Life after the oil crash
Thoughts?
Printable View
Life after the oil crash
Thoughts?
Heard this on late night radio a few months back. Certainly made for an interesting listen. We're all dooooomed, dooooomed I tell thee! :D
well, I read that whole article and some of the links, I found the whole thing to be rather shocking if rather overstated by the author. I found this http://www.after-oil.co.uk/ to be a little more realistic. (I could be wrong mind, may just be wishful thinking) the idea that we will run out of oil is not a new one, the thing that strikes me into utter disbelif is the fact that our governments have done so little about it even tho this has been known for some time. the authors idea that this may turn into world war 3 is a little pessamistic but plausible.
Why don't we just colonise mars and then use all of their oil? Trying to get people to use alternatives won't realistically work.
takes oil to get to mars dude... and its about to run out.
also, this was published in the gaurdian
http://www.monbiot.com/dsp_article.cfm?article_id=625
It will be at least 100 years before we have the technology to mine Mars. That's FAR too late.Quote:
Originally Posted by Slick
It's amazing how little press and government attention this topic receives.
People have been going on about our Oil shortages since the 1970's. They were predicting we would run out in the mid-1990's. Becuase of all the new reserves we have discovered around the world, we actually have more oil now than we did then! That's not the amount of oil we produce, but the amount of oil that exists in untapped resources.
People love doom-sayers!
well, I did quite a lot of reading on this last night because It was all very very disturbing... tbh looks to me like its true, I think that the first link supplied by dabeeenster was quite exagerated and pessamistic but it all sounds plausible. so I think he is really talking about a worst case scenario, based on what I have seen from our governments I dont think I would be shocked to see them introduce conscription and start going overseas twatting people for oil, after all dosnt this all shed a different light on that oil in iraq? (witch by the way they may only be able to recover 15 - 25% of because saddam needed the gas more than the oil and the actually injected oil back into the resivors to force out natural gas, this means that with the gas gone there is no pressure device to recover the oil) so looks to me as though they may have used as much oil to go to war as they are likely to recover in future oil operations in iraq.
tee pee, I think your possibly being a bit naieve tbh, we all know oil is not renewable, we all know we depend on oil, what do you think is gonna happen WHEN (not if) production starts falling off?
I guess we will make up for it with alternative sources, it doesn't really matter to me, because I don't believe it will happen in my lifetime, and in 50-100 years, who knows where technology will be? Fuel cells anyone?
Fuel cells are NOT a limitlless source of energy. They require more energy to make than they produce.
Oil IS RUNNING OUT RIGHT NOW TeePee. Even the most conservative estimates put peak oil at 2015. Most people are now saying 2010.
Can you not see what is going on around you? Everywhere is becoming industrialised. China and India are about to bring 1.5 BILLION people into the industrial age. Just as things get tricky. Can you not see that?
People who believe this peak oil thing. I don't think it will be as big a problem as people make out. Of course, I didn't store three months of food in case the Y2K bug destroyed civilization either.
teepee, did you even read the link? why dont you do some looking? every single article i have found says it looks very bad, even the most wildly optomistic predictions are well within al of our lifetimes, it about time we as a civilisation started concentrating on other forms of energy and getting it sorted, although all of the experts seem to think its already too late and we are going to see starvation and war because if this. your living in a little bubble of ignorance that will pop sooner than you think.
spoke to some of the lads at work about this, they all seem to be of the same opinion that it wont be that bad... well it might not end up that bad but it could still hurl us right back to the stone age easily enough.
The industrial revolution in this country was driven not by oil but by coal, a fuel which is now in abundance. China, an example quoted, is sitting on vast reserves (and has similar mining conditions to 19thC UK). Coal-fired powerstations are the principal source of electrical generation (and hence industrial power) in developing nations, not oil.
Who says the most conservative estimates are 2015? A website devoted to warning people about peak oil? Remember the internet is half pornography and half lies. I'll believe it when it happens!
You also seem to be under the very popular assumption that the Iraqi war was about oil, when in fact there was a far more sinister reason. Post-9/11 US was sliding into a recession, and the war was designed to scare us into spending. You should watch the IDFA-winning documentary 'Surplus: Terrorized Into Being Consumers' for another point of view.
