Global Oil Depletion | Alister Hamilton
Вставка
- Опубліковано 2 кві 2024
- When do you think we’ll run out of oil?
2050? 2100? Never? That’s understandable given the IPCC models access to oil until 2100; politicians like Rishi are betting big on North Sea deposits. Petroleum is the life blood of our global economy, and it’s difficult to imagine it drying up. More often, when we talk about transitioning away from fossil fuels, it’s because of the necessity to limit global warming-not because we run out.
But a team in Scotland are warning exactly that-we’re running out. Fast. Alister Hamilton is a researcher at the University of Edinburgh and the founder of Zero Emissions Scotland. He and his colleagues self-funded research into oil depletion around the world and the results are shocking: We will lose access to oil around the world in the 2030s.
They calculated this by establishing the Energy Return On Investment (EROI) and found that whilst there will still be oil deposits around the world, we would use more energy accessing the oil supply than we would ever get from burning it. This is because we’re having to mine further into the earth’s crust to access lower-grade oil. According to their calculations, the oil in the North Sea will be inaccessible-in a dead state-by 2031, and the oil in Norway by 2032. Around the world, oil reserves see the same trend through the 2030s.
Petroleum is the life blood, and we haven’t yet built out a different circulatory system to support renewable energy-in less than a decade, the world as know it could crash.
🔴 Alister: www.eng.ed.ac.uk/about/people...
🌎 Support Planet: Critical: / planetcritical
🌎 Subscribe: www.planetcritical.com/
🌎 Twitter: / crisisreports
Anyone that thinks Mars is an appropriate location for a human lifeboat... Go. Go there. Colonize. Leave us alone. I will repeat the insight of someone I learned from when I was a wee child: "Mars ain't the kind of place to raise your kids, In fact it's cold as hell."
If we can't manage Earth, how the F does anyone think we have a chance in hell making life work on a *dead* world?
I always thought hell was 🔥🥵
The attractiveness is its stability, try planning for 77 metres of sea level rise over the next 2000 years, without fossil fuels and a hothouse earth for the next ten million years, it makes mars with enough sunlight to grow plants better than what could be 10,000 years of rain here.
@@antonyjh1234 Nobody will need to plan for all that stuff that far in the future. There won't be any humans here in 2000 years. And anyone that ventures to a sterile frigid hell-scape of Mars, a planet without a magnetic field to deflect the sun's intense radiation, will probably commit suicide within a few years after living an entombed existence under ground.
Mars or Bust ! Long live Elon, King of near Space.
Makes sense that would coincide with the 1972 MIT paper on modernity's collapse by 2040. Without energy, society can't maintain the current level of sophisticated infrastructure and complexity to move around goods and services.
COR world3 is correct, Scared me back then at Univeristy and is still correct. ❤❤. (We were fracking in the 1960s in New Mexico)
I that the Club Of Rome report?
I suspect we will see the end of globalisation within 20 years with international transport becoming too expensive
@@ChrisInToon no MIT university did a study in 1972
@@ChrisInToonlimits to growth
Fuck around (20th century) and find out ! (21th century) xD
Google it: Wrong Again: 50 Years of Failed Eco-pocalyptic Predictions
I rely on this podcast for those times when my antidepressants get a little too cocky. Thanks for your work!
Actually, if you look at the inherent inequality in fragility of many people's social lives based on the inadequate social contract based on our technological addiction based on our over reliance on easy to consume fossil fuels, it's a good thing that our society is going to die because it did produce a lot of inequality and that was the thing it was the best at producing was inequality because it produced inequality more than it produced anything else. So with the end of the easy access of energy comes the end of the inequality producing system that we have produced. Although whatever comes next is not going to be inherently equal either because it will be based off of the inequality system that we have already established. Think of the Zuckerberg bunkers for instance
@@aegisfate117I bet you’re fun at parties and wakes.
Get off those drugs.
You're fooling yourself!
Been there, done it.
Years on meds- messed me up!
Eat whole foods, fruits, veggies, water.
Cut out the junk!
And EXERCISE!
I'm 42- partially disabled but HEALED!
I thank GOD for Jesus- saved my life AND my SOUL.
All REAL!
You are a product and a marketing campaign and you can't even see it.
A CONsumer duped by pharma and a FOR PROFIT industry.
Thank GOD He opened my eyes and gave me knowledge and understanding.
Lower your dose and get off those drugs.
You are your own answers-
Read the bible.
It will save your life.
@@aegisfate117Love of money is the root to all evils.
@@aegisfate117 Don't worry. The only reason we actually need the fossil fuels is to help maintain the same feudal power distribution we have today. Of course as you say we'll have to work if we want to change the dynamics of the situation as it changes. In the same way the the feudal lords use planned and expected economic booms and busts to seize more power, just look at the fossil fuel bust as an opportunity and not just the bloody mess that it's probably going to be.
energy return on investment (EROI) is an important concept that most people do not understand
arent we already in number 1:1 in many places? we could soon be in situation nuclear or wind energy is subsidizing digging oil out of ground, with getting less back. Though renewables equipment has also at times 10 or only 1.
Which places have highest EROEI (saudi-arabia?) with high reserves? Coz those are key places, both high volume and high availability now but how fast that changes...
Google it: Wrong Again: 50 Years of Failed Eco-pocalyptic Predictions
You'd think these alarmists would've learned by now.... they've never been right ever. I remember when I was nine talking to my mother about the 1973 Energy Crisis that was nothing more than a tool government used to raise the cost of fuel by claiming the supply was depleted.
After the oil companies had sufficiently raised prices they slowly ramped up production because they were making another 70% on a gallon of fuel.
Yes, it seemed like over night the, "Energy Crisis" that was going to have us all walking and riding bikes was over without an explanation.
Yes, there's enough oil for hundreds of years and if you're really worried about it they have been producing synthetic fuel for nearly a hundred years... remember during WWll... the Germans were forced to rely on synthetic fuel because of the fact that they'd been cut off from North African oil, the oil wells to the north in places like Norway and naturally nothing was coming from The Soviet Union.
Yes, we've been lied to by the governments of this world ever since there's been governments and this guy is either a shill or a moron.
EROI is dumb. You want us to believe that drilling is as expensive than that of the oil extracted? That is what a ratio of 1 means. That ratio is simply not possible and all that will happen is that price will increase. Since everything (And I mean everything.) is based on the cost of a barrel of oil it will just be inflation. We'll always be able to drill because your stupid study does not factor in the 10 million dollars invested will yield 1 billion future dollars. Since you are the start of the inflationary cycle you always use your money before it devalues. This is something that almost nobody realizes.
@@buddysnackit1758 for the left, the devil isn't even in the details... it's in the simple facts.
None of their efforts to, "save the environment" have ever worked; all that results is more damage to the environment coupled with a financial disaster and tyrannical government policies.
