Good News for the Global Warming Concerned: Fossil Fuel is a Finite Resource, so the Free Market will Take Care of its Demise

[Foxfyre]

You live in a dream world.
Wtf do you think protects and helps plot the locations if all those oil reserves…then provides grants for their drilling aid…

Wtf does the Quantum theory and nuclear power research without which you’d have no pumped oil and cell,phones.,

Whow protects all your shipping lanes so you can get your golf clubs from China…made by exotic metals developed for space travel by NASA funded research..

btw, guess who provides grants for training for all the police departments in the US that helps provide security for EVERY municipal corporation selling to the public….the Fed and your dollar.

Gesus, you live in a dream world.

An estimated 7,075 oil, gas, and petrochemical companies received PPP funds totaling between approximately $3 billion to $7 billion,

You do make up shit…..

And yet another lefty with serious reading dysfunction incapable of understanding what another member has posted. Or perhaps it is intentional for sake of argument. Who knows? (I still think it's something in the water they drink or some such.)

 

[Dagosa]

And yet another lefty with serious reading dysfunction incapable of understanding what another member has posted. Or perhaps it is intentional for sake of argument. Who knows? (I still think it's something in the water they drink or some such.)

Oh, I understood everything you business only types like to pretend.

 

[ding]

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.

Except for the timeline of the demise of fossil fuels, I agree that it will one day end and the market will adapt and improvise, but we have at least 500 years of natural gas that could power ICE vehicles.

 

[ding]

Private energy has ALWAYS done it without subsidies and research. They do their own research. And the profit motive drives the process. Infrastructure that follows private investment is a good thing. A developer wants to build a new housing development or office part or industrial district and the local government provides the streets, sewer, water, etc. to support the citizens who participate in that. Those utilities granted authority to operate in the area must provide electricity, phone service etc. to all new construction. That meets the standards for productive social contract and is beneficial to all.

For the most part this is true at least in America. I should know I worked in upstream oil and gas for 37 years. But the government did incentivize the development of unconventional gas such as coal bed methane and shale (i.e. tight formations) through the use of tax credits from 1985 through 2005. And now shale oil and shale gas offer huge unconventional reserves of hydrocarbons worldwide. Of course the government also did dumb things like regulating the natural gas market because they thought natural gas was running out which was quite funny as that wasn't even close to reality. The world has vast reserves of undeveloped unconventional natural gas.

We did all of our own research. None of that received special tax considerations other than they were costs that could be deducted like any other cost could be. And yes, good old profit, free enterprise and competition created a self organizing industry all by itself just as you say. And 10 times better than national oil companies could.

 

[Foxfyre]

For the most part this is true at least in America. I should know I worked in upstream oil and gas for 37 years. But the government did incentivize the development of unconventional gas such as coal bed methane and shale (i.e. tight formations) through the use of tax credits from 1985 through 2005. And now shale oil and shale gas offer huge unconventional reserves of hydrocarbons worldwide. Of course the government also did dumb things like regulating the natural gas market because they thought natural gas was running out which was quite funny as that wasn't even close to reality. The world has vast reserves of undeveloped unconventional natural gas.

We did all of our own research. None of that received special tax considerations other than they were costs that could be deducted like any other cost could be. And yes, good old profit, free enterprise and competition created a self organizing industry all by itself just as you say. And 10 times better than national oil companies could.

The government has not only incentivized oil and gas via tax credits but also property development and other aspects that were considered important for the common good. We can legitimately debate the pros and cons of that, but at least it isn't taking money out of anybody's pockets to do that. And it usually--not always but usually--nets more than the initial loss of revenue.

For instance, in 1980 the State of New Mexico and small community of Rio Rancho gave Intel a huge tax incentive to build a huge plant in Rio Rancho near Albuquerque. The result were thousands of very well paying jobs, a boom in housing because all those people needed somewhere to live. The population grew rapidly from roughly 10,000 people to more than 100,000 now and hundreds of other businesses--gas stations, restaurants, beauty shops, grocery and other retail stores, etc. were established by the private sector to provide goods and services for that growing population.

Resulting revenues to the state and city were and have been many times over the amount that Intel didn't have to pay if they invested here. It cost the taxpayer nothing and has benefitted many thousands of people.

 

[Dagosa]

The government has not only incentivized oil and gas via tax credits but also property development and other aspects that were considered important for the common good. We can legitimately debate the pros and cons of that, but at least it isn't taking money out of anybody's pockets to do that. And it usually--not always but usually--nets more than the initial loss of revenue.