It would take far more than running out of oil to knock us back to the stoneage, and even if it did, the survivors would be better off. No more 12 hour shifts. The average stoneage adult had to spend a minimum of only two hours a day looking for food.
i doubt there's oil on mars.... oil = 6 million year old mushed up organic waste like trees, ferns, fish etc. I seriously doubt there would be any of that on mars, i dont care how many people think there's water there, it's not fertile.Quote:
Originally Posted by Slick
Back in the 80s, various people were buying nuclear fall-out shelters, and stockpiling food, as the trendy 'we are all doomed because of...' thing at the time was a nuclear war. It never happened, the ants never took over, and the fad passed.
Mid 1999, and the same people have now jumped on the Y2K bandwagon, and are stockpiling tins of soup and buying torches, because the millennium bug is the reason we are all doomed.
2000 arrives, and one calculator in South Wales makes a small error whilst being used to price groceries, leading to Mrs Llanridnodwellspenwythslwythclanethly being short changed to the extent of 17p. Fad passes, the ants have to wait again.
Now, the reason we are all doomed is the world's oil reserves running dry, and everything going tits up. I'm sure it’s a very real threat, and will, eventually, force those in power to address the situation, and start to rely more and more on alternative supplies of power and fuel, as well as searching for more reserves.
So, like I say, its a very real problem, like the Cold War was, and Y2K, but that does not mean we are all 'doomed, doomed I tells thee!', and 90% of the worlds population dieing and the survivors being reduced to the level of savages, is perhaps, at this stage, a rather pessimistic and sensational prediction.
And anyway, by 2015, the computers will have destroyed us in a sudden and devastating strike, and humans will survive only as a desperate group of fighters, living in the underground tunnels that were once the subways and sewers. Lets hope the ants have something up their sleeve. :D
The 'Big Death' is coming! :D
you still havent answered me.. have you read it mate? sounds very very plausible, the y2k thing was total crap, i knew this because i had written a test program and ran it on the oldest pc i could find and it was fine, i know what your getting at but if you actually look for some official figures you will see that there is a lot of truth in the peak oil theory. also just because we run out of oil does not mean we can simply switch to coal, gonna run your car on coal are you? and what about your F22 stealth strike plane... also what about the fertilizers and pestacides that are all oil based? as far as i can tell we had better suck it up and accept GM because if these things become unavailable we will end up witha food shortage.
http://www.peakoil.net/Newsletter/NL...sletter37.html
some interesting facts and figures here and it is very up to date. take a look and then see if your still thinking nothing is gonna happen.
I glanced at it, but took it with a pinch of salt as I do everything on the internet. Looked like scaremongering to me.
Who's official figures? If you follow business news, you'll know how unreliable even Shell Oil's official figures are.
My car won't run on coal, but it will run on used cooking oil. I don't have an F22, but believe me, military budgets are so large, they won't lack for a few pints of gas. Not all fertilizers and pesticides are oil based. Ammonium Nitrate isn't, and nor are natural alternative. Use of Soap-based pesticides would be beneficial to the environment (which would offset all that burning cooking oil). Accept GM? You mean Genetically Modified foods? Don't they cause mutations and make people grow an extra eye in their foreheads? Or is that just scaremongering? We actually have a huge food surplus in this country, which is why we have to subsidise our farms so heavily.
so you think that all our cars are gonna run on an even more limited resource like used cooking oil...? cars could be ran on rapeseed oil but the figures I have read suggest we would need arable farmland approx the size of the whole of england to supply enough rape seed oil to run the cars that we run now. also you dont seem to be taking on board the fact that our demands are increasing and our population is rising, even if coal was a viable alternative it would horrendous for the environment and we would be back in the same position in X amount of years.
also i read that whole site and it contained a lot of links and references as well as quotes from respected scientists so although i agree it seems a little extreme (but then the authour is american and they are even more dependant on oil than we are) some of the points are valid.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TeePee
also, im sorry but ammonia is made from natural gas.
