Alternatives or scarcity, what will life after oil hold?
Jina Moore | The Christian Science Monitor |
Oct 08, 2011
Americans like to imagine the future. From the world's fairs of the early 20th century to futuristic magazine features in the 1950s to the 1980s "Back to the Future" films, we love dreaming up what might come next. When we dream, it turns out, we dream without oil. The show-stealer at the Chicago World's Fair in 1893 was a demonstration of alternating current – a massive generator that made it possible to snuff out household oil lamps and switch on a light bulb. Doc's time machine in "Back to the Future" runs on garbage, and the "hoverboard" the hero in the film's sequels hops on to outrun the bad guys flitted on whimsy, not oil. And no one in the "Star Trek" franchise ever said, "Captain Picard, we need to swing by the gas station." With today's volatility at the local pump, contentious debates about "peak oil," and soaring global interest in biofuels, imagining how the world looks without oil isn't just a fanciful distraction. There's lively debate about how far away a post-oil world is – earliest estimates are around 2030, while many analysts say that, as technology changes to accommodate fluctuations in the oil supply, we'll never technically see an end to oil. But advisory bodies such as the International Energy Agency and the US National Intelligence Council expect oil demand to spike, and supply to dwindle, over the next 15 years – which makes imagining a post-oil future an urgent task of the present. There's no doubt that the world will look different – and not just a little bit different, suggests Dennis Bushnell, chief scientist at the NASA Langley Research Center in Virginia. "After oil, we'll be in the virtual age," he says. Machines will take many more of our jobs. The ones we keep, we'll do by telecommuting. We'll still teleshop, but we'll probably buy less. "Physical universities will be a wasteland" by 2040, he predicts, as most degrees will be earned online. We'll even visit the doctor – and the Bahamas – virtually. "You [will] smell and feel the breeze, the sand, [and] the sun. You can do this at any time you want, anywhere you want, with anyone you want. Be anyone you want, and do anything you want," he says. "Machines are creating the world.... We're living virtually. This is the world 30 years out." If these wild scenarios aren't far off, the circumstances they have in common – the absence of oil – is further out. Today's public is convinced it will never see an oil-free world. Less than one-quarter of Americans believe oil will run out in their lifetime, according to a September Christian Science Monitor/TIPP poll. Young adults are slightly more concerned: Thirty-eight percent of respondents ages 18 to 24 said it was "likely" they would see the end of oil. Even oil industry experts acknowledge that having a stable supply of oil doesn't mean we must – or should – rely on it. A post-oil world may not be an inevitability to which we must react, but it may be a world we choose to create. There are compelling reasons to make that choice, says Amy Myers Jaffe, coauthor of "Oil, Dollars, Debt, and Crises: The Global Curse of Black Gold" and director of the Baker Institute Energy Policy Initiative at Rice University in Houston. "They range from reducing our trade deficit to taking away instability in our financial system ... to global warming and protecting our environment." It would be a mistake to see this element of free will as a hippie hangover or sneaky environmentalism. Whether we wait to run out of oil or choose to replace it before then may determine all that comes next. "How we leave the age of oil and what we set up for beyond that is really key to what the world looks like when there's a lot less oil," says Lisa Margonelli, director of the New America Foundation's Energy Policy Initiative. Do we update power grids to accommodate a surge in electric cars? Beef up public transit networks in less-urban areas? Bet on a biofuel breakthrough and plan for the adaptations that it would require? "There's a lot of differences among biofuels," says Ms. Margonelli. "An ethanol-based biofuel ... needs a whole different transit structure [than] a butane-based biofuel, or biodiesel, or biogas." Choices made now about the coming energy transition will have a global effect. The Gulf states, home to "oil sheikhs," may see their influence fall. Some of those sheikhs, meanwhile, are moving away from oil: Saudi Arabia, an ally the United States has cultivated especially for oil, is making major investments in solar energy, both to use at home and sell abroad. Brazil, which along with the US is expected to produce most of the world's biofuel by 2015, may see its global clout rise. And to Margonelli, at least, the Arab Spring suggests energy-rich regimes may suddenly see the wisdom of sharing the wealth domestically. "[Y]ou already see the beginnings of the next thing," she says. "The question is ... how do the dominoes hit each other as we go forward." There are more concrete questions at hand as Americans imagine that way forward. Do we plug in our cars or feed them beets? Do we even still drive? Do we power our iPods by walking down the street, or cook dinner with stored solar energy? Not all of these scenarios are about oil substitution – none of us today toasts up a grilled cheese sandwich over a gasoline fire – but in the energy sector, the focus is broadly on alternative fuels, not just on oil replacements. "The scenarios differ a lot depending on what the actual trigger is for the move away from fossil fuels," explains Patrick Tucker, spokesman for the World Future Society. "With mass depletion of oil, you get a price explosion, and this would have a really different effect than if we're able to move transitionally from oil as a result of application of sound technology." That technology is exploding across the alternative energy sector. At the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, two architecture students sought to capture the energy released when people walk, jump, or run, hoping to recycle it for use in small electronic devices. The state of California is considering research on converting traffic vibrations into bankable electrical energy. Mr. Tucker expects a breakthrough within 20 years.