....name one leftist idea that makes sense even on the surface let alone that actually worked...
If Sterling engines were any kind of solution the Italians, Japanese, Swedish, Koreans, Germans, Austrians Australians or Indians could have figured it out. All the countries that rely on oil imports had plenty of reason to develop oil alternatives for decades. This goes for the US too. People at M.I.T. have known about Sterling engines for as long as there has been an M.I.T.
They still abide by Carnot efficiency rules, no doubt... work done scales to temp differential.... the holy decree , number 2...
The US army did figure it out : they had a prototype small truck driven by a Stirling engine. It proved more efficient than equivalent internal combustion engines.
The neat thing about a Stirling engine, is the ability to use virtually any heat source. The increased efficiency wasn't needed, due to the ease of manufacture of conventional designs.
To understand how far this goes, Google Taurozzi engine. (Another design with improved efficiency ) The design has been verified by its use for medical oxygen pumps, and any gas pump demanding absolute purity.
Indeed. A Stirling engine is a heat engine like any other. It must be supplied with a heat differential from somewhere, typically by burning stuff. It has absolutely no advantage over electric motors, which can run from wind, solar and hydro electricity that was *not* generated thermally. At the large scale it has no advantage over other external-combustion engines like steam turbines. At the small scale its only advantage over internal-combustion engines is that it can run from dirtier fuel. It does work nicely for small-scale solar thermal electricity generation, and it did once look like it might compete with solar PV, but in the last 15 years PV has dramatically reduced its costs while solar thermal has been left in the dust.
Recovery of mechanical or electric power from thermal storage is an interesting role in which Stirling engines may one day shine. They're technically reversible so they can serve as a heat pump, *creating* a temperature differential in addition to being able to recover work from one, but it is doubtful that something as simple as a Stirling engine will have an advantage over existing thermal energy storage developments which tend to use either established heat pump machinery from the industrial gas industry, or more specialised equipment, such as the "isentropic" heat pump designed by the former company of that name (the tech and some of the team now belonging to the Sir Joseph Swan Centre for Energy Research at Newcastle University).
One role in which Stirling engines might be the best possible technology is in radioisotope generators for spacecraft, where they can achieve higher thermal efficiency than the solid-state Seebeck generators which have traditionally been used in this role, without the complexity of a more sophisticated engine design which might have a greater risk of breakdown or need for maintenance, which you can't do on an uncrewed spacecraft and would be unatractive to do with irradiated components even on a crewed one.
Stirling engines are a niche technology and while they might find additional niches with the depletion of fossil oil and gas, the likelihood that they will ever assume a major role in terrestrial energy supply is small.
Google it: Wrong Again: 50 Years of Failed Eco-pocalyptic Predictions
No sterling engine will move a car..
Energy in/ work out....
A sterling engine to drive a car requires energy. It would have to be an engine with small wheels and a seat only.
The Limits to Growth are in our face now.
Utter rubbish. Mankind has only just begun its journey, Yes there will be bumps in the short term, particularly in the defeated West, but mankind will grow to ultimately conquer the universe.
Limits to Growth didn't take into account the energy costs of fuel extraction, it simply assumed it could be ignored, which was true when the model was created.
The co-creator of the Limits to Growth model stated, once the model showed decline, a qualitative change would have occurred, invalidating the model.
(The Limits to Growth model was purely numeric.)
Once energy extraction become greater than the energy retrieved, a collapse would occur much faster than Limits to Growth predicted. Every attempt at extracting more energy will simply make everything worse.
The only chance is a massive adoption of nuclear power to maintain the flow of usable energy.
@@michaeledwards2251 technocornucopianism only digs the hole deeper.
@@michaeledwards2251 technocornucopianism only digs the hole deeper.
@@michaeledwards2251 technocornucopianism solves nothing and only digs the unsustainable, overshoot hole deeper.
Humanity's been guzzling on the stuff like it's inexhaustible. Hundred of millions cruising around in heavy steel vehicles. Gasoline is cheaper than soda pop! Imagine that. And just a gallon of this energy- rich miraculous stuff has the energy to push a 6,000 lb SUV 16 to 20 miles. OMG. Save some for future generations? Fuggettaboutit!
Ford F-140 SUV with conventional engines gives 20 mpg, with Achates opposed piston engines, 40 mpg. (Autoline) Even then most of the energy is wasted. Even without reducing the size of modern SUV and cars, fuel consumption could be cut to 1/3 or less, using better engines and KE recovery : currently only used in Formula 1.
@@michaeledwards2251 Yeah, yeah. Look pops, there's no way a big ass heavy SUV is going to get 40mpg. Manufacturers have been trying to squeeze as much mileage out of a gallon for years. Any improvement will only be marginal. Now go back to sleep.
@@SteffiReitsch
Just look up Achates Diesel on Google. Autoline had a program on Ford F-140 getting 40 mpg.
The only reason low mpg SUV exist is because the engine is cheaper giving more profit.
Google it: Wrong Again: 50 Years of Failed Eco-pocalyptic Predictions
@@SteffiReitsch
Kindly wake up and look up Autoline & Achates. Its been done, and demonstrated to the satisfaction of Autoline, the US car TV program. Typical petrol engines in a urban environment are no more than 11% efficient.
Achates engines score on 2 fronts, higher top efficiency and maintaining efficiency over a wider speed range than conventional engines.
I just read the book ‘How everything can collapse’ by Pablo Servigne and an important part of it describes just this. A must read. He also makes a distinction between ‘limits’ and ‘boundaries’, by comparing our society with a car driving on a road.
A limit is the amount of fuel in the tank. No more fuel and the car comes to a stop.
A boundary is the road the car is driving on: if you leave the road, you will end up somewhere in the field, under unpredictable circumstances. The climate and CO2 we pump into the atmosphere are the boundaries we’ve crossed and we’re moving into unknown territory and towards a concrete wall at the same time. This seems to be somewhat of a contradiction, but it is not. We do not yet know when the wall will show up and what will come first: the wheels will break down or the fuel runs out.
aint oil running out put wall if humans cannot do it themselves. So 2 problems solved in one go. Economic viability should make digging oil out of ground not feasible quickly if more energy is needed than received.
Google it: Wrong Again: 50 Years of Failed Eco-pocalyptic Predictions
Having run out of firm many times in a car and especially truck, I can assure you , life without oil will be painfully hard work.
Nate Hagens has been focusing on this too, although the time frame discussed here is much shorter than what I have gathered from Nate's channel. Perhaps I'm mistaken. But regardless, the cost of extraction is going to climb with time until it becomes a net energy loss. Of course the climate-denying conservative base will lose their collective minds as oil prices climb until reality finally sinks into their thick skulls.
