Which energy source is going to replace Petroleum??!

[bablunicky]

It has been discovered that worlds petroleum source is going to end within 100 years.. and if the consumption rate is going to be high then 100 years will be shortened to 50years..

so the need of an alternate source is necessary.. which is going to replace petroleum products??

[swansont]

I question the premise, but we're already slowly transitioning toward biodiesel and electric solutions for some of the combustive uses of petroleum.

[moreinput]

We don't even know where to dig for petro, so how could we know how much there is? I agree it is an unsustainable source of energy, but any claim to know how much there is,at best is an educated guess.

[John Cuthber]

We don't even know where to dig for petro, so how could we know how much there is? I agree it is an unsustainable source of energy, but any claim to know how much there is,at best is an educated guess.

Did it occur to you that any attempt to answer the question which forms the title of the thread is also an educated guess?

Anyway, an answer to your question might be to dig holes at random and see what fraction of them yield oil.

You can then extrapolate from that to the total reserves.

 

More realistically, while you might not know where to dig for oil, the geologists have a pretty good idea.

[EdEarl]

Oil energy is used for both stationary and mobile applications. There are a variety of energy resources that can replace oil for one or the other application. They include energy from PV, windmill, updraft towers, downdraft towers, solar ponds, geothermal, radioactive decay, fission, fusion, tidal, wave, ocean thermal, biodiesel, ethanol, batteries, hydrogen, cellulose pellets, direct solar heating (active and passive), and last but not least coal.

 

Direct solar heating is one that is relatively inexpensive to build into new homes and other buildings, and IMO should be mandatory, both for heating water and interior spaces. See: http://earthship.com/

Edited May 28, 2013 by EdEarl

[arc]

Did it occur to you that any attempt to answer the question which forms the title of the thread is also an educated guess?

Anyway, an answer to your question might be to dig holes at random and see what fraction of them yield oil.

You can then extrapolate from that to the total reserves.

 

More realistically, while you might not know where to dig for oil, the geologists have a pretty good idea.

That sounds reasonable. So how were they so wrong during the 1979 energy hysteria, so sure it would all be gone in ten years. Propaganda or bad math.

[swansont]

That sounds reasonable. So how were they so wrong during the 1979 energy hysteria, so sure it would all be gone in ten years. Propaganda or bad math.

 

Who are "they"?

[waitforufo]

Jimmy Carter delivered this televised speech on April 18, 1977.

 

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/primary-resources/carter-energy/

 

World consumption of oil is still going up. If it were possible to
keep it rising during the 1970s and 1980s by 5 percent a year as it has
in the past, we could use up all the proven reserves of oil in the
entire world by the end of the next decade.

Since this speach was delivered in 1977, the end of the next decade would have been December 31, 1989.

[iNow]

^The key word there is "proven" reserves of oil... We've obviously found more since then.

[EdEarl]

The people of Tuvalu would be happier if we had not found additional reserves, and I fear humanity will soon come to the same conclusion. It is sad that economic partial solutions have existed for a very long time. Jimmy Carter put solar panels on the White House, Regan removed them (why?).

 

Solar thermal heating for houses and hot water plus good insulation are less expensive than paying for energy to heat the house and water over life span of a house. Why haven't we done it?

[John Cuthber]

That sounds reasonable. So how were they so wrong during the 1979 energy hysteria, so sure it would all be gone in ten years. Propaganda or bad math.

False dilemma.

A plausible alternative explanation is 1970s science.

 

"Jimmy Carter put solar panels on the White House, Regan removed them (why?)."

It was a message from his sponsors.

[waitforufo]

^The key word there is "proven" reserves of oil... We've obviously found more since then.

 

Obviously we will continue to find more. I wouldn't count oil out for the foreseeable future.

 

 

 

[EdEarl]

Obviously we will continue to find more. I wouldn't count oil out for the foreseeable future.

"Be careful what you wish for in life. It might not turn out how you think." ... unknown author

Edited May 29, 2013 by EdEarl

[John Cuthber]

 

Obviously we will continue to find more. I wouldn't count oil out for the foreseeable future.

 

 

 

It will certainly run out (or at least become to expensive to burn) but the time-scale is a bit uncertain. That fact is obviously foreseeable.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predicting_the_timing_of_peak_oil

It's interesting to note that peak oil happened in the US about 1980 so Carter wasn't as wrong as he looked.

[waitforufo]

Peak Oil is another one of those topics that has been talked to death in Science Forums. Do we really need to have it again? As technology improves we will continue to find more oil and natural gas. Fracking and methane hydrate extraction are just recent examples. The Earth has a plenty of oil and natural gas left.

With regard to my Jimmy Carter quote, I was simply answering swansont question. It was the president of the United States that said the oil would run out by the end of the 80’s. Quibble about the word “proven” all you want but Carter’s message was clear. Oil would run out soon. Twenty years after his predicted end date for oil and our known oil reserves are still good for many decades with technology improving extraction methods. There is no worry that we will run out of oil soon. I remember hearing Carter’s words as a teenager. They were intended to create fear of the future. Immediately afterword oil experts were on all the TV news shows saying that Carter was ill informed. Those oil experts were and still are correct.

