Full Version: Oil
Oil is not going to last forever, and there are likely to be problems related to an oil shortage sometime in the next 8 - 12 years (if we keep up current usage).
So what should America (and the rest of the world) do to prevent a major energy crisis? What is likely to happen if nothing is done? And how serious are any problems related to a lack of oil going to be?
Thoughts and opinions welcome.
So what should America (and the rest of the world) do to prevent a major energy crisis? What is likely to happen if nothing is done? And how serious are any problems related to a lack of oil going to be?
Thoughts and opinions welcome.
QUOTE(Oliver @ Aug 7 2003, 05:54 AM)
Oil is not going to last forever, and there are likely to be problems related to an oil shortage sometime in the next 8 - 12 years (if we keep up current usage).
So what should America (and the rest of the world) do to prevent a major energy crisis? What is likely to happen if nothing is done? And how serious are any problems related to a lack of oil going to be?
Thoughts and opinions welcome.
So what should America (and the rest of the world) do to prevent a major energy crisis? What is likely to happen if nothing is done? And how serious are any problems related to a lack of oil going to be?
Thoughts and opinions welcome.
Nuclear Power.
It may not be safe but it is cleaner than oil vapors and cleaner than fossil fuels as well
QUOTE(Oliver @ Aug 7 2003, 06:54 AM)
Oil is not going to last forever, and there are likely to be problems related to an oil shortage sometime in the next 8 - 12 years (if we keep up current usage).
Do you have a source for this? I was told in 6th grade that we would be out of oil in 8-10 years (that was in 1987). I have a friend in his mid-thirties who was told the same thing when he was in junior high. I've started to suspect this is one of those answers we just don't have and a quite likely WAY off in our speculation. A source would be very helpful for this debate.
http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/...il_war_bbc.html
This is the key to the Iraq war, despite what the blind mutes like Passion31 say.
http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/...03_simmons.html
This is from a leading insider in the Bush Adminstration.
As for the recent US interest in Africa, Oil may explain it...
http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/...udi_africa.html
Clearly there is a great oil crisis, nucleur energy is in my opinion too dangerious, enrgy conservation and alternative power must be explored.
QUOTE
America, always the greediest consumer of oil, production has been falling for 30 years. Americans guzzle 20 million barrels of oil a day, but now they have to import over 60% of it.
That pattern is being repeated elsewhere. Geologist Dr Colin Campbell predicted a decline in the North Sea several years ago and claims by 2015 Britain may have to import over half its oil needs. "In 1999 Britain went over the top and is declining quite rapidly," he says.
"It's now 17% down in just three years, and this pattern is set to continue. That means that Britain will soon be a net importer, imports have to rise, the costs of the imports have to rise, and even the security of supply is becoming a little uncertain," Campbell adds.
That pattern is being repeated elsewhere. Geologist Dr Colin Campbell predicted a decline in the North Sea several years ago and claims by 2015 Britain may have to import over half its oil needs. "In 1999 Britain went over the top and is declining quite rapidly," he says.
"It's now 17% down in just three years, and this pattern is set to continue. That means that Britain will soon be a net importer, imports have to rise, the costs of the imports have to rise, and even the security of supply is becoming a little uncertain," Campbell adds.
This is the key to the Iraq war, despite what the blind mutes like Passion31 say.
QUOTE
When George Bush took power two years ago, his administration was already worried about the vulnerability of America’s oil supplies - the buzzword was ‘energy security’.
"I think it’s quite possible that the United States realises the key importance of the Middle East generally to world supply in fact, and especially its own, and that it sees Saddam Hussein as a ready-made villain," points out Campbell.
"It finds this a convenient way in which to establish a military presence in the Middle East - aimed partially at Iraq by all means but with a wider significance to control the production elsewhere there."
"I think it’s quite possible that the United States realises the key importance of the Middle East generally to world supply in fact, and especially its own, and that it sees Saddam Hussein as a ready-made villain," points out Campbell.
"It finds this a convenient way in which to establish a military presence in the Middle East - aimed partially at Iraq by all means but with a wider significance to control the production elsewhere there."
http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/...03_simmons.html
This is from a leading insider in the Bush Adminstration.
As for the recent US interest in Africa, Oil may explain it...
http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/...udi_africa.html
Clearly there is a great oil crisis, nucleur energy is in my opinion too dangerious, enrgy conservation and alternative power must be explored.
Truth is, if we are going to run out of oil, it will be that oil we already know about.
Who knows how much more there is that we haven't found yet?
Nuclear is a big part of the answer. I was a "nuke" in the Navy, and at the government research facility in Idaho, and at the big power plant in Arizona. It is safe as it can get considering people are in control. Three Mile Island would never have been the mess it was if the operators had stood back and put their hands in their pockets, instead they turned off the saftey system designed to mitigate the kind of event that occurred. Due to TMI, we now have triple redundancy on all instruments and controls connected to essential systems, and more stringent operator training.
Broken record time again; what we need to do about limited oil reserves is to use less of it. Higher tax on gasoline is the only thing that will get us to use less of that. Home heating oil will have to go up before people will add insulation to their attics and walls and fix the air leaks around their windows.
And all new construction needs to be energy certified by an orginazation independent of builders and utilities.
There are no new alternate sources of power existing today, or in the near future, that can do anymore than contribute a small percentage of power to our needs.
Conservation is cheap, easy, and has proven payback in savings.
Who knows how much more there is that we haven't found yet?
Nuclear is a big part of the answer. I was a "nuke" in the Navy, and at the government research facility in Idaho, and at the big power plant in Arizona. It is safe as it can get considering people are in control. Three Mile Island would never have been the mess it was if the operators had stood back and put their hands in their pockets, instead they turned off the saftey system designed to mitigate the kind of event that occurred. Due to TMI, we now have triple redundancy on all instruments and controls connected to essential systems, and more stringent operator training.
Broken record time again; what we need to do about limited oil reserves is to use less of it. Higher tax on gasoline is the only thing that will get us to use less of that. Home heating oil will have to go up before people will add insulation to their attics and walls and fix the air leaks around their windows.
And all new construction needs to be energy certified by an orginazation independent of builders and utilities.