I don't think oil prices will rice. The economy will fall in line with oil depletion. keeping oilprce fluctuating
I have been following Simon Michaux after his interviews with Nate Hagens. Simon and Art Burman seem to be much more convinced we are closer to the end of oil than Nate Hagens. I like Nate and have watched just about everyone of his podcasts more than once but I think he is overwhelmed and in denial of how bad the situation really is with both how little oil is left and how much damage we have already done to the biosphere. I think Nate is slightly stuck in a late 1990s world view of having time to adress the crisis. Meaning that I think Nate believes or wants to believe we can keep the status quo lifestyle or close to it. Just maybe not waste energy on things like driving further to work. The reality is we are far beyond that.
@@robertpedersen6831yes Art Burman iirc explained the reality that governments will subsidies or pump from the government reserves to keep the oil price from going too high because they cannot afford to have the economy fail. It isn't a true supply and demand market. You can see how hard the governments in Europe have fought to help control cost for the economy with the loss of the pipelines from Russia to Germany. Or how much the usa pumped out of our reserve the Biden administration has pumped out about half of the oil reserve and hasn't replaced it.
@@DanA-nl5uo I also watch Nate's shows and listen to the podcast and I don't think he's as rosy-goggled as you say. His show is called "The Great Simplification" for a reason and it's because he thinks that complex society as it exists right now is coming to an end soon. I do agree that his timeline is a little further out than some others think, but that seems up for debate depending on who else you listen to. My own expectation is for oil to get very expensive within the next decade or so.
@@Lurkerbot Nate has said we will be burning oil in 2070. It was on some of his early podcasts. I would say that is beyond optimistic for the oil industry.
But Nate saids he wants to build a network of people choosing to live a lower energy lifestyle to be examples for that distant day when society is forced to make that choice but that be believes it is inevitable that we delay that as long as possible and keep living the ff dream. I view that as a very last century mindset. I am only a few years younger than Nate and I think he underestimates how different the world view is of people a couple decades younger than him.
1 Supply and demand.
Less easy oil price goes up.
2 There's hundreds of years of coal in the ground. You can make oil from coal.
It's not done now because we use the easy to get oil.
The biggest oil reserves are in Nicuagua, but our refiners are set up to process sweet light.
Politics and geopolitics determine our access to hydrocarbons, not geology. There are huge reserves of oil out there that our political class don't allow access to.
In a way, this can be seen as good news because it limits the amount of global warming and environmental damage we would otherwise inflict on the planet. In a world of competitive nation-states, voluntary degrowth will never happen. It will be forced either by the depletion of fossil fuels or the expense of dealing with the consequences of our overuse of resources.
No it really doesn't limit emissions if the status quo continues we will just switch back to coal.. and we have a LOT of coal.
Nate Hagens reckons that AI will greatly assist the efficiency of extraction wells that could mean the ROI stays a little higher for longer :(
It will make the global warming problem worse : the loss of aerosols, there are still considerable aerosols in the atmosphere, will drive up global temperatures above 2 C above the 1850 base line.
With reduced power, the ability to prevent a transition to a hot house earth will be greatly reduced.
Natural methane production has already increased due to melting of the tundra (permafrost), and tropical temperature increases. The immediate effects of global methane production are still much less than fossil fuels, but long run, should still be sufficient to make the earth transition to a hot house earth.
Google it: Wrong Again: 50 Years of Failed Eco-pocalyptic Predictions
When I see the reaction of many people, including policy-makers, to statements about oil depletion, I can't help drawing a parallel to the Black Knight in Monty Python and the Holy Grail. "Your arm's cut off." "No, it isn't." 🤔
One nice model example for depletion is the Cantarell oil field, an aging super-giant. It was once the 2nd largest oil producing field and is now by a factor of 10 smaller than during its maximum production. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cantarell_Field#Production_history
Google it: Wrong Again: 50 Years of Failed Eco-pocalyptic Predictions
These Peak Oil gurus were popular with the boomers. They're the same people behind the alien UFO cults. Many Hollywood productions are based on both.
It makes no sense that the Earth could be running out of oil as we've only consumed a tiny amount of oil so far.
Where can we find the report he has written about this? The link in description does not help
The oil stays in the ground when it takes one barrel to recover a new one.
19:23 19:29 No reason to stop producing oil at sub-unity EROI. It isn't valued for its energy content.
Incorrect. Oil is easily transportable, so it is economical to extract if the energy required can be provided with "free" energy like co-located natural gas/methane, that would be uneconomical to transport (gas is a pain to pipe or condense for transportation). So there are SOME places where the remaining oil will still be extracted (and later refined/used elsewhere), depending on the geology etc., even if it takes more than the equivalent energy to extract. You are correct though that it won't be extracted if the energy required exceeds output AND has to be provided from elsewhere.
Even if no fossil fuel source is available, nuclear will be used to extract oil/bitumen. For example the Tar Sands of Canada. I expect the entire Tar Sands to be extracted. Any water supply problem will be overcome by pumping in sea water from the Pacific.
@@michaeledwards2251 all i hear is this nuclear bullshit from illiterate morons like yourself. you don't even know if they work as advertised. the whole thing could be a scam
@@davidbarry6900 this applies to green energy conversion to similar transportable different forms. there will always be need to pay almost anything for that kind of benefit. oil has just penetrated transportation everywhere so it is hard to replace and hard to even imagine what EROI below 1 means.
It floors me that in America how much petroleum is used for plastic shopping bags/plastic packaging alone! 30+ years of hyperconsumerism has poisoned the soil with bits and bits of plastic, I see it every day and try to clean it up, but it keeps coming back because of wind. It seems like a lost cause only until we stop producing all this excess plastic.
Art Burman does a good job of explaining how the ff industry has pushed plastics because the shale oil is really high to methane and other gas that doesn't form into gasoline or diesel fuel so the plastic is a byproduct of trying to get enough gasoline and diesel
You really want to eat an apple that has just been fondled by someone who never washes their hands?
@@juskahusk2247you think that changes when you pick the apple off the counter and put it in a plastic bag at the grocery store?
@@DanA-nl5uo No. I'm saying it's safer to choose a plastic bag of apples.
@@juskahusk2247 I don't recall grimy hands on apples were in any way a problem prior to widespread 1-time-use plastics.
so are we saying that the 1.56 trillion barrels of global reserve oil is subject to roughly 70% attritional loss during extraction, meaning the actual extractable reserve is only 468 billion barrels, when annual consumption is 37 billion barrels per year and rising, meaning actual oil expiry in under 13 years. and this guy is saying that as that reserve reduces, the extraction becomes more and more inefficient, so we're talking a lot less than 13 years. that's no flights, no new plastics, no non-electric cars within a decade... this is global economic collapse, surely?
Its always been known only 1/3 of the oil in a reserve can be extracted without external energy input. Every extra 1% needs more and more energy to extract.
To get oil out of a reserve demands the reserve internal pressure is greater than the pressure from the height of oil from the reserve to the surface.
