[DesuMaiden]

I believe it is possible, but rather unlikely. The reason I say it is unlikely is because the world has been thoroughly explored for alternative energy sources. Unless scientists synthesize some new chemical that can replace oil, it is highly unlikely we will discover a viable alternative to oil. By the way, every new energy source we harnessed we didn't invent. We didn't invent fire, agriculture or fossil fuels. We discovered it because fire, agriculture and fossil fuels always existed.We simply learned to discover and harness these energy sources.

Many people don't understand the difference between an invention and discovery. An invention is an application of a discovery. For example, computers are an invention that utilize oil. Whereas, oil, or any energy resource for that matter, cannot be invented. It can only be discovered. And since the world has already been thoroughly explored for alternative energy sources, it is unlikely we will ever discover a viable alternative to oil.

We can't invent a new energy source to oil since that would violate the laws of thermodynamics. You can't make something out of thin air just by imagining it. For example, I can't invent a space ship that travels at the speed of light just by imagining it.

[sparky]

.
"Will we ever discover an alternative to oil?"

.....no !

[ROCKMAN]

Actually there's many alternatives for oil. But they are just more expensive than oil so we don't utilize them. And probably never will on a meaningful scale.

[DesuMaiden]

Actually there's many alternatives for oil. But they are just more expensive than oil so we don't utilize them. And probably never will on a meaningful scale.

Please list these alternatives.

[sparky]

.
- wood, coal ( or any combustible rubbish ) to make steam

- Hydrogen , tricky and with a low power density


-Nitrous oxides and combustible material , nitrous oxide and salami work fine
the first explosion engine used black powder (technically a nitrogen based compound)


-Hypergolic fuels , used in military applications mostly
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypergolic_propellant

-food and muscle , either human or animal

the power density is the output per weight of the whole system , engine , transmission and fuel tanks
the most powerful are the hypergolics but they are the devil stuff to handle and are very expensive to make

[ROCKMAN]

D - As sparky points out there are alternatives that have been there for decades. Search the Nazi oil synthesis over 70 years ago. I think my sarcasm slipped by you: there are lots of alternatives. But we do as we have always done: go with the low cost. And if that means frac'd oil is cheaper than synthetic oil then we'll frac the sh*t out of every possible spot on the earth. LOL.

[SeaGypsy]

The only thing makes oil unique is it's abundance, the topic of this website. There are other abundant energy sources, the most obvious being sunlight. Oil is effectively solar energy concentrated & liquefied by natural processes taking millions of years. A way of seeing the scale of the problem of replacing oil is to imagine the scale of effort of millions of years of trillions of trees, patiently growing & storing carbon chains etc which we may have already burned half of the entire effort saving in about 150 years. The scale of time relative is beyond our comprehension. Even if we can catch & store & liquefy sunlight 1000 times more efficiently than trees, we are still burning through thousands of years of equivalent energy storage for a planet wide mega system every year. Basically if the dream of a global 'Manhattan project' to move away from oil & fossil fuels in general there would still need to be huge gains in efficiency, for equilibrium to be accomplished.

[sparky]

.
Not quite SeaGypsy , liquid Hydrocarbon fuels are very superior to any other competitors
they are liquid , which make handling quite convenient ,
solids are a pain to use and gases have severe pressure limitations
hydrocarbon fuels have a very high power density ,
in spite of trying there never was a steam powered plane in everyday use , too heavy
fuels can be stored and transported with a minimum of fuss ,

in fact , as Rockman said ,when natural hydrocarbons are scarce enough , they are synthesized
coal powered cars will not be used , coal based diesel will

[davep]

Wood gas has been used as an oil replacement in times of need https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wood_gas

Wood gas vehicles were used during World War II, as a consequence of the rationing of fossil fuels. In Germany alone, around 500,000 "producer gas" vehicles were in use at the end of the war. Trucks, buses, tractors, motorcycles, ships and trains were equipped with a wood gasification unit. In 1942 (when wood gas had not yet reached the height of its popularity), there were about 73,000 wood gas vehicles in Sweden,[2] 65,000 in France, 10,000 in Denmark, and almost 8,000 in Switzerland. In 1944, Finland had 43,000 "woodmobiles", of which 30,000 were buses and trucks, 7,000 private vehicles, 4,000 tractors and 600 boats.[3]

Wood gasifiers are still manufactured in China and Russia for automobiles and as power generators for industrial applications. Trucks retrofitted with wood gasifiers are used in North Korea in rural areas, particularly on the roads of the east coast.

[ennui2]

Wood is just another form of stored sunlight, only a shorter timeframe than coal or oil. It's also used for many other things besides energy. The switch to coal and oil actually was beneficial for forests in most respects, at least in the US, despite the population bloom. Of course, the need for agricultural land pushes deforestation, but in places that used to be agricultural-based, but aren't anymore, like here in the northeast, forests have recovered. Of course, now you have the bark beetle, etc...