There are no new alternate sources of power existing today, or in the near future, that can do anymore than contribute a small percentage of power to our needs.
Conservation is cheap, easy, and has proven payback in savings.
QUOTE(Jaime @ Aug 7 2003, 05:48 AM)
QUOTE(Oliver @ Aug 7 2003, 06:54 AM)
Oil is not going to last forever, and there are likely to be problems related to an oil shortage sometime in the next 8 - 12 years (if we keep up current usage).
Do you have a source for this? I was told in 6th grade that we would be out of oil in 8-10 years (that was in 1987). I have a friend in his mid-thirties who was told the same thing when he was in junior high. I've started to suspect this is one of those answers we just don't have and a quite likely WAY off in our speculation. A source would be very helpful for this debate.
I am 33, and when I was seven my teacher said we'd be out of oil by the time I reached highschool. People constantly overlook the potential of human ingenuity. Better drilling techniques and more efficient engines have ameliorated the problem. Hybrid engines will probably be the wave of the future, and eventually fuel cells. If you want to get a good laugh, look up oil shortage during the 19th century. Back then, the apocalypse was predicted as a WHALE oil crisis.
I gave my opinion on energy in the 'science and technology' topic under a discussion on hydrogen energy and here it is.
Nuclear power should be used as back up in the case of cloud cover over your huge areas of solar generators. And the cost if shared by all countries would be tiny in veiw of the benefits, electric cars would be used everywhere, pollution would be basically a thing of the past.
Why bother with making fusion generators when all you have to do is collect the energy from the enormous one that lights our little planet.
The best way to stop something running out is to stop using it not decrease your use of it. Even though more oil is being found all the time the pockets of it are smaller and smaller and there is a limit to how small an oil patch is to bother digging for it. So it will all eventually disappear so get all the goverments of the world to put in a bit and give us the 400 billion dollars to fuel the world by sun power.
QUOTE
Solar energy should be the way of the future as I have seen it calculated that if you covered something like 25'000 square miles ( 67'000 square kiliometres) of land somewhere in a desert where it is almost never cloudy you could power the entire world (except hawaii, as it is in the middle of the pacific ocean and would be too expensive to run cables there, but except for hawaii).
A Project of this scale however would cost around 250 billion pounds (400 billion dollars) and take about 10 years to complete but if ten years funds for power generation could be given to a project like this I am quite sure that it would amount to a vastly higher sum and be well worth the investment.
The night and day problem of solar generaters was also discussed in article i read and you simply choose 4 desert locations around the world and due to the fact that most of the land mass of our planet exist on just one side of it at least three sites could be in the sun at any one time.
As technology towards energy efficiency there have been plenty of cars that run on all sorts of things like nitrogen, grass and even orange juice however most of these would never be put into production because we would exhaust the earths ability to grow oranges. Although nitrogen as a fuel is a very good idea but it will never come into production because the oil businesses would go to the wall as no-one would pay for fuel when you can suck nitrogen straight out of the air, run it through a filter, compress it and run a vehicle on it. There are limitations to these future technologies (most are not as energy producing as a combustion engine) but the real power lies with those who control the money. What would happen if tommorrow everyone was prompted to but a car that ran on nitrogen? Where would the petrol company's get there money and what would the government tax? You could never tax nitrogen as it is in such plentiful supply (about 80'000 cubic miles of gas) and this must be a major factor in the development of new energy efficient transport.
If you take away there money, you strip them of there power.
A Project of this scale however would cost around 250 billion pounds (400 billion dollars) and take about 10 years to complete but if ten years funds for power generation could be given to a project like this I am quite sure that it would amount to a vastly higher sum and be well worth the investment.
The night and day problem of solar generaters was also discussed in article i read and you simply choose 4 desert locations around the world and due to the fact that most of the land mass of our planet exist on just one side of it at least three sites could be in the sun at any one time.
As technology towards energy efficiency there have been plenty of cars that run on all sorts of things like nitrogen, grass and even orange juice however most of these would never be put into production because we would exhaust the earths ability to grow oranges. Although nitrogen as a fuel is a very good idea but it will never come into production because the oil businesses would go to the wall as no-one would pay for fuel when you can suck nitrogen straight out of the air, run it through a filter, compress it and run a vehicle on it. There are limitations to these future technologies (most are not as energy producing as a combustion engine) but the real power lies with those who control the money. What would happen if tommorrow everyone was prompted to but a car that ran on nitrogen? Where would the petrol company's get there money and what would the government tax? You could never tax nitrogen as it is in such plentiful supply (about 80'000 cubic miles of gas) and this must be a major factor in the development of new energy efficient transport.
If you take away there money, you strip them of there power.
Nuclear power should be used as back up in the case of cloud cover over your huge areas of solar generators. And the cost if shared by all countries would be tiny in veiw of the benefits, electric cars would be used everywhere, pollution would be basically a thing of the past.
Why bother with making fusion generators when all you have to do is collect the energy from the enormous one that lights our little planet.
The best way to stop something running out is to stop using it not decrease your use of it. Even though more oil is being found all the time the pockets of it are smaller and smaller and there is a limit to how small an oil patch is to bother digging for it. So it will all eventually disappear so get all the goverments of the world to put in a bit and give us the 400 billion dollars to fuel the world by sun power.
[quote=Zebbeddee,Aug 7 2003, 02:32 PM] [QUOTE]Solar energy should be the way of the future as I have seen it calculated that if you covered something like 25'000 square miles ( 67'000 square kiliometres) of land somewhere in a desert where it is almost never cloudy you could power the entire world (except hawaii, as it is in the middle of the pacific ocean and would be too expensive to run cables there, but except for hawaii).
A Project of this scale however would cost around 250 billion pounds (400 billion dollars) and take about 10 years to complete but if ten years funds for power generation could be given to a project like this I am quite sure that it would amount to a vastly higher sum and be well worth the investment.
The night and day problem of solar generaters was also discussed in article i read and you simply choose 4 desert locations around the world and due to the fact that most of the land mass of our planet exist on just one side of it at least three sites could be in the sun at any one time.