Yes. See Nate hagens “the gear simplification” series.
@@michaeledwards2251 There is the "oil in place" and the reserves, which is roughly a 1/3 of the first number and which can be extracted. Most of the oil will stick to the porous stone of the reservoir. Enhanced oil recovery (CO2 injection, steam injection, chemicals, etc.) have increase the production rates, but were unable to increase the recovery factors increasingly.
Google it: Wrong Again: 50 Years of Failed Eco-pocalyptic Predictions
@@gunnarkaestle
The oil fields will be fracked : once the easy to release oil is extracted, they fall into the tight oil category.
Unfortunately economists do not understand that there are limits to both the financial and energy costs of commodities. Due to the infrastructure and machinery needed, which have their own embedded energy, needed to put energy to work. The cost of energy has limits, once the cost of energy approaches 10% of the value of the work it will do the venture becomes uneconomic.
Global conventional oil production peaked in 2005 as predicted in the 1960s and total global production has declined from 2018. The conflict in Russia will eventually take Russian oil off the market. Energy production industries need to produce a minimum of 10 times more energy than the energy input just to break even.
Not just fossil fuels but most commodities production is declining due to depleting reserves. The geology of commodities has been well understood for 70 years. Few reserves are left to be found.
Use of nuclear power will solve the energy supply problem. The moon is great place to extract metals : dig 1000 miles, 1600 km, deep to reach the metal core. Send the refined metal to earth.
The metal reserves on the earth are mainly asteroid strikes. The moon has a metal core millions of times greater than all the earth's surface metal reserves. The deep core cannot be used, due to heat.
@@michaeledwards2251 Obviously you have no concept of the scale of the issues or the energy and materials required, or where they are going to come from. Humanity has all but exhausted the energy and materials needed for modern society. The future is one of economic, social, and population decline. While some countries have more resources than others the global and eventual trend is depopulation. Humanity will be lucky to survive into next century and it will be more difficult next century.
@@dan2304 you have to remember that many raw materials that are mined are infinitely recyclable. I'm pretty sure just the landfills of the previous few generations contain enough metals to keep a reduced mankind going for a long time, not to mention the current worldwide infrastructure that will become grossly overkill when the human population drops into a billion or two.
Energy is an issue, but nuclear combined with renewables should be enough. Fertilizers for food production may become an issue though, but at least a reduced population requires far less food.
@@dan2304
All the more reason to act immediately. Nuclear is the only viable power source left, with a EROI of 200 to 1. While we have surplus energy, we have to act.
Remember it will take decades, probably 5 to 6, to transition away from fossil fuels. To keep the global system running at all, will require fossil fuels for the next 2 generations.
A temporary crunch will be the result. The difficulty will be recovering quick enough to extract the CO2 atmosphere burden. Without a quick recovery, earth will transition into a hot house earth.
A hot house earth is the greatest threat : a transition as great as the end of the last ice age in sea level, temperatures, and living areas.
Having gone through a proper climate depression a few years back, here's a golden tip to see the future with a smile on your face: the earth's biodiversity is the most precious thing this planet has to offer. If humanity is soon going to collapse, if our billions will be forcefully knocked back to hundreds of even just tens of millions.. then the million other lifeforms on the planet can only welcome our much-needed "correction". All the signals of impending societal doom should be embraced by anyone who truly loves nature.
there is silver lining already: think how older people live... their lifestyle is pretty modest vs active 30-50yo working age person wanting to go constantly somewhere. lot of people being pensioners or older means dramatic shift. I dont expect dramatic decline unless WW3 is started or global famine or something similar. It would be graceful, slow process adjusting to new prices. This has already happened from 80s, albeit not for climate reasons. Graceful change allows for lasting change in society... dramatic revolutions and conflicts tend to just reset things.
Dude. You need some sunlight, cut down on absolutely all media consumption, and be in the real world.
Google it: Wrong Again: 50 Years of Failed Eco-pocalyptic Predictions
A suitable proportion of MP's should have engineering degrees to provide this institutional knowledge in parliament. What we have is a dearth of experience with bankers, lawyers, and the like. Not makers.
Google it: Wrong Again: 50 Years of Failed Eco-pocalyptic Predictions
There are millions of engineers around the world who believe in myths and fantasy regarding our energy future. It has nothing to do with profession. You can say the same for farmers or economists. Some get it, most don't, often because their jobs depend on them not getting it.
My colleague at Stantec, Dr Stephen Palmer has been working on this for a while. There’s also the Jevons Paradox to consider; renewables won’t replace fossil fuel, they will supplement it and energy demand will increase as a result. My concern with carbon calculations is that decarbonisation of the grid is taken as a carbon reduction credit, so options with a high power use look more attractive than they are; particularly if the grid is not decarbonised.
Maybe net zero policies need to be shifted towards net energy positive.
Only nuclear will be net energy positive : all other sources will need an energy subsidy.
@@michaeledwards2251 does that include decommissioning and waste management?
@@michaeledwards2251 hows digging nuclear uranium out of ground and long enriching process.... I dont say that cant be done, it just may need more effort to do.
Google it: Wrong Again: 50 Years of Failed Eco-pocalyptic Predictions
I bought my etrike last year when Arthur Berman scared me on Nate Hagen's channel so I'm good.
I also stocked up on old Easter chocolate today for that coming shortage.
It won't last a week.
Be careful where you park it a lot of these ebikes are catching fire.
Only oil basins with growing reserves are US and Canada and canada is pretty much at the limit now as is the US. It appears US shale the companies are reaching new highs of production but is being done by using larger 'straw's to get more out now, so how long shale oil grows is up in the air. Of the 12.9 million oil produced per day in the US, a quarter of that for the past couple of years have been NAT gas liquid products not oil We're in for a world of hurt soon
Oil companies def seem desperately running around, pressuring world leaders into allowing them to siphon all and any oil reserves they can manage to get their greedy claws on. Large militaries, like that of the US, entirely depend on fossil fuels... fun times!
Google it: Wrong Again: 50 Years of Failed Eco-pocalyptic Predictions
16:51 16:56 *_"API gravity_* is a commonly used index of the density of a crude oil or refined products. *_API stands for the American Petroleum Institute,_* which is the industry organization that created this measure. A crude oil will typically have an API between 15 and 45 degrees. Higher API indicates a lighter (lower density) crude."
Just to draw a distinction between 'depletion' and 'decline'. At around 7 minutes 30, the host refers to 'depletion' when maximum rate of extraction is reached, this is not so and should be accurately referred to as 'decline'. Any finite resource is subject to depletion if it is drawn upon at any stage of extraction, 'decline' is observed when that maximum rate is passed.
Google it: Wrong Again: 50 Years of Failed Eco-pocalyptic Predictions
Hi, I'd love to read the report Alister is talking about. May I please ask if you could post a link to the report? The link supplied doesn't have the details on where to find it. Thanks!
