A point often missed...

[deus-redux]

It seems to me that all the debate over CO2 has distracted from another important issue.

We still have an energy problem.

Even if it weren't for global warming, anyone who makes no effort to conserve fossil fuel fed energy is retarded.

Fossil fuels ARE going to run out.

As I previously said, all the debate over greenhouse gasses has caused some people to go, "sod it, fuck the planet," and use all they like, without realising that they're becoming dependant on a resource which is running out.

I'm not saying we shouldn't consider global warming; far from it. But whilst the cause of that is still debatable, there is almost NO debate that fossil fuels are running low. Even the oil companies admit that.

We need to become less dependant now.

Anyone else find people are forgetting that fossil fuels are finite in their bid to say, "fuck you hippies," etc?

-deus-

[gforce]

totally agree, depletion of oil starting in the next 5 years and natural gas in the next 15 is going to be one of the biggest turning points in the history of the project we call civilisation


and just on a note we are not going to run out of fossil fuels so to say, i bet in 100 or even 200 years were still pumping oil, the issue is how much and how quickly we can get it

[reject]

Nukular Power.

[deus-redux]

and just on a note we are not going to run out of fossil fuels so to say, i bet in 100 or even 200 years were still pumping oil, the issue is how much and how quickly we can get it

Oh yeah, I agree.

There will be SOME oil left for a long time.

But we're gonna start suffering when supply drops considerably below demand, and there isn't enough to go around.

When I say running out, I mean, getting to the point where we can't supply nearly enough.

-deus-

[deus-redux]

Nukular Power.

Although it's not a great final solution, particularly due to waste, I think this is a good power source for now, especially when used alongside true renewables.

It'll at least buy us a LOT of time.

-deus-

[reject]

Although it's not a great final solution, particularly due to waste, I think this is a good power source for now, especially when used alongside true renewables.

It'll at least buy us a LOT of time.

-deus-

We can lease out the fens for huge wind farms.

Then we can put nuclear power in the less desirable parts of the country, such as Boston.

[avivsworld]

I say nuclear is a good solution, using thorium. Reasons being, no long-term waste, and it's around 3 times more abundant than uranium.

Also, wind farms should be used, as it is a cheap way of getting energy from the environment.

I would say solar, except for the chemicals released when the PV cells are made.

[Eat A Queer Fetus For Jesus]

THe monetary return for windmills is still decades:( and they kill a few condors.:)

[gforce]

THe monetary return for windmills is still decades:( and they kill a few condors.:)


yes, but i would rather splash out a bit of cash to keep my lights running. In terms of energy return apparently they are quite good

in a matter of months they pack back their construction energy costs where as solar cells make take up to a decade
taken from:
http://www.awea.org/faq/bal.html
some interesting tables near the bottom on energy payback of different sources of electricity

http://www.eoearth.org/article/Energy_return_on_investment_(EROI)_for_wind_energy
this website quotes the EROEI for wind turbines as around 1:20, this is similiar to many oil producing areas, where as a coal fired power station has between 1:5 to 1:10.

The problem is scale, wind turbines work great on small scale but will never make a large proportion of our energy supply

[TheMessiahComplex]

I'm wondering if we made a large scale shift towards nuclear how long it would be before we're back in the same situation all over again.
From what I remember from the environmental engineering course I took, nuclear makes up about 10% of the energy made in the US, and most countries don't have any nuclear power at all, though I know there are some countries that use it more heavily than the US does.
Now I'm asking because I genuinely don't know, exactly how much nuclear fuel do we have access to compared to how much oil we have available?

[gforce]

I'm wondering if we made a large scale shift towards nuclear how long it would be before we're back in the same situation all over again.
From what I remember from the environmental engineering course I took, nuclear makes up about 10% of the energy made in the US, and most countries don't have any nuclear power at all, though I know there are some countries that use it more heavily than the US does.
Now I'm asking because I genuinely don't know, exactly how much nuclear fuel do we have access to compared to how much oil we have available?


we're already consuming twice as much uranium as we are producing, the only thing keeping us going is stocks. Ok so some of this can be put down to problems with mines in various countries and a glut in uranium prices up to a few years ago slowing down production but to that scale is massive. If my memory serves me correct production is around 65-70 million pounds a year while use is at 150+ million pounds a year. Thats a massive deficit.

