How will peak oil play out?

??
theres ass tons of uneconomic oil, and 90% of the world hasn't even been searched

There is unlimited oil. Dont' worry about it.

Heavily invest in other sources of energy in order to earn business.

Oil companies will do whatever they can to protect their assets. They'll say "there's still more oil out there" or whatever to keep people investing in them. Then when it really comes down to the wire they'll pull out of the industry with their monies intact.

They'd do what they're currently doing - artificially lower the supply so the price skyrockets.

There is a minimal price of oil (according to the current state of energy companies and their percentage of dependence) of about $28-30, and if oil hovers (or even falls lower) for a significant time around that price, a lot of relevant companies would be COMPLETELY fucked, dragging the entire world into another 1929 by disrupting every supply chain in existence. No one will ever allow that and governments will do everything in their power to bail out / prevent it, so it is widely known that as soon as oil approaches that price, you should sell your house and all its content to go all-in on oil CFDs. The lads who had the balls and did it during the $30 drop in 2016 have now doubled their investment for almost zero risk.

oil is most likely going to peak at some point, wich won't be more than double what it is right now,
this considered we have at least 30years of petrol.

Oil causes global warming
Global warming melts sea ice
Less sea ice means more oil
More oil means more global warming

>more than double what it is right now
?
It will never come close to that, we are probably at peak conventional oil. Then later there will be peak gas, peak unconventional oil and then peak coal. After about 50 years of that depletion a world of 10 billion will get by on some Chinese solar panels and windmills.

The National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) in Colorado has been researching this problem for the last 30 years. Their research findings are publically available at nrel.gov.

Right now, biodiesel from algae is the most likely source to replace oil, assuming we still have coal and natural gas to smooth out the transition. Hydrogen fuel cells are also a prospect, but years away.

The problem is that biodiesel costs about $8 US to make per gallon. Kick in a 17% profit margin (Oil companies are companies, after all) and you get $9.60 per gallon US. You can convert it to liters if you like.

The last time gas in the US spiked, it rose to $4 a gallon. That increased transport costs, which triggered layoffs, which burst the housing bubble and resulted in a worldwide recession.

Now double that cost.

I guarrentee right now that biodiesel will never be a thing

There will not be a shortage of oil, not over the next 100 years, and by then it'll be irrelevant

I was doing bad case scenario in approximate calculations
>we are probably at peak conventional oil.
about oil demand, this is true in europe and U.S
About my personnal opinion if asked is also thinking that most likely oil demand will reach his peak before any potential oil crisis occurence.
that said, it still very annoying concern

> I guarrentee right now that biodiesel will never be a thing
> guarrentee
Ok, who let the Trump voter in?
You do realize that biodiesel is currently added to the diesel supply at the 10 to 20% level now, right?

> There will not be a shortage of oil, not over the next 100 years
There doesn't have to be an absolute shortage. Today's economy is pinned to the price of oil. Increase the cost of extraction beyond what the Feds can subsidize (and it's already what? $15 trillion in debt?), and the world economy destabilizes.

Most experts predict some real fun (if you call mass starvation and constant war fun) around 2040 to 2050, give or take how much oil the 2+ billion in East Asia demands.

> by then it'll be irrelevant
Why? Because you'll be dead? Keep burying your head in the oil sands. Nothing to see here.

I'd imagine they already do this.

we have alternatives to oil, they just don't make sense to use economically speaking. Those alternatives will just take oils market if bit by bit after we hit peak oil.

>You do realize that biodiesel is currently added to the diesel supply at the 10 to 20% level now, right?
Yea just some bullshit to mess up vehicles, and increase fuel costs
Typical liberal stuff

> Increase the cost of extraction beyond what the Feds can subsidize
? What does "subsidize" mean?
If you have steady high prices of oil, then it makes sense to start exploration in all the places they have currently ignored + restart fracking

1) Most countries have vast reserves of oil that will last them individually 3-5 years

2) We still have lots of coal and can convert coal into oil but currently it is more expensive that simply getting oil from the ground

>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fischer–Tropsch_process

So, ultimately all that would happen is a hike in oil prices and increased funding for renewable energy.

Oil actually running out =/= Being phased out.

Nobody with any education on this subject actually believes oil will ever run out. It's not like the Stone Age stopped because people ran out of stone.

What will happen is that there will be a gradual turning away from oil, to the point where oil is used for specific commodities, and not for the sheer stupid amount of things it's used for now.

Oh it's going to be annoying alright. These sources say peak conventional may have already happened and demand is still there. If there is some enormous global financial crash that will reduce demand a lot, or a plague, then again if some huge war breaks out in the sand peoples lands there may be all manner of ramifications.