That does not mean that we shouldn’t be looking for alternative energy methods. Energy equals prosperity so it would be irresponsible not to look for new methods. Cellulosic ethanol is a good example. We could then convert farm waste products into fuel and stop the nonsense of converting food in to fuel. It will likely take some bioengineering to crack that nut. Too bad people are afraid of bioengineering. Perhaps thorium reactors will pan out. Fusion still seems like the pipe dream to me, but I do think we should be studying it.

The Tuvalu Islands are not shrinking and will not slip beneath the waves. They are just looking for money from suckers.

[Enthalpy]

As technology improves we will continue to find more oil and natural gas.

 

The cost of such hydrocarbons must be compared with

(1) The decreasing cost of renewables

(2) The cost of bad weather that results from CO₂ put in the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels, resulting in bad food production for instance.

 

"The Tuvalu Islands are not shrinking and will not slip beneath the waves."

And of course, all climate scientists are morons, all oceanographs as well, and you known it better.

You know what? The credibility of such assertions is about zero on a decent science forum like here.

There are plenty of more efficient places for such claims.

[EdEarl]

Very few places on earth are sinking, mainly at subduction zones.

 

However, due to melting glaciers the ocean has risen, and it is submerging beaches around the world, including beaches of Tuvalu. The effect is not yet great, but it is measurable. See: http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/sealevel.html

[waitforufo]

Can you provide data showing that the land area of the Tuvalu Islands is decreasing? Can you show data that crop production is decreasing? I'm not against renewable energy. If renewable energy can compete with other sources of energy it will be used. If renewable energy relies on government subsidies then we are choosing poverty over prosperity. Why make that choice?

[EdEarl]

Can you provide data showing that the land area of the Tuvalu Islands is decreasing? Can you show data that crop production is decreasing? I'm not against renewable energy. If renewable energy can compete with other sources of energy it will be used. If renewable energy relies on government subsidies then we are choosing poverty over prosperity. Why make that choice?

 

 

I have already provided one link that says the sea is rising. Consequently, beaches everywhere are being covered by the sea. Unless Tuvalu is rising from the sea, it must be diminishing is area. The only pictures I know of are taken by Tuvalu residents, which some would question as not being objective. However, Wikipedia has this to say, "The 2011 report of the Pacific Climate Change Science Program published by the Australian Government, concludes: 'The sea-level rise near Tuvalu measured by satellite altimeters since 1993 is about 5 mm per year.'" See:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuvalu#The_effects_of_climate_change.2C_El_Ni.C3.B1o_and_La_Ni.C3.B1a

 

Tuvalu pics: http://www.tuvaluislands.com/

[iNow]

Can you provide data showing that the land area of the Tuvalu Islands is decreasing?

 

It helps if you provide context instead of just parroting what you've heard on denialist blogs like wattsupwiththat.

 

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Whats-Happening-To-Tuvalu-Sea-Level.html

"[Land] subsidence adds an additional 10% to the total sea level rise experienced at Tuvalu."

 

Can you show data that crop production is decreasing?

 

Yes. Here's four. There are many more that address your request more than handily, though.

 

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/333/6042/616.abstract

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=climate-change-impacts-staple-crop-yields

http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/360/1463/2125.full

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1569568/

 

Of renewable energy relies on government subsidies then we are choosing poverty over prosperity. Why make that choice?

 

Except, even oil itself relies on government subsidies, so perhaps a better question is why you would ever favor subsidizing dirty finite fuels over clean and renewable ones. Simply exchanging existing stupid subsidies for smarter ones in a 1:1 manner would not logically result in a net increase in poverty as you have just suggested above.

Edited May 30, 2013 by iNow

[arc]

Who are "they"?

The various local media (newspaper and television news) repeated the story with some experts somewhere stating the ten year dead line. Everyone was waiting in 2 hr+ gas lines and getting 5 gallons. This was 6 years after the 1973 oil crises. People were primed for hysteria. I was a senior in high school, I remember that prediction was repeated to me several times. My brother in-law sold his pride and joy 1975 Trans Am H.O. 455 for dirt cheap because of that story.

[waitforufo]

It helps if you provide context instead of just parroting what you've heard on denialist blogs like wattsupwiththat.

 

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Whats-Happening-To-Tuvalu-Sea-Level.html

"[Land] subsidence adds an additional 10% to the total sea level rise experienced at Tuvalu."

 

 

Yes. Here's four. There are many more that address your request more than handily, though.

 

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/333/6042/616.abstract

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=climate-change-impacts-staple-crop-yields

http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/360/1463/2125.full

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1569568/

 

 

Except, even oil itself relies on government subsidies, so perhaps a better question is why you would ever favor subsidizing dirty finite fuels over clean and renewable ones. Simply exchanging existing stupid subsidies for smarter ones in a 1:1 manner would not logically result in a net increase in poverty as you have just suggested above.