In europe we use quite a bit more nuclear power i believe, The UK has 20% of its electricity generation and france generates 75% of it's electricity from nuclear.

whether production will pick up is debatable but we are going to see a squeeze for uranium fuel in the coming years which has already started with increases in prices

[RemadE]

invest/buy a load of Oil

..i can see this place turning into something from Mad Max

[gforce]

invest/buy a load of Oil

..i can see this place turning into something from Mad Max

the time to do that was about 4 months ago when oil was $50 a barrel, now between $65, you could of made $15 profit a barrel

[MasterPython]

Another think that politicians are missing is that there are other polutants besides CO2. The enviroment minister in Ontario decides against haveing scrubbers installed on coal fired power plants because they only remove toxic things that kill kids and old people with lung problems while doing nothing to reduce CO2 emitions. And banning light bulbs to save electricity forcing people to use flourecents containing mercury.

[MasterPython]

we're already consuming twice as much uranium as we are producing, the only thing keeping us going is stocks.

The Uraanium feul for reactores can be re-refined to remove the contaminent that stop it from being useful. Only two percent of it is actualy used up durring it's life in a reactor.

[Seriously]

The U.S. has 104 nuclear reactors. All of which were built after 1970. No more have been built since about 1990, I think. All of these reactors have a lifespan of 30 yrs. So, we are going to see more energy shortages very soon as many of these will need to be decomissioned at about the same time.

Some of them are actually over their 30 year lifespan and are kept running because there has been nothing built to take it's place. This is going to be a problem. The materials used to build a nuclear facility become brittle after 30 years and increase the risk of another Chernobyl occuring. Even if they are triple redundant.

As far as coal and oil go; the U.S. generates most of it's electricity from coal-fired power plants. Almost no oil is used for production of electricity. The States have a very large amount of coal but we are using so much of it so fast that we only have about 60 years supply left (give or take 20 I forget). Also, all power plants in the U.S. are generating at or near full capacity and the demand for electricity is expected to continue to increase. This is why so many power companies recommend, nay, promote energy conservation. There is barely enough to go around as it is.

In order to solve this problem the power companies have brilliantly decided to build more coal-fired power plants. As of June 2006, there are plans to build 255 more of them. So I'm guessing the coal shortage will come sooner rather than later. But, dues, I'm afraid you're ahead of the times. Americans probably aren't going to do anything until it's perceived as an imminent threat, as is the case with global warming. Then again, if the word is spread and more research is done perhaps the focus could shift some from global warming to an energy crisis. The "energy crisis" could act as a middle ground where those who know about global warming and those who don't think it's anthropogenic could come together to work on the same problem under a different name.

[boozehound420]

HYDRO. Everybody will start flocking to areas with rivers, and hydro electricity. Well people are stupid so probably not. But the smart people will.

Here in BC were almost completly hydro. Only like 5% or somethign like that is Coal. And thats for the small northern towns. Theres plans in the works for another big damn to go up. With rescent global warming its getting a 70% public approval rating. Which was previosly unheardof because the hippies convinced people it hurts the river. Ya fuck you hippies, its the best option. I dont care if a little bit dirt gets washed down stream and a salmon run or two gets fucked for that area.

[Dark_Magneto]

Pretty much all the good hydro prospects here in the states are being utilized.

As was previously mentioned, uranium supplies are currently half of current reactor requirements, which evidently the idiots investing in U-235 reactors are oblivious to.

What would be interesting would be to put aquatic turbines in the gulf stream. I bet one could produce a lot of electricity that way.

But the main issue in energy we're facing right now is going to be liquid fuel.

[OdayJuarez]

These nuclear dead-ends sure are hard to work through. Might as well turn back and look for a better solution...

[Ryangeneral]

As my dad said, we should make lots of wind farms, with nets under each windmill. The nets should feed to a conveyor, that feeds the bodies of the birds into an incinerator. The sides of the windmil should be covered in solar panels as well, saving surface area of other places.

[Connor MacManus]

Use the moonpower!
http://www.popsci.com/popsci/printerfriendly/energy/7267226d360ab010vgnvcm1000004eecbccdrcrd.html

No landfills! No coal!
http://www.popsci.com/popsci/science/873aae7bf86c0110vgnvcm1000004eecbccdrcrd/2.html

Nuclear is sweet - you drop some rocks in a box and a shitload of elecricity comes out! Disposing of the waste really isn't that big of a problem to me. Dig a big whole away from the water table and chuck the shit in. While there is a limited amount of fissionable materials in the earth; we can't count out nuclear just because we'll run out some day. With that logic, we can't really count on solar either, because our sun is going to use its hydrogen up eventually.