No, I don't think our cars will run on that resource. I don't expect to be using my current car in ten years time, let alone when this begins to be a problem, because when it does, alternatives will be found. Current technology does suggest that fuel cells will be promising (remembering that the fuel it takes to build them doesn't have to come out of a tap), but who knows? Electric hybrid cars are still rare, but becoming more popular. Coal is not an alternative for us, if we were without oil from 2015 then we wopuld increase nuclear energy capacity (Chernobyl, Noooooo!!!), but it is for the developing world who already use is for many of their energy needs.
But the Y2K bug seemed valid enough for many people to worry (although maybe not of a forum filled with technojunkies). The New Zealand government ran a huge campeign to try to get their entire population to store several months food and a weeks water just in case. And a lot of people id build fallout shelters. Just because they have you convinced, doesn't mean I won't be driving to work tonight.
really? and here's me thinking it's made up from hydrogen (break down of water anyone?) and nitrogen (makes up 80% of the air we breath). Damn my chemistry lecturers and my text books telling me otherwise!Quote:
Originally Posted by G4Z
As for soap based fertilisers.... someone tell me how soap is made? ahh yes, fatty acids... and what're fatty acids made of? hydrocarbons.... and where do hydrocarbons come from? yep, u guessed it... OIL!
elmo, you are of course entirely correct in that respect, but in large scale industry they use natural gas to produce it afaik.
good point on the soap tho, didnt even consider that i may be paying £10 for a bar of soap in another 10 years... erk!
"NITROGEN (FIXED)?AMMONIA
(Data in thousand metric tons of nitrogen, unless otherwise noted)
Domestic Production and Use: Ammonia was produced by 17 companies at 34 plants in the United States during
2003. Fifty-three percent of total U.S. ammonia production capacity was centered in Louisiana, Oklahoma, and
Texas because of their large reserves of natural gas, the dominant domestic feedstock. In 2003, U.S. producers
operated at about 59% of their rated capacity. The United States remained the world?s second largest ammonia
producer and consumer following China. Urea, ammonium nitrate, ammonium phosphates, nitric acid, and
ammonium sulfate were the major derivatives of ammonia in the United States, in descending order of importance.
Approximately 90% of apparent domestic ammonia consumption was for fertilizer use, including anhydrous ammonia
for direct application, urea, ammonium nitrates, ammonium phosphates, and other nitrogen compounds. Ammonia
also was used to produce plastics, synthetic fibers and resins, explosives, and numerous other chemical compounds."
U.S. Geological Survey, Mineral Commodity Summaries, January 2004
so they could get people to urinate, change it back into urea and use that in fertilizers instead?Quote:
Originally Posted by G4Z
Whatever happened to using things like sugars as fuels? They do it in brazil!
I can't really believe we're all doomed, but it's surely a big problem. I'm pretty sure that we could ramp up biodiesel production pretty quickly; an enormous amount of food goes to waste at the moment, and that agricultural capacity could probably be converted to rape seed or something similar. The bigger battle is going to be convincing Americans that driving a car with an engine smaller than 4 litres doesn't make them unpatriotic:rolleyes:.
Rich :¬)
Surely you must all know that the best fat for making soap comes from the liposuction clinic? Animal fats!
The thing about natural gas, I mean, it's defining feature is that it tends to be... how shall I put it... gassy? And oil is, well, oily... Can you see how relevent this is to the ammonia thing? Or will you just post a link to a poorly written website explaining how the oil robots from Mars are taking all the natural gas away to eat with their oil.
err... what are you going on about....?
they use natural gas for industrial production of ammonia, they use ammonia to make all the fertilizers we use today, natural gas is gonna start to run out (and start costing a LOT more) before oil does. get it?
I haven't read all of the link (honest from the start:)) because I am supposed to be working, but surely everyone see's that reason we are so dependent on oil is the fact that it makes people with lots of money lots more money, the moment it gets to the stage where those people are not making lots of money (or cant make lots of money) then governments world wide will start to realise alternative fuel supplies.
Not that I am saying thats the whole answer tis just an observation!
Wait a sec, the natural gas is going to run out before 2010?!?! Since when?
do some reading....
also you should understand that gas and oil will not simply run out, it will just start to become a whole lot more expensive to extract it and the amount of production will decrease. this is set to happen very soon according to all of the stuff i've read.
