Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Ask Slashdot: What If We Don't Run Out of Oil?

Posted by Soulskill on from the humvees-for-everyone dept.

symbolset writes "The Atlantic recently ran an in-depth article about energy resources. The premise is that there remain incalculable and little-understood carbon fuel assets which far outweigh all the fossil fuels ever discovered. The article lists them and discusses their potentials and consequences, both fiscal and environmental. 'The clash occurs when renewables are ready for prime time—and natural gas is still hanging around like an old and dirty but reliable car, still cheap to produce and use, after shale fracking is replaced globally by undersea mining of methane hydrate. Revamping the electrical grid from conventionals like coal and oil to accommodate unconventionals like natural gas and solar power will be enormously difficult, economically and technically.' Along these lines, yesterday the U.S. Geological Survey more than doubled their estimate of Bakken shale oil reserve in North Dakota and Montana to 7.4-11 billion barrels. Part of the push for renewables over the past few decades was the idea that old methods just weren't going to last. What happens to that push if fossil fuels remain plentiful?"

4 of 663 comments (clear)

  1. We Wish by Cornwallis · · Score: 5, Informative

    Suggest you read this:

    http://kunstler.com/blog/2013/04/we-wish.html

    1. Re:We Wish by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      The evidence is overwhelming. Burning fossil fuels reintroduces carbon that has been out of the carbon cycle for millions of years. If we were burning corncobs there wouldn't be a problem because that carbon is part of the active carbon cycle, but instead we're releasing buried carbon back into the air that hasn't been active carbon since the earth's dinosaur-greenhouse days.

      We have "plenty of oil" in the same way Social Security is fully funded and solvent... for about 30 years. The emphasis in the statement is on the "we" part, because you and I have plenty of oil but our grandkids are pretty much fucked. Claiming there is plenty of oil is the classic "fuck you, I got mine" mentality in action.

    2. Re:We Wish by thoth · · Score: 5, Informative

      Whoever modded parent insightful can't do math either.

      The irony is delicious...

      11 Billion barrels is 11,000 Million. 11,000 Million / 19 Million per Month = 579 Months = 48 Years

      You somehow translated 19 million barrels per day into 19 million barrels per month. So you are the one off by a factor of 30.

      579 months / 30 = ~19 months, right around what the GP said.

      And, a quick google seems to confirm these numbers (~19 million barrels per day): http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=33&t=6

    3. Re:We Wish by BasilBrush · · Score: 5, Informative

      Hubbert came up with the peak oil hypothesis.

      You are incorrect.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubbert_peak_theory

      It's not a theory until he demonstrates the hypothesis predicts something. He didn't. I know, I know. Hubbert predicted peak oil in the U.S. putting the date of peak oil as 1972 and lo! U.S. oil output peaked in 1972. Of course Hubbert didn't predict any such thing. He got lucky.

      He also got lucky more than 50 more times as subsequent countries also passed peak oil.

      Feel free to reveal the means by which you've nailed down the quantity of oil that amounts to 100%.

      I already did. Question asked and answered elsewhere on the thread.