# If fossil fuels ran out what would it look like?



## Scrabbletray (Apr 27, 2014)

Wight Knight said:


> Almost all fertilizer nitrogen is produced using the Haber-Bosch process. One of its input ingredients is natural gas. Natural gas is a _hydrocarbon_, and thus being, is hence a _fossil fuel_. Nitrogen fertilizer is the most common commercial fertilizer. Just as an example. I bet with more deep diving you can find fossil fuel inputs in key steps of the production process of all synthetic fertilizers.


Landfill gas is primarily methane. It's already captured and burned in many places. It could be used as the source of methane for fertilizer prodction. If you add other stuff like animal refuse and decaying plant matter we probably have enough sources if methane for fertilizer without natural gas. However, I do agree that the chemical production aspect of fossil fuels would be much harder to replace than its energy uses.


----------



## CosmicYeti (Dec 15, 2014)

Yeti's log

Day 1: We went to the gas station and filled up five cans with gasoline. It cost $500. We had no choice.

Day 4: All planes are grounded. No trains can travel.

Day 11: We're running out of food. There is anarchy. All the grocery stores are looted.

Day 20: Economy collapses, loses are beyond any measure.

Day 44: Millions of people leave the northern countries to survive the winter. Moscow, Ottawa and Chicago are now deserted. Mass Exodus leads to massive epidemics, without oil we have no means to manufacture drugs.

Day 60: Population of frogs and deer explode since the number of road-kills is now zero. Its an ecological boom.

Day 78: Coincidentally the zombie apocalypse happens.


----------



## Death Persuades (Feb 17, 2012)

Eh, we've already found many renewable energy sources. The only reason they aren't affordable yet is because fossil fuels still exist. inb4 mass production of renewable energy sources slightly before fossil fuels run out.


----------



## knife (Jul 10, 2013)

Definitely Phemale said:


> Eh, we've already found many renewable energy sources. The only reason they aren't affordable yet is because fossil fuels still exist. inb4 mass production of renewable energy sources slightly before fossil fuels run out.


Renewables bite back.

It turns out that the manufacture of many renewables requires the extraction of rare earth minerals, many of which are only economical to extract because of ... cheap fossil fuels. See here, here and here.


----------



## incision (May 23, 2010)

If we're smart, we will have learned our lesson about single commodity reliance and diversified. Assuming the human race aren't a bunch of morons, the following:


Nuclear
Geothermal
Hydro-electricity
Solar
Synthetic oil (synthetic biology, oh so cool)
Wind
Etc.


----------



## Amine (Feb 23, 2014)

We would figure out a new way to do things and the world would barely change. There might be an initial panic.


----------



## Tezcatlipoca (Jun 6, 2014)

Food security - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



stultum said:


> That has nothing at all to do with fossil fuels. Fertilizers are made of nitrogen, phosphate, and potassium, with micronutrients on the side depending on the soil. None of those has anything to do with fossil fuel.
> 
> The only nutrient that commonly comes from fossil fuel is sulfur. And there's plenty of that in other sources, it's just that it is a waste product from oil refinement.


Fossil fuel dependence
While agricultural output increased as a result of the Green Revolution, the energy input into the process (that is, the energy that must be expended to produce a crop) has also increased at a greater rate, so that the ratio of crops produced to energy input has decreased over time. Green Revolution techniques also heavily rely on chemical fertilizers, pesticides and herbicides, some of which must be developed from fossil fuels, making agriculture increasingly reliant on petroleum products.

Between 1950 and 1984, as the Green Revolution transformed agriculture around the globe, world grain production increased by 250%. The energy for the Green Revolution was provided by fossil fuels in the form of fertilizers (natural gas), pesticides (oil), and hydrocarbon fueled irrigation.[92]

David Pimentel, professor of ecology and agriculture at Cornell University, and Mario Giampietro, senior researcher at the National Research Institute on Food and Nutrition (INRAN), place in their study Food, Land, Population and the U.S. Economy the maximum U.S. population for a sustainable economy at 200 million. To achieve a sustainable economy and avert disaster, the United States must reduce its population by at least one-third, and world population will have to be reduced by two-thirds, says the study.[93]

The authors of this study believe that the mentioned agricultural crisis will only begin to impact us after 2020, and will not become critical until 2050. The oncoming peaking of global oil production (and subsequent decline of production), along with the peak of North American natural gas production will very likely precipitate this agricultural crisis much sooner than expected.[36] Geologist Dale Allen Pfeiffer claims that coming decades could see spiraling food prices without relief and massive starvation on a global level such as never experienced before.[94]


----------



## Scrabbletray (Apr 27, 2014)

Tezcatlipoca said:


> the maximum U.S. population for a sustainable economy at 200 million.


This isn't even close to true. Less than half of US farmland is even used to raise crops for human consumption. More is used for making ethanol and for feeding livestock. If people simply reduced their intake of meat and ate more grains we could feed far more. Maximum US food production has been estimated to be enough to feed 1 billion people. Even if we used no fossil fuels it would easily be enough to feed our population (just not as many burgers and steaks).


----------



## Tezcatlipoca (Jun 6, 2014)

Good luck switching everyone to a vegetarian diet in 10 years.


----------



## PowerShell (Feb 3, 2013)

Tezcatlipoca said:


> Good luck switching everyone to a vegetarian diet in 10 years.


Well if there's scarcity and that's the only thing to eat, people won't have a choice.


----------



## Tezcatlipoca (Jun 6, 2014)

It takes time to build the infrastructure necessary to make that possible and money to make investment in the infrastructure viable and capitalism does not provide a mechanism for us to make those change in advance of market demand.


----------



## PowerShell (Feb 3, 2013)

Tezcatlipoca said:


> It takes time to build the infrastructure necessary to make that possible and money to make investment in the infrastructure viable and capitalism does not provide a mechanism for us to make those change in advance of market demand.


Yes it does. In the situation of fossil fuels running out, realistically speaking, they won't just run out one day. As time goes on they become more and more scarce. With increasing scarcity (lower supply), the price will move upwards. Market forces will make alternatives more economically appealing and ultimately they will come to market and replace fossil fuels.


----------



## Tezcatlipoca (Jun 6, 2014)

It doesn't matter how cheap your energy source is if farming is impossible because of soil degradation, water scarcity,decreased farming output due to climate change, and all the fish in the ocean are dead because of acidification.


----------



## VyMajoris (Mar 6, 2015)

Gasoline cars wouldn't work obviously, they would be useless, so therefore more hybrid cars would be made, due to fossil fuels are running electricity, we would have to resort to hydro-electric power, solar power, everything would be pretty much green, nothing much after that.


----------



## Tezcatlipoca (Jun 6, 2014)

To be fair though here are some solutions I do see as viable.

1) some kind of fusion or alternative nuclear energy source and/or sequestration 

combined with:

2) aquaponics/hydroponics and vertical farming

combined with:

3) measures taken for water security like reverse osmosis of seawater to fresh water and/or some kind of nanofiltration

BUT 

we have to:

A) get those unproven technolgies to work

B) get them to scale

C) do it all over the next 15 years

Farm production will still be cut though and water security will be an issue, but these will still lessen the impact. Also this is viable mostly in the US, Europe, China, and maybe some progressive states in the arab world like uae. Most of the third world will have problems especially highly vulnerable areas like India. Also realistically the political opposition to change on this scale will likely be high


----------

