PDA

View Full Version : OT: Peak Oil



Shakthamac
04-06-2005, 09:31 AM
I pose this question here, since many people who frequent these boards seem to be educated, either in real life or higher levels. There seems to be a no nonsense way of handling things. whatever.

Of course everyone is aware that the earth will eventually run out of oil. I have been aware of this fact for years, well, ever since i started caring about it anyway. I ran across this website last night while messing around on the internet.

http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net

For those of you who don't click on the link or who aren't familiar, this deals with the fact that the world economy, and to a greater degree the American economy, is completely governed by oil, and what is going to happen to that economy when the oil runs out. All in all, the prospects are quite frightening to read about, and while most make sense, I still feel pessimistic (sp?) about the situation. I was wondering if anyone else was familiar with this concept, and what their views on it were

jaybee333
04-06-2005, 02:40 PM
Oh Yeah! I'm familiar with the term Peak Oil. I've been studying this subject for two years. Hold on to your britches we are in for a ride.
The recent oil price spikes are not political this time. They are for real and represent what will happen when the demand outstripes the supply. The price goes up and nobody can control the price increase because it will be completely market driven. The Saudis can no longer increase production to bring the price down. Chinese demand for oil increases in double digits each year. Demand all around the world is increasing, everywhere. Supply cannot keep up. "Globalization" which means a widget can be made half way around the world, shipped 10,000 miles and sell at Walmart for .29 cents because bunker oil is cheap for marine transport. That time will very, very soon be over.

The US is embarked on a very, very dangerous 'Last Man Standing' type scenerio. The US is in the process of militarily securing the largest oil deposits for itself. Can you say..Middle East? Iran, Syria, Iraq, etc.

China, India and others are sending teams of negociators around the world trying to make deals on future pumped supplies of oil.

Notwithstanding the recent anti-gravity posts, there really is no plan B.
Presently it takes more energy to produce a gallon of ethanol than is in it.
It takes heaps of energy to make Hydrogen. Cars, trucks, planes, trains cannot run on solar power. Plastics, fertilizer, pharmiceuticals, chemical industry, all depend on oil, cheap oil.

The last great oil discoveries were made in the 80's. There are no more big discoveries to be made. This planet has been mapped from space for the last 20 years, and believe me the petroleum geologists have been looking hard for big finds and have been coming up short. Most large oil fields are in decline, with only small new ones coming on-line.

Sorry for the long post. Here are some links:
http://www.odac-info.org/
http://www.hubbertpeak.com/
http://www.peakoil.com/index.html

TX-EcoDragon
04-06-2005, 03:18 PM
It's a good time to buy some stock in Hydrogen. . .

woofiedog
04-06-2005, 03:22 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif My wife and I just bought our Hybrid Ford Escape.

Weather_Man
04-06-2005, 03:58 PM
Earth has been on the verge of running out of oil for the last 30 years. Same story, different tune. By the time it does, and it won't be in my or my grandson's lifetime. I am confident we humans can either adapt a new power source to meet our needs or find additional sources of energy outside this planet when all options are exhausted here.

The problem at the moment is not lack of oil in the ground, it's lack of refineries and exploration.

Shakthamac
04-06-2005, 04:02 PM
Not to sound rude, but buying a hybrid car really isnt going to help your situation the way I understand it. Since everything else in your life depends on oil, or some oil byproduct, it seems like everything in our economy is going to be affected. And in the case of your car, you may save a bit at the pump, but with oil going sky high, imagine how much an oil change will cost, or new tires, or wipers, or armor-all. It seems like everything that we can think of to replace oil will fail also, because its costs way too much to produce it, or it just isn't efficient enough. I hope and pray that we have enough time to actually develop, or begin to, a suitable replacement for oil. Personally I think the solution is going to end up being some sort of synthetic blend of who knows what, probably mixed with oil at the start and then gradually weaned off it.

I really wish I could go stick my head in the sand and pretend this isn't a problem, but I'm afraid the economy is going to implode, and God help us when it does.

Taylortony
04-06-2005, 04:41 PM
I am gonna plug my car into Olegs ready room and run it on all the Methane that is produced in there..........................

Shakthamac
04-06-2005, 04:47 PM
lol

chaikanut
04-06-2005, 05:07 PM
What happened with the discovery of fusion made a few years ago? I think it was proved feasible twice but then?

Anyway, I wouldnt expect any breakthrough to be implemented quickly, this would collapse the oil-based economy.

By the way, you can produce molecular hydrogen from certain algae. The germans knew this from 1943 and it was only recently rediscovered by accident. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Shakthamac
04-06-2005, 05:25 PM
i dont think it an issue of producing hydrogen, i think its an issue of making hydrogen powered machinery cost effective enough to operate efficiently. I believe I read somewhere, probably on the above mentioned site, that hydrogen is about 6 times less efficient than oil based products. this doesnt reflect power output, but rather how much input is needed to create a usable product. Or, more simply, it costs too much to produce hydrogen and use it as compared to fossil fuels. Now this makes complete sense, since the industry is not there yet to establish hydrogen as a viable alternative. the thing that worries me is how long will it take to implement such a change? according to what i have read, its going to be about 20 years.

chaikanut
04-06-2005, 06:04 PM
Actually, most of the technical issues already have solutions. For example, in cars, alkali fuel tanks can form hydrides and hold three times their own weight and are far safer that oil, gasoline or natural gas tanks. Motors using hydrogen are already under consideration. The major issue, like you said, is the cost effective production of hydrogen and exploitation of some pathway in algae can lead to very cheap production. Dont expect any miracles though with the current mindset..

BSS_Goat
04-06-2005, 08:49 PM
Sorry I'm late guys....I was loading the basement up with water and 42 cases of 223 ammo ..... d@mn forgot the k-rations, be right back.....

ploughman
04-07-2005, 01:36 AM
I showed my partner that site about two months ago. She checked it out and didn't really say much about it.

Two weeks ago she started asking me about a survivalist training course run by ex-army types and what I thought! Turns out she's pretty freaked.

I do sort of wonder if, as a society, we're a bit like the people who had a snowball fight on the deck of the Titanic using the snow that fell from the flanks of the iceberg that was to sink the ship from under them.

ploughman
04-07-2005, 01:37 AM
Oh yeah, and you can run your car on hydrogen, but you can't make plastics etc. out of hydrogen. There's more to oil than just filling up the motor.

DMH_iSocket
04-07-2005, 01:51 AM
Sorry, to burst the dooms day bubble but US has full access to the largest suppy of oil in the world it is called the Tar Sands. Located northern Alberta, Canada cost $12 CDN/brl to extract will not run out in my grandchildrens lifetime. World will move past fossile fuels for pollution reasons. Refining is more of a concern.

Slechtvalk
04-07-2005, 04:01 AM
Tar Sands:

http://www.pastpeak.com/archives/2005/02/tar_sands.htm

I don't care really and I say no Oil is good even though wars and everything will come perhaps.

In the end we can play new forgotten battles games so it will be good...

NorrisMcWhirter
04-07-2005, 04:23 AM
Why is anyone surprised?

It was always going to become uneconomical to recover fossil fuels with the inevitable collapse of economies worldwide.

I used to think being on the brink of nuclear war in the 80s was bad but what will happen in the future is truly scary....and it's already beginning what with phoney wars and such like.

As usual, it's ironic but those typically thought of as the world's poor, who lead extremely simple lives living off the land almost exclusively, will become the world's rich because they can continue to survive while everyone else kills each other trying to sustain the unsustainable.

Norris

1.JaVA_Razer
04-07-2005, 04:35 AM
you know what so laughable at this whole thing (call it Ironic)

we are running out of oil, and national energy management or alike of USA just orderd 2 supercomputers.

Guess what these computers whill be used whent leased to US government?

Thats right ladies and Gentlemen, calculating and running simulations on how to make better nukes for the US army ... Isn't that just swell?

and energy department orders computers and decides to let them be used to make more efficient nukes when it's not used by themselves.

instead of using it to refine other energy products or something ....

Maybe refine the engines of today, and maybe it's time USA stops making cars which use 6 liters per 100k or more.

I never got that of americans. they use engines which just DIVOWRE fuel yet when push comes to shove they are scared out of their withs when the oil is about to run out.

Maybe it really IS time for US to switch to actually ENERGY EFFICIENT ways of transport etc?

BTW a LOT of these product that will dissapear have antural replacements (or did anyone forget how they used to fertulise the crop when there where no "fake" furtulizers?) and oil to grease machines, you have sardine oil, pigs oil, ....

and cars can run on coconut oil also. I've seen it happen on national geographic and it DOES work. So I'm not all to scared of the oil depleting. i'm more scared of how I and my children (I'm just 17 turning 18 but I do think of this) will live our lives when USA decides to hog all the oil to keep their oil hungry SUV's running

SweetMonkeyLuv
04-07-2005, 08:25 AM
" i'm more scared of how I and my children (I'm just 17 turning 18 but I do think of this) will live our lives when USA decides to hog all the oil to keep their oil hungry SUV's running "

At that point, you'll likely be thinking 'I wish my country had possessed the foresight to hoard some oil, or get some decent supercomputers so they could make some decent nukes and blackmail some other country for it.'

NorrisMcWhirter
04-07-2005, 10:08 AM
^ What a bizarre attitude because, even at that, it's just postponing the inevitable.

Besides, people don't need nukes to destroy a country, they can bring down economies with far less technological methods.

What I also find laughable are the many comments (not those made in here) that it's somehow the developing economies of China and the East that are to blame for oil running out. The West (and one country in particular) have been using oil like it's been going out of fashion for around 50 years now. Besides, their economies wouldn't be booming if those in the West weren't so concerned with consuming.

At the end of the day, we reap what we sow.

Norris

LStarosta
04-07-2005, 11:13 AM
I don't see what the problem is. I like my bicycle.

