This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
131 = The Number of Years to Replace Oil
By Dian L. Chu, Economic Forecasts & Opinions
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
- The alternative energy is not mature enough to completely repalce fossil sources any time soon.
- 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.
- 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 EAP is an easy mark considering one in eight Americans is on food stamps.)
All this requires a balanced and unbiased government policy to guide exploration and development of technologies to unlock the new fossil fuel reserves, expanding the R&Ds of emerging technologies, while effectively practicing and promoting energy efficiency and conservation.
Otherwise, we may literally witness $300 a barrel oil before the electric vehicle could even make one percent market penetration. Unfortunately, there's no easy fix, and the clock is seriously ticking.
Related Reading: The Alternative Fuel Vehicle and $300 Oil
Dian L. Chu, Nov. 13, 2010
»
- advertisements -
Nuclear development? They've been making plutonium since 1941. Don't give me that innocent we don't know nothing attitude. Seriously, how long do you think it would take to put a small nuclear reactor at the end of every block in America? Ten years? Fifteen?
Please. Where there's a will, there's a way and I wouldn't expect any "academic professor" to give me a solution. They're best at wringing their hands.
Keep wringing your hands. Maybe it pisses your wife off something fierce but, in reality, she is in no position to do anything about it or has no inclination to solve the problem herself. She is just reiterating what she has been told to say. Sorry. /:
___________
The Olduvai Theory is utter nonsense as the authors were thinking in terms of nineteenth century technology and capabilities. I am always suspicious when the "theory" rests itself around a nice round number like 100 years, when I am used to dealing with 100 percent Fibonacci retracements, which yield a number like 1.62351. A hundred years? Really? Or is it some Biblical number that should not be taken literally, as Noah lived to be 917 years old?
The Olduvai "theory" pre-supposes that there are no other fuel sources, save the ones the Boyz have indoctrinated into academia, namely petroleum. Peak Oil! Hubbard was a genius! (Academia love their heroes...)
This limited view is not real. It's just not. Think about it.
Oh, and this one I love... "...some other species will take over the running..." like Sleestaks and giant roaches?
Dude, for real...
What we "could do" is academic. What we actually do is the reality we will be forced to live with. So far I see very little investment in the sizable development of alternative energy [all of which have a lower EROEI than petroleum btw].
While I consider Duncan's Olduvai project a hypothesis at this stage, it is good science as it yields falsifiable predictions. My reading, is that Duncan's main point is that measurable energy per capita is in decline, consistent with a post-peak scenario, and has been for a while.
If you want to bet our future on "what scientists will come up with" don't you think it might be prudent to listen to what actual scientists are saying? Every one that I know [and I know many] are saying we're heading off a cliff.
I certainly can't predict the future, but it's a high-risk and unjustifiable gamble IMHO to assume that we can continue along the present course.
May I just correct the phrase from "actual scientists" to "actual scientist academics," not entrepreneurs.
I type this as I write with twice the computing power of the UNIVAC- or to say that I have the same computing power, using as much electricity as three light bulbs, here on my desk than powered the entire Apollo moon program.
Define energy per capita, please. :D
Olduvai assumes stasis. As an academic, we can consider such a scenario, though we know it doesn't happen in the real world. Efficiency is the straw in the craw here, I am afraid. Things change, get better over time.
As far as output per input, oil is the shit, no doubt. My point is that it is not the only thing around and with a little research, we can make the output that much greater in alternative sources, even as efficiency rears its ugly head to the hand-wringers in our universities. Natgas is the future of the world and the US (North America...) is in a prime position to take advantage.
"Olduvai" will remain a hypothesis and will, in fact, be snickered at in the future. It's just silly.
Is my friend at Genentech an "entrepreneurial scientist?" How about Chris Martenson? Where do you think scientist in industry come from? The big difference between industry and academic labs is in the budget, and the projects. The caliber of scientist is not as different as you seem to think. Industry will push for a better acne medicine before it will work on a better HIV treatment or malaria preventative. That's because of market forces. Don't expect the kind of advances in alt energy we need to be pushed for until energy prices are such that development will be impeded.
