Nonrenewable Resources?

[Mustard]

Wikipedia defines nonrenewable resources thusly (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonrenewable_resource):

A non-renewable resource is a natural resource (http://forum.gorillamask.net/wiki/Natural_resource) that cannot be produced, re-grown, regenerated, or reused on a scale which can sustain (http://forum.gorillamask.net/wiki/Sustainable) its consumption rate. These resources often exist in a fixed amount, or are consumed much faster than nature can recreate them. Fossil fuel (http://forum.gorillamask.net/wiki/Fossil_fuel) (such as coal (http://forum.gorillamask.net/wiki/Coal), petroleum (http://forum.gorillamask.net/wiki/Petroleum) and natural gas (http://forum.gorillamask.net/wiki/Natural_gas))is an example. In contrast, resources such as timber (http://forum.gorillamask.net/wiki/Timber) (when harvested sustainably) or metals (http://forum.gorillamask.net/wiki/Metal) (which can be recycled (http://forum.gorillamask.net/wiki/Recycling)) are considered renewable resources (http://forum.gorillamask.net/wiki/Renewable_resource) [1] (http://forum.gorillamask.net/#cite_note-0).

The controversy lies in the notion that in order for society to continure unabated, nonrenewables such as the above mentioned must be used, perhaps even until its depletion. Some believe this idea is right and proper. Others disagree, sometimes vehemently.

The two questions (and follow ups) I pose are:

A) Are we as a civilization using nonrenewable resources too quickly? And if so, should we slow down? Or are we not using them quickly enough, and should we ramp up the usage?

B) With the advances in utilizing renewable resources more economically and efficiently, when will the time come when the wanton use of nonrenewables be shunned?

It is my opinion that our civilization won't deplete the nonrenewables we have access to. On purpose. It could happen on accident, but not in my lifetime (more than likely). However, I also have the opinion that technological advances in energy creation and storage has led us to the point where we can use renewable energy sources to run our homes, machines, and vehicles. This means the need to burn coal or gasoline isn't a necessity, it is a choice because they are the cheapest forms of energy available.

What do you think?

[Morfin]

Regarding A), there is no right answer here, because who is to say what is "too quickly." Let's assume that we will run out of oil in 50 years at a present consumption rate (Hypothetical, arbitrary numbers). What difference does it make in terms of whether we start consuming more so that we run out in 30 years, or less, so we run out in 60?

The question in terms of "too quickly," has two components. First, replacement sources: What do we have to replace them when we do run out. Or, since to date we have only partial replacement with wind, solar, etc., if we consume less quickly, it gives us a better chance to come up with an alternative.

The second aspect is the environmental one: Should we use less -- not with preservation of non-renewable resources in mind -- in order to decrease our "carbon footprint," in order to minimize global warming (if you choose to believe in that).

I assume that sufficient alternatives will be discovered and utilized (I am a big solar- and wind-power supporter), so I am more of the "I don't care when we run out, so you can ramp up for all I care" group.

[Mustard]

I assume that sufficient alternatives will be discovered and utilized (I am a big solar- and wind-power supporter), so I am more of the "I don't care when we run out, so you can ramp up for all I care" group.
I really thought a lot of your post until I read this. First, the word assume bothers me. It does because you seem to be basing your presumption to ramp up the usage of nonrenewables based on an assumption. That sounds like bad logic to me.

The second thing that struck me was that I thought you could say of yourself that you were more conservative than liberal. A person with a more conservative ideology stating that they "don't care when we run out, so you can ramp up for all I care" seems like a position rooted in an oxymoron.

Perhaps I was just misjudging you based on your hundreds of posts though? Perhaps I'm using the terms 'conservative' and 'liberal' too literally? (but then if I was, whats the point in having those terms represent misnomers?) Meh. Anything is possible.

[satandole666]

http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article.asp?ID=1911

We're good on oil for a while if only we were allowed to drill for it.

I don't know why everyone is panicking and doubting the free market of late. Sure, it has produced quite a few bad side effects...but for the most part our quality of life is provided by it.

I don't see the "energy crisis" as being any different. The technology is not there yet and existing technologies (namely nuclear power) are largely temporary fixes. As long as there is a massive amount of money to be made someone will attempt to fill the demand. In all likelihood, the companies that control the fossil-fuel based energy market now will be the same companies that innovate and adapt to provide us with our future energy needs.

Short answer: don't change anything. Don't purposely use more non-renewable energy sources. Don't choke the market by artificially raising energy prices to help curb consumption. Let this shit sort itself out.

