Will Solar Power Outshine Oil in the Near Future?

[mfb]

if we could leave batts out and use solar for day and nuke for night, could we get ~500-2000yrs until we need to rid nuke power because uranium is now all gone, all w/o oil use for electric?

You can't rely on solar power, but if you keep a bit of backup capacity in the nuclear power plants and other things (like hydro), that would be possible for a long time. Who knows what comes afterwards - solving 30th century problems with 21st century ideas is probably not a good approach. Fusion should certainly be an option on such a long timescale, but maybe even fusion will look as outdated as the idea of horse-powered trains looks to us today.

 

[Physics_Kid]

fusion, we are close, tokamak is close.
so then why bother, use oil until tokamak comes online. why spend all the $$ on solar & batts, invest that in research for tokamak to accelerate the technology? but wait, Musk wouldn't like that now would he.

what, 100-200yrs left of oil, isn't that enough time for tokamak?

 

[Blank_Stare]

OK, I'm a sci-fi buff. When a problem gets discussed, I have to admit that I frequently allow my mind to go to ridiculous extremes, sometimes.

Above, I said water towers are eyesores. I really feel that way. But if we had enough water towers, it would be feasible to be able to overcome the irregular creation of power, using solar cells, and wind energy. Yeah, that's a lot of towers, and yeah, they would shade out whole communities...

...unless they were underground, right?

Bear with me, I know this is a dumb idea, but I think it might have a useful spark of an idea in it.

Hydro-electric counts on not only water, but more importantly, gravity. It does not care where the "waterfall" takes place, it only cares that it does take place. In other words, a ten foot drop from the top of my garden shed to the ground produces as much energy as a ten foot drop from my yard, to my basement floor - all other things equal.

Under the Great Lakes (Erie, I think) are some monstrous salt mines. They are mostly dry, and the salt has been there since the oceans receded, and the "puddles" dried up, in the far distant past. There's a tunnel under the channel between England and France. I believe that it was excavated as a mostly dry operation. There's also a tunnel underneath the Detroit River, between the US and Canada - again, the excavation was a mostly "dry" one.

Forget the money involved, for a minute - I know that's the first thing people attack, to kill an idea, but just for the sake of exploring the concept, let's imagine that it is not financially imprudent.

Let's dig caverns under major bodies of water, where we can install turbos (or whatever hydro uses) to turn the water dumping from the lake/sea/ocean above into the cavern below into electricity. We know such structures are possible, as they already exist, in the (mostly natural) form of salt mines.

Questions that come to mind, which I have not the mental ability to answer on my own:
What volume would a chamber have to be, to make it worthwhile - that is, able to provide a substantial enough amount of KWH to even be worth operating?
How many acres of Solar cells would be required to maintain it's operation?
What would we line the chamber with, to ensure that the water was not contaminated by the chemistry of the Earth at the excavations depth?
What precautions could we take to eliminate loss of life of human, fish, birds, and other wildlife, not only by the operation of the caverns, but by the disturbing of the surrounding environment?
What measures would be required to ensure that the intakes would not get plugged, or stuck open?
How would we add enough water to get the system started, without interrupting the ecosystem, and culture of the surrounding areas?
How many lakes, and how many areas of the oceans, fairly close to land would have a geology that would even allow this idea?
(I bet I think of more, as soon as I click "POST REPLY"...

If we could build something like this, it would be an almost closed-loop system, forever recirculating the water in the same lake, thereby avoiding the pitfalls of introducing foreign organisms, or differing water chemistry. I say "almost", because, obviously, the lake above is, as it has always been, subject to the weather and environment, and people.

So, daydream with me here, and tell me what your ideas are.

 

[OCR]

Isn't our oil available to us as the result of a mass extinction event, millions of years ago?

Maybe, but... maybe not... ?

Are new deposits being created?

That might depend on the definition of... new deposits ?Also, I don't have an opinion one way or the other, so no debate will be coming from me...
I basically just googled your question...

 

[Physics_Kid]

how would you sustain the differential needed to maintain water flow to a cavern under the sea? does the water evaporate and escape to the surface?