That we are "running out of oil right now" is a bit of a misnomer. We've had only 30 years of reserves for about 100 years. That's because it's known reserves. Nobody prospects for oil when there's 30 years worth of known oil. When we start to "get really close to running out" prospecting becomes profitable again, so then more reserves are discovered. We are of course really running out of oil, but it's foolish to think that the known reserves are all that's left. Also, there are other places where we don't even try to get the oil from because it's not profitable right now (oil from shale). Oil dependency will take care of itself because of capitalism. Oil isn't just going to disappear; it's going to become gradually scarcer, thus more expensive. As it gets more expensive, then alternative forms of energy will become profitable/economical, and people/companies/etc will switch to what's cheaper.

Besides, we all know that NASA has a design for a cold fusion reactor from their tall friends, so we should be good ; ).

[gforce]

Use the moonpower!
http://www.popsci.com/popsci/printerfriendly/energy/7267226d360ab010vgnvcm1000004eecbccdrcrd.html

No landfills! No coal!
http://www.popsci.com/popsci/science/873aae7bf86c0110vgnvcm1000004eecbccdrcrd/2.html

Nuclear is sweet - you drop some rocks in a box and a shitload of elecricity comes out! Disposing of the waste really isn't that big of a problem to me. Dig a big whole away from the water table and chuck the shit in. While there is a limited amount of fissionable materials in the earth; we can't count out nuclear just because we'll run out some day. With that logic, we can't really count on solar either, because our sun is going to use its hydrogen up eventually.

That we are "running out of oil right now" is a bit of a misnomer. We've had only 30 years of reserves for about 100 years. That's because it's known reserves. Nobody prospects for oil when there's 30 years worth of known oil. When we start to "get really close to running out" prospecting becomes profitable again, so then more reserves are discovered. We are of course really running out of oil, but it's foolish to think that the known reserves are all that's left. Also, there are other places where we don't even try to get the oil from because it's not profitable right now (oil from shale). Oil dependency will take care of itself because of capitalism. Oil isn't just going to disappear; it's going to become gradually scarcer, thus more expensive. As it gets more expensive, then alternative forms of energy will become profitable/economical, and people/companies/etc will switch to what's cheaper.

Besides, we all know that NASA has a design for a cold fusion reactor from their tall friends, so we should be good ; ).


on the known reserves issues, it's not just the amount of oil there, you have to take into account the type of oil(heavy,sour, light etc..), it's location geographically(5 miles under an icecap is not going to got), it's extractable rate(eg tar sands are not going to produce 10mbd) and the politics of the area(ill say something about this later)

Also your saying that as oil production becomes tight, exploration happens and then we find more oil. What happens when there is no or very little oil left to find. For the last 40 years we have been finding less and less oil every year and now we are using 3 or 4 times as much oil as we find new every year.

You say renewables and other sources will fill the gap but there is no way that renewable could make up for even a small drop in oil supply. And other sources such as coal will also feel the effects of peak as coal production is based on massive scale mining using cheap energy. And also how high does the price of oil ahve to go before RE's become 'profitable'. Were hanging around $60-$65 a barrel yet i don't see a massive switch to renewables? How high $100, $200? the world economy is dependent on cheap energy and is really just coping with $60 oil, $100 would kill it and hence our ability to try and construct new technologies to help us.

And reserves especially in OPEC countries are way overstated. In the 1980's OPEC announced new quota scheme where the amount of oil you are allowed to produce is dependent on your reserves. One after another opec countries suddenly announced massive new finds of oil in some cases doubling there total reserves. This means they could pump more oil and hence make more money.

If you don't believe me that we are close to or at peak now go onto the IEA website and look at oil production data for the last few years, production has not been raised for nearing 2 years!

And Oh they have been saying 20 years until we have fusion for the last 50 years

[Connor MacManus]

^ I agree that we are close to peak oil prodcution. I was just saying it's not quite as bad as some people think it is. Other energy sources are going to start taking over as soon as oil becomes scarce enough. It's really not a question of if, but when. As soon as other things become cheaper as an energy source, we'll start using them over oil. Simple. A high oil price isn't going to "kill" industry/business. It will force them to adapt to higher energy costs. Capitalism is supremely adaptable, and it goes where the money is. Obviously, it's in any company's interest to stay in business, so they will do what they have to stay in business. Some will go bankrupt; that's happened before. It's all just a natural part of change.