I think Duncan measured energy per capita in terms of "barrel of oil equivalents"... I'd have to check how he defined that term any further.
Increases in computer "power" have been tremendous, but they won't pump water, heat your home, transport goods, fertilize farms, etc.
My point about computers is that there are always efficiencies that we haven't thought of yet and these efficiencies tend to unfold as the roll-out unfolds and are, therefore, unpredictable.
Granted, we cannot get atomic in the scale of energy efficiencies (or can we?) but to state that man has 131 years of oil is just ludicrous. As someone more clever than I posted on this board, (paraphrasing...) "If we have only 131 years of oil, then I guess we should have started looking for alternatives when we started using petroleum products."
I will just say, in closing, that the world is a much bigger place than you give it credit for.
I wish you and your wife very well.
:D
This article is so ignorant that it does not deserve further comment.
just one.
it's total bullshit, just like global warming.
ok, but there must be an effect if humanity burns a cubic mile of oil every ******* year. no?
I mean if I am cooking in the kitchen, and even one dropplet of oil gets burnt I have to open the window... just as a sidenote..
But again... can you imagine what a cubic mile of oil every year does to the atmosphere of this planet?
I'm gonna make a killing with my teleportation device.
Maybe not...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UhQA-06kSLU&feature=related
Blizzard conditions in the center of the country. How about that great global warming forecast?
On a more important note: This is a good time to remind all skiers and pretty girls to keep their tips up;)
You can't extrapolate a global trend from single localized phenomena. Global warming is an aggregate measurement. Check out average ocean temps [see e.g.: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/].
The problem folks seem to have with this concept is that warming is the destabilizing force on our chaotic atmospheric system. Where it goes from here is not known with any certainty by definition - could lead to run-away warming, or run-away cooling [see "With Speed and Violence" for a good entry-level discussion on the state of climate destabilization science]. Regardless, it won't be good.
In essence, the more insults we pile on nature [deforestation, topsoil erosion, particulate emissions, etc. etc.] the more we are kicking a great big hornet's nest.
So in other words all weather liberals don't like is caused by global warming.
What started/ended the last ice age again? Would that be considered "run-away" cooling or not?
If another ice age (and by extrapolating past cycles it's likely we're overdue for one) suddenly manifested itself, how could the "climate change" crowd possibly resist the temptation to blame it on anthropogenic causes?
I'm all for keeping rivers clean and things like that but doesn't it make more sense that while human activity may be tweaking the climate on the margins, ultimately much larger forces are going to do what they are going to do...and on scales/magnitudes far beyond those that are within our ability to influence?
In light of all available, empirical evidence I think it is simply hubris to conclude otherwise unless of course you take a step back and view the whole thing as justification for a massive power grab with scientists and environmentalists playing the role of useful idiots in service to a larger strategy.
GASP. Oh. My. God. They wouldn't do that, would they?!?
As Carl Sagan once said of religion, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." Or at least some credible evidence rather than computer models and hot air.
As my Geology prof said at Illinois. We're in warm period in a glacial cycle. Enjoy the sun shine while we have it.
Obviously, human beings are not required for climatic shifts, as we have had many glacial cycles that predate humans. However, if we can produce environmental effluent in measurable quantities that compare to changes prompting earlier climatic shifts - than you've got some pretty strong evidence that we're not helping matters, regardless of where we are in the "natural cycle."
Gee, I can handle an extention on the miniscule margin of the global "good weather" interglacial warming for a little longer prior to the initiation of the next glacial cycle.
Not helping what matters? For all we know anthropogenic global warming is holding back the next, overdue ice age. If that is in fact the case, I'm totally cool with that warmth.
You think entirely too much of yourself and your fellow humans. It is natural, I suppose, but wrong nonetheless.
are we stiil supposed to believe that crude oil is derived from dead dinosaurs? If not do we know where oil comes from?