 

[Blank_Stare]

there is absolutely nothing that is renewable. all of the consumed energy is only increasing entropy of the universe, even the Earth is releasing its' energy to space, lost to never return again. second law of thermodynamics.

so for all the energy-folks who want to call sources "renewable", is hogwash.

we are only talking about efficient use of energy, and what that source is doesn't matter. surely energy from the sun is most efficient (it comes for free), but for obvious reasons the fact of rotation leaves the problem only half solved.

if we could leave batts out and use solar for day and nuke for night, could we get ~500-2000yrs until we need to rid nuke power because uranium is now all gone, all w/o oil use for electric?

From my entire post, all you want to do is quibble semantics? (...and I do not disagree with your statement, entirely...)

I guess I thought we were having a discussion with some substance.

Come on, address the issues you brought up (oil creation in the Earth would be a good start), and/or the ones I brought up (the issues, not the definitions of the words I used). Don't attack my (incorrect?) use of a single word, instead. You can't reasonably expect to make the statements you did, without providing any evidence, or even references regarding the topic, and then change the subject when asked to support your statements.

So, how 'bout it? Kick with some sources or evidence.

 

[Blank_Stare]

how would you sustain the differential needed to maintain water flow to a cavern under the sea? does the water evaporate and escape to the surface?

You proposed pumps - I assumed the same.

 

[Blank_Stare]

Maybe, but... maybe not... ?

That might depend on the definition of... new deposits ?Also, I don't have an opinion one way or the other, so no debate will be coming from me...
I basically just googled your question...

The first link provided says in the wiki page that it's BS, but is not so crude, when it states:
The two principal abiogenic petroleum hypotheses, the deep gas hypothesis of Thomas Gold and the deep abiotic petroleum hypothesis, have been scientifically reviewed without confirmation.[1] Scientific opinion on the origin of oil and gas is that all natural oil and gas deposits on Earth are fossil fuels and are, therefore, biogenic. Abiogenesis of small quantities of oil and gas remains an area of ongoing research.

The second link is beyond my capacity to absorb, comprehend, and restate, but while it does say that the required materials include "biomass", it also may be accomplished with coal or natural gas. It sounds like they are trying to do something similar to making petroleum, but I can't quite get a handle on the material. (I think I mentioned above that I am not a scientist...now I'm sure of it...)

The google link is interesting. Perhaps @Physics_Kid can use some of those links to support his case, which I will not be arguing on his behalf.

 

[Physics_Kid]

So, how 'bout it? Kick with some sources or evidence.

ask the question the other way, what makes anyone believe that all the kerogen is now gone? what's to say the process has stopped? you have proof that all of that bio matter from 100million years ago to now is all gone and no more bio is going in? maybe there's a nice fat layer of kerogen still being converted.

kerogen from ~100million years ago is what today's crude is? so what about the bio matter from ~65million years ago, 35million years gap there? could that bio in that gap still be under transformation??

a cavern under the sea, that solves the issue of flooding above ground. seems plausible, not sure its feasible in the scale required. still need solar for day and nuke night to power the diff used for pumping out the cavern. but then again, is moving that much water through the cavern going to impact sea life?

 

[Blank_Stare]

ask the question the other way, what makes anyone believe that all the kerogen is now gone? what's to say the process has stopped? you have proof that all of that bio matter from 100million years ago to now is all gone and no more bio is going in? maybe there's a nice fat layer of kerogen still being converted.

kerogen from ~100million years ago is what today's crude is? so what about the bio matter from ~65million years ago, 35million years gap there? could that bio in that gap still be under transformation??

a cavern under the sea, that solves the issue of flooding above ground. seems plausible, not sure its feasible in the scale required. still need solar for day and nuke night to power the diff used for pumping out the cavern. but then again, is moving that much water through the cavern going to impact sea life?

Turning the question around is a time-honored high school debate team method of avoiding the burden of proof. The better way, is not to make unsupportable claims in the first place. It's not my responsibility to prove that your unsubstantiated claims are false - it's your job to substantiate them, resist the urge to post them unsubstantiated, or come back with substantiation, when called to the task.

Clearly, you either can not, or will not defend your statements. So, I'll let you off the hook, in the interest in moving forward.

The caverns idea is probably far-fetched. However, I would not see the need for nuclear, if they were scaled properly. At night, the valves would be opened, and the power would be produced. The lake level would fall slowly, and hopefully, the scale of the operation would mean that the lake would not fall enough to interrupt the local ecology. During the day, solar would provide consumers with power, with enough excess to pump the water back to the lake, above.

My guess is that the scale of solar real estate would kill this idea. Nay-sayers are already griping about the amount of land it would take to provide enough power during daylight hours, if we were all-solar. I don't know the numbers, but my guess is that power during hours where we do not have sun would increase the land use by an unacceptable margin.