Shakthamac
04-07-2005, 11:18 AM
in the end, i guess we are all screwed

Norris: as far as blaming China and India, i realize that out and out, they are not at fault. but considering the situation, a mobilized chinese/indian economy is really going to be what sends this situation over the edge, for the US at least. i think they've gone from having 700,000 people with cars in the past decade to 7,000,000. with that type of upswing, and given the chinese population, in another 20 years they will surpass us by far as being the ones using the most oil. don't get me wrong, it's not their fault. im just trying to look at it objectively.

DMH_iSocket: I understand what you're saying about the tar pits in Canada. I think what people are concerned with is the fact that current oil extraction methods would cost more to extract the oil than its actually worth. Im sure that 10 years from now, extraction methods may change, but will the economy still be around to take advantage of that fact?

The thing that concerns me most is that its only going to take a slight shift, how much im not sure, in oil prices to begin to destabilize our economy. now, that doesnt mean that it will go downhill, but the american economy is based on cheap oil, so whats going to happen when there is no more cheap oil?

Edit for punctuation

SweetMonkeyLuv
04-07-2005, 11:25 AM
Oh, its not really my attitude. Simply a humorous prediction, based on a view of human nature. Certainly not an attempt to defend the ole US of A.

My country is, by and large, "guilty" of pretty much all the things that it is accused of. The American system (including the government) is chielfy driven by capitolism and supply/demand. The American people "want" it? The American government "gets" it for us, and in turn our politicians gain/retain power (a capitol of its own kind). There are some limitations to that principle, but far fewer than most first-world nations. Americans want SUVs and want cheap fuel for em, and because of that, car and oil companies make money in buckets. In turn, those same companies influence government to not pass greenhouse gas laws, to not invest heavily in alternative fuel strategies, and to not place vehicle restrictions on citizens because all those things hurt their bottom lines. They also influence government to open up wildlife territory for oil drilling, and to meddle in the affairs of certain foriegn nations much more than others (particularly those with large oil reserves) because those things put money in their pockets. I'm not suggesting its as deliberate and sinister as some X-Files-esque conspiracy, with some small group of men in a smokey room plotting things out with evil grins on their faces. It happens much more fluidly than one would imagine, primarily because its systemic. Free market rules here, and by and large, the free market works on the Id more than the Superego, if you catch my drift.

The sky is not falling yet, tho. But even when it starts, it may not be quite as dire as some would predict. Its a rather old and tired maxim, but there is some truth to the principle that "Where there's a will, there's a way". When its no longer profitable to rely on fossil fuels, it may be shocking to see how quickly the free market engine starts to produce viable alternatives as its full weight is put behind the effort. Us greedy people may be short on morals, but we have a heck of a survival instinct.


Oh, and personally, I HATE SUVs. And I carpool. But I'm not giving up my favorite passtime of clubbing crude-oil-drenched baby seals.

Shakthamac
04-07-2005, 11:33 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
The sky is not falling yet, tho. But even when it starts, it may not be quite as dire as some would predict. Its a rather old and tired maxim, but there is some truth to the principle that "Where there's a will, there's a way". When its no longer profitable to rely on fossil fuels, it may be shocking to see how quickly the free market engine starts to produce viable alternatives as its full weight is put behind the effort. Us greedy people may be short on morals, but we have a heck of a survival instinct.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Now that makes sense. We are adept at making money, and spending it.

Aimosika
04-07-2005, 11:43 AM
Solution is that people in US should pay the gasoline same than we here in Finland, $1,62 per liter ($6,10 per gallon). I think that would bring that mindless oil consumption there a little bit down..?

Just from CNN: "Ready to pay $2.35 a gallon for gas?"

Is THAT a lot???

tralkpha
04-07-2005, 12:08 PM
I find it funny that you folks are blaming cars on a forum devoted to an airplane sim.
The most I have ever pumped into my car is around 19 us gallons.

As a ramp rat I put over 37000 us gallons on a single plane. I never bothered to calculate the number of gallons I alone pumped in a single shift, much less the total number of gallons pumped by our entire crew. Because the airport was not that large or busy I know our fuel usage was nothing special or even comparable to larger airports. And yet you guys complain about cars.... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

chaikanut
04-07-2005, 12:25 PM
It is not the cars that aggravate the problem. Everything in modern society from resource collection, production, allocation and maintenance of everything we use is based on having DIRT cheap oil. To replace oil we will need another resource that is cheap, plentiful and efficient in storage, transportation and production, at the moment nothing like that exists.

Does anyone know why the experiments on fusion were so easily discarded?

Aimosika
04-07-2005, 01:05 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by chaikanut:
Does anyone know why the experiments on fusion were so easily discarded? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You cannot make a war about it, yet? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Shakthamac
04-07-2005, 01:06 PM
no. why?

StellarRat
04-07-2005, 01:32 PM
The sky is falling, the sky is falling...

Shakthamac
04-07-2005, 01:39 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Aimosika:
Solution is that people in US should pay the gasoline same than we here in Finland, $1,62 per liter ($6,10 per gallon). I think that would bring that mindless oil consumption there a little bit down..?

Just from CNN: "Ready to pay $2.35 a gallon for gas?"

Is THAT a lot??? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

While its not a lot to pay for gas as compared to the rest of the world, it is unusual for us. You may think we are spoiled because our gas costs so much less than the rest of the world, and to an extent, you may be right. We aren't used to paying a lot for gas. Now, when Americans are forced to pay more for gas, less will be sold at the pump, but thats only the tip of the iceberg.

Increasing oil prices mean shipping a boatload of Hyundais from Korea will cost twice as much, meaning US customers will buy less, meaning Hyundai lays off workers, meaning Korea gets hit with more unemployment, meaning taxpayers in Korea pay more to support the out of work. Since Hyundai had to lay off workers, production slows down, and Hyundai jacks up the price so the CEO's can still afford to go golfing on the weekend, affecting the people in Finland who also want to buy a Hyundai or whatever. Since Finland buys about 3 Hyundais to America's 1000, Hyundai isn't really going to care about what is happening there. Hyundai workers in Finland can't sell Hyundais because they cost too much so they lose their job. Now it starts to hit home.

This may not be quite accurate, but I think its a good model of what could happen. The American economy drives the rest of the world. It drives the rest of the world because Americans are the worlds biggest consumers.

Sucks, but its true. Every modern, industrialized nation is in trouble here, unfortunately.

Cess-SGTRoc
04-07-2005, 01:47 PM
1.JaVA_Razer You know nothing about Americans.

As to the tar sands one spoke about, it is not very east to get out of the ground, in fact it is almost not worth using.
And to the people on here woh seem to use there time making fun of others , well it will not mater what country you are in if and when the oil starts getting hard to get or afford. I can hear you screaming now.
Who knows if the people are right on the Peak Oil, But I do not have anything to doubt them on it yet. And if it is true then all of us are in big trouble, because the whole world runs on Oil.
If they can find an other way to run cars and trucks other than Oil, then there will be enough to go around for quite awhile. As it looks now Oil for autos and trucks is what is using up most of the supply.
Everyone better start checking to see if it is true and if it is start working together to fix the issue or come up with something because if it is happening then it will be hard on us in the U.S. But it will be 10 fold as hard on the othere Countries. Not all but most.
If we stop consuming products and goods from other countries then it will be a cluster **** as we say here at the Fort.

p1ngu666
04-07-2005, 03:33 PM
well, we do have some coal kicking about, but yeah, we are pretty much screwed.
power stations suck up alot of oil, car engines, for something that shouldnt work, are surprisingly effeicent

guess its ok that i dont mind walking http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

chaikanut
04-07-2005, 04:08 PM
Dont know if the predictions for 2010 are correct though. Some claim we wont reach the peak for another 50 years, others more pessimistic (in the 70'ies they were also correct...) think the beggining of the end is at 2010.

Maybe they have good reason not to bother with it, after all the really rich will be less affected by the increased oil prices. Simple minded but true http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

BaldieJr
04-07-2005, 04:18 PM
FYI: I don't care.

Nexus2005
04-07-2005, 04:19 PM
I'm not too worried about the car industry or power generation for when the oil runs out, because both of those have viable alternatives (you can run diesels on vegetable oil now, and a few people do because it's a lot cheaper than diesel). But what about aviation? I've not heard of any propulsion for planes that doesn't use oil, has anybody else?

chilicheese
04-07-2005, 04:26 PM
All we need now to cinch this argument is a hysterical conservative Christian proving it will happen with a passage from the Bible - and a request for donations so he/she can spread the word.

Good heavens. Frankly, to know my son most likely will not have to deal with yahoos in Yukons bearing down behind him on crowded, gluttonous freeways is refreshing rather than tragic. A wonderful thing about economics is the corrective action its mechanism takes on waste and low levels of diversification.

Don't mourn, instead find the opportunities that could emerge from such a trend and capitalize. And get a bike.

BaldieJr
04-07-2005, 04:44 PM
Oil shortage? Not frikken likely! Consider this, brothren:

"And the light shineth in darkness; the the darkness overcame it not (John 1:5)."

If you would like to help spread the good news, please send One U.S. Dollar too...

heywooood
04-07-2005, 05:51 PM
I love it that this discussion and others like it are happening now - with both fervor and frequency.

Peak oil is not a paranoia or a myth - it is in our time and we will be measured as all generations are...by the way we handle huge challenges.

I was reading a paper a few weeks ago originally written in the early 1990's by a respected US government geologist who had calculated the total yield of the Saudi oil fields going back to the mid 1950's...he had predicted in his paper that there could not possibly be enough oil in the entire region to maintain current (1990) production levels for another 10 years. Meanwhile, with the increased industrialization in China and Korea et al, demand has more than doubled.

The Saudis have refused repeated requests by US or other geological surveys of the oil fields that could positively determine how much crude is left to harvest.

We are in the end game already and very few are even remotely aware.
As to fuel alternatives for automobiles?
Hybrids will greatly reduce demand if they are produced and utilized....SUV's are killing us.
Also - Solar electric power conversion for the transit systems and especially for fixed users (read homes and high rises as well as office buildings) should already be inplace and would SIGNIFICANTLY reduce demand.
If every government building, office park, high rise, and home had roof top solar panels in Arizona, New Mexico, Colorado, Utah, and California...we would not need oil for electricity in the ENTIRE US. And no one would even know the difference.