So production will decline and costs increase over 20 years or so? Why will this be a problem?
because our population will be double what it was when we were at the same production level on the upside of the curve.
for example, if the peak year is 2000, then the level in 2020 will be the same as 1980, except of course there will be 8bn people and not 4bn...
And why will this be a problem? As production declines and costs increase we will, through the miracle of capitalism, increase our use and development of other sources.
I never thought I'd be running my hovercar on gasoline!
and what exactly are you going to run it on? there are no alternatives avallable that can be developed before the oil market goes nuts, when that happens we will se a very large recession at the very least, just like in the 70's when the fuel prices went through the roof, only this time they wont come back down...
I think it is a load of tosh and people need to realise if this did come in to play then we would find another technology or way round it
Of course there are alternatives. With oil becoming expensive, just how many corporations would be throwing infinite money at the problem trying to market their alternative.
ok.... so your saying that an alternative for oil could be found in what? a week? a month? a year? because it may only be a few more years before oil prices start to rise and there is no alternative on the horizon and nobody is investing now, it took 30 years from the discovery of atomic energy before any1 had developed a reactor and even then there are still problems with it and uranium is not an unlimited resource.
Why would anyone invest now? The prices haven't started going up!
Actually people are investing now, especially in dual-fuel projects, but if oil does start to become more expensive, there will be more of a market, and therefore more investment. I would personally guess that in 20 years time, petrol cars will be in a minority, sooner if the oil actually did run out.
Erm, how much do you think the patent for an oil-replacement solution is worth in the market place? £1 trillion? £5 trillion? I honestly have no idea, but those numbers are probably in the right number of zeros.Quote:
Originally Posted by TeePee
If a solution really was "just around the corner", as people seem to assume, why on earth has it not yet been found? I mean, we are not even close.
Imagine that peak oil is 2010. Now, after that date, the price of oil with continue to rise, putting an extra strain on pretty much every major industry on the planet. This in turn is going to help promote longer periods of economic depression along with shorter periods of economic prosperity. And this, in turn, is going to mean that there is less money available to fund an oil replacement. What I am saying is that there is a good argument to suggest that the most profitable time to research this is right about now.
Hybrid cars run on oil and electricity. Where do you think electricity comes from?
Uranium, coal, water (yes, we do have hydro-electric power stations in this coutry!), and oil.
How much do you think car companies are spending on R&D? They have had made a car that runs on fuel cells, but while the cost of oil is so cheap (with it not running out anytime soon, natch), it lacks mass-market appeal.
Water - Hydro-Electric power currently supplies 2.3% of global energy supply.Quote:
Originally Posted by TeePee
Coal - produces huge levels of greenhouse gases.
Uranium - Extremely expensive. Current known Uranium reserves can supply the earth's energy needs for only 25 years at best.
How do you charge fuel cells? There is NO viable alternative solution. The fact that companies are obviously spending large amounts on the problem, and really are not getting anywhere, is not very good news, dont you think?Quote:
Originally Posted by TeePee
I don't know much about fuel cells, but my guess is from electricity, and it's fortunate that plutonium from recycled uranium will last us well into the next century. Also, while the cost of a nuclear plant is more expensive, the cost of fuel is far lower and so the cost of long term generation is comparable.
Based on statistics for 1995, in the UK, about 67% of our electricity comes from Coal (with a hundred years of reserves worldwide), 25% Nuclear, 2% renewable, and the rest from other thermal sources like oil and gas.
Most manufacturers actually already market battery powered electric cars (and not dual-fuel) but they just aren't popular. There is no trillion pound demand for them. If there were, more people would be wanting to buy them!
Given both the long-term availability of fuels for power generation, and the current availability of a (less desirable) form of powering cars, I fail to see how oil availability training off over the next 50 years will cause us to return to a stone age level of technology. It will certainly bring changes, but from an ecological and environmental point of view, the changes will be for the better.
well, you have covered our energy use, but oil is used in pretty much everything we use today, and I think thats the point. When the prices go up it is going to affect us in many different ways that are pretty hard to imagine at this point. for example, lets say we find a way to supply our electricity needs, thats cool but then I go to make my dinner... and oh look no gas... what the hell am I gonna cook this with.... hummm, looks like my electric oven and microwave is about all there is, erk!
also, on the dual fuel cars, IIRC the energy that chrages the battery comes from the braking enegry of the car, so you have to drive it for a while before its charged and then you can switch to battery, this is supposed to make cars over 30% more economical.
