End Of Oil Is Near--What Next?

[atomsmasher]

3 hours ago, OceanBreeze said:

The truth is, if we believed every estimate of peak oil we would have run out a long time ago.

You only have to be right once.

3 hours ago, OceanBreeze said:

We are constantly discovering huge new  reserves and new ways of extracting the fossil fuels that we know exist.

It would be nice if you were right but you are not

3 hours ago, OceanBreeze said:

Plus, we are decreasing our dependence on fossil fuels and making more use of alternate energy sources. There is nothing to panic about, but a little concern is warranted.

If we get to the panic stage it well be too late for us to stop the end of life as we know it. We have +/- 40 years to switch, if not then pray for our grandchildren, they will need all the prayers we can give them.

Edited November 18, 2021 by atomsmasher

[atomsmasher]

23 minutes ago, VictorMedvil said:

Actually I wanna go deeper so there are 4.32 Trillion tons of uranium 235 in the solar systems let's assume that our solar system has a average amount for the entire galaxy.

Getting there and getting the uranium back to earth is the hard party. 

I do agree that nuclear will supply the majority of the energy we need.

Our nuclear submarines have great power plants. T believe one could power a city. With that in mind we should start mass producing them, even sell them to other countries.

Edited November 18, 2021 by atomsmasher

[Vmedvil2]

11 hours ago, atomsmasher said:

Getting there and getting the uranium back to earth is the hard party. 

I do agree that nuclear will supply the majority of the energy we need.

Our nuclear submarines have great power plants. T believe one could power a city. With that in mind we should start mass producing them, even sell them to other countries.

Well there is still 280 Billion tons of uranium 235 just on Earth.

[OceanBreeze]

On 11/18/2021 at 3:54 AM, atomsmasher said:

Oil reserves are a known quantity (+/-) and annual consumption is a known number.

Summary Table

Oil Reserves	1,650,585,140,000	barrels
Oil Consumption	35,442,913,090	barrels per year
	97,103,871	barrels per day
Reserves/Consumption	47	(years left)

https://www.worldometers.info/oil/

The truth will set us all free

OIL: The USGS usually cites a mean value for  additional resources of oil at 1.7 trillion barrels.This gives a total resource of almost 2.7 trillion barrels (0.959 plus 1.7) or 16,522 EJ. That would last 90 years with static consumption levels.

So far we have been discussing what is generally referred to as ‘conventional’ oil. This is more or less oil that flows from oil wells.[294] ‘Non-conventional’ oil on the other hand involves more costly extraction techniques and comprises bitumen from oil sands, kerogen from oil shale and extra heavy oil.

The vast bulk of the resource is located in Alberta, Canada where production has grown significantly over recent years as a result of higher oil prices and declining costs.

According to estimates published by the Alberta Energy and Utilities Board, the initial volume-in-place, based on currently available data, is 1.6 trillion barrels while the ultimate volume in place, a value representing the volume expected to be found by the time all exploratory and development activity has ceased, is 2.5 trillion barrels (15,300 EJ)

Now, we have already doubled the world’s resources to about 5 trilion barrels, that would last 180 years with static consumption levels.

Coal currently supplies a quarter of primary energy with most of it being used for electricity production where its contribution is 40 per cent.[308] Proven recoverable reserves are about one trillion tonnes[309] which has an energy value of around 21,000 EJ.[310] These are fairly accurately measured resources that would be economical at present prices and accessible with current technologies. At current coal usage rates, 5 billion tonnes would last for about 200 years. Assuming 2 per cent annual energy growth and coal retaining its present share by growing at the same rate, the resource would last almost 160 years. At 3 per cent growth it would last 120 years.

