If the abiotic oil theory is correct, this would mean there is no shortage of oil as some would believe.
The debate over oil's origin has been going on since the 19th century. From the start, there were those who contended that oil is primordial - that it dates back to Earth's origin - or that it is made through an inorganic process, while others argued that it was produced from the decay of living organisms (primarily oceanic plankton) that proliferated millions of years ago during relatively brief periods of global warming and were buried under ocean sediment in fortuitous circumstances. During the latter half of the 20th century, with advances in geophysics and geochemistry, the vast majority of scientists lined up on the side of the biotic theory. A small group of mostly Russian scientists - but including a tiny handful Western scientists, among them the late Cornell University physicist Thomas Gold - have held out for an abiotic (also called abiogenic or inorganic) theory. While some of the Russians appear to regard Gold as a plagiarist of their ideas, the latter's book The Deep Hot Biosphere (1998) stirred considerable controversy among the public on the questions of where oil comes from and how much of it there is. Gold argued that hydrocarbons existed at the time of the solar system's formation, and are known to be abundant on other planets (Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and some of their moons) where no life is presumed to have flourished in the past. The abiotic theory holds that there must therefore be nearly limitless pools of liquid primordial hydrocarbons at great depths on Earth, pools that slowly replenish the reservoirs that conventional oil drillers tap. Meanwhile, however, the oil companies have used the biotic theory as the practical basis for their successful exploration efforts over the past few decades. If there are in fact vast untapped deep pools of hydrocarbons refilling the reservoirs that oil producers drill into, it appears to make little difference to actual production, as tens of thousands of oil and gas fields around the world are observed to deplete, and refilling (which is indeed very rarely observed) is not occurring at a commercially significant scale or rate except in one minor and controversial instance discussed below.
The abiotic theorists also hold that conventional drillers, constrained by an incorrect theory, ignore many sites where deep, primordial pools of oil accumulate; if only they would drill in the right places, they would discover much more oil than they are finding now. However, the tests of this claim are so far inconclusive: the best-documented "abiotic" test well was a commercial failure. Thus even if the abiotic theory does eventually prove to be partially or wholly scientifically valid (and that is a rather big "if"), it might have little or no practical consequence in terms of oil depletion and the imminent global oil production peak. That is the situation in a nutshell, as I understand it, and it is probably as much information as most readers will need or want on this subject. However, as this summary contradicts some of the more ambitious claims of the abiotic theorists, it may be helpful to present in more detail some of the evidence and arguments on both sides of the debate.
Well, what is your opinion of thermal depolymerization?
It's one method for producing oil in a man-made form, and the quality of oil produced so far has been...decent. Better than past efforts, for sure.
No one in the industry is banking on abiotic oil.
"Well, what is your opinion of thermal depolymerization?
It's one method for producing oil in a man-made form, and the quality of oil produced so far has been...decent. Better than past efforts, for sure." - Prateek Sanjay
I think those pilot plants are getting by without subsidies too, which is all the more impressive seeing as how most people seem to think it's an absolute necessity for the government to fun such alternative approaches to waste/fuel.
It doesn't matter, even if oil is biotic it is not economically finite, in danger of depletion, or is there such a thing as global or even national production peak. As I never tire of repeating, the flaw of extrapolationism is that it does not take the cyclical replenishment of resources into account. Scarcity causes creation of resources. Therefore, resources are not economically finite, we create more of them as we need them. At any point in time resources will always appear to be running out if you extrapolate current consumption without taking into account that people replenish resources as they get scarce.
As JH Kunstler says:
There is no creamy nugget oil center that is going to save civilization.
QFT
Clayton -
Anything into Oil
Jack Roberts:There is no creamy nugget oil center that is going to save civilization.
Ech... I'm so tired of this litany, because it's just factually wrong. It just completely ignores all available data. Just look at the facts, oil reserves are growing! That means we add to reserves faster than we use them up. In 1993 there were about a trillion barrels of reserves remaining, in 2009 there were more than 1.3 billion barrels remaining. Meaning that in this time of unprecedented alarmism about oil shortages, oil reserves have actually grown by a third. Now, if something is to run out, shouldn't it at least be getting less? Even if oil reserves were diminishing, it would not be clear that there is a problem. Efficiency could improve faster than reserves decline or alternative resources could be developed before shortages occur. But oil reserves aren't even declining.