I remember fracking in the D/FW area. The denial of the cause of the earthquakes was funny, in my anti-social mind. I don't live there anymore, and I wont spend more than a few days there.
They stopped fracking in the area when DFW Airport said the earthquakes were damaging the runways. A lot of people have moved here since then, though.
@@Morgan313 I have no love for DF/W airport, because I grew up in Highland Village, directly in the flight path of the north/south runways. But, I commend them on stopping the fracking.
The last time I was there, I was shocked by how much development there is north of Ft. Worth. All of that beautiful prairie has been developed into more suburban hell.
@@genericsomething DFW was the fastest-growing metro area in the USA in 2023.
@@Morgan313 I only need to go back there one more time, whenever my mother-in-law finally leaves this mortal coil. I'm not looking forward to it.
@@genericsomething Dallas/Fort Worth is on top of the Barnett Shale, which is a gas producing play, not so much oil. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barnett_Shale
There is no way to "ramp up" any energy system without fossil fuels. What is needed is to RAMP DOWN, DOWN, DOWN energy demand.
we sgould consider the benefits of the nafive american way of life... the amish... and centuries old living while preserving and maintaining access to this new technology
Google it: Wrong Again: 50 Years of Failed Eco-pocalyptic Predictions
@@solutionrecruiter7130That's not possible with world population of 8 billion. You very soon reach other limits. Lack of firewood, grazing land, agricultural land...
Theres still plenty oil everywhere. For hundreds of years. And fossil is a scam.
Empty oilwells are filled again after 60 years. No death plant matter or death dinosaur carcasses involved😅
UA-cam algorithm sent me. Great content!
Google it: Wrong Again: 50 Years of Failed Eco-pocalyptic Predictions
This was a really good interview. Thank you Rachel for simplifying and re-summarizing Alister when he got too technical -- that helped a lot!
Thank you for bringing the issue to the spotlight, we don't talk enough about the our current energy predicament.
You’re right we don’t talk about it enough, but some people do. If your not squeamish, and don’t dwell on bad things happening, view: Canadian Association for the Club of Rome “Jack Alpert -- Civilizations “Running Out of Gas” Story”🤔
@@barrycarter8276 Thanks for the recommendation, I will check it out 👍
@@barrycarter8276 Thanks for the recommendation, I will check it out 👍
The 2P analysis by Rystad Energy shows that at current production rates - 100m barrels a day - we have between 8 and 20 years of oil left.
Of course, that assumes we can keep producing 100M barrels per day until it is effectively gone, but that will not be possible.
@@michaels4255 Yeah. Theres also the above ground issues - war, societal breakdown, financial collapse - which will limit extraction further.
I view fossil fuels will be kept going for another generation. Not long at all.
The trillion tons of hydrogen reserves will be used up in a generation. Methane Clathrates will also be mined, the Japanese have demonstrated they can be used.
The effective rate of fossil fuel consumption will keep increasing.
Nuclear power will be used to extract the last 2/3 of the oil and gas reserves.
@@michaeledwards2251 At current rates of 100m barrels a day, reserves last about 16 years. That analysis comes from John Peach. Peak discoveries was 1965 and peak reserves was 1985. This assumes that the worlds biggest reserves - Venezuela - wont be extractable as its currently negative EROI.
@@michaeledwards2251 what does this mean for oil price? to me below 100$ per barrel now is weird considering it was 140$ over 10 years ago and inflation is a thing. Decline in supply should mean creep up of price and OPEC countries with diminishing oil reserves would logically want that too.... though some reserves last some 100 years but get more expensive to dig out over time. Just world population still going up means more demand for oil and energy in general. So far in 2020s electric price has gone a lot while oil/gasoline didnt, suggesting other electric production is subsidizing oil, more valuable forms of energy by prioritazion, as oil based fuels are still used in critical functions of society and electric production starts to have more and more options. That is still unknown how sustainable those systems are (batteries for grid balance) as replacing whole equipment every 10 years would largely negate benefits.
All wars have been over resources, yes?
Hamas has zero concern about resources.
@@aliendroneservices6621 All religious wars are fought over who gets to control the resources.
Food. Required.
Ukraine? Afganistan? Vietnam? That's all ideology.
@@praisane I suspect there is always resource thing there but that reminds people oil running out and that (panic mood) is not wanted, so it is often very hushhush in mainstream media.
Fascinating and troubling in equal measure and Alister seems to be mirroring the views of Art Berman, Nate Hagens, Simon Michaux and others who are trying to raise the alarm. I have no faith that our political classes will act with due urgency though.
He can only mirror he is not qualified in geology, I have no idea why an electrical engineer is involved in this beyond a hobby.
@@keypoint1293
He added thermodynamic modelling. Whenever a new factor is added, the difficulties of the current situation become more apparent.
Thanks. I would add in 2 further dynamics arising from accelerating global heating -
Abrupt disappearances and disruptions to supply due to human health temperature criticals being breached in production areas and political chaos, state breakdowns, rises in piracy and so on. Note that this is already starting.
Abrupt disappearances and disruptions to demand for the same reasons as above, complicated by currency lability and money failure.
An additional one is due to plants being affected by night time temperatures higher than day. This is known to stop plant growth.
(I forget the exact term, but it is a method used in green houses to control plant growth. )
Crop failures for no apparent reason are expected as the night time temperatures have been rising faster than the day.
Crop failures due to excess heat are occurring already.
There will always be more people, there will NEVER be more oil. World_3 model BAU projected our exact situation. Our Civilization is peaking NOW. And. Going gown. We have had the road map for 50+ years . . . . Still Business As. Usual. ❤❤
I suspect we will see a population fall
Thank you for your work.
Global oil production has not peaked yet and certainly has gone up from the 2006-2008 period Hamilton cites as the peak of oil production. Oil production has increased 18% from 2006 to 2022. Not sure how he came up with that. I also have doubts about other things he has claimed. The U.K. produced 38,000,000 tons of oil in 2022 and another 38,000,000 cubic meters of gas largely from the North Sea. It's hard to believe the industry there is energy net negative.
I don't doubt the overall trends he has laid out just the timing.
2005 - peak CONVENTIONAL oil!! It's generally agreed.
It´s all happening according to schedule ... which is the UN report on the restraints to the energy transition that calls for degrowth, Rachel? Thank you
Oil is almost limitless, the earth is creating more as we speak ( there is no rotted vegetation or dead creatures in oil) it's a mineral derivative. There's also so much that has been found, but not tapped yet. And they keep finding more and more everywhere. Theres lots available that isn't being tapped or explored for political reasons. Oil's not rare and not going anywhere in the next 500 years. And C02 is a wonderful thing.
Source?
@@kenny3485 this cant be true
@@kenny3485 It's called "abiotic oil theory." AFAIK, it is not accepted by petroleum geologists, i.e. the people who actually know how to find oil.