Seriously, it's not going to kill the worldwide economy. If oil prices jumped 100% in a few years, that would have a major effect. But they won't, they might rise 100% in 50 years, but that's a lifetime to international business as we know it. Companies will have to raise prices because of their higher operating costs, but economies survive higher prices due to shortages all the time.

[gforce]

^ I agree that we are close to peak oil prodcution. I was just saying it's not quite as bad as some people think it is. Other energy sources are going to start taking over as soon as oil becomes scarce enough. It's really not a question of if, but when. As soon as other things become cheaper as an energy source, we'll start using them over oil. Simple. A high oil price isn't going to "kill" industry/business. It will force them to adapt to higher energy costs. Capitalism is supremely adaptable, and it goes where the money is. Obviously, it's in any company's interest to stay in business, so they will do what they have to stay in business. Some will go bankrupt; that's happened before. It's all just a natural part of change.

Seriously, it's not going to kill the worldwide economy. If oil prices jumped 100% in a few years, that would have a major effect. But they won't, they might rise 100% in 50 years, but that's a lifetime to international business as we know it. Companies will have to raise prices because of their higher operating costs, but economies survive higher prices due to shortages all the time.


in the 70's a 5% drop in supply for a few years triggered a world recession and caused oil prices to skyrocket 400%, imagine if we lost 5% of our oil every year?

[Connor MacManus]

Yes, it will be serious, but it will also be survivable. Also, I'm not talking about spikes and irregularities. Once the oil supply is steadily declining at a more or less known rate, then it will be easier to cope with because price predictions will be able to made with some accuracy.

[gforce]

Yes, it will be serious, but it will also be survivable. Also, I'm not talking about spikes and irregularities. Once the oil supply is steadily declining at a more or less known rate, then it will be easier to cope with because price predictions will be able to made with some accuracy.

yes, i agree it's not going to be the end of human civilisation.

There will be big spikes and then falls in price as price rises causing an economic slow down they reduce demand lowering the price, meaning a tiny recovery and then it starts again.

The decline rate won't be able to be 'predicted'. Because of uncontrolable and unpreditable events such as wars breaking out over control of resources then oil production faicilities will suffer, as governments are over thrown then there will be no stable base to support the industry, also the 'natural' decline rates of fields are almost impossible to predict.

I will be surprised if we don't see $80 or even $90 a barrel this summer and a recession starting in the next 2 or so years(some say it has already started in the US).

[Connor MacManus]

I will be surprised if we don't see $80 or even $90 a barrel this summer and a recession starting in the next 2 or so years(some say it has already started in the US).

OH MAN!!!! Now you've really gone and done it... You should know to never ever ever ever make predictions of the future on &T! I'll check back in with you in August Nostradamus ; ).

[Dark_Magneto]

Considering global oil prouction is riding a plateau right now and soon to enter an arc of decline if not already, his prediction might hold given the effects of oil depletion on an economy that is powered absolutely by oil.

It's like saying if you're bleeding 75ccs of blood an hour and can't stop the blood loss, it's probably not going to end well (around 200ccs = death, although you can die from less if it comes out quickly. 150ccs = lose reasoning capabilities).

One thing is for sure, by 2010 people will be paying gas prices they never thought possible. You can quote me on that, put it on a calendar, bet your money on it, et al.

[Connor MacManus]

Considering global oil prouction is riding a plateau right now and soon to enter an arc of decline if not already, his prediction might hold given the effects of oil depletion on an economy that is powered absolutely by oil.

It's like saying if you're bleeding 75ccs of blood an hour and can't stop the blood loss, it's probably not going to end well (around 200ccs = death, although you can die from less if it comes out quickly. 150ccs = lose reasoning capabilities).

One thing is for sure, by 2010 people will be paying gas prices they never thought possible. You can quote me on that, put it on a calendar, bet your money on it, et al.

I agree with you that in the future oil prices are going to rise, and it will be a surprise to most. I was just warning gforce about the danger of short term predictions. It's not like I know or anything though.

[gforce]

OH MAN!!!! Now you've really gone and done it... You should know to never ever ever ever make predictions of the future on &T! I'll check back in with you in August Nostradamus ; ).

Ok maybe a bit stupid of me

Currently a shortage of refining capacity(due to fires, mechanical failures etc..) is driving up refined prices (meaning higher petrol prices). So it doesn't matter that there is a slight shortage of crude as the refineries can't cope with it anyway meaning crude prices are being kept lower than they 'should' be.

If the companies get their act together we would see inventories of crude start to drop(in the US i believe they are at a 50 year low) as production of refined product picked up pace meaning higher crude oil prices. If they don't then crude prices will remain depressed while we see possibly record petrol prices at the pumps.