WHY in the HELL dont we already have it?...

gkll
04-07-2005, 06:06 PM
Somebody mentioned the tar sands of Alberta. I know exactly what I'm talking about on this. I live in Alberta and am presently negotiating reclamation protocols with the operators on behalf of the government. What was said is pure BS. Maximum production will probably ease up on 6 or 7 million barrels a day in about 20 years. This will be maximum. The world is presently burning through close to a 100 million barrels a day, so the oilsands <might> end up contributing 6 or 7%. And to do it we are going to burn up all the natural gas left in Alberta (we are in decline on gas and conventional oil) and then burn up all the gas in the Mackenzie delta, too. When the gas is gone the oilsands will stop too.

And some other bits:

Hydrogen comes from natural gas primarily, and when this is the source there is a net loss in usable energy - just burn the gas!

Electricity to split water (for h2)has to come from somewhere. The amount needed would be truly astronomical, and this demand would come when the power plants can't get gas or oil to supply basic electrical needs.

Fusion may work but not for several decades

Eventually things will probably work out but not the next few decades.... those could be pretty rough

Solar cells (soft skin) take 3 years to produce the amount of electricity it took to make them, hard solar cells (more durable) take 10 years to pay off the raw energy it took to make them.... if electricity is expensive solar cells will be astronomical in price

Ramping up the needed nuclear suffers from lag (about 10 years) and if ramped up to sustain our present lifestyles would require such a massive investment... it boggles the mind and will not be the stopgap

and the peak oil issue is about when the demand and supply curves cross, not when the oil runs out... people need to imagine what the economy does with $200 a bbl oil, there will be big changes mostly negative

The timing of the issue is somewhere between right now, this year this minute, to about 2015. Bulk of prediction fall around now to 2010. I personally think oil prices are never going to fall in any real way ever again. And they will march up steadily and sometimes rapidly. The oil century is over.... and so is cheap energy for the next few decades if not longer.

People who jsut pop off with platitudes about 'ain't gonna happen' well what can you say? Do a little research and open your minds, gentlemen... I agree with the poster who looks at US foreign policy and suggests that there may be some recognition of this issue (peak oil) at higher levels, and that this may be a logical driver for that policy, well - makes sense to me.

heywooood
04-07-2005, 06:16 PM
all this conjecture about oil and energy...

we still have to talk about fresh water supplies...and that noose is tightening concurrently.

the reality is - these challenges wont disrupt our lives nearly as much as the panic might.

Thats why it is good to have discussions...rational discussions, mind you... about these things in places like this.

Please read the previous posts....and mods - please allow this offtopic thread to continue if possible.

gkll
04-07-2005, 06:18 PM
One further point - we can support the people on this planet (more or less) because of oil, directly, and cheap energy, indirectly. We eat oil, more or less, tractors and fertilizers make this just how it actually is. There are people playing around with these calculations, reputable scientists and not green weenie yahoos either, and they are suggesting that an equilibrium without cheap oil is more like a billion or two people and not the 6 billion or whatever we are up to. Something will give, and we are not prepared... the wailing and gnashing of teeth from those who bought a Chrysler 300 with a hemi and are confronted with 2.75 a litre at the pump (say in 2010) will simply be the start of it... and the unimportant part. The real bit starts in 2020 when there is not enough oil can be produced and people start dying of starvation...

Incidentally the 300 with a hemi is great stuff, love em... just I bought a Neon cause I'm a practical guy who has done some research....

nickdanger3
04-07-2005, 06:18 PM
I'm reminded of the analogy my geology professor had for global warming.

He said, if he went to the National Science Foundation and asked for a grant so that he could pump massive amounts of gasses into the atmosphere and study the effects on weather, agriculture, etc. he would be seen as a madman. But that's exactly what we (humans) have been doing for 50-150 years. Regardless of whether you believe in global warming, you'll agree (I hope) that changing the make up of the Earth's atmosphere is probably not a good idea.

Same thing with oil. Let's extract and burn a nonrenewable resource, building an entire world economy on an infrastructure that ensures a cheap and plentiful supply. What happens when that supply is not so cheap and plentiful....guess we'll find out. Just a matter of when.

Fehler
04-07-2005, 06:22 PM
Well, I love baseball...

Balls are made of animal skin and twine. They can go back to a cork center ball.

AND DO AWAY WITH METAL BATS over the high school age!

I will still be happy. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Shakthamac
04-07-2005, 06:35 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BaldieJr:
FYI: I don't care. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

you will soon enough

Shakthamac
04-07-2005, 06:58 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by heywooood:

Solar electric power conversion for the transit systems and especially for fixed users (read homes and high rises as well as office buildings) should already be inplace and would SIGNIFICANTLY reduce demand.
If every government building, office park, high rise, and home had roof top solar panels in Arizona, New Mexico, Colorado, Utah, and California...we would not need oil for electricity in the ENTIRE US. And no one would even know the difference.

WHY in the HELL dont we already have it?... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Im currently in my last semester of my college career and, hopefully in the next 3-5 years, I will be buying my first house. I have been planning to try and keep it as "off the grid" as possible. Solar panels for electricity, lots of skylights, windows, etc, and geothermal heating and cooling. hopefully, by that time prices will have come down quite a bit.

As far as the last part of your post heywooood, whats interesting is that the oil companies are buying solar panel (and maybe wind) production methods now. BP is one of them, and I think Shell is the other. So obviously they are mindful of whats coming down the pipeline. I think they are going to try to change their image from one of oil generating power to just generating power.

Fortunately, there is going to be a mad rush to find replacements for oil. Im sure no companies are more motivated than the oil corporations to find a replacement, so they can keep filling their pockets. Unfortunately, there is still a lot of money to be made in the oil business. Whatever happens is going to require a lot of government intervention.

H*ll, we may even have to change US presidency requirements so we can get Ahhhhhnold in there. At least hes trying to do something in California.

Shakthamac
04-07-2005, 07:05 PM
Forgot about talking about the fresh water supplies.

I think its probably going to come down to massive desalination plants taking water out of the ocean. Sure, its going to cost a lot, but thats probably the best bet. It actually makes quite a bit of sense, since quite a bit of the population of the world lives within (cant remember mileage, but i think its around 100 miles or something) of a coast. In the US your taling about cities like Washington DC, New York, LA, San Francisco, San Diego, Seattle, Houston, and countless others, right on the coast. The only oddball is Chicago, but hell, their right on the great lakes

heywooood
04-07-2005, 10:46 PM
Heywooood hopes to be off the grid by 2007

Ahhhnold has lost alot of support due to ignorant remarks about teachers and nurses of late so his star is rapidly dimming. If he wanted to make a difference he would bring huge state tax incentives for home owners and businesses to switch to solar - it would create new jobs in the mfg and installation of these solar energy systems and get California out in front of this field of new economic growth.

We are looking for engineers and physicists? Well here is a field of endeavor worthy of inspired young minds and efforts.

I really dont understand why all of our government buildings in the sunbelt states dont have solar panels up top....I am vexed.

Duncan_Doenitz
04-07-2005, 10:49 PM
In the US, don't expect the oil companies or govt to address the problems. They are too busy raking in profits to look out for the interests of lowly citizens.

We already endured one major artificial oil shortage in the US thanks to the greed of those leaders.

In 1938 Mexico nationalized their oil industry.

Then in the 70's when we needed oil, they offered the US a deal... they would sell us oil but in return we had to buy (cheaply) the abundant natural gas that was under utilized in Mexico. That natural gas would have provided cheap home and business heating in the northern US, freeing up even more oil which was essentially being wasted for home heating. It would have been a "win-win" deal, a boost to Mexico's economy, oil for the States plus the bonus very cheap NG.

Greedy oil companies in the US said "no deal". They were already quite happy with EXPENSIVE natural gas and fuel. The citizens got screwed, a screwing that has continued until this day. We got neither the NG or the oil.

Today only 18% of Mexico's territory has been properly explored for oil.

There is an exchange that takes place... Mexico doesn't have sufficient refining capability, so some Mexican crude goes to Texas for refining but the finished product goes back to Mexico. That refining capability produces revenue for the oil companies but no product for the citizens. The refining actually contributes to the shortage of refined product in the States and hurts rather than helps.

The United States has 149 operable oil refineries. Mexico, with about a third of U.S. production, has only 6. Figure it out. The US oil companies are holding all the cards.

Bend over please. Now, you're going to feel a little pressure...

Dunc

heywooood
04-07-2005, 11:08 PM
This is still a government of and for the people - trouble is, the people have been asleep at the switch and some corporations have been running roughshod over us for the last 30 years....

Time for some flexation - corporations need to be held to task on issues of taxation (no more offshore holdings for the purpose of tax evasion i.e. Stanley Hardware etc..) If all the US companies paid a fair tax the social security system would be healthy as a horse.
No more power lobbys - no more corporate subsidised lobbyists of any kind.
Term limits for politicians need to be implemented.

And lets bring back accountability with severe consequences any time the public trust is betrayed. No more 'country club' prisons. No more 'white collar' crime.

and Fehler?...I love baseball too - but I hate the steroid cheaters. Throw out Bonds' records and kick his cheating A$$ out of baseball.
That will send the right message to our kids and maybe they will begin to believe in living right and in the consequences of their actions like they are supposed to.

Shakthamac
04-07-2005, 11:50 PM
heywooood...

you spelt Ahhhhhnold wrong. 5 h's. anything less just doesn't cut it.

seriously though, as far as the solar panels on roofs thing goes, the reason your not seeing them is because it hasn't been profitable to install them. Cheap oil is still around, so no one cares. I bet in the next few years, more will start to come online, but the implementation will be slow unless something catastrophic happens.

as far as accountability goes, i agree with what you say 100%. i think what also needs to happen here in america is that everyone needs to stop being a d*mn b*tch about everything, stop being lazy, and do something about the problems we are experiencing instead of waiting for somone else to take care of it for them. I think that the majority of Americans are smart, smart enough to at least understand the problems we are facing, yet getting them to actually do something about it is near impossible. The only way is via some sort of incentive, be it monetary or otherwise. Maybe its just the way I view the world, but I feel like this country has been going downhill for a long time. Whatever happened to values? Whatever happened to doing something for the common good? whatever happened to doing something just because it needed to be done?

