Slashdot Mirror


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

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?"

29 of 663 comments (clear)

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

      Environmentalists are not saying we're running out of oil. "Peak Oil" does not mean the end of oil. Indeed it's believed to happen when around half the oil has been extracted, and half is still in the ground. The reason production goes down is because the remaining oil gets more and more difficult to extract. Costly both financially and in terms of energy. And if it cost > 1 joule of energy to extract oil that gives 1 joule, it's not worth it.

      Note that the first 50% of oil was mostly consumed in a century. Because of increased consumption, even if the second 50% were easy to extract, it wouldn't last a century.

      Environmentalists ARE saying that oil is polluting, both in terms of traditional pollutants, and releasing green house gasses. And if we have to switch to renewables anyway, why not do it as soon as possible.

    2. 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.

    3. Re:We Wish by FooAtWFU · · Score: 5, Insightful

      And if we have to switch to renewables anyway, why not do it as soon as possible.

      This question is easier to ask when you're making well-above-average computer-programmer-level salaries and quadrupling the price of electricity and fuel (or something) and the various manufactured things which depend on that price isn't going to really ding your lifestyle. But given the number of people in this world who make a trivial fraction of that, it gets more complicated.

      --
      The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.
    4. Re:We Wish by Albanach · · Score: 5, Insightful

      even though the evidence now points to there being plenty of oil?

      So let's say we take the high end estimate. 11 billion barrels of shale oil available.

      Current US oil consumption runs around 19 million barrels per day. You just discovered enough oil to last the United States for twenty months.

      I guess you might be correct, for very small values of plenty.

    5. Re:We Wish by Narcogen · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The reason why not is obvious. Oil companies have their place in the markets, their sunk costs invested in equipment, technology, business processes, and distribution networks. Their interest is not in getting off oil as soon as it is possible, or practical. It is to stave off that transition as long as possible, to make sure that extracting and refining oil remains profitable right up until the last possible drop that can be produced and consumed is produced and consumed.

      Presumably at some point, if they want to remain in the energy business, they will themselves convert to something else so that when there is no more oil that can be practically and profitably produced, they will remain in the market by diversifying.

      So there's the time when environmentalists say we should transition (now) and the time when oil companies say we should transition (when oil is no longer profitable, when they say so) and what actually happens will fall somewhere in the middle, very likely much closer to the latter than the former, because when it comes to resolving conflicts of interest between the energy sector and interests of ordinary citizens, most Western governments have a pretty terrible track record.

    6. Re:We Wish by jellomizer · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I wish we could differentiated environmentalist from the scientists and the raving hippy nuts.

      Every choice has a trade off. We need to diversify our energy sources vs finding the magic bullet of perfect energy that just doesn't exist.

      Fossil Fuels offer a good energy per unit ratio, they can be transported, and stored. They can be used in small affordable machines, and it is rather cheap. The down side is when spent it produces harmful gases, and creates increases global warming.

      Nuclear Energy can offer a lot of energy, raw material can be transported and stored, its output doesn't create toxic gasses. However, it does create radioactive waste that is hard to manage, and energy needs to be processed at large power plants.

      Hydroelectric (They don't talk about this much, I am not sure why), Good source of energy, clean (assuming you don't kill too many fish). However you will need power plants, and an infrastructure to send energy, and you need to build it around water sources, not portable. (the best location is also what people would say is prime vacation areas and dosn't want the nature in that area to be spoiled with a large building. ...

      You start seeing the point. What ever energy we choose to use will have its good side and bad side. The trick is to get the right balance, and improve efficiencies where possible.

      Do we put solar panels on our homes, and have a smaller natural gas or nuclear plant to cover the rest?
      Can we make more efficient cars such as hybrids, or plugin electric with gas backup? Can you do this with more powerful cars/trucks people want?

      Could we have a small generator in a creak powering a few local home?

      They are a lot of options. The trick is to get the right balance.
       

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    7. Re:We Wish by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      And if we have to switch to renewables anyway, why not do it as soon as possible.

      This question is easier to ask when you're making well-above-average computer-programmer-level salaries and quadrupling the price of electricity and fuel (or something) and the various manufactured things which depend on that price isn't going to really ding your lifestyle. But given the number of people in this world who make a trivial fraction of that, it gets more complicated.

      That sounds a lot like figuring the cost of something based solely on what you paid at the cash register.

      How about this, instead? We invest in alternative energy technologies R&D now? Then when (or if, if you prefer) the cost of oil-based energy becomes prohibitive, we'll be prepared, instead of waiting until the last moment and running around like the denizens of Tokyo when Godzilla comes to town? We'll have already learned the expensive mistakes and false starts, and be able to more efficiently deploy the most cost-effective alternatives when we need them.