We are not low on oil by a long shot. The ocean is like 70% of the earths surface. Assuming that oil isn't more likely to be under land, this simple calculation shows us that we can at most have accessed 30% of the planets oil until we started drilling at sea. But since a great part of of land area is deserts, arctic, mountains or otherwise inaccessible, we're probably just scratching at the 10% most easily accessible oil on the planet. Add unconventional deposits and we're down to like a few percentages. Oil is abundant. It's like sand. You can't plug a hole into the ground without finding oil. It's often in the way of finding water. There is no actual physical shortage, all supply problems are political/speculative/hysterical. Oil is more expensive, and limits to how quickly we can pump it out of the ground may develop, but that's a political problem. Oil is practically a government monopoly. 80% of the worlds oil supply is controlled by governments, and in consuming countries governments put up heavy restrictions, regulations and taxation. If oil gets expensive, entrepreneurs would find more, so the story goes. But when governments expropriate the windfalls it destroys that market signal and supply shortages develop. That's why production has been flat since 2005-ish. It had nothing to do with actual physical scarcity, but with economic distortion. Anyone who doesn't agree with me, please read some Julian Simon.
I'm certainly not a Peak-Oil doom and gloomer, but this statement is, with all due respect, ignorant of the facts. Oil is, in fact, EXTREMELY more likely to be found on land than in water, or more correctly, on continental crust. The reason for this is that (dubious abiotic theories aside) oil is formed in sedimentary source rocks before being trapped in a resovior formation. The vast majority of the ocean's crust is reletively young basalt with only a thin veneer of sediment and no formations for oil to collect in. The only places you see drilling is on the continental shelves.
Trust me, from my own experience, and the friends I have in the oil/gas industry, oil is certainly not abundant, certainly not "like sand". Proven reserves are increasingly slowly as we find new deposits, but they are increasingly hard to get to. Yes, as long as oil is in high demand you will see innovation to bring these reserves to the surfacee, but only if it is profitable to do so. This is, like, the exact opposite of "abundant".
LogisticEarth:Oil is, in fact, EXTREMELY more likely to be found on land than in water, or more correctly, on continental crust. The reason for this is that (dubious abiotic theories aside) oil is formed in sedimentary source rocks before being trapped in a resovior formation. The vast majority of the ocean's crust is reletively young basalt with only a thin veneer of sediment and no formations for oil to collect in. The only places you see drilling is on the continental shelves. Trust me, from my own experience, and the friends I have in the oil/gas industry, oil is certainly not abundant, certainly not "like sand". Proven reserves are increasingly slowly as we find new deposits, but they are increasingly hard to get to. Yes, as long as oil is in high demand you will see innovation to bring these reserves to the surfacee, but only if it is profitable to do so. This is, like, the exact opposite of "abundant".
I did not know that. Thank you LogisticEarth, I stand corrected. (That's how we learn.) Although all I said was that I assume that oil isn't more likely to be on land, since I didn't know, I did not claim that it was. That calculation wasn't accurate, then, we might not just have used up "a few percentages" of overall world oil. Maybe it isn't quite like sand, but I think oil is a lot more abundant than most people think. Although my main argument was that the very question of how great overall oil reserves are and what share of them we have 'used up' is meaningless. How much overall oil there is depends on what we count as oil. A technology that allows us to convert tar sands or turkey innards into oil can grow what we consider oil reserves. By definition, a set without a limit is not finite. Therefore the prevailing "finite-earther" paradigm, that resources exist as a finite stock that is used up and then gone, is fallacious. Resources are not finite, they are produced by people.