As technology towards energy efficiency there have been plenty of cars that run on all sorts of things like nitrogen, grass and even orange juice however most of these would never be put into production because we would exhaust the earths ability to grow oranges. Although nitrogen as a fuel is a very good idea but it will never come into production because the oil businesses would go to the wall as no-one would pay for fuel when you can suck nitrogen straight out of the air, run it through a filter, compress it and run a vehicle on it. There are limitations to these future technologies (most are not as energy producing as a combustion engine) but the real power lies with those who control the money. What would happen if tommorrow everyone was prompted to but a car that ran on nitrogen? Where would the petrol company's get there money and what would the government tax? You could never tax nitrogen as it is in such plentiful supply (about 80'000 cubic miles of gas) and this must be a major factor in the development of new energy efficient transport.
[/quote]
What are your specific technical qualifications that would lead us to believe that you know anything about this? I suspect that you are just quoting others without even knowing what they are talking about.
Grass would be biomass, it has to be converted to alcohol first. Brazil does this, or was doing it years ago, as they have a LOT of biomass to use up. Waste products from their sugar cane industry was a good source. Even the leftover mash was used to feed cattle. (Talk about your contented cows!)
Orange juice? Try peeling an orange next to a candle and see what happens. It is the oil in the peel, not the juice, that burns.
And Nitrogen is an inert gas, not the least bit volatile. You must mean Hydrogen.
Nitrogen can be combined with other chemicals to make fertilizer, and even explosives, buy by itself will not combust, or even support combustion.
Three or four huge solar cell plants around the world? The electricity has to be transported to the consumer, and losses occur in the wires, thus it can only be transported so far, then another power plant has to be put on the grid.
Electric cars? Battery technology is not currently good enough for this, and batteries are nasty, polluting, things to build and then to recycle after their very short life span.
A Project of this scale however would cost around 250 billion pounds (400 billion dollars) and take about 10 years to complete but if ten years funds for power generation could be given to a project like this I am quite sure that it would amount to a vastly higher sum and be well worth the investment.
The night and day problem of solar generaters was also discussed in article i read and you simply choose 4 desert locations around the world and due to the fact that most of the land mass of our planet exist on just one side of it at least three sites could be in the sun at any one time.
As technology towards energy efficiency there have been plenty of cars that run on all sorts of things like nitrogen, grass and even orange juice however most of these would never be put into production because we would exhaust the earths ability to grow oranges. Although nitrogen as a fuel is a very good idea but it will never come into production because the oil businesses would go to the wall as no-one would pay for fuel when you can suck nitrogen straight out of the air, run it through a filter, compress it and run a vehicle on it. There are limitations to these future technologies (most are not as energy producing as a combustion engine) but the real power lies with those who control the money. What would happen if tommorrow everyone was prompted to but a car that ran on nitrogen? Where would the petrol company's get there money and what would the government tax? You could never tax nitrogen as it is in such plentiful supply (about 80'000 cubic miles of gas) and this must be a major factor in the development of new energy efficient transport.
[/quote]
What are your specific technical qualifications that would lead us to believe that you know anything about this? I suspect that you are just quoting others without even knowing what they are talking about.
Grass would be biomass, it has to be converted to alcohol first. Brazil does this, or was doing it years ago, as they have a LOT of biomass to use up. Waste products from their sugar cane industry was a good source. Even the leftover mash was used to feed cattle. (Talk about your contented cows!)
Orange juice? Try peeling an orange next to a candle and see what happens. It is the oil in the peel, not the juice, that burns.
And Nitrogen is an inert gas, not the least bit volatile. You must mean Hydrogen.
Nitrogen can be combined with other chemicals to make fertilizer, and even explosives, buy by itself will not combust, or even support combustion.
Three or four huge solar cell plants around the world? The electricity has to be transported to the consumer, and losses occur in the wires, thus it can only be transported so far, then another power plant has to be put on the grid.
Electric cars? Battery technology is not currently good enough for this, and batteries are nasty, polluting, things to build and then to recycle after their very short life span.
Yes, I am 45 and when I was in elementary school I was told oil shortages were just around the corner. The fact is someday there will come a time where due to increased costs of drilling and improved efficiencies in other energy sources that these other energy sources will become dominant. This will occur automatically, without any need for government intervention other than regulating third-party costs.
Yes, the whale oil crisis never occurred. Yes, our city streets are not knee deep in horse manure, as a letter to the Scientific American magazine, published in 1875, predicted. The barrels of oil required to produce an extra unit of GDP is falling.
Yes, the whale oil crisis never occurred. Yes, our city streets are not knee deep in horse manure, as a letter to the Scientific American magazine, published in 1875, predicted. The barrels of oil required to produce an extra unit of GDP is falling.
QUOTE
Do you have a source for this? I was told in 6th grade that we would be out of oil in 8-10 years (that was in 1987). I have a friend in his mid-thirties who was told the same thing when he was in junior high. I've started to suspect this is one of those answers we just don't have and a quite likely WAY off in our speculation. A source would be very helpful for this debate.
QUOTE
I am 33, and when I was seven my teacher said we'd be out of oil by the time I reached highschool. People constantly overlook the potential of human ingenuity. Better drilling techniques and more efficient engines have ameliorated the problem. Hybrid engines will probably be the wave of the future, and eventually fuel cells. If you want to get a good laugh, look up oil shortage during the 19th century. Back then, the apocalypse was predicted as a WHALE oil crisis.
We will develop better drilling techniques, and will be able to extract more from our oil fields; however, there will come a time when developing and using new techniques will continually cost more and it becomes increasingly difficult to do so. We are unlikely to run out of oil within the next 50 or so years, but eventually production of oil will peak, and then rapidly decrease untill it no longer reaches the demand.
Whether this happens in 5 years or 25 years, it is still a short term problem that we will have to deal with eventually - our society and its economy is very oil dependent, and decreasing our dependance on it cannot be a bad thing. Implementing a policy to that effect could take a significant amount of time however.
The fact that predicting exactly how much oil we have left is so difficult is also worrying, as it makes it harder to predict how long oil reserves will last (and whether we should be worrying about it at all, yet) [source]
I am sure most people would agree that being almost entirely dependant on just one substance for our power, travel and economy is very dangerous.