Anyway, the first casualty of peak oil will be the world's forests. This is also why I don't hold out a lot of hope for permaculture. Any standing wood is going to be a valuable commodity and even if it's a food-bearing tree like a chestnut, I think it's going to wind up getting chopped down for one reason or another.

[Pops]

Shanks' Mare

[davep]

Shanks' Mare

Bicycles

[tom_s2]

Hi Desu,

There have always been many alternatives to oil. For example, cars can use electricity from batteries (most major car companies have released, or are releasing, battery-electric cars). Trains and buses can use electricity from overhead wires; more than half of rail traffic worldwide now uses this. Ships can use steam turbines which can use anything that will burn as fuel, such as coal, peat, wood chips, oil shale, torrefied biomass, etc. Internal combustion engines can use natural gas--even gas from fracking or methane hydrates. For the few uses which really require a liquid combustible fuel, there are many synthetic liquid fuels such as anhydrous ammonia, dimethyl ether, and many others. Those synthetic liquid fuels can be made using electricity from renewable sources and abundant elements. All of the aforementioned alternatives have been available for many decades, and everyone in the relevant industries knows about them.

The only reason we don't use those alternatives already is price. For example, battery-electric cars and synthetic fuels are only competitive when oil costs $120/bbl or so.

When oil enters its gradual terminal decline, the price of oil will shoot up and stay there. The economy will then gradually transition to now-cheaper alternatives. There is vastly more time than is required for the economy to transition to those alternatives (we have at least a century). The economy has already begun transitioning, far earlier than required (car companies starting designing plug-in vehicles at least a decade before any declines in oil production).

I added a post to my blog about this at bountifulenergy.blogspot.com.

-Tom S

[MD]

The short answer is "no".

The longer answer is there will be enough energy to fuel a much smaller population into the future.

Yeah I am just a Cynical Old Bastard.

Anyone that has watched a garden bloom and die will see the reality we face.

[Outcast_Searcher]

We didn't invent fire, agriculture or fossil fuels.

Either you're playing with semantics, or you're just wrong.

Certainly people invented agriculture. We descended from apes, which certainly don't use any form of organized agriculture. Cave man era nomads picking berries does NOT equate to the definition of agriculture. So on that point I'd say you're flat out wrong.

No, we didn't invent fire or fossil fuels. However, we did discover their existence and learned how to utilize them for many controlled and productive purposes -- including many closely related inventions dependent on them. (Like cars (thus far), furnaces, and (thus far in the main) electricity). So on those points, I'd say the point is moot and your argument is semantics.

We had no clue about radiation 125 years ago. Who can say what might suddenly become a plentiful energy source within the next 125 years?

[sparky]

.
The point about radiations is valid ,
the discovery of radio-activity at the end of the XIX century gave rise to a great many applications
including the controlled production of energy
no discovery can take place in a well known domain where all energy balances are accounted for
is there a hidden domain which could give rise to something else ?
a possible line of inquiry is the question of dark matter ,
I cannot think just now about any other field where there are unexplained large quantities of energy

[GregT]

There have always been many alternatives to oil. For example, cars can use electricity from batteries (most major car companies have released, or are releasing, battery-electric cars). Trains and buses can use electricity from overhead wires; more than half of rail traffic worldwide now uses this. Ships can use steam turbines which can use anything that will burn as fuel, such as coal, peat, wood chips, oil shale, torrefied biomass, etc. Internal combustion engines can use natural gas--even gas from fracking or methane hydrates.

I added a post to my blog about this at bountifulenergy.blogspot.com.

-Tom S

Unfortunately, all of those things that could be powered with alternatives to oil, are manufactured with oil. (or other fossil fuels)

So the short answer to your question Desu, No. Don't pay any attention to Tom S, he is in the most advanced stages of denial.

[onlooker]

Yes exactly Desu. Tom is like others who are in denial and have not investigated the issue thoroughly. First of all fossil fuels particularly oil have characteristics that make them very useful for a wide range of applications. Witness all the uses we have come up for oil. Now as for the proponents of electricity to power all our moving around. Where does the electricity come from? Well currently the highest percentage by far from Nat. Gas and Coal. For the reason of the energy density of fossil fuels which pound for pound have more then anything. Now as for retrofitting our motor vehicles to another energy source, the only other one currently that could work with the common internal combustion engine is natural gas. Well the problem with gases is the ability to transport them. Oh and Nat. gas is still a fossil fuel. Plus what Greg said is true. To really create a massive renewable infrastructure would require a great amount of fossil fuels. So their is a reason we went with fossil fuels in the first place. More bang for the buck and the diverse uses.

[JimBof]

We should not be burning Oil. We are going to need every drop for chemistry and lubricants in future years but we have yet to create a viable source of energy to replace it for heat in engines and electricity generation

[Dybbuk]

Now as for retrofitting our motor vehicles to another energy source, the only other one currently that could work with the common internal combustion engine is natural gas.

Ummm...ethanol? I know it's got a lousy EROEI, but that becomes a minor problem if you have plentiful primary energy from another source. So the main focus should be getting energy from somewhere, with the exact form of that energy being a secondary concern.