When did money become more important than our livelihood? What will it take to change?

edit: typo

BaldieJr
04-08-2005, 12:08 AM
Why do Americans need to do anything at all? Do you people ever watch the news, or do you just surf for new conspiracy theories?

Shakthamac
04-08-2005, 12:55 AM
Baldie

The American economy is based entirely on cheap oil. Oil is a non-renewable resource. Oil fields are running low. Exploration for new oil fields has found some, but none are producing large amounts of oil. Given the upward trend of using oil products by both China and India, experts geologists calculate that we will be out of oil in 20 - 50 years. When people become aware that oil is running out, resources are going to be in high demand. When that happens, the supplier will drive the market, not the the buyer. When supply side economics comes into the picture, oil prices go through the roof. Since there is no alternative to buying oil or oil based products right now, there are going to be huge problems. And whats worse, we have nothing ready to replace oil with. To compound that problem, it will take decades to position a new fuel capable of meeting the demands that oil does, and be cost efficient enough to use.

This is not a conspiracy, nor is it hysteria. Its fact.

Aimosika
04-08-2005, 01:43 AM
Also about gasoline (jet fuel etc) we pay here in Finland 3x what US pays, if you wanna buy SUV here, its around $100 000. Maybe that is about 3x you pay? And you should pay that too http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

So we consume here a lot too, money, not so much of materials and resources.

Also I wonder how come we here have very similar standard of living anyway compared to US even have to pay so goddam lot of taxes. But what is better here (due high taxation perhaps): free education (incl universities), free healtcare, better social security...

But **** expensive oil...

SweetMonkeyLuv
04-08-2005, 08:29 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Shakthamac:
Baldie

The American economy is based entirely on cheap oil. Oil is a non-renewable resource. Oil fields are running low. Exploration for new oil fields has found some, but none are producing large amounts of oil. Given the upward trend of using oil products by both China and India, experts geologists calculate that we will be out of oil in 20 - 50 years. When people become aware that oil is running out, resources are going to be in high demand. When that happens, the supplier will drive the market, not the the buyer. When supply side economics comes into the picture, oil prices go through the roof. Since there is no alternative to buying oil or oil based products right now, there are going to be huge problems. And whats worse, we have nothing ready to replace oil with. To compound that problem, it will take decades to position a new fuel capable of meeting the demands that oil does, and be cost efficient enough to use.

This is not a conspiracy, nor is it hysteria. Its fact. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Its not quite fact, actually. Its projection, based on current fact. But the problem with these types of projections is that they cannot and do not take novel factors into account. Its weird that your earlier post seems to grasp this, and this one ignores it.

What no one can know, predict, project, and account for is what innovations will be made when the multi-billion dollar power industry will do when its considerable resources are concerted towards finding solutions to the problem of making other power sources cheap and plentiful instead of continuing to focus on efficient production of current resources.

We're all WW2 history buffs, here. Look at the effect of war crisis on the technology and innovation in aviation between 1939 and 1945. Had WW2 NOT happened, would the world have seen its first jet fighter enter service in 43/44? Had WW2 NOT happened, would the world have seen its first nuclear device in 45? Not bloody likely. There are a million examples in history of how the pressure of need has bred breakthroughs in technology.

To the heap of plattitudes, I add "Necessity is the mother of invention." Do we really believe that solar cells are as efficient as they can be? Do we really believe that nuclear power technology wouldn't be more heavily funded and improved if it were very expeditious to do so?


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Shakthamac:
as far as accountability goes, i agree with what you say 100%. i think what also needs to happen here in america is that everyone needs to stop being a d*mn b*tch about everything, stop being lazy, and do something about the problems we are experiencing instead of waiting for somone else to take care of it for them. I think that the majority of Americans are smart, smart enough to at least understand the problems we are facing, yet getting them to actually do something about it is near impossible. The only way is via some sort of incentive, be it monetary or otherwise. Maybe its just the way I view the world, but I feel like this country has been going downhill for a long time. Whatever happened to values? Whatever happened to doing something for the common good? whatever happened to doing something just because it needed to be done?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I hate to sound like a Marxist here, but remember that you're talking about a country that was created by, and always has been driven by, money. The American revolution happened because of bunch of white, landowning males didn't want to pay their taxes. "We hold these truths to be self-evident" is really only a thinly veiled "Look, dude, we're rich enough now to raise our own army, and your old rival France is falling all over themselves to help us and cheese you off. Piss on your stamp act."

I wouldn't exactly call America "lazy". We're just content, which doesn't usually generate a lot of proactivity.

tralkpha
04-08-2005, 08:48 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SweetMonkeyLuv:
The American revolution happened because of bunch of white, landowning males didn't want to pay their taxes. "We hold these truths to be self-evident" is really only a thinly veiled "Look, dude, we're rich enough now to raise our own army, and your old rival France is falling all over themselves to help us and cheese you off. Piss on your stamp act."
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

lmao http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif
I'm sorry thats just too good to pass up.. thats going in my sig.

p1ngu666
04-08-2005, 09:26 AM
imo we might end up going back to really local economies, which would be a good thing for most ppl.

shak, where have been? thats what the american gov have been trying to put those values into its work... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Shakthamac
04-08-2005, 10:05 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SweetMonkeyLuv:

Its not quite fact, actually. Its projection, based on current fact. But the problem with these types of projections is that they cannot and do not take novel factors into account. Its weird that your earlier post seems to grasp this, and this one ignores it.

What no one can know, predict, project, and account for is what innovations will be made when the multi-billion dollar power industry will do when its considerable resources are concerted towards finding solutions to the problem of making other power sources cheap and plentiful instead of continuing to focus on efficient production of current resources.

We're all WW2 history buffs, here. Look at the effect of war crisis on the technology and innovation in aviation between 1939 and 1945. Had WW2 NOT happened, would the world have seen its first jet fighter enter service in 43/44? Had WW2 NOT happened, would the world have seen its first nuclear device in 45? Not bloody likely. There are a million examples in history of how the pressure of need has bred breakthroughs in technology.

To the heap of plattitudes, I add "Necessity is the mother of invention." Do we really believe that solar cells are as efficient as they can be? Do we really believe that nuclear power technology wouldn't be more heavily funded and improved if it were very expeditious to do so?

I hate to sound like a Marxist here, but remember that you're talking about a country that was created by, and always has been driven by, money. The American revolution happened because of bunch of white, landowning males didn't want to pay their taxes. "We hold these truths to be self-evident" is really only a thinly veiled "Look, dude, we're rich enough now to raise our own army, and your old rival France is falling all over themselves to help us and cheese you off. Piss on your stamp act."

I wouldn't exactly call America "lazy". We're just content, which doesn't usually generate a lot of proactivity. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

My earlier post reflects my sentiments regarding the entire thought. My retort to Baldie was, I think, more to the point. The earth will run out of oil someday. Theres no argument there. While many are unsure as to what is going to happen, if our economy is going to survive, we are going to have to make a switch to alternate methods of fuel. to avoid complications, things need to get started right now.

the entire idea of what will happen when oil runs out is entirely based on theory. no one can predict the future. I really don't see how not mentioning this fact makes me look like im ignoring part of the issue. I dont see how not mentioning innovation does either.

but, if I erred, it was late and I was tired
but I dont think I did. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

edit: sp

jurinko
04-08-2005, 10:45 AM
there is a coal in the ground for hundreds years. we can do the gasoline or hydrocarbons or plastics from the coal. more expensive, but doable.

Aaron_GT
04-08-2005, 05:11 PM
Jurinko, as long as we ensure that the amount of CO2 let out into the atmosphere is not too great.

Poland, China, Britain: rich in coal. Maybe time to form CPEC :-) (Britain's still a net oil exporter too).

nickdanger3
04-08-2005, 05:36 PM
"A futurist in the 1890s once predicted that New York City would be abandoned as unfit for habitation by the 1930s. He correctly estimated that population would grow from 4 million to over 7 million in 40 years. Therefore it was obvious, he said, that with the number of horses necessary to provide transportation for that many people, there would be horse manure piled up to the third floor windows everywhere in Manhattan and the city would have to be abandoned for health reasons."

heywooood
04-08-2005, 06:13 PM
Nickdanger3's post is exactly why this discourse is good for us.

Its often the case that some rather dire predictions can look silly after the fact....but also surprising when adversity comes out of left field and blindsides us.

Neverless mans' ingenuity and general optimism has trumped most of the few bad hands dealt thus far.

Fear and panic are the only real threat as Franklin D. Roosevelt told a mortified nation, once upon a time.

hop2002
04-09-2005, 04:46 AM
In 1983 global oil reserves stood at 723 billion barrels, enough for 29 years production at 1983 rates.

In 1993, global oil reserves stood at 1,023 billion barrels.

At the end of 2003, global oil reserves stood at 1,148 billion barrels, enough for 41 years at 2003 production levels.

NorrisMcWhirter
04-09-2005, 06:41 AM
"...41 years at 2003 production levels..."

That's the crux of the problem. Demand is going way up...not down. Also...the reserves; are we talking "easy to extract" crude or something that costs n times as much money to turn into something useful.

Aaron - what state are the UK pits in at the moment? I doubt they could open them up again after 20 years so it would mean more opencasts(?)

Ta,
Norris

hop2002
04-09-2005, 11:12 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>That's the crux of the problem. Demand is going way up...not down. Also...the reserves; are we talking "easy to extract" crude or something that costs n times as much money to turn into something useful. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

We're talking easy to extract.

This is BP's definition of proven reserves:

"the estimated quantities of oil which geological and engineering data demonstrate with reasonable certainty to be recoverable in future years from known reservoirs under current economic and operating conditions"

That last bit is very important.

The report is from 2003, and is based on the reserves known at that time that were economically extractable with 2003 technology and oil prices at 2003 levels.

