Fossil fuel depletion is a bigger threat to humanity than climate change.

[mountain_tiger]

Link to original post: [drupal=2423]Fossil fuel depletion is a bigger threat to humanity than climate change.[/drupal]



Nowadays, you hear a lot of stuff in the media about how climate change has already started and that the consequences will start getting much worse, and within 15 years or so if we don't take drastic action then basically a lot of people will die or otherwise suffer.

Now, while I agree that global warming is definitely a big problem, I think that there's an even bigger problem that isn't addressed nearly as much in the media: peak oil.

Basically, peak oil is where the amount of oil production reaches its maximum point, and then slowly declines. Estimates state that the global peak of oil production began in 2005, and this was what led to the huge price rise last summer to almost $150 per barrel. Now, soon after that the price collapsed again to below $40 because of the deep recession. However, the price has since climbed again and is currently at $70, even though we are still in recession. Now, if that's what happens during recessionary times, then what will happen when the economy fully recovers?

And oil is needed for just about everything, not just the fuel for ur cars. We need it to produce and transport all the goods we see in stores today, the most important of which is food. As oil, natural gas and coal supplies deplete, then that will mean that crop yields will diminish, leading to famine on a large scale, and the economy will collapse, since in a sense it needs constant growth to function (hence why the recession is so severe).

Now, theoretically, if we started building nuclear power stations, wind farms etc etc. on a massive scale right now, we could potentially try to solve the problem. But the government are reluctant to accept the truth, as this would lead to panic amongst the people, causing stock markets to crash. And we need to start ASAP because building these alternative sources of energy requires a large amount of fossil fuels to mine the materials and build the stations.

So yeah, all in all, I think that this problem should be receiving more coverage than climate change, whereas currently it isn't receiving very much at all. Agree or disagree?

 

[Jim Morrison]

This wouldn't lead to panic amongst masses, I'd say. These problems (climate change and this one) are roughly just as drastic, but you also have the loss of fresh water in the coming decades, surplus population and much, much more. TBH, I'm just gonna let it all play out :/
This is my problem, but it isn't my solution, I'd rather let people who expertise in this handle this. Of course, when we run out of fossil fuel (which is not within 15 years), we have the alternatives which have just been held back for the lulz, going 'don't worry, we'll build a few of these and the problem is solved!'

These are all estimates though, I could be wrong.

 

[Arbutus]

We -have- alternative fuel sources. We just don't use them because no one wants to be the douchebags being like "TAKE THAT OIL COMPANIES AND ALL YOUR EMPLOYEES. YOU ARE NOW VOID. VOID. HAVE FUN DOING NOTHING WITH YOUR LIVES."

Yeah.

 

[Deleted member]

Beats me why we're not using nuclear power. I guess people are still like "OMG ITZ GUNNA EXPLOAD!!!!"

 

[CRASHiC]

Beats me why we're not using nuclear power. I guess people are still like "OMG ITZ GUNNA EXPLOAD!!!!"

Fear.
The Simpsons.
Radioactive waist.

 

[GreenKirby]

The reason we're not searching for alternate fuels is because the oil companies got our government by the balls.

 

[TP]

Peak oil isn't going to be hit until 2012. I don't know what source told you 2005. Also, the new oil found in the Gulf of Mexico recently could push it back farther.

The prime alternative energy source is and will continue to be biofuel, most notably from algae, though I admit I don't know much about nuclear energy.

Fossil fuel depletion is VERY closely related to climate change. You can't say one is worse than the other, because they cause each other in a viscous circle.

I'll type more later. Peak oil is an extremely important concept that not nearly enough people know about. You are right to spread awareness.

 

[_KuyaSombreo_]

What are possible methods for correcting this issue?

I do fear this likeliness that the world's major source of power will be depleted.

 

[Stealth Raptor]

once the price of oil rises high enough shale oil will become a powerful oil resource, and there is quite possibly more oil in shale oil then there ever was elsewhere

 

[Amazing Ampharos]

I'm pretty sure peak oil models account for new discoveries; I doubt discoveries in the oceans and such are so dramatic as to significantly change the picture (then again 2012 versus 2005 is not really that much in the end). Regardless, it is a huge deal, and it is indeed pretty closely tied to climate change and pollution in general (which is itself a thoroughly insidious problem; if you live in a polluted city, your expected life expectancy is way lower than someone who lives somewhere clean).

Electric cars have made great strides, and I'm convinced they're the future. That would funnel down our problem of energy to power plants alone (which fixes the oil issues mostly, but we still have coal and natural gas to worry about). We already do a pretty good job of exploiting hydroelectric where nature permits, and I think a move to do the same with wind is well underway and definitely very important. Of course, not everywhere has good access to such resources, and at that point, I think nuclear has us taken care of. Nuclear power is an amazing power source, and it is honestly nothing but baffling that any fossil fuel power plant would be built today is not a nuclear plant instead. There are two things inhibiting this, and both are really, really stupid.

1. "Not in my backyard". This is the worst. Okay, you don't want a nuclear plant near you because it could blow. Yeah, that would suck and probably kill you. It will also never happen since modern plants with modern engineering are so ridiculously well maintained and understood that expecting to die because of one is like planning your retirement off lottery winnings. On the other hand, you could build a coal plant that pumps out all sorts of pollutants into the atmosphere, you could breathe it in, and then you could get lung cancer, heart disease, or any manner of respiratory problems as you get older. Hmm, this is a hard choice, but I think I'll take the nuclear plant in my backyard. Heck, my house has a spare room; put a reactor in there if no one is volunteering. They are that safe that I would be totally comfortable with that.