Very interesting interview, as someone who has read extensively about peak oil and invesing heavily in the oil industry, I really found a gold mine of new information here! Thank you for making this interview.
I live in Texas and unfortunately the Permian basin oil field is the only thing keeping the deadly fossil fuels supplies . When that field peaks the game gets grim and deadly.
Checkout fossilfuel scam!!!
Empty oil wells are filled again after 60 years.
Its not fossil!!!.
The Cantarell, North Sea and Prudoe Bay oil fields are a real world example of the shocking sharp decline coming. There are many more, in fact more have peaked than have not. One at a time the dominos will fall until the world as a whole peaks. You can't maintain a society built on conventional oil with tar sand or fracking. You certainly can't maintain and grow as everyone expects.
chris martensons book is called the crash course. There are 2 editions so get the recent one.
Great Discussion. Thank you, Rachel and Dr. Hamilton. Yes, peak oil is over. Thank goodness.
I guess an issue is that when you are paying money to do the work of extracting oil it's not so clear if the overall process has a positive energy gain at the end. Early oil fields in the middle east had so much oil the stuff was bubbling to the surface. They could use just a bucket to get it. Now you need to inject water, under high pressure into the ground to force it out through an oil well. If the market is undervaluing the price of oil and energy then it's quite possible that paying money rather than knowing the energy cost of the oil extraction process that you are using more energy than you are getting out.
Good discussion and learned much...yes, Art Berman is also very good too. Glad I'm old and hoping it can last a bit longer
I'm reminded of an old adage regarding famines, "Soldiers eat first." Even if the hydrocarbon institutions would require even larger subsidies than they are already getting (making them now and in the future mercenaries of national governments), today's militaries run on diesel and jet fuel. Instead of a crash program to half our energy use globally, which would be a good start, the world will most likely continue to divert precious resources to keep and expand military operations in a crumbling world.
The strong survive and inherit the earth.
Google it: Wrong Again: 50 Years of Failed Eco-pocalyptic Predictions
What was the significance of the temperature?
The petrochemicals and fertilizers are much more alarming
Good information. Great smile.
Just because they are running out in Scotland doesn't mean they are going to everywhere else soon. When I was a boy and I am now 69 people with diagrams and data said this and that about oil and it would be long gone before 2020. The point is I don't have a crystal ball and neither does anyone else and these sorts of videos draw the same people into the comments section making the same type of comments their type have been making for decades. And of course chaps like this chap are always dead certain and always right.
trying to understand actual available reserves is not a waste of time. if oil production stopped suddenly (and by suddenly I'm talking over a period of a decade) then that would be an economic catastrophe of a scale the world has never seen. understanding the present is the first step of preparing for the future
The people you knew as a boy were correct. They simply couldn't take into account technologies which hadn't been developed. For example Fracking.
The next 2 technologies for energy will be
1. Subsurface hydrogen, estimated 1 trillion tons. ( Viability to be proven )
2. Methane Clathrates, estimated ? ( Japan has already done extraction trials )
@@michaeledwards2251 combustion engine efficiencies have improved tremendously too.... how low fuel consumption can get nowadays , soem 3liters per 100km, is staggering when in 60s or 70s it was way over 10liters(small car). these small accumulating improvements happen everywhere.
Easy to stick your head in the sand when your life is near the end- statistically speaking. Are you grandpa Simpson?
@@effexon
Not as much as they should have.
IGNORED ENGINE IMPROVEMENTS
Achates opposed piston engine designs, about double typical mileage per gallon, have been developed. Additionally Taurozzi Engines were not developed beyond medical uses which demonstrate their viability.
CHEAP FUEL
The problem proved to be the low price of fuel. Economically successful companies simply ignored efficient designs as interfering with throughput, requiring retooling and reconceptualization, and ease of immediate profit.
LIGHT MODERN CARS
Much of the supposed improvement is down to lighter frames and better aerodynamics : all vehicles look alike due to aerodynamic improvements. 1960s vehicles were mostly heavy gauge steel : a weight of a ton for a small car wasn't unusual. (Iron is cheap)
CRASH TESTS DOMINATE
Modern vehicles only have enough stiffness to pass crash tests : additional strength is a disadvantage as it increases impact g forces with an increased rate of death and injury.
TIMES 10 AVAILABLE
The estimated improvement remaining for cars is about a factor of 10
1. KE recovery, developed in the 1960s by Peugeot and Lotus, the Treasury in the UK objected, feared loss of petrol tax, resulting in the designs and patents being given to Toyota, who dare not use the technology : they knew both Lotus and Peugeot were disappointed at the turn of events.
(Worth a factor of 2 in urban environments)(Used in formula 1)
(Discovered this due to reading a letter to the Daily Mail 40 years later. The sender was still furious after only 40 years. )
2. Engine improvements, see ignored engine designs above.
(Worth a factor of 2 - 3 in all environments, and more in urban ones, due to the greater range of optimal operation for opposed piston designs. )
(Tanks engines in urban environments only achieve 11% efficiency. Large opposed piston engines for articulated lorries achieve 57% on a testbed. )
3. Dross reduction : most vehicles have a single user.
2 wheel gyroscopically stabilized cars, have been demonstrated since the 1960s, 1/2 front cross-sectional area, weight, with further improvements in aerodynamics, due creative curves.
(Artistry can beat computers, even today. The World record for cyclists, over 60 mph, was achieved using designs created by a sculptor, demonstrating how useful even 100 Watts, less than the power of light hoover can be. (Less than 1/10 hp.) )
(Worth a factor of 2 in urban environments, and more than 2 on motorways, while retaining the crash safety of their bigger 4 wheel cousins. )
4. Electronic aids : human driving styles increase fuel consumption by 25%.
All of the above can be achieved using technology proven on the road.
I might add, a factor of 10 is available for most high power systems, chemical plants, etc. A fundamental redesign is needed to achieve this.
When it costs more than a barrel of oil is worth, then the remaining oil will be left, unless you can utilise wind and solar to keep the pumps running ( stopping them is not an option as that can totally cease the flow and not restarted) good luck with that one.
Gaz UK
The infrastructure cannot use energy sources other than fossil fuels, Marine Diesel for ships, Diesel for trucks, Kerosene for planes, petrol/gasoline for cars. Even if the conversion loss is a factor of 2 or 3 or even more, there will be no choice.
(Nuclear power will need massive expansion just to keep the system running.)
Trucks and Ships will have to be kept running to allow people to eat.
Public transport is not cheaper or more efficient in general, just in crowded places and not on the country. This is a symptom of our inability to "degrow". We want to keep all the luxery, just green wash it a bit.
Trams can use electricity with an overall energy efficiency of 25%, 3 to 4 times better than cars. Also trams can be driven by nuclear power.