[Connor MacManus]

One great thing, depending on how you look at it, is that when the oil is gone, so will the Derkaderkastani terrorists. The middle east will be like Africa without oil. They'll just herd camels and oppress women, with no thought to furthering themselves or killing the Great Satan. That's not too great for them, but as far as interntational stability goes, it should be great. Countries won't have to worry about their energy supply being cut off by a guy wearing a towel.

[Eat A Queer Fetus For Jesus]

http://www.sciencentral.com/articles/view.php3?type=article&article_id=218392803

[gforce]

One great thing, depending on how you look at it, is that when the oil is gone, so will the Derkaderkastani terrorists. The middle east will be like Africa without oil. They'll just herd camels and oppress women, with no thought to furthering themselves or killing the Great Satan. That's not too great for them, but as far as interntational stability goes, it should be great. Countries won't have to worry about their energy supply being cut off by a guy wearing a towel.

there is a famous saudi saying it goes:
'my father rode a camel, i drive a bentley, my son flys in private jets and his son will ride a camel'

Far from stability in these regions going up we will see it rapidly decline as the income from oil declines leaving them unable to support their huge populations not just in terms of money. Most of the middle east is a desert so building and keeping any large size population is extremly hard especially when faced with a shortage of useable, cheap energy and money

[Connor MacManus]

there is a famous saudi saying it goes:
'my father rode a camel, i drive a bentley, my son flys in private jets and his son will ride a camel'

Far from stability in these regions going up we will see it rapidly decline as the income from oil declines leaving them unable to support their huge populations not just in terms of money. Most of the middle east is a desert so building and keeping any large size population is extremly hard especially when faced with a shortage of useable, cheap energy and money

Stability may have been the wrong word. It will destabilize, but a destabilized middle east (in that fashion) means they don't have enough money to cause too much trouble outside the middle east.

[gforce]

Stability may have been the wrong word. It will destabilize, but a destabilized middle east (in that fashion) means they don't have enough money to cause too much trouble outside the middle east.

ahh yes see what your saying now, possibly but could also swing the other way if the US goes and invades to try and 'bring stability' to the region in the interests of oil

[Obiwanshinobi000]

Well, hybrid engines are at least a start in the right direction.

[JumpRopinJesus]

Here in Chattanooga, we get our power from the water. Or the nuclear power plant. Either way, I would say as far as electricity goes, we are alright.

[evlhxrdood]

Your all missing the point.

Natural Selection will prevail.

It is clear the WORLD IS OVERPOPULATED WITH PEOPLE.

So the solution, depopulation= WAR.

It is clear that the design is for 500 million, not 6 billion, we effectively need a war to wipe out 5 billion or so people.

Thus, less cows needed(less methane), less cars, less people, plus nuclear power and it can be a heaven on earth.

Kinda like how the Stock market has corrections, the human population needs a serious correction.

[deus-redux]

Your all missing the point.

Natural Selection will prevail.

It is clear the WORLD IS OVERPOPULATED WITH PEOPLE.

So the solution, depopulation= WAR.

It is clear that the design is for 500 million, not 6 billion, we effectively need a war to wipe out 5 billion or so people.

Thus, less cows needed(less methane), less cars, less people, plus nuclear power and it can be a heaven on earth.

Kinda like how the Stock market has corrections, the human population needs a serious correction.

We're gonna find it hard to make international war without fuel.

If there is a war, it'll come down to a nuke slogout.

-deus-

[Moonius]

You guys should watch the episode of Penn and Teller where they deal with hybrid cars and the energy crisis.

Indeed, the hippies caused the fucking energy crisis.

[deus-redux]

You guys should watch the episode of Penn and Teller where they deal with hybrid cars and the energy crisis.

Indeed, the hippies caused the fucking energy crisis.

It doesn't really matter who caused it, it's still a problem now.

I for one am not a big fan of hybrids. I'm sure I've made my argument about them enough times already.

-deus-

[gforce]

We're gonna find it hard to make international war without fuel.

If there is a war, it'll come down to a nuke slogout.

-deus-

i find it so surprising that everyone thinks a 'nuclear slogout' is so likely. Think about it we survived almost 50years in the cold war with many more 100's if not 1000's of nukes than we have now without dropping a single one.

It's fare more likely that drought/famine/disease will cause most of the die off if there is one. Nature is much more efficient than us at killing people.