2. "Where to put the waste?" Nuclear plants produce waste in the form of spent fuel (nuclear fuel is simply radioactive isotopes that are so abundant that they might as well be endless, in the same spirit we don't worry about running out of iron). Our government had a great solution, and it's one I support 100%. We were planning on dumping all spent nuclear fuel in the US from here on out in Yucca Mountain, a facility built in the Nevada desert (read: totally worthless land) to house it. Now, the world has many natural resources, and one of them is an abundance of totally worthless desert land. I'm sure some crazy naturalist somewhere likes deserts, but let's get real. They are totally ill-suited for human life, and they are pretty ill-suited for almost all other forms of life either. They are also really dry and generally stable so natural events are very unlikely to disturb the waste even. Of course, people from Nevada whined about this plan; that really blows me away. I mean, sure, it's an unpleasant thought to have your state's most important contribution to the country be as a radioactive garbage dump, but no one is suggested we put it under Las Vegas or anything. Obviously it's going to be very far from where anyone lives, and the worst damage we do is uprooting cacti to build the facility. Literally the only downside here is psychological, and I think the people of Nevada (and desert regions globally, since this is a global sort of solution) can suck it up for everyone's greater good.

I'd also like to point out just how many of our problems go away if we totally stop using fossil fuels. Here's the list I count:

-City smog and global warming are instantly non-issues or at least far more minor ones. Cut out all the pollution made from automobiles and power plants (this can potentially include things like lawnmowers and boats but probably not airplanes), and what sort of pollution is left? Well, you have industrial pollution (which itself can be minimized by a greater reliance on electric energy!), and that's about it. Those water problems might not be quite so bad even; there is a lot more to them than putting some cleaner air above the water, but it certainly does not hurt.

-Escalating transportation costs, which are effectively putting a stronger than desirable upward curve on general cost of living everywhere, stop escalating and stabilize. Having our energy and transportation be from infinite resources means they go to a model of cost that is either constant or decreasing, never increasing (except via normal economic fluctuation of the value of literally everything).

-Terrorism loses big time. The economic model of terrorism is pretty simple. Their counties have lots of wealth but a low quality of life due to the oil economies. This creates a situation of there being lots of extra resources (so they can acquire a lot of weapons) and a lot of potential recruits (people with a low quality of life are easier to convince to do something radical). If everyone suddenly had far less use for oil and prices went to something obscenely low like $5 a barrel due to rock bottom demand, what do you figure would happen to those oil economies? Remember that other than oil, a lot of the land in the Middle East is dead worthless; these countries might suddenly have way bigger concerns than blowing stuff up. For example, "how do we feed our population when we're suddenly very, very poor and have limited farmland?". We even get double points by majorly undermining our "friends" in Venezuela too!

-Needing to build a ton of electric cars is basically just what the American automakers need. I mean, what's better for a car maker than having a type of car that everyone will eventually want to buy? That would really do wonders for the US economy, especially in states like Michigan that depend on these automakers to a ridiculous degree. For that matter, building and maintaining nuclear power plants makes jobs too, and the jobs are a whole lot better than the jobs of mining coal and running gas stations.

-The US federal budget would look a lot better. Just imagine if we suddenly were important a lot less oil (big improvement in balance of trade) and if we could responsibly massively downsize our military (if the Middle East stops being any more of a problem than Africa, what use is a big military?). Man, with that kind of money, we might even be able to do things like think about paying for health care and retirement for a lot of our population...

In other words, really a ridiculous number of the world's problems are solved by reforming our energy system, and we have solutions in the works and at our fingertips that need far more political and popular encouragement instead of discouragement.

 

[Jim Morrison]

Good read, AA, but the part about Terrorism really got off wrong to me.
I can't word it right, without being easily countered, but the way you put it felt really wrong :/

Otherwise, I do agree with you. Do know that making electricity still mainly relies on fossil fuels to be generated. They heavily outnumber the other power plants, which have a lot less of them available. Also, if most of our needs (transportation mainly) were to switch to electric, there would have to be a lot more of those stations. Coal power plants heavily contribute to global warming (if you believe humans cause it) and building a lot more of the other power plants, which are cleaner, 'green', would cost A LOT more than normal coal power plants. Where would you get the money from :/.
In the end, this whole topic, fuels and climate change, evolves around money.

 

[Insetick]

We were planning on dumping all spent nuclear fuel in the US from here on out in Yucca Mountain, a facility built in the Nevada desert (read: totally worthless land) to house it. Now, the world has many natural resources, and one of them is an abundance of totally worthless desert land. I'm sure some crazy naturalist somewhere likes deserts, but let's get real. They are totally ill-suited for human life, and they are pretty ill-suited for almost all other forms of life either. They are also really dry and generally stable so natural events are very unlikely to disturb the waste even. Of course, people from Nevada whined about this plan; that really blows me away..

I don't know much, but I can contribute some knowledge.

Deserts are an important ecosystem for many different organisms, no matter how dead they appear. We can't risk biodiversity if we're going to try to solve our energy problems.

I don't like the idea of storing nuclear waste. Even in a desert, I feel that eventually the waste will get into the environment. It may seem like no one lives out in the desert, but I'm sure someone does. The government did nuclear testing in "remote" places in Nevada before, and many small towns were affected by the radiation.

I unfortunately have no idea how to get rid of nuclear waste...

 

[Stealth Raptor]

honestly the only conceivable way to get rid of it imo is to get rid of it in space, and the safest place to do that is the sun. but thats not gonna happen anytime soon LOL