Thermal depolymerization holds a great deal of promise and is already up and running. But whatever technological advances come the final instance of life with oil and life without will never come. What will come is an agonizing reappraisal of who or what wakes up with all the chips when we start doing things a different way. I suspect that is your point.

I guess it will be something like when older industries became obsolete and abandoned. When we run out of oil some industries and places will be abandoned, because they depend too much on oil, whereas new places and industries may run on other energy sources, which will probably thrive in the absence of oil. Perhaps some of the major oil companies will manage to convert to solar power companies even?

As long as we have enough oil to last until the world transitions to cleaner energies, then we should be fine on that front. Battery, solar, wind, etc are all improving. I don't know how long it will realistically take to transition. Say it's 30 years. Do we have enough oil for three decades?

Oil can be replaced. If nothing else, we have a giant ball of energy in the sky that won't run out for billions of years. And you never know with cold fusion. The breakthrough might still happen.

I think adapting to the resulting climate change from burning so much oil will be more problematic than running out of it. We'll have a different energy economy in a few decades, but we'll have to adapt to the results of a warmer climate. Let's hope it's not severe enough to dry out the Amazon, or melt Antarctica.

What about chemical feedstock? An awful lot of very important and convenient stuff is made out of oil. It isn't that there are NO substitutes ever, it's that there are often no easy substitutes. Oil is a great source of molecules which do all kind of fantastic stuff, like dental parts and glues, for instance, or pharmaceuticals. An awful lot of stuff has oil as a component.

A rule of thumb is that major new technology takes 40 or 50 years to be established. For instance, from the beginning to full deployment, solar will likely take 50 years -- including building necessary transmission lines, developing and deploying battery installations (of some kind), developing solar/thermal as well as solar/electric, etc. Same for wind. Full deployment is not 50 years from today, but 50 years from when we started which is like 10-15 years ago.

Kunstler points out how very very very dependent the world is on oil. Electricity isn't the main thing that oil provides. It's conveniently packaged, highly potent, shelf-stable energy. The car runs on oil, but it is also lubricated with oil, it's upholstery and carpet is made from oil, the paint and rust proofing is made from oil, the tires are largely made from oil. The plastic dashboard and door covers are made from oil.

A good share of clothing is made from oil (i.e. polyester), as is carpeting, indoor/outdoor paint, plastic bags, plastic packaging, plastic containers, plastic furniture.

Going back to natural fiber (wool, linen, cotton, leathers and feathers) is possible, but doing so would require a tremendous agricultural and manufacturing shift.

I accidentally flagged your post. Sorry. Can't de-flag it.

Oil companies are already interested in renewable energy and non-petroleum industries.

The thing about diminishing oil is that it might not be all that gradual, and by and large there are no other substances that readily replace oil as chemical feedstock. Oil doesn't just provide energy.

Thermal depolymerization holds a great deal of promise and is already up and running. But whatever technological advances come the final instance of life with oil and life without will never come. What will come is an agonizing reappraisal of who or what wakes up with all the chips when we start doing things a different way. I suspect that is your point. — Monitor

What is the cost-benefit of thermal depolymerization? How much energy input (heat and pressure) does it take to get so much energy output? If oil disappeared, my guess is that the feedstock would be pretty much plant based, and that the end product would be somewhat different.

James Howard Kunstler for sure thinks there will be an agonizing reappraisal.

What is the cost-benefit of thermal depolymerization? How much energy input (heat and pressure) does it take to get so much energy output? — Bitter Crank

The beauty of the process is that it takes the waste products that we are drowning in and breaks them down into their base ingredients. The system has been shown to operate entirely on the natural gas it extracts from the waste materials. Other by-products are metals, light and heavy oils, fertilizers, etc. We simply need to feed it our waste. I cannot show that it will solve all of the oil problem but I am confident we will see the process as a major player in the transition.

I think the two biggest problems that the decline of oil presents are energy production (and storage) and transportation.

Right now oil and it's products, like gasoline, performs the job of both being the source of energy and also being the battery which stores it. A tank of gasoline is like a very cheap and very powerful and very portable battery that holds it's charge for a very long time. In the past this was far an away the easiest and most efficient mechanism for getting shit done and is largely responsible for the last 100 years of human success. If the reality of our dependence on this doesn't change before oil becomes too costly, our quality of life will be the thing that changes.