That's where the whole notion of sustainability turns into aesthetic nonsense. Resource use is considered "sustainable" when current consumption could continue forever without humans creating new resources or technologies. But obviously humans do employ unceasing ingenuity, so current resource stocks do not have to last forever without being replenished. All resource use has always been unsustainable and always will be. In fact, unsustainability is the very force that creates technological progress. If lumber had been sustainable we would never have used coal, if whale oil had been sustainable we would never have used petroleum, if oil was sustainable we would never get solar energy. Advocates of sustainability want some sort of stagnant socialist economy that does not require any new input from "the earth".
Prateek Sanjay: Well, what is your opinion of thermal depolymerization? It's one method for producing oil in a man-made form, and the quality of oil produced so far has been...decent. Better than past efforts, for sure.
Political Atheists Blog
krazy kaju: Prateek Sanjay:Well, what is your opinion of thermal depolymerization? It's one method for producing oil in a man-made form, and the quality of oil produced so far has been...decent. Better than past efforts, for sure.
Prateek Sanjay:Well, what is your opinion of thermal depolymerization? It's one method for producing oil in a man-made form, and the quality of oil produced so far has been...decent. Better than past efforts, for sure.
So much for oil being non-renewable.
Well, I don't want to derail the thread here, so all I'll say is this: making oil from animal parts, used tires, and other wastes is still fairly expensive at $80 per barrel and it probably is only one part of the total solution to our current energy woes. I suggest that if anyone wants to continue discussing the merits and issues with "man-made" oil, they start a separate thread.
/threadjack
It's not really meaningless. "Natural" oil succeeded because it was cheap to obtain, was extremely energy-dense, and easy to transport and handle. This is precisely why oil is really useful for vehicle transporation, and 2/3 of US demand is for use as fuel in vehicles. While thermal deploymerization can certainly provide some capacity, it will never really replace natural reserves. Transporting the raw materials and generating the energy needed to run the process will likely keep oil expensive enough so that it ceases to be competetive with other methods. Not to mention all the capital reorganization costs. I will be surprised if in 40 years most cars and trains use petroleum for fuel. Oil will continue to be used where oil is essential (ie in some industrial processes), but it will probably never be as cheap as it used to be. Like I said, I'm no Peak Oil proponent predicting the collapse of society, but that doesn't mean the peak of natural production won't change the way things are done.
"It's not really meaningless. "Natural" oil succeeded because it was cheap to obtain, was extremely energy-dense, and easy to transport and handle. This is precisely why oil is really useful for vehicle transporation, and 2/3 of US demand is for use as fuel in vehicles. While thermal deploymerization can certainly provide some capacity, it will never really replace natural reserves. Transporting the raw materials and generating the energy needed to run the process will likely keep oil expensive enough so that it ceases to be competetive with other methods. Not to mention all the capital reorganization costs. I will be surprised if in 40 years most cars and trains use petroleum for fuel. Oil will continue to be used where oil is essential (ie in some industrial processes), but it will probably never be as cheap as it used to be. Like I said, I'm no Peak Oil proponent predicting the collapse of society, but that doesn't mean the peak of natural production won't change the way things are done." - LogisticEarth
I think the issue is one of confluence of ideas, LE. People who professionally worry about oil supplies tend to be on an ideological ilk with one another, and people respond to posts assuming that. What you say is true; people will make marginal substitutions for oil where and when they find it economical and necessary to do so. However, most people don't think that way, especially the professional worrying class. They see the peak/end/fall-off/whatever of easy natural oil as some massive 'social' problem. The idea that individuals will just do things differently as needed and 'solve' this massive problem, should it arise, from the bottom up just doesn't occur to them.
I would argue your point about Thermal Depolymerization always being expensive though. It may be, but you don't know that. I could easily conceive of entire metric units of society being sectioned off to maximize waste disposal benefits into a plant such as these, which could then generate electricity or liquid fuels or whatever you can get from the process. If anything it seems to offer a nice semi solution to some of the likely inflated economies of scale we've enjoyed due to cheap, subsidized oil.