>biodiesel
This is a bad idea, the EROEI is very low right now on that process and ahrd to see how it can improve by much. We basically eat oil already, growing more food to make more oil is not going to work long term.

>we have alternatives to oil
Not really, look into it more, you will see it is intertwined with modern life so radical change is inevitable. It's surprising there isn't more talk of this impending altercation, just the global warming meme which addresses it all indirectly and with some very questionable tactics really. A bad sign.

?
Within 10-20 years batteries will replace combustion engines for vehicles
Within industries alternatives exist for all oil usages.
House heating can be done by electricity instead of natural gas, provided by nuclear/solar/hydro.

You'd have to be an idiot to believe in peak oil.

>suddenly realise
stupid premise

>1 years worth of oil left
doesn't make sense

as oil becomes scarce it'll become more expensive, meaning it'll try and last longer

yeah, tell him about the quantum effect my bud

Yes, but the thing about peak oil is when production can't keep up because the new oil deposits are too far.

Like a woodcutter, everytime he cuts his trees he will have to travel further and further into the woods until not even using trucks and chainsaws compensate for the distance and difficulty.

Batteries are not an energy source. The most energy efficient grids run on fossil fuel, mostly gas or coal. Hydro is good but daming up waterways has other implications. Many grids are starting to fall apart in the west with aging infrastructure and carrying large loads already. They will require much investment already let alone scaling them up.

>Within industries alternatives exist for all oil usages
No they don't, that's ridiculous. Transportation industry will obviously be hardest hit which may be a good thing as globalization in general and shipping - trucking goods all over the place will need to scale back and work more locally. Manufacturing will be hit hard, plastics, petro chemical production, along with mining, farming and pretty much everything we do in modern life requires at least a trickle of oil, some processes copious amounts of the goo.

Some of the most energy ignorant people on earth are the largest consumers it seems, this alone is going to spark massive dissonance down the line. The average western dude today has about the equivalent of 100 energy slaves helping him to get along.

>it'll try and last longer
With a growing population demanding more of it everyday. The depletion rates after peak, if everything goes smoothly, will be anywhere from 1 to 5% per year. So 100 to 20 years, and EROEI is down to 1 and the gig is up.

Don't worry, it's all "normal".

>theres ass tons of uneconomic oil
Higher oil prices might make that oil economic to extract, but it will still be uneconomic to consume.

Peak oil is just one of the future problems in resource sortages.

Phosphates are being eaten in agriculture like a fatman in McDonalds eats burgers, and not only that; vanadium, Cadmiun... there are several elements that are becoming less and less abundant... and we intend to use them in bateries to substitute oil energy.

All transportation can be replaced with electricity/batteries

Nothing will happen suddenly, alternatives ALWAYS exist or can be developed.

>The average western dude today has about the equivalent of 100 energy slaves helping him to get along.

What a buncha stupid shit

>Isn't economic to search for new sources of something
>THIS MEANS IT'S GOING TO RUN OUT AND WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE

stfu

They aren't stupid or evil...

They might invest in solar power
Or public transportation
or research battery technology
or start raising oxen to plow fields

Maybe they already have?

>All transportation can be replaced with electricity/batteries

>Nothing will happen suddenly, alternatives ALWAYS exist or can be developed.
And cars can be replaced with a horse and carriage.

Just because an alternative exists doesn't mean it's as good as the thing it's replacing.

shell have already invested heavely in green energy.

Batteries are seeing rapid improvement.. so is solar power & wind power..
It doesn't have to be "as good"(though it will be BETTER in the end)

It just has to work

>Batteries are seeing rapid improvement

To be fair, all arguments based around technologic development are sustained by wishfull thinking.

Although the trend is that the technology develops exponentially, it can't be asumed that it can be sustained over time or that is not vulnerable to social changes or the political enviroment of the entire globe, or for the matter, that it will find an adequate solution(think that we are dealing with very fundamental problems here; energy input/output and the explotation of the properties of elements).

>The average western dude today has about the equivalent of 100 energy slaves helping him to get along.

That's not untrue. Typically cities are just full of energy whores especially in places with cold winters

> big homes heated/cooled 24/7
> if you don't have a car you are a literal joke
> muh 750 watt gaymen machine with 3 GPUs and 2 50 watt monitors
> muh pool
> muh inkjet/laser printer that needs 20 watts when it's off
> muh DVR that needs 50 watts when it's turned off (seriously standby.lbl.gov/summary-table.html)
> muh lawnmower/snowblower/boat/atv/collector car/7mpg truck/1500 watt kitchenaid blender

[0.00624 tendies have been deposited into your account by Royal Dutch Shell]

Batteries are not an energy source but in order to have a stable power grid (one that works at night) and have an electric vehicle you need to use batteries

>Batteries are seeing rapid improvement.. so is solar power & wind power..
Steam engines have improved substantially since they were first invented. Does that mean they'll keep improving indefinitely and eventually become better than diesel engines?
Every technology has limits to how much it can be improved. The question isn't whether solar, wind and batteries will improve, it's whether or not they'll improve enough to be able to replace oil before we run out of it.
>It doesn't have to be "as good"
>It just has to work
A horse and carriage "works", but if we replaced every car with them it would have a huge negative impact on modern lifestyles.