For instance, in 1980 the State of New Mexico and small community of Rio Rancho gave Intel a huge tax incentive to build a huge plant in Rio Rancho near Albuquerque. The result were thousands of very well paying jobs, a boom in housing because all those people needed somewhere to live. The population grew rapidly from roughly 10,000 people to more than 100,000 now and hundreds of other businesses--gas stations, restaurants, beauty shops, grocery and other retail stores, etc. were established by the private sector to provide goods and services for that growing population.

Resulting revenues to the state and city were and have been many times over the amount that Intel didn't have to pay if they invested here. It cost the taxpayer nothing and has benefitted many thousands of people.

Strange..you seem to be supporting govt intervention.

 

[expat_panama]

You are confused aren’t you….?

lol!! Only when I'm trying to understand you. Cheers!

 

[expat_panama]

...oil comes from fossilized algae.

So your point is what ?...

We have to explain where the oceans of oil on Titan came from. We don't want to say that they too came from "fossilized algae" do we?

 

[Seymour Flops]

My understanding is that these hydrocarbons are created naturally. Saturn's moon Titan for instance has oceans of liquid methane IIRC, and there probably were no dinosaurs there and even less likely, cattle ranches.

When I was a kid, decades ago, they showed us cartoons of dinos and ancient looking trees falling and piling up on top of each other and then being covered by dirt. Under the dirt for millions of years, they became oil.

It never made much sense.

Why would all the animals and plants have piled together to eventually form vast underground pools of petroleum instead of dying and then rotting, being dragged away by carion eaters, or being buried where they fell, as plants and animals of today do? Why would they form a pile of millions of other dead animals and plants? Why would they be undisturbed by animals, wind, and weather long enough to be buried deep in the ground?

But that was a child's explanation. Surely someone has a better one?

 

[ReinyDays]

Yeah "massive algae deposits being put under pressure for millions of years" is a natural process.

Now, abiotic oil theory, the claim that oil in mass quantities can be produced without a biological precursor, that's kookery.

We know that because nobody has ever found any of this abiotic oil, beyond the trace few gallons that everyone expected. And we know it because all oil contains chemical traces of the algae that it came from.

There's liquid lakes of hydrocarbons on Saturn's moon Titan ... profoundly abiotic ... the problem here on Earth is every carbon atom has been through a life form at least once ... "beyond the trace few gallons" ...

Energy conservation saves money ... if that's not important to you, then buy new tires and burn them ... but be honest, if you don't care about saving money, then say so ... heavy taxation is your friend here ... send your extra money to the IRS will ya? ...

If we don't conserve ... we will run out of fossil fuels sooner ... and fossil fuels will get expensive before then ... all I'm saying is NOW is a good time to start planning on nuclear and getting the regulatory systems in place ... before we start pouring carbon-intensive concrete ...

I love how folks don't know piston-engined rigs use steel ... too funny ...

 

[mamooth]

There's liquid lakes of hydrocarbons

Which is not "oil". Those "liquid lakes of hydrocarbons" would instantly evaporate at earth temperatures.

So, your theory fails right there.

On Titan, the more complex hydrocarbons form when UV light or cosmic rays strike Titan's methane atmosphere. There's no free oxygen on Titan, so the hydrocarbons stick around and rain down.

Earth doesn't have a methane atmosphere, and any stray hydrocarbons in the atmosphere eventually get oxidized. So, the Titan method is right out.

I love how folks don't know piston-engined rigs use steel ... too funny ...

Just what are you babbling about?

 

[Dagosa]

Which is not "oil". Those "liquid lakes of hydrocarbons" would instantly evaporate at earth temperatures.

So, your theory fails right there.

On Titan, the more complex hydrocarbons form when UV light or cosmic rays strike Titan's methane atmosphere. There's no free oxygen on Titan, so the hydrocarbons stick around and rain down.

Earth doesn't have a methane atmosphere, and any stray hydrocarbons in the atmosphere eventually get oxidized. So, the Titan method is right out.


Just what are you babbling about?

In reality, the right is arguing for big oil. It’s not arguing for renewables. It will take any fallacy and reach out for it like it’s fact. Really, Solar power is more arras able than non carbon based oil…As soon as you take a position contrary to science, it’s easy to take a position contrary to literally any thing. Renewables are cheaper, promote more independence and freedom from corporate greed. That strikes fear in the hearts of the right.

 

[ReinyDays]

Which is not "oil". Those "liquid lakes of hydrocarbons" would instantly evaporate at earth temperatures.

So, your theory fails right there.

On Titan, the more complex hydrocarbons form when UV light or cosmic rays strike Titan's methane atmosphere. There's no free oxygen on Titan, so the hydrocarbons stick around and rain down.

Earth doesn't have a methane atmosphere, and any stray hydrocarbons in the atmosphere eventually get oxidized. So, the Titan method is right out.


Just what are you babbling about?

