What we'll do when after 40 years we use all global proved oil reserves? The global economy consumes approximately 1.26 trillion U.S. gallons of oil. One trillion U.S. gallons is about one cubic mile of oil (1 CMO). The world consumes ca. 3 CMO equivalent energy annually from all sources. Global proved oil reserves are estimated roughly at 43 cubic miles, or 43 CMO. After 40 years we will used all of them. What we 'll do later?
Dear Dr. Barbara Motyka , it is an interesting issue.
Before we run out of oil, we would have moved to alternate fuels. Not because oil scarcity, but because of climate change. In the world of companies like Tesla, such a shift might not take long.
Germany has mostly moved in solar and China is fast following. India is also making some of the biggest solar plants that has dramatically brought the cost down to near the levels of coal. India's big move into solar is already paying off. In another 6 years, India alone plans to add 100 GW to the solar capacity. India Aims To Achieve Colossal Renewable Energy Targets 2 Years In Advance
Thus, on the one end we are already making great strides on producing energy without fossil fuels. The next part comes in storage and distribution. As you know, solar power doesn't come at night. People are already working on creating multiple energy sources mix to reduce this problem as well as researching a lot on batteries. Within another 10 years, Tesla powerwall and its competitors could be in all our homes. This is not hard to envision - a lot of people in India already have battery inverters at home that store and release electricity given the unreliable supply.
Until we get there on battery storage, we might have a temporary point of time where we might be firing a lot of coal plants merely to balance load. That should be ok.
The third part comes in energy usage. Companies like Tesla are already making electric cars a reality. In parallel, there is the electrification and almost all trains would run on electricity in a decade [replacing Diesel]. A lot of metro train projects are underway in the developing world where again they replace diesel powered buses with electric powered trains, whose energy source would eventually be solar.
While the drastic drop in oil prices have somewhat slowed the progress in clean energy, definite progress is occurring there. We are not far from a time where almost everything would run on solar, that will then be stored and used efficiently.
Based on the comments below, let address a few things.
Fact 1: We are rapidly moving into clean energy. This is the fastest shift in our energy usage since the dawn of time. Here is how Germany draws electricity through a day. Fossil [coal, natural gas, diesel] is now less than 50%. At various points of the day, solar supplies nearly half the power. You can follow this blog - CleanTechnica [no association to me] for latest news on this.
France uses nearly nothing of fossil fuels for electricity.
Why not nuclear power?
While I'm a proponent of nuclear power, I don't think nuclear replaces the need for solar/wind for the following reasons.
How will it affect geopolitics?
That part is much more complicated.
It would really be an interesting world. In short, stop worrying about the stuff running out underneath us. Worry about the stuff we are filling above us.
Question is on availability of energy. Hope to see a good discussion. Regards
Dear Dr. @Farid O. Farid. Solar and nuclear are only very narrow margin today. Have we any chance to replace 1.3 CMO from oil with them in mere 40 years ?
(The uranium resources are also still more poor.)
Dear Dr. @Farid O. Farid. Thank You for so kind and informative analysis. The first doubt I have is the one concerning exploration of Moon and Mars. Humans first landed on Moon 49 years ago. (The next year will be round half century!) From those times we lost even this ancientt technology. Nothing indicates that we'll be able to return to the Moon before the end of this century. Not speaking about Mars.
Dear Dr. Barbara Motyka , it is an interesting issue.
Before we run out of oil, we would have moved to alternate fuels. Not because oil scarcity, but because of climate change. In the world of companies like Tesla, such a shift might not take long.
Germany has mostly moved in solar and China is fast following. India is also making some of the biggest solar plants that has dramatically brought the cost down to near the levels of coal. India's big move into solar is already paying off. In another 6 years, India alone plans to add 100 GW to the solar capacity. India Aims To Achieve Colossal Renewable Energy Targets 2 Years In Advance
Thus, on the one end we are already making great strides on producing energy without fossil fuels. The next part comes in storage and distribution. As you know, solar power doesn't come at night. People are already working on creating multiple energy sources mix to reduce this problem as well as researching a lot on batteries. Within another 10 years, Tesla powerwall and its competitors could be in all our homes. This is not hard to envision - a lot of people in India already have battery inverters at home that store and release electricity given the unreliable supply.
