Seymour Flops
Diamond Member
When Fossil Fuels Run Out, What Then? - MAHB
Obviously we continue ‘business as usual’ and are not concerned about using up our resources!
mahb.stanford.edu
A worthy read, for anyone truly interested in the AGW issue. They get their facts correct, as near as I can tell without personally verifying each one. I disagree with some of their conclusions, which doesnt' make them wrong, but here I argue that some are wrong.
I'll point out in blue font what is fact and what is opinion/conclusions/predictions, etc, for those not quite sure of the difference.
LIMIT OF FOSSIL FUELS
Fact:
In this article we want to point out categorically the fact that there is a LIMIT to the fossil fuels on earth
Unless the current scientific understanding is way, way off, the existing fossil fuels took millions of years to be created by natural forces acting upon buried remains of living organisms. So, of course, it is finite and will run out if we are consuming it as we use is, which we are.
Creative License:
that we are gobbling up.
"Gobbling up," is supposed to be an emotive phrase, but that goes to show that the best scientists are not necessarily the best creative writers, because it just comes off childish.
Conclusion:
We are oblivious of the fact that there will be a time, measured in decades, when these fuels will run out.
I have no idea why the authors would think that they are the only ones who know that. I've known it since I was a kid during "the Energy Crises." So, it is an incorrect conclusion. But that is only a conclusion on my part.
Fact, but Incomplete
Because of global population rise, there is a growing demand for energy.
Yes, but not just because of the population rise. There is also the fact that developing nations are more and more blessed with industry, which is the only thing that will pull an agricultural-based population out of poverty. More industry = more progress, but also = more fossil fuels being burnt.
Conclusion with which I strongly agree:
Since our society is so dependent on fossil fuels, it therefore is extremely important for us to know when these fuels will run out according to [4]:
Conclusion/Estimates - that make sense to me:
Oil will end by 2052 – 30 years time
Gas will end by 2060 – 40 years time
Coal will last till 2090 – 70 years time
However, according to BP [5], earth has 53 years of oil reserves left at current rate of consumption.
So, let's say 30 to 50 years, give or take an unknown number of decades, depending on the breaks.
As far as I know, nearly everyone knows this. It isn't controversial.
From the standpoint of an AGW alarmist, that should be good news indeed. Finally, the long fossil fuel nightmare that started with the Industrial revolution will end.
Is it good news for energy companies? Think before uncovering the spoiler:
Hell, yes, it is!
Not only are energy companies fully aware of the finite nature of fossil fuels, they feel it in thier profit-motivated bones. First, they will make as much money as they can by harvesting and delivering the shrinking supply of fossil fuels. Meanwhile, they will develop non-fossil fuels - known as "renewables" and start selling that renewable energy as soon as dwindling oil supplies make it more expensive than the renewables.
In that sense, the free market will not eliminate the use of fossil fuels, but will (for profit) efficiently facilitate the transition, as fossil fuels inevitibly run out. As so often, the profiteers will benefit most, but they will benefit by providing benefit to all.
The article goes on . . .
Nuclear energy
Fact:
As fossil fuels begin to disappear, nuclear power is becoming more and more prominent because it is the only alternative base system capable of providing electricity continuously 24 hours a day. It is carbon-free, vital to our clean energy future. It was first developed in the 1950s and since then its safety features have been much improved. Now over 11% of the world’s electricity is produced from nuclear energy. Nuclear grew by 3.3% in 2018 mainly as a result of new capacity in China and the restart of 4 reactors in Japan [17].
Yeah, say . . . anyone old enough to remember who it was that argued, lobbied, and protested to prevent the U.S. from developing nuclear energy, as France, for example, did?
Was it ultra-conservative radio talkers? No . . . no, not them.
Was it the Republican National Committee? Mmm, no.
Ah . . . was it Donald Trump? Well, not him either.
Here is a hint:
Twelve states currently have restrictions on the construction of new nuclear power facilities: California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island and Vermont.
So, the only reason the free market has not already sharply reduced the use of fossil fuels is due to regulations, and the threat of regulations due to pressure from groups such as Friends of the Earth, International:
Friends of the Earth International (FoEI) is an international network of grassroots environmental organizations in 73 countries. About half of the member groups call themselves "Friends of the Earth" in their own languages; the others use other names.[2] The organization was founded in 1969 in San Francisco by David Brower, Donald Aitken and Gary Soucie after Brower's split with the Sierra Club[3] because of the latter's positive approach to nuclear energy.
What a surprise, the same people who want to end fossil fuels, also prevented development of the only currently available realistic alternative to fossil fuels. There always was a lot of overlap between people who wanted to stop nuclear power, and people who wanted the U.S. to dismantle its nuclear weapons. I was never sure that such groups actually knew the difference between nuclear power and nuclear weapons.
Last edited:
