Well, peak oil is unavoidable from a physical standpoint. If we extract a finite resource faster than it is replenished (which takes millions of years), we can’t sustain exponential growth indefinitely. Same goes for peak coal and gas.
I agree that so far, when faced by the prospect of less oil, we’ve managed to switch to other sources : offshore oil, North Sea, shale oil… But it gets harder and harder to extract. Discoveries are at an all-time low, Saudi Arabia announced it would peak in 2027, Russia in 2019, 2⁄3 of US producers think oil has peaked in the US… I really don’t see what country can compensate for the decline of everyone else. Maybe someone will step up, but who?
For metals, their extraction depends on the amount of energy we have, so they don’t deplete while we have an ever-growing amount of energy (which is why predictions on mineral depletion have turned out wrong most of the time, I agree).
I can get where your line of thinking comes from—after all, making conclusions from how things went in the past usually makes sense. But it seems risky to me to assume that something (no idea what) will save the day. I’d really like some good data on what exactly will step up to continue fossil fuels production, and how, and how fast, and at what amount.
Well, peak oil is unavoidable from a physical standpoint. If we extract a finite resource faster than it is replenished (which takes millions of years), we can’t sustain exponential growth indefinitely. Same goes for peak coal and gas.
I agree that so far, when faced by the prospect of less oil, we’ve managed to switch to other sources : offshore oil, North Sea, shale oil… But it gets harder and harder to extract. Discoveries are at an all-time low, Saudi Arabia announced it would peak in 2027, Russia in 2019, 2⁄3 of US producers think oil has peaked in the US… I really don’t see what country can compensate for the decline of everyone else. Maybe someone will step up, but who?
I explain all of this at length here.
For metals, their extraction depends on the amount of energy we have, so they don’t deplete while we have an ever-growing amount of energy (which is why predictions on mineral depletion have turned out wrong most of the time, I agree).
I can get where your line of thinking comes from—after all, making conclusions from how things went in the past usually makes sense. But it seems risky to me to assume that something (no idea what) will save the day. I’d really like some good data on what exactly will step up to continue fossil fuels production, and how, and how fast, and at what amount.