As the oil price goes up (which it has since 2003) the amount of economically viable reserves goes up as well. (And demand goes down as the price goes up, too).

p1ngu666
04-09-2005, 11:27 AM
still, its gonna happen sometime....
if we are unlucky, we will ruin the environment, then run out of oil the next day http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

Aaron_GT
04-09-2005, 11:40 AM
hop2002:
"At the end of 2003, global oil reserves stood at 1,148 billion barrels, enough for 41 years at 2003 production levels. "

Bear in mind those 2003 reserves are as stated in 2003, and some companies have restated those reserves in a negative direction since then (notably Shell which admitted to overstating its reserves by 20%). Some have suggested that average overstatement may be around 10%, in which case reserves have not increased in the last 10 years, whilst demand has.

Norris wrote:
"Aaron - what state are the UK pits in at the moment?"

We have pits?

At the moment I doubt it would be possible or economic to reopen those pits, but who knows - in 20 or 30 years it might be worth doing. I'm not sure we'd want to burn the coal for fuel, but processing it via clean technology to replace oil-derived plastics and so on might be useful.

Energy efficiency makes a lot of sense, though. Both the USA and UK have guidelines on energy efficient office building (non-residential buildings account for 14% of energy use in the USA). They suggest that a 30% reduction in energy use is possible with a 2% increase in building cost. Some of the measures seem to have a positive effect on worker productivity (which would be good for the UK as productivity is low, a long way behind the productivity per hour world leader, France). I don't have the Economist article on it, though, as I lent it to someone on the planning committee for an office building.

Recyling can be good too (if it reduces energy use). I try to never actually throw any computer components away but instead recycle them. My mother, for example, doesn't need much computing power and is quite happy with components recycled from upgrades I do to my PC. Mind you, I would make less impact if I gave up flight sims and took up knitting tofu as a hobby :-)

Mackane1
04-09-2005, 12:08 PM
I'm an electrician of Local Union #3 living in Staten Island, one of the five boroughs of New York City. Located on Staten Island (and recently closed down for good) is a place called "Fresh Kills", the world's largest landfill or "garbage dump" if you prefer.

Ten years ago, the company I worked for was contracted to install three large methane burners in various locations around the landfill. It took seven months from start to completion.

Government enviornmentalists were on site 24/7.
The interesting thing we learned from these people was that after they were done making all their tests of the site, they concluded that the landfill produced enough methane to heat all five boroughs of New York City for approximately 20 years.

So...naturally they decide to just burn it all off and send it into the air...whatta' waste... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

There are other means out there...they're just not utilized.

...it's a shame...

Shakthamac
04-09-2005, 06:45 PM
Well, I really don't know what else to add to this thread. It's interesting to look back on historical predictions and see where things didnt come true because of technological developments. My only thought is that worrying about horse manure piling up on the streets of NYC might not be akin to the crash of the global economy, but it still has some relevance to the issue.

I think I'll just plan for the worst, and hope for the best.

civildog
04-09-2005, 07:23 PM
I think it's time to watch all the Mad Max movies again and take good notes.

beepboop
04-09-2005, 08:05 PM
All this "the world's about to run out of oil" stuff is just bull.

Firstly, it might be mentioned that there is no scientific proof that oil is a finite resource. There are theories which postulate a geological origin of hydrocarbon chains. Whilst this is indeed controversial, no one can argue that the current explanation of the creation of oil (small sea creatures, squashed, heat, pressure etc.) is anything more than an interesting theory. It is quite possible that oil is being formed all the time.

Secondly, oil discoveries are being made all the time, but not in the sense of finding vast new fields. Instead, new technology is opening up existing known deposits to economically feasible exploitation. Furthermore, deep water projects are already underway and promise to lead to profitable tapping of the hitherto incalcuable reserves that must lie in the deep ocean.

Thirdly, the very idea of dwindling oil reserves is naive, and does in fact play into the hands of the oil companies. Very little research is done into the origins of oil, and oil companies have always shown a marked lack of interest in finding out where the resource comes from. This seems likely to be because the notion of a finite, nearly-depleted global oil stock does a lot to drive up the price of oil. If it were to be proven that oil was in fact created by an ongoing geological process, and was therefore infinite, the perceived value of oil would drop.

Fourthly, the current price rise has little to do with any "end" to the oil supply. The volatile shifts in prices betray the real concern about US refining and terminal capacity. Were the market being driven by underlying worries about the state of global reserves then we would expect to see a consistent upward trend that would not be affected by events in the downstream.

Finally, as someone has already stated, known reserves of oil are in fact almost at a peak. Throughout the late twentieth century, reserve estimates have almost always run at 25-30 years of current usage. New discoveries and better technology have consistently pushed this date back and back so that we are at the moment, with current technology, able to economically recover a further three decades' worth of oil.

So, try not to jump on the bandwagon that is the oil scare-story. It's been around for a long time, and in the end the doomsayers just look stupid.

Shakthamac
04-09-2005, 08:06 PM
im already welding spikes onto my truck. im going to put a hunting stand in the bed for my archers to stand on too.

Mackane1
04-09-2005, 09:37 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Shakthamac:
Well, I really don't know what else to add to this thread. It's interesting to look back on historical predictions and see where things didnt come true because of technological developments. My only thought is that worrying about horse manure piling up on the streets of NYC might not be akin to the crash of the global economy, but it still has some relevance to the issue.

I think I'll just plan for the worst, and hope for the best. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Who said anything about horse manure on the streets of NYC?..........moron.

Shakthamac
04-10-2005, 01:06 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mackane1:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Shakthamac:
Well, I really don't know what else to add to this thread. It's interesting to look back on historical predictions and see where things didnt come true because of technological developments. My only thought is that worrying about horse manure piling up on the streets of NYC might not be akin to the crash of the global economy, but it still has some relevance to the issue.

I think I'll just plan for the worst, and hope for the best. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Who said anything about horse manure on the streets of NYC?..........moron. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Read the top of page 4. maybe next time you should read the entire post before making yourself look stupid. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Mackane1
04-10-2005, 01:27 AM
...good idea... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

Aaron_GT
04-10-2005, 01:54 AM
"Firstly, it might be mentioned that there is no scientific proof that oil is a finite resource. There are theories which postulate a geological origin of hydrocarbon chains. Whilst this is indeed controversial, no one can argue that the current explanation of the creation of oil (small sea creatures, squashed, heat, pressure etc.) is anything more than an interesting theory. It is quite possible that oil is being formed all the time."

If not finite then it must be infinite, which is logically impossible. You might be able to argue, logically, that it is possible that creation of oil reserves (if current theories on the origin are incorrect) might outstrip consumption, but this does not mean reserves are infinite. Infinite would mean without end - more molecules of hyrdrocarbons than there are atoms in the universe. Clearly that is not possible.

If there were to be reserves of oil that could outstrip human demand for 1000 years it will only do us any good if (a) we can extract them economically and (b) burn them without producing significant amounts of CO2. My money is still on energy efficiency measures - a small premium on the cost of a building that pays for itself in 2 years. It avoids the questions of CO2 production and oil reserve quantities and saves you money too. That's win-win-win in my book! :-)

Shakthamac
04-10-2005, 02:10 AM
anyone have any ideas as to what will be used for airline travel? what about shipping? seems like these 2 will have the most problems, less so with shipping than airlines, but still... Ships could really go nuclear. it would cost a ton to change the worlds fleet over, but i could see it. Maybe if and when nuclear energy gets nice and cheap, and if they find large sources of material. I guess they could even be solar powered.

Now airlines on the other hand... WTF are they gonna do?

bhunter2112
04-10-2005, 02:59 PM
Interesting read. Not sure what the big deal is. Nothing lasts forever. As our sun completes it's life cycle it will consume everything on earth and the earth itself. Will man ever get off this rock to explore the universe before our home is gone or made unlivable? Time will tell. I am 35 yrs old it will be interesting to see the way this all works out. Any student of history will see that the US (where i live) will protect it's natinal security intrests no matter what the cost. When TSHTF I will get out my guns and start eating canned beans. I can't wait.

Copperhead310th
04-10-2005, 08:31 PM
(i just read the 1st page so i'll be a little behind.)

1 thing that should also be considerd as well.
Goods just do not get to market by themselvs.
Peroid. if you got it, own it. play with it, eat it or live inside it at some point or another a truck brought it. being a professonal truck driver i fuel my rig at least 2 times a week. 171 gallons of highway grade diesel fuel @ a cost of over 400 bucks a pop for my company.
(thats's over 800 USD a week just for my truck alone, and we have 15 branches in 5 differnt states with 4 trucks at our branch)
now just stop and take a look arond you next time yer stuck on the freeway in a trafic jam and count all the 18 Wheelers you can see.
those things don't run off of air. and when the oil prices go up so do the shipping costs.
oil will increes the cost of EVERYTHING.

p1ngu666
04-10-2005, 09:20 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Copperhead310th:
(i just read the 1st page so i'll be a little behind.)