Aquifer gas Natural gas is often found dissolved in aquifers and the amount dissolved increases substantially with depth. It is variously referred to as aquifer gas, hydro-pressured gas or brine gas and is expected to occur in nearly all sedimentary basins of the world. While no detailed assessment of the resource is available, estimates derived from groundwater volume suggest a resource ranging from 2,400 to 30,000 tcm (90,000 to 1,100,000 EJ) with a mean estimate of 16,200 tcm (600,000 EJ). While highly speculative, these estimates suggest a resource of staggering proportions.

( In case you are getting confused by the numbers, earlier on the article stated that  2.5 trillion barrels is produces 15,300 EJ.  600,000 EJ, then can produce the energy equivalent of 980 trillion barrels of oil, which would last for a staggering 3,500 years!) At present, I admit these numbers are highly speculative. It seems when we arrive at these sort of huge energy numbers, there is a tendency to be very conservative in reporting; they are always reported as highly speculative. But when somebody arrives at a somewhat panicky number of 47 years until oil runs dry, it is always taken as gospel, complete with multiple exclamation points!!!. This is always a tell about Human nature. The mass media, is even worse; always more than happy to be fed, and to feed us, sensational stories of looming disaster.

Of course, we cannot rely on fossil fuels forever, but we are well aware of that fact, and we have more than enough time to develop alternative energy sources, including synthethic fossil fuels.  We are on top of the situation and there is no need to panic!!! (exclamation points added just to make the alarmists more at home)

I can go on and on, but you can read the report here yourself: https://brightfuture21c.wordpress.com/2007/01/31/chapter-3-plenty-of-resources/

 

Incidentally, I was once a member of the USCG and now I am with the NOAA. That doesn’t make me an expert on the world’s energy reserves, or global warming, but I have at least seen (and been directly involved in) how the data is acquired and analyzed. Something I doubt few, if any, others on this forum can claim.

Bonus question to see if anyone is paying attention: If we only expend 20 gigatonnes of fossil fuel per year, how are we producing 35 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide per year?

 

 

 

 

Edited November 20, 2021 by OceanBreeze
typo

[Vmedvil2]

 I just got this email in my inbox should we publish our research on climate change?

Personally, I would rather keep it on the forums but I already got a offer for publication of this data.

"Springer Nature journals are the essential resource for researchers. As the leading publisher of the world's most prestigious journals and a prominent voice in scholarly communications, Springer Nature serves as a trusted partner committed to providing the community with a diverse portfolio."

I dunno maybe I should write a book/books about the various subjects that I have been discussed on this forums, I am really tempted by this offer and this is the fifth time they have reached out to me. I feel kinda bad maybe I should just grow up and publish all this stuff in journals, but I really don't want to. We are just discussing random topics I never intended for any of this research to be published that was posted on this forums. I guess you will just have to read it on the scienceforums.com in forums format like it was intended to be viewed, but I am flattered that someone thinks that our research should be published in one of the most prestigious journals in the world, just as I was flattered that the Europeans wanted me to be speaker about retroviral gene therapy at Nanomat Conference 2019, but I declined that and I will decline this.

 

Edited November 20, 2021 by VictorMedvil

[OceanBreeze]

11 hours ago, VictorMedvil said:

 I just got this email in my inbox should we publish our research on climate change?

Personally, I would rather keep it on the forums but I already got a offer for publication of this data.

"Springer Nature journals are the essential resource for researchers. As the leading publisher of the world's most prestigious journals and a prominent voice in scholarly communications, Springer Nature serves as a trusted partner committed to providing the community with a diverse portfolio."

I dunno maybe I should write a book/books about the various subjects that I have been discussed on this forums, I am really tempted by this offer and this is the fifth time they have reached out to me. I feel kinda bad maybe I should just grow up and publish all this stuff in journals, but I really don't want to. We are just discussing random topics I never intended for any of this research to be published that was posted on this forums. I guess you will just have to read it on the scienceforums.com in forums format like it was intended to be viewed, but I am flattered that someone thinks that our research should be published in one of the most prestigious journals in the world, just as I was flattered that the Europeans wanted me to be speaker about retroviral gene therapy at Nanomat Conference 2019, but I declined that and I will decline this.