This is peak oil, not peak gas. Last I heard we had fifty years or more of natural gas. Many people already don't have a gas supply, and have electric cookers. Myself I prefer gas, it's much more offandonable (as the tortoise said to the polar bear), but it's not an essential.
Besides, if the gas started to run out, it wouldn't just stop coming out of the taps, it would increase in price, making electric cookers more economical. As a result, when a gas cooker owner was remodelling their klitchen they'd likely see the cheaper cost of running an electric cooker and buy one, a simple period of transition.
Dual fuel or Hybrid cars like the Honda Insight or Toyota Prius have a generator which charges the batteries when the engine is cruising, not just breaking. They also have a hook-up to the mains supply. They are more economical, (The Honda Insight returns about 80mpg), but not a total replacement. Toyota recently discontinued production of their fully electric RAV4EV due to a lack of demand, they sold about 300 vehicles worldwide. They have, however, sold more than 100,000 hybrid vehicles.
While oil is deleting I don't see issues within our lifetime apart from how much
we pay for the stuff.
End of day oil is big business and while its still available little effort will be
made to move us on to alternative energy supplies.
Anyone who thinks such alternative supplies don't exist might want to think
again ;)
Plus we already know that experiments in Matter / Anti Matter have taken
place something that can yeild masses amounts of energy.
There were something in the papers a while ago with even talk of future
space mission to Mars using craft that once so far out use a Matter / Anti-
Matter explosion to propell the ship forward on to Mars.
They say behind the goverment doors research and future inventions / ideas
are 50years ahead of what we see now.
Sidetracking slightly....
Someone mentioned earlier in this thread about Sugar ? does not a UK
based rocketeer trying to be the amature rocketer to make a 1st manned
space mission use erm... Sugar as part of his rocket fuel?
Well, just being a bit selfish here....
I've got as diesel car; so I can use vegetable oil (ok so the price of chips might go up :( )
I've got an open fire and an axe.
And if they stop making electricity then I'll just have to say goodbye to y'all.
It is possible to live without oil. People have been doing it for centuries. :)
im getting bored of reading all the trash in the articial....but at the same time it all makes sence too! :(
Its not the lack of energy im worried about, loads of other sources of that, its what the hell are we going to make stuff from. All plastic is made from oil. No oil = No plastic = No anything.
Far worse has happened and the human race prevailed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by spazman
You might find that's sort of incorrect, again there's alternatives ;)
Thermoplastic Starch to name one.
I cant think of anything in history that approaches the severity and impact of oil running out.Quote:
Originally Posted by LayZeh
Just imagine, if oil ceased to exist, what would happen to:
- Food production and delivery
- Water purification
- Electricity production
They would all stop! What could be worse than living without food, water or electricity?
The only area I can think of that in any way approaches the potential for disaster is the dawn of the nuclear age. This is still a long way from the impact that no food, water or energy would have on the human race...
You're right DaBeeeeenster, of course, it's not an if, it's a when. We've been given a huge housewarming present in the form of fossil fuels, and some of us are running around acting like we'll be able to use them forever, when we've only been using them for a little over a hundred years. That's 1/20th the time since Jesus lived, and 1/1200th the time Homo sapiens have inhabited the planet and they're almost gone already. Fossil fuels are the reason we have been so prosperous for the last 100 years. I think it's a duty to develop alternatives while we still have the resources to do so.
Of course, some researchers are developing worthwhile technologies to help deal with the changeover. Fuel cells are wonderful because they are essentially extremely efficient batteries. We could tie these to solar panels to generate and store electricity for rainy days, or to share with our neighbors through a grid, connected to a main electricity generation plant. In addition, we'd have energy to run our car from the same source. Flexible solar panels are being developed.
Another potential source comes from biotech. Recently (in the last year) researchers discovered a bacteria that can transfer electrons directly from sugar to an electrode. Potentially, somewhere down the line, we could generate electricity directly from plant matter, without the energy loss accompanying combustion and conversion into electricity using the steam generation process we use now. It's an exciting potential.