Main sources -
various parts of oilcrisis.com and the coming global oil crisis
QUOTE
The best way to stop something running out is to stop using it not decrease your use of it.
I heard somewhere (don't ask me to give a source) that if everyone in the US started using an economy lightbulb instead of a tungsten filament bulb, the equivelant power generated by 30 medium sized power stations would not be needed.
[I may have heard or remembered wrongly, so don't quote me on this
]
I don't think oil will "run out" so much as become increasingly expensive to extract, to the point where it becomes "uneconomic". Much the same has happened to the UK coalfields - the coal is still there, in vast quantities, it's just that it's cheaper to burn gas in the power stations than dig it up, or even use cheap Australian or Russian opencast coal (because the emissions controls are much harsher for coal power stations).
Should the time come when other forms of energy become more expensive than coal, we'll re-open the mines again.
Similarly (and in reverse), when other forms of energy become cheaper than oil, both by oil prices rising to relfect increasing difficulty of exctraction, and by other energy sources becoming cheaper from economies of scale and advances in technology, then we'll decrease our reliance on oil.
I don't think nuclear is the best answer (although it's probably part of the solution), because it only generates cheap electricity during the years of a reactor's operation. A nuclear power station typically has a 30 year operational lifespan, and at the end of that it is colossally expensive to decommission it. To date, in the UK at least, most of these costs are beyond the means of the private utilities, so the taxpayer has to foot the bills. If the generators had to include the cost of decommissioning in their consumer prices - using the sound principle that the polluter pays - then nuclear electricity would be significantly more expensive than that from coal or gas or even the (still relatively expensive to set up) renewable sources.
In the meantime, though, I think that it might be an idea to allow market pressures on oil prices to filter through to consumers a little more. Perhaps if the US government didn't think it was more productive to wage war to keep oil prices down rather than ask Americans to adjust their air conditioning so that it wasn't downright cold indoors during the summer; or suggest that perhaps an eight litre, three ton car isn't a somewhat frivolous use of resources? That kind of thing. (This is a specifically US problem - the EU, with a broadly comparably ranges of climates and level of economic development, uses rather less than half the energy per head that Americans do.)
Should the time come when other forms of energy become more expensive than coal, we'll re-open the mines again.
Similarly (and in reverse), when other forms of energy become cheaper than oil, both by oil prices rising to relfect increasing difficulty of exctraction, and by other energy sources becoming cheaper from economies of scale and advances in technology, then we'll decrease our reliance on oil.
I don't think nuclear is the best answer (although it's probably part of the solution), because it only generates cheap electricity during the years of a reactor's operation. A nuclear power station typically has a 30 year operational lifespan, and at the end of that it is colossally expensive to decommission it. To date, in the UK at least, most of these costs are beyond the means of the private utilities, so the taxpayer has to foot the bills. If the generators had to include the cost of decommissioning in their consumer prices - using the sound principle that the polluter pays - then nuclear electricity would be significantly more expensive than that from coal or gas or even the (still relatively expensive to set up) renewable sources.
In the meantime, though, I think that it might be an idea to allow market pressures on oil prices to filter through to consumers a little more. Perhaps if the US government didn't think it was more productive to wage war to keep oil prices down rather than ask Americans to adjust their air conditioning so that it wasn't downright cold indoors during the summer; or suggest that perhaps an eight litre, three ton car isn't a somewhat frivolous use of resources? That kind of thing. (This is a specifically US problem - the EU, with a broadly comparably ranges of climates and level of economic development, uses rather less than half the energy per head that Americans do.)
Julian,
I agree that economics will do more to change us over to less wasteful forms of energy.
Oil products are artificially cheap right now because the true cost of extraction, refining, delivery and use isn't calculated into the price per gallon (liter) or cubic foot (meter). This can be said about nuke electricity, too.
But what are the hidden costs? Well, war for one. The US is spending four billion or so a month on a war that wouldn't have been fought if not for oil. This is, of course, a currently controversial take on this war, but I think history will support this more than WMDs. It also begs an historical perspective on involvement in the ME to begin with.
Even if it can be unarguably demonstrated that this war isn't for oil, older wars were definitely for the oil. However, the costs of these wars are not factored into the cost for energy.
Another hidden cost is the cost of pollution. Air pollution brings our healthcare costs up while water pollution does the same and more: It destroys grazing and farmland, and taints city water supplies making it that much more expensive to put potable water into the pipes.
Finally, costs for natural disaster may be attributed to global warming. I know this is controversial too, but consider who is on either side of the debate. The fact of the matter is that the climate is changing for some reason. As time goes on, we will have a better idea what is up with this.
So, we may not "run out" of oil but money to support oil.
Oh, one other thing: Arguing from a space of 30-40 years doesn't convince me of much. We've been using oil for about a hundred years now.
The species has been on the planet for tens of thousands of years.
Are we so narrow as to think in terms of only a handful of generations?
Aaaannndddd one other thing: Geothermal and solar are our best alternatives. Once again I'll post the link: Rocky Mountain Institute. Yes, I am stuck on that one
I agree that economics will do more to change us over to less wasteful forms of energy.
Oil products are artificially cheap right now because the true cost of extraction, refining, delivery and use isn't calculated into the price per gallon (liter) or cubic foot (meter). This can be said about nuke electricity, too.
But what are the hidden costs? Well, war for one. The US is spending four billion or so a month on a war that wouldn't have been fought if not for oil. This is, of course, a currently controversial take on this war, but I think history will support this more than WMDs. It also begs an historical perspective on involvement in the ME to begin with.
Even if it can be unarguably demonstrated that this war isn't for oil, older wars were definitely for the oil. However, the costs of these wars are not factored into the cost for energy.
Another hidden cost is the cost of pollution. Air pollution brings our healthcare costs up while water pollution does the same and more: It destroys grazing and farmland, and taints city water supplies making it that much more expensive to put potable water into the pipes.
Finally, costs for natural disaster may be attributed to global warming. I know this is controversial too, but consider who is on either side of the debate. The fact of the matter is that the climate is changing for some reason. As time goes on, we will have a better idea what is up with this.
So, we may not "run out" of oil but money to support oil.
