[Graeme]

Oil will run dry before substitutes roll out: study

At the current pace of research and development, global oil will run out 90 years before replacement technologies are ready, says a new University of California, Davis, study based on stock market expectations.

The forecast was published online Monday (Nov. in the journal Environmental Science & Technology. It is based on the theory that long-term investors are good predictors of whether and when new energy technologies will become commonplace.

"Our results suggest it will take a long time before renewable replacement fuels can be self-sustaining, at least from a market perspective," said study author Debbie Niemeier, a UC Davis professor of civil and environmental engineering.

physorg

[americandream]

I don't know how they will ever make throwaway capitalism renewable, including it's voracious and increasing energy appetite (not to mention the resousrcing necessary to manufacture annual developments in the trash and fash that we are seasonally exposed to), but then again, I'm just a stupid type who happens to believe in spending that which I realistically have to spend.

[Pops]

The study is based on stock markets predicting the future...

"Sophisticated investors tend to put considerable effort into collecting, processing and understanding information relevant to the future cash flows paid by securities,"

I read somewhere that the average stock is held for 11 seconds before the computer that bought it, sells it, there has got to be more to predicting the future than looking at the modern stock market...

Because 90 years is a long way off...

Two good articles G

[ian807]

Oil will run dry before substitutes roll out: study

At the current pace of research and development, global oil will run out 90 years before replacement technologies are ready, says a new University of California, Davis, study based on stock market expectations. physorg

I think a more accurate statement might be "affordable, energy-positive global oil will run out before replacement technologies are ready." I'd put that timeframe within 40 years tops, with increasingly smaller amounts of more expensive oil leading up to oil's complete obsolescence as a major energy source for anyone. Of course, the shortages and price spikes will start well before this. 5 to 10 years is what it's looking like if you can believe the reports out of Germany, the UK, and the US Joint command.

[americandream]

The study is based on stock markets predicting the future...

"Sophisticated investors tend to put considerable effort into collecting, processing and understanding information relevant to the future cash flows paid by securities,"

I read somewhere that the average stock is held for 11 seconds before the computer that bought it, sells it, there has got to be more to predicting the future than looking at the modern stock market...

Because 90 years is a long way off...

Two good articles G

All speculators, whether computers or humans act, on technicals, not fundamentals. The state of the world next month let alone in the next decade, is of no concern to someone whose time frame more often than not, does not extend beyond the end of the trading day.

[lper100km]

The whole alternative energy scenario is based on using the existing oil infrastructure as a crutch. It can’t exist without oil.

Try manufacturing anything without oil and see how far you can go.

If alternative ‘energy’ solutions will not be available until 90 years after PO, then why bother at all. It needs to be within 10 years or less and totally oil independent.

[Ludi]

Seems like small quantities of hydrocarbons can be produced from materials other than oil. Of course they will be more expensive, so can't just be burned, but, could possibly be used to support some forms of alternative energy, like small-scale hydro, solar thermal, very basic wind power. Probably not photovoltaic, high-tech wind power, or really any kind of large-scale installations.

[Quinny]

The whole alternative energy scenario is based on using the existing oil infrastructure as a crutch. It can’t exist without oil.

Try manufacturing anything without oil and see how far you can go.

If alternative ‘energy’ solutions will not be available until 90 years after PO, then why bother at all. It needs to be within 10 years or less and totally oil independent.

I tend to agree with this. My attempts at growing food never mind manufacturing without using fossil fuels showed me the difficulty of significantly 'producing' enough for today never mind building infrastructure!

[KingM]

Two problems with this thinking. First, predicting the pace of technology growth is almost impossible. Fifty years ago we were supposed to have regular flights to the moon, the trajectory of which would be calculated with slide rules and log tables. It could be that we've squeezed almost everything out of solar power that is possible (which is not a hell of a lot), or it could be that in three years you can buy rolls of thin-film at Home Depot.

Second, oil is only one fuel. If we cut oil use in North America to European levels and used natural gas as a bridge fuel, it's possible that in twenty years we'll all be tooling around in electric cars.

Or not.

[pup55]

If we cut oil use in North America to European levels

Herein lies the problem. Somebody's going to have to walk.
Who will it be?

