Hurricane Patricia: 200 MPH Strongest storm ever

KI4MVP said:

that's ridiculous. The world uses 85 million barrels of oil the world uses in a day. The known reserves will last just 53 years at the current rate. Certainly there is more oil that isn't known about, but that amount is finite. Unless brand new oil is being created at a rate of more than 85 million barrels a day, we'll eventually run out.

Click to expand...

Sheesh, I would have expected this from some others, but not from you. Also, it's a bit frustrating when you cite facts with no links, because the context is lost.

In any case, here is the SEC definition of "proved reserves" which I assume is what you're "known reserves" figure is, though I can't be sure because you didn't provide a link.. Anyway, the definition is iimportant:

“Proved oil and gas reserves are those quantities of oil and gas, which, by analysis of geoscience and engineering data, can be estimated with reasonable certainty to be economically producible–from a given date forward, from known reservoirs, and under existing economic conditions, operating methods, and government regulations.”

http://oilindependents.org/oil-and-natural-gas-reserves-definitions-matter/

The obvious point is that this is not a static number. As economic conditions, operating methods, and government regulations change, that number changes as well. You can go back and find plenty of other "known" (or proven) reserve projections saying that we should already have run out.

But forgetting the definition for a moment, the critical point is that oil reserves generally become more and more expensive to recover as the more accessible/usable oil is recovered. The less oil there is, the more expensive it will be to recover. So there will undoubtedly come a point where the cost of extracting oil for use as a fuel will become economically unfeasible. At that point, while there is still petroleum in the ground, we will stop using it as fuel. And it's also very likely that conservation will become more widespread as the cost rises as well.

Now, assuming that no suitable, economically--feasible substitute for non-fuel uses has been discovered by then, we will likely continue extracting petroleum for non-fuel uses at that point. But, the same analysis eventually holds. At some point, while there is still petroleum in the ground, we will stop using it for non-fuel purposes because it will become economically unfeasible.

That's why I said that we will never run out of petroleum. It's a basic point of economics that's crucial to understand in the whole debate about "running out of oil" and alternative energy sources. The inevitable and predictable rising costs of producing petroleum-based fuels will mean that we will be forced to begin a shift to alternatives. And what happens is that alternatives that previously were too expensive and economically inefficient because of the price of petroleum will gradually become a better choice over time as the cost of petroleum rises.

So you basically have two curves: the cost of petroleum increasing (generally) over time, and the costs of various alternatives. And those alternatives themselves will have their own curves, as advances in technology and the need to use less-than ideal locations for some alternatives affect price/cost.

But the point is that "running out of oil" is not some cliff. It is a curve that will be controlled by economic efficiencies.

so you're saying we'll run out of usable oil when you say we'll never run out of oil? I'm not sure how only having oil that we can't use is really any better/different than running out.

I started a climate change thread so we can talk about all of this there instead of the hurricane thread.

KI4MVP said:

that's ridiculous. The world uses 85 million barrels of oil the world uses in a day. The known reserves will last just 53 years at the current rate. Certainly there is more oil that isn't known about, but that amount is finite. Unless brand new oil is being created at a rate of more than 85 million barrels a day, we'll eventually run out.

Click to expand...

It's one of these silly semantic hangups that some people like to focus on. i.e. the point being that eventually the levels will run low enough that the cost of extraction exceeds the cost of alternative fuel sources. When this happens, we will technically have not "run out" of oil -- there will still be some in the ground. But I think most rational people can deduce that this is what people mean when they talk about "running out of oil."

It's a silly distinction to me, as it completely (and I'd argue, deliberately) sidesteps the actual issue that people are getting at, which is a concerted effort to invest significantly more money into developing these alternative technologies, regardless of whether they happen to be more expensive than extracting oil today.

Focusing on whether we will "run out" of oil is a bit of a red herring when discussing the topic. The actual question of course isn't "Will we run out of oil?", but rather:

1) By the time oil extraction becomes too expensive compared to alternative methods, will we have already put too much GHGs into the atmosphere resulting in devastating ecological effects?
and
2) If so, can we use policy to correct this problem proactively? And how?

Climate researchers seem to largely been in agreement on "Yes" to #1, particularly because many of them think we've already reached this point. For #2, I suppose that's subjective since it's more of a policy question, but it's also likely our only answer. The "free-market" approach misses the fact that the whole point is trying to account for externalities, which are notoriously a weakness of completely free-market economic policies.

On the other hand, we can't even get laypeople to agree that via release of greenhouse gases, humans are causing the majority of the recent observed warming trend. So that kind of a discussion seems like a fruitless endeavor off the bat.

KI4MVP said:

so you're saying we'll run out of usable oil when you say we'll never run out of oil?

Click to expand...

No, that's not what I'm saying. The oil will still be usable. It just won't be economically feasible to extract as fuel under normal economic conditions, although there obviously will be some still there in the case of some emergency.

The reason I brought it up was because of the observation made by someone else that we need it for things like plastics. And my point is that the amount we burn as fuel is far greater than what we need for plastics. So, even though it will eventually get too expensive to use as a fuel, we likely will have hundreds of years of economically feasible petroleum for plastics and other applications.

As a side note, the whole "we need to stop burning petroleum so that we can burn it longer into the future" argument is a bit odd. If you don't want to burn it for fuel, then you should be thrilled at the prospect that it will become economically unfeasible to do so.

The Human Q-Tip said:

If you don't want to burn it for fuel, then you should be thrilled at the prospect that it will become economically unfeasible to do so.

Click to expand...

That doesn't do us as a species a whole lot of good if economic feasibility lasts longer than the environment can handle.

Oil is NOT a finite resource. WE WILL NEVER RUN OUT OF OIL!!!!!!!!