I'm sorry ... I used a big long science word there forgetting you're still a child ... "hydrocarbon" is the term we use for all these compounds ... anything that's just carbon and hydrogen ... I should have said "natural gas" ... so you'd understand ...

You disagree this natural gas is abiotic? ... well, it's just a theory ... NASA is planning a mission to Titan to test for life, you might be right ... there no reason to assume all life must be water soluble ...

... there's no oxygen on Earth for her first 2.4 billion years either ... so I'm standing on "no life on Titan" ... a shame you disagree ...

 

[ReinyDays]

In reality, the right is arguing for big oil. It’s not arguing for renewables. It will take any fallacy and reach out fir it like it’s fact. As soon as you take a position contrary to science, it’s easy to take a position contrary to literally any thing. Renewables are cheaper, promote more independence and freedom from corporate greed. That strikes fear in the hearts of the right.

Cheaper renewables isn't universal ... we have cheapest-in-the-nation hydro here in Jefferson ... but coal is still the cheapest in West Virginia's coal country ... gas is cheapest in the Texas gas fields ...

"Conservation" is the dirty word ... taking profits from both Left and Right ... how dare I? ...

 

[expat_panama]

When I was a kid, decades ago, they showed us cartoons of dinos and ancient looking trees falling and piling up on top of each other and then being covered by dirt. Under the dirt for millions of years, they became oil.

It never made much sense.

Why would all the animals and plants have piled together to eventually form vast underground pools of petroleum instead of dying and then rotting, being dragged away by carion eaters, or being buried where they fell, as plants and animals of today do? Why would they form a pile of millions of other dead animals and plants? Why would they be undisturbed by animals, wind, and weather long enough to be buried deep in the ground?

But that was a child's explanation. Surely someone has a better one?

There are plenty of youtube websites where they create hydrocarbons from CO2 and hydrogen in just minutes w/ a simple laboratory. Sure it's possible to create hydrocarbons w/ life/fossils but that's obviously not the only way. My thinking is that this is why the inflation adjusted price of oil has been steady over the decades.

That old "fossil creation" story is just another fairy tale for the dustbin.

 

[ReinyDays]

There are plenty of youtube websites where they create hydrocarbons from CO2 and hydrogen in just minutes w/ a simple laboratory. Sure it's possible to create hydrocarbons w/ life/fossils but that's obviously not the only way. My thinking is that this is why the inflation adjusted price of oil has been steady over the decades.

That old "fossil creation" story is just another fairy tale for the dustbin.

Lignan ... the chemical name for wood ... I'm using ToE, if that's a problem, then ignore my comments ...

One tale that's told is that plants evolved to form this lignan around 360 million years ago ... and nothing could decompose it for 60 million years ... get that, 60 million years of forest where the wood never decays? ... that's a lot of wood piled up and buried ...

Where is all this carbon supposed to be these 300 million years later? ...

Carboniferous - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Dagosa]

My thinking is that this is why the inflation adjusted price of oil has been steady over the decades.

It’s been steady because of supply and demand .

 

[expat_panama]

Lignan ... the chemical name for wood ... I'm using ToE, if that's a problem, then ignore my comments ...

One tale that's told is that plants evolved to form this lignan around 360 million years ago ... and nothing could decompose it for 60 million years ... get that, 60 million years of forest where the wood never decays? ... that's a lot of wood piled up and buried ...

Where is all this carbon supposed to be these 300 million years later? ...

Carboniferous - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Lots of possibilities for the origins of petroleum and many are true. One we know for sure of is that oil can be found naturally w/o life.

 

[ding]

Lots of possibilities for the origins of petroleum and many are true. One we know for sure of is that oil can be found naturally w/o life.

Without a doubt organic matter (plants and animals) is the source of hydrocarbons for the vast majority of conventional and unconventional reservoirs.

 

[mamooth]

I'm sorry ... I used a big long science word there forgetting you're still a child ...

In order to pull off the condescending act, you have to actually be smart. That's why I can do it so well, and why you faceplant when you try.

"hydrocarbon" is the term we use for all these compounds ... anything that's just carbon and hydrogen ... I should have said "natural gas" ... so you'd understand ...

Words mean things, dumbass. You specifically claimed those hydrocarbons explained abiotic oil on Earth. That was 'effin stupid, I pointed that out, and now you're crying and deflecting.

You disagree this natural gas is abiotic?

You should try mounting those goalposts on wheels, to help you trundle them about better.

Just abandon your abiotic oil retardation. It doesn't get any less stupid with repetition.

... there's no oxygen on Earth for her first 2.4 billion years either ... so I'm standing on "no life on Titan" ... a shame you disagree ...

Your deflections just keep getting dumber. It's a rare talent you have there.