      I realize that there is a large segment of the population that screams we're absolutely utterly helpless whenever a problem comes up that cannot be solved by invading and pillaging, but I have a little bit more faith in both Nature and the human race. If we just take some responsibility and do something instead of waiting around quivering until the oil taps run dry, we just might achieve something worthwhile.

      We always seem to be able to find the money to fund wars, so I don't buy into the idea that we cannot afford to provide for our own future. What's the point of winning the wars if the country is destroyed by its own negligence?

    8. Re:We Wish by BasilBrush · · Score: 5, Insightful

      and quadrupling the price of electricity and fuel (or something)

      Or something? You're making an argument when you don't even know? Check out green energy tariffs. They are a bit more expensive than ordinary ones. But not 4 times, that would be ridiculous.

      But that's by the by. Fossil fuels are not a repeatable bargain. The human race can extract them once every several million years. What makes you think that you saving a bit of money is justification for using up all of a particular resource, and polluting the place in the process? Why do you deserve it more than your grandchildren, great grandchildren and so on.

      Remember, oil isn't just for energy. It's a raw material for manufacturing most products too. Do you really think it's wise to burn it off in the next generation, leaving nothing left for the thousands of generations to come?

    9. Re:We Wish by BasilBrush · · Score: 4, Informative

      Except that it wasn't. We keep finding more and more, and that 50% keeps going down and down...

      Hubbert came up with peak oil theory, and he based it on the finite oil in the ground, not the vaguaries of oil that we happen to know about at any one point in time.

      Hubbert was a geologist working for an oil company. The fact that new discoveries come along, but at an ever slowing pace, was hardly something he wasn't aware of, and isn't a flaw in the theory.

      The 50% is "50% of oil in the ground", not "50% of oil that we've discovered". The 100% doesn't move, other than at the pace of geological time frames.

    10. 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

    11. Re:We Wish by Thruen · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The problem with using cost as a major argument against renewable energy sources is that the price of gas has skyrocketed in the last decade. The price this year is close to three times what it was when I started driving (about 12 years ago, bigger difference for older folks I'm sure) and I don't see anything to suggest the price won't continue to go up. This is in contrast to renewable energy which, while still far more expensive than fossil fuels, are decreasing in price. So while the easy thing to say is renewable energy is too expensive, the facts actually suggest that in another decade or two it'll be the other way around even if we don't increase our efforts in studying renewable energy. I don't believe we can magically switch tomorrow, I do believe we need to start taking a switch seriously now though and begin what will be a long, slow transition period. It's going to cost more in the short term, but it'll be cheaper long term.

    12. Re:We Wish by AttillaTheNun · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Not to mention a massive waste of opportunity to use what cheap reserves are left more appropriately, i.e., as a stepping stone to more sustainable energy sources.

    13. Re:We Wish by FooAtWFU · · Score: 4, Insightful

      How about this, instead? We invest in alternative energy technologies R&D now?

      If you're going to use the word "invest", let's talk investment and ask the tough questions, see if we can come up with some good answers. What is the return on this investment? Is it financial, or non-financial? Are the returns earned by the owner of the investment or by third parties? Who is qualified to estimate the size of these returns in an unbiased manner? (If non-financial returns are being earned by the third parties, it may be better understood as an exercise in philanthropy than in investment.) What is the opportunity cost of this investment: are there other investments which could make a non-philanthropic investor more money, or, if we're operating in the realm of philanthropy, are there other worthier philanthropic endeavors with larger and more immediate returns that we ought to be investing in, instead of this? (There are a lot of candidate investments in the class of "get clean water to $african_village".)

      By "let's invest" do you primarily mean "let's have the government levy taxes and attempt to make this happen"? What sort of incentives are in place to make sure that the "investment" actually is done wisely, rather than becoming an exercise in corporate leeches clamoring for government funds but producing nothing of value? Or even just bankruptcy a la Solyndra? (There's room enough for criticism about where the money gets to when the government "always seem[s] to be able to find money to fund wars", and wars are relatively easy to measure results on.) What is the real price of this investment to taxpayers, in terms of taxes or debt and debt-service (and the effects of debt like the government calls "crowding out"?) And if "we always seem to be able to find the money to fund wars", what about the ~50% increase in US government spending combined with ~0% increase in government revenues since 2007, and the commensurate increase in the annual deficit to ~50% of revenues? That's easily more spending than the Iraq and Afghanistan wars combined; should we roll some of the new programs back in order to pay for this proposed investment? How do you sell the policy changes to people as politically active entities, especially if they will suffer material setbacks (taxes or higher energy costs)? Even if they're willing to suffer setbacks in theory, do the people trust these investments to actually deliver meaningful value of some sort?