[Morfin]

I really thought a lot of your post until I read this. First, the word assume bothers me. It does because you seem to be basing your presumption to ramp up the usage of nonrenewables based on an assumption. That sounds like bad logic to me.

The second thing that struck me was that I thought you could say of yourself that you were more conservative than liberal. A person with a more conservative ideology stating that they "don't care when we run out, so you can ramp up for all I care" seems like a position rooted in an oxymoron.

Perhaps I was just misjudging you based on your hundreds of posts though? Perhaps I'm using the terms 'conservative' and 'liberal' too literally? (but then if I was, whats the point in having those terms represent misnomers?) Meh. Anything is possible.

I hate when someone smart challenges me 'cuz then I have to think and that's hard work.

My assumption is that there will be a continued push toward renewable sources and that this will take over sufficiently for oil and coal to no longer be a significant power sources. My glib comment about "ramping up" refers to increased oil usage. That is, I believe that renewables will be able to take over before non-renewables are exhausted. Therefore, I have little concern if oil usage increases because I do not believe it will run out prior to renewables being in a position to carry the load.

That may be bad logic to ramp up non-renewable usage before we are set with renewable sources in place. But what I am saying is that based on the progress to date in the technology, and based on the governmental support for such programs, that there will be increased usage. For instance, when I was in Hawaii, it is amazing the number of houses with solar panels. I think this will catch on big time. Yes, it is a cavalier presumption, but I am just a GMF poster. If I were in a position of authority, I would say that non-renewables are running out, therefore, we need to conserve as much as possible until the renewable sources are in place.

The problem with conservative and liberal is that there are ambiguous and dependent on context.

Overall, I think I was too glib with my post and you, correctly, called me on it. So, in true GMF form, I say, STFU. I'm right, you're an asshole, you dickhead.

[atoms]

Ok....here is the problem with the free market as I see it. It seems very into now....and not very into later. As time went on, and the housing bubble increased and increased, we saw nothing in the free market that could look ahead. Many economists said we were headed for a fall, and I think we all knew in our guts that at some point this bubble was going to burst.....yet the free market plugged gamely ahead, until the bottom dropped out.

The same may go for non-renewable resources....if left completely up to the free market it will use up the non-renewable resources to a point where it's prices skyrocket. That is it will chug gamely ahead, with little thought of when these resources will be gone, until they are close enough to gone to have significant effects on supply.

Put another way....the free market is a little like a guy in a car driving, but he either cannot or will not look at the fuel gauge. Instead he will assess his status based solely upon his current inputs. That is, if the car is running, all must be well.

Just some thoughts on the matter.

Also I must say I've been enjoying the discussion between Mustard and Morfin.

[Morfin]

I disagree with your analysis (although I still am in love with your av).

I think you are mistaking the "free market" for the "consumer." The consumer will always (to a large majority) buy based on price and convenience. However, the free market (I am using this term to mean the manufacturers) will always have innovators trying to improve and make a buck in a new market.

It is exactly the free market that will provide the alternatives -- there will always be a company that innovates because it is hoping to create a demand. See the Prius, a hybrid car built and marketed when there was little demand (at least in the US). It was and is successful and now you see Honda and other manufacturers attempting to get into that market. Same with hydrogen and electric cars. Granted, a huge majority will continue, as we in the US have, to use oil because it is easily-available and has been relatively cheap. So cheap that the hybrid does not yet make economic sense (absent the gov't tax breaks).

[atoms]

I think I did mean the free market.....

You give a good example that might contradict me....but I guess my issue is, without any government help for research and development, without any government control on costs of non-renewables, will there be enough impetus to spawn development of these "green" technologies proactively. Or will the entire fix be reactive.

Back to my initial analogy about the housing bubble. Could it have been less disastrous if we had been proactive. We can see how well being reactive is going. Learning from that, is there some need to be proactive in this case. My fear is that your example is a drop in the bucket relative to the problem, and that we may need to be fostering a hell of a lot more drops in the bucket.

[freegood]

The enron...uh, energy market is broken.

Points to consider:
- The developing world is aggressively competing for resource usage and its rate continues to grow despite a global recession

- Oil and, to a lesser extent, are considered strong indicators to the global economy by a significant amount of investors. Economy goes up, usage goes up, energy goes up, inflation kicks in, yadda yadda.

