to have 30 TW of extra hydropower that could be produced every year, whilst taking into account the sources that must remain untapped for environmental reasons. The average American home uses~2KWh =2*10^3 if they could use all 30TW a year that would be 2.884 GW a hour =2.884*10^9 which could power 1.442*10^6=1,442,000 homes in the USA and that just Iceland there still more hydro power.

[berkeley73]

Excellent, informative talk. Thanks.

59:34 censored? :)