What do you mean? Trains and buses are way more efficient than cars, even in the countryside.
@@munyansebastien7127 Not in general. For public transport you need a certain base rate to operate in order to be useful. And every vehicle needs an operator. This is without any passengers. For cars you don't have that. So, for public transport there is a min passenger per ride to be efficient. If you only had one passenger all the time, the costs to operate a much larger vehicle that requires an operator on top is obviously less efficient.
@damoeb If your hypothetical single passenger is a different passenger every time, then you are sparing the production of a great number of cars. (maybe with 500kg batteries)
Public transportation is the only way for some people to get places. It makes more sense to delete personal cars that to delete the transportation of last resort.
Yes it is far more expensive in the country side and cheap oil has fueled urban sprawl. I remember in school the reasons why cities form and it is because they are more efficient. The country folk will have to move to the city. This is why I never moved to the country because I value my time and don't want to drive 50 miles to see a doctor or buy groceries that are cheaper. I don't burn a lot of gasoline either. That is why I can't understand why Trudeau is penalizing city drives and giving tax money as a carbon rebate to people living outside of the city. The burn so much gas driving home to work everyday.
Water availability is going to be the critical problem long before that.
Where I am rain fall is double to quadruple the average. Farmers are.finding it very difficult.
@@liamhickey359
At the moment 1/2 billion people eat food depending on aquifers. They are expected to be exhausted in a generation.
48:02 Rachel is allergic to economists
Great video! Thanks!
Shale oil became full scale around 2010, needed direction drilling (fracking has been a constant in oil for decades already. ). But they Also required CHEAP MONEY (credit) which came from QE1 etc. once rates climb it hard.plus depletion rates.
I'm not sure where he's getting his data from, but for any well (oil or gas) the amount of energy required to drill, complete (frac), transport, refine, transport, and distribute is MUCH smaller than the amount of energy released with its consumption. The Btu content of the hydrocarbons produced has not changed through time and the unconventional (fraced) reservoirs are no deeper than any other reservoir that's being produced. I can appreciate the need to pander, but this whole presentation is shot through with mis-information.
Just discovered Rachel's excellent site. Alister describes a thermodynamic model of oil depletion but does not credit the folks that I believe came up with the model, The Hill Group in the US a decade or so back. Their work was ridiculed for a variety of reasons and sort of died. I found the model credible. Why would Alister's work not suffer the same fate? Small note: he did not state why the reservoir temperature uesd was so important to his conclusions which I think Rachel should address perhaps here or in a follow up.
Oil companies must make a profit for exploration and production to be feasible. When the price of oil declines to levels too low to make a profit, production and exploration stop. When prices go up, the fields that were not profitable can become profitable. Technology has reduced the cost of production with things like fracking, diagonal drilling, etc. allowing marginal fields to be profitable for a while longer. I suppose that some state run oil producers could subsidize production at a loss for some time but it wouldn't be long. As Art Berman has stated, we should be saving oil for hard to electrify uses like aviation and trucking and chemical production for plastics. Negative EROI may be feasible when you are transforming the energy to a more usable form. Then, the value added could cover the extra energy cost. Not good for climate goals unless you use renewables to cover the negative EROI as was mentioned for the North Sea oil/wind facilities.
They can make these fuels from natural gas or natural vegetable oils. Also they can make fuels by starting with hydrogen gas and then adding carbon somehow. The H2 is produced by splitting water with solar or other sources.
One main issue is the demand curve. Would have to bend it downward, to match better to new reserves coming on line. Basic premise of peak. Globalization relies on cheap energy, and everybody driving around in private car to go everywhere.
Peak oil doesn’t mean running out of oil right away, but loss first of CHEAP OIL. EASY TO GET & cheap to extract.
I'm a 50-year petroleum geologist, so just think of me as the storm trooper standing behind Darth Vader.
The real problem isn't about our lack of energy resources; it's in our longing of our expectations. Stop building electric landcruisers! If we want electric vehicles, then our cars need to lose at least half their current weight. Imagine a two-seater trike, not an electric tank.
The near term prognosis - planetary wide mass extinction. Not electrification
why does the temperature of the reservoir matter? can anybody enlighten me?
Viscosity. Like warm and cold honey.
Oil and gas will be extracted even at net energy loss because that's how it works - emissions will rise and / or solar energy will be used to extract oil and gas.
Hey I have an idea why the world is in crisis
US Federal Budget:
2015: 3.9 Trillion
2016: 3.9 Trillion
2017: 4.1 Trillion
2018: 4.0 Trillion
2019: 4.4 Trillion
2020: 6.5 Trillion
2021: 6.8 Trillion
2022: 6.3 trillion
2023: 6.1 Trillion
We started spending 50-60% more without making 50-60% more.
That is an additional problem that will interact in complex ways with several other severe problems.
Chris Martenson's book is "The Crash Course" A MUST Read! The bingham Canyon Mine is the low grade (Highest left) copper in the USA.
Interesting. I was wondering about this issue the other day as peak oil was all the rage some years ago
I remember about peak oil , it was supposed to be 2005. I asked my mutual fund advisor if I should by oil stocks because half of the worlds oils was used up and it was downhill from there. He told me that he didn't know. Gladly I did not buy oil at that time.
we have been dreading oil depletoon for a century..
Agree re public transport over 50% of the population live in towns and cities while 86% are considered 'urban'. At around half a tonne of iron per car that is around 15 million tonnes that doesn't need extraction.
Yes, everyone will dump their cars and use public self driving taxis that will be a reasonable price per fare. You will be able to convert your garage to living space. People who fled the cities for cheaper satellite towns will have to move to the city. That is the idea of a city, to make everything nearby. Go to Ukraine or Russia and everyone lives in apartments and the population is much denser. Car ownership is 1/5 of the US. The US has 860 cars per 1000 people. Canada has 707 cars per 1000 and Ukraine has 192. When you visit Ukraine the streets are full of car traffic but the cities are much denser and 4/5 of the people take the bus or taxis etc. You only have to walk a short distance and wait 5 minutes to jump on a mini bus or large bus. In Canada, Winnipeg you might wait 30 minutes and it is cold -30 standing there.
After everyone gets rid of their cars and trucks , all the parking lots will be empty and can be used for building houses or other uses. The cities have to get a lot denser to function like they are supposed to.
My feeling is to not use all the oil in the ground, but get on with alternative power creation now, solar, wind, hydro, because we may need that oil left in the ground, also recycle fossil fuel cars, and don't get depressed!
Earth doesn't have enough minerals for the renewables revolution, even if all the other problems with renewables did not exist. Type Simon Michaux into the YT search bar. The painless, "no mass death" solution you are looking for does not exist. The sheer quantity of energy consumed per capita will decline sharply. This is inevitable. Three average americans consume as much energy on average (most of it indirectly) as two blue whales, the largest creatures that have ever existed. This is not a moral failure, but it is an unsustainable way of life.