LogisticEarth: Although my main argument was that the very question of how great overall oil reserves are and what share of them we have 'used up' is meaningless. How much overall oil there is depends on what we count as oil. A technology that allows us to convert tar sands or turkey innards into oil can grow what we consider oil reserves. By definition, a set without a limit is not finite. Therefore the prevailing "finite-earther" paradigm, that resources exist as a finite stock that is used up and then gone, is fallacious. Resources are not finite, they are produced by people. It's not really meaningless. "Natural" oil succeeded because it was cheap to obtain, was extremely energy-dense, and easy to transport and handle. This is precisely why oil is really useful for vehicle transporation, and 2/3 of US demand is for use as fuel in vehicles. While thermal deploymerization can certainly provide some capacity, it will never really replace natural reserves. Transporting the raw materials and generating the energy needed to run the process will likely keep oil expensive enough so that it ceases to be competetive with other methods. Not to mention all the capital reorganization costs. I will be surprised if in 40 years most cars and trains use petroleum for fuel. Oil will continue to be used where oil is essential (ie in some industrial processes), but it will probably never be as cheap as it used to be. Like I said, I'm no Peak Oil proponent predicting the collapse of society, but that doesn't mean the peak of natural production won't change the way things are done.
When I point out that resources aren't finite, people (the kind that is a peak oil alarmist) tends to respond something like "yeah, but it's really expensive to create more resources". Well, that is a completely different argument than saying that resources are finite. Finiteness implies a specific limit, not a vague difficulty to produce more. At that point they really admitted that resources aren't finite, yet somehow they maintain that belief because resources are expensive to produce.
I agree with what you said about the difficulty of synthesizing oil, but oil is not finite. The theory that resources exist as a finite stock that gets 'used up' is meaningless and wrong. To understand resource economics we have to use proper theoretical models, and finite-earth theory is not accurate. In fact, it's always wrong. I'm not saying that there is no problem with resources, but the problem is scarcity, not finiteness. Obviously resources will always be difficult to produce, that's in the definition. Technology improves precisely because it keeps chasing scarcity. But lack of resources is not due to the overall stash on earth running out, but because supply can't keep up with demand. I think we will get off oil, but not because we don't have enough of it but because we find more efficient technologies. And keep in mind that oil reserves are growing, there is no immanent end of natural oil.
Do you mean "proven reserves" or the total aggregate of oil existing on the planet, known or unknown? Because the latter, while not technically "finite", is in practical terms, exhaustable. The formation process takes vast amounts of time, and the only reason reserves are "growing" is because we're finding more unknown deposits.
In your reasoning, it's important to note that "oil" is not a homogeneous good. Light, sweet crude pumped from natural reserves is a pre-produced product. Huge amounts of energy have gone into making it, it just happened over long periods of time, and without any efforts by humans. Some deposits are harder to retrieve than others. There's only so much "cheap" oil in the world, and there's a reason why we're drilling $80-100 million wells in the Gulf Coast in five miles of water, instead of on land in Texas. The "low hanging fruit" isn't going to last forever. The reason oil will be surpassed by other technologies isn't neccesarily because we come up with more efficient machines. It could also be because oil, due to it's increasing scarcity and difficulty of retrieval, looses the efficiency it once had.
LogisticEarth: I think we will get off oil, but not because we don't have enough of it but because we find more efficient technologies. And keep in mind that oil reserves are growing, there is no immanent end of natural oil. Do you mean "proven reserves" or the total aggregate of oil existing on the planet, known or unknown? Because the latter, while not technically "finite", is in practical terms, exhaustable. The formation process takes vast amounts of time, and the only reason reserves are "growing" is because we're finding more unknown deposits.
Yes, I meant proven reserves are growing. Mostly because we find more, but also because formerly inaccessible reserves and unconventional sources become extractable due to technological improvement. And because of improved efficiency, like more fuel efficient cars, which is like finding a certain amount of "oil utility" in the ground.