Solar panels are looking to become the new source of most of our electricity, and right now the cost of solar energy is actually starting to approach levels similar to that of coal...

The recent advancement in batteries and electric cars made by Tesla are pretty impressive. If we can make batteries that are stronger than tanks of gas ever could have been, and electric motors that don't cost too much or break down too easily, then it's entirely possible that we will see fully electric farming/construction/demolition vehicles.

Regarding the vast periphery of products which come from oil, I wonder how much quantity is required to fill our needs in that regard? Chemicals for medicines for instance would not theoretically be required in vast quantities, and with cheaper and usable electric based methods for material processing of various kinds, replacement materials could become more economical for use in the host of products we could come to rely on.

It's my hope that the transition away from oil will indeed happen quickly, spurred by market innovation which might finally make sustainable energy sources, electric batteries, and electric machinery, more economically efficient an option. If not then we will become somehow impoverished as we run out of the substance which is currently fueling our lifestyle.

I was convinced about 'peak oil' in 2008-09 - even started a blog about it. The book that I read was Half Gone, by Jeremy Leggett. It painted a very compelling, and scary, picture. But I now think fear of 'peak oil' was overblown, and very shortly after that period, the known reserves of oil were enormously increased by some major finds, like the Tupi ocean field, off Brazil, and the sudden and unexpected resurgence of American oil production. (I read somewhere that the US will be net-energy positive in the forseeable future, i.e. exporting more than it consumes.)

BUT, the problem is not running out of oil, it is the need to reduce carbon emissions. We're literally baking the planet - that is what is scary. Runaway climate change, along with resource depletion and unchecked population growth, will do us in long before we 'run out of oil'.

It is peak cheap oil that is the economic issue. So the EROEI (energy return on energy invested). And cheap oil did peak. We are now in the era of stagnation to be followed by scramble.

Of course, renewables could come on stream faster than expected. But the world is doing a poor job in paving the way for a smooth transition. Hence Fortress America. Steve Bannon has been openly rubbing his hands about the inevitability of the destruction from which the US will arise great once again.

Going back to natural fiber (wool, linen, cotton, leathers and feathers) is possible, but doing so would require a tremendous agricultural and manufacturing shift. — Bitter Crank

There's always hemp ;)

QUESTION: WHAT DO YOU THINK WILL HAPPEN WHEN THE OIL RUNS OUT? — Bitter Crank

Like we're already doing, we'll switch to alternative fuel sources, like natural gas and renewables.

What about chemical feedstock? An awful lot of very important and convenient stuff is made out of oil. It isn't that there are NO substitutes ever, it's that there are often no easy substitutes. Oil is a great source of molecules which do all kind of fantastic stuff, like dental parts and glues, for instance, or pharmaceuticals. An awful lot of stuff has oil as a component — Bitter Crank

True, but replacements are on the way, and will look more and more attractive to investors as oil-based products become more expensive. Bioplastics are one example; one can use vegetative matter, among other things, to create plastic and other petroleum products.

Also, it's not a question of when we switch to alternate sources, but a question of how long the switch will take. We have already begun the process of transferring to other energy sources. It is at least possible that the cheapness of oil over the past year or two has been partially caused by the proliferation of alternative energy.

the known reserves of oil were enormously increased by some major finds, like the Tupi ocean field, off Brazil, and the sudden and unexpected resurgence of American oil production. — Wayfarer

The Tupi (now Lula) field has 8 billion barrels -- about 3 months worth of global demand.

The US passed it's peak production years ago; that means the best quality, cheapest-to-produce oil has been sucked out o the ground and used up. "Peak" doesn't mean "the last", so sure, we have more to pump and we can pump more. But the return on investment, or EROEI (energy return on energy invested that Apokrisis mentioned) is much less favorable, and it will continue to get more unfavorable. Also, the more we pump now, the sooner we we reach the 1:1 ratio, where it takes as much energy to get the oil out as there is in the oil.

A good share of the Bakken field in North Dakota is shut down now, because the price producers get for crude right now isn't high enough to support the cost of fracking.

What's true for the US is true for the world: The world has passed peak production. Even Saudi Arabia has to squeeze to get oil out of one of its huge fields. It pumps sea water in to squeeze out more oil, but it also brings up a lot of that sea water with it. (That isn't to say S.A. is about to run out of oil next week.)