Anyway, we're not screwed unless we elect leaders who are blind to the whole of history, and blind to the truths science reveals to us.
Pablum
DaBeeeeenster, did you actually read any of this thread?
Like the part where I explained how less than 6% of our electricity generation actually comes from oil and gas combined?
Simple, with America using over half of the worlds oil, we have to triple the price in the US to stop everyone getting in their 3mpg poluter just to get down to McDonalds for breakfast
Britain has large coal deposits. Other countries do not. And this is just for electricity. How are you going to power vehicles when the oil starts increasing in price?Quote:
Originally Posted by TeePee
The fact that we will be placing even further dependence on electricity production, which in term generates even larger amounts of greenhouse gases, is that somehow meant to be a good thing?
As I also explained, electrical vehicles can replace petrol vehicles. ATM there is no market for them, becuase there is no oil shortage, but the technology exists. Other countries can buy coal from those countries with large deposits, which are mainly developing countries who would otherwise not be able to afford electric vehicles. It actually works out quite nicely.
Electricity generation produces a fraction of the greenhouse gasses produced by oil based vehicles. If all vehicles used electricity (and electricity generation increased)gasses would be reduced to 10% of current levels. These gasses would also be concentrated away from city centres, improving the environment.
Can you give some links to those facts?Quote:
Originally Posted by TeePee
I was under the impression that burning something and converting it to electricity, then transporting the electricity, then converting it into a battery and then getting that battery to drive an electric motor that pushes pistons is less efficient than burning something that pushes pistons?
efficiency was not mentioned ? the quote of reduction in Green house gasses was and very true, modern day power stations are far more enviromently freindly than running your car.
but...
Quote:
Technology Management Services of Washington, D.C. has worked the numbers. A good electric power plant converts about 35% of its thermal energy into electricity. The best car engine can convert barely 20% of its heat to mechanical energy at the wheel. Transmitting electricity, charging a battery and running an electric motor entail some energy loss, but refining oil for cars entails even more.
It's njot just converion of thermal energy into mechanical energy, there is also the conversion of chemical energy into thermal energy, and this is where a powerplant makes real ggains against a car engine. If you look at the emmisions of a car engine, it contains large quantities of carbon monoxide, along with CO2 and water. A power station is able to control the combustion more carefully, and the result is a more complete burn and less CO.
Electric motors dont have pistons.
Do you have any links TeePee?
To websites? I'm sure I can find some, but if you remember I can be quoted as saying the web is half lies and half pornography.
I will happily quote my source as 'Fundamentals of Physics Extended' Fifth Edition, By David Halliday, Robert Resnick and Jearl Walker. Chapters 7, 8 and 19 are all relevent.
Sod oil there is always
http://www.salon.com/tech/feature/20...tes/print.html
While scientists quibble over the exact size of the world's methane hydrate deposits, few question that the overall endowment is, as the Department of Energy puts it, "truly staggering." Methane hydrates may hold 100 times more gas than all of the world's conventional natural gas reserves: perhaps even more energy than all of the coal, oil and natural gas found the world over, geologists say.
That reference is for which posts?Quote:
Originally Posted by TeePee
The web is not simply lies and pornography. There are a number of emminent sites that can be used as a base point for facts and figures.
Anyone who believes every word on: http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/Index.html would think that.
The reference is for the greater efficiency of power stations Vs internal combusion engines.
For the fuels used in power generation, you might like: http://europa.eu.int/comm/energy_tra.../hpol6_2_.html and http://europa.eu.int/comm/energy_tra.../hpol6_3_.html
And for details of Toyotas abortive RAV4EV: http://www.toyota.com/html/shop/vehi...rav4ev_0_home/
None of these sources should be believed.
I'm not saying I believe every word on the lifeafterthecrash site, but I have watched a couple of BBC programs, as well as reading George Monbiot's comment articles in the Guardian (especially this one).
Power stations themselves may well be more efficient, but have your calculations factored in the transfer of energy from the power station to the car motor?
I find it fairly bizarre that people have absolutely no issue with this subject whatsoever. Oil is going to start increasing in price in the next five years, and carry on increasing. Does this not worry you?