Oh, one other thing: Arguing from a space of 30-40 years doesn't convince me of much. We've been using oil for about a hundred years now.
The species has been on the planet for tens of thousands of years.
Are we so narrow as to think in terms of only a handful of generations?
Aaaannndddd one other thing: Geothermal and solar are our best alternatives. Once again I'll post the link: Rocky Mountain Institute. Yes, I am stuck on that one
QUOTE(Bill55AZ @ Aug 7 2003, 08:14 AM)
Truth is, if we are going to run out of oil, it will be that oil we already know about.
Who knows how much more there is that we haven't found yet?
Who knows how much more there is that we haven't found yet?
Right. Iran recently found some new oil fields: Iran finds new oil field
Then you have the alaskan oil debate.
Heck, i may be sitting on an oil field now and wouldn't know it.
The point is though, we have to conserve to prevent losing a source of energy that our society needs to survive
QUOTE
What are your specific technical qualifications that would lead us to believe that you know anything about this? I suspect that you are just quoting others without even knowing what they are talking about.
Grass would be biomass, it has to be converted to alcohol first. Brazil does this, or was doing it years ago, as they have a LOT of biomass to use up. Waste products from their sugar cane industry was a good source. Even the leftover mash was used to feed cattle. (Talk about your contented cows!)
Orange juice? Try peeling an orange next to a candle and see what happens. It is the oil in the peel, not the juice, that burns.
And Nitrogen is an inert gas, not the least bit volatile. You must mean Hydrogen.
Nitrogen can be combined with other chemicals to make fertilizer, and even explosives, buy by itself will not combust, or even support combustion.
Three or four huge solar cell plants around the world? The electricity has to be transported to the consumer, and losses occur in the wires, thus it can only be transported so far, then another power plant has to be put on the grid.
Grass would be biomass, it has to be converted to alcohol first. Brazil does this, or was doing it years ago, as they have a LOT of biomass to use up. Waste products from their sugar cane industry was a good source. Even the leftover mash was used to feed cattle. (Talk about your contented cows!)
Orange juice? Try peeling an orange next to a candle and see what happens. It is the oil in the peel, not the juice, that burns.
And Nitrogen is an inert gas, not the least bit volatile. You must mean Hydrogen.
Nitrogen can be combined with other chemicals to make fertilizer, and even explosives, buy by itself will not combust, or even support combustion.
Three or four huge solar cell plants around the world? The electricity has to be transported to the consumer, and losses occur in the wires, thus it can only be transported so far, then another power plant has to be put on the grid.
I have just finished A Level Physics so am not completely in the dark on this matter and I well understand the processes each one of the fuels I mentioned uses.
I am quoting others, however one of the things I am quoting from is an article featured in the 'new scientist' another was a report on a japanese project assigned to find other things that cars could run on and lastly the NITROGEN car information I got from a documtary exclusively about the nitrogen car and its inventor (something does no thave to combust to be used to power something, where did I say that you burned the orange juice or the nitrogen to produce power).
I understand exactly what I am talking about, allow me to explain.
The Car that ran on grass as you stress was only taking things and and burning things inside the grass to power the engine. But the orange juice(being slightly acidic) was used to create a current using a cata;lyst and a small amount of processed lead that effectively formed an innefficient battery, I was not recommending that we all put orange juice in our cars just that there have been projects to use almost anything to run a vechile on.
Lastly a nitrogen powered car does not burn the nitrogen as I did not explain this in my post I can see why you thought I was misinformed. The nitrogen car works using compressed nitrogen gas, which is released, and creates a force which runs through a network of pipes moving flaps as it goes, this creates the motive force which is transfered to the wheels and thus the car goes.
Solar power and the problem of transporting the electricity. The currents produced by 10000 sq miles of solar generators would be phenominal and mean that resistance can be overcome using tranformers, as the loss was calculated in the article and woven into the equations for the area needing to be covered by the generators.
QUOTE
Electric cars? Battery technology is not currently good enough for this, and batteries are nasty, polluting, things to build and then to recycle after their very short life span
Battery powered cars are already being driven around, what do you mean batteries aren't good enough for this. Yes, battery manufacture is dirty but if you use the recyclable ones they last for twenty years in a car and are quite alright for running a vechile. They are also quieter so this would cut down on noise polution. The problem with them is that the electricity still has to be produced so if this is done by burning fossil fuels in a powerplant then you might as well run a car that does the same and not waste the energy in transfer.
Use that giant glowing ball in the sky, it's our best bet. It's not going to run out for a while yet.
Zeb, all that you mention are in the very first stages of new technologies, and are many, many years away from results that can be applied to the consumer.
I still say that none of the new technologies will be major contributors to our energy needs in our lifetime. And we need to do something now.
The only batteries that I know of that last 20 years are the huge, heavy, and bulky wet cell ones we use for backup at communications stations. We have been replacing them at work, and the new ones (smaller and lighter) are not lasting even a few years.
Those currently used in cars have to be changed out every 3 or 4 years at incredible expense.
I am not familiar with A level, what year of age would that be for an American student? I had physics in High School, Navy Nuclear Power School, then college. I also had Thermodynamics in college and Nuclear Power School. And I have been watching these things since 1966.
The only time and place that any alternate fuel has been viable is the alcohol fuel use in Brazil, windmill farms and geothermal in those few places where we have enough wind or proximity to volcanic heat, and one solar plant in California that uses mirrors to focus heat on a tank of water to produce steam that goes to a turbine. Solar cells are being used for small loads, typically in remote areas.
And methane digesters at landfills or the ones that convert human and animal waste to methane for cooking in India. I am sure everyone wants one of those in their backyard!
I looked up the Nitrogen car, it is LIQUID nitrogen, and looks to be a good idea. Basically, the car is filled up with compressed N2, and it will go 250 miles on 100 gallons, AND is the most environmentally sound idea that has come up yet...
I still say that none of the new technologies will be major contributors to our energy needs in our lifetime. And we need to do something now.
The only batteries that I know of that last 20 years are the huge, heavy, and bulky wet cell ones we use for backup at communications stations. We have been replacing them at work, and the new ones (smaller and lighter) are not lasting even a few years.