Is that so? Well, I stand corrected. Anyway, here in Australia, we had one of the world's best Carbon Emissions schemes, and the then government abolished it, having first politicized the whole question, and we're now 'skating backwards at the speed of light', to quote Steely Dan. It's a disgrace and an act of perfidy on an international scale.

it's not a question of when we switch to alternate sources, but a question of how long the switch will take. — Pneumenon

This is true.

The "proliferation of alternate energy" is a good thing but I don't think this accounts for cheap oil right now. All the oil that is offered is getting bought; prices are not high. Why? Because the biggest oil produces don't want to cut back--thus making prices rise, and destabilize the industrial economies that buy their oil. Plus, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Kuwait, UAE, et al can not afford either a reduction in income or an unstable world economy. The population of the middle east oil producers grew enormously with the income of oil income. Even some of the non-producers grew as a result. The oil regimes need to keep the cash flowing in their oil economies OR face possible regime change in an uprising of the people.

Besides, wind and solar supply electricity. Oil isn't used much for electrical production in most situations. Where oil is used is in diesel powered generation plants which run only when absolutely necessary to take up slack on the grid. Most of the time those plants are sitting idle.

They say ''necessity is the mother of invention''. I'm sure human ingenuity will carry the day for us.

Also look at the upside. Without fuel to run their war machines belligerent states would be automatically restrained. We could be looking at the end of war and all its consequences.

We could make some real progress in global warming and climate change.

Best of all it will expose human ''cilivization'' for what it really is - underserving of the adjectives ''progressive'', ''clever'', ''fantastic'', ''sustainable'', etc.

Besides, wind and solar supply electricity. Oil isn't used much for electrical production in most situations. Where oil is used is in diesel powered generation plants which run only when absolutely necessary to take up slack on the grid. Most of the time those plants are sitting idle. — Bitter Crank

We don't use diesel by and large for energy production in electrical grids, but it is the best form and source for energy for large machines (portability included). At some point diesel could become so expensive that entirely electric based alternatives (which have yet to be designed as far as i know) will have to become the replacement.

Anyway, here in Australia, we had one of the world's best Carbon Emissions schemes, and the then government abolished it, having first politicized the whole question, and we're now 'skating backwards at the speed of light', to quote Steely Dan. It's a disgrace and an act of perfidy on an international scale. — Wayfarer

It is incomprehensible to me, it really is, why your (or my) government, and our industrial leaders can not grasp ANYTHING about climate warming, alternate energy, peak oil, or anything else. I mean, sometimes I can't see any angle in their opposition that would benefit them. Like with ObamaCare -- what makes people froth at the mouth over it?

Carbon taxes, for instances, affect all industries equally (presumably). No competitor is getting an advantage because everybody pays the tax. Usually businesses accept that kind of economy-wide tax. It's an equitable scheme directed toward a sensible end (reducing the severity of global warming).

At some point diesel could become so expensive that entirely electric based alternatives (which have yet to be designed as far as i know) will have to become the replacement. — VagabondSpectre

Freight trains, for instance, can run on electricity. You know those long trains pulled by 6 engines...? The 6 are needed only to get the mile long train moving up to speed. Once a mile long train is moving, it only takes 1 diesel locomotive to keep it moving (barring a climb through the mountains, say).

I don't know if electrified trains make sense to move coal from Wyoming to Atlanta, for instance (assuming Atlanta couldn't find any other way to generate electricity by non-hydrocarbon methods).

Do you see any signs of miracle births?

Also, I wouldn't count on a lack of oil bringing an end to war. People did just fine fighting wars before the first bucket of oil was poured into a barrel.

Trains might have to become a pretty big part of the new infrastructure, but I'm worried about the machines which actually dig that coal up in the first place. For mining operations on-going fuel costs can make or break their ability to be cost efficient and turn a profit. Right now the development of new infrastructure itself is dependent on oil because the machines and mega-machines which actually do that job simply need oil to function. We have no electrical equivalent of a D10 Caterpillar (yet) and the many other portable machines we require to expand and maintain our existing infrastructure. We will eventually need electrical equivalents for all of them as rising fuel costs restricts economic viability.

We can fuel our city cranes and snowplows at exorbitant cost because they are necessary, but things like mining for metal will decline while market prices rise.