The last major die off - the black death - in europe reduced the population by upto 50% in some areas. Ultimatly this lead to the renaissance, will we follow the same course to an age of 'enlightenment'?

[deus-redux]

i find it so surprising that everyone thinks a 'nuclear slogout' is so likely. Think about it we survived almost 50years in the cold war with many more 100's if not 1000's of nukes than we have now without dropping a single one.

It's fare more likely that drought/famine/disease will cause most of the die off if there is one. Nature is much more efficient than us at killing people.

The last major die off - the black death - in europe reduced the population by upto 50% in some areas. Ultimatly this lead to the renaissance, will we follow the same course to an age of 'enlightenment'?

I think the likelyhood of nuclear war is raised because it would only take one country firing one missile to kick it all off.

That likelihood is ever increasing with countries like Korea and Iran possibly gaining nuclear potential. Especially when their leader says he wants to "whipe Israel off the map".

-deus-

[Connor MacManus]

I think the likelyhood of nuclear war is raised because it would only take one country firing one missile to kick it all off.

That likelihood is ever increasing with countries like Korea and Iran possibly gaining nuclear potential. Especially when their leader says he wants to "whipe Israel off the map".

-deus-

Yeah, nuclear war could really suck. The big reason I see is that it would only take a couple big ones to pretty much poison the whole world. If just two 40 megatons were airbursted 100,000 feet up, everybody would be havin' three armed babys for a good long while.

[Morgoroth]

there is a famous saudi saying it goes:
'my father rode a camel, i drive a bentley, my son flys in private jets and his son will ride a camel'

Far from stability in these regions going up we will see it rapidly decline as the income from oil declines leaving them unable to support their huge populations not just in terms of money. Most of the middle east is a desert so building and keeping any large size population is extremly hard especially when faced with a shortage of useable, cheap energy and money

shame that there will be a mass exodus to the UK (thats full of infidels, but we''ll have benefits and healthcare on the NHS please!) and they PC government will just let them all in regarless, as its racist/against their human rights not to be.

[gforce]

I think the likelyhood of nuclear war is raised because it would only take one country firing one missile to kick it all off.

That likelihood is ever increasing with countries like Korea and Iran possibly gaining nuclear potential. Especially when their leader says he wants to "whipe Israel off the map".

-deus-

True but The USSR and USA probably said at some point during the cold war they want to wipe each other of the map.

It's called MAD - or mutually assured (self) destruction - if you nuke them, they nuke you and you both lose. Considering there have only been 2 nukes dropped in war and those were during WWII when we didn't know about the devastating effects they have.

I class a full out nuclear war or even a few being dropped as extremly unlikely, but not impossible, just unlikely. And i hope we don't.

[Hawk705]

There never going to have nuclear powered cars...Because that would meen they would have to sell plutonium to the public to power the cars and anyone with some sense knows that plutonium will destroy us all..:rolleyes:

[ajcz]

soon it will be up to the point where it will become more profitable to use oil shale and the US should be ok for a while longer till we find a better means of energy and to the person who said the sun would run out of gas to make it burn when that happens we would all die so solar, wind, hydo of all sorts and oil shale sound like the best bets so far

[gforce]

soon it will be up to the point where it will become more profitable to use oil shale and the US should be ok for a while longer till we find a better means of energy and to the person who said the sun would run out of gas to make it burn when that happens we would all die so solar, wind, hydo of all sorts and oil shale sound like the best bets so far

oil shale??

Ok yes it does make some energy gain and some monetary profit but it is a very poor source of energy. The EROEI on oil shale/tar sands is very low, below 3-4 and sometimes it becomes below 1 meaning that it takes more energy to process and refine than you get from burning the end product. You need massive energy investments to process the shale/sands, at the moment in Canada massive amounts of natural gas are being used but NA natural gas production is declining so that is unsustainable.

Production in Canada of tar sands is about 1million barrels a day, and thats after many years of development. Production in Canda is predicted to reach at the most 3 million BD by 2015 and thats excluding a shortage of natural gas. So an extra 2 MBD, sounds like alot but considering that if the world even goes into a very slow production decline (say 2% a year) then that 10years of gain for 2million barrels extra a day would only MAINTAIN production for jsut over a year and then you have to take on the growth in demand aswell.

So for oil shale/tar sands to cover existing production declines we would have to build something on the scale of Canada's tar sand industry every 14 months or so and thats with a very slow decline in conventional production.