Those currently used in cars have to be changed out every 3 or 4 years at incredible expense.
I am not familiar with A level, what year of age would that be for an American student? I had physics in High School, Navy Nuclear Power School, then college. I also had Thermodynamics in college and Nuclear Power School. And I have been watching these things since 1966.
The only time and place that any alternate fuel has been viable is the alcohol fuel use in Brazil, windmill farms and geothermal in those few places where we have enough wind or proximity to volcanic heat, and one solar plant in California that uses mirrors to focus heat on a tank of water to produce steam that goes to a turbine. Solar cells are being used for small loads, typically in remote areas.
And methane digesters at landfills or the ones that convert human and animal waste to methane for cooking in India. I am sure everyone wants one of those in their backyard!
I looked up the Nitrogen car, it is LIQUID nitrogen, and looks to be a good idea. Basically, the car is filled up with compressed N2, and it will go 250 miles on 100 gallons, AND is the most environmentally sound idea that has come up yet...
A levels are the 2 years between leaving compulsory schooling at sixteen and going to university. So I suppose that it's undergraduate, I don't know what you call this in America.
The nitrogen car runs on nitrogen gas which is taken from the air and then compressed into a liquid which I did not actually say the second time. And then the liquid goes round the engine (of sorts). It won't be available for a while as there have been loads of efficient engines that have had there funding cut because the Oil business is so big and the whole oil industry would die if they had no-one to buy there oil. If it was given the funding in the same measure as the internal combustion engine is funded they could be brought into production in I would guess about 6 years, but no government is going to fund a project that it can't tax or get any gain from (unless you have a green party in power in which case youv'e had it already).
But we'll have to convert to something else someday.
The nitrogen car runs on nitrogen gas which is taken from the air and then compressed into a liquid which I did not actually say the second time. And then the liquid goes round the engine (of sorts). It won't be available for a while as there have been loads of efficient engines that have had there funding cut because the Oil business is so big and the whole oil industry would die if they had no-one to buy there oil. If it was given the funding in the same measure as the internal combustion engine is funded they could be brought into production in I would guess about 6 years, but no government is going to fund a project that it can't tax or get any gain from (unless you have a green party in power in which case youv'e had it already).
But we'll have to convert to something else someday.
As long as there is oil, there will be people who will reject "alternate source" vehicles like Electric cars because why bother pay for an electric car while there is still oil to run your fuel car
Before I get more 'oil will not run out, it will just become economically unviable to produce' posts; I only wrote this in the title to keep it concise - my second post explains it better. 
Just to clarify.
Just to clarify.
QUOTE
The nitrogen car runs on nitrogen gas which is taken from the air and then compressed into a liquid which I did not actually say the second time.
And this nitrogen is compressed by Elves, right? Using liquid nitrogen as a power source is essentially the same as blowing up a balloon and letting it go. Makes a sound like a whoopie cushion, flies around the room, but doesn't really net you anything. You could run a vehicle on compressed air if you wanted to, but the air ain't self-compressing. That's the problem.QUOTE
It won't be available for a while as there have been loads of efficient engines that have had there funding cut because the Oil business is so big and the whole oil industry would die if they had no-one to buy there oil.
Gee, maybe the funding has been cut because they aren't PRACTICAL? The oil business would not die even if God Himself stepped in and converted every power source in the world that ran on oil into something that ran on wishful thinking. Doubt me? Take a look down at your keyboard... what's it made from?
This is interesting...
http://www.zmag.org/weblinks/kerr_endofoil.htm
Its blatently obvious that Oil was the reason behind the Iraq war.
This is why America invaded Iraq, to break up the OPEC oi-cartel, stop them shifting to the Euro and ensure direct supplies of oil for the US economy.
See my International Strategic Trends for more on this great conflict, but this is the key. Quite literally the world is seeing a Hobbseian clash for survival and thus the anti-American forces in Iraq are fighting for their economic soverignity and political independance, since because of the great US needs, they are hardly likely to give the Iraqi people a genuine choice for democracy.
Again this concurs with my anaylsis of the state of international relations, soon the US economy will literally dry up of oil and this will be a catalyist for deep recession. a Russian strike on America and the meltdown of the severly sick US economy. I feel sorry for you Americans, it must be like looking at the geopolitical abyiss.
http://www.zmag.org/weblinks/kerr_endofoil.htm
QUOTE
Mathew Simmons, CEO of Simmons and Co, a global energy investment bank knows it. Simmons was a member of Dick Cheney's Energy Task Force. "Without volume energy we have no sustainable water, we have no sustainable food, we now have no sustainable healthcare. What peaking does mean, in energy terms, is that once you've peaked, further growth in supply, is over… and the issue then, is the world's biggest serious question," he declared in April.
Former US Secretary of Sate James Baker III knows it. Strategic Energy Policy Challenges for the 21st Century was prepared by The James Baker III Institute for Public Policy and the Council on Foreign Relations, and presented to US Vice President Dick Cheney in April 2001. This report recommended a radical review of US policy towards Iraq. At the time the Baker report was written, the USA was purchasing on average 800,000 barrels of Iraqi oil per day, making Iraq America's # 6 supplier.
The Baker report notes that "a trend towards anti-Americanism could affect regional (Middle Eastern) leaders' ability to cooperate with the United States in the energy area," while further down noting Iraq's growing popularity in the Arab world "for 'standing up to the United States for ten years.'"
Baker recommended that "the United States should conduct an immediate policy review toward Iraq, including military, energy, economic and political diplomatic assessments," and "sanctions that target the regime's ability to maintain and acquire weapons of mass destruction." The goal of this policy review - "to eventually ease Iraqi oil field investment restrictions."
Former US Secretary of Sate James Baker III knows it. Strategic Energy Policy Challenges for the 21st Century was prepared by The James Baker III Institute for Public Policy and the Council on Foreign Relations, and presented to US Vice President Dick Cheney in April 2001. This report recommended a radical review of US policy towards Iraq. At the time the Baker report was written, the USA was purchasing on average 800,000 barrels of Iraqi oil per day, making Iraq America's # 6 supplier.