Abiogenic oil (abiotic) comes from the Earth's center.
Evidence is the high concentrations of helium found with it.
Helium can only be found in oil if it comes from the Earth's core.
Find deep faults in the Earth's crust and drill 20,000+ ft.
It's been done by the Russains and others in the last 20 years.
Abiogenic oil is only a hypothesis...
All the oil humanity has ever drilled out is from old plants and animals etc...
So it is biogenic
earths center has only heavy elements , mainly iron. You are not going to find carbohydrates there... lol
No it hasn't. Your information is incorrect.
If it was correct, the empty fields in Oklahoma would have refilled. They didn't. We drill in 5000 feet of water now because the empty fields have dared to stay empty.
Your information is incorrect. Never dwell on it again.
The old ones may not be filling up, but that hasn't stopped them from drilling new ones. Lots of drilling going on.
I surely hope the earth can replenish the wells at such a rate that every Chinaman can drive a Ford Exploder.
Here is a cool documentary I came upon:
http://www.abc.net.au/science/crude/
I worked in the petroleum industry for years and the whole 'peak oil' hypothesis of oil production keeps getting pushed out. First it was 2000, then 2005, then 2010, etc. The bottom line is the industry keeps finding more sources of oil and there is plenty to go around. The oil being pumped is just more difficult to extract than previous sources so naturally the price must increase. For example, the typical reservoir that oil is extracted from only gives up 30% of the total content of oil, leaving 70% remaining. Technologies like steam injection extract greater percentages of that oil. I fully expect to be driving a gasoline powered car 40 years from as it will still be the most economical soltion to consumers.
As to the 131 year contention, that is a load of crap as no industry can predict more than 5-10 years at most due to the potential of disruptive technological advancement.
In the year 2010, sports fans, China bought 17 million cars. Unlike the US, when a new car is bought in China, that is brand spanking new oil consumption (because an older car doesn't roll off the back end to the junk yard).
They plan to buy 23 million next year. And 27 million in 2012.
The avg car in the US drives about 12,000 miles a year. Cutting that a full 20% for China, to 10,000 miles, and give them 30 mpg (far better than US mileage) and we get
17 million X (10,000 / 30) = 5.6 billion gallons a year
and divided by 42 gallons per barrel and 365 days a year we get
370,000 NEW barrels of oil consumption per DAY, just from this year's China cars.
2011's 23 million cars will add 500K more barrels and 2012 another 700K barrels.
This is 1.5 million barrels of oil PER DAY consumption increase JUST FROM CHINA's CARS in the next two years, and oil production is not growing at that rate at all. It's falling.
This excludes India, and other places, where 10% of the people have a car and the other 90% want one.
This will never work. War is coming. Get out of the crushing habit of calling Oil Reserves "Suppy" and oil demand "consumption". Oil reserves are not supply. Oil production is supply. And oil consumption will very soon fall substantially under oil demand.
There is no law of the universe that says you can burn all the oil you want to.
You just described peak oil. It's not that we will pump out every last drop, just that it will be more difficult and expensive. I think the peak oil people believe that 50% of the oil will still be in the ground.
Oh and "Breeder reactors, Bitchez!".
He said market penetration. But hey, if you step back from literal reading it is just saying what most already know - not in your lifetime. Or your kids or their kids.
Look around you - does this shithole rock seem conducive to the kinds of cooperation and resource allocation required to even attempt to change the way we use finite energy resources? The bottleneck cometh boys & girls.
Perhaps merely the culling that will allow us to return to an equilibrium...the sloughing off of the deltas and epsilons.
We could stand a good culling.
Oh, +1. I mean, really, who doesn't love a good old-fashioned culling?
Too right. Pray for plague.
right now NatGas is almost free, and automobiles run on NatGas? What's going on there?
What's going on is NatGas is one of very few values available to investors right now. Stay clear of Marcellus Shale though. Big time water table problems coming with such dense population nearby.
Chicken and egg problem. No nationwide fuel infrastructure, so manufacturers only build nat gas vehicles to order.