Until we get there on battery storage, we might have a temporary point of time where we might be firing a lot of coal plants merely to balance load. That should be ok.
The third part comes in energy usage. Companies like Tesla are already making electric cars a reality. In parallel, there is the electrification and almost all trains would run on electricity in a decade [replacing Diesel]. A lot of metro train projects are underway in the developing world where again they replace diesel powered buses with electric powered trains, whose energy source would eventually be solar.
While the drastic drop in oil prices have somewhat slowed the progress in clean energy, definite progress is occurring there. We are not far from a time where almost everything would run on solar, that will then be stored and used efficiently.
Based on the comments below, let address a few things.
Fact 1: We are rapidly moving into clean energy. This is the fastest shift in our energy usage since the dawn of time. Here is how Germany draws electricity through a day. Fossil [coal, natural gas, diesel] is now less than 50%. At various points of the day, solar supplies nearly half the power. You can follow this blog - CleanTechnica [no association to me] for latest news on this.
France uses nearly nothing of fossil fuels for electricity.
Why not nuclear power?
While I'm a proponent of nuclear power, I don't think nuclear replaces the need for solar/wind for the following reasons.
How will it affect geopolitics?
That part is much more complicated.
It would really be an interesting world. In short, stop worrying about the stuff running out underneath us. Worry about the stuff we are filling above us.
All the replies so far assume that one lives reasonably close to the Tropics. Unfortunately, some of us live closer to the Poles. There is no sunlight at all for several weeks of the year in the Arctic and when the sun does shine, it is low and the amount of energy supplied is low. Thus at 61degrees North, the incoming energy in July does not exceed the reradiation in shaded places even at 1 pm! The total radiation received in a day in summer at 33degrees north in China is double that received on a clear day at 5o degrees north just north of the USA-Canada border. Thus solar power cannot completely replace oil and coal for generating energy in northern areas.
Similarly, wind does not always blow and sometimes becomes excessive as in hurricanes and tornados. Thus it is only a partial solution. Natural gas is the remaining option and fortunately is fairly abundant. However it is also the raw material for plastics! Thus coming generations are going to face severe problems in their lifetime.
There is only a limited amount of iron ore on the Earth's surface as well as fresh water. There is also a limit to the amount of food that can be produced. Energy is therefore only part of the problem. Taxing people for carbon use provides the legislators with more money to spend but it cannot really solve the temperature problem unless we reduce our populations. Unfortunately, they are more concerned with being re-elected than actually facing the problems fast approaching Mankind. Moving to another planet is some people's dream but unlikely to work. Even if it were possible, it is only a matter of time before the resources on the new planet would be exhausted!
What is needed is for people to become realistic, stop fighting one another and to come up with an agreed method of getting the population down to numbers that are sustainable. Alas, there is little sign that this is palatable to the population.
Past experience from the geological record suggests that even then, climate cooling could force the remaining population to relocate into new areas such as the parts of the sea bed that becomes exposed as water is progessively sequestered on land in the form of ice. Our predecessors faced this problem in the past and much of the conflict and distrust seen in southeast and east Asia may be left over from those times.
I realize that this may seem pessimistic but until both the leaders and the general population realize the reality of the situation, we shall continue to make stop-gap decisions that only partially solve the current problems but leave others and certain parts of the world in big longterm trouble.
Stuart.
As the total consumption of energy only counts in final resort, notice please that seemingly 'nuclear France' gets 61% of its energy from other sources: "In 2004, France consumed 11.2 quadrillion Btu of total energy. Nuclear energy was the largest share, representing 39 percent, followed by oil (36 percent), natural gas (16 percent) and hydroelectricity (5 percent). France is the second-largest producer of nuclear power in the world, after the United States, however, nuclear energy is a much larger share of France's total energy consumption than the United States (8 percent in 2004)." http://www.speroforum.com/a/9839/France-Energy-profile
If it could be possible to change this relation, France surely would done that, already. Therefore, for some reasons it is not possible to get more than 40% of needed energy from nuclear plants? And there will be likely no oil as soon, as after 2058! France needs each 5 year increase their renewable installations part of total balance on 7%, and it seems quite unlikely, as it seems from the above citaton that there is almost nothing happen being done with it: We have ca.3% increase for 10 years (2004-2014) - 5 times less! See http://www.reegle.info/countries/france-energy-profile/FR
And if ITER would occur only mirage? (Also the nuclear part may need to be replace pretty soon.)