And that calculation is not taking into account the low EROEI of the oil produced which is anywhere from 1/2 to 1/10th of that of normal crude. So you end up with less NET energy available and hence there is less energy in the economy so a economic slowdown/recession/crash/depression happens.

Not to mention the massive environmental costs of processing the stuff.

[DXM User]

Fuck the planet.

[gforce]

Let the planet fuck us.

edited for truth

[soopisgoodfood]

If we don't have enough oil then we'll have to all ride bikes... I see no problem with that.



except...


http://i8.tinypic.com/4y01gcw.gif

[gforce]

on another note

north sea oil production down another 12% on the year
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2007/07/report-uk-oil-p.html#more

and brent tipples over $78 a barrel, isn't the record for brent $78 +change. :o And its not even fully summer yet when peak demand hits.
http://www.bloomberg.com/energy/

[Tree Sloth]

I read the first page and skimmed the last, so maybe this has been mentioned... But I haven't even considered the laws of reality so this might be silly, but isn't there a way to harness energy from the earth's rotation, or satellites moving through the earths magnetic field, some neat little trick like that. And why can't we use the earths magnetic field for transportation? Like the UFO's do? Just float around on it...

Anyway's I have noticed, hardcore, that people forget about our limited fossil fuel just so they can rip on the good to do CO2 atmosphere silly hippy shit.

[gforce]

I read the first page and skimmed the last, so maybe this has been mentioned... But I haven't even considered the laws of reality so this might be silly, but isn't there a way to harness energy from the earth's rotation, or satellites moving through the earths magnetic field, some neat little trick like that. And why can't we use the earths magnetic field for transportation? Like the UFO's do? Just float around on it...

Anyway's I have noticed, hardcore, that people forget about our limited fossil fuel just so they can rip on the good to do CO2 atmosphere silly hippy shit.

in theory it would work (like many other new energy sources) but in reality it is impractical. The cost to make even a modest scale system in terms of energy, resources and money would be prohibitably expensive. There is also the huge technological problems in not only capturing the earths power and turning it into useful forms but also transmitting that power (how do you transmit a few GWatts of electricity from the atmosphere/space to the ground?)

And as far as i go i am much more concerned about our fossil fuel problems that our climate change ones although the cause/problems/'solutions' are all very similiar.

[omega man]

I have to ask myself ,"why people insist on taking the hardest routes for problem solving?"
step one: increase the number of plants = less CO2
step two develope efficient ways to harvest the methane fom the ocean floor which has more abundance than our current reserves
step three stop wasting the methane that is produced from our nations land fills
step four ever hear of malicious distillation of wood and bio mass for the production of alcohol and charcoal. ( renewable resouces by the way)
step five use the car batteries we have now until the new lithium, hydrogen, or whatever can be developed.
step six use our current technology more efficiently
step seven stop the procrastination merry go round that is promoted by all the greedy little monkeys and get back to the problem at hand which is the hoarding of this planets resources to keep everyone suppressed,enslaved,and mentally ravaged.

[LDAC]

GOOD THREAD but i want to see the end of humanity with nukular bombings YAHHHH! fuck this world.

[OneMulatto]

How will we ever get away from fossil fuels? As people who have to take what the government wants us to take like poor people, we are in no position to demand anything.

[Trousersnake]

How will we ever get away from fossil fuels? As people who have to take what the government wants us to take like poor people, we are in no position to demand anything.

How did we get into them in the first place?

We can take a step backwards, it's just not convenient for people to do so.

[eikmun]

Oil will never run out. It is a scam by the oil companies to control us. Oil companies will switch to a different resource if they can control it :P.

[Shrike]

How did we get into them in the first place?

We can take a step backwards, it's just not convenient for people to do so.

Well, we couldn't support our populations without them. And everyone would have to move back into the damn countryside and grow stuff. It would suck.

[outsmartyouwithignorance]

as said earlier, it truly is the earths way of resetting.
Food wont be able to be transported thousands of miles anymore, there wont be any more walmarts, no goods from china.

Petroleum is our life. I dont think most people really understand how much we rely on it. Medicine, plastics,rubbers, your food, clothing, all of these require petroleum or its derivatives in some way. hell the computer youre using right now contains 10 times its weight in fossil fuels. The average care consumes about 20 barrels of fuel, and 120,000 gallons of fresh water to create. not to mention the fuel cost of actually using it!!

Without petroleum carrying the weak, they will die. Those not capable of taking care of themselves, those not competent, and those not healthy, will suffer.

It took roughly 125 years to burn through our first trillion barrels of oil, and experts say it should take no more than 30 years to burn through the next trillion.