Your link about the Tuvalu Islands says nothing about decreasing land area of the Tuvalu Islands. The Tuvalu Islands are not in danger unless their land area is decreasing.

 

Your first link on crop yields states "winners and losers largely balanced out". Also this paper relies to much on models and not enough on data.

 

Your second link on crop yields states "warming temperatures have already diminished the rate of production growth". So it starts out admitting the production is growing.

 

Your third link on crop yields states "possible effects of climate change on global agricultural yield potential, on cereal production, food prices and the implications for changes in the number of hungry people." Again these "possible effects" are based on models or simulations. Again, how about some data.

 

Your fourth paper starts with "A regional climate change model (PRECIS) for China, developed by the UK's Hadley Centre, was used to simulate China's climate and to develop climate change scenarios for the country." Models and simulations. How about some data?

 

Mankind has a long and impressive history of improving crop yields over time. I have no doubt this trend will continue. We will adapt as we always have. In fact this topic is about adapting our energy production. Botanists and geneticist will find ways to continue improving crop yields as they always have, so there is no need worry.

 

Isn't this topic suposed to be about alternative energy.? I did provide my opinion about this topic. Again my post about Jimmy Carter was simply a response to a question from others.

[EdEarl]

Mankind has a long and impressive history of improving crop yields over time. I have no doubt this trend will continue. We will adapt as we always have. In fact this topic is about adapting our energy production. Botanists and geneticist will find ways to continue improving crop yields as they always have, so there is no need worry.

True "Mankind has a long and impressive history of improving crop yields." But, that does not mean crop yields are improving everywhere. And, there are other things that are probably more likely than humanity running out of food. Although, there is enough food in the world today to feed everyone, some people starve because they do not have access to food in far away places or they cannot afford food that is nearby. For example, bush food, especially monkeys and apes killed for food, is a possible reason we have an HIV epidemic.

 

Closer to home, most the US aquifers are being pumped dry (see: http://ga.water.usgs.gov/edu/gwdepletion.html), which is one reason a global surplus of food exists--the midwest is called the bread basket of the world. Better seeds cannot compensate for no water, and water resources in many parts of the world are in danger. Glaciers are disappearing around the world, and they are responsible for feeding most of the really big river systems.

 

Past successes are no guarantee for future success. Each generation has its own unique challenges. Consider the history of Bison in the US. Before 1492, they estimate 60,000,000 lived, and by 1890 only 750 remained. Many people had to change they way they lived. Change is inevitable, and if we do not plan for it, we will suffer. See bison skull pics from 1800s:

 

http://all-that-is-interesting.com/post/5631232781/the-near-extinction-of-american-bison-in-the-1800s

Edited May 30, 2013 by EdEarl

[waitforufo]

True "Mankind has a long and impressive history of improving crop yields." But, that does not mean crop yields are improving everywhere. And, there are other things that are probably more likely than humanity running out of food. Although, there is enough food in the world today to feed everyone, some people starve because they do not have access to food in far away places or they cannot afford food that is nearby. For example, bush food, especially monkeys and apes killed for food, is a possible reason we have an HIV epidemic.

 

Closer to home, most the US aquifers are being pumped dry (see: http://ga.water.usgs.gov/edu/gwdepletion.html), which is one reason a global surplus of food exists--the midwest is called the bread basket of the world. Better seeds cannot compensate for no water, and water resources in many parts of the world are in danger. Glaciers are disappearing around the world, and they are responsible for feeding most of the really big river systems.

 

Past successes are no guarantee for future success. Each generation has its own unique challenges. Consider the history of Bison in the US. Before 1492, they estimate 60,000,000 lived, and by 1890 only 750 remained. Many people had to change they way they lived. Change is inevitable, and if we do not plan for it, we will suffer. See bison skull pics from 1800s:

 

http://all-that-is-interesting.com/post/5631232781/the-near-extinction-of-american-bison-in-the-1800s

 

I really do think we should all get back to the topic at hand which is future sources of energy.

 

I do however have to comment on the above post regarding Bison in the US. Bison were intentionally exterminated in the US as a deliberate act of genocide against Native Americans. It had nothing to do with climate, or energy production. It was not accidental or an unintended consequence of some other human action.

 

 

 

 

[swansont]

With regard to my Jimmy Carter quote, I was simply answering swansont question. It was the president of the United States that said the oil would run out by the end of the 80’s. Quibble about the word “proven” all you want but Carter’s message was clear. Oil would run out soon.

He said oil could run out if we continued to increase our use by 5% per year, as we had been doing. But we didn't. in 1981, our use was 250 billion gallons in the US. Over that decade it went up not much more than 5% total, rather than the 60% increase you get for 10 years at 5% per year. (and then it went down for a few years). 2009 was still only 16% higher than 1981.

 

http://fresh-energy.org/2011/11/energy-101-oil/