Although new oil reserves are routinely discovered in the U.S. and other parts of the world, eventually oil will be almost entirely consumed.
And the looming lack of oil is about much more that just transportation (which includes asphalt for roads, and keeping the lights, heat, and air-conditioning on. Take a look around you – see any plastic? Plastics and many other synthetics are manufactured from petroleum, from the mouse in your hand, to the insulation of conductors (all wiring), to the fibers in your carpet, to the siding and roof on your house (probably), a lot of the fibers in your clothes, the tires on your car, and even a good portion of the car itself.
I’m not saying there will be apocalyptic consequences, and am not concerned about ‘global warming,’ but if planning doesn’t take place soon there could be. Luckily we have some options.
And when I say ‘we,’ I mean the U.S. as not all nations – even industrialized ones – have the same types or quality of potential resources.
A basic plan would include 1) many more nuclear reactors, a move to 2) industrial scale ethanol production, 3) water piped to the middle and southwestern states from coastal desalination plants, and a 4) revival of rail transportation. Solar and wind power could certainly help in some locations, but are not viable nationally. Electric or hydrogen fuel cell cars might be a good choice further down the road, but currently take too much energy to be as viable in the near and mid-term as combustion engines using ethanol. This plan focuses on changing over to proven technologies rather than relying on what might be perfected at some point in the future.
1) Keeping the lights et al on; breeder reactors, and lots of them. Why? They are a sustainable type of nuclear energy:
Historically, attention has focused upon reactors with high breeding ratios, so that they produce more fissile material than they consume. Such designs range from a breeding ratio of 1.01 [to] of over 1.2. Theoretical models of gas-cooled breeders show breeding ratios of up to 1.8 are possible as an upper limit. (emphasis added)
Some estimates say we could use this type of energy for “billions” (no. 5) of years.
I’m not saying that nuclear power plants don’t have their problems, but they are far preferable to being in the dark while waiting for the next technology to become available. Of course vulnerability to terrorism and where to store waste would have to be addressed. It’s also cost competitive at present, so likely will be much more so in a few years:
In 2003 the MIT published the outcome of a 2-year study of nuclear energy prospects in the USA. Adjusting its assumptions to those more in line with industry expectations ($1500/kW & 4 year construction, 90% capacity factor, interest rate 12%, and adding fees & taxes) the generation cost comes out at 4.2 c/kWh, the same as coal without any carbon cost.
2) Keep road transportation rolling; ethanol, but not only from corn. I think there is a credible argument that ethanol from corn is unsustainable in the U.S. (PDF). Sorghum, on the other hand, uses less water per bushel but can produce twice as much ethanol per equivalent quantities of corn. Whatever the source, ethanol burns cleaner than petroleum fuels. Brazil remains the model for ethanol production.
This would cause minimal disruption in the auto market, and, as transport to central locations can be problematic, would spawn hundreds of local production plants and associated jobs.
3) Ensuring crops for food and fuel; desalination and water pipelines. Water for the fuel crops described above will need a large, steady supply of water. We have the land and should use it.
However, much of America’s bread basket is already suffering form water shortages that are not going to get better. Much of the water used for irrigation in the central states of the U.S. comes from the Ogallala aquifer, which is being extracted about 100 times faster than the aquifer can “recharge,” or be filled by rainwater.
Using plentiful power from breeder reactors, desalination plants on both coasts should be put into production, with water piped to the interior of the continent, where it will ensure the survival of existing food crops as well as the new fuel crops. Much of the arid central states and those in the Southwest could be transformed by such projects.
4) Reviving railroad transpiration; important because it can (with work) use electric power and does not require asphalt roads. This one is sort of a no-brainer, if plentiful power is available. If electric isn’t used, bio-diesel is another alternative. This would be a longer term change, but would benefit the transportation network.
This raises other issues, for example the increases susceptibility to the economy via bio-terrorism. Something must be done if Americans are going to maintain the lifestyles we’ve become accustomed to. Will a coherent energy policy ever get off the ground? Without a doubt – eventually. Hopefully not too late.
—–
Sorry, but this is an outright fallacy, often repeated though it may be. In fact, not only is it safe to say that we will never run out of oil, but the single best energy policy the US government could embark on is to not have one at all, and leave the energy business to those who know how to make a going concern of it; if any of the policies you suggested were economically viable, they wouldn’t need government intervention to bring them about, and all you’re essentially doing is thinking up ways for bureaucrats and armchair thinkers to use lots of taxpayer money to second-guess energy corporations and the global financial markets.
Perhaps I should have said oil will get too expensive to extract. The fact remains, alternate sources need to be found, and in advance would be preferable. Finding vast new reserves would be fantastic, but it’s not guaranteed.
Nice title to your post on this, ‘Finite Does Not Mean Exhaustible.’ Clever but ultimately wrong. There is only so much oil in the Earth, after all. We don’t have to know how fast oil was created to know that if we continue using it, someday it will be a) gone or b) too expensive to extract, which has about the same practical effect as the former.
Markets are great for many things. Thinking far ahead in geopolitical terms is not one of them. So while I’m all for going with the market in the vast majority of areas, but not all.
You also take a little license in assuming that all would be government funded – I didn’t touch on funding; do not try to state my position for me.
Aside from the reserves of oil on the planet. Who controls those supplies?
People that are pretty risky, that’s who.
The USA has more than enough reasons to move away from reliance on imported oil, which accounts for 13 mil out of 20 mil barrels/day.
China isn’t scrambeling to secure oil supplies for nothing. It’s a strategic commodity because energy is one of the most fundamental components of an advanced economy. Their demand will only grow. And India is starting to grow quickly, as well. Those two countries represent 40% of the planets population, are on long term sustainable growth trajectories, and they are going to be wanting more and more oil.
The USA economy is vulnerable to oil supply shocks, albeit not to the extent as it was in the 70’s.
The alternatives Richardson gave address the USA’s vulnerability. This issue has been addressed many times by very credible sources, not just the environmental extremists.
All is not just fine and dandy with relying on oil.
i believe waiting for oil to magically appear is the best solution.
jokes aside, the problem with oil is not how much of it is left, but when global production will peak - at which point oil will become more and more expensive to extract. i don’t understand the logic of saying that just because there is a known quantity of a resource, we don’t need to worry about whether or not we can access it - isn’t the point whether or not we can use it? if it does become so expensive to extract oil, then no matter how much oil is left on the planet, you will have to find cheaper alternatives.
I’m guessing Abiola Lapite is a disciple of the abiotic oil theory, or perhaps not, but it’s an explanation for his apparent belief in infinite oil supplies.
That’s fine, but what is not is his apparent unwillingness to engage in honest debate as demonstrated by his attempts to misconstrue my position. Bizarre attempts to compare areas that are relevantly dissimilar (e.g., current prices dropping slightly to the relevance of a long-term oil supply, etc.) fall into the same category.
I’ll add that anyone who thinks that, “oil prices can now triple in a few years without having any serious impact on world economic growth,” need not lecture another on, “rudimentary economics.”
I remember gas rationing after the 1973 war and “popular” wisdom held that we were running out of oil. Writers such as Jeremy Rifkin pushed the theory of post industrialization shortages. Nonsense then, nonsense now. The recent Chevron oil find shows there are yet to be discovered large fields at depths unexplored.
But the biggest reason for implementing alternative energy usage is to decrease dependency on oil in general. Watch Russian behavior against Europe over the winter and see if it threatens its consumers again with shutoffs. Watch what is happening in Georgia. Why let powers increasingly hostile to the US, Europe and Japan have increasing control over our energy supplies? If Russia can succeed in taming Europe to its national interests, we can be sure Saudia Arabia and other large exporters will take note. Unlike 1973, the USA has viable alternatives to gasoline. Not persuing a national strategy to broadly use bio fuels and fuel cells will give Russia, Saudia Arabia and others further control over our domestic and international policies.
How come we haven’t run out of coal? Wasn’t coal, at one point, what drove most transportation (trains, ships, etc.)?
I happen to agree with “Finite Does Not Mean Exhaustible.” For those who are interested (some may already be aware), I refer you to the Simon-Ehrlich wager.
The reason why a finite resource may not (and generally is not) exhaustible is two-fold: “the principle of substitution and the dynamic influence of technology.”
For example, we substituted oil for coal when oil was discovered to be more efficient. Thus, coal never ran out.
Also, the technology for extracting a given resource improves constantly, sometimes at a multiplicative rate, thus reducing extraction costs, and thus often increase the estimated available supply. Technology also feeds back and forth with the principle of substitution, in that improved technology leads us to forsake one resource for another, more efficient one.
The best known mechanism, so far, for determining resource allocation is the free market. Energy resources are no different. In fact, the best mechanism for inducing alternative resource is scarcity. When there is scarcity, price rises, and the consumers naturally desire, demand and seek alternative resources that cost less. So if you want something other than petroleum, I suggest everyone to go burn some extra gasoline. I do.