1 thing that should also be considerd as well.
Goods just do not get to market by themselvs.
Peroid. if you got it, own it. play with it, eat it or live inside it at some point or another a truck brought it. being a professonal truck driver i fuel my rig at least 2 times a week. 171 gallons of highway grade diesel fuel @ a cost of over 400 bucks a pop for my company.
(thats's over 800 USD a week just for my truck alone, and we have 15 branches in 5 differnt states with 4 trucks at our branch)
now just stop and take a look arond you next time yer stuck on the freeway in a trafic jam and count all the 18 Wheelers you can see.
those things don't run off of air. and when the oil prices go up so do the shipping costs.
oil will increes the cost of EVERYTHING. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

yep

imo, oil is finite, but presumibly some is being made somewhere underground, but, i doubt very much if its as much as we are using or anywhere close...

i think we may end up with sailing ships again...

civildog
04-10-2005, 09:49 PM
When we run out of oil and are hunting mutants in the ruins while driving the last of the big V-8's who will be "Humungous"?

blakduk
04-10-2005, 10:36 PM
Interesting thread guys, i feel like i've been reading it for the last 40 years. Wait a minute, I HAVE BEEN READING THIS FOR THE LAST 40 YEARS!!! Anyone remember the 70's when oil spiked to over 3 times todays price? (That's where the ideas for Mad Max came from).
When OPEC was formed and they held the world to ransom, scaring the s**t out of everyone, the world didnt end. Much to the horror of the OPEC countries of the time the industrialised nations were hurt but didnt fall over- in fact they started to get more efficient and started using LESS fuel. It ended up that they were starting to hurt their own bottom line- instead of paying the spiraling prices the importers found their own reserves and used less per person.
OPEC didnt decrease prices out of benevolance, they did it because they could see that if they didnt the industrialised nations would find alternatives. Its the same as treating addiction- if the addict gets through the cold turkey stage they have a chance to get over it. If you keep providing enough to keep them hooked, they are still your customer.
Oil is too cheap at the moment, the alternatives cannot compete. Its a fine balance called 'market forces'.
Lets not forget that we've never had it so good, our biggest threat at the moment is obesity.
As i heard a comedian say recently, 'What are we going to tell our kids about surviving the obesity epidemic. 'Well it was murder junior, there were pork chops to the right of us, cheesecakes to the left, we fought hard but we made it through'.
Unfortunately, as a few people have already pointed out, the industry that doesnt have an obvious alternative yet is aviation. However it is still the cheapest time in history for the average person to go flying and the new airliners coming into being are making it cheaper per person, per kilometre.
Never underestimate how much you can achieve when you have to, none of us has ever truly reached the end of our potential until we flatline.

BaldieJr
04-10-2005, 10:44 PM
What d'ya mean "the sky isn't falling"?!??!??

ImpStarDuece
04-11-2005, 12:31 AM
Several studies in the past few years have actually come across an interesting trend. It seems that oil wells and reserves that have 'run dry' or had all the economically viable crude taken out of them are actually refilling. Well refilling is something that occurs naturally and has been known for quite a while. Most opinions though would put the 'refilling' at a geological timescale.

However, it seems that the refill rate in many oldwells and pumping areas is something like hundreds of times what was expected. The technical details of the various theories as to why are a little beyond my recolection but there were several salient points that sort of stick in my mind.

Firstly that there is 'seepage' from geological formations near the oil deposit. Oil saturated earth has begun to release the oil it was holding back into the deposit via a process similar to osmosis; the oil is moving from an area of higher concentration to an area of lower concentration.

Another theory is simply that previous estimates of the refil rate have been massively wrong, or that the estimates were conducted incorrectly or at sites with lower than average refil rates.


One fact of life is that we have to treat oil as a finite resource. The price of oil is far more important for other things than the cost of a tank of petrol.

Its not just transportation that we are dependent on for oil. Think of the ultimate modern building material; PLASTIC

All plastic, from the case around your computer screen, the imitation wood of your desk, the legs of your chair, the walls of your cubicle, pretty much everything that modern society depends on for its 'comfort' is made from hydrocarbon polymers, which are extracted from the large hydrocarbon molecules of crude oil. Polyethene or PVC ring any bells?


So one of the fundamental building materials of the twentieth century is dependent on oil as well. Fuel it seems, is not our only, or even the best use for oil.

Another little point. The original patent for a hydrogen fuel cell was brought out in the 1970's. There are well over 5000 basic patents for hydrogen fuel cells. The depth of infrastructure is the main thing that is preventing a change over, not apathy from the major oil companies. While they save money by continuing the dominance of oil, think of the size and scale of the fuel related infrastructure currently in place. Everything from pumping to transport, distillation to petrol bowser. It has take 70 years to set up that system, I dont think that it will change very rapidly

Shakthamac
04-11-2005, 01:20 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ImpStarDuece:
It has take 70 years to set up that system, I dont think that it will change very rapidly
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If it took 70 years to set up a system based on oil, think about how long it will take to completely flip flop over to another source of fuel. Keep in mind that that oil economy was allowed to ramp up over time, demand in the early 1900's was minute compared to what it will be when we do need to switch.

Shakthamac
04-11-2005, 01:52 AM
@blakduk

Keep in mind that regardless of what OPEC did in the 70's, the basis for that scare was political. This time its the fear that we will indeed be running out in the not so distant future.

@impstarduece

The idea of refilling of old wells is interesting. I had not heard of that. Makes sense though. I really don't see that as being too much of a good thing though, simply because I can't imagine the wells refilling themselves fast enough to try to curb rising demand. Then again Im not a geologist, so what do I know.

@everyone

Keep in mind that escalating demand is playing a huge factor here. As I previously posted, the world uses about 80 million barrels of oil a day, which is currently keeps all the refineries, oil fields, etc running at maximum capacity. By the year 2020, its some experts have estimated we will be using 120 million barrels a day. The problem is that large oil fields are running low, and the fields that are being found now are simply much smaller than those that used to be found. So, it might not be an issue of "running out." It might just be an issue of running low. If supplies do run low, it will drive up the price of everything else in our economy, whether it be gas, plastics, or anything that has ever moved from point A to point B.

Aaron_GT
04-11-2005, 04:51 AM
" It seems that oil wells and reserves that have 'run dry' or had all the economically viable crude taken out of them are actually refilling."

Well, if this is true, it sits oddly with the inability of some of the major oil companies (Shell, BP, Exxon, Chevron-Texaco) to replenish reserves (Chevron only managed to replenish 18% of used reserves in the last 12 months, BP managed 100% replenishment by buying a Russian company, Shell last week again reduced the statement of the reserves it said it had in 2003). So if fields are refilling either they are refilling more slowly than the rate at which things are being pumped out (in which case Peak Oil is still an issue) or the 4 major Western oil companies have been unlucky to not manage to have any of these refilling wells.

Shakthamac
04-11-2005, 12:19 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
" It seems that oil wells and reserves that have 'run dry' or had all the economically viable crude taken out of them are actually refilling."

Well, if this is true, it sits oddly with the inability of some of the major oil companies (Shell, BP, Exxon, Chevron-Texaco) to replenish reserves (Chevron only managed to replenish 18% of used reserves in the last 12 months, BP managed 100% replenishment by buying a Russian company, Shell last week again reduced the statement of the reserves it said it had in 2003). So if fields are refilling either they are refilling more slowly than the rate at which things are being pumped out (in which case Peak Oil is still an issue) or the 4 major Western oil companies have been unlucky to not manage to have any of these refilling wells. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

There seems to be a lot of speculation on the issue of oil company mergers. Some people are claiming, like the guy on the website I first posted about, that these companies are merging just to increase their proven reserves. While doing that doesn't increase anything, it looks better on the books.

Aaron_GT
04-11-2005, 03:13 PM
Mergers (and demergers) happen all the time in many spheres of business, so the current likely set of mergers may or may not be significant.

Shakthamac
04-11-2005, 03:52 PM
lol.

which means?

blakduk
04-11-2005, 11:54 PM
Shakthamac- If you trace the 'Energy Crisis' of the 1970's, it wasn't stated at the time that it was politics that was causing the price rise. All the rhetoric at the time was that we only had approx 10 years of oil left, that the world would be fighting over food, that we would be overpopulated etc. People at that time assumed it was the start of a war over who could control the last remaining drops of oil. The think-tanks around the world were chanting that we were about to experience a global catastrophe- that's without mentioning that another prevalent idea during that era was we were about to hit another ice-age!
Nowadays Henny-Penny is running around saying we wont have any oil, fresh water, food, etc and that in Western countries we aren't having enough babies (Anyone who recalls the dire warnings of 30 years ago will have a good laugh about that, all the talk then was of 'population explosion').
There are a lot of things wrong with the world, but dont get too excited that we're on the brink. Anyone remember the 'duck and cover' drills? The doomsday clock?

Aaron_GT
04-12-2005, 04:52 AM
Blakduck, you are confusing a number of separate threads around in the 1960s and 70s.

The oil crisis of the early 1970s was purely political and that is how it was reported at the time, hence the massive criticism of OPEC at the time. It was related to the Arab-Israeli conflict.

There was a separate strand of environmentalism that started up in the late 1960s which was entirely separate to this.

With regards to population explosion the concern was (and still is) not with regards to the population levels in Western nations. In the early 1970s it was reported as an issue affecting, primarily, the 3rd world, and possibly the world in general if resource usage also increased. The same concerns exist today.

The science with regard to an imminent ice age was misrepresented in the mass media at the time hence this myth that there was a new ice age being predicted. Scientists noted that we are living in an interglacial and there would eventually be an ice age (still likely to be true) and a separate group noted that increased pollution in the atomosphere might have the effect of decreasing solar input (still the case today with the concern over global dimming). The press seemed to link the two for some reason and imagine that an ice age was being predicted, apart from a reference in one single book, which is hardly a huge scientific groundswell. However it made good copy for newspapers.

In past instances one of the reason why things didn't get too bad is that people were concerned and did something about it. This is the problem with being a futurologist: if people take notice and avert a crisis they suggest that you were being a scaremonger. When the media gets hold of a story and barely understands the underlying science scaremongering is also often the result.

p1ngu666
04-12-2005, 07:22 AM
we are aproaching the limit of the earths ability to sustain the human population. currently we rely on most people having very simple lives, while us westerner's consume way more

sunflower1
04-12-2005, 07:56 AM
Its difficult to make sense of the 1970's without discussing Milton Friedman and Richard Nixon.

Nixon wanted very badly to be re-elected and Milton Friedman wanted very badly for somebody to listen to him. Some of the ivory tower economist-types of the time called themselves "Monetarists" and Friedman was their focal point as a leader. Basically, the idea was that you can smooth the business cycle by printing a little more money each year. As bad an idea as that turned out to be, it had an evil cousin in John Maynard Keynes's idea that you can "juice" the economy by printing money. (Milton Friedman, as a retired economist, has basically recanted his life's work, admitting that the expirement in managing the economy by controlling the money supply in a mechanistic way was a total failure.)

Together, these ideas allowed economists to say with a straight face that all RMN had to do to get the economy perking, and therefore re-elected, was print money.