Its not bizarre DaBeeeenster, its damn worrying that no-one seems to have the ability to see past, what is quite a scare mongering web site.
http://www.after-oil.co.uk/ so as i think Big Richard said, i've read this one too, a much more realistic view, and if people can't be bothered to read the whole thing just read National plan section 22 on the 2 possible scenarios.
It basically answers most of the points that i'd care to refute. Teepee i'd suggest you read this as you seem to be taking a far to blinkered view. It won't happen will not stop oil running out. if over the next 10 years oil costs go up 4 fold, then everything and I do mean everything will go up in cost. I don't know what sort of figure we're talking but say its 25%, above inflation, the simple fact with this is it moves the poverty line up.
I find this a very true threat, and ignoring it now is not going to help us when in 25 years we're starting to get screwed from it.
We've had a few insights into what 1970's oil crisis did to the world, yet i'm sure most of us here have no visibility of this as we weren't born, but something i have spent a lot of time reading about was why Japan got involved in the second world war. OIL, or Japan being completely cut off from its supplies, America doing this caused them to feel they had no option but to go to war.
America's war on Terrorism can be used to justify far too many invasions, but what happens when it takes a step too far?. I can now see a damn clear route to WWIII with this chain of events.
Lets hope it doesn't come to this, but with America's agressive foriegn policy and lack of care for energy conservation with it refusing to sign up to any world energy policy i'm hardly confident of any positive movements.
But then again its all rubbish isn't it :eek:
TiG
btw, I found that after0oil link and the guardian one, give meh the credit!¬
Thats a little more sensible. I won't dispute that oil prices will rise over the enxt ten years. But thats a long way from throwing us back to the stone age!
well, I dont think thowing us back to the stoneage is particularly unrealistic, this problem has the potential to really knack our civilisation if we dont do somthing now and it seems to me that not very much is being done about it. I really hope laternatives are found and we dont have a problem but if we assume that there are no alternatives or we are unable to make use of alternatives then the future will be very bleak.
I seem to be seeing a common theme here. Those who think there is a problem think that there is also someone to blame.
If you are seriously worried/concerned stop whinging about other people's lack of actions and do something yourself. (After all if you find a "cure" you're going to get mighty rich anyway)
uhhhhh.. sorry and all that I dont think most of us were around to stop the oil explosion in the 60's and 70's that created the world we live in today. and as far as doing somthing about it, wouldnt you say the first step is to talk about it first? and that as most experts seem to think its too late to do anything about it the only thing you can really do is prepare your self for it by investing in some solar panels and an allottment. and maybe a bike. to find a replacement for oil it will take huge amounts of research and investment to get anywhere so I doubt some1 is gonna come up with an answer in his back garden shed.
Just been passed this. Have yet to read it fully, but it looks very interesting...
http://www.fromthewilderness.com/fre...ating_oil.html
teepee = spook???
cant say due to the nature of present employment...right ;)
:confused:
This is all frightening the bejeesus out of me TBH. I'm a natural optimist and I don't really believe that we're all headed for a die-off, but I do think we should start to do the following:
1. Legislate to eliminate waste at all levels of the food production process. I would go so far as to tax shops on food that they waste rather than sell (or give away).
2. While the oil we need to make them is still affordable, we should invest massively in renewable energy sources. I personally favour wave power for Britain as possibly the best value and lowest environmental impact solution, but we should also invest in solar stations for the times that the sun is shining and there's no wind or waves).
Ultimately the sun does beam down an immense amount of energy to the earth, much of which could be exploited better than it is now. Electricity can be used to power pretty much all the industrial processes on which our economy relies. If we don't build the renewable power stations now while we have the chance though, then we'll be screwed.
There's always nuclear power I suppose, but I'd really rather not become reliant on that!:eek:
Rich :¬)
The thing is, as this essay points out, our entire food infrastructure relies on oil and natural gas. Now, I know some of the components (such as oil powered vehicles) could theoretically be replaced with renewable energy sources such as electric, but what about others like fertilizer?
We ARE all doomed...?