      Not that all these questions are unanswerable. But let's not kid ourselves into thinking it's easy.

      --
      The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.
    14. 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.

    15. Re:We Wish by microbox · · Score: 4, Insightful

      What is the return on this investment?

      Jobs, future markets, less pollution, energy security, advancement of science

      Is it financial, or non-financial?

      Yes and yes.

      Are the returns earned by the owner of the investment or by third parties?

      Yes and yes.

      Who is qualified to estimate the size of these returns in an unbiased manner?

      Banks, actuaries, scientists

      What is the opportunity cost of this investment

      The influence of existing interests (Koch/Exxon, etc.) will wane.
      Electricity usage will come down (see the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, which covers 20% of the US economy, which grew relative to the rest of the US economy) giving factories a competitive advantage.
      New economies will grow -- a small portion of Exxon's profits gets injected directly into the local economy creating jobs that improve energy efficiency in industry and housing.

      It's really a non-brainer, and there is empirical proof that these are the effects, because other parts of the world (and the US) have already started trying these thing.


      I found this amusing:

      "let's have the government levy taxes and attempt to make this happen"

      Conservatives harp on about incentive structures, so, to adopt a neo-liberal (market fundamentalist) approach to solving GHG emissions, let's tax what we don't want (carbon), and let the market sort out the rest. Heck, we can reduce taxes on what we do want (labour/entrepreneurship).

      You want to talk opportunity cost? Do you want more carbon in the atmosphere and higher taxes on labour, or less carbon in the atmosphere and lower taxes on labour?

      I could go on about Solyndra, but I think that's enough for now. Just look further into the program that funded Solyndra and ask yourself home much money was wasted/earned in *totality*, and how that compares to typical venture capitalism.

      --

      Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
    16. Re:We Wish by mlts · · Score: 4, Informative

      There are other gains as well. There is loss of voltage through long distance power lines, so 5KW of electricity coming from solar/batteries is a lot less than what is needed to be pushed from a substation to a house, through a number of step-up and step-down transformers in order to overcome the resistance in the wires. This is something that isn't thought of -- someone might think $5 in solar may not recoup $5 in energy, but realistically, it saves far more electricity.

      Solar is constantly improving. Supercap batteries can be used as a front-end (fast charging, lower energy density) for the regular ones, to allow charging to continue even after there is no usable sunlight, as well as take advantage of peaks (cloud edge effects) that a normal charger wouldn't be able to use.

      This doesn't say that even distinct solar panels have to be used. There are roofing shingles that might make less wattage, but make up for it by no need to install brackets and such.

      Solar does have its detractors. When RV-ing, solar is a must have for anyone who decides to do camping that isn't at a full hookup resort. However, outside of the RV world, there are always people who complain that the energy it takes to make a complete solar panel (frame, cells, wires, etc.) are far more than the panel will ever generate in its usable lifetime. It is hard to change that attitude.

      I agree with the above, perhaps even tossing a bone to the gas/coal industries with a subsidy, so they can produce less, but not dent their bottom line. In the long run, it would be a win/win for everyone involved.

      I wish there were some way to convert natural gas into propane. Propane has a lot of nice qualities as a fuel, from being able to be stored as a liquid (which means it approaches gasoline for energy density), to not being a greenhouse gas, to being extremely useful as a refrigerant (R-290.) A vehicle with a propane tank would have almost as much range as a normal gasoline vehicle. To boot, if propane spills on the ground, it goes downhill and disperses, and doesn't make a mini-Superfund site like gasoline does.

    17. Re:We Wish by lgw · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Gas is cheaper in inflation-adjusted dollars than when I started paying attention to it. Commodity prices are cyclical. Fearing that they will go to infinity because you've only experienced on upswing is just like fearing the oceans will all boil during the first Summer of your life.

      If solar ever does become cheaper than natural gas (and eventually it will), everyone will switch then. Trying to force other people to consume some product that you think is cool is about being a control freak, plain and simple.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    18. Re:We Wish by Maury+Markowitz · · Score: 4, Informative

      "The US Department of Energy estimates that a new photovoltaic power plant entering service in 2017 will runs about $157/MWh in total levelized system costs (in 2010 dollar terms)."

      Ahh, the famous DOE report. The numbers in question were from the 2008 time frame. Prices since then have fallen 4-fold.