by Moose McNuggets | October 10, 2011 - 10:34am
Food will be a big issue. Petrochemicals fertilize our crops and deliver them to markets. They have brought us incredible yields. Starvation today is driven by political whims, not natural calamities like floods and droughts. We can produce and deliver an abundance of food, and that is one of the reasons we can sustain 7 billion people. Oil scarcity could stress the current system well beyond its abilities. This is not a good thing. We need to diversify our food production and delivery systems now, and not wait for an oil crunch that could be created either by genuine resource depletion or major political upheavals. There are plenty of horrific ways to die, but starvation has to be one of the worst. I don't want to see that happen, and especially not on a widespread scale. For this reason alone we need to think beyond our current ways of doing things.
by nsfhi | October 10, 2011 - 6:27am
What will the world look like--no different. Wind towers instead of oil drill towers. We will still have power lines. The things being sold on-line have to be made and transported even if they are being made by 3D printers locally materials for the printers have to be shipped there. People can disperse and do clerical work on-line. People will not give up their social events, colleges will start paying their athletes because that is how you get kids to campus.
by apachiejoe | October 9, 2011 - 3:36pm
We have had hydrogen for 100 years. ITM power in Europe has a unit you can hook your garden hose to, heat your home, fuel your car. Every auto maker makes a engine running on hydrogen. With the water in Alaska, good heavens, your a hydrogen power dream. Germany wants 6 million cars running on hydrogen ASAP. There use is set up to pull the hydrogen from natural gas.
by OTOH | October 10, 2011 - 9:41am
Replacing oil with hydrogen seems like a cool idea, but hydrogen has some major disadvantages compared to oil. Consider this: when you pump oil out of the ground, you expend a certain amount of energy, but you end up with a substance that contains even more energy than you expended. On the other hand, when you extract hydrogen from water or methane, you end up with a substance that contains less energy than you expended in the extraction process. In other words, oil is a primary energy source, while hydrogen (at least, as found on Earth) is an energy carrier: potentially useful as a way to bottle up energy and take it with you, but only useful to the extent that we can find and harness non-hydrogen sources of energy (solar, wind, geothermal, hydroelectric, coal, wood, etc.) to bottle up in the hydrogen. Compared to modern batteries, hydrogen is quite inefficient: it takes up a lot of space for the amount of energy it contains, and a lot of energy is lost in the process of producing hydrogen, storing it, and converting it back to some other form of energy. One of the selling points of hydrogen fuel is that, when burned, it produces water, which is not a pollutant. However, the environmental impact of a hydrogen economy extends far beyond the byproducts of hydrogen combustion. Environmental impacts would also result from the mining and manufacturing processes required to provide materials for and create an infrastructure for large-scale hydrogen production, storage, and transportation, as well as from the hydrogen production, storage, and transportation processes themselves. None of this means we couldn't make a hydrogen economy happen. What it means is that hydrogen isn't a slam-dunk, and that we have to be very careful in determining which oil alternative really offers the highest benefit/cost ratio. Hydrogen has some attractive qualities, but it also has some serious drawbacks.
by Iquq | October 8, 2011 - 10:33pm
My favorite subject. 7 billion people feeding on 86 million barrels today. Decrease this energy by only 3% and the population begins to decrease proportionally and it won't be the 3rd world. |

Life after oil











Comments