The European central banks quickly figured this out and came to the Fed saying, "no thank you, I'd like to give you this dollar and get gold for it, please." A few days of that and it was apparent that Fort Knox would be drained in short order and Nixon closed the gold window. "Sorry, you have to take scrip." From there, the fun really started.

Nobody talked about it then and very few talk about it now. What followed was commodity price explosion in general. Oil wasn't unique in this regard, in fact the whole commodity world increased in price by roughly the same multiple as the rise in the price of gold. OPEC simply wanted to be paid the same amount in real terms, which in an inflationary environment means more in nominal terms.

Consider what happened in agriculture: rising commodity prices caused farmers to mortgage everything to go to maximum production. Just in time for Paul Volcker to come to our senses for us and shut the spigot of money off. Then you had sappy stuff like Farmaid come along. Same deal as the oil price move.

Today's current high prices are the mirror image of the crash in commodity prices across the board that accompanied the Fed's deflationary move in 1997 that sent oil to about $12 a barrel and caused a well-trained generation of oilmen to simply retire. If you doubt me, look at commodity prices across the board, same deal, same cycle. Check the price chart of Potash Corporation of Saskatchewan, (POT, NYSE)to see what I'm talking about.

A political money supply is the root of these price swings, be sure.

For a proper discussion, see Jude Wanniski's "The Way the World Works."

As for Hubbard's Peak, I am reminded of another egghead named Thomas Malthus. Can you say, "WRONG!?"

BaldieJr
04-12-2005, 10:00 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

sunflower1
04-12-2005, 10:27 AM
translation:

All the world's marginal production capacity was closed in '97 and '98 because the Fed let the dollar rise to a peak of $255/oz. The recovery from the recession and some good growth in Asia left the inventory situation in bad shape (now in good shape) and gold is at $428. Both mean oil and commmodities in general cost more.

For oil to continue to rise from here would mean breaking a relationship to gold that has held since oil was discovered: on average you can buy 12 barrels of oil with an ounce of gold. That now stands at the very low end of its range at 8.

The odds of this being the beginning of something new under the sun are the same as there being anything new under the sun, low.

blakduk
04-12-2005, 10:14 PM
Aaron_GT- you're right about the media, they tend to oversimplify everything into 'good vs bad', 'whose right vs whose wrong', without allowing for the complexities of issues to be properly explored. Its the limitations of time/typespace etc. I suppose that's why we have books. I refered to it not being reported as politically based at the time because commentators used the 'group of Rome' (I may be wrong about the name of that thinktank- they reported dire predictions about the world's resources in the late 60's) conclusions as evidence of impending doom. The point i was making in my own simplified way was that while we are causing changes to the planet we dont know what the consequences are likely to be. I used examples from the past that educated well-informed people iterated, but ultimately they were wrong.
The world is a dynamic place, always changing and always surprising. I just dont buy into the apocalyptic vision some people espouse- exciting though it may be.
sunflower1- I'll take your word for it, i havent the knowledge base to argue from http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

Aaron_GT
04-13-2005, 05:48 AM
Some of the dire predictions did not come to pass, partly because the science was still immature in the 1960s, partly because people took action and thus the things being warned against did not come to pass. If the warnings had not been made perhaps action would not have taken. Over the last 30 to 40 years computer models have improved dramatically, so it's definitely worth taking note of current warnings.

There are some actions we can take to offset possible disaster which are not ecomomically costly and may improve quality of life anyway. Those are the sort of things that we can implement now (such as the energy efficiency in buildings I suggested earlier, or hybrid and electric cars).

sunflower1
04-13-2005, 09:44 AM
Blakduk, no need to argue, I was just trying to shed a little light on the workings of money and commodity businesses for folks. Since you're not espousing the apocalyptic vision, we're probably more in agreement than not.

Another very important facet of this issue is property rights. Most of the world's surface is goverened by property rights law that gives mineral rights to the government, not the land owner. Most of the world's oil exploration has come from places where landowners own the mineral rights, too, unless of course you're talking about places that don't really have any recognizable form of private property and the rights that go along with it.

Change those laws and see what comes out of the ground. Maybe nothing, maybe not.

Of course I would never argue that oil goes on forever, just that its a very complicated issue and the major factors in running commodity businesses, fiat money and property rights, hadn't been discussed at all.

Its easy to forget that the US federal reserve controls the nominal price of everything and that to make a long term investment you have to borrow money or raise equity capital based on some price projections for your widget or rock or whatever. If the Fed crosses you, you're belly-up. That makes planning for long-lived assets a real chore and that's what the oil business is.

The upshot of my posting is that a stable value to the dollar would unlock some oil and that since Nixon took us all to the cleaners we have been dealing with an energy industry that, contrary to popular opinion, hasn't really been in control of its fate.

The debate resolution in my first or second year of High School debate was about the energy "crisis." I had a whole briefcase full of opinions and dire warnings that all turned out to be absolute rubbish. The idea that innovation will solve seemingly unsolvable problems is a little glib to me, but if you have to make a bet, bet on the humans.

blakduk
04-13-2005, 05:40 PM
sunflower1- I suddenly had a sense of deja vu, i remember those school debates and how frightening the scenarios were.
It seems that each generation gets blinded by it apparent omniscience and terrified at the same time. The old saying of 'ignorance is bliss' has a flip side of course, 'the more you know the more you have to worry about'.
I get concerned when people catastrophise a situation simply because things are changing- its human nature to resist change because we are comfortable with the way things are, we think we understand them. Unfortunately the resistance to change seems to get stronger the older we get. People look at our current reliance on cheap oil and cant imagine the world functioning without it. Cheap oil will eventually run out (i dont dare predict when or what the reason will be) but the world will adapt. This adaptation will not only be technological but also cultural.
My personal belief is that things will get better, but that people will whinge because their virtual reality system only runs at 48 terahertz, and their artificial g-suit isnt as closely modelled to the 'real' g-forces that a P51 pilot would have experienced as his wings ripped off while trying to follow a 190 out of a steep dive!

WTE_Ibis
04-14-2005, 06:29 AM
Ah,not to worry folks,thats the answer.
There wont be a problem when one billion Chinese
and a similar number of Indians get two cars and air-con for their new two storey houses,no problem at all. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

sunflower1
04-14-2005, 07:18 AM
Ibis, it does seem an intractable problem and here's a link to a mathmatical expression of the situation that even furnishes a range of dates for the Apocalypse.

Perhaps the heirs of Malthus will be right, I am agnostic.

http://www.ess.ucla.edu/faculty/sornette/ENDofGROWTHeraESSAY3.pdf

Shakthamac
04-15-2005, 09:43 AM
have we talked this to death, or does anyone else have an opinion?

Xaviercarier
06-11-2008, 05:55 AM
We are 4 years later now and oil has jumped over 139 dollars a barrel.

Indeed, the topic was dead, but the discussion isn't. It would be interesting to hear how the opinions may have changed by now.

FoolTrottel
06-11-2008, 06:25 AM
We are 4 years later now
You sure?


the opinions may have changed by now
Sure!
(Moved this thread to the Off Topic forum)

han freak solo
06-11-2008, 09:34 PM
I ignored this thread the first time from just over 3 years ago. Back then I just didn't think much of the increase in gas prices since I had always been somewhat energy efficient and felt in control of myself.

Prices in the US hit about $2.35 to $2.50 per gallon that summer in 2005 (here in Texas). Hurricanes Katrina and Rita added to that at the end of the summer.

With US prices at the $4.00 per gallon mark (this week) it makes me really think about the cost of energy compared to the past.

There is much talk now of Americans finally downsizing their automobiles on a large scale. For the Americans that could afford a huge gas guzzling SUV and it's monthly gas bill, this will be no big deal it seems. Those people will downsize to cars that people with less means had no choice to accept in the past. What do the less wealthy Americans have to downsize to? Public transport?

Most of America is still not set up to provide mass transit in a way we are used to living. Fer instance in my hometown of Houston, Texas, we have one really short rail transit line, standard city bus routes, and "park and ride" commuter buses. Considering how far away the suburbs here tend to be from the downtown area (20 to 30 miles one-way), I can't really imagine how this metropolitan area will subdivide to provide work centers closer to living areas (or the reverse).

As far as peak oil, I have nothing to go on except what I read in this thread or on the internet. I am going to visit my grandfather in two weeks that operated his own oil business in Tulsa, Oklahoma for decades. I'm going to see what he thinks of it all to add to what little I know.

I wonder if anyone here at the UBI forums that didn't have a sense of panic in this thread in 2005 will have a sense of panic now. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/shady.gif

leitmotiv
06-11-2008, 10:48 PM
The problem is too complex for human understanding. The answers will enrage the Left and the Right. On the other hand, it is remarkably simple: the world-wide demand for oil products has never been so high and there is no chance of it diminishing, and oil company profits make millions of shareholders rich including Ted Kennedy through his blind trust. Were oil not such a difficult resource to reach, were it not located in difficult regions, and did we not have so few refineries in the U.S., it would be cheaper. And, yes, we seem headed to "peak oil," and we had very well better start planning for the day when we will not have all the oil we need.

Sama51
06-12-2008, 12:18 AM
Humans survived 1000's of years without oil. Ah, oil, easy come, easy go. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

huggy87
06-12-2008, 06:11 AM
Originally posted by Sama51:
Humans survived 1000's of years without oil. Ah, oil, easy come, easy go. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

I don't think so. It's easy to wax nostalgia for the olden days, but in my opinion... the olden days sucked.

Even a century ago you'd be lucky to live into your 40's. Half your children would have died. You'd likely have lived in the same town your whole life. If a loved one "went west" to the US or California it usually meant you would never see them again. Procuring and storing food would have occupied the better part of your day. Your diet would not have nearly the variety it has today. etc. etc.

I would miss it.