And thats if there arent wars!! as of right now, the average american soldier uses 16gallons of fuel per day. either directly or indirectly by calling in air strikes. 16 gallons a day!
last year they used 8 gallons a day, in the gulf war,4 gallons per soldier per day, and in WWII it was only one gallon per soldier per day.


I hope everyone enjoys these last few years of cheap oil, and easy times, because in a few years, things will start to get dirty.

[Dark_Magneto]

Hell the computer youre using right now contains 10 times its weight in fossil fuels.

I wonder if that's true in my case, since my computer weighs over 70 pounds.

Oil will never run out. It is a scam by the oil companies to control us. Oil companies will switch to a different resource if they can control it :P.

There are actually people that subscribe to that shit, believe it or not. Like finite resources just couldn't ever be exhaustable, y'know?

At any rate, the majority of world oil is controlled by governments whose leaders are only interested in making money now, and that means producing oil. OPEC countries do not care what might happen 20 or 30 years from now. By that time, their political figureheads are dead or are no longer in power.

In fact, they actually grossly overstated how much oil they had during the OPEC quota wars so they could increase production and get more money since OPEC made new rules that their member countries could produce based on how much oil they claimed to have, which senior geologist Dr. Colin Campbell pointed out (http://www.hubbertpeak.com/de/lecture.html):


http://www.hubbertpeak.com/de/19.gif

· Kuwait added 50% in 1985 to increase its OPEC quota, which was based partly on reserves. No corresponding new discoveries had been made. Nothing particular changed in the reservoir.

· Venezuela doubled its reserves in 1987 by the inclusion of large deposits of heavy oil that had been known for years.

· It forced the other OPEC countries to retaliate with huge increases

· Note too how the numbers have changed little since despite production.


So since Kuwait added 50% overnight due to the OPEC quota war to try to increase production and get greater market share, and as you can see after years of production they actually revised the figure up a bit and then just recycled that same number year after year, then we can reasonably assume, given that 25% of the reserve statement is bullshit and they haven't been deducting for production, that they probably have about half the oil they say they do.

With that in mind, consider the following:

Kuwait oil reserves only half official estimate (http://today.reuters.com/business/newsarticle.aspx?type=tnBusinessNews&storyID=nL20548125&imageid=&cap=)


OPEC producer Kuwait's oil reserves are only half those officially stated, according to internal Kuwaiti records seen by industry newsletter Petroleum Intelligence Weekly (PIW).

"PIW learns from sources that Kuwait's actual oil reserves, which are officially stated at around 99 billion barrels, or close to 10 percent of the global total, are a good deal lower, according to internal Kuwaiti records


Despite the false reserve statements they put out for official publication, for the purposes of running an oil industry, they have to know themselves how much they are working with. The point is to deceive everyone else, not themselves. It is for this reason that they have internal records, which are much more accurate. It appears those records got leaked and exposed what Dr. Campbell had been saying all along - that a large chunk of world oil was actually fictitious bullshit.

Which leaves us to question how much oil the rest of OPEC has left, since they spurously revised their figures upward during the quota war and won't submit to internal auditing. The obvious reason for resistance being that they have something to hide - their depletion status.

[gforce]

good post dark_magneto

The point is that if it turns out almost every OPEC country lied about it's reserves (which is most likely) then to put it lightly were up shit creek without a paddle.

If the KSA suddenly removed 100BB from it's reserve figures and said 'sorry guys we can't increase production anymore' all hell would break loose.

[outsmartyouwithignorance]

I wonder if that's true in my case, since my computer weighs over 70 pounds.

.

quoted from http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=10007&Cr=computer&Cr1=

– The manufacture of an average desktop
computer and monitor uses more than 10 times its weight in fossil fuels and chemicals, according to a United Nations University (UNU) study which has called for worldwide action to halt "the growth of high-tech trash."

The study, released yesterday, shows that the construction of an average 24-kilogram computer and 27-centimetre monitor requires at least 240 kilograms of fossil fuel, 22 kilograms of chemicals and 1,500 kilograms of water – or 1.8 tons in total, the equivalent of a rhinoceros or sports utility vehicle.

[Dark_Magneto]

My computer is hardly what could be considered average though, since it's a solid steel full tower case.

Well, iron is pretty energy intensive to mine and forge into steel. The energy that goes into making it would depend on whether the metal was from recycled material or not. So these Thermaltake Armor cases probably use much more energy than the average to make.

And who the hell buys 10 inch monitors?