      I bought my SolarWorld 230W panels in 2010 for $2.30 a watt. Today I can buy 270W versions for $1 a watt. I can get Chinese A-brands, like Trina, for about $0.75.

      The price of power from PV is directly related to system cost and pretty much nothing else. Total installed costs have fallen from about $8 a watt to about $3 a watt. Factor that in, and the fact that the numbers in the DoE report are from even earlier, and you're looking at a 4 to 5-fold decrease in system prices.

      When you factor that in, power from PV is about 12 to 25 cents, which is *extremely* competitive with other peaking sources like NG.

  2. We will by AmiMoJo · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Oil is a finite resource, it will inevitably run out eventually. In the meantime it is getting harder to get out of the ground and tends to involve us with countries we would rather not be too closely involved with.

    --
    const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
    SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    1. Re:We will by mellon · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Well, methane hydrates are actually a pretty plausible energy source, since if we don't mine them and global temperatures continue to go up, they will eventually wind up in the atmosphere anyway. Of course, burning them will make the CO2 situation even worse.

      The bottom line is that taking refuge in the idea that "peak oil will save us from destroying the environment" is incredibly wrong-headed. If we are concerned about global warming, we need to deal with it now and not wait. Getting rid of subsidies for oil exploration would help—a lot of this stuff would be economically infeasible compared to solar if the producers couldn't deduct the recovery costs on their taxes.

    2. Re:We will by Trepidity · · Score: 4, Funny

      Canadians are one thing, but these are Albertans we're talking about.

    3. Re:We will by Robotbeat · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I am a physicist with no stake in nuclear energy. I doubt fusion will be better than /effective/ fission, at least for a very long time (we'd have to get to aneutronic fusion for it to be significantly better). But the good thing is that fission is /actually/ pretty darned good. Fast breeders, traveling wave, and LFTR (especially) offer enormous advantages over current designs. Heck, even more conventional modern designs are much safer. But we'll be stuck with the old ones (or nothing) because even the slightest accident (if judged by demonstrated fatalities, i.e. none in the case of Fukushima!) means the developed world runs away from nuclear power as fast as they can, largely because they don't understand it (physics is hard). Natural gas explosions happen, um, every single day and kill several people every year (and those are just the direct deaths, not counting global warming, etc).

      And in spite of huge explosions rivaling or exceeding high-profile terrorist attacks, the world is running in a full sprint /towards/ natural gas. Germany, Japan, the US... Abandoning nuclear and building natural gas power plants. Why? Probably because everyone kind of understands it. People cook with it, heat their homes with it. Nuclear still has the stigma of the Cold War nuclear annhilation, but the irony is that most newer nuclear power plants (LFTR specifically) aren't well-suited to the nuclear weapons industry.

      And by the way, nuclear is cheap. What makes it expensive is delays. Delays caused by endless lawsuits of people utterly afraid of nuclear power. And so we CAN'T build new nuclear power plants. Instead of taking 3-4 years, they take maybe 3 decades as construction is stopped by the courts until being given approval to proceed. At, say, 10% interest rate, over 25 or so years that increases the cost by /an order of magnitude/ over what it would be with a quick construction. That is 90% of the reason for the supposed high cost of new nuclear power. This is cited by opponents of nuclear power as reason for why we should oppose nuclear power, but that is, of course, a self-fulfilling prophecy because lawsuits and political opposition slow down new construction. Meanwhile, we're doubling and soon tripling the carbon dioxide levels. Old nuclear power is cheap, still, because it has been operated for many decades and like renewables its upkeep and "fuel" cost is very low. Which is partly why utilities don't like them, since they have big upfront costs (like renewables) and the lack of fuel costs isn't a huge deal for them since they can just pass that on to the consumer. Both nuclear and renewables have too long of payback periods to satisfy investors wanting 10,15% annual returns. But for an economy growing at a moderate rate, even 5% return is plenty.

      There's enough thorium to last hundreds of millions of years. We most certainly won't be the same species by the time we run out of nuclear fuel, and because of the recycling of the Earth's crust, there'll be more available by the time run out. Of course, the easiest to get stuff is still plentiful, and the tiny contribution of fuel costs to nuclear power generation is why thorium isn't looked at more closely. Also, LFTR reactors can burn up our old nuclear waste, so building new LFTRs would actually /reduce/ the long-term nuclear waste. They can burn up all the long-term waste so that only medium-term waste (which decays fairly rapidly, i.e. half-lifes of decades instead of thousands of years) is produced, which we can deal with until it decays to low levels.