On hearing that, one might think, ok known reserves may not be finite but total reserves certainly are. But the concept of overall reserves does not really make sense. The total amount of a resources on earth is really kind of a theoretical notion without any worldly application. For one, how much of a resource there is in total on the planet is wholly unknown to us, so we can't ever make any calculations. And most of the planets oil is probably not extractable, and it would be pointless to count a bunch of stuff that we can't ever get to. Also, a lot of oil exists in such low concentrations that we couldn't ever make use of it, for example it would be absurd to include all the oil that's (naturally) diluted in the oceans. So how much total oil there is reall depends on what you count. Resources are not "in" the planet, but rather defined arbitrarily. This means that the concept of total resources on earth is sort of a floating, variable concept. Total reserves are really inumerable. What we consider a resource depends on what humans have a need for. Since total reserves are not even a clearly defined set, they are not finite either, and can't really be 'exausted'.
It is also important to be aware that "resources" includes different materials over time. For example, oil wasn't even a resource 170 years ago. So while any particular resource may be theoretically exhaustable, this never actually happens because we move on to other resources. We don't know whether this will always happen, but today there are more promising technologies than ever before.
LogisticEarth:In your reasoning, it's important to note that "oil" is not a homogeneous good. Light, sweet crude pumped from natural reserves is a pre-produced product. Huge amounts of energy have gone into making it, it just happened over long periods of time, and without any efforts by humans. Some deposits are harder to retrieve than others. There's only so much "cheap" oil in the world, and there's a reason why we're drilling $80-100 million wells in the Gulf Coast in five miles of water, instead of on land in Texas. The "low hanging fruit" isn't going to last forever. The reason oil will be surpassed by other technologies isn't neccesarily because we come up with more efficient machines. It could also be because oil, due to it's increasing scarcity and difficulty of retrieval, looses the efficiency it once had.
Yes, it is very important to note that "oil" is not a homogeneous good. That's why the amount of "oil" can increase on a finite planet. With improving technology, more of what was formerly just mud is now considered oil. This progression to less efficient sources does not imply that returns are diminishing though. For the simple reason that technology improves too. If we still had to get oil out of the ground with 1800s technology there would be such a thing as a law of diminishing returns. But we don't, it costs less today to get oil from the ground in prime sources than it cost fifty years ago to get it from the ground in prime sources. Everything is to some degree pre-produced by nature, we just gradually replace pre-produced products with man-made products. Technological progress isn't some independently running process that just happened to keep up with scarcity until now, it happens precisely because technology keeps chasing after scarcity. If there are enough low hanging fruit, why go through the trouble of inventing a ladder? Now you might say, at some point we can't pick higher hanging fruit by building a bigger ladder because the tree ends. But the tree (in this metaphor) is endless, it just gets too tedious at some point to design bigger ladders. That's when people come up with an alternative. And you know what happened when humans got tired of picking fruit? The agricultural revolution!
I think this is a bit of moving goalposts on your part. Yes, given unlimited energy, we can manufacture pretty much everything we want. However, we're talking about natural oil reserves here. There's a limited amount of natural petroleum, and within that amount there's a limited volume that has a quaility that makes oil worth the effort. New technology to replace the "low hanging fruit", in order to be implemented into practice, requires savings. Rolling this into the next point:
Inventing and building that ladder takes some resources too. Part of the problem is that we have a HUGE amount of capital invested in petroleum-based systems. There's the potential for there to be some friction while reinvesting into new technologies that will replace natural oil. Again, not calling for the apocolypse here, merely the potential for a temporary decrease, possibly signifigant, in the standard of living for many people. These "alternatives" just don't spring into being from the brow of Zeus. They need to be developed and built.
I can't confirm or deny the following information, but I saw them in the comments of the video posted above. Not sure how accurate it is, but it could certainly add an additional element to the discussion if it is indeed so.
@rocketplumber and the water is what they said in the video recycled so if the recycled water is already hot it doesnt take that much energy to get it back up to the desired heating temp for the next batch process.if you go to 1:01 you notice all the white pipe, that is insulated pipe for retention of heat and again at 1:52 the white bigger tanks are also insulated.most likely the uncovered pipe acts like condensers or water return lines in the closed loop system
@rocketplumber Where did you get those figures?