The Baker report notes that "a trend towards anti-Americanism could affect regional (Middle Eastern) leaders' ability to cooperate with the United States in the energy area," while further down noting Iraq's growing popularity in the Arab world "for 'standing up to the United States for ten years.'"
Baker recommended that "the United States should conduct an immediate policy review toward Iraq, including military, energy, economic and political diplomatic assessments," and "sanctions that target the regime's ability to maintain and acquire weapons of mass destruction." The goal of this policy review - "to eventually ease Iraqi oil field investment restrictions."
Its blatently obvious that Oil was the reason behind the Iraq war.
QUOTE
Some super secret memos of Dick Cheney's Energy Task force were recently revealed by the US group Judicial Watch, in the midst of a lawsuit against Cheney for full disclosure. They contained oil maps of Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Iran and the UAE, and an accounting of oil production contracts.
It's common to say the Iraq war was 'all about oil,' but the true meaning of that statement is only revealed in world oil production trends.
Production in North America is already on the decline, while OPEC and Middle Eastern producers will be able to maintain their peak levels for several more years before their wells start to run dry. This will give OPEC, mostly Muslim states, growing economic and political power - the power to use the price of oil as a political weapon against the United States.
It's common to say the Iraq war was 'all about oil,' but the true meaning of that statement is only revealed in world oil production trends.
Production in North America is already on the decline, while OPEC and Middle Eastern producers will be able to maintain their peak levels for several more years before their wells start to run dry. This will give OPEC, mostly Muslim states, growing economic and political power - the power to use the price of oil as a political weapon against the United States.
This is why America invaded Iraq, to break up the OPEC oi-cartel, stop them shifting to the Euro and ensure direct supplies of oil for the US economy.
QUOTE
With this understanding of oil production trends, the seemingly insane actions of the Bush White House reveal a consistent, if desperate internal logic - the US ruling class embarks upon its strategy of global Empire out of desperation at its incredibly weak underlying position. American capitalists feel compelled to rule oil producing nations like Iraq, Saudi Arabia and Iran as direct colonies in order to stave off their own collapse. It's a strategy adopted by Imperial Rome, the British Empire, and others, but investments in Empire are also subject to the law of diminishing returns.
See my International Strategic Trends for more on this great conflict, but this is the key. Quite literally the world is seeing a Hobbseian clash for survival and thus the anti-American forces in Iraq are fighting for their economic soverignity and political independance, since because of the great US needs, they are hardly likely to give the Iraqi people a genuine choice for democracy.
QUOTE
Over time, the investment in Empire - soldiers, bombs, bureaucratic administration, prisons - required just to maintain the energy flow into the capitalist economy will exceed the net energy return on that investment, in fact such a point may come sooner than later. After the American attack on already devastated Iraqi oil infrastructure "Iraq is planning to export only 8 million barrels of oil in July a small fraction of its prewar output," according to the International Herald Tribune.
Factor in the effective loss of the number six US oil supplier (Iraq) with the staggering stupidity of a US Congress so in bed with big oil and big auto that it steadfastly refused to raise fuel efficiency for US cars this week - insisting instead on the patriotic waste of fuel - and one gets a glimpse into the American oil economy brain trust.
Factor in the effective loss of the number six US oil supplier (Iraq) with the staggering stupidity of a US Congress so in bed with big oil and big auto that it steadfastly refused to raise fuel efficiency for US cars this week - insisting instead on the patriotic waste of fuel - and one gets a glimpse into the American oil economy brain trust.
Again this concurs with my anaylsis of the state of international relations, soon the US economy will literally dry up of oil and this will be a catalyist for deep recession. a Russian strike on America and the meltdown of the severly sick US economy. I feel sorry for you Americans, it must be like looking at the geopolitical abyiss.
I don't see a problem. As shortages become a real problem to the economy and civil defence serious and dedicated research will become very heavily invested in as companies realise the need for alternative energy. Once we've discovered how to use fussion properly electricity will be massively available allowing the move away from oil for fuel. Synthetic polymers will be able to replace oil made plastics in the same way. The reason will keep under estimating is because new fields keep being found, this won't last. I don't nuclear energy is to fear if regulations and security is maintained to a high level.
QUOTE
Oil, What will the World do when we run out?
Hydrogen Power!
QUOTE(Billy Jean @ Aug 15 2003, 08:31 PM)
Hydrogen Power!
Let's be constuctive in our posts, please.
QUOTE
I don't see a problem. As shortages become a real problem to the economy and civil defence serious and dedicated research will become very heavily invested in as companies realise the need for alternative energy.
I agree, "from a certain point of view."
First though, we've pretty much secured a large reserve of oil in the Middle East
and as long as we have control of that our oil crisis and rising gas prices will be diverted and alleviated for the near future. 
Once we've depleted our resources, or are close to it, we will HAVE to invest and develop in alternative energy. I think the three most efficient and logical will be, solar, fusion and hydrogen.
I'm sorry for my earlier abrupt response.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/04/02/...ain547412.shtml
I think the market will take care of it when it comes time- when whales were plentiful, we used whale oil, when it ran out, there was a short term crisis, and then we found something else. We will find something else, or will make something economically feasable when it comes time. Right now we can make ethanal for gas engines, and synthetic oil to lube them, and ceramic parts to get rid of the need for so much lube, when oil becomes so expensive those items will become economically feasible, and the farmers will get alot more money for thier corn!
I think CNN is to blame for this entire debate.
CNN made the world smaller. We get instant news from anywhere in the world and we begin to think of places like the middle east as a bad neighborhood on the outskirts of Detroit.
This planet in unbelievably huge. We have 6 billion people on this planet. And if we rounded up everyone in the world and had us stand together for a photo-op, we'd all fit in Jacksonville, Florida. We could build a house for everyone on the planet and we'd all fit inside Texas.
As stated earlier, we've heard we've been running out of oil for 30 years. 2/3 of the planet is ocean. Do you really expect us to know that just because a few spots dried up in the desert, that must be "it"?
I think we need new technologies to develop other sources of energy because it would be better, cheaper, cleaner, and more efficient. But it has nothing to do with availability.
If you follow the money (for which every single issue in our lives revolve around one way or another), there is nothing to be gained by having an endless supply of oil. Activists would have nothing to do (and no money) and oil companies could not fix market rates (less money). So neither would have us believe we have plenty of oil (while more is being created by mother nature as we speak).