And all that power is supplied by small amounts of people engaged in mining coal or drilling for oil/natural gas/uranium

Where do the "energy slaves" come in? Or do you believe that energy consumption is a bad thing?

All power plants are operated by steam turbines... So yea its still used

I doubt there is enough energy and raw resources left now to replace a billion internal combustion engines, amp up the grids, replace the petrol infrastructure with "alternatives" and manufacture that many batteries because all this would require a large amount of fossil fuel - maybe as much as we have left or more.

Projects that large cannot even be budgeted anymore because we are already in the era of wild oil price swings, the price of oil and everything else by extension is anything but stable but from here on out. It's hard to even budget the building of a nuke plant today because of this.

Also, energy slave concept is not new.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_Slave
>If energy slaves were actually free, then we would seek to shunt off as much labor as possible onto them. However, they are not free, and the cost of an energy slave, compared to the cost of human labor, may decide when to use an energy slave and when to use a person. A more interesting question than that about the calories used by the different systems is the question of the cost of each. The cost of human labor trends downward as the number of workers grows faster than the work available to support them, and as the number of energy slaves decreases per person. Meanwhile, as the cost of energy increases, the investment required to use energy slaves instead of people may become greater than the cost of people.
Classical slavery may make a huge return, maybe it already has in places like China and India with ample supplies of human meat?

Notice a lot of people are hoping technology will provide a fix and this is another bad sign, most technology is an energy sink and sometimes leads to Jevons Paradox through "efficiency", especially computer - electronic technology and its throw away - planned obsolescence culture today.

In a basic sense energy slaves can be measured in calories that can be tallied against human (food) or fossil fuel powered energy.

>Projects that large cannot even be budgeted anymore because
Because we have huge quantities of unproductive non-whites and other socialist leeches killing our countries.... not because of peak oil jesus christ...

>It's hard to even budget the building of a nuke plant today because of this.
No, you can't build nuke plants because the NRC sits on your application for a decade, and you'll have to fight lawsuits

>Formally, one energy slave produces one unit of human labor through the non-human tools and energy supplied by the industrial economy, and therefore 1 ES times a constant that converts to work accomplished = 1 human labor unit.

What a load of garbage
Are you a communist or something? How can you use this meme term, like energy is some finite quantity that'll eventually be used up...

>Are you a communist or something?
Hell no, a libertarian if anything, we need less government and hive mind, more individualism and free thinking.

This guy tried to do the math and came up with about 400 energy slaves for each Frenchman, ironically then goes to tie in reducing that drastically in order to save the planet from climate change, doesn't mention depletion of fossil fuels or peak oil. He may be a communist.
jancovici.com/en/energy-transition/energy-and-us/how-much-of-a-slave-master-am-i/
>The good news is that a division by 4 of the fossil energy consumed by each French, which is what it takes to mitigate climate change, still means, with the present technologies, close to a hundred of “slave equivalent” per individual. It remains far from the Stone Age!

The hobbling of nuke plant construction is a problem for sure. Anyway, this thread is done for me. I usually troll in the climate change threads on Veeky Forums.

>be me
>18 yo
>wanna drive cars with IC engines

> make me believe we won't run out of oil in my lifetime

>I doubt there is enough energy and raw resources left now to replace a billion internal combustion engines, amp up the grids, replace the petrol infrastructure with "alternatives" and manufacture that many batteries because all this would require a large amount of fossil fuel - maybe as much as we have left or more.

You are wrong. Plain and simple.

Electric engines might be more fun when they get more popular. They can put down a shit ton of torque with much higher efficiency compared to an ICE engine.

Hopefully when I get a good paying job I'll be able to get something kinda fun

This series of blog posts might interest you if you haven't already seen it.

streets.mn/2016/03/23/gas-stations-not-long-for-this-world/
streets.mn/2016/03/30/gas-stations-will-they-survive-the-rise-of-plug-in-hybrids/
streets.mn/2016/04/08/end-of-gas-stations-iii-coming-to-a-corner-near-you/

>heavily subsidized industry
>"the future"
The principles of economics beg to differ.