@madjimms No, TDP has a modest energy cost, about 15% of the heat of combustion of the feedstock. The cost of the equipment is significant, but not crippling. At full scale, the process cost would be around $20 to $30/barrel, and the latest crude oil price is over $100/bbl, so this is an excellent way to recycle organic waste.
It would be interesting to find out what "full scale" meant, and if that price assumes that the waste will be near-free as it is now. If you're talking about replacing a good portion of world consumption, say, 20 million bbls/day (about the daily US oil consumption rate), I'd have to imagine that the feedstocks wouldn't be seen as "garbage" anymore and would rise in price. This could impact other industries that use some of that waste already, like fertilizer and animal feed.
As to the fesiblity of the whole TDP idea, I was looking around a bit and it turns out that the parent company went bankrupt back in 2009, after losing $20 million and having a failed IPO:
http://www.carthagepress.com/news/x1362397575/BREAKING-NEWS-RES-parent-company-files-for-bankruptcy
Really, I wouldn't count on it as a silver bullet.
LogisticEarth: Resources are not "in" the planet, but rather defined arbitrarily. This means that the concept of total resources on earth is sort of a floating, variable concept. Total reserves are really inumerable. What we consider a resource depends on what humans have a need for. Since total reserves are not even a clearly defined set, they are not finite either, and can't really be 'exausted'. I think this is a bit of moving goalposts on your part. Yes, given unlimited energy, we can manufacture pretty much everything we want. However, we're talking about natural oil reserves here. There's a limited amount of natural petroleum, and within that amount there's a limited volume that has a quaility that makes oil worth the effort. New technology to replace the "low hanging fruit", in order to be implemented into practice, requires savings. Rolling this into the next point: Everything is to some degree pre-produced by nature, we just gradually replace pre-produced products with man-made products. Technological progress isn't some independently running process that just happened to keep up with scarcity until now, it happens precisely because technology keeps chasing after scarcity. If there are enough low hanging fruit, why go through the trouble of inventing a ladder? Now you might say, at some point we can't pick higher hanging fruit by building a bigger ladder because the tree ends. But the tree (in this metaphor) is endless, it just gets too tedious at some point to design bigger ladders. That's when people come up with an alternative. Inventing and building that ladder takes some resources too. Part of the problem is that we have a HUGE amount of capital invested in petroleum-based systems. There's the potential for there to be some friction while reinvesting into new technologies that will replace natural oil. Again, not calling for the apocolypse here, merely the potential for a temporary decrease, possibly signifigant, in the standard of living for many people. These "alternatives" just don't spring into being from the brow of Zeus. They need to be developed and built.
First you agree with me, that we can manufacture pretty much everything we want if we have enough energy. Then you state that oil is finite after all. What now? I thought you agreed that resources are not really finite. Sure, replacing the low hanging fruit requires effort and investment, but that has nothing to do with finiteness. Increasing corn production requires investment too. Is corn finite? Forget about finiteness, that's all that I'm saying. Except for that sentence, I do agree with your post. Finding alternatives is difficult and might not work out. But that's why we got scientists and engineers. And geologists! It's always a problem of productivity, never finiteness. We're never 'running out' of anything, we can only suffer from too low productivity. - Luckily, oil isn't anywhere near being difficult to produce, oil reserves are growing despite unprecedented consumption. So there's enough time for a slow transition to nuclear or solar or whatever. If the total oil on the planet ever gets scarce, it will be a slow process with gradually rising prices for centuries, the pumps won't just suddenly run dry. The world is just too big for that.
Edit: As for depolymerization, I don't really think it's feasible. Not because of lack of a carbon source, as I understand it they can pretty much use any kind of plastics. But because to make any difference we'd have to plaster the country with depolymerization plants. That experimental plant in the video produces 500 barrels a day, say at full scale they are ten times that productive, we would need four thousand of them to produce the 20 million barrels a day you mention. Where are they going to get all the pipes and tanks to build those things? And at the end of the day it's still just dirty oil that makes the air brown.