Of course, solar tech is advancing, and an increase in efficiency could change the formula some day.

 

[mfb]

so then why bother, use oil until tokamak comes online

Too much pollution, way too much CO2 for my taste.

Forget the money involved, for a minute - I know that's the first thing people attack, to kill an idea, but just for the sake of exploring the concept, let's imagine that it is not financially imprudent.

Let's dig caverns under major bodies of water, where we can install turbos (or whatever hydro uses) to turn the water dumping from the lake/sea/ocean above into the cavern below into electricity. We know such structures are possible, as they already exist, in the (mostly natural) form of salt mines.

It is always about the money. Sure, you can create huge underground caverns, but the cost of such a project is completely unreasonable.

A 100 m x 100 m x 100 m hole 300 meter deep (at its center) could store $(100m)^3 \cdot 1000 \frac{kg}{m^3} \cdot 300m \cdot 9.81 \frac{m}{s^2} = 800~\text{MWh}$. You need 30 of these gigantic holes to buffer the production of a single 1 GW plant for one day.

 

[Blank_Stare]

Too much pollution, way too much CO2 for my taste.It is always about the money. Sure, you can create huge underground caverns, but the cost of such a project is completely unreasonable.

A 100 m x 100 m x 100 m hole 300 meter deep (at its center) could store $(100m)^3 \cdot 1000 \frac{kg}{m^3} \cdot 300m \cdot 9.81 \frac{m}{s^2} = 800~\text{MWh}$. You need 30 of these gigantic holes to buffer the production of a single 1 GW plant for one day.

Well, that certainly puts it in perspective. Is a typical plant around 1Gw/day output? I'm clueless. How far did you use for the distance in water level change from surface to storage? I admit that I do not understand the math that you present, so I don't really know what factors you have included in your calculations. I'm not saying you are wrong in your calculations, but doesn't a change in elevation have a direct effect on production of electricity? If the drop is deep enough, couldn't the same stream pass over multiple generators, before it reached the lower level? I'm guessing there is a minimum drop to gain any efficiency. Is that why you selected 100m as the vertical dimension of the cavern?

Then again, every drop that goes down has to get pumped back up, and the higher the change in elevation, the more solar power that takes, during the daytime cycle... so maybe anything deeper than the minimum to get generator efficiency is a bad idea.

You obviously have some broad knowledge in this subject. I obviously have limited knowledge. I would appreciate it if you could elaborate on your calculations, so that I might better understand them.

Thank you.

 

[mfb]

1 GW is a power (energy per time) already, GW/day is not a useful unit. GW*day is an energy.
1 GW is a typical power of a nuclear reactor block or a coal power plant.

How far did you use for the distance in water level change from surface to storage?

300 meters, see the previous post.
Multiple smaller generators are worse than a single more powerful one. What I calculated is the absolute maximum you can get with 100% efficiency. Taking into account practical considerations will just make it worse. The calculation is just the potential energy - mass (volume*density) multiplied by height difference (here: 300m) multiplied by acceleration (g).

I used 100 meters side length because that is a really big cavern. It corresponds to 1 million cubic kilometers.
The Aerium, only partially visible in this image, has an interior volume of 5.2 million cubic meters. Humans for size comparison.
The Vehicle Assembly Building, designed to house up to four Saturn V, has a volume of 3.7 million cubic meters. Cars for size comparison.

 

[Blank_Stare]

1 GW is a power (energy per time) already, GW/day is not a useful unit. GW*day is an energy.
1 GW is a typical power of a nuclear reactor block or a coal power plant.300 meters, see the previous post.
Multiple smaller generators are worse than a single more powerful one. What I calculated is the absolute maximum you can get with 100% efficiency. Taking into account practical considerations will just make it worse. The calculation is just the potential energy - mass (volume*density) multiplied by height difference (here: 300m) multiplied by acceleration (g).

I used 100 meters side length because that is a really big cavern. It corresponds to 1 million cubic kilometers.
The Aerium, only partially visible in this image, has an interior volume of 5.2 million cubic meters. Humans for size comparison.
The Vehicle Assembly Building, designed to house up to four Saturn V, has a volume of 3.7 million cubic meters. Cars for size comparison.

Excellent reply.

I can see that this was indeed another hare-brained idea.