Monterey13
06-12-2008, 06:20 AM
I think I may just go take this class just out of curiosity. It's only
15 miles from here, and with the gas prices rising like they are, it is
worth a looking into.

http://www.henrycountian.com/news.php?viewStory=2506

leitmotiv
06-12-2008, 06:24 AM
You are right, huggy. As the protagonist bellows out to a room full of sentimental medievalists in Kingsley Amis's LUCKY JIM: "Thank God for the 20th century!"

leitmotiv
06-12-2008, 06:26 AM
Originally posted by Monterey13:
I think I may just go take this class just out of curiosity. It's only
15 miles from here, and with the gas prices rising like they are, it is
worth a looking into.

http://www.henrycountian.com/news.php?viewStory=2506

Looks good, M.

joeap
06-12-2008, 07:30 AM
Originally posted by huggy87:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Sama51:
Humans survived 1000's of years without oil. Ah, oil, easy come, easy go. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

I don't think so. It's easy to wax nostalgia for the olden days, but in my opinion... the olden days sucked.

Even a century ago you'd be lucky to live into your 40's. Half your children would have died. You'd likely have lived in the same town your whole life. If a loved one "went west" to the US or California it usually meant you would never see them again. Procuring and storing food would have occupied the better part of your day. Your diet would not have nearly the variety it has today. etc. etc.

I would miss it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif

...or you'd die. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Blood_Splat
06-12-2008, 07:41 AM
It's definitely putting a strain on living.

Outlaw---
06-12-2008, 07:54 AM
Originally posted by Monterey13:
I think I may just go take this class just out of curiosity. It's only
15 miles from here, and with the gas prices rising like they are, it is
worth a looking into.

http://www.henrycountian.com/news.php?viewStory=2506

It takes more energy to break hydrogen/oxygen bonds in water than burning the hydrogen produces, however, I have not heard of the addition of NaOH. When I get back from yet another stupid meeting I plan to look that up a bit.

--Outlaw.

gates123
06-12-2008, 03:44 PM
The blame rests on top of the environmmentlist agenda who place moratoriums on domestic oil drilling both in Alaska and off the coastal shelves on the US. Increase drilling, oil refinery production and force the oil companies to sell american oil to american consumers. Not only will you jump start the economy but those billions that go to middle east countries can stay at home and build prosperity. We have more oil in the US then Russia and Saudia Arabia combined but the Eco-fascist block legislation that will truly help Americans and put us back towards oil independence. At the same time we invest in alternative energies while we transistion ourselves away from long-term oil.

FYI- Obama is against increasing domestic oil and exploration. He will only add to this crisis that his "green" democratic party has gotten us in. Vote Democrat and expect $8 gas by the end of the decade.

please sign for the sake of your country:
http://www.americansolutions.com/actioncenter/petitions...5b-aa7b-346a1e096659 (http://www.americansolutions.com/actioncenter/petitions/?Guid=54ec6e43-75a8-445b-aa7b-346a1e096659)

Crazy_Goanna
06-12-2008, 06:44 PM
There is a new Titanium Dioxide process to release hydrogen from water. even sea water will work through applyind sunlight to the Titanium dioxide and het prsto hydrogen bubbles off , rto be captured and the by product is oxygen, saw this on aussie Tv science program last weekend. I think it is research by the Australian CSIRO --looking forward to more updates.

Crazy_Goanna
06-12-2008, 07:09 PM
What I don't fully understand is how American's start complaining about oil/petrol prices when 'gas' hits $1 per litre, big deal it hasn't been that price in Oz for a 18 months,and we have the 3rd or 4th cheapest fuel prices here(in the Western economies--disregard the oil producers of Saudi or Iran's prices of 13 cents per litre) and it is now $1.75 per litre for unleaded, btw the $a is approx 96 cents US so near parity. Look ant Europe and see their prices they must hurt more.
OK they don't have to travel large distances fthat we generally do in Aus.or the US but go figure.
Now there is a Saudi led producers and G8 meeting scheduled to discuss the supply posibly increasing. We are all being 'held to ransom' by the oil producers and oil companies so the quicker alternative technology comes into common use to break their hold the better for all of us.

I heard that both Israel and Iran are rattling their war sabres at each other (Scary stuff as they both are nuclear capable- even if Iran doesn't have a bomb yet I'm sure they could be offered one if the need arises!!!) but wait for the oil prices to go sky high if that really does escalate.
Not paranoid just realistic appraisal of the possible scenario for Armageddon.

leitmotiv
06-13-2008, 04:30 AM
I saw political analyst **** Morris on TV talking about having a chat with some Wall Street vultures he knew who informed him that the real price of a barrel of oil ought to be about 60 dollars. Speculation by big investment houses has driven the price through the roof, they claimed. And, all this speculation was able to happen because of deregulating restrictions on trading in oil in certain market sectors. Meaning, it was never a good idea to let the big time investors speculate in oil. The government allowed it, and now we're paying the price. Those who have been in oil the last five years have made a haul whether it was Joe Blow or a Vanderbilt. Next step after this bubble is the bust when everybody realizes oil is overvalued and the price crashes.

All I can say is that I hope Morris's vultures are right, but I have a feeling the price of oil is dead on in terms of what demand will allow. We are competing with millions of drivers in China and India now. It's not just the U.S., Europe, and Japan anymore.

gates123
06-13-2008, 03:00 PM
Recently, the price for a barrel of oil hit an all-time high. Some people have suggested that, to combat the rising cost of energy and reduce dependence on foreign energy sources, the United States should use more of its own domestic energy reserves, including the oil and coal it already has here in the United States. Do you support or oppose this idea?



ALL GOP DEM IND

81% 85% 76% 83% Support
16% 12% 21% 12% Oppose


Which of the following plans of action do you MOST support to lower energy prices for U.S. consumers?

Using U.S. domestic energy sources, such as clean coal and oil, even if it means drilling off our coasts and in Alaska, and offering tax credits for American businesses that develop new energy solutions

ALL GOP DEM IND

69% 82% 59% 75% Support this plan

Airmail109
06-13-2008, 04:24 PM
LOL this threads ancient, oh man Ive been going here for a long time (2001)

I suggest a good option for the UK would be to make 50 percent of its power production renewables. With the use of offshore wind farms, deep sea tidal generators, nuclear, and a few coal plants for emergenices (lack of wind).

Its also interesting to note that there has been a breakthrough with solar panels that increases the efficiency by 30 percent. What needs to be done is that these new solar panels need to be cheap enough so people can afford to buy them or governments to subserdize them, so that they can be placed ontop of residential houses.

The quicker this is done the longer time we have to find a replacement for the oil used in the manufacturing of goods, etc.

Honestly though with the way things are going I cannot honestly see how we can sustain this level of growth with the current world population. Its just nuts even thinking you could IMO. There needs to be a fundermental change in the way things are done, less desposible goods etc. Less stuff that becomes obsolete in 1 year. For example, Laptops...I would like to see those upgradable like desktop PC's. It's a crying shame all the plastic and lcd screens (why buy a new lcd screen if its only slightly brighter, theres no point unless its a HUGE departure from the old tech) on slightly older machines goes to waste when someone decides to buy a newer one.

The PC market needs to change fundementally, instead of small increases every year or so in performance, there needs to be massive increases every 3 years, and those increases need to be more affordable and more backwards compatible to minimize waste.

Its mind boggling, Im having trouble trying to get my head round how we can sustain technology advances without using up our resources/planet.

Monterey13
06-13-2008, 04:58 PM
Airmail, I take it your PC is up and working? If it is, then the Friday Coop server is up.

Airmail109
06-13-2008, 05:11 PM
Originally posted by Monterey13:
Airmail, I take it your PC is up and working? If it is, then the Friday Coop server is up.

My laptop is, Ive had to buy a new CPU and Motherboard which I am going to put into my PC next week! Whooo fun, I was going to upgrade to one of the new ATI cards, and still am damnit as Im stubborn. So I will basically have a whole new system again. Whoopdey doo.

My excuse is Im getting a 1600 quid grant for computers/other stuff from my uni in October

Friendly_flyer
06-14-2008, 01:51 PM
Originally posted by gates123:
The blame rests on top of the environmmentlist agenda who place moratoriums on domestic oil drilling both in Alaska and off the coastal shelves on the US.


I think you will find that exploiting said resources will give you oil, but at a price that may not quit be to your liking.

gkll
06-14-2008, 03:47 PM
Originally posted by Friendly_flyer:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by gates123:
The blame rests on top of the environmmentlist agenda who place moratoriums on domestic oil drilling both in Alaska and off the coastal shelves on the US.


I think you will find that exploiting said resources will give you oil, but at a price that may not quit be to your liking. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Alternatively said areas could be fully developed and the oil will still come on too late and at too low a flow rate to make a big difference. There is not some large pot of oil known but not exploited is gonna help on this one, sorry.

I am pleased my contribution to this thread back in 2005 and later contributions to other threads since, are looking pretty sensible. Peak oil has always been about demand and supply curves crossing and what that does to price. There has been no significant addition to liquid fuel supply despite maximum effort for 3 years now. And demand has continued to rise.

Of course a high speed event such as the unfolding of the 'credit crisis' is going to make peak oil look glacial, IMO. We are in for it, those whose eyes are closed will not weather the competing disasters well, at all.

Oil prices probably gonna go down somewhat in time for the election, and yes I think a chunk of today's price is 'speculation'. However unless the banks start folding in large numbers and demand crashes (ie a depression, a very real possibility) the underlying trend to higher prices will continue,. The groundwork is being laid for war with Iran, this happens and you got some <real> oil price spikes... follow the money on that one.

This forum is gonna see people fall off the radar, individually there will be a loss of old timers as their economic circumstance fails and leaves il2 the least of their concerns. I plan on being around as long as anyone, we'll see.

Sure Im a whacko moonbat doomer, however I have also been <right>.... official pundits and media have been silent or incorrect on oil price and supply for about 6 or 7 years now, the peak oil crowd has had it largely correct. THis is not a matter of faith in technology or ingenuity, this is a matter of timing and math. You can't produce oil you haven't found, and even if you have found it there are long lag periods to production. Lot of 'finds' last few years have still to produce a drop. Hold on to your shorts, this is gonna be 'interesting', is that the word?

Gday all.

mmitch10
06-17-2008, 01:32 AM
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/devon/7456458.stm

$17.79 a gallon!

I'm off to buy a bicycle.