Impossible. Even it it becomes scarce, economics will take over. The price would go up to $1000 a barrel and the automotive industry would be forced to find alternatives...we are seeing that now. Simple economics guarantees the wells will never EVER run completely dry.

From a technological standpoint it won't either. Newer technologies are now allowing them to get more out of wells than before...so efficiency is improving. We are also better at finding it. All the fear mongers that are claiming we will run out are basing that only on oil that has been found as of today. They are also assuming that we will always use the same amount. Those two assumptions are absurd. Look at the oil field they recently found in Brazil, low estimates have it as the 3rd largest on the planet...some claim it is larger than the world's largest, Ghawar, in S.A. We have no idea how big ANWR(Alaska) is because the liberals won't let us check. Not to mention oil does replenish...it takes time and pressure...but it replenishes.

Emissions standards will drive down demand, hybrid and fuel cell technology will drive down demand, new alternatives will drive down demand....we will never ever run out of it. Technology is increasing at a geometric rate. The sharing of information via the internet is making it more and more difficult for anyone to hide technological advances. At some point in the next 5, 10, 20 or 50 years there will be breakthroughs that quickly decrease our dependency on oil. When that happens, there will still be billions and billions and billions of barrels in the ground.
If there is a shortage, it will be because we aren't drilling ourselves and others wont sell it to us. But make no mistake, we will never run out of oil.

Brandname said:

It's a silly distinction to me, as it completely (and I'd argue, deliberately) sidesteps the actual issue that people are getting at, which is a concerted effort to invest significantly more money into developing these alternative technologies, regardless of whether they happen to be more expensive than extracting oil today. Focusing on whether we will "run out" of oil is a bit of a red herring when discussing the topic. The actual question of course isn't "Will we run out of oil?", but rather:

1) By the time oil extraction becomes too expensive compared to alternative methods, will we have already put too much GHGs into the atmosphere resulting in devastating ecological effects?
and
2) If so, can we use policy to correct this problem proactively? And how?

Click to expand...

That's a fair point. But I was not the one who brought up the "running out of oil" argument as an independent harm of its own. I went there when someone else started talking about plastics, etc.. Happy to put it aside.

But, the cost-curve argument does have direct relevance to the two points you raise. Specifically, the whole reason the cost issue arose was because I said that @KI4MVP was "waving away without addressing" concerns about what China and India -- and you could add in the rest of the developing world -- would be doing about their emissions. And his response to that concern was to say that solar was cheaper, so they'd follow along anyway.

I say that's false, and that the data does not support the idea that switching over from carbon to solar is the economically cheaper alternative. At least, not yet. China and India are desperately trying to increase their total power generation as it is, and to the extent they do use solar, it's going to be to augment rather than replace fossil fuels.

So to your point 2), the relevant question isn't just what policies we can adopt here in the U.S., but rather what good they will really do when most of the rest of the world keeps churning out carbon anyway.

KI4MVP said:

That doesn't do us as a species a whole lot of good if economic feasibility lasts longer than the environment can handle.

Click to expand...

Look, this whole tangent is, with all due respect, somewhat characteristic of the hyperventilation/kitchen sink approach often seen from "your side" in this.

The core argument that is deserving of debate is the effect of carbon emissions on the environment, and what can/should be done about that. I'm fine with discussing that.

But it wasn't me who raised the tangential "but we can't keep using oil or we're going to run out" argument. That was a bogus "stop using oil!" argument that came from someone on your side of this:

Cavatt said:

Do you think using all the petroleum up is a good idea? You know it is one of the best things for making polymers and other high tech materials right?

Click to expand...

I was simply responding to his argument on why we need to stop using petroleum as fuel.

The Human Q-Tip said:

So to your point 2), the relevant question isn't what policies we can adopt here in the U.S., but rather whether whatever marginal benefit we get for that tremendous cost is going to be worth it when most of the rest of the world keeps churning out carbon anyway.

Click to expand...

I do understand and can sympathize with the conservative viewpoint that it could put us at an economic disadvantage compared to the rest of the world if we don't utilize the cheapest fuel source while others do. I don't think that's an illogical viewpoint.

The only thing is that there really is no natural way of getting around that problem. So we can sit here and have a Mexican standoff with the rest of the world inside of a house that's burning down, or we can try to do something.

I just don't think it's an acceptable solution to avoid taking action because we can't control what China et al. does. It's going to take a global effort to make the changes that need to be made, and the U.S. is one of the few countries with enough global clout to try to shape the way the world's energy is produced.

Brandname said:

I do understand and can sympathize with the conservative viewpoint that it could put us at an economic disadvantage compared to the rest of the world if we don't utilize the cheapest fuel source while others do. I don't think that's an illogical viewpoint.

The only thing is that there really is no natural way of getting around that problem. So we can sit here and have a Mexican standoff with the rest of the world inside of a house that's burning down, or we can try to do something.

Click to expand...

This is a good post, so if you don't mind, I'm going to cut and paste my response into the thread KI4MVP just started.

So we'll literally never run out of a substance created by fossils regardless of the speed at which human beings extract it? It regenerates that fast?

The Oi said:

So we'll literally never run out of a substance created by fossils regardless of the speed at which human beings extract it? It regenerates that fast?

Click to expand...

It's absurd.

The Oi said:

So we'll literally never run out of a substance created by fossils regardless of the speed at which human beings extract it? It regenerates that fast?

Click to expand...

Hey if we just wait about a million years I'm sure Isla Nublar will be knee deep in that dino gold!

Pick6 said:

Tens of thousands of years? My grandchildren and children won't be alive then/nor could it have been avoided for tens of thousands of years before today. I'm not ignoring anything. I just realize if something is going to happen its going to fucking happen. .

Click to expand...

So just to be clear, you argument is "I'll be dead by then, so fuck em"?