But hey, that's what happens when I let my brain off the leash!

 

[Gandhar NImkar]

I guess solar power can be brought to the level of oil if planned properly. The thing is it's equipment is costly and produces less power as compared to the oil. If the equipment is made less expensive then it might be very useful in future and we can also conserve natural oil and gas.

 

[mheslep]

Solar seems to top out at 5-8% share of generation in major grids.

 

[Blank_Stare]

I guess solar power can be brought to the level of oil if planned properly. The thing is it's equipment is costly and produces less power as compared to the oil. If the equipment is made less expensive then it might be very useful in future and we can also conserve natural oil and gas.

Would you agree that two of the main factors driving cost are:
1.) advances in the science, and in production,
2.) popularity - that is to say, if they were selling more of them, the price would decrease, because more companies would compete for the business?

 

[Blank_Stare]

Solar seems to top out at 5-8% share of generation in major grids.

That's disappointing.
Did they offer any indications of why Solar was topping out?
Could you provide a link back to that article, please?

 

[NTL2009]

That's disappointing.
Did they offer any indications of why Solar was topping out?
Could you provide a link back to that article, please?

Those are average rates, so the peaks are much higher. Obviously, only producing power in the day time, and lower power depending on clouds, snow cover, and summer/winter effects. So to get to 5-8% 24/365 average, you are getting peaks on clear summer days that are higher than the grid can absorb. After that you can't use the power (no, we don't have reasonable storage at this time, and there's really nothing on the table at the moment), so if you install more solar, it takes longer to payback, and on and on.

 

[mheslep]

That's disappointing.
Did they offer any indications of why Solar was topping out?..

Essentially, intermittent power (solar, wind) eats its own lunch. In case after case, as larger amounts of wind and solar are installed, on days of high output the market price collapses, going negative when production credits are applied, so that solar-wind loses its value with greater share. At other times, lulls are so low that most of the conventional power fleet must be maintained as is, so that little capital cost saving is obtained for the grid as a whole.

Lion Hirth, "The market value of variable renewables: The effect of solar wind power variability on their relative price",
Energy Economics
Volume 38, July 2013, Pages 218–236
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2013.02.004

Several papers aggregated here:
https://thebreakthrough.org/index.php/voices/energetics/a-look-at-wind-and-solar-part-2

Could you provide a link back to that article, please?

Source data: Page http://www.bp.com/content/dam/bp/en/corporate/pdf/energy-economics/statistical-review-2017/bp-statistical-review-of-world-energy-2017-renewable-energy.pdf

 

[Physics_Kid]

sorry, could not get back here in quite some time. i mentioned kerogen still under progress and was challenged. the only solid evidence i have is that kerogen is still down there being sought after by the fracking folks. that's at least some evidence to tell me the process is still going on, the Earth is still crushing organics and kerogen is still there also being crushed/processed by nature.
http://www.petroleum.co.uk/chemistry-of-petroleum-formation

 

[Blank_Stare]

sorry, could not get back here in quite some time. i mentioned kerogen still under progress and was challenged. the only solid evidence i have is that kerogen is still down there being sought after by the fracking folks. that's at least some evidence to tell me the process is still going on, the Earth is still crushing organics and kerogen is still there also being crushed/processed by nature.
http://www.petroleum.co.uk/chemistry-of-petroleum-formation

Interesting information, and plainly stated in layman terms.

What I took away:

• it takes thousands or millions of years to make petroleum
• petroleum only forms when the organic material is deposited in an oxygen-deprived environment (mostly zooplankton)
• that means most deposits are at the bottom of what are now or once were great bodies of water

This tells me that to find newly forming deposits, we need to look for them at the bottom of (perhaps formerly) bodies of very deep water (remember the process also requires extreme pressure, whether that be water on top of the deposit, which is covered by silt, or filled in areas that were once water). I honestly don't know enough geology to now what that means, not only in terms of time, but in geographical locations.

My biggest question, however, is when was the last time we had a massive die-off of zooplankton, or other species, that was subsequently, and immediately covered in something that could prevent oxygen from reaching the biomass, while the process takes place? Or. to approach the question from another angle, has anyone carbon-dated the oil that we are pulling from the earth? Do we actually know how old the resource we are burning really is?

Don't get me wrong, please. I am not saying this is all hogwash. Rather, I am trying to it put into a time-scale of reference, so that we can consider the scale of production, verses usage, so that we can think about how long it might take (if all of this is indeed realistic,) for the Earth to "stockpile" enough new petroleum, to make it worth considering as a practical resource.

