cas said:
Obviously, this is nonsense. Known oil reserves are carefully tracked. Further, there are significant fields that are untapped, because the extraction of their oil is considered too expensive. As the reserve levels drop, the price of oil will go up. It will then be economical to pursue these untapped fields.
The rising price will encourage the market to make use of other fossil fuels, and eventually, renewable resources.
It is not be a lack of supply that will cause the sudden rise in prices, it will be a fairly quick spike in demand that occurs just at a time when oil is harder to find. India and China combined have over 2 billion people now, probably another billion in twenty years. They are rapidly becoming industrialized. Unless we tell them they can't have the same lifestyle as we have have(and force them not to by military intervention), then in twenty years time you will have a demand for oil that is ten times what it is today. Furthermore, this rise demand will occur in a fairly short amount of time as power plants and roads suddenly come on line. Even assuming both countries are wise enough not to make our mistake of depending on the automobile, and instead rely mainly on mass transit, there will still be a huge demand for power, not all of which can be met with hydroelectricity. Sure, it can be generated by nuclear means, but building hundreds of reactors in densely populated countries will be politically unpalatable, even though those reactors are the safest way to make power. Just look at all the nimbyism that stopped new reactors in the US. Yes, China can build reactors now because of their system of government but in 20 years time it may be impossible.
Barring the invention of fusion, I would say we have two choices-keep most of the world's population from industrializing by force, or let them industrialize and finish destroying the planet in the process. Nuclear reactors represent a palatable(barely) third choice, but given the panicky nature of the general population and those with an agenda who take advantage of it, I don't see any large scale reactor construction at any time in the near future. Geothermal is an interesting fourth possibility if it can be made to work cost effectively since all you are basically doing is making a very deep hole and using the heat. Current research to improve thermoelectric modules(the same kind that power those portable coolers) may actually make geothermal electricity feasible since they can take advantage of a lower temperature heat source than a conventional steam turbine. If you can make electricity with a 300° F heat source instead of a 1500° F one, then this means a much less deep and less costly hole to drill.
Besides, if oil is so terrible, the last thing I should do is leave it for my children.
The oil is best left where it is, in the ground, especially if we need to destroy pristine environments to get at it. I don't know precisely what the effects will be of all that carbon released into the atmosphere that was never there before, but Venus gives us a pretty good idea.