- Related point, oil is back by dollars, the world's unofficial reserve currency

Why its broken... you're going to have to take my word for it, or you can find facts to disprove it:

Rate of discovery for new fields is being outpaced by consumption. Even if you factor in recovering spent or previously unattainable fields as "discovery", world consumption is still outpaces it by far. You'd have to find 3-4 more Saudi Arabias in the next 15 years if we consume oil the rate we're using with a 10% growth every year (starting with 2002). Okay, so with the global recession, it's down to 5% growth in usage/year. Maybe Atlantis will save the day.

Then you introduce alternative methods of production, such as bioethanol, coal gasification, or shale oil refining. All are solid rebuttals for "peak oil" theories. This assumes that price of oil has risen to a sweet spot, like $75/barrel. Keep in mind that oil in the 90s hovered around mid $20s/barrel and even reach a low of 10 or 11 bucks. So at 70, oil isn't really that cheap anymore. They should rename it to "cheap peak oil".

Some would say the 2nd pt from the top is the "free market correcting itself", and that alt methods of producing fossil fuels is an example of "captialism at its finest through innovation". Yet the corrective forces still apply with the oil majors. They're all horizontally integrated. Everything runs and distributes like clockwork and with breakneck precision. They reduced storage capacity for inventories to the point where if there's a refinery stoppage, then gas prices at the pump will go up because of reduced refined gas supply. This has nothing to do with overall supply nor how much it's worth per barrel during trade. The refinery industry itself is also particular about sweet spots in price. Some blame the Clean Air Act, but that can be a different discussion.

On a larger level, the bigger players has been sitting on mountains of cash since the 90s to the point where they give it back to their shareholders with fatter dividends. One constant guess is that they don't have any good field prospects to use that money on. But on the point about higher gas prices, during those periods where it is expensive, it'd profitable at that time to invest in costlier extraction projects (deep sea drilling, harsher contract with random 3rd world despot). Now that gas prices have cratered, those projects are reduced or shelved. So right now, production remains constant. If OPEC gets its way supply is reduced.

So not only do oil companies profit during oil shocks (collusion's possible but not necessary or even provable), we're setting ourselves up for another oil boom/shock if/when the global economy recovers.


There's a lot more to cover, but I'm pressed for time, and I don't know who the fuck will read all of this.

[Das Kahlua]

I think I did mean the free market.....

You give a good example that might contradict me....but I guess my issue is, without any government help for research and development, without any government control on costs of non-renewables, will there be enough impetus to spawn development of these "green" technologies proactively. Or will the entire fix be reactive.

Why should the government 'help' with R&D? Well, the obvious answer would be that companies don't have the motivation or the capital to invest in such policies on their own. Much of that could be helped by the government loosening the tax restrictions upon companies that are actively searching for alternative energy sources and/or offering a large grant for any companies that can show true progress towards an alternative energy source.

This still leaves the power in the hands of the private sector, where it belongs, instead of some bureaucrats trying to micromanage scientific progress.

Back to my initial analogy about the housing bubble. Could it have been less disastrous if we had been proactive. We can see how well being reactive is going. Learning from that, is there some need to be proactive in this case. My fear is that your example is a drop in the bucket relative to the problem, and that we may need to be fostering a hell of a lot more drops in the bucket.

Part of the reason that the housing bubble and subsequently the banking crisis happened to the extent that it did was because of government interference, turning a true free market into some kind of hybrid that has the weakness of both and the strengths of neither. If anything, this is further proof that the government should stay out of the private sector as much as possible, lest all industry go the same direction--straight down.

[freegood]

There is no such thing as a pure free market practiced in the planet Earth. Just like there's never been a case where pure Communism has been practiced.

"In theory", Marge. "In theory."

[Das Kahlua]

There is no such thing as a pure free market practiced in the planet Earth. Just like there's never been a case where pure Communism has been practiced.

"In theory", Marge. "In theory."

So true, everything is just shades of gray area.

When the government gets involved, all of a sudden the most important factor isn't practicality, political goals become paramount.

Not exactly conducive for long-term positive economic growth.

[freegood]

I was going to tie this in with the post before, but the government has always been deeply involved in the fossil fuel energy infrastructure. We built a highway system that serves us cheap goods mostly delivered by trucks and labor that can move to different regions. Public transit in our cities are either shit or looked down upon.

And we're going to hear more about our energy transmission system because it's old, outdated, and broken down, and modernizing it will cost a lot of money.

Since all of this is already built in for the old, of course it appears cheaper to stay on fossil fuels. But you run the risk of other countries that are building their infrastructure right now to leapfrog past that dirty shit and have a huge leg up on us.