My gut tells me that the period of time before that happens is so far in the distant future, as to make discussion moot, because other forms of energy, that have far less impact on our environment, and are much easier to renew become practical, and financially advantageous, by comparison.

Of course, Solar and wind and wave stand out as the fore runners, but as we have already discussed, they each have their short-comings, at least in so much as technology offers them to us, today. Nuclear has it's pros and cons, and I suspect will be hotly debated until the last nuclear plant is closed. Coal, Natural Gas, and all other fossil fuels have a (nearly) finite reserve, at least until we can get a grapple on the numbers discussed above, and are very distructive to our ecosystem. (But that's a whole 'nother kettle of fish...)

And so we come full circle (I think). What is the future of Solar? How can we overcome the shortcomings of a power source that only produces for a limited number of hours each day, and is highly dependent on weather, and distance of placement from the equator? Can we interconnect solar arrays around the world, and therefore create an always-on source of power? (Seems kinda wasteful, IMO.) Do we "settle" for a hi-brid system, and augment power using some combination of the other choices, until we dream up a better solution? Sadly, I don't see a better choice.

 

[CWatters]

Blank_Stare.. there are some calculations down this page which estimates how much oil the Earth might be producing on average per year. They suggest it's less than 100,000 barrels.

https://Earth'science.stackexchange.com/questions/571/how-much-oil-is-created-each-year

 

[Blank_Stare]

Blank_Stare.. there are some calculations down this page which estimates how much oil the Earth might be producing on average per year. They suggest it's less than 100,000 barrels.

https://Earth'science.stackexchange.com/questions/571/how-much-oil-is-created-each-year

This website
https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=33&t=6
Says we are using (after doing some math), approximately 227.2 barrels per second, in the US, alone. Taking that math a bit further, means that the Earth is producing enough oil per YEAR, to feed our nasty habit for less than 7-1/2 minutes, in JUST the United States. I did not look to see what the annual global consumption is, but I'm sure it's much higher... probably 3 or 4 times higher...maybe even more.

I'm inclined to believe the consumption figures are accurate enough for conversation. Let's assume, for the sake of conversation, that the production numbers are off by a factor of ten, and that production each year is a million gallons. That still means that there is only 75 minutes worth of oil being produced each year, and again, that is just using figures for the US.

There are approximately 31570560 seconds in a year, adding in a quarter of a leap day.
75 minutes is 4500 seconds
that means that every 31570560 / 4500 seconds we produce enough oil to go one whole year on these newly produced reserves.

That means that it will take a little over 7000 years to produce enough "new" oil to supply the United States for one year.

And the truth is, if the actual numbers we started with are accurate, it's more like 70,000 years to produce enough oil to satisfy JUST the US's appetite for one year...and that's at our current population.

Sorry @Physics_Kid, based on those grim numbers, the future of petroleum is indeed dead...or at least in a deep coma. When our current supply is diminished to the point where it is no longer financially feasible to use as a primary energy source, that industry will die, with very little chance of ever becoming viable again, in the future history of mankind. By the time there is enough in the ground to be worth using widespread again, we will have harnessed other technologies that make using petroleum look like wood-burning steam engines. Sure, it works, but why bother? I've heard it said that mankind, in our most primitive state, has been here less than 100,000 years. Imagine what we'll accomplish in the next 70,000, if we are still here, and surviving the mess we're making?

In my mind, this issue has been put to rest, unless someone has something profoundly enlightening to add to the prospects for petroleum's future.

 

[Physics_Kid]

so your # is 70k:1

wasnt the existing estimate 100million for what's there now, 100mil/70k = 1428.5 yrs worth of oil
1428.5 yrs worth of US, but that's US only, let's says that supply is 3x world use, thus leaving ~476yrs for US at world consumption rates.

we are just ~158yrs into oil harvesting, but noted the harvest rates were much smaller then, that still leaves us 318yrs left. a far cry from those who say 20-30yrs left of oil, no? 318yrs to figure out how the world will function w/o oil. not just for fuel, but for everything that comes from oil, plastics will be a challenge.

so yes, from your #'s oil will run dry, but not in the near future.