Regarding the price of the feedstock. It says on wikipedia that the cost of the turkey waste adds 15 to 20 Dollars a barrel of their oil. Meaning if they could get "free" waste they could produce at 60 to 65 Dollars a barrel. Which would be economical, it's just not possible to do this on a large scale.
Natural. Reserves.
"Resources", reletive to humans, aren't finite. However, pre-existing natural reserves are of a finite nature. This doesn't mean that we can't MAKE more oil, but we can't just pick it up out of the ground forever. Think of it like buying a house and finding a large refrigerator full of beer in the basement. You can keep drinking that beer, all at the low-low cost of just walking down into your basement. But eventually that fridge will be empty, and if you want more beer, you're going to have to work to buy some, or brew your own, or whatever.
I mean, are you somehow not understanding that idea and think that natural reserves ARE unlimited, or are we just talking past eachother? Or are you saying that we can keep inventing, for example, more and more efficient vehicle engines which use less and less gas, making the amount of oil we consume negligible? If it's the latter, then there's a finite limit to that also, there's only so many joules in a given volume of gas.
Oh, and 4,000 TDP plants isn't really that many if you're going to be replacing the whole nation's oil consumption. You'd have to assume that some facilities are going to be larger operations and may be capable of making 1,000, 2,000, or 10,000 barrels a day. I really hope it pans out, although I'm looking forward to widespread electric cars also. No more oil changes or blown gaskets! :-D
LogisticEarth: First you agree with me, that we can manufacture pretty much everything we want if we have enough energy. Then you state that oil is finite after all. What now? I thought you agreed that resources are not really finite. Natural. Reserves. "Resources", reletive to humans, aren't finite. However, pre-existing natural reserves are of a finite nature. This doesn't mean that we can't MAKE more oil, but we can't just pick it up out of the ground forever. Think of it like buying a house and finding a large refrigerator full of beer in the basement. You can keep drinking that beer, all at the low-low cost of just walking down into your basement. But eventually that fridge will be empty, and if you want more beer, you're going to have to work to buy some, or brew your own, or whatever. I mean, are you somehow not understanding that idea and think that natural reserves ARE unlimited, or are we just talking past eachother? Or are you saying that we can keep inventing, for example, more and more efficient vehicle engines which use less and less gas, making the amount of oil we consume negligible? If it's the latter, then there's a finite limit to that also, there's only so many joules in a given volume of gas.
I was talking about natural oil the whole time. I am saying that pre-existing natural reserves are not economically finite. So I'm not talking about adding oil through depolymerization or other synthetic processes. I'm not talking about more efficient vehicle engines that shrink consumption either. And for the sake of simplicity, let's forget about new findings as well. I'm saying the stuff in the ground is not finite. That is because "oil" is not one material, it's different stuff over time. Oil is really more of a statistical category than a particular material. And we keep adding stuff to that category, meaning it is not really finite. For example: Say there are two trillion barrels of oil on the planet, not just proven reserves but including all the oil that would be worthwhile to extract but that we haven't found yet. Now some guy invents a filter that makes oil exploration from certain types of less porous sand possible. Now there's two and a half trillion barrels of the stuff we can extract as oil. We created more oil! And that means it's not limited. Because for something to be limited, it has to have a limit, and I just showed that there is no limit. As long as we have improving technology and capital investment, we can push the limit ahead of us. So it's not like beer in a refrigerator at all. Even though we're using up something that's pre-existing, there doesn't have to be a limit to production, because we can keep using up different stuff. Sure, the overall amount of stuff on the planet is finite, but the planet is pretty big.
As long as we have improving technology and capital investment, we can push the limit ahead of us.
What happens if technological advances cannot keep up with resource depletion? I ask this merely as a devils advocate.
Consumariat:As long as we have improving technology and capital investment, we can push the limit ahead of us. What happens if technological advances cannot keep up with resource depletion? I ask this merely as a devils advocate.
Then we run out of resources and starve. But my point was that this requires a limit, a reason that we can't continue to renew resources. That's a positive statement, not an assumption we should take for granted. We can continue unless there is a limit, it's not that we assume there is a limit and technological improvement happens to save us from the end of the world until now.