I'm sure there's a way to make nitrogen fertiliser using just electricity, water, and air (although I'm not sure what happens if we run out of phosphor and potassium reserves- it must go somewhere so could presumably be reclaimed?). Obviously using natural gas is cheaper for the time being, but that doesn't mean it can't be done any other way. Forms of energy are largely interchangeable, and the raw ingredients of fossil fuels (carbon and hydrogen) are widely available in other forms.Quote:
Originally Posted by DaBeeeenster
Also, your most recent link points out that an enormous amount of potential fertiliser is wasted in the US in the form of manure. In fact using it would be an excellent idea as the huge 'rubbishrubbishrubbishrubbish pits' created near large factory farms are a major environmental hazard. It's probably better for the soil than other fertilisers too.
Thinking about it, I'm beginning to think that the latter article is overly pessimistic. In fact I'm sure that there is plenty of land left in the world that could still be cultivated if needs be, places like Russia and South America. Fertilisers increase crop yields, sure, but not by an order of magnitude, and as that article points out, we're at the point of diminishing returns. Part of the increase in yields since the middle of the century is due to better plant varieties and more efficient methods etc.
Rich :¬)
There are a few new technologies. For example, newly developed Thermo-Depolymerization Technology (which converts carbon-rich garbage into crude oil). The conversion process doesn't create any harmful pollutants and use of the new form of oil actually releases less greenhouse gases than would be released by the natural decay process if the material had been stored in a landfill - in the case of naturally decaying material. The process can also be used to convert plastics and other non-decaying material.
'Turkey waste turned into oil' - New York Newsday - New TDP plant generating a positive cash flow while selling crude oil converted from garbage at a price 10% less than equivalent oil produced at a conventional refinery.
http://www.nynewsday.com/technology/...logy-headlines
'Missouri plant begins making oil from farm waste’ – Waste News - Crude oil No. 4, produced from agricultural waste products, put on the market.
http://www.wastenews.com/headlines2.html?id=1085160729
'Turkey Fuel? Factory to Turn Guts into Crude Oil' - National Geographic - Details how a Carthage plant is converting turkey waste into crude oil and its potential to solve many of America's waste disposal problems while making us less dependant on foreign oil.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...turkeyoil.html
'Researchers turn manure into crude oil' - MSNBC News - Researcher Yanhui Zhang of the University of Illinois has successfully converted pig manure into oil in small batches. He uses a similar process to the one already being used by a plant in Carthage, Mo., that converts tons of waste material, such as feathers and entrails, from a nearby Butterball Turkey plant into light crude oil.
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4732398/
Successful Result of a California Pilot Thermo-Depolymerization Plant in the Philadelphia Navy Yard on the California Energy Commission's government website
http://www.energy.ca.gov/pier/indust..._98_003_3.html
And on the hydrogen frontier, there was a recent breakthrough in an ethanol-to-hydrogen reactor that will make hydrogen much more competitive as an energy source. The new reactor eliminates the need for large expensive facilities to produce hydrogen - being small and cheap enough for home and car use.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/science...n.reactors.ap/
Mark Harm
Candidate for State Representative - Michigan
http://www.markharm.com
Hello Mark, and welcome to the forums; that's possibly the greatest first post I've ever seen, with some excellent links. Cheers:).
I'm left to wonder though why you're standing as a Republican candidate; you seem to be taking the issue of peak oil seriously while the Bush administration's record on environmental issues is frankly appalling. The money that has been spent on the Gulf War could have built a huge TDP plant in every single state.....
Rich :¬)
Who is most likely to feel the real pinch of an oil run out? Well the oil companies for starters. So who is most likely to not have had their heads in the sand over this for some time? Next, why would they promote any new forms of fuel while they can still squeeze cash out of you and I for oil? Once the crash comes. Or probably shortly before. The miracle fuel from your friendly local Ex-Oil producer will land on the shelves. Sorry mate but that £50 grand Merc of yours is now a paperweight. Never mind eh? We'll sell you a £50 grand (fit appropriate vehicle here) to make up for it. These people are extremely rich and extremely greedy. They will have been researching alternatives since the beginnings of a scare back in the '70's. They will also want their personal gravy trains to keep on running.
The other side of the coin is that as the middle East dosn't appear to produce much else so they will go back to the stoneage and no-one will give a flying f*ck about them anymore. Which I'm sure is scaring the Arabs a lot more than this whole issue is scaring the rest of the world. Unless they figure how to make sand combustible.