The reduction of population is not likely. (It would mean general retreat.) However, reduction of consumption seems to be vitally necessary.
The use of Oil is reducing across the world, and that is clearly reflected in the falling crude oil prices. The day is not far, when the oil will be left to stay underground and exploited at a much slower pace. I have been hearing these of these doomsday scenarios since the 1970's Arab-Israeli war.
An important question. There are 2 fighting trends in belief today about timing of fossil fuel extinction and global warming. Yes, all discovered conventional oil is for 40 years only. It is also correct that new discoveries are lower than extraction. But there is also non-conventional oil, including massive resources in Canada and Venezuela, Arctic oil, etc. The cost is higher, so it will be developed only when prices will grow again. But still all resources are finite. We have transition from oil to gas and renewable energy, but rather slow. In the end, even if all cars will no longer use oil products, we still have oil demand for chemistry and there is no alternative technology for all air transport. So when oil will become very scarce, we will still need it and for rather long period. But people do not think over the horizons above one generation, and many politicians have even shorter time horizon...
I have a working paper about that: Conference Paper Uncertainty of Timing for Global Challenges and Problems wit...
Data Preface: Energy Investments: An adaptive approach to profiti...
I would invite you to examine Chapter 2 of my book, where I examined the triggers for energy transitions. Vaclac Smil also wrote eloquently on the subject.
The question reminds me of Jevon's Coal Question. Subsequent events have shown us that scarcity is not the principal driver of a shift from one source of energy to another. What drives people to change their sources of energy is largely driven by costs, convenience and availability. If present trends are any guide, the nature of future energy transitions are most likely to follow a similar pattern.
Power generation is a case in point. After the 1975 Oil Shock, oil as a fuel for power generation declined with the emergence of gas and nuclear power. Partly induced by policy actions, a large part of this transition occurred because gas and nuclear proved to be a better source to meet some countries' power needs. Today, the mix is decisively moving away from oil, with gas serving as a transition fuel towards greater decarbonisation.
Transport is still predominantly dependent on oil. However, electric cars and fuel cells (to a lesser extent) are making technological progress as to repeat the experience of power generation.
With both sectors accounting for a significant proportion of fossil fuel consumption, a system with more diverse sources of energy may spell a similar fate to coal for oil. While coal remains in abundance, its use has declined as to become less significant in some countries (i.e. western European markets) and industries (i.e. power generation).
For firms, the real and relevant problem is how to navigate and thrive under transitioning energy markets.
Dear @Ricardo Barcelona I've read Vaclac Smil. He was not convincing for me. However, you are right about eletric cars. In Europe, likely, in a horizon of single generation they'll replace the oil engines. Then, 'nuclear' France could increase this their power to much more than 40%. Personally, I had not anything against that it could become even a form of a kind of nuclear power generator for whole the Europe. (As they are doomed for it this or other way, already.)
I want to share the little knowledge that I have about this question, it is matter of money, until price of oil does not takeover its counterparts alternative sources. It seems inevitable to switch people to other sources.
Dear Prof. @ Stuart Arthur Harris
In my opinion even for some of us living closer to the Poles, there are some advantages concerning the fact that sunlight is there all the (polar) day and night for several weeks of the year in the Arctic and as it shines all 24 hours a day, even if it is lower and the amount of energy supplied is lower, it is steady and uniformly supplied, what compensates its lack during polar nights.
The question is what will happened, I mean to the global environment at that time? I thing many thing is going to be changed at that date.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Engineering
- Petroleum Engineering
- Oil