We may have one-third less oil globally than previously thought.
The Telegraph reports that OPEC (the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries) over-reported their reserves in the 80′s. This means that world oil reserves, previously thought to range from 1,150bn to 1,350bn (billion barrels) may actually be between 850 and 900 billion barrels. Supply could outstrip demand for oil as soon as 2014, especially considering Asia’s growing thirst for oil.
Also, many public statistics have started to incorporate unusual sources whose costs are uncertain, such as shale and tar sands. These sources may never be economically sound to develop.
Peak Oil is here! Don’t panic. We might get rad airships out of this:
Dr Oliver Inderwildi, who co-wrote the paper with Sir David and Nick Owen for Oxford University’s Smith School, believes radical measures such as switching freight transport to airships could become common in future.
“The belief that alternative fuels such as biofuels could mitigate oil supply shortages and eventually replace fossil fuels is a pie in the sky. Instead of relying on those silver bullet solutions, we have to make better use of the remaining resources by improving efficiency.”
In the short term, he’s right. Biofuels or anything like that will most likely not be viable in four to five years. What we can do, however, is increase efficiency, conserve what we have, and pursue an aggressive nuclear power strategy. There are a whole range of advanced plants we could begin building now. (Paradoxically, nuclear waste is much more manageable and more tolerable at this point than CO2 emissions). Basic research funding for alternative energy needs to be massively increased, for everything from wind, solar, biofuel, tidal generators, and even previously hare-brained near-scifi ideas. We’ll need this research for mid- to long-term solutions.
But one thing is clear: oil is running out.
For the record, I think biofuels are a really idiotic idea. You are turning food into fuel. We already suffer from food shortages(Anybody remember the food riots of 07-08?), so not exactly the greatest idea. Oh, and never mind that the energy you get out of it is barely worth the energy put into it.
Caitlin, ethanols (mostly corn-based ehtanol) is a pretty bad idea because it isn’t efficient or really that clean. Food shortages are tricky, and depend on economic/political relations… “giving” away food is often a terribly bad idea as well.
I don’t think of corn or sugar cane ethanol for biofuel. I usually think of this. Algae fuel isn’t economic at this point and needs further research and/or genetic engineering.
Corn and sugar cane ethanol are very different. Brazil has been a beacon to the world for energy independence through their reliance on sugar cane ethanol, which is relatively cheap, very efficient, and found in abundance throughout the Southern hemisphere. While the corn-based ethanol program is mostly a waste, Brazilians have benefited tremendously from sugar cane ethanol.
The problem with US sugar cane ethanol is the economics and politics surrounding the sugar market.
You’re only saying biofuels are idiotic if they’re made from food crops, right?
It depends on the energy balance, but for the most part, yes. I hear so may stupid corn-is-the-best arguments I get a bit reactionary to the mention of biofuels. Sorry.
“We already suffer from food shortages”
That really has very little to do with using food-stuffs as biofuels. It is rather the policy of paying farmers for fields to lie fallow so as to control the price of the food crops by limiting supply. We have the available farm land to produce significantly more crops should we choose, but that would destroy the price of food crops. However food crops are not the optimal choice – they grow too slow and too much energy is wasted in the conversion process. Things like sugar grass look much more promising but even at a reasonably optimal conversion biofuel only really looks good relative to oil.
What would be more useful is a breakthrough in carbon nanotube capacitors so that we can get a lightweight, high charge density, fast recharge time electrical storage solution for transportation (wouldn’t mind it for laptops and cell phones either) coupled with something like Bill Gates’s Terrapower traveling wave reactors (a nuclear reactor that burns nuclear waste – one of the cleanest and safest energy production proposals on the table) to generate the electricity.
We must start boiling babies down for their blubber. Just kidding. Sort of.
We need to adapt. Take a look at this article The Great Transition: http://www.scribd.com/doc/21656220/The-Great-Transition-Navigating-Social-Economic-Ecological-Change-in-Turbulent-Times
It’d be interesting to see how using sunlight to grow algal lipids for biofuel that would be burned in a combustion engine would compare to using sunlight to charge ultracapacitors that drive electric motors. I’d have to find out how efficient solar cells are right now.
Caitlin, do you know how efficient photosynthesis is in a percentage?
I don’t know about the whole “nuclear waste is much more manageable and more tolerable at this point than CO2 emissions”. It will have less impact on the environment, but you have to consider the cost of maintaining the waste. That stuff takes thousands of years to reduce to something non-toxic. We’d have to properly store and maintain these wastes for all of the foreseeable future. This is not a viable option to replace oil.
There’s definitely a trade-off I’ve glossed over, and I should probably have used a different wording than “much more manageable”, but I hope you see what I meant. Point is, CO2 is less controllable, and may turn out to be more economically expensive to deal with on a long term basis.
Waste could also be mitigated with a few approaches, including Traveling Wave Reactors as Josh mentioned. And if we can figure out cheap fusion (much cleaner), fission might become unnecessary for most uses.
Another option that is a little more far-fetched for now (well, near-fetched), but depending on how the economic development of space pans out, and how quickly, we might be able to just chuck any truly useless waste at the sun and be done with it.
James, I completely agree with you about nuclear energy. I can think of no better alternative to our current energy woes. While nuclear can’t solve every problem, it is the best thing we’ve got.
I have to continue to disagree with you guys about nuclear energy. Sure, it’s a better alternative, but it is not sustainable. MIT Professor Dan Nocera talks about some reasons why in this video. Note that the point of his lecture isn’t about nuclear power, but what he believes will solve our energy problems in the future (his technology).
http://vimeo.com/8194089
I find it hilarious/sad that all the comments on that video are on the fact that his slides used comic sans. Font snobs are so annoying.
I want to make it clear that I think nuclear is–or at least should be–a stop-gap temporary solution to get us through a peak oil situation. If you’re talking about fission, it’s dirty, unsustainable and still not renewable. We’d still need high capacity, um, capacitors for vehicles anyway.
Nocera’s ideas look like a possible “end game” we should head toward. If his stuff is ready soon enough, well then let’s just skip nuclear. Basing our whole global society off of artificial photosynthesis seems like a total no-brainer.