A mild proposal:
The post office should switch, where ever possible to nat gas vehicles and only buy fuel from independent stations. Result:
Massive savings for the USPO.
Nation-wide build out proceeds with almost no fuss, expense, or bother.
School districts, Universities, etc. would quickly follow suit.
Move on the next problem.
There is no national infrastructure because the Boyz would rather have you paying through the nose for gasoline and diesel, that's why. Love that Tbilisi Pipeline, baby!
Plus, we get to stick to the Russians! Ha!
Mo' money, mo' money, mo' money...yo' money.
Give me the trillion dollars and I'll have this joint jumping within ten years and that ain't no lie, neither.
Orly Gas: the CNG franchise of the future.
:D
Plus you have the political problem. Tell a died in the wool environmentalist in the EPA to change regulation on NatGas for privately owned vehicles or to lift restrictions on passenger cars for Bio-Diesel and you will be crucified. Unless is hybrid or plug in electric they don't want to hear about it.
Many homes have NatGas either piped over city lines or stored in tanks in the yard. NatGas conversion for a car is actually simple, and illegal for on the road vehicles! That is the crux. If it was made legal, I'm willing to put some shinny down that less than a year latter, 10% of cars would switch to NatGas just for the convenience. Imagine if you didn't have to go to the gas station and just plug in a hose from your house to your car. On top of that your monthly fuel would come in the same bill as you water bill and home heating bill!. Yeah, people would quickly change. Shops would pop all over to do the conversions and NatGas pumps would begin appearing in the highway rest stops right away.
Honda makes a CNG vehicle. How is this illegal?
XOM and CVX seeing the handwriting on the wall and have picked off NG companies. IMO they will push harder on NG as there access to oil starts to diminish.
Yes, there is the thugs-r-us problem. Still, this government is desperate to finally get something right. I'll only buy Orly Gas if your smile is part of the logo. Happy trails.
To measure the stupididty of this reasearch would be academic.
Focusing on the "131 years" part is not the import of the article, this is:
"So the world needs to come to a common understanding that
The alternative energy is not mature enough to completely replace fossil sources any time soon.
Energy security means a diversified and balanced portfolio inclusive of every bit of resource, fossil as well as renewable, just to meet the projected demand.
Real "green" energy is easier said than done."
This is no different than the Hirsch Report in terms of the big picture.
My guess is that the researchers in question constructed a model and came up with the 131 number. As no confidence interval is quoted, we really don't know what the resolution claimed by the authors is.
Either way - the author's summation seems to be that there is no quick and easy solution.
Put another way - the cavalry might not get here in time on this go-round.
The idea that it would take a 131 years to develop an alternative fuel is asninine on its face.
Just not very smart at all.
Sorry.
/:
Cognitive dissonance perhaps?
world oil prouduction peaked in 2005 and has plateaued despite record oil prices, even at over 100 a barrel prouduction of crude could not be increased. this tells me that peak oil has already been reached..
Hard data is a bitch, no??
We have a psychological tendency to "kick the can down the road" and deny the possibility of imminent discontinuous market driven change. The real money is to be made by betting against mass delusions and in favor of the hard data.
And it will take 301 years, two months, and five days to improve on the push-up bra.
Some things are just aggresively stupid. No one can predict future technology or for that matter, future life styles. Don't believe it? Look at the flying cars and other nonsense that were predicted for our own time, from the fifties on. Are we all drowning in liesure? That was a big theme in the seventies. Good grief.
Where's my jetpack?
They said there would be jetpacks!!!
Correct. In 1990 it might have taken 131 years to replace the postal system for letters. But then, unforeseen by most, the internet takes off and emails have done the job already. A lot of oil use can be cut back by telecommuting, higher prices will prompt much smaller, lighter cars. When oil goes to $300 a barrel a lot of waste in oil usage will vanish.
Only a fraction of the global population has access to Internet technology. In fact, only a fraction of the same has access to cars, not to mention paved roads and even electricity.