There is just enough seed of doubt planted in just enough minds that unless there is a catastrophe, we cannot get enough of a national consensus to do the things we will need to do to change. No one wants to walk.

and by "catastrophe" we are talking about something even more dramatic than the live-televised destruction of the second and third largest buildings in the country ostensibly by a left handed rug trader who was financed by our oil purchases.....that obviously was not enough to give us the message....

I'm afraid we are going to have to hit rock-bottom.....however low that is....

Pity, too. If you have ever been in those places, the friendly nations of France and Italy in particular are well known for their good looking and healthy population...high quality of life, pleasant countryside, and high level of cultural development.....

[Timo]

Maybe if we all just clap louder the solution will appear. If we all believe strongly enough, everyone can have a fusion reactor in their own home. Hey! This worked for Peter Pan!

I'll just come out and say it, now. The future of planet Earth depends on reducing global population to a maximum level of 1 billion people. Any more than that and the very act of living requires too much depletion of natural resources. If we stay on our current course, i highly suspect we'll make this planet unliveable, and tens of thousands of species of life will go extinct.

[lper100km]

Two problems with this thinking. First, predicting the pace of technology growth is almost impossible.

Predicting the direction of technology in the luxury of an energy rich, oil rich environment is one thing. Predicting it in an energy starved, oil depleted environment is much simpler. It will be significantly smaller, if there is any at all. The thin film solar panels you talk about are themselves dependent upon oil for their manufacture – as a material, as a process and as a means of distribution.

Second, oil is only one fuel.

Transportation is a key function for sure, but broaden your thinking beyond fuel. Oil is pervasive throughout our lives. As a very quick overview, there is nothing that you wear, eat, sit on, stand on, or touch today that does not depend upon oil. How much natural material is in your life? Wood, wool, linen, leather, iron, copper, silver, gold etc – precious little I should think. Common materials like steel and glass are manufactured using high energy. Man made materials are endemic in every item you own – clothing, furniture, drapery, electronics, vehicles, housing, ad infinitum. Oil is the feedstock and the manufacturing processes that produce these materials require lubrication, release agents, cutting fluids, heat and power. As do the machines that make the machines that work the production lines. The whole system is interleaved, interwoven, interdependent and functionally redundant providing the oil keeps flowing. Once that stops, diminishes or becomes unreliable, production and distribution pathways will become reduced and eventually fail.

Walking ten miles barefoot in the snow to get a $250 gallon of gas for your clapped out hybrid will be nothing compared with the other deprivations you will suffer in the post oil age.

[dorlomin]

Herein lies the problem. Somebody's going to have to walk.

Bicycles and public transport also exist.

[Lore]

Herein lies the problem. Somebody's going to have to walk.

Bicycles and public transport also exist.

No public transportation where I live, and making a bicycle trip into town for food is a 30 mile round trip, which isn't all that bad, that is, if you can make it through the snow drifts in the winter.

[vtsnowedin]

The flaw in the argument is in the first sentence. "At the current pace of research...."
That pace is set by the current price of oil. When the price starts rising due to a lack of supply and the pace of research will pick up accordingly.

[Valdemar]

8) The flaw in the argument is in the first sentence. "At the current pace of research...."
That pace is set by the current price of oil. When the price starts rising due to a lack of supply and the pace of research will pick up accordingly.

How?

[eXpat]

Here is a longer comment on the studio and it touches points that peakers have been discussing for years

It seems the panic time for both green enthusiasts and peak oil pundits.

According to a new paper by two researchers at the University of California – Davis, it would take 131 years for replacement of gasoline and diesel given the current pace of research and development; however, world's oil could run dry almost a century before that.

The research was published on Nov. 8 at Environmental Science & Technology, which is based on the theory that market expectations are good predictors reflected in prices of publicly traded securities.

By incorporating market expectations into the model, the authors, Nataliya Malyshkina and Deb Niemeier, indicated that based on their calculation, the peak of oil production could occur between 2010 and 2030, before renewable replacement technologies become viable at around 2140.

The estimates not only delayed the alternative energy timeline, but also pushed up the peak oil deadline. The researchers suggest some previous estimates that pegged year 2040 as the time frame when alternatives would start to replace oil, could be “overly optimistic".

As I pointed out before, despite the excitement and hype surrounding a future of clean energy, a majority of the current technology simply does not make economic sense for regular consumers and lack the infrastructure for a mass deployment….even with government subsidies, tax breaks, and outright mandates.