      That said, I support renewables. An idea I'd like to see more of is hybrid geothermal and photovoltaic power plants co-located using the same infrastructure. Geothermal can act as storage or backing power for when the sun don't shine, and solar makes geothermal last longer. Solves lots of problems.

  3. We turn the planet into Venus by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    What happens if we don't run out of oil? We continue to pump out CO2 until we turn the planet into Venus. Switching to renewables isn't just about running out of oil.

    1. Re:We turn the planet into Venus by voss · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Thats a bit egotistical. The co2 being pumped out will only continue until a massive dieoff because the weather becomes too hot for human food crops and nature will right itself in 10 or 20 thousand years with a lot less people on it. Overpopulation and global warming solved...the hard way.

  4. Economics by Registered+Coward+v2 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    There are a couple of economic reasons that will drive renewable adoption:

    It's not the size of the reserves but the cost of extraction that will drive adoption of renewables. As long as natural gas is cheap (and prices can be hedged) utilities will build natural gas plants at the expense of renewables. If prices rise sharply, gas becomes less attractive (since much of the cost per KW is for fuel) and other energy sources become viable options.

    The energy density of the energy source. If a lot of space is required per BTU fossil fuels will dominate in many places. For example, a gas plant is relatively compact compared to a wind farm of similar capacity; so it is much easier to acquire land for a gas plant. For small scale uses, such as automotive or home fuels, the ability to get a long range or have a reasonably small supply pipe vs large panels favors fossil fuels currently. The economic driver here is "what fuel source gives me the best return on my needs;" such as the ability to travel or not want a roof full of solar panels.

    Economics is what limits OPEC's ability to rise prices - eventually alternatives are viable on a cost basis as well as an energy self sufficiency one.

    Quite frankly, global warning is not as major concern to most people than the ability to afford fuel drive, cook, and heat their houses; so selling renewables on that basis is very difficult.

    --
    I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
  5. ~4B barrel increase is minimal help by armahillo · · Score: 4, Informative

    http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_cons_psup_dc_nus_mbbl_a.htm

    Last year, we consumed 6.8 billion barrels of oil. This has been a pretty consistent average over the past 5 years, all things considered (5 years prior it was 7.5B, but seems to mostly fluctuate around 7B). And this is US consumption *alone* -- not even factoring in the increased rate of Chinese consumption, or any of the European, African, Asian, Australian, South American nations (Antarctica gets a pass, because it's effing cold down there and they can use a little oil to not die while watching penguins)

    7.4B to 11B barrels is 2 years AT BEST if we pare down our oil consumption. Then those resources are GONE.

    Considering "oh, but there might be more than we think left over!" is pretty pointless when we alone are consuming oil at this rate. Absorbing the mild inconvenience of reducing our oil consumption should be priority #1 for all of us. It doesn't solve the problem but it will (a) give us a *little* more time to get off the sauce and (b) start altering our habits and consumption practices in a direction that will prepare us for the inevitable end of oil reserves, which are guaranteed to happen someday.

  6. Atlantic article a thinly veiled propaganda piece by gestalt_n_pepper · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The major oil companies are promoting "No peak oil" stories to influence google results. They need to do this to keep asset prices up, soothe investors and keep the financing on which they depend flowing.

    For a numerate look at exactly what we're facing, start here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cubic_mile_of_oil

    "Peak oil" itself is a bit of a straw man. The problem is declining net energy from hydrocarbons. Net energy from shallow easy wells that produced light sweet crude was great. Net energy from deepwater gulf wells producing heavy sour crude or oil sands where the bitumen has to be heated in order to be liquid? Not so great.

    So bottom line. The absolute quantity of net energy in the first half of the oil on the plant is much greater than the net energy in the second half. Oil supply is NOT the same as energy supply.

    --
    Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
  7. Neverending is not infinite. by goodmanj · · Score: 4, Insightful

    “When will the world’s supply of oil be exhausted?” asked the MIT economist Morris Adelman, perhaps the most important exponent of this view. “The best one-word answer: never.” Effectively, energy supplies are infinite.

    This is dead wrong. The economic argument says that oil production is tied to the profitability of ever-more-expensive production technologies. We will never "run out of oil" because eventually we won't be able to afford to extract it, but this will happen while there's still oil in the ground. There's a similar physics argument, based on "energy return on energy invested": fossil fuel production ends when the energy required to pull it out of the ground is greater than the energy of the fuel itself. There will still be some in the ground, and it might be useful for making expensive chemicals, dyes, or lubricants, but it's pointless as a fuel.

    So no, we won't ever run out of oil. But we will reach a point where you can't have any. To characterize this situation as "infinite supply" is ludicrous.