It is incomprehensible to me, it really is, why your (or my) government, and our industrial leaders can not grasp ANYTHING about climate warming, alternate energy, peak oil, or anything else. I mean, sometimes I can't see any angle in their opposition that would benefit them. Like with ObamaCare -- what makes people froth at the mouth over it? — Bitter Crank

I feel the same! Climate change, you would think, would be a natural for a conservative. After all, it is all about conservation. I think the explanation lies in the fact that the politics and the science are simply too hard for a democratic system to handle. Australia had a review, by an economist called Garnaut, leading up to the carbon tax, which said it was a diabollically difficult policy problem - those exact words. It has brought down the careers of several leaders in this country, and terrified the rest into saying nothing about it.

But the real damage was done here by a couple of hard-right politicians, who coined the idea that the carbon tax was a 'Great Big New Tax on Everything'. Scared the bejesus out of the electorate. The same guy popped up yesterday saying that emissions trading targets should be abolished.

Meanwhile, our current PM used to be a real climate change warrior - and now he's talking about 'clean coal' and mocking the Opposition for overselling the benefits of renewable.

It would be funny if it wasn't terrible.

Meanwhile, our current PM used to be a real climate change warrior - and now he's talking about 'clean coal' and mocking the Opposition for overselling the benefits of renewable. — Wayfarer

What does Australia makes its living from? Coal and minerals. Who owns the media. Coal billionaires like Gina Rhineheart. Who owns the politicians? The same.

Same in the US. Trump will be tolerated until the right laws have been passed that favour established big money interests. After that, people can impeach him if they want to.

wish I could argue.... :-d

I'm with the pessimists. Alas 'sustainability' has been over-used - sometimes as a pr gloss to non-sustainable ideas - but in the long run homo sapiens will only enjoy a long and fruitful species-life if it discovers a way of harmonising with the natural in and around us. Even seemingly 'green' initiatives are often dependent on energy-heavy inputs, rare metals that are mined in dirty ways, and take resources from the hungry. Short-term policies to improve agricultural productivity have medium-term disbenefits - nitrate poisoning, for instance - and we don't have a long-term policy toward the soil, which gives us life and health.

More coal and nuclear use. They didn't finish investigating hot fusion. Might try that again. I think they'll start mining old landfills for plastic.

Forget about hot fusion, cold fusion is making a comeback.

As for the topic. We have an ocean full of deuterium and hydrogen... We have thorium in plenty. We have technology coming up with actual transmutation of elements all while releasing abundant energy in the process (a complex one but workable). Then there's the sun.

People also seem to forget that we also have a nuclear fission reactor beneath our feet that is limitless in energy production via geothermal means, all while sequestering carbon emissions by storing excess carbon capture from nearby coal plants to store underground until the stuff turns into limestone. Speaking of which, if you look up the LCOE of geothermal as compared to other renewables, then geothermal will almost always have an absolute advantage over any other renewable source, and it also beats non-renewables too like coal, gas, and nuclear. Hell, Yellowstone could potentially power the entire US if we wanted to, providing some serious non-stop power without carbon emissions and other positive externalities like promoting public awareness on the impending disaster of a Yellowstone eruption. Anyone?

It's really a lack of funding and current lobbying and governmental ineptitude really holding us back. India and China are ahead in terms of planning for a cleaner future; but, I don't believe that much in social planning unless you can wipe out a population and start from anew. Tesla, Panasonic, graphene batteries, and supercapacitors, better energy storage, less transmission waste for energy intensive industries, more localized energy production for homes and less energy intensive utility, seem to be the future. There's also natural gas as mentioned, which if things go sour then current vehicles can be retrofitted with LPG gas as they do in Europe and elsewhere.

I think we should be climbing off this planet. I don't think cold fusion will help with that.

I believe MAD will keep us all safe, as long as North Korea's leader is satisfied and nobody sells him a sub capable of getting to our shores undetected.

Besides, Earth is beautiful. Where are you gonna go on vacation on Mars? Musk's idea is that people will all become movie addicts and spend all their leisure time enjoying Henry Fonda films.

I can already see Musk's idea of becoming 'King of Mars' and proclaiming, 'We're going to have capitalism on steroids here with a lot of socialism!'

I'm obviously joking, but I certainly don't want to be the first on Mars.