In addition, the supply chain of renewable technologies is not as green as people might think. Most alternative technologies rely on rare earths for efficiency. However, the radioactive waste produced by rare earths mining process makes oil sands look like a green energy. This overlooked (or ignored) fact just now received some attention due to the sudden shortage caused by China’s embargo and export quotas on rare earths.

Another case in point – In China, the city of Jiuquan in Gansu province needs to build 9.2 gigawatts of new coal-fired generating capacity as backup power of the 12.7 gigawatts wind turbines due to be installed by 2015. More wind farms would need more coal-fired power plants, with little or possiblyly no carbon reduction.

Capitalism means investment naturally flows to the more profitable proposition....and vice versa. With more data and information becoming available, not much could go unnoticed by the markets, particularly in a relatively new sector such as renewable energy. And this harsh reality is clearly reflected in this new study.

Now, in its latest long term outlook, the International Energy Agency (IEA) predicts that oil demand, prices and dependence on OPEC all set to continue rising through 2035, and that global oil supplies would be near their peak in 2035 as China, India and other emerging economies keep on trucking.

So the world needs to come to a common understanding that

1. The alternative energy is not mature enough to completely repalce fossil sources any time soon.
2. Energy security means a diversified and balanced portfolio inclusive of every bit of resource, fossil as well as renewables, just to meet the projected demand.
3. Real "green" energy is easier said than done.

Furthermore, the increased rare earths dependency, and the latest food vs. fuel debate when the food industry slapped a law suit against the EPA over E15 ehtanol, underline some of the unintended (we hope), yet nasty consequences that often come with ill-informed and poorly-planned policies. (In the case of E15, the EPA is an easy mark considering one in eight Americans is on food stamps.)

http://dianchu.blogspot.com/

[BlisteredWhippet]

8) The flaw in the argument is in the first sentence. "At the current pace of research...."
That pace is set by the current price of oil. When the price starts rising due to a lack of supply and the pace of research will pick up accordingly.

How?

Its pretty simple, really. Research institutions will receive funds from capital sources, leading to the purchase of equipment and hiring of scientists. Manufacturing will have to be protected by tariff or subsidy if we want domestic production. Currently China leads the world in such subsidy schemes and protections, and their efforts have paid off in short order. They've been helped by the fire sale of American assets. They are now dominating those areas even as America harbors significant talent in research and development. Of course, you need a government that supports the effort, and since we don't, and theres the rub. Death from above: the executive and legislative branches of our own government.

[Lore]

Governments are hobbled by the same economics regardless of their political form. There simply are no real short or immediate alternatives that will replace the current use of fossil fuels. All the research dollars in the world thrown at the problem will not significantly change that. We blew most of our easy to get at ancient carbon fuel for a brief span of 150 years, rather then conservatively use it, amounting to nothing more then a short party for mankind. It will be a long and tortuous hangover.

[vtsnowedin]

8) The flaw in the argument is in the first sentence. "At the current pace of research...."
That pace is set by the current price of oil. When the price starts rising due to a lack of supply and the pace of research will pick up accordingly.

How?

Its pretty simple, really. Research institutions will receive funds from capital sources, leading to the purchase of equipment and hiring of scientists. Manufacturing will have to be protected by tariff or subsidy if we want domestic production. Currently China leads the world in such subsidy schemes and protections, and their efforts have paid off in short order. They've been helped by the fire sale of American assets. They are now dominating those areas even as America harbors significant talent in research and development. Of course, you need a government that supports the effort, and since we don't, and theres the rub. Death from above: the executive and legislative branches of our own government.

Thanks for supplying a good answer BW. It's hunting season here and I've had guests all weekend and no time for the computer.
Necessity is indeed the mother of invention and the degree of the hardships we will endure as oil declines will set the pace of the research devoted to finding alternatives. It is of course reactive not predictive and there will be a considerable time between the first real shortages and the development of new sources of energy. Add to that the time needed to build new plant , equipment ,and distribution systems, all of which will have to be built in an oil short world and the period of serious shortages without viable alternatives will be more then long enough for those in need.
How countries and individuals deal with the period between shortage and alternative will decide who are the winners and losers in this looming crisis.