Yes but how do we make energy without fossil fuel!???! So the questions is not energy but energy-type! /Mikael
You can't make energy, as there is an energy conservation law. It is about energy carrieres such as electricity, hydrogen and its derivates.
Yes! I have suspected that there has been a global energy crisis for many years. The COVID disaster reduced a lot of oil consumption and climate change debate has lowered the consumption a bit and the Ukraine war some, yet the energy crisis remains I believe. My guess is that the world economy will keep going because of technological innovation, but yes it's a major worldwide issue.
The problem is that even if you don't use petroleum for fuel it is required for oil and grease for machines. Its required to make plastic, fertilizer, synthetic rubber, as well as various chemicals used in heavy industry as well as the pharmaceutical industry. the amount of products that come out of the modern petrochemical industry is really immense, with no direct replacement. Except for perhaps oil from whales which was used previously to fuel lamps but it likely wouldn't be a substitute for most of the multiple type of hydrocarbons in the multiple types of oils produced worldwide let alone there aren't remotely enough of them.
Fracking industrially has only been done in the USA as far as i know, and there are shale deposits all around the earth i know the UK does have some that aren't being exploited, as oil becomes more scarce it's price goes up making unprofitable areas now profitable. also to point something out, traditional wells after drilled are under pressure and so it doesn't require that much energy to extract, it's mostly just overhead of crews and there needs, as well as systems to monitor it and do it safely, as well as pumping stations to move it along pipelines further down the line. Fracking is different where they can't be profitable under $60 a barrel, and oil supplies in general are being manipulated to keep it's price up and so they often limit production. We likely will always need some sort of oil supply and people will go to the middle of the atlantic if required to get it. The planet is quite a large place and we have only surveyed convenient areas.
According to one investor who looked into this, besides the US, only Russia and Argentina (or was it Brazil?) have tight oil deposits whose geology makes them viable. "Bad" geology will force man to leave most tight oil deposits in the ground.
this is right, oil price rising makes it interesting to try dig more difficult sources but parallel effect is it gives bigger incentive to fund alternatives to these uses, which then fuels competition over energy sources. if barrel of oil would be 1000$, you'd be guaranteed lot of people would get insanely creative to find new alternatives. then it balances out when some viable solution is found and price balances again.... same with every technology out there and big problems humans have had.
Cheap Chinese solar plus battery setup is looking like a plan for more localised generation then. Someone should probably persuade the politicians not to make our most viable suppliers into enemies
That's not going to work if they (China) need coal and oil power to refine and build the components for all those solar panels and batteries.
@@davidbarry6900 They will need coal and oil for a few decades yet, but it will be declining, and at an ever-steeper pace, as their very aggressive renewables buildout (and electrification) proceed. That's assuming that nuclear war, climate chaos, or some other existential issue does not render all moot, in the interim.
Good but also sad.
Brilliant insight thank you. The thing is this is not going to be an easy transition, the important question might be :what sacrifices can we make to keep our species from self destruction. Then again if we are going to keep up the systems currently dominating, then we wont be around much longer to extract oil.
Pluvinergy argued this and showed an energy system to replace fossil fuels but was poorly written. Pluvicopia also shows an alternative energy regime. Both repair the damage from fossil fuels.
Don't expect Sunak's government to do anything, they are too busy studying Lesbian Dance Theory.
Just look back 150 years where you live and that’s where you are headed.
Oh you mean we will go back to the time when the oil was not discovered? Pre oil World?
API = American Petroleum Institute. I was hoping the gentleman knew this off hand. Also with regards to Conventional Crude Oil production there doesn't seem to be any elaboration of the primary, secondary and tertiary phases of extraction, which would've been helpful.
The limits to growth are not only ecological but energy and debt. When the north sea becomes unproductive for EROEI GDP drops and our debt to GDP increases.
This gives another insight to the quandary of revoking the 100+ licences auctioned by Sunak's government. They now have a value that makes our debt to GDP look less problematic. There is also the problem of the Energy Charter Treaty meaning the licences can only be subject of a moratorium or 'effective ban' as happened with fracking.
Great discussion. This is getting so grim though. We can burn our back yards if need be I guess. But then what. But it might come to that and I don’t have a clue other than defrosts what can be done and even then. But great discussion, as always.
Say hello to massive inflation
Lyn Alden said current inflation is because of this, not only oil but also other commodities this decade. So economists knew about this. I just understand basics of supply and demand and price is signal of it, inflation tool to manage it.
Politics and geopolitics determine our access to hydrocarbons, not geology. There are huge reserves of oil out there that our political class don't allow access to.
Actual peak oil happened around 2009. I'm optimistic that nuclear and fusion energies will become practical soon, that we should stop generating carbon dioxide ASAP.
What was the name of the person he named? Louis Arnault?
One day we will run out of oil but the animal kingdom will not notice! In fact they will be better off. I ok with that!
I think every at least semi-decent engineer inevitably ends up as a prepper weirdo around the age of 50 with the only hobby of building a doomsday shelter unless he has the nerves of steel and is able to accept the fate cheerfully. I mean thermodynamics in general teaches us that this won't end well, we cannot win, it cannot be a draw, we cannot negotiate the rules. They never tell this to you directly, but it's 100% this won't end well, this can't end well. We could slow down and enjoy the existence for a couple millenias and rot away in a rather slow fashion, but the fate is inevitably coded into the system.
Great interview and discussion
Why would you need to decentralize energy production? Not that it's fully centralized now. Centralization is an orthogonal property, we just need to ramp up a different energy source.
There are some basic bits of information about energy that anyone who claims to care about the environment should know.
Rachel, you should go binge watch "not just bikes" and interview Jason about cycling infrastructure.
So he wants 25 million euros for his friend"s invention to save the world? I'm surprised she didn't spot the capitalism, lol
Peak Oil is only relevant to a specific oil field and a specific technology. Engineers have found many techniques to extract additional oil from so called exhausted wells. In the north sea they use carbon dioxide injection from hydrogen steam reforming. I would also suggest Venezuela has 300 billion barrels of proven reserves so when it becomes tight, force major will be enacted?
Where's the link to his report in the description? This is very annoying. I can't find anything to back up his claims.
Alister is not a very clear communicator, at least not on this episode. I get the impression that he is trying to explain why bumblebees can't fly (according to aerodynamic principles). Art Berman and John Peach are much clearer in their presentations and explanations of peak oil and EROI concerns, with much better supporting evidence. I'm still unclear on how oil patch temperatures tie in to oil availability, never mind whether it is actually important or not. That is, oil might well be effectively running out (possibly by 2032, possibly soon but a bit later than that), but there is still a LOT of accessible methane - can that be used instead? Likewise remaining tarsands oil deposits are enormous and currently difficult to extract (or transport to places where it can be used), but will that change in future?