CNN made the world smaller. We get instant news from anywhere in the world and we begin to think of places like the middle east as a bad neighborhood on the outskirts of Detroit.
This planet in unbelievably huge. We have 6 billion people on this planet. And if we rounded up everyone in the world and had us stand together for a photo-op, we'd all fit in Jacksonville, Florida. We could build a house for everyone on the planet and we'd all fit inside Texas.
As stated earlier, we've heard we've been running out of oil for 30 years. 2/3 of the planet is ocean. Do you really expect us to know that just because a few spots dried up in the desert, that must be "it"?
I think we need new technologies to develop other sources of energy because it would be better, cheaper, cleaner, and more efficient. But it has nothing to do with availability.
If you follow the money (for which every single issue in our lives revolve around one way or another), there is nothing to be gained by having an endless supply of oil. Activists would have nothing to do (and no money) and oil companies could not fix market rates (less money). So neither would have us believe we have plenty of oil (while more is being created by mother nature as we speak).
QUOTE
As stated earlier, we've heard we've been running out of oil for 30 years. 2/3 of the planet is ocean. Do you really expect us to know that just because a few spots dried up in the desert, that must be "it"?
I didn't say anything like that at all, as you will see if you would care to read the posts I have made to this topic:
To quote myself,
QUOTE
We will develop better drilling techniques, and will be able to extract more from our oil fields; however, there will come a time when developing and using new techniques will continually cost more and it becomes increasingly difficult to do so. We are unlikely to run out of oil within the next 50 or so years, but eventually production of oil will peak, and then rapidly decrease untill it no longer reaches the demand.
Whether this happens in 5 years or 25 years, it is still a short term problem that we will have to deal with eventually - our society and its economy is very oil dependent, and decreasing our dependance on it cannot be a bad thing. Implementing a policy to that effect could take a significant amount of time however.
The fact that predicting exactly how much oil we have left is so difficult is also worrying, as it makes it harder to predict how long oil reserves will last (and whether we should be worrying about it at all, yet) [source]
I am sure most people would agree that being almost entirely dependant on just one substance for our power, travel and economy is very dangerous.
Main sources -
various parts of oilcrisis.com and the coming global oil crisis
We will develop better drilling techniques, and will be able to extract more from our oil fields; however, there will come a time when developing and using new techniques will continually cost more and it becomes increasingly difficult to do so. We are unlikely to run out of oil within the next 50 or so years, but eventually production of oil will peak, and then rapidly decrease untill it no longer reaches the demand.
Whether this happens in 5 years or 25 years, it is still a short term problem that we will have to deal with eventually - our society and its economy is very oil dependent, and decreasing our dependance on it cannot be a bad thing. Implementing a policy to that effect could take a significant amount of time however.
The fact that predicting exactly how much oil we have left is so difficult is also worrying, as it makes it harder to predict how long oil reserves will last (and whether we should be worrying about it at all, yet) [source]
I am sure most people would agree that being almost entirely dependant on just one substance for our power, travel and economy is very dangerous.
Main sources -
various parts of oilcrisis.com and the coming global oil crisis
Whether this happens in 5 years or 25 years, it is still a short term problem that we will have to deal with eventually - our society and its economy is very oil dependent, and decreasing our dependance on it cannot be a bad thing. Implementing a policy to that effect could take a significant amount of time however.
The fact that predicting exactly how much oil we have left is so difficult is also worrying, as it makes it harder to predict how long oil reserves will last (and whether we should be worrying about it at all, yet) [source]
I am sure most people would agree that being almost entirely dependant on just one substance for our power, travel and economy is very dangerous.
Main sources -
various parts of oilcrisis.com and the coming global oil crisis
We will develop better drilling techniques, and will be able to extract more from our oil fields; however, there will come a time when developing and using new techniques will continually cost more and it becomes increasingly difficult to do so. We are unlikely to run out of oil within the next 50 or so years, but eventually production of oil will peak, and then rapidly decrease untill it no longer reaches the demand.
Whether this happens in 5 years or 25 years, it is still a short term problem that we will have to deal with eventually - our society and its economy is very oil dependent, and decreasing our dependance on it cannot be a bad thing. Implementing a policy to that effect could take a significant amount of time however.
The fact that predicting exactly how much oil we have left is so difficult is also worrying, as it makes it harder to predict how long oil reserves will last (and whether we should be worrying about it at all, yet) [source]
I am sure most people would agree that being almost entirely dependant on just one substance for our power, travel and economy is very dangerous.
Main sources -
various parts of oilcrisis.com and the coming global oil crisis
Whether you like it or not, we will, eventually, have problems related to the economic unviability of producing oil. It may not be *now* or next week, but it is a 'non-renewable' fuel after all.
QUOTE
We could build a house for everyone on the planet and we'd all fit inside Texas
And if everyone was crushed into a cube they would fit in my front porch.
Saying 'the world is vast therefore we have no problems' is not a very sensible argument - we still have a finite amount of resources, no matter how vast an amount.
QUOTE
we've heard we've been running out of oil for 30 years
We've 'known' for this long, and yet very little has been done about it.
QUOTE
more [oil] is being created by mother nature as we speak
At the same rate that we are using it up? I think not!
QUOTE
And if everyone was crushed into a cube they would fit in my front porch.
Very, very poor comparison. My comparison did not involve making people smaller while keeping the planet the same size to make some inane point.
QUOTE
Saying 'the world is vast therefore we have no problems' is not a very sensible argument - we still have a finite amount of resources, no matter how vast an amount.
I never said that. Those are your words and interpretations and please don't attempt to make a point by creating a counter one. What I intended to show was that this planet is huge and many problems aren't as severe as some would make them out to be.
I equate the entire oil economy with Frank Hubert's Dune series.
Spice = Oil
The Empire = UN
USA = the Emporer's planet
fremen = normal desert people
OPEC = House Harkonen
Do the math...
Monty
Spice = Oil
The Empire = UN
USA = the Emporer's planet
fremen = normal desert people
OPEC = House Harkonen
Do the math...
Monty
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.