 

[mfb]

wasnt the existing estimate 100million for what's there now, 100mil/70k = 1428.5 yrs worth of oil

You are misusing the source time frame (which does not take the production into account) and you make the incorrect assumption that the rate never changed.
You also underestimate the oil consumption of the rest of the world, the global consumption is nearly 5 times the US consumption.

You should also take into account that a large fraction of the existing oil cannot be accessed at reasonable prices. For some of the oil it wouldn't be feasible at any price because extraction needs more energy than you gain.

so yes, from your #'s oil will run dry, but not in the near future.

If you make wildly incorrect assumptions, you get fantasy numbers leading to wrong conclusions.

 

[Blank_Stare]

so yes, from your #'s oil will run dry, but not in the near future.

(Note: In my previous post, I referred to "gallons". Of course, I meant barrels, sorry for any confusion.)

From your numbers, we run out even sooner. (Not that I even suggested a date when we would run out, mind you.)

I don't know where you get 100million from - 100miliion what?...barrels still in the ground?
I think you need to have another look at the math - I think you have mixed some things up, leaving you with numbers that look pretty, but are meaningless.

You are saying that there is enough oil to last 10 to 15 times as long as what the experts are saying. Believe you me, if the numbers were that far off, there would be a HUGE number of people raising almighty hell, because the economics of oil would be in a tailspin... Prices would drop like a stone if even ONE credible source claimed what you are. Believe me also, when I tell you that if it were the case, SOMEONE would be singing that song for everyone to hear.

But they aren't, because your numbers are gibberish. Look at them again, make sure you are looking at apples and apples, not apples and oranges...

I hope we have more than 100 million barrels of oil still in the ground - by my calculations, the US uses that much in about 5 years, 32+ days...

100,000,000 barrels reserve / 19,630,000 barrels used annually in the US = 5.09 years reserves, and that's if only the US is using those 100 million barrels. If the whole world is sharing that 100 million barrels, we are going to have a damned cold winter in 2018-2019.

Again, check your numbers - if we only have 100 million reserve, it's 5 years, not 300+. Somewhere, your numbers are just not right... by a huge error.

Fix your math, and get back with us.

 

[Physics_Kid]

for clarity on last couple of replies.

100million was said to be how long (years) it took to make the current oil in the ground.

the 70k yrs : 1 yr ratio was not deduced by me
70k years to crush kerogen into 1yr oil use by US

the current use and near future use of wind/solar/gas/other non-oil sources should slow oil use rate, perhaps to a zero slope, then even maybe a neg slope.

so, i only took the #'s provided and calculated how many more yrs left of oil. was my math off using the #'s provided by others??

i do see other #'s on net, which show about ~43yrs left of oil. i will not be here in 43yrs, so it will be interesting to see what happens over this short time. better start engineering.

 

[Blank_Stare]

for clarity on last couple of replies.
100million was said to be how long it took to make the current oil in the ground.
the 70k yrs : 1 yr ratio was not deduced by me
the current use and near future use of wind/solar/gas/other non-oil sources should slow oil use rate, perhaps to a zero slope, then even maybe a neg slope.
so, i only took the #'s provided and calculated how many more yrs left of oil. was my math off using the #'s provided by others??

Hmmm, I don't know. How about showing the math?

I don't see where you are pulling the rest of the numbers from. And how long it took to make all the oil in the ground is irrelevant. All things equal, it takes just as long to make an ounce, as it does a billion barrels. How long it took to create the current stockpile may be an interesting number for some other discussion, but it has nothing to do with how much longer the oil will last.

If you want to factor in the measly amount that is still being produced each year, that's a number that fits the discussion, although it's affect on the date we'll finally run out is almost inconsequential. It fits the equation, but we have to decide how many points to the right of the decimal are worth including.

Further, figuring out how other resources will replace oil in the near future is a GREAT IDEA, and could make for an intelligent discussion - if you show the math, and some research (not necessarily your own,) that backs it up - otherwise, it's an unsubstantiated opinion, not a scientific discussion.

Look, I wish you were right. I wish there were 15 more generations of oil available for our use...kinda. On the other hand, the sooner we run out, the sooner we will be forced to use other means of energy production - hopefully cleaner energy production. Heaven knows that until we have no choice, we'll just keep doing business as usual. That's something our environment can not afford.

 

[Physics_Kid]

post #504 is where the #'s are at
it shows 70k yrs to crush kerogen into 1yr worth of US daily consumption
504 seems to suggest an available kerogen and thus his math says 70k years to convert that available kerogen into 1yr US oil.