 

I'm sure you are free to publish your own posts, but posts made by others belong to the forum and you would need permission to post those. Not that I personally care one way or the other, just giving you my understanding of the matter so you don't get into legal problems. Incidentally, I have received that same invitation, multiple times. I thought they send it out to all subscribers!

[Vmedvil2]

12 hours ago, OceanBreeze said:

I'm sure you are free to publish your own posts, but posts made by others belong to the forum and you would need permission to post those. Not that I personally care one way or the other, just giving you my understanding of the matter so you don't get into legal problems. Incidentally, I have received that same invitation, multiple times. I thought they send it out to all subscribers!

well ya I dunno, I just find it strange that we were just talking about climate change then I get a email about them offering to publish climate change stuff. I don't trust coincidences, personally, usually they aren't as random as you would think. Secondly, I would Never publish your posts without your permission, I don't steal things.

Edited November 21, 2021 by VictorMedvil

[OceanBreeze]

Just for clarification, I was not accusing you of “stealing” anything. As for my own posts, as I said I don’t care one way or the other if you want to make use of them. I was simply informing you of the rights about other person’s posts as far as this forum is concerned.

[Vmedvil2]

5 hours ago, OceanBreeze said:

Just for clarification, I was not accusing you of “stealing” anything. As for my own posts, as I said I don’t care one way or the other if you want to make use of them. I was simply informing you of the rights about other person’s posts as far as this forum is concerned.

It's cool man, I was just stating that I wouldn't use someone else's stuff without their permission.

[ArthurSmith]

On 11/19/2021 at 10:35 AM, VictorMedvil said:

Well there is still 280 Billion tons of uranium 235 just on Earth.

Are you sure?

[Vmedvil2]

8 hours ago, ArthurSmith said:

Are you sure?

100% certain.

"The overall abundance of uranium in the Earth's crust is about 4 parts per million, and it is concentrated in many minerals, principally pitchblende, autunite, torbernite , and carnotite."

"There is around 40 trillion tons of uranium in Earth's crust, but most is distributed at low parts per million trace concentration over its 3 * 10¹⁹ ton mass. Estimates of the amount concentrated into ores affordable to extract for under $130 per kg can be less than a millionth of that total."

"The half-life of uranium 238 is of 4.5 billion years, while uranium 235 has a half-life of 'only' 700 million years. Though both isotopes were at the time of Earth formation equally abundant, natural uranium today consists today of 99.3% uranium 238 and only 0.70% uranium 235."

Which .007 U235 per Uranium Total x 40 trillion tons of total uranium = 280 billion tons of U235

Edited January 10, 2022 by VictorMedvil

[ArthurSmith]

13 minutes ago, VictorMedvil said:

100% certain.

"The overall abundance of uranium in the Earth's crust is about 4 parts per million, and it is concentrated in many minerals, principally pitchblende, autunite, torbernite , and carnotite."

"There is around 40 trillion tons of uranium in Earth's crust, but most is distributed at low parts per million trace concentration over its 3 * 10¹⁹ ton mass. Estimates of the amount concentrated into ores affordable to extract for under $130 per kg can be less than a millionth of that total."

"The half-life of uranium 238 is of 4.5 billion years, while uranium 235 has a half-life of 'only' 700 million years. Though both isotopes were at the time of Earth formation equally abundant, natural uranium today consists today of 99.3% uranium 238 and only 0.70% uranium 235."

Which .007 U235 per Uranium Total x 40 trillion tons of total uranium = 280 billion tons of U235

How much of that is economically extractable? Not that I have anything against  the continued use of nuclear energy in the medium term. Though I think more research could be directed to fast breeders and thorium.

[Vmedvil2]

1 hour ago, VictorMedvil said:

Estimates of the amount concentrated into ores affordable to extract for under $130 per kg can be less than a millionth of that total.

 

 

54 minutes ago, ArthurSmith said:

How much of that is economically extractable? Not that I have anything against  the continued use of nuclear energy in the medium term. Though I think more research could be directed to fast breeders and thorium.

well, I assume economically "Cheap" to extract is under 130$ per kg so around a millionth of 280 billion tons so 280 thousand tons is cheap to extract, which would cost under $33,021,524,510 USD to extract all of it that was "Cheap". Continuing each kg of U235 is 24,000,000 kWh so that would be 6,096,281,448,000,000 Kilowatt hours or $731,553,773,760,000 USD at 12 cents per kilowatt hour in electricity so over $731,520,752,235,490 USD in Profit.

"With a complete combustion or fission , approx. 8 kWh of heat can be generated from 1 kg of coal, approx. 12 kWh from 1 kg of mineral oil and around 24,000,000 kWh from 1 kg of uranium-235. Related to one kilogram, uranium-235 contains two to three million times the energy."

 

Edited January 10, 2022 by VictorMedvil

[ArthurSmith]

53 minutes ago, VictorMedvil said:

 

well, I assume economically "Cheap" to extract is under 130$ per kg so around a millionth of 280 billion tons so 280 thousand tons is cheap to extract, which would cost under $33,021,524,510 USD to extract all of it that was "Cheap". Continuing each kg of U235 is 24,000,000 kWh so that would be 6,096,281,448,000,000 Kilowatt hours or $731,553,773,760,000 USD at 12 cents per kilowatt hour in electricity so over $731,520,752,235,490 USD in Profit.

"With a complete combustion or fission , approx. 8 kWh of heat can be generated from 1 kg of coal, approx. 12 kWh from 1 kg of mineral oil and around 24,000,000 kWh from 1 kg of uranium-235. Related to one kilogram, uranium-235 contains two to three million times the energy."

 

So nuclear is an option we should be considering. Safety is the prime directive. 

[Vmedvil2]

8 hours ago, ArthurSmith said:

So nuclear is an option we should be considering. Safety is the prime directive. 

 

"Nuclear is a zero-emission clean energy source. ... According to the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI), the United States avoided more than 476 million metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions in 2019. That's the equivalent of removing 100 million cars from the road and more than all other clean energy sources combined."

"Nuclear energy now provides about 10% of the world's electricity from about 440 power reactors. Nuclear is the world's second largest source of low-carbon power (28% of the total in 2019). Over 50 countries utilize nuclear energy in about 220 research reactors."

"This basically means nuclear power plants are producing maximum power more than 93% of the time during the year. That's about 1.5 to 2 times more as natural gas and coal units, and 2.5 to 3.5 times more reliable than wind and solar plants."

"Because nuclear power is reliable and can be deployed on a large scale, it can directly replace fossil fuel plant, avoiding the combustion of fossil fuels for electricity generation."

"One might think it's a green form of energy such as solar, wind, or hydro. This study suggests something different. Sources: WHO, CDC, National Academy of Science. According to the study, nuclear power is by far safest power source in the world -- 40% less deadly than the next safest, wind."

Edited January 11, 2022 by VictorMedvil

[ArthurSmith]

I happen to live in France. We currently have an oversupply of nuclear energy though, due to demand fluctuations, the net average contribution is around 71% as one drawback of nuclear is the slow response time to change in demand.

[Vmedvil2]

1 hour ago, ArthurSmith said:

I happen to live in France. We currently have an oversupply of nuclear energy though, due to demand fluctuations, the net average contribution is around 71% as one drawback of nuclear is the slow response time to change in demand.

Well, I hope you French people can get the Germans to understand that there is little other choice than nuclear for a sustainable and net zero emissions economy. As Merkel and the Germans have been bitching about nuclear for years now and how much they hate it, on a baseless idea that nuclear is dangerous and bad